The official The Dark Knight Rises thread...

[Darkwing Duck (The Reincarnation)]

overrated

[M Dogg™]

But it had to be consistent.  Remember that in the trilogy, Rachel Dawes was a girl he had known since childhood, so she's not some college fling who gets used and discarded.  It's not like it was one of the two girls he brought to dinner in Batman Begins when he went swimming in the fountain.

When I'm down, I replay that scene and imagine I can just buy a hotel like that... LOL... You might be right, but 8 YEARS!!

[Remedy360]

It was entertaining, solid movie overall IMO.


***spoiler**********












But that Robin bit towards the end was corny as fuck.

[M Dogg™]

It was entertaining, solid movie overall IMO.


***spoiler**********












But that Robin bit towards the end was corny as fuck.

Are we green lighted to talk about the end part, because I loved it, even what you said.

[Shallow]

But it had to be consistent.  Remember that in the trilogy, Rachel Dawes was a girl he had known since childhood, so she's not some college fling who gets used and discarded.  It's not like it was one of the two girls he brought to dinner in Batman Begins when he went swimming in the fountain.

That in itself isn't a very good Batman story. It is what it is. The best Batman films ever made (which there aren't many others to compare to) and maybe the best Superhero films ever made, which there aren't all that many great superhero films to begin.

But by far the Nolan trilogy is not anywhere near the best Batman stories ever told.

[M Dogg™]

But it had to be consistent.  Remember that in the trilogy, Rachel Dawes was a girl he had known since childhood, so she's not some college fling who gets used and discarded.  It's not like it was one of the two girls he brought to dinner in Batman Begins when he went swimming in the fountain.

That in itself isn't a very good Batman story. It is what it is. The best Batman films ever made (which there aren't many others to compare to) and maybe the best Superhero films ever made, which there aren't all that many great superhero films to begin.

But by far the Nolan trilogy is not anywhere near the best Batman stories ever told.

No, I have always been a fan of the great work done to Batman in the late 80's/early 90's. It really set the tone for how Batman is today and the darker comic world of the 90's, and it influenced Nolan's Batman. But the limitations of a movie compared to a comic is a bit unfair. In the comics, the author and artist are talking to us, the nerds who eat this stuff up. In movies, if you set up a story like Death in the Family, the general population would be so confused and be turned off. The complexities you are allowed in a comic over a year would be too much for the general audience. That is why I actually respect Nolan's work with Batman because he did the best I could ask for anyone to bring a movie with Ra's al Ghul, a very scary Joker or a bad ass Bain. I mean, you can go to the source material to a degree to get the general audience, people know the origins of Spiderman, and Batman, and Superman and they expect these storys. But when you start making movies with more than 2 villains, then you start to confuse people, or if you start going really deep into a character they lose interest.

My brother in-law's reason for liking the Avengers more than Dark Knight Rises. "With Avengers, know I'm getting 4 bad ass superheros fighting bad guys and that works. Dark Knight Rises was too much for me, I just wanted to see Batman kick ass."

And there you have it, why we'll never get a movie as good as the comics.

[Shallow]

But it had to be consistent.  Remember that in the trilogy, Rachel Dawes was a girl he had known since childhood, so she's not some college fling who gets used and discarded.  It's not like it was one of the two girls he brought to dinner in Batman Begins when he went swimming in the fountain.

That in itself isn't a very good Batman story. It is what it is. The best Batman films ever made (which there aren't many others to compare to) and maybe the best Superhero films ever made, which there aren't all that many great superhero films to begin.

But by far the Nolan trilogy is not anywhere near the best Batman stories ever told.

No, I have always been a fan of the great work done to Batman in the late 80's/early 90's. It really set the tone for how Batman is today and the darker comic world of the 90's, and it influenced Nolan's Batman. But the limitations of a movie compared to a comic is a bit unfair. In the comics, the author and artist are talking to us, the nerds who eat this stuff up. In movies, if you set up a story like Death in the Family, the general population would be so confused and be turned off. The complexities you are allowed in a comic over a year would be too much for the general audience. That is why I actually respect Nolan's work with Batman because he did the best I could ask for anyone to bring a movie with Ra's al Ghul, a very scary Joker or a bad ass Bain. I mean, you can go to the source material to a degree to get the general audience, people know the origins of Spiderman, and Batman, and Superman and they expect these storys. But when you start making movies with more than 2 villains, then you start to confuse people, or if you start going really deep into a character they lose interest.

My brother in-law's reason for liking the Avengers more than Dark Knight Rises. "With Avengers, know I'm getting 4 bad ass superheros fighting bad guys and that works. Dark Knight Rises was too much for me, I just wanted to see Batman kick ass."

And there you have it, why we'll never get a movie as good as the comics.

In my opinion the real reason the films won't be as good as the comics is because of the artistic freedom allowed. At the end of the day the Studio still expects big profits. Warner isn't making a Batman film to win an Oscar or get credibility in the art world. It's making a Batman film to make money. It can also be a very good film, but first and foremost it has to make money.

The opposite happened when Columbia decided to distribute Remains of the Day. The thought process is that it probably won't make much, if any, profits, but it will build credibility in the art world and get us nominations.


Can a batman film or any Bat story be as good as Remains of the Day? Probably not, but if you told a top notch film director who also loved Batman to simply make the best film possible and not worry about the box office; (the Remains of the Day approach), I guarantee you'd see films much better than anything this last trilogy gave us.

[M Dogg™]

Actually, you'd get Watchmen... and the Nolan trilogy was better than Watchmen.

[doggfather]

Tom Hardy is quickly becoming my favorite\ actor (Inception & The Warrior)

Definitely

check bronson, he is a monster on taht.

[Shallow]

Actually, you'd get Watchmen... and the Nolan trilogy was better than Watchmen.

Give me a break. The producers picked the guy who just directed 300 after 20 years of failed attempts to make the film. They were simply looking for a cash grab to justify their decades of wasted money. No one went to anyone with anything resembling a straight face and said "win us an oscar" with regards to Watchman.


And anyone that's familiar with the work knows that the story is far too vast to be placed in a film and too connected to be spread out. If the studio really was interested in awards they would have used the Lord of the Rings approach of three 3 hour films containing one story and gotten a credible director to push it forward.

[M Dogg™]

The only comic character that you can do that to is Superman. That's it, Superman is ingrained in American culture. Any other comic superhero would not get watched, period. If one day, someone says, I want to make a superhero story into an epic trilogy that will be an American movie classic, I think I'll use Spiderman, or Hulk, or X-Men, it just wouldn't work. Only Superman would work. And I highly doubt that will ever happen, because it's too tempting to turn Superman into a sci-fi movie. Nolan's Batman was the closest we'll ever get to that until that day happens.

[Shallow]

The only comic character that you can do that to is Superman. That's it, Superman is ingrained in American culture. Any other comic superhero would not get watched, period. If one day, someone says, I want to make a superhero story into an epic trilogy that will be an American movie classic, I think I'll use Spiderman, or Hulk, or X-Men, it just wouldn't work. Only Superman would work. And I highly doubt that will ever happen, because it's too tempting to turn Superman into a sci-fi movie. Nolan's Batman was the closest we'll ever get to that until that day happens.

I'm not saying it could or should happen. I'm just saying that Batman on his own is already in a head start mode for a better film to be made than almost any other superhero, so for another character to come along and have a better film it would have to be taken with the approach that they want an Oscar, and no studio would spend the money required to make a Wolverine or Captain America film and not care about the lack of payout.

Right away I can tell you that Captain America: Red, White, and Black has the potential to be adapted into film and blow Nolan's Bat stuff out of the water, and get a nod at the Oscars. But it's got no chance in hell of ever being made with a feature film budget.

[M Dogg™]

The only comic character that you can do that to is Superman. That's it, Superman is ingrained in American culture. Any other comic superhero would not get watched, period. If one day, someone says, I want to make a superhero story into an epic trilogy that will be an American movie classic, I think I'll use Spiderman, or Hulk, or X-Men, it just wouldn't work. Only Superman would work. And I highly doubt that will ever happen, because it's too tempting to turn Superman into a sci-fi movie. Nolan's Batman was the closest we'll ever get to that until that day happens.

I'm not saying it could or should happen. I'm just saying that Batman on his own is already in a head start mode for a better film to be made than almost any other superhero, so for another character to come along and have a better film it would have to be taken with the approach that they want an Oscar, and no studio would spend the money required to make a Wolverine or Captain America film and not care about the lack of payout.

Right away I can tell you that Captain America: Red, White, and Black has the potential to be adapted into film and blow Nolan's Bat stuff out of the water, and get a nod at the Oscars. But it's got no chance in hell of ever being made with a feature film budget.

As you said, Batman can come close, but it can never happen because you still have a story of a billionaire who dresses up as a bat and jumps off rooftops. Hard to sell actually, and Nolan did as good of a job as anyone. Captain America can also come close, and the Avengers actually if they ever had the balls to use this Avengers to lead to Civil War. But they wouldn't. Other than that, it's Superman, and that wouldn't happen because directors and script writers will always turn Superman into science fiction. I long for the day when a truly epic Superman story is told, along the lines of Man of Steel by John Byrne. Who knows, I think the Dark Knight series though is a step in the right direction for superhero movies. Hell, just think, Batman went from Arnold as Mr. Freeze to Nolan's Batman in less than 10 years. Others are starting to see this as a trend. And actually I give credit to Spiderman because that was the first movie to be true to the origin story, though Spiderman 3 left a bad taste in my mouth, the first 2 were good.

[DeeezNuuuts83]

I disagree about Captain America.  He's just not a proven character in terms of the media, and outside of being a patriotic character, he's just not that appealing.

The Captain America movie that was made recently was good, but within the Avengers, his character was pretty much the most boring and least interesting of the group to watch.  Additionally, that outfit is corny in 2012, and it's hard to adapt it to modern times.  There's just not enough hype around him yet, especially with that original Captain America movie, which sucked really bad and had no following.  I remember watching it in the early '90s when it was on TV and thinking it was a waste of my time.  The character's run so far in other media has had success recently, but not a long enough string of success to the point where I'd think it's going to be on the scale that you're describing.
 
That's what's different about him.  Characters like Batman and Superman have had their ups and downs, but in the '80s and '90s, their movies were huge blockbusters, though the later movies of those franchises (i.e. Superman III and IV, Batman & Robin) fell off, but that doesn't change what happened before.  Additionally, they both had their own cartoon series, but I'm not sure about Captain America.  The Hulk had movies and a TV series in the '80s.  The X-Men had season upon season of the animated series, with characters like Wolverine getting a lot of focus with storylines just devoted to them.

I'm not saying I don't want it to happen, but they'd have to do a hell of a job to make Captain America into an "epic" story, not just a blockbuster.  But we'll see in the next few years.

[Shallow]

The only comic character that you can do that to is Superman. That's it, Superman is ingrained in American culture. Any other comic superhero would not get watched, period. If one day, someone says, I want to make a superhero story into an epic trilogy that will be an American movie classic, I think I'll use Spiderman, or Hulk, or X-Men, it just wouldn't work. Only Superman would work. And I highly doubt that will ever happen, because it's too tempting to turn Superman into a sci-fi movie. Nolan's Batman was the closest we'll ever get to that until that day happens.

I'm not saying it could or should happen. I'm just saying that Batman on his own is already in a head start mode for a better film to be made than almost any other superhero, so for another character to come along and have a better film it would have to be taken with the approach that they want an Oscar, and no studio would spend the money required to make a Wolverine or Captain America film and not care about the lack of payout.

Right away I can tell you that Captain America: Red, White, and Black has the potential to be adapted into film and blow Nolan's Bat stuff out of the water, and get a nod at the Oscars. But it's got no chance in hell of ever being made with a feature film budget.

As you said, Batman can come close, but it can never happen because you still have a story of a billionaire who dresses up as a bat and jumps off rooftops. Hard to sell actually, and Nolan did as good of a job as anyone. Captain America can also come close, and the Avengers actually if they ever had the balls to use this Avengers to lead to Civil War. But they wouldn't. Other than that, it's Superman, and that wouldn't happen because directors and script writers will always turn Superman into science fiction. I long for the day when a truly epic Superman story is told, along the lines of Man of Steel by John Byrne. Who knows, I think the Dark Knight series though is a step in the right direction for superhero movies. Hell, just think, Batman went from Arnold as Mr. Freeze to Nolan's Batman in less than 10 years. Others are starting to see this as a trend. And actually I give credit to Spiderman because that was the first movie to be true to the origin story, though Spiderman 3 left a bad taste in my mouth, the first 2 were good.

It's a plain and simple economic issue. High art films aren't generally huge money makers, and no matter what a Super hero film is going to cost 8 figures to produce. If you can't guarantee 8 figures in revenue, no one is going to want to touch it. Red, White, and Black could never generate a 100 million dollar opening weeked. Not even if Paul Haggis directed it 6 months after Crash won the Oscar.


And I think Avengers was perfect the way it was. Civil would be nice, but kind of silly now that Stark already revealed himself, and even still I can't see it be Oscar worthy.

I disagree about Captain America.  He's just not a proven character in terms of the media, and outside of being a patriotic character, he's just not that appealing.

The Captain America movie that was made recently was good, but within the Avengers, his character was pretty much the most boring and least interesting of the group to watch.  Additionally, that outfit is corny in 2012, and it's hard to adapt it to modern times.  There's just not enough hype around him yet, especially with that original Captain America movie, which sucked really bad and had no following.  I remember watching it in the early '90s when it was on TV and thinking it was a waste of my time.  The character's run so far in other media has had success recently, but not a long enough string of success to the point where I'd think it's going to be on the scale that you're describing.
 
That's what's different about him.  Characters like Batman and Superman have had their ups and downs, but in the '80s and '90s, their movies were huge blockbusters, though the later movies of those franchises (i.e. Superman III and IV, Batman & Robin) fell off, but that doesn't change what happened before.  Additionally, they both had their own cartoon series, but I'm not sure about Captain America.  The Hulk had movies and a TV series in the '80s.  The X-Men had season upon season of the animated series, with characters like Wolverine getting a lot of focus with storylines just devoted to them.

I'm not saying I don't want it to happen, but they'd have to do a hell of a job to make Captain America into an "epic" story, not just a blockbuster.  But we'll see in the next few years.

Red, White, and Black is not a Captain America story. It's the story of the US government testing out the Super Solider serum on black soldiers to find a suitable formula. It's a race story. Steve Rogers, Captain A, is barely even in it. I'm just saying it has the potential to be Oscar worthy if really done right. It could also end up being trash.


The premise is great. Now in the book to avoid tarnishing Cap's legacy it is said that after cap was lost they tried to re-create the formula by testing it on blacks. But in the more reality based approach. Having a bunch of black ginuea pigs tested for the formula first to get it right and having the one it actually worked on be out on the battle field doing as much work as Captain A but getting no credit for it is a very real and dark story you can turn into a serious film.