"The Dark Knight Rises" Review and Discussion Thread (spoilers)

[sojourner]

The Mirrorball Man wrote:

---

we apparently don't need origin stories for James Bond or Sherlock Holmes, so I'm sure we don't need one for Batman.

Yet that's just what we got with the last pair of Sherlock Holmes and 2 Bond movies.

They're not the best examples anyway. Origin stories seem to be much more common when dealing with superhero movies than other genres.

[Greg Cox]

sojourner wrote:

---

Yet that's just what we got with the last pair of Sherlock Holmes and 2 Bond movies.

They're not the best examples anyway. Origin stories seem to be much more common when dealing with superhero movies than other genres.

That's probably because filmmakers feel a need to explain why the heroes can fly or walk through walls.

With a spy or detective, less explanation is required since spies and detectives exist in real life.

[Captain Craig]

Captaindemotion wrote:

---

^I'm guessing that WB will be looking at the reception The Amazing Spider-man has received. While it's done well (if not amazingly well) commercially and critically, the main gripe with it has been 'another origin story so soon?' So while I do expect the next Batman movie to be a reboot, I'm guessing that they'll bypass the origin, perhaps showing it in flashback like, well, Batman (1989).

While it's not going to lose any money it's going to finish WW below even the lowest Rami film with inflation and 3-D. It's not yet to $700m WW and it's already seriously tapering off domestically at just over it's production budget.
I'm not prone to call that successful reboot when looking at the ledger balance in perspective.


The origin from the '89 film, which I still love as a Batman film over the Nolan films, should be the way they go next time. Batman is just such a backseat secondary character in his own films with Nolan that I'll be glad to get back to having Batman as the star of a Batman film.

[sojourner]

Captain Craig wrote:

---

Batman is just such a backseat secondary character in his own films with Nolan that I'll be glad to get back to having Batman as the star of a Batman film.

This is funny considering at the time that one of the biggest complaints about the Burton films was that Batman took a backseat in the movies to the villains.

[Warped9]

sojourner wrote:

---

This is funny considering at the time that one of the biggest complaints about the Burton films was that Batman took a backseat in the movies to the villains.

I take another view. We see just enough of Bruce as Batman to really appreciate it as opposed to seeing him too much where it's just more of same-old-same-old.

[CaptainCanada]

sojourner wrote:

---

Yet that's just what we got with the last pair of Sherlock Holmes and 2 Bond movies.

The RDJ Sherlock Holmes movies aren't an origin. The first film opens with Holmes and Watson an established duo and Watson contemplating retirement.

Captain Craig wrote:

---

The origin from the '89 film, which I still love as a Batman film over the Nolan films, should be the way they go next time. Batman is just such a backseat secondary character in his own films with Nolan that I'll be glad to get back to having Batman as the star of a Batman film.

I don't know how you could argue that. The Burton films were totally about the villains. Nolan's first movie was so revolutionary because Bruce was actually the centre of the movie; the later two had larger casts, but were still far more about Bruce than any of the previous Batman movies.

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I really honestly think that if they made a new Batman film in a new universe with a new actor and just start out with him as Batman doing the usual thing people would understand. Batman is a part of the public consciousness.

[sidious618]

Warped9 wrote:

---

I take another view. We see just enough of Bruce as Batman to really appreciate it as opposed to seeing him too much where it's just more of same-old-same-old.

Also, seeing Bruce in a Batman costume is cool for a little while but after a bit it starts to look dumb because it's a man running around in a bat suit. You can get away with that in a comic but not as much in a film.

[JarodRussell]

Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

---

I really honestly think that if they made a new Batman film in a new universe with a new actor and just start out with him as Batman doing the usual thing people would understand. Batman is a part of the public consciousness.

Of course they would, people are not stupid.

[Warped9]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

Of course they would, people are not stupid.

Agreed. But Hollywood suits on the other hand, well...

Next year we'll get Man Of Steel and guaranteed another origin story even though practically everyone on the planet knows Superman's story.

[CaptainCanada]

Warped9 wrote:

---

Next year we'll get Man Of Steel and guaranteed another origin story even though practically everyone on the planet knows Superman's story.

It'll have been 35+ years since the last Superman origin film.

[JarodRussell]

CaptainCanada wrote:

---

It'll have been 35+ years since the last Superman origin film.

But not that long since the last Superman origin TV show.

[sonak]

Captain Craig wrote:

---

While it's not going to lose any money it's going to finish WW below even the lowest Rami film with inflation and 3-D. It's not yet to $700m WW and it's already seriously tapering off domestically at just over it's production budget.
I'm not prone to call that successful reboot when looking at the ledger balance in perspective.


The origin from the '89 film, which I still love as a Batman film over the Nolan films, should be the way they go next time. Batman is just such a backseat secondary character in his own films with Nolan that I'll be glad to get back to having Batman as the star of a Batman film.

others have already pointed this out, but your criticism is pretty much the opposite from the view at the time. Michael Keaton himself said that Burton's films didn't care about Batman, that they were much more about the villains as the center focus. If you look at actual onscreen time for Batman in both Burton films it's not very high. Nolan's trilogy, in contrast, consciously put Bruce Wayne in the center of them.

Not to say that you're wrong of course, since it's basically one's point of view, but that is a very different take from the mainstream consensus on it.

[JarodRussell]

I don't get this "Batman wasn't in this film enough" argument. Bruce Wayne is Batman. These films were all about Bruce Wayne and Batman. Do you mean action scenes? Scenes with gadgets? More scenes with Wayne in the suit? Did you want more car chases with the Tumbler or the Batpod? What does it mean "I want more Batman"?

[Set Harth]

It's like when people say there isn't enough Darth Sidious in TCW.