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

[Captaindemotion]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

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

While Smallville might have been discussed a lot on the BBS and the like, really, it had quite low viewing numbers when compared with the numbers who would have seen, e.g. The Dark Knight Rises or The Avengers. Most of the audience for Man of Steel will not have seen it.

I do take your point that pretty much everyone who will see MOS probably knows Superman's origins. But if we can have a new origin movie for Spider-man a mere decade after the last one, well, a 35 year gap between Superman origin stories, telling it with improved technology, a new team, a new tone etc, hardly seems inappropriate.

[Warped9]

Seriously TASM added nothing of consequence to the origin story. Half the movie was wasted on this.

[Samurai8472]

Warped9 wrote:

---

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.

They'll do what Sony did. Pull some BS excuse for a reboot

"The untold story of how Bruce became Batman"

I do feel that none of the movies have fleshed out Martha Wayne

CaptainCanada wrote:

---

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

Even during Superman Returns interviews Bryan said that everyone knows the origin

http://movies.about.com/od/superman/a/superbs061906.htm

...I think he had crystallized a lot of that and I didn’t want to retell the origin story. I think if you’re over the age of 25, you know the origin of Superman. Somewhere you remember it. If you’re under the age of 25, you know Smallville or you just know something about it so I never wanted to tell an origin story.

[Captaindemotion]

^Well, the obvious riposte to that point is that SR didn't exactly set the world on fire (even if I personally like it)

[Captain Craig]

CaptainCanada wrote:

---

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.

I don't dispute that Batman and Batman Returns gave equal, maybe more for Returns cause of 2 foes, screen time to the villains but we got a lot more BATMAN.
I'm talking about wanting more Batman, you're talking about Bruce. Who as characters do different things even if they are two side of the same coin.

I like that Nolan gave us big screen versions of characters from the rouges gallery never before seen such as Mr.Zsasz, Falcone, Ra's and Talia not to mention Scarecrow. If Ledgers Joker was in the '89 film it would hands down unbeatable imo. So kudos to what Nolan did with the villains. Which is why I'd love to have seen a further fleshing out of the crime noir by seeing Black Mask or Killer Croc worked into the narrative. Both are due a turn on the big screen at some point in some variation.

I just hope their, Warners, reboot makes more sense than the Sony one for Spider-man. It'll have to.

[Lapis Exilis]

Captaindemotion wrote:

---

I do take your point that pretty much everyone who will see MOS probably knows Superman's origins.

I work in a museum where I regularly use a Superman analogy to discuss the iconography of Greek gods and goddesses in ancient works of art. To explain how, say, Athena, is easily recognizable to an ancient Greek seeing her image on a vase painting, or statue because of her war helmet, shield, spear and Medusa's head on her breastplate, I ask people, "If you walked into a room and saw a large staute of a muscular man in blue tights, red boots and red cape and a big S on his chest - who is that?" Always, at least 3/4 of the crowd says Superman. (I have done this with literally thousands of people.) I then say - now, you not only know his name but you probably know what he can do - fly, leap tall buildings, faster than a speeding bullet. Again, about 3/4 of the crowd will nod. Then I say, you may even know some of his story - where he's from, what his day job is, who his girlfriend is.* Maybe 1/4 to 1/3 of people tend to respond to this.

My point is - I don't think everyone does know Superman's origin. I think almost everyone can recognize Superman, and has some notion of him - but a lot of people's notions are pretty vague.

[Greg Cox]

Lapis Exilis wrote:

---

My point is - I don't think everyone does know Superman's origin. I think almost everyone can recognize Superman, and has some notion of him - but a lot of people's notions are pretty vague.

My mother thought SMALLVILLE was a show about little people, but then again I'm not sure she's the target audience for any new superhero movies!

[sidious618]

Even if people don't know his origin story terribly well, there's no reason to waste half a film on Superman's origin story as it's not all that exciting.

[Guy Gardener]

I tried to show the 1978 Superman to my 11 year old nephew recently, but we started to late, and he passed out asleep after an hour, before Clark even got to the Fortress of Solitude.

[Scout101]

^But we don't need a whole movie, or even a big chunk of one, showing him learn to use his powers, decide to put on the suit, explain he's from Krypton, show him get a job at the Daily Planet, act shy around Lois, etc.

We KNOW he can fly, we're aware green rocks are bad. Just how him already established. Couple shots establishing that he indeed is a reporter for the paper, Lois is his gf and ace reporter, etc. Just START like that, don't spend 2 hours building up to him getting the nerve to get there...

[LaxScrutiny]

Lapis Exilis wrote:

---

I work in a museum where I regularly use a Superman analogy to discuss the iconography of Greek gods and goddesses in ancient works of art. To explain how, say, Athena, is easily recognizable to an ancient Greek seeing her image on a vase painting, or statue because of her war helmet, shield, spear and Medusa's head on her breastplate, I ask people, "If you walked into a room and saw a large staute of a muscular man in blue tights, red boots and red cape and a big S on his chest - who is that?" Always, at least 3/4 of the crowd says Superman. (I have done this with literally thousands of people.) I then say - now, you not only know his name but you probably know what he can do - fly, leap tall buildings, faster than a speeding bullet. Again, about 3/4 of the crowd will nod. Then I say, you may even know some of his story - where he's from, what his day job is, who his girlfriend is.* Maybe 1/4 to 1/3 of people tend to respond to this.

My point is - I don't think everyone does know Superman's origin. I think almost everyone can recognize Superman, and has some notion of him - but a lot of people's notions are pretty vague.

Your stats aren't quite a random sample but let's go with them. Let's say the 1/4 of the people are the ones going to see the movie. They know his girlfriend and they know his origin.

That would be over 60 million people in the U.S. for a box office of close to $1 billion. Not too shabby, I don't see what's wrong with targeting that demographic.

[Pauln6]

Warped9 wrote:

---

Seriously TASM added nothing of consequence to the origin story. Half the movie was wasted on this.

Agreed. The change of tone, memories of his parents, and MJ's absence could have easily been explained as side effects of the black costume debacle. All the other characters were established and Green Goblin could be replaced with Hobgoblin.

[Donald Draper]

The details of a superhero origin can be condensed to basic details. Like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2l4bz1FT8U
"...and who disguised as Clark Kent..."

With further info given if it suits the actual story.
Alex Ross did two page origin stories of the JLA which are similarly effective.

[Donald Draper]

Pauln6 wrote:

---

Agreed. The change of tone, memories of his parents, and MJ's absence could have easily been explained as side effects of the black costume debacle. All the other characters were established and Green Goblin could be replaced with Hobgoblin.

The problem with that is a lot of people did not like the 3rd film at all. It would have been foolish to build a new plot off it.

[sonak]

Captain Craig wrote:

---

I don't dispute that Batman and Batman Returns gave equal, maybe more for Returns cause of 2 foes, screen time to the villains but we got a lot more BATMAN.
I'm talking about wanting more Batman, you're talking about Bruce. Who as characters do different things even if they are two side of the same coin.

I like that Nolan gave us big screen versions of characters from the rouges gallery never before seen such as Mr.Zsasz, Falcone, Ra's and Talia not to mention Scarecrow. If Ledgers Joker was in the '89 film it would hands down unbeatable imo. So kudos to what Nolan did with the villains. Which is why I'd love to have seen a further fleshing out of the crime noir by seeing Black Mask or Killer Croc worked into the narrative. Both are due a turn on the big screen at some point in some variation.

I just hope their, Warners, reboot makes more sense than the Sony one for Spider-man. It'll have to.

I disagree about Ledger's Joker in '89's "Batman." IMHO that wouldn't have worked at all. Totally different tones-Nicholson's Joker works much better for that one.

The Burton films have a comic book-y feel to them, whereas Nolan consciously tried to move away from that a bit.