The Dark Knight Rises Anticipation Station

[Gojira]

I have read some of the reviews and that is the consensus. While the Avengers is good mindless fun, TDKR is on an entire different level. I think Nolan is raising the bar once again for superhero movies. You can have great action with a deep and engaging story.

Yeah they are on a different level, and these have been some great movies.... but I still don't know that I would call them my "ideal" kind of superhero movies.

I'll always prefer the more fun and fantastical ones like Avengers, Batman, and Spider-Man myself.

I agree with you. I have a respect for this Batman series and I am glad it was done. But my complaint about them is that they are not fun. Engaging and exciting yes, but not fun. I wouldn't want a steady diet of Nolan Superhero movies. Although I am looking forward to the Man of Steel...I don't think it will be as dark as Batman.

 

[Captain Craig]

All this talk of reviews has me leery I'll read something I shouldn't.

I'll see you guys in the Review thread on this topic in a few days.

 

[PlainSimpleJoel]

Getting really excited now. Already hearing about some of the reviews on my facebook feed. I know several people who going to the midnight screening tomorrow night. I'm gonna see it sometime on Thursday. Looking forward to it. Already watched batman begins tonight, and I'll wait The Dark Knight tomorrow night.

 

[stj]

No need to patronize.

What you said was silly, and laughing at it was a natural reaction.

You said the "reviewing system is amazingly corrupted already." The fact that a major studio invented a film critic suggests that the major studios don't have the control over film critics that your description implies; the fact that studios regularly forgo press screenings for movies they think are bad further supports this.

The only form of corruption is direct control over what the critics write? Well, by the oddly restricted view, you are correct. The bottom line is, a correctly operating review system would reliably provide consumer information as to the quality of movies, tentpole, midrange and indie. If you wanted a guide to deciding whether to see John Carter for instance you could read a review of the movie, instead of getting an essay eviscerating the budgeting and marketing at Disney. If you wanted to decide whether to see the new Spiderman movie, you'd be able to read a review that warned you the new Peter Parker was a consistent liar, which is to say the least a novel interpretation. So, everything's peachy with the reviewing system?

 

[davejames]

The Batmobile special last night was surprisingly good. I expected just a simple puff piece for the new movie, but it looks like it was an actual, proper documentary exploring the full history of the car (the full version of which will apparently be on the DKR blu-ray).

Loved seeing the behind-the-scenes footage on the making of the '66 Batmobile, as well as the Tumbler. And pretty cool to see the movie serials get such a big shout out as well.

Even the Schumacher Batmobiles looked cool and gorgeous as hell in this.

 

[sidious618]

No need to patronize.

What you said was silly, and laughing at it was a natural reaction.

Nope. Your posts about reviewers have been reactionary and hyperbolic and your attitude has effectively shut down any hope of discussion. You have a tendency to do this whenever someone disagrees with you and it's both annoying and unfair to other posters.

 

[Harvey]

The only form of corruption is direct control over what the critics write?

I didn't say that. Don't put words in my mouth.

The bottom line is, a correctly operating review system would reliably provide consumer information as to the quality of movies, tentpole, midrange and indie.

You've failed to demonstrate a single instance of film critics failing to do this.

If you wanted a guide to deciding whether to see John Carter for instance you could read a review of the movie, instead of getting an essay eviscerating the budgeting and marketing at Disney.

Movies don't exist in a vacuum, and there's nothing corrupt or offensive about reviewers putting them into context. Your characterization of the reviews excessively opining on the advertising rather than evaluating the movie itself seems to be hyperbole, judging from the actual reviews of the movie.

If you wanted to decide whether to see the new Spiderman movie, you'd be able to read a review that warned you the new Peter Parker was a consistent liar, which is to say the least a novel interpretation.

Reviewers are corrupt because they don't share your reaction to the movie?

So, everything's peachy with the reviewing system?

I drew objection to your statement that the reviewing system was "amazingly corrupted." I didn't say that the reviewing system was perfect.

Quote-whores like Peter Travers and Pete Hammond will apparently say anything to get their names on billboards and on television -- when they like a movie. Film critics at local affiliates are often trotted out to offer praise poorly received movies, but rarely produce substantive reviews.

 

[Garak]

No need to patronize.

What you said was silly, and laughing at it was a natural reaction.

You said the "reviewing system is amazingly corrupted already." The fact that a major studio invented a film critic suggests that the major studios don't have the control over film critics that your description implies; the fact that studios regularly forgo press screenings for movies they think are bad further supports this.

The only form of corruption is direct control over what the critics write? Well, by the oddly restricted view, you are correct. The bottom line is, a correctly operating review system would reliably provide consumer information as to the quality of movies, tentpole, midrange and indie. If you wanted a guide to deciding whether to see John Carter for instance you could read a review of the movie, instead of getting an essay eviscerating the budgeting and marketing at Disney. If you wanted to decide whether to see the new Spiderman movie, you'd be able to read a review that warned you the new Peter Parker was a consistent liar, which is to say the least a novel interpretation. So, everything's peachy with the reviewing system?

Communists say the darndest things.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Rush Limbaugh's latest cockamamie right-wing conspiracy theory...

“So this evil villain in the new Batman movie is named Bane. And there’s discussion out there as to whether or not this was purposeful and whether or not it will influence voters. It’s going to have a lot of people,” Limbaugh continued. “The audience is going to be huge. A lot of people are going to see the movie. And it’s a lot of brain-dead people, entertainment, the pop-culture crowd, and they’re going to hear Bane in the movie and they’re going to associate Bain. And the thought is that when they’re going to start paying attention to the campaign later in the year, and Obama and the Democrats keep talking about Bain, not Bain Capital but Romney and Bain, that these people will start thinking back to the Batman movies — ‘Oh yeah, I know who that is!’”

I love Limbaugh calling out anyone else besides himself as being "brain-dead". It's amazing that people actually follow this nutjob.

 

[Trekker4747]

I'd think he'd be more angered by Catwoman's "Other 99%" type comments to Wayne.

 

[JarodRussell]

Bane rhymes with Blain. And Blain says:

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJXR280wbEg[/yt]

 

[Shakaar]

Rush Limbaugh's latest cockamamie right-wing conspiracy theory...

“So this evil villain in the new Batman movie is named Bane. And there’s discussion out there as to whether or not this was purposeful and whether or not it will influence voters. It’s going to have a lot of people,” Limbaugh continued. “The audience is going to be huge. A lot of people are going to see the movie. And it’s a lot of brain-dead people, entertainment, the pop-culture crowd, and they’re going to hear Bane in the movie and they’re going to associate Bain. And the thought is that when they’re going to start paying attention to the campaign later in the year, and Obama and the Democrats keep talking about Bain, not Bain Capital but Romney and Bain, that these people will start thinking back to the Batman movies — ‘Oh yeah, I know who that is!’”

I love Limbaugh calling out anyone else besides himself as being "brain-dead". It's amazing that people actually follow this nutjob.

OK, while I freely admit that the whole Bane-Bain thing is completely BS, I feel compelled to point out that if you read the entire segment of Limbaugh on his webpage, you see that he was not espousing that theory seriously. He WAS, in fact, referring to an article in the Washington Times, which he links to, that specifically says that the Obama campaign is considering using this theory. It even quotes Democratic advisor and former Clinton aide Christopher Lehane. It also quotes Chuck Dixon and Graham Nolan, who created the character of Bane, as saying the Democrats were "overgrasping."

 

[stj]

If you wanted to decide whether to see the new Spiderman movie, you'd be able to read a review that warned you the new Peter Parker was a consistent liar, which is to say the least a novel interpretation.

Reviewers are corrupt because they don't share your reaction to the movie?

In looking at a comicbook movie, the fact that the hero keeps lying is noteworthy. That's not a reaction, as you well know, but an observation. Calling it a reaction is just another bad faith argument. But it is an observation that film reviewers should have made. A film reviewing system where something so obviously important to the viewing experience (but isn't a spoiler,) still can't make it out into the reams of print and pixels has something very badly wrong with it. The reviewing system cannot be regarded as an honest consumer guide but is merely a semiindependent division of the publicity. It is an integral part of the commercial film industry.

Those of us who are not interested in joining the film industry have a different perspective on the alleged contributions of movie reviews. From that perspective (which is not that hard to grasp,) the reviewing system is amazingly corrupt. This is a criticism of the fundamentals. Perhaps it makes you uncomfortable or perhaps you hold that kind of criticism to be unacceptable for some reason. So what? It's not a criticism of you personally.

You should ask yourself how you could get so irate that you deluded yourself into thinking that pointing out that reviewers weren't taking dictation was somehow a rebuttal. What is it about a rejection of the system that so disturbs you that delude yourself into thinking that you can change a fact into a reaction? My guess is that you know perfectly well that the film industry, including its reviewing component, have earned fundamental criticisms and your ambitions have misled you into identifying with it. Well, you may identify with it, but it won't provide you an identity, much less identify with you.

 

[Sindatur]

@stj Green Lantern and John Carter both were over $200K Budgets (Still amongst the most expensive these days, I doubt a studio does more than 3 $200K+ movies a year, if that) and they'd like to know why they, of all movies, as expensive as they were to make, were so savaged in the reviews (I actually liked both of the movies, mostly, though there were a few problems) if the system was so corrupt. Wouldn't the studio pull every trick and every coercion possible to protect, boost such a large investment? Surely, if they have to throw out a sacrificial lamb to lend credibility to the system, it would be a $100K or less film? No predatory relationship like you're suggesting would allow that savaging on that high an investment, IMHO

 

[JD]

If you wanted to decide whether to see the new Spiderman movie, you'd be able to read a review that warned you the new Peter Parker was a consistent liar, which is to say the least a novel interpretation.

Reviewers are corrupt because they don't share your reaction to the movie?

In looking at a comicbook movie, the fact that the hero keeps lying is noteworthy. That's not a reaction, as you well know, but an observation. Calling it a reaction is just another bad faith argument. But it is an observation that film reviewers should have made. A film reviewing system where something so obviously important to the viewing experience (but isn't a spoiler,) still can't make it out into the reams of print and pixels has something very badly wrong with it. The reviewing system cannot be regarded as an honest consumer guide but is merely a semiindependent division of the publicity. It is an integral part of the commercial film industry.

Yeah, because it couldn't have been that they just didn't agree with you on that point. There doesn't have to have been some grand conspiracy for them to not have mentioned it, maybe they just thought it wasn't worth mentioning, or didn't think it was an issue. As hard as it might be for you to accept, sometimes people just have different opinions without there being some grand conspiracy to cover up their real thoughts.

 

[Admiral James Kirk]

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3YD5v9w_3M[/yt]

 

[Aragorn]

Has this been posted in here yet? If not, y'all might appreciate it:

Batman: The Animated Series Rises

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btMtwz4P0fc[/yt]

 

[RoJoHen]

That is amazing, and I need it to be real.

 

[Samurai8472]

It's amazing they could bring back Kevin Conroy and Adrienne Barbeau and Efrem zimbalist jr

 

[Brikar99]

Has this been posted in here yet? If not, y'all might appreciate it:

Batman: The Animated Series Rises

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btMtwz4P0fc[/yt]

Very awesome.