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

[Turtletrekker]

Another route, and no one's discussed this, would be to treat the series like the Bond films. Bale and Nolan are done? Fine. Replace them but continue the continuity of the films.

That's not like the Bond films. The Bond series has no overarching story or character arcs.

What? There's a definite SPECTRE plot arc across the first seven films, spanning two actors, and Diamonds are Forever begins with Connery-Bond avenging the death of Lazenby-Bond's wife in the previous film. I don't know which Bond movies you've seen, but the Bond movies I've seen have story and character arcs across films and actors.

Bond's wife Tracy was alluded also alluded to in The Spy Who Loved Me and Bond visited her grave in the opening sequnce of For Your Eyes Only.

 

[Agent Richard07]

Something I forgot to ask... Bane hooked up that scientist for some sort of blood transfusion while they were in the plane. What was that all about?

 

[nvek86]

Something I forgot to ask... Bane hooked up that scientist for some sort of blood transfusion while they were in the plane. What was that all about?

I think it was so that the recovery crew would find the fake corpse, take a blood sample and conclude that it was the scientist who died.

 

[JarodRussell]

Another route, and no one's discussed this, would be to treat the series like the Bond films. Bale and Nolan are done? Fine. Replace them but continue the continuity of the films. The same thing will happen with the Marvel films when the talent (actors and directors) become too expensive.

I don't think either approach would "ruin" the trilogy any more than Bourne Legacy will ruin the Bourne films or Before Watchmen ruins Watchmen. Nolan's three films are still there, and you can watch them whenever you want. Just because someone else picks up the toys and runs with them doesn't harm them.

What exactly is it about this trilogy that you want to be continued? You replace Bale and Nolan, and highly probably Freeman, Caine and Oldman. So what's left of the Nolan trilogy that would make it still better than a fresh reboot?

Something I forgot to ask... Bane hooked up that scientist for some sort of blood transfusion while they were in the plane. What was that all about?

I think it was so that the recovery crew would find the fake corpse, take a blood sample and conclude that it was the scientist who died.

Not sure if that would actually work, but yes, that was the point of the scene.

 

[sojourner]

What exactly is it about this trilogy that you want to be continued? You replace Bale and Nolan, and highly probably Freeman, Caine and Oldman. So what's left of the Nolan trilogy that would make it still better than a fresh reboot?

Not having to sit through yet another origin story?

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Not having to sit through yet another origin story?

Leaving aside the fact that you don't have to sit through anything, we apparently don't need origin stories for James Bond or Sherlock Holmes, so I'm sure we don't need one for Batman.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^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).

 

[Scout101]

You'd still get another origin story even if you kept this thing going, you'd just get a Nightwing origin story...

 

[Guy Gardener]

This was a Nightwing origin.

The Dark Knight from the title of the movie is not Bruce.

It's Blake.

Bruce fell.

Blake rose.

Rised?

 

[Mike Farley]

Not having to sit through yet another origin story?

Leaving aside the fact that you don't have to sit through anything, we apparently don't need origin stories for James Bond or Sherlock Holmes, so I'm sure we don't need one for Batman.

Batman 89 did just fine without doing an origin--other than the brief dream flashback to the Wayne's murder.

And The Incredible Hulk dealt with the origin during the opening credits.

 

[sojourner]

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]

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.

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]

^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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.