"The Dark Knight Rises" Review and Discussion Thread (spoilers)
- Thread starter JacksonArcher
- Start date
People seem to forget that The Wizard of Oz book has had 34 official sequels, 13 of which were written by the original author. Most of them are almost completely forgotten now, and they haven't tarnished the original novel's reputation at all.
That's not like the Bond films. The Bond series has no overarching story or character arcs. Nolan's trilogy has a beginning, middle, and end, and it ends with Bruce Wayne retired and a definitive statement that he has to stop being Batman. There's no way to continue with the continuity of Nolan's Bruce Wayne without spoiling Nolan's story.
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.
Didn't you get the memo?
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.
Minus Goldfinger of course and pretty much ending with the teaser in For Your Eyes Only.
Martin Gardner will rise from the grave and strangle you!Most Oz fans are quite familiar with the sequels. Most people who are Oz fans like the sequels. This apparently includes the Ruth Plumly Thompson series. I myself quite liked The Merry-Go-Round of Oz from about forty years ago. The entire Baum run was reissued in paperback in the early 80s as I recall. I still have the ten I got.
The movie fans aren't even familiar with the original book by and large, so they've certainly forgotten the sequels. On the other hand, watching part of Tin Man did decrease my warm feelings about Oz movies.
Not really. There are recurring villains, but it's a stretch to say the series has a continuing story (it certainly hasn't since the 60s in even that minor degree), and Bond's character doesn't develop, or arrive at an ending. There's no Bond film that has spent the whole movie showing how Bond needs to stop being a secret agent, ending with him quitting and living happily ever after with his love interest, only for the next movie to have him back on the job. The Bond movies are inherently open-ended. Nolan's Batman trilogy is just that, a trilogy. It has a beginning, a middle, and an end for Bruce Wayne.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.
You should check out the Daniel Craig Bond movies.
I agree, Casino Royale/Quantum of Solace is the only real instance where one film is a real story sequel to the preceding one.
And that may have largely to do with the producers deciding to go in a kinda "James Bond Begins" direction.
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.
The OHMSS-DAF connection is tenuous at best. There is not only a different actor playing Bond but a different one playing Blofeld and Connery and Charles Gray play their roles entirely differently from Lazenby and Telly Savalas (who was himself entirely different from Donald Pleasance's take in You Only Live Twice). Tracy is never mentioned in DAF, nor is Bond's wedding.
The tones of the two movies are entirely different and DAF opens with some jokes at Connery's expense about how the Secret Service missed Bond but he's not indispensable - this is a nod to the fourth wall, much like OHMSS' "This never happened to the other guy" but it's hardly the same as anyone commiserating over his loss. Some have said that the ruthlessness with which Bond hunts down Blofeld in DAF is due to the finale of OHMSS but Connery's 007 is content to flirt with women in the usual manner.
There is some mild continuity between the 007 movies - SPECTRE agents in From Russia With Love refer to the loss of their colleague Dr No, Jaws appeared in The Spy Who Loved Me and its follow-up Moonraker, Tracy is obliquely referenced in For Your Eyes Only and Licence to Kill. As against that, you have Blofeld failing to recognise Bond in OHMSS, even though they met in the previous movie (YOLT), you have Felix Leiter being played by different actors in different movies (including morphing from a 30 something to a 50 something between The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill), you have actors like Joe Don Baker turning up as different characters a few movies apart.
And they, of course, took their cue from Batman Begins in opting to re-set the Bond series.
Script for Casino Royale was written in 2005 and Craig was cast in 2006, before Batman Begins was released. I don't think that was their cue.
And sorry, I'm pulling the thread OT, I'll let this go.
^ BB was released in summer 2005 and Craig was cast that October. While Eon had started work on the script earlier, it was initially envisaged as Pierce Brosnan's 5th outing as 007, not as an origin story. It was re-tooled in light of not just Begins but the Jason Bourne series.
This isn't exactly controversial stuff, Eon have never denied the influence of Begins on CR.
Edit - from the horse's mouth: http://www.mi6-hq.com/news/index.php?itemid=2892&t=mi6&s=news
This isn't exactly controversial stuff, Eon have never denied the influence of Begins on CR.
Edit - from the horse's mouth: http://www.mi6-hq.com/news/index.php?itemid=2892&t=mi6&s=news
The fact that Bruce Wayne has an arc in this trilogy in no way prevents him from being gifted an entirely different arc in a new trilogy. I don't doubt that the comic has had a number of Bruce Wayne retires and return plots to work with.
I just feel that given the decades of stories featuring the character I'm sure that there is more than enough inspiration for some more movies.
I just feel that given the decades of stories featuring the character I'm sure that there is more than enough inspiration for some more movies.
Isn't a reboot already being planned? Thought I read something about that a while back.
At this point I think it's most probably a likelihood without anything yet being discussed or established. For now they're just going to watch the money coming in.
The comics continue in perpetuity out of necessity. These is Nolan's trilogy. The WB isn't going to continue his story if he doesn't want them to, because Nolan's a mega-valued creator whose future films the WB will undoubtedly want him to produce with them. That's why Nolan was allowed to give his take on the character such a definitive ending in the first place.
Beyond which, without Nolan, Bale, etc., there's no real value to continuing with Nolan's world. All that will do is tick off some people.
Similar threads
