AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › The Dark Knight Rises
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Dark Knight Rises - Page 46

post #1351 of 1561
12/29/12 at 11:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by darthrsg View Post

Infractioned is Nolan's next movie in the Inception Saga.
(makes mental note to avoid CN's next movie)....
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #1352 of 1561
12/29/12 at 2:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louquid View Post

It leaves us with some insight into your movie tastes. That you didn't like Dark Knight Rises and perhaps you don't like long/slow movies.

Thank you for the insult. From your comments, what I can tell about your taste is that you are a big fan of incredibly stupid, awful movies.
Reply
Reply
post #1353 of 1561
12/29/12 at 4:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by darthrsg View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by drewTT View Post

I am hoping the next rehash of Batman uses a little more CGI. I definitely appreciate Nolan's gritty, real-world style but it would be exciting to see Batman more stylized with better gadgets and action sequences.
Yeah like Spiderman 3 or Transformers 2.

Nice, made beer come through my nose.
Reply
Reply
post #1354 of 1561
12/29/12 at 4:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Louquid View Post

It leaves us with some insight into your movie tastes. That you didn't like Dark Knight Rises and perhaps you don't like long/slow movies.

Thank you for the insult. From your comments, what I can tell about your taste is that you are a big fan of incredibly stupid, awful movies.

Hey cranky dude, now you're insulting me. Let's step outside and settle this smile.gif What are you doing here anyways? A fan but in a closet?
Reply
Reply
post #1355 of 1561
12/29/12 at 6:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidML3 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Louquid View Post

The Dark Knight Rises was a good movie. Borderline great, but not quite there. "Awesome", would be fitting.
I consider it an "intelligent film" for the masses. Whereas the most popular movies for the masses are things like 'Avatar', 'Titanic', and other generic storylines with hundreds of millions of dollars thrown at them. The "intelligent films" for the masses are things like 'The Dark Knight(Rises)', 'Inception', 'Shutter Island', and so on. (Being that it was a film for the masses, they couldn't let Batman die..)
I personally liked The Dark Knight, Inception, and Shutter Island (or equivalent movies). Not because I found them to be "intelligent" but because they were entertaining. I accepted them for the big budget blockbusters that they were, and enjoyed the stories as well as the production values. Nothing cooler than having your house shake as Leonardo Dicaprio falls into a tub of water.
What I'm trying to say here is, I don't know if The Dark Knight Rises needs to be broken down and dissected so much. Every movie will have issues, and all can be broken down for ages. However, doing so usually ruins what entertainment value the movie had to begin with.

Wait what?

The fact that

1.Batman can walk on the ice when others fall through the ice
2. The city is in peril yet batman finds time to post a bat of fire on the bridge
3.Batman jumps out the batplane to go hand to hand combat when he can take out everything and everyone right then and there

Just those simple 3 things show no intelligence was required when making this movie. Inception was the only intelligent movie Nolan made in the past few years. TDKR was the worst. That was the Ipad mini to the DK's Ipad. He knew people would buy it no matter how crap it was.

Am re-watching now and just saw the truck/trailer bomb thing go under street level and after that not only is Marion Cotillard able to still have something to say, but Gary Oldman is actually spry after a shock that likely would have broken at the minimum several bones....

ps Watching the ending, pretty incredible that Blake would use a rope to swing thru the falls to an unknown on the other side...simpler to just walk through them too.
Edited by lovinthehd - 12/29/12 at 6:13pm
Reply
Reply
post #1356 of 1561
12/29/12 at 6:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

3. He wanted revenge on Bane, who literally broke him. Understandable that he would want to confront him hand to hand...
2. Did you know that "fans" complained that there was no "bat of fire" in TDK, as it was featured on the poster? They wanted to include it in TDKR for this very reason. Also, in the context of the film, it gives hope to the people when they finally see it. It shows them that Batman is here for them. How or when he did it really isn't necessary imo.
1. One could assume that his suit is equiped with some sort of sensor thingies, making it possible for him to walk on the thickest part of the ice. It's a military suit in the first place.
So yeah, I know, this is too far fetched etc, but he's Batman - people seem to forget that it's still a super-hero movie, no matter how much "grounded in reality" the filmmakers wanted it to be. Christopher Nolan was most likely aware of it as well...

Spot on
Reply
Reply
post #1357 of 1561
12/30/12 at 3:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post

I'm curious about the "message", too. Your complaint, more with the director than anyone, is explained in this article http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/mission-impossible-ghost-protocol-aspect-ratio-poll/
What was the aspect ratio in the theater (non Imax)? I thought it was a bit weird to show the most of the film in 16:9 on the BD with only a few scenes 2:35:1. Was it all 2:35:1 in the theaters? I also read the film geek American Cinematographer article which made the filming sound actually like a circus act. biggrin.gif
Reply
Reply
post #1358 of 1561
12/30/12 at 3:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Conrad View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post

I'm curious about the "message", too. Your complaint, more with the director than anyone, is explained in this article http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/mission-impossible-ghost-protocol-aspect-ratio-poll/
What was the aspect ratio in the theater (non Imax)? I thought it was a bit weird to show the most of the film in 16:9 on the BD with only a few scenes 2:35:1. Was it all 2:35:1 in the theaters? I also read the film geek American Cinematographer article which made the filming sound actually like a circus act. biggrin.gif

Dunno, didn't see it in a commercial theater. Why is the AR so key for you? You a projector guy who has screen issues that result?
Reply
Reply
post #1359 of 1561
12/30/12 at 6:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Thank you for the insult. From your comments, what I can tell about your taste is that you are a big fan of incredibly stupid, awful movies.

Josh -- I am puzzled by your decidedly contrarian negative opinion of The Dark Knight Rises. Oink asked you some time ago why you were so down on the film but you didn't respond. Could you tell us why you so dislike The Dark Knight Rises, although a huge majority of both critics and viewers seem to have loved it?
Reply
Reply
post #1360 of 1561
12/30/12 at 7:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

Josh -- I am puzzled by your decidedly contrarian negative opinion of The Dark Knight Rises. Oink asked you some time ago why you were so down on the film but you didn't respond. Could you tell us why you so dislike The Dark Knight Rises, although a huge majority of both critics and viewers seem to have loved it?

1) It's incredibly boring.
2) The plot makes no sense at all, no matter how much fans attempt to justify it.
3) The movie is filled with cringe-worthy stupid scenes for absolutely no reason, as if Christopher Nolan were intentionally pranking the audience just to see how lazy and dumb he could make the movie and still get away with it.
4) It's a nearly three-hour Batman film with barely ten minutes of Batman in it.
5) It's incredibly, incredibly, incredibly boring.

The Honest Trailers and "Everything Wrong With The Dark Knight Rises in Three Minutes" videos that have made the rounds on the net do a fine job of cataloging the movie's many sins.



Edited by Josh Z - 12/30/12 at 8:02pm
Reply
Reply
post #1361 of 1561
12/30/12 at 7:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Conrad View Post

What was the aspect ratio in the theater (non Imax)? I thought it was a bit weird to show the most of the film in 16:9 on the BD with only a few scenes 2:35:1. Was it all 2:35:1 in the theaters? I also read the film geek American Cinematographer article which made the filming sound actually like a circus act. biggrin.gif

Just like The Dark Knight, the movie was projected at 2.40:1 in all non-IMAX theaters. In IMAX theaters, the scenes shot on IMAX film expanded on the top and bottom to fill the IMAX frame (2.0:1 in digital IMAX, 1.43:1 in film IMAX). The only difference between The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises in this respect is that Nolan shot much more of Rises on IMAX film stock.

Unlike the last film, where it's very clear that Nolan filmed action scenes and establishing shots in IMAX, there's little rhyme or reason to the use of IMAX in Rises. Random shots of no particular visual interest expand to IMAX in the middle of otherwise 35mm scenes. Basically, if Nolan could get an IMAX camera into the location, he shot in IMAX there. That was his only criteria.
Reply
Reply
post #1362 of 1561
12/31/12 at 4:58am
I kind of agree with Josh on TDKR, on every point. Didn't enjoy it nearly as much as TDK or the first sequel and have no desire for a home re-watch. That said, I don't know how I would have crafted it differently to achieve the same kind of apocalyptic vision that CN intended. Somehow I didn't buy Gotham City being essentially a city-state completely divorced from the greater United States, at the mercy of this one deranged guy. I understand that super-villains are necessary adversaries for super-heroes; maybe there just wasn't enough interaction between them. Something made this film kinda' boring.

Hey, maybe more Catwoman would have helped! smile.gif
Reply
Reply
post #1363 of 1561
12/31/12 at 11:24am
I also agree with Josh, even if I don't agree with the lack of screen time for batman as a problem. Did the man with no name have much screen time in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly?
Reply
Reply
post #1364 of 1561
12/31/12 at 1:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

I don't agree with the lack of screen time for batman as a problem. Did the man with no name have much screen time in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly?
Frankly, I didn't notice the lack of Bat Time.
It just didn't bother me....perhaps the abundance of Bruce Time made up for it?wink.gif
Reply
Reply
post #1365 of 1561
12/31/12 at 6:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

I also agree with Josh, even if I don't agree with the lack of screen time for batman as a problem. Did the man with no name have much screen time in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly?

you do know that Bruce Wayne is batman?
Reply
Reply
post #1366 of 1561
12/31/12 at 6:40pm
Wow, that put a new twist on Batman begins.
Reply
Reply
post #1367 of 1561
12/31/12 at 7:04pm
Similar to Josh Z's explanation, I have come to ascertain that TDK was almost like a stand alone movie that just utterly knocked it out of the park on many levels. TDKR is somewhat like a resumption of the story arc of Batman Begins (with that Phantom of Shadows deal, or whatever they call it). I was kind of meh with the first movie, and I suspect that is what makes TDKR meh for me, as well.

TDK was like OMG, this is brilliant from the script writing, to the clever social commentary, to Heath Ledger's Joker, to Hans Zimmers epic music scoring. It was great to see Batman at the top of his game...exactly what a great Batman movie should cover. I was certain that after jackpotting this perfect formula in TDK, Nolan would only be obliged to milk the same formula for more epic greatness in the 3rd installment. I was so ready to have my mind blown...but I got something totally different with TDKR. It was instead a sequel to BB with a worn and aging Batman. Whoa, whoa, whoa...wtf just happened? I can't believe this is how the trilogy is going to end?! Wow, Christopher Nolan...you totally zigged on me on this one.
Reply
Reply
post #1368 of 1561
1/1/13 at 7:02am
The Joker was always intended as the villain for the third film. Had Ledger not lost his life to drugs we would never have witnessed TDKR as it now is. Everything would have been different.
Reply
Reply
post #1369 of 1561
1/1/13 at 8:00am
Would the script been better? Would the plot of the movie been better?

The problem of the movie isn't the villain. But to much deviation from good storytelling. The movie definitely had its moments, but the final product doesn't work as good as it should.
Reply
Reply
post #1370 of 1561
1/1/13 at 8:54am
I agree. They lost something when they decided they needed to be bigger, grander, and add more spectacle. The first two movies almost pride themselves on being gritty and a somewhat realistic take on how a superhero would work in real life. The last movie threw that out in the name of a comicbook like story and lost the feeling of the first two. People don't act rationally, there's leaps of logic, and the story is fantastical. That doesn't make it bad, but it was poor in comparison to the first two IMO.
Reply
Reply
post #1371 of 1561
1/1/13 at 9:34am
The problem with film-making in general today is, each movie has to be more colossal, blockbusting, end-of-the-world epic than the previous, particularly with franchises. Comic-based movies should be the exception, but it doesn't always work.
Reply
Reply
post #1372 of 1561
1/1/13 at 2:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TyrantII View Post

The last movie threw that out in the name of a comicbook like story and lost the feeling of the first two. People don't act rationally, there's leaps of logic, and the story is fantastical.

Who would have thought, a comic book movie based on a comic book character? No that just doesn't make any sense. Lol.

Going by this that would mean The Joker acted rationally in TDK. Yeah right. Lol.
Reply
Reply
post #1373 of 1561
1/1/13 at 2:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rezzy View Post

The problem with film-making in general today is, each movie has to be more colossal, blockbusting, end-of-the-world epic than the previous, particularly with franchises. Comic-based movies should be the exception, but it doesn't always work.

And of course if they are not bigger and better than the last, Internet forums go into meltdown with complaining and why it's rubbish and pointing out all the mistakes etc etc.
Reply
Reply
post #1374 of 1561
1/1/13 at 6:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazy4daisy View Post

Who would have thought, a comic book movie based on a comic book character? No that just doesn't make any sense. Lol.
Going by this that would mean The Joker acted rationally in TDK. Yeah right. Lol.

Laugh all you want, but that was Nolans' claim in BB & TDK. Nothing the Joker really did was out of the realm of the possible, even if improbable. The Joker wasn't rational, but he acted rationally in a somewhat real universe for the character he was. It's what made he that much more creepy and real.

TDKR is full of ridiculous comic book stuff that they actively shunned away from in the first two movies, that really doesn't work outside of a comic book universe. A universe Nolan did not build in his first two movies.

He totally abandoned the style that made the first two much more interesting. That's a hit against an otherwise enjoyable summer action flick, but a big miss-step. Nukes, quarantining an entire city, the weak plot, the unrealistic actions of civilians under threat, immaculate medicinal procedures, Batman missing a double cross that I picked up in the first 3rd of the movie.

It's easily the third in the franchise, because it was sloppy and tried too hard to dream up grand things, then stitch them together into a coherent blockbuster.
Edited by TyrantII - 1/1/13 at 6:45pm
Reply
Reply
post #1375 of 1561
1/1/13 at 7:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TyrantII View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by crazy4daisy View Post

Who would have thought, a comic book movie based on a comic book character? No that just doesn't make any sense. Lol.
Going by this that would mean The Joker acted rationally in TDK. Yeah right. Lol.

Laugh all you want, but that was Nolans' claim in BB & TDK. Nothing the Joker really did was out of the realm of the possible, even if improbable. The Joker wasn't rational, but he acted rationally in a somewhat real universe for the character he was. It's what made he that much more creepy and real.

TDKR is full of ridiculous comic book stuff that they actively shunned away from in the first two movies, that really doesn't work outside of a comic book universe. A universe Nolan did not build in his first two movies.

He totally abandoned the style that made the first two much more interesting. That's a hit against an otherwise enjoyable summer action flick, but a big miss-step. Nukes, quarantining an entire city, the weak plot, the unrealistic actions of civilians under threat, immaculate medicinal procedures, Batman missing a double cross that I picked up in the first 3rd of the movie.

It's easily the third in the franchise, because it was sloppy and tried too hard to dream up grand things, then stitch them together into a coherent blockbuster.

Well put, my feelings exactly.
Reply
Reply
post #1376 of 1561
1/1/13 at 7:36pm
Guys, this is not great science fiction....it's a comic book brought to life! Be happy. It's like trying to read something into the idiocy of The Matrix and Keanu Reeves smile.gif
Reply
Reply
post #1377 of 1561
1/1/13 at 7:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky View Post

I was so ready to have my mind blown...but I got something totally different with TDKR. It was instead a sequel to BB with a worn and aging Batman. Whoa, whoa, whoa...wtf just happened? I can't believe this is how the trilogy is going to end?! Wow, Christopher Nolan...you totally zigged on me on this one.

How did TDKR surprise you exactly? Wasn't it pretty obvious where the story was heading after the second film? There were only so many directions it could go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TyrantII View Post


He totally abandoned the style that made the first two much more interesting. That's a hit against an otherwise enjoyable summer action flick, but a big miss-step. Nukes, quarantining an entire city, the weak plot, the unrealistic actions of civilians under threat, immaculate medicinal procedures, Batman missing a double cross that I picked up in the first 3rd of the movie.
It's easily the third in the franchise, because it was sloppy and tried too hard to dream up grand things, then stitch them together into a coherent blockbuster.

Could you elaborate on this? I don't see he abandoned that style at all.
Reply
Reply
post #1378 of 1561
1/1/13 at 8:59pm
All of a sudden using flashbacks...
Reply
Reply
post #1379 of 1561
1/1/13 at 10:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post

Guys, this is not great science fiction....it's a comic book brought to life! Be happy. It's like trying to read something into the idiocy of The Matrix and Keanu Reeves smile.gif
I dunno if I would compare the two, but yeah, I get what you're saying.
The problem is really a matter of hype and expectations.

After Joel Schumacher's Batmans, the Bat Bar was pretty low and WB put the franchise of the shelf for awhile...
Nolan's 1st Bat was almost a 180 from JS and Bat Fans became enthusiastic about future Bats.
Unfortunately, an epidemic of fanboism swept Batdom and Nolan was elevated to sainthood/genius status.
However, with each of the 2 sequels a little of the "glow" wore off their savior.

At this point, there are recriminations being handed out from every direction.
That's the internets for ya....tongue.gif
Reply
Reply
post #1380 of 1561
1/6/13 at 6:32am
I was largely bored with this. I spent way too much time clock watching because I found nothing of interest in the story. A shorter movie may have helped, but certain things are getting old. The “reverberation” of Bales voice when he is in Batman mode is irritating me, and the same applies to him whispering. I didn’t like the “Darth Vader” voice they gave to Hardy. The constant aspect ratio change irked me. IMAX, shIMAX; film the damn thing one-way and forget it. About the only thing I did like was being shaken out of my recliner by the bass. I really liked The Dark Knight, but this fell way short compared to that.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › The Dark Knight Rises