Jump to content

The Dark Knight Rises - Summer 2012 - New Trailer Post #1230


Goose
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think it's great that a comic book trilogy can provoke such in-depth discussion and parallels with real world themes, when the most you could get from 'Batman & Robin' is that rubber nipples are a bad idea.

And that 'Batman and Robin' is a bad idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also there's the whole bit about Batman baddies generally coming not from the society that birthed them and being exclusively 'crazy' and typically originating from when mental illnesses where not so well understood, against (for example) Spider-Man's gallery of rogues who generally have defined motivations and drives.

Spider-Man and his enemies are equally problematic: many of them portray scientific achievement in a highly negative way, imparting a general message that science will drive you insane or turn you into a inhuman freak unable to relate to human beings. Octavius, Osborn, Connors, Warren represent four of the finest minds on the planet and instead of bettering mankind, all science has done is twist and corrupt them, while (historically in the main) Peter Parker's unable to make an adequate living as a scientist and must instead freelance as a bottom-feeding paparazzi for a tabloid rag to make ends meet. Plus Peter and many of his other opponents - like the Sandman, Hydro-Man, Molten Man, Morbius, Rhino and the Scorpion to name but a few - are victims of science gone awry.

Essentially, the Spider-Man comics tell us that science is a terrible choice of career to embark on, and even if you don't, you still risk becoming both literally and figuratively a monster for merely stepping into its shadow for the evils of science will explode into your life regardless. Bad science, bad!

I cannot endorse a series with such backwards, anti-progressive thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until the past few decades comics were written to get thrills and giggles out of teenage boys. The thought process of creating a hero or villain consisted of "OK, so.....BLANK-man." Not "What are the Geo-political implications of this creative choice now and over the following half century."

It's fun to dissect these things, but they mean precisely nothing!

I think we need another injection of camp for the Justice League movie Batman incarnation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spider-Man and his enemies are equally problematic: many of them portray scientific achievement in a highly negative way, imparting a general message that science will drive you insane or turn you into a inhuman freak unable to relate to human beings. Octavius, Osborn, Connors, Warren represent four of the finest minds on the planet and instead of bettering mankind, all science has done is twist and corrupt them, while (historically in the main) Peter Parker's unable to make an adequate living as a scientist and must instead freelance as a bottom-feeding paparazzi for a tabloid rag to make ends meet. Plus Peter and many of his other opponents - like the Sandman, Hydro-Man, Molten Man, Morbius, Rhino and the Scorpion to name but a few - are victims of science gone awry.

Essentially, the Spider-Man comics tell us that science is a terrible choice of career to embark on, and even if you don't, you still risk becoming both literally and figuratively a monster for merely stepping into its shadow for the evils of science will explode into your life regardless. Bad science, bad!

I cannot endorse a series with such backwards, anti-progressive thinking.

Sorry, but I don't buy that. The people who tend to purchase comics tend to be more of the nerd-like persuasion, and so it's easy enough for them to understand the divide between comic fake science and the actual thing that adheres to real world physics and rationale (let's not forget Spidey's own sciencey/problem solving background); conversely, the more individualistic aspect of nerds means that their worldview on social dynamics and the like is not so well developed, leading to all sorts of general misunderstandings about the world at large, and so we end up with grotesque simplifications and a lack of awareness within the nerd culture that leads to projects like that feminist study for video games.

Until the past few decades comics were written to get thrills and giggles out of teenage boys. The thought process of creating a hero or villain consisted of "OK, so.....BLANK-man." Not "What are the Geo-political implications of this creative choice now and over the following half century."

It's fun to dissect these things, but they mean precisely nothing!

Of course it has a meaning. American-styled comicbooks were once described - on the whole - as "fascistic" by a dead British communist who I can't find information on (Peter Mauger) in their celebration of 'special' individuals with enormous power and glorified violence and such, but there's also the comparison to British comics such as The Beano et al. which espoused subtle anarchistic undertones at the same time, though that has definitely dried up as of late. Political voices - deliberate or not - are internalised and repeated without further study by all sorts of people, and comics are no exception.

EDIT: changed offending word, cheers bbb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

American-styled comicbooks were once described - on the whole - as "fascistic" by a dead British communist who I can't find information on (Peter Mauger) in their celebration of 'special' individuals with enormous power and glorified violence and such, but there's also the comparison to British comics such as The Beano et al. which eschewed subtle anarchistic undertones at the same time, though that has definitely dried up as of late. Political voices - deliberate or not - are internalised and repeated without further study by all sorts of people, and comics are no exception.

Sorry to nitpick but eschewed means something like "deliberately kept away from", which seems to be the opposite of what I thought you were saying. Do you maybe mean espoused?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I watched it last night and thought it was a good film on first viewing, not as good as TDK. However, I felt that about the first two films as well, and enjoyed them much more on second viewing. This one though, really didnt have enough Batman in it. The fact it doesn't have 'Batman' in the title says it all really, it focus much more on a host of characters, trying to give 'background' to too many of the cast and really having Batman as just some sort of symbol. It's probably what he wanted, but for me it didnt make it a really great film, which is what I expected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also I have watched all three Batman films this week and here is a list of the best bits of each one

Batman Begins: the bit when Liam Neeson comes back and starts burning Bruce's house down and midway through his speech his voice switches tone and he half closes his eyes as he starts reciting the places they've destroyed before and its like he starts singing the lyrics to some song for about 3 seconds

Dark Knight: that bit when Morgan Freeman goes to Hong Kong and gives the guard a phone but when he comes out he's got another phone and the guard at the desk has a look of abject confusion but also a stoic refusal to show it as he scuttles around behind his desk taking the phone from one see through plastic tray to another

Dark Knight 2: the bit when Batman goes to the doctors and the doctor shows him some x-rays of his legs and says "I would say you've got the most broken knees I've ever seen but actually you don't even have any knees"

What about the utterly preposterous bit in batman begins 2 where batman for some reason shoots a load of bullets into some concrete and then it turns out he's exactly replicating the shot or something so that he can piece together a fingerprint off the bullet, I think, in a scene which goes on for far too long and is ultimately fairly meaningless to the film anyway despite it's relatively high levels of compelxity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw it again today and i must say it definitely works better as a second viewing. The pacing was just so much better and i felt i could just take my time enjoying it rather than waiting for him to suit up.

Nolans squad of elite actors is second to none.....love it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I felt like i had just watched the same film as the first one again, the plot was more or less the same. league of shadows steals some tech from wayne industries to destroy gotham batman gets beat to shit, comes back and wins. personally i would have prefered the raz algool story to be put to bed with the first film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why

people keep going Bane was just a lapdog and after the reveal lost his power - how so? he followed the leagues plan set in the first film to the bitter end and even disobeys Talia almost immediately 'you know I must kill you now' despite her saying to keep him alive.

If there's any problem with the film is that it is too damn epic, too globetrotting and this comes at a cost to character development and continunity.

Still a cracking film mind. Begins is still the best, it's a lean beast. Watching Bruce develop Batman and get all his gadgets together is always a great watch and the fact it's exclusively set in Gotham (and actually looks like a good interpretation of Gotham City) adds a lot of character to the procedings. I also forgot that Gary Oldman in the Batmobile was fucking awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why

people keep going Bane was just a lapdog and after the reveal lost his power - how so? he followed the leagues plan set in the first film to the bitter end and even disobeys Talia almost immediately 'you know I must kill you now' despite her saying to keep him alive.

If there's any problem with the film is that it is too damn epic, too globetrotting and this comes at a cost to character development and continunity.

Still a cracking film mind. Begins is still the best, it's a lean beast. Watching Bruce develop Batman and get all his gadgets together is always a great watch and the fact it's exclusively set in Gotham (and actually looks like a good interpretation of Gotham City) adds a lot of character to the procedings. I also forgot that Gary Oldman in the Batmobile was fucking awesome.

Exclusively set in Gotham apart from the bits where it's not

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This film isn't dark enough. Too much daylight.

I wanted to see Gotham City, not Metropolis.

I like the idea of daytime giving this film a unique aesthetic. But, the daytime fight with Bane, and the matter of fact way that those fights were shot, started to make Batman look a little Adam West.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing TDK did amazingly was the villains. On the one hand we have the Joker, an uncompromising depiction of an irrational, near-paranormal force of chaos that springs up spontaneously in response to Bats; on the other we have the tragic fall of Harvey Dent, depicted in an ambitious character-arc that takes him from authentic good-guy to broken, disfigured maniac.

I'm going to disagree with this. Not about the Joker, who's clearly the best villain of the trilogy. But Dent's arc was poorly handled, I thought. He switched in the space of a single conversation and it felt like the end sequence was Nolan saying "shit, we need to resolve the Dent story quick!" He needed longer than he got, or perhaps it could have been extended into another film. It's potentially a really interesting story, but that's the one thing I think TDK got wrong. That and the whole bit with the boats, which is overlong and a little bit corny.

Begins is perhaps still the pick of the three for me. I need longer for Rises to percolate, though, and I want to see it again on Blu-Ray before I decide on the 'right' order. Either way, I think the trilogy as a whole is a tremendous achievement, and there's very little between them in terms of quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would have been much better to end TDK at

Rachel's death

and save Dent's transformation for a third film. I feel a bit gutted about what I saw yesterday. I don't think it had one single great Batman moment in it.

I'm hoping it grows on me, and I'll get the Blu Ray in order to give it another chance but I really did dislike it.

Actually, I did get some small Bat goosebumps when

Batman first shows up and you see the lights of the Batpod in the dark tunnel

But after that it seemed like he was either pissing about in his spaceship or blindly walking into traps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.