|
There is a man. A Bat-Man.  He was introduced in 1939 in Detective Comics and has been a staple of DC Comics ever since then. He is a vigilante fighting crime at night, dressed as a terrifying bat, a creature that he himself was once frightened of. The character started off as sort of a pulp noir character, but soon became very much a comic-book superhero. In the 60’s he turned to camp in both the comics and on the television screens, and then be became super grim n’ gritty in the late 70’s and 80’s when he finally grew a pair.  As this is Cinema Discusso, we must talk about cinema, and Batman has been a staple of Cinema almost as long as he’s been one of the comics. In 1943 he graced screens in a 15-chapter serial adventure that had guests coming to the theaters week after week to see the dude dressed in silly pajamas fight crime. He returned to the screen in the 60’s when the popular campy television show produced a film in between it’s first and second seasons. It was a smash hit, despite it’s crazy humor and colors.  Batman flew back to the screen in the 80’s under the hands of Tim Burton. He crafted an dark (for the time) portrayal of the Caped Crusader and the movie became a giant success, spawning three sequels, one of which is probably one of the worst movies ever made.  In 2005, after suffering from the effects of said terrible film, he returned to Begin. Batman Begins was a take on the character from Christopher Nolan, director of Memento. This brought the character back to life with a vengeance, and soon he had one of the biggest films of all time under his belt with The Dark Knight. Now here we are, expecting a third movie from Nolan’s hands. The Dark Knight Rises will be released in July and will wrap up Nolan’s Trilogy. Times have changed for Cinema Discusso since Batman last beat up bad guys. Christopher Nolan has become a bit of a dirty word in our world, because of either people who have his dick crammed entirely too far down their throats, or a stick crammed entirely to far up their rear end. There is apparently no middle ground where he’s an interesting filmmaker who makes fun, slightly smarter blockbuster films. Either way, this film is going to be a hot topic of discussion for months.  The film features Christian Bale growling at things and seeking justice, Tom Hardy joining to punch things and have a hilarious bad guy voice, Michael Caine being awesome as usual, Anne Hathaway showing up to add a love interest, and pretty much every actor on the face of the planet will show up like Joseph Gordon-Leavitt, Marion Cotillard, Josh Pence, Gary Oldman, and of course Morgan Freeman. The little plot we know is as follows: Years after the events of Dark Knight, Gotham is experiencing a period of piece until the terrorist known as Bane arrives on the scene and wreaks havoc. Tied up somewhere in this plot is series newcomer Selina Kyle, who is better known as Catwoman. Can Batman stop this new wave of evil from rising? Tune in Next Bat-Month, Same Bat Time, Same Bat Channel. Nolan and his brother wrote the screenplay based on a story by Nolan and David Goyer, and of course Nolan will direct. We are now close to release, which means we've got trailers and stuff to enjoy. Teaser Trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqF8lcKTLw0 Trailer #2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GokKUqLcvD8 Trailer #3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8evyE9TuYk Why did I write this OP, one might ask? I like Batman. That’s why. I like Batman films. Even the bad ones entertain me, and it pains me to see how lovely Batman discussion can get around here. I want to see a good Batman thread, one we can all be proud of, despite all of the  going on. Please let’s have some fun, civilized discussion about a Batman movie, one that could be pretty good.
TheBigBudgetSequel fucked around with this message at Jun 6, 2012 around 22:44 |
| # ? Jun 6, 2012 22:40 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2013 10:59 |
|
|
Please do not obsess about comic book minutiae in this thread. Also, please do not speculate about the plot/sequels, it's pointless. That said, I disagree about Batman and Robin, I think it's a bloody good film. In fact, I consider Nolan's Batman films to be weaker than both Burton and Schumacher's efforts. I still like them though. In Batman Begins, he made a film about a man seeking a father figure, not realising that he was surrounded by them the whole time. In the second film, he was surrounded by peers, professional equals who he worked with. This time around, he has elevated Batman into the realm of demagoguery. The villains reflect that each time, Bane is his equal this time, but Catwoman is a working class heroine.
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2012 22:50 |
|
|
I don't see Rises being as good as TDK and certainly not as good as Begins.
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2012 22:51 |
|
|
ShadowMosesNative posted:I don't see Rises being as good as TDK and certainly not as good as Begins. Why not?
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2012 22:52 |
|
|
I do like that Rises seems to be taking a cue from Begins for it's story and tone, which I like, as Begins is so much more fun than Dark Knight was. I like Dark Knight, and I am sure it will effect the tone of this movie as much as Begins, but to see them referencing plot points from Begins that were dropped for Dark Knight, as well as bringing back some of the lighter humor from the film (if the TV spots are any indication) I am excited.
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2012 22:53 |
|
|
Before anyone else says anything, if you're just stumbling in from another place, and aren't too caught up on the basics of cinematic technique, read these first: http://wagthemovie.net/2012/04/04/u...inema-part-one/ http://wagthemovie.net/2012/04/24/u...inema-part-two/ http://wagthemovie.net/2012/05/30/u...ema-part-three/ This will help you to deal with discussing Batman and other Batman-related items in a more coherent, constructive manner.
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2012 22:56 |
|
|
The Cameo posted:Before anyone else says anything, if you're just stumbling in from another place, and aren't too caught up on the basics of cinematic technique, read these first: I love you.
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2012 22:57 |
|
|
Professor Clumsy posted:That said, I disagree about Batman and Robin, I think it's a bloody good film. In fact, I consider Nolan's Batman films to be weaker than both Burton and Schumacher's efforts. I still like them though. To back this up a little, this pair of articles got me to revisit B&R and realize how truly hilarious it is: http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/...n-movie-review/ David Uzumeri is a familiar name, as he posts in BSS and has literally written a book annotating Grant Morrison's DC work.
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2012 23:28 |
|
|
I'm actually more excited about this being the last Nolan Batman film so we can get something inventive like Batman and Robin again.
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2012 23:35 |
|
|
I think Batman and Robin lacks the courage of its convictions. The great thing about the 60s series was the goofiness was played with a total straight face- everyone acts like they believe the insane bullshit completely. B&R is more wink-and-nod heavy and the illusion doesn't work as well, plus it tries to have this relatively serious subplot about Alfred dying. If you want to go camp you really have to go for it.
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2012 23:37 |
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:I think Batman and Robin lacks the courage of its convictions. The great thing about the 60s series was the goofiness was played with a total straight face- everyone acts like they believe the insane bullshit completely. B&R is more wink-and-nod heavy and the illusion doesn't work as well, plus it tries to have this relatively serious subplot about Alfred dying. If you want to go camp you really have to go for it. I think it's much stronger thematically than Batman Forever, even if Clooney is a much weaker Batman than Kilmer ever was. How can you not watch Uma Thurman in this and not be completely enchanted?
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2012 23:38 |
|
|
Professor Clumsy posted:I think it's much stronger thematically than Batman Forever, even if Clooney is a much weaker Batman than Kilmer ever was. How can you not watch Uma Thurman in this and not be completely enchanted? Batman & Robin also has the most coherent, well-defined plot of any of the four films. Sure, it's paper thin and you don't really care, but it's there. The characters have motivations, each of them wants something. Except Bane.
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2012 23:44 |
|
|
Professor Clumsy posted:I'm actually more excited about this being the last Nolan Batman film so we can get something inventive like Batman and Robin again. While I call it one of the worst movies ever made in the OP, I do actually enjoy watching Batman and Robin. It's one of the best comedies I've seen, and some of the gags make me laugh every time I watch it. "Bane. STEP." That said, I'm glad to get a smart Bane in Rises, because Bane is really cool when he's a mental equal for Batman. As a Hulk-like goon, he's really not that great.
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2012 23:50 |
|
|
Just some thoughts to try start this thread in a decent direction. I think one of the interesting things about the Nolan Batmans is that he seems determined to keep Batman untamed. I read an article awhile ago how in Batman stories he always starts out as this dark mysterious figure but after he's established alot of that gets taken away. Rather than a dark figure stalking the streets he becomes a tool summoned by the police with a giant searchlight who has a variety of friends and tools to help him. Nolan seems really determined to not let that happen. In the beginning of TDK the batsignal is there but they say he doesn't always come because he's often busy with his own thing so immediately they try to take away the sense that Batman is the police forces trained dog. Then by the end he puts him back on the wrong side of the law. in addition to that Nolan outright stated that he doesn't want Robin or Batgirl and from the trailers it seems his relationship to Catwoman in the new on is as adversarial they could make it. The tools are there but for Batman they are still relitively contained and ore practical than they'd normally be. Nolan really is going for full dark Batman. He's not trying for a pulpy comic fun like the Burton films and he's not trying for campy TV fun like the in the Schumacher films. Nolan Batman is deadly serious. He never has the slightest bit of fun while doing his thing. While Spiderman goes around joking while superheroing and then dealing with tons of poo poo in his real life, Batman joylessly defends the city against all evils while having pretend fun in his real life to avoid suspicion. Batman is a scary fascist beast that is only barely differed from the people he captures by a slight moral code. He is like the only superhero you find people asking "why doesn't he jut kill people"? He's the only superhero that's already close enough to being a villain that this idea even enters the heads of comic book fans. Even his morals aren't always there. In TDK he goes on full invasion of privacy surveillance. Sure he gives it up after it's needed but who's to say it won't be needed again? Who's to let him decide when people's rights are to be trampled in the name of their safety? This all leads to the idea in all superhero movies of the hero being "the other". Batman is better than what we have to he is needed. We need to trust Batman because he knows best. This is already a disturbing idea in most superhero films but in most superhero film, the superhero is basically a cop. Batman is like a full government branch though. He has files on everyone, has eyes everywhere, is not above enhances interrogation to get what he wants and casually decides what's wrong and what's right. This idea is enhanced in that last trailer when the city just falls apart without him. The system we have in line aren't enough. We need a Batman and hope is only lost when the Batman is gone. I think the ideas of Batman's fascist tendencies have always been under the surface in the Nolan films but have never really come to surface. Now that he's actively trying to hide from authority I think it will have to be made clearer. The use of Bat symbols being posted all over the city in solidarity with Batman's ideals isn't helping me not believe this.
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2012 23:54 |
|
|
If we could get a Batman movie with Dr. Hurt's perverted origin story that makes fun of Batman's origin story, I'd be very pleased.
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2012 23:56 |
|
|
Professor Clumsy posted:I think it's much stronger thematically than Batman Forever, even if Clooney is a much weaker Batman than Kilmer ever was. How can you not watch Uma Thurman in this and not be completely enchanted? I feel the opposite. I thought Clooney was a great Batman working his rear end off trying to play it straight because no one told him it was a comedy. Still you can see some serious acting chops coming through. On the other hand I've always been confused what the hell you saw in Thurman in that movie. She crosses the line from having fun with it to full on Shatner territory where I felt kind of embarrassed watching her.
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2012 23:58 |
|
|
axleblaze posted:This all leads to the idea in all superhero movies of the hero being "the other". Batman is better than what we have to he is needed. We need to trust Batman because he knows best. This is already a disturbing idea in most superhero films but in most superhero film, the superhero is basically a cop. Batman is like a full government branch though. He has files on everyone, has eyes everywhere, is not above enhances interrogation to get what he wants and casually decides what's wrong and what's right. This idea is enhanced in that last trailer when the city just falls apart without him. The system we have in line aren't enough. We need a Batman and hope is only lost when the Batman is gone. Well, the thing that already seems interesting and that practically everyone has touched on is that the trailers and whatnot seem to be setting up Batman as a defender of the status quo, literally standing on the side of the cops in a riot. This is uncomfortable territory for even Nolan's movies, where the War on Terror/War on Drugs metaphor is so easily justified to the layperson.
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2012 00:04 |
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Well, the thing that already seems interesting and that practically everyone has touched on is that the trailers and whatnot seem to be setting up Batman as a defender of the status quo, literally standing on the side of the cops in a riot. The first trailer I saw for The Dark Knight Rises pretty much blatantly made this movie look like Batman vs. Occupy Wall Street.
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2012 00:57 |
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:To back this up a little, this pair of articles got me to revisit B&R and realize how truly hilarious it is: These are AWESOME! And made me realize that Batman Returns is a cinematic MESS. Wow.
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2012 01:05 |
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Well, the thing that already seems interesting and that practically everyone has touched on is that the trailers and whatnot seem to be setting up Batman as a defender of the status quo, literally standing on the side of the cops in a riot. This is what I am most interested to see, as it is extremely apparent in the trailers, from the imagery to Catwoman's speech/voice-over. My fear is that the trailers are just misdirection and will not be addressed, my hope is that he does turn out to be the defender of the status quo, and they leave it up to the audience to work out the layers of grey leftover. I have very small hopes though, as the previous movie dragged out the very simple and predictable ferry sequence, and was extremely black/white in morals. And thank you The Cameo for that read.
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2012 01:21 |
|
|
I'm really conflicted about The Dark Knight Rises: it's a film which I have zero interest in following the snoozefest of Inception but considering how much the Internet loves Chris Nolan - is he still The Next Stanley Kubrick? - I feel like I need to see it just to keep up.
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2012 01:23 |
|
|
Handsome Dead posted:I'm really conflicted about The Dark Knight Rises: it's a film which I have zero interest in following the snoozefest of Inception but considering how much the Internet loves Chris Nolan - is he still The Next Stanley Kubrick? - I feel like I need to see it just to keep up. Doing anything just to keep up with the internet is kinda dumb. Being left out of the loop about whatever the internet is going on about is never, ever a bad thing.
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2012 01:26 |
|
|
Handsome Dead posted:I'm really conflicted about The Dark Knight Rises: it's a film which I have zero interest in following the snoozefest of Inception but considering how much the Internet loves Chris Nolan - is he still The Next Stanley Kubrick? - I feel like I need to see it just to keep up. Nolan's style is totally unlike Kubricks in every possible way so that comparison is nonsense.
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2012 01:51 |
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:Nolan's style is totally unlike Kubricks in every possible way so that comparison is nonsense. Yeah. I can see someone saying Paul Thomas Anderson or Fincher, maybe, but Nolan doesn't have the eye for distinctive shots like Kubrick does.
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2012 01:53 |
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:Nolan's style is totally unlike Kubricks in every possible way so that comparison is nonsense. Man, do you guys remember how during the Tree of Life ad campaign Nolan was saying that Terrence Malick's influence is obvious in his own films? That was nonsense.
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2012 01:53 |
|
|
I'm trying to nail down Nolan's visual influences but it's surprisingly hard. It's like part '90s Michael Mann, part TV Jerry Bruckheimer.
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2012 02:00 |
|
|
Word-- one of the cool things about The Dark Knight was that it gets that Batman is not really a character. Like, his character arc is over by the time he gets up and running as Batman, because that's what the superhero comic format requires, nothing can be permanently impressed upon him except his origin story. After that, he's a force of nature (and a catalyst for sweet action scenes). So in The Dark Knight the superhero and supervillain remain larger than life-- the joker actively mocks attempts to understand him with his conflicting backstories-- and the relatively regular humans, like Harvey, are the main "characters" in the sense that they respond to the world & have lasting consequences for their actions. It seems like they're trying to foreground Batman more in this one, from the trailers.
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2012 02:05 |
|
|
Though I will say one of the best analysis of Inception that I've seen was from the last Nolan thread when someone (forgot who, sorry) compared it to The Shining.
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2012 02:05 |
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Well, the thing that already seems interesting and that practically everyone has touched on is that the trailers and whatnot seem to be setting up Batman as a defender of the status quo, literally standing on the side of the cops in a riot. One of the more interesting aspects of the movies as Nolan's done them is how Gotham has had problems pre-Batman, but with this avatar of guilt and fear arriving on the scene, the problems have only exacerbated. Individual fights - taking on the League of Shadows in Begins, and the Joker in The Dark Knight - have suggested he's in the "right", but when you consider that it was Batman eliminating Falcone in the first place (as well as letting Gotham continue to stand by holding off the League before they could raze the city) that created the power vacuum in organized crime that allowed the Joker to rise, it becomes harder and harder to justify what he's doing as "good" in a more objective sense. After all, as the Joker rose, so did the corruption in the police - going from the beat cop Gordon's partnered with skimming off the top and doing some bodyguard duty for Falcone to pressure being applied to people in Gordon's personally-assigned unit to commit kidnapping and other serious charges. Even Harvey deciding to join Batman and the Joker in operating as vigilante is precipitated by the Joker assuming even more power, and if you roll it back, once again, this all only happened because Bruce Wayne decided it was a good idea to put on a suit that resembles the animal that scares him - as well as a costume not dissimilar to the one that led to the death of his parents, which means that Wayne literally suits up inside his guilt - and punch that which he blames for ruining his life in the face. And now, it seems, the effects of all of this comes to a head with Bane, who, based on some of the footage and photos and whatnot, brings the deeds of Harvey Dent to light for all of Gotham to see, and one begins to understand that Bruce Wayne would have probably done a lot more good if he had eked towards what his father did, fighting for economic equality and a social safety net. But something broke in him when he watched his father bleed out on the pavement. One could argue that his willingness to go above and beyond for Gordon, with whom he shares a personal relationship, is what entices him to side with the police against the rising fire of seeming revolution. But, again, having gotten pushed into this corner, who does Bruce have to blame but himself? Contrast this with Burton's take - in which everything is already beyond corrupt, all the way down, with the entirety of Gotham feeling as though it exists in a primordial underworld - and where the moral line is a lot more pure. The death of Wayne's parents wasn't an ill-deserved twist of fate that destroyed his ability to judge his own moral code in Burton's version. Rather, it's a result of the cruel, maddening world that Gotham exists in. The villains in Batman and Batman Returns are less reactions to the existence of Batman and more mirror images of Bruce Wayne's shattered psyche. Schumacher, in exchange, purifies it even more, by turning the villains up to 11 and by directly confronting and having Batman overcome the psychological issues that cripple him in both the Burton and Nolan takes on the characters. penismightier posted:I'm trying to nail down Nolan's visual influences but it's surprisingly hard. It's like part '90s Michael Mann, part TV Jerry Bruckheimer. Mann and the Scotts really are his two/three most major ones, as well as a pretty clear Spielberg influence (he's particularly picked up lessons from Spielberg's construction of action setpieces - cause and effect all over the place). Beyond that it seems to be a hodge-podge of stuff he's picked up through watching a lot of movies - as Inception was coming out he admitted in an interview that he hadn't seen Last Year At Marienbad until shortly before said interview, and he discovered that he had lifted things from it without seeing it thanks to how the movie had disseminated into film culture over the decades. Dude also really likes Michael Bay movies. I'm really interested to see who he intends on working with when it comes to shooting as he goes on, since Rises is Wally Pfister's last job as cinematographer for the foreseeable future.
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2012 02:24 |
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:To back this up a little, this pair of articles got me to revisit B&R and realize how truly hilarious it is: You know what Gavok's book is called? I'd love to read it.
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2012 02:28 |
|
|
The Cameo posted:Mann and the Scotts really are his two/three most major ones, as well as a pretty clear Spielberg influence (he's particularly picked up lessons from Spielberg's construction of action setpieces - cause and effect all over the place). Beyond that it seems to be a hodge-podge of stuff he's picked up through watching a lot of movies - as Inception was coming out he admitted in an interview that he hadn't seen Last Year At Marienbad until shortly before said interview, and he discovered that he had lifted things from it without seeing it thanks to how the movie had disseminated into film culture over the decades. I actually don't see the Spielberg influence in the action scenes, he tends not to have that sense of step-by-step escalation. Feels more Friedkin-ish to me.
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2012 02:32 |
|
|
penismightier posted:I'm trying to nail down Nolan's visual influences but it's surprisingly hard. It's like part '90s Michael Mann, part TV Jerry Bruckheimer. He's somewhere between Ridley Scott and Michael Bay. Not that he has the visual skill of Ridley or the talent for maintaining action like Bay. He is better than both at consistently delivering an entertaining narrative though. The Cameo posted:... Rises is Wally Pfister's last job as cinematographer for the foreseeable future. Wait, what? 
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2012 02:34 |
|
|
Bugblatter posted:Wait, what? He's moving into directing.
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2012 02:37 |
|
|
penismightier posted:I actually don't see the Spielberg influence in the action scenes, he tends not to have that sense of step-by-step escalation. Feels more Friedkin-ish to me. Y'know what? You're actually more on the ball with that assessment. I didn't even think about how the car chases are very French Connection in their style. Usually no music, lots of close calls, obstacles, and building towards some insane finish. gently caress, the climax of Begins even has Gordon chasing an elevated train from the streets below. It's so obvious now.
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2012 02:39 |
|
|
Handsome Dead posted:I'm really conflicted about The Dark Knight Rises: it's a film which I have zero interest in following the snoozefest of Inception but considering how much the Internet loves Chris Nolan - is he still The Next Stanley Kubrick? - I feel like I need to see it just to keep up. He isn't Kubrick, but he makes fun movies that aren't completely mindless. He is just a very quality movie director.
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2012 03:05 |
|
|
Dickeye posted:You know what Gavok's book is called? I'd love to read it. David U is Doogz. His Batman annotations are scattered on comicsalliance.com and funnybookbabylon.com
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2012 03:40 |
|
|
One of the previous threads noticed from the early stills that Batman's costume does not work in daylight. It looks goofy and bulky, because it's a man in tactical bat-themed gear. I expect that to be central to the theme of Rises. It looks like Bane is driving Batman into the daylight- showing what his suit looks like, exposing the truth about Dent, revealing the reality of Batman to break down the myth. On the flip side, it's called the Dark Knight Rises, so revealing Batman to be a morally questionable, deluded fascist isn't really a positive note to end on, and I don't think audiences will respond well to three hours of iconoclasm. Still, I'm hoping for the best, and I think Nolan can pull it off.
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2012 03:52 |
|
|
Joe Don Baker posted:David U is Doogz. His Batman annotations are scattered on comicsalliance.com and funnybookbabylon.com Right, yeah. I mostly meant that he has written an obscene number of words annotating Morrison's Batman alone, which could be easily collected in book form like Jess Nevin's League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2012 04:05 |
|
|
Precambrian posted:One of the previous threads noticed from the early stills that Batman's costume does not work in daylight. It looks goofy and bulky, because it's a man in tactical bat-themed gear. I expect that to be central to the theme of Rises. It looks like Bane is driving Batman into the daylight- showing what his suit looks like, exposing the truth about Dent, revealing the reality of Batman to break down the myth. I don't think the movie is going to outright state "Hey, Batman is a facist!" but the movies thus far (especially Dark Knight) are certainly about making the audience ask "Is Batman really doing the right thing? Is he really the good guy?"
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2012 04:06 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2013 10:59 |
|
|
The Cameo posted:One could argue that his willingness to go above and beyond for Gordon, with whom he shares a personal relationship, is what entices him to side with the police against the rising fire of seeming revolution. But, again, having gotten pushed into this corner, who does Bruce have to blame but himself? Has it been shown that it's the general public that's on Bane's side? I always thought it was the prisoners from the breakout that was shown in one of the early trailers.
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2012 04:48 |
|
