The Dark Knight Rises

Spontaniously, I'm not happy with it.
It sounds generic and derivative.

But then, Batman Begins wasn't the best possible title either, and at this point I have 100% faith in Nolan so it doesn't matter.
 
I agree on both counts, hearing the title, I'm visualizing Batman getting out of bed at like 7 in the morning. But, having said that, complete confidence in Nolan. He said no Riddler, which I found kind of unexpected, but that's what I find so enjoyable about Nolan's take on the franchise, the unexpected.
 
As already said, not a big fan of the title. But maybe it'll grow on me by the time the film comes out. Also, I'm VERY surprised he said there won't be Riddler. I thought they set it up with the disgruntled (possibly ex)Wayne employee who knows Batman's secret identity, named Mr. Reese (mysteries). At the end of BB, they (rather obviously) hinted at the Joker being the villain. They didn't really set anything up besides that in TDK for the third installment. I guess Nolan has something else in mind. From what I've heard, possibly Cat Woman.

As also already said, I have the utmost faith in Nolan, so I'm sure whatever he has working through his brain will be brilliant.
 
Blade Borge said:
I agree on both counts, hearing the title, I'm visualizing Batman getting out of bed at like 7 in the morning.
Click to expand...
That made my day! The only problem is from this point on that is THE only image I'm going to be running through my head when I hear "Batman"... the caped crusader climbing out of his bed in full kit looking for the Nescafe.
 
As long as it only has one villain I'll be happy. Batman Begins had Falcone, who was working for Scarecrow, who was working for R'as Al Ghul, who was actually Henri Ducard. The Dark Knight should have just has the Joker. TwoFace lets the man who disfigured him and killed his girl get away but tries to kill the son of the man who has tried to help him. I understand he went crazy but it wasn't s**t eating crazy. Just one villain please.
 
Rashdan said:
As long as it only has one villain I'll be happy. Batman Begins had Falcone, who was working for Scarecrow, who was working for R'as Al Ghul, who was actually Henri Ducard. The Dark Knight should have just has the Joker. TwoFace lets the man who disfigured him and killed his girl get away but tries to kill the son of the man who has tried to help him. I understand he went crazy but it wasn't s**t eating crazy. Just one villain please.
Click to expand...
The thing is, the number of villains isn't important. In fact, if handled correctly, two villains are probably better than one. If it hadn't been for Batman Forever and Batman & Robin, the two villain/one villain argument would never be brought up.
But those two films had deeper problems than how many bad guys there were. So did Spider-man 3 with Raimi being forced to include Venom, a character he's publicly stated he doesn't like.

Batman the Movie from 1966 had Catwoman, The Joker, The Riddler AND The Penguin, all in prominent roles. That didn't hurt it one bit, and they were all given proper care.

It's important to remember that there are two kinds of villains. Mastermind villains (Lex Luthor, The Emperor, Sauron) and Muscle villains (Zod, Darth Vader, Saruman).
If you just use these in the right way, like Nolan has so far, the number is irrelevant.
 
The first two titles weren't exactly thrilling or jumping off the theatre signs either. Who cares what the title is, as long as Nolan is involved and he spins this movie the way he knows how
 
Rashdan said:
As long as it only has one villain I'll be happy. Batman Begins had Falcone, who was working for Scarecrow, who was working for R'as Al Ghul, who was actually Henri Ducard. The Dark Knight should have just has the Joker. TwoFace lets the man who disfigured him and killed his girl get away but tries to kill the son of the man who has tried to help him. I understand he went crazy but it wasn't s**t eating crazy. Just one villain please.
Click to expand...

Two Face wasn't going to kill Gordon's son because Gordon tried to help him, but because the cops in Gordon's unit (which he warned him about) kidnapped him and Rachel, leading to her death. I think his motives and actions were pretty well explained and handled in the movie.
 
Maybe y'all should say it like Gandalf the Great White Hope ahaam wizard would say !

The DARK KNIGHT .....RISES !
 
WildTrackDave said:
Two Face wasn't going to kill Gordon's son because Gordon tried to help him, but because the cops in Gordon's unit (which he warned him about) kidnapped him and Rachel, leading to her death. I think his motives and actions were pretty well explained and handled in the movie.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying he tried to kill his son BECAUSE Gordon tried to help him. I understand Twoface has gone mad and decides everything on the flip of a coin but his logic is "I'm NOT gonna kill the man who killed my woman. I'm gonna kill the son of the man, who heads the department, that employs the officers who kidnapped my woman, that allowed the Joker to kill my woman." That's like five degrees of separation. "You killed my brother, I'm gonna kill your mother's cousins hairdresser's accountant".
Don't get me wrong. I still love The Dark Knight.
 
Jawa Ex Machina said:
The thing is, the number of villains isn't important. In fact, if handled correctly, two villains are probably better than one. If it hadn't been for Batman Forever and Batman & Robin, the two villain/one villain argument would never be brought up.
But those two films had deeper problems than how many bad guys there were. So did Spider-man 3 with Raimi being forced to include Venom, a character he's publicly stated he doesn't like.

Batman the Movie from 1966 had Catwoman, The Joker, The Riddler AND The Penguin, all in prominent roles. That didn't hurt it one bit, and they were all given proper care.

It's important to remember that there are two kinds of villains. Mastermind villains (Lex Luthor, The Emperor, Sauron) and Muscle villains (Zod, Darth Vader, Saruman).
If you just use these in the right way, like Nolan has so far, the number is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Is Batman the Movie (1966) the best example of a multiple villain film?
I'm just saying films with just one prominant villain tends to be better i.e. Spiderman 1 & 2, Starwars, James Bond, Superman 1 & 2, Batman(1989). Even X-Men 1 & 2 only had one main villain. It had a lot of superpowered bad guys, but they were taking their orders from one man.

A film with one Mastermind villain and one Muscle Villain are usually pretty good i.e James Bond films (Mastermind - Goldfinger, Dr.no, Blofeld etc.) (Muscle - Odd Job, Jaws etc.)

It's usually difficult using two or more prominent villains in a movie because it's usually "You're a villain? I'm a villain too. Lets team up and kick his ass." And you usually have to tell two or more origin stories (which Nolan rightfully decided not to do with the Joker).
 
Blade Borge said:
I agree on both counts, hearing the title, I'm visualizing Batman getting out of bed at like 7 in the morning. But, having said that, complete confidence in Nolan. He said no Riddler, which I found kind of unexpected, but that's what I find so enjoyable about Nolan's take on the franchise, the unexpected.
Click to expand...

Maybe the fourth film can be called THE DARK KNIGHT SLEEPS IN.
 
WildTrackDave said:
I thought they set it up with the disgruntled (possibly ex)Wayne employee who knows Batman's secret identity, named Mr. Reese (mysteries).
Click to expand...

I had never noticed that about his name! That's so much better than Edward Nygma -_-

I don't think Coleman Reese could be a convincing villain, however.


Like everyone else has said, I too have faith in Nolan to do what he does best. It'll be worth the wait.
 
Rashdan said:
I'm not saying he tried to kill his son BECAUSE Gordon tried to help him. I understand Twoface has gone mad and decides everything on the flip of a coin but his logic is "I'm NOT gonna kill the man who killed my woman. I'm gonna kill the son of the man, who heads the department, that employs the officers who kidnapped my woman, that allowed the Joker to kill my woman." That's like five degrees of separation. "You killed my brother, I'm gonna kill your mother's cousins hairdresser's accountant".
Don't get me wrong. I still love The Dark Knight.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right in your description of the hierarchy of individuals responsible for the death of Rachel, but in all fairness to the movie, Two Face went after EXACTLY those people. In fact, in the opposite order you named them. First flip of the coin was Joker (arguably the ONE PERSON solely responsible for Rachel's death). Next were the corrupt cops that sold out to the mob and kidnapped Rachel. Gordon was simply last on the list of people responsible (in Two Face's eyes). And he wasn't going to kill Gordon, because obviously he was going to make Gordon witness someone he loves dying, like Harvey had to witness someone he loved dying. Oh, and he threw Batman and himself in as well.

I had never noticed that about his name! That's so much better than Edward Nygma -_-
Click to expand...

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight?
 
I agree, it's pretty generic. I wonder if it has some connection with the ending of The Dark Knight wherein Batman was running away from authorities. Regardless, Nolan did a great job so I guess we can bank our faith on him to do the same for this one. I would love to see ClayFace as a villain though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top