The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

[HasuMasu]

The action scenes were fine, good actually.

The costume, well it hardly bothers me, do you want tights? Really? How is that supposed to save you?

The batmobile, while I'm not a fan of the super-car idea anyway, it was handled as well as it could have been, at least for me.

Of course I'm my favorite Batman

[Samari]

I don't really mind the suit. Although I like the one from Begins better as it's less flashy. Regardless, he's in the shadows the majority of the time and his cape is draped around him so you cant' really see his torso anyways. Overall not a big deal.

[Tetra Vaal]

Originally Posted by Haladflire65

BTW, it looks like snow, judging from the set video.

Putting my disagreements about Nolan to the side-- why would you want to spoil that for yourself? One of the best things about blockbuster films, well, some-- is that there's usually a mystery or deep seeded secret within the material or action that most directors don't like to share. Or that's how it used to be at least. Now-a-days we have people taking on set photos and videos, which ultimately ruins the mystery and when you go see the film in theatres, nothing feels fresh or invigorating. This is one of the reasons I'm so stoked for 'Elysium'-- Blomkamp, the director, has practically set up road blocks and has a policy against outsiders which prevents them from documenting anything that's happening on set. So while I may have to wait til' March 2013 for this movie, it will be so worth it due to how everything is being kept under tight wraps.

I don't know, even though I'm no fan of Christopher Nolan, he at least had some element of surprise leading up to 'The Dark Knight.' He had fanboys worldwide in a frenzy with the way the marketing was handled, but this time around-- eh, it feels lazy and mailed in. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this film ends up letting all of his fans down. I just don't feel that same type of energy from his fans that I felt previously.

But getting back on topic, Nolan's action sequences aren't fine. If people would like me to give them a break down, I can. But aside from his laughable attempts at philosophy, his weakest component as a director are his action sequences.

[Samari]

Originally Posted by Tetra Vaal

Putting my disagreements about Nolan to the side-- why would you want to spoil that for yourself? One of the best things about blockbuster films, well, some-- is that there's usually a mystery or deep seeded secret within the material or action that most directors don't like to share. Or that's how it used to be at least. Now-a-days we have people taking on set photos and videos, which ultimately ruins the mystery and when you go see the film in theatres, nothing feels fresh or invigorating. This is one of the reasons I'm so stoked for 'Elysium'-- Blomkamp, the director, has practically set up road blocks and has a policy against outsiders which prevents them from documenting anything that's happening on set. So while I may have to wait til' March 2013 for this movie, it will be so worth it due to how everything is being kept under tight wraps.

I don't know, even though I'm no fan of Christopher Nolan, he at least had some element of surprise leading up to 'The Dark Knight.' He had fanboys worldwide in a frenzy with the way the marketing was handled, but this time around-- eh, it feels lazy and mailed in. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this film ends up letting all of his fans down. I just don't feel that same type of energy from his fans that I felt previously.

But getting back on topic, Nolan's action sequences aren't fine. If people would like me to give them a break down, I can. But aside from his laughable attempts at philosophy, his weakest component as a director are his action sequences.

Well after seeing those photos posted I decided not to look at anymore as I think I'm starting to feel like the movie is going to be ruined for me.

As for Nolan's action scenes, I like them. I think they are fine. They appeal to me. If they don't appeal to you, that's fine. What I've seen on the screen I like. Let's not forget that this is subjective subject matter.

[Tetra Vaal]

It's not subjective when we break down the technical deficiencies and piss poor choreography, though. That's just you turning a blind eye since you're a biased Nolan fan.

[Samari]

Originally Posted by Tetra Vaal

It's not subjective when we break down the technical deficiencies and piss poor choreography, though. That's just you turning a blind eye since you're a biased Nolan fan.

I'm not biased. I just like what I see on the screen. Don't say I'm biased without any basis for a conclusion just because you want to push your agenda and or I'm not agreeing with your perception. When I first saw Batman Begins in theaters the action sequences didn't bother me. I didn't know who Nolan was at that point. If you want to believe I have some ulterior motive proceed. Believe what you like. Just keep in mind that it is possible to like something without being biased towards it.

[Tetra Vaal]

I'm not pushing any agenda, I'm not the one with a biased conjecture here. I've been in numerous film classes, great ones. I excelled in those studies and that's where my passions, interests, and knowledge lies. I know what I'm talking about here. If you want to call me an "elitist" or something, or even an asshole with a prickish attitude or something-- fine. I can deal. I've heard worse. But the thing is, I possess an adequate enough amount of knowledge to know that my words hold merit when I say Christopher Nolan is a very incompetent action director-- well, he's an incompetent director in general, but he's especially bad at staging action.

[Ithekro]

I've found that knowing too much about making movies and the interal arts of it ruins most movies for those people. They see every flaw.

Same with watching or knowing too much about anything I suppose. Watch too much anime, you become cynical and basically start hating everything for one reason or another.
Watch too many movies and you start picking little things apart and make the practice worth more than the entertainment of the product.

Same with music theory...you know too much you start picking at the composition and not listening to the music anymore.

Read too much history, and you start pointing out every mistake ever made by anyone you read about (This is were I'm heading I fear).

The public doesn't care if things are filmed optimally...they just want to be entertained.


(Note: I have not watched any Nolan film...nor do I really think I ever will....I've more or less lost interest in movies and television in the last ten years)

[Tetra Vaal]

That's not true, though.

I have an extensive knowledge in film making, hell, art in general. But I'm also a massive genre fan. I'm a geek. I love and respect the history of 'Batman' and a lot of other comic books, graphic novels, and superheroes collectively. What I don't like is, is mediocre directors having their limited talents blown out of proportion by teeny bopper blowhards who don't have a single iota of a clue when it comes to talking about quality film making. Isn't it a bit ironic that I love stuff like 'RoboCop', 'The Thing', 'The Fly', 'Blade Runner', 'Alien', and more recently, 'District 9'-- which is the epitome of a summer blockbuster movie? The reason I can appreciate those more than others is because they're not just technically precise in all facets, but they also have respectable screenplays, likeable actors, and an all around "uncompromising" feel to the material. It's not some run of the mill PG-13, $200+ million budgeted, appeal to teens and kids and trick adults into thinking you can push the boundaries of the PG-13 rating, cardboard cutout. I'm telling you, years from now, Nolan's filmography will lose its steam. Once a better director comes along to make a Batman film that reaches a more respectable standard, no one will remember Nolan's trilogy. What will he be left with then? 'Inception'? Pfft... just another flash in the pan, falvor of the week for the general audience to chew up, digest, and spit out "it's the greatest movie ever made" for its 15 minutes.

I wish death upon these endless PG, kiddie-pool comic book adaptions. Give me back my hard edge blockbusters.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Tetra Vaal

I've been in numerous film classes, great ones. I excelled in those studies and that's where my passions, interests, and knowledge lies. I know what I'm talking about here.

This isn't a Science discussion, so an appeal to authority can only take you so far, and even then you have to have pretty big credentials to really make your appeal serviceable when discussing subjective matters.

As it is, you've missed the forest for the trees. Nolan's "failure" as a director stems entirely from his lacsidasical approach to visual storytelling. Bad action sequences (of which the series has actually gotten progressively better at in each film (Batman Begins had truly bad action sequences, often incoherent, but Dark Knight had several well done action set pieces)) are merely a symptom of the larger problem.

That being said, I thoroughly disagree that these films are bad. The directing is lacsidasical, but they are well-acted, with some good dialogue and decent stories. They treat the mythology with respect, while also acting as pop entertainment.

I wish death upon these endless PG, kiddie-pool comic book adaptions. Give me back my hard edge blockbusters.

Since the vast majority of Batman stories are, in fact, generally rated at about PG-13 (not that comics have the same ratings as film), I am unclear where this perspective of Batman as an "R-rated" story is coming from.

[Tetra Vaal]

Enjoying a film or disliking a film may be subjective, but using that as an excuse to refute my claims is weak. Discussing the technical merits of a film is not subjective, you have to have some sort of cohesiveness in all aspects of film making, which Nolan doesn't. At least not to a degree that makes him some top tier director. Is he awful? No, not really. But he's not better than average. And even though I may not be Peter Travers or Roger Ebert, I'm still no slouch, not on internet forums, anyway. If degrees in those fields didn't matter then they wouldn't exist. Similar to sports journalism-- which is the perfect analogy to use in this case. Most arguments in sports are generated based off subjective opinions on teams or players, but the bottom line is, some of those journalists are much more respected than your typical fan-- because they go that extra mile to at least ATTEMPT to apply a science, so to speak-- to what they do. It's no different than film making.

Also, my comments about being sick of these PG comic book adaptions isn't limited to just Batman or the comic book's source material. I'm sick of the trend its become. It's an out-dated routine that comes along every summer. But here is some food for thought, Nolan himself talks about pushing the boundaries of PG-13, which is as laughable as comments can come. But also, Bale has gone on record challenging Nolan to make an R rated film, you can find that by a simple Google search if you don't believe me. But you know why he won't do it? Because WB hands him those $250 million checks and won't dare take such a gamble. He doesn't have ownership stake in these films. He's not calling the shots. He's just a studio pushover once you get down to it.

[james0246]

^Degrees do not matter, neither do credentials, it is the arguments you publish that matter. Ebert has written constantly for 50 some years about film. That matters far more than his UIUC degree. Conversely, Siskel never received a film degree (his was in English or Philosophy), yet he was an above-average film critic specifically because he constantly published and discussed film.

And even with all of this, I still don't trust Ebert to adequately review a film (he is a decent film scholar and his classes can be quite fun and educational), and Siskel loved Saturday Night Fever (which is almost damning in my opinion ).

Discussing the technical merits of a film is not subjective

But they can be and often are. That is what you do not understand (or refuse to understand). You've commented repeatedly concerning Nolan’s staging of shots/scenes, but, in reality, I have only minor quibbles with how Nolan uses the mise en scene to convey his story, and the few disturbances are never to disjointing (Nolan's films lack an internal consistency from scene to scene, but individual shots and scenes are fairly coherent and even interesting). Some fans/critics consider the films to be shot with too little lighting, but I consider there to be too much lighting. Some think the sound effects are sub-par, others think they are just right. Etc. Our interpretation of the images affect how we interpret the story, but our interpretations are affected by our own opinions, theories and ideas; consequently, our interpretation of the images will always be different, even if minutely so, because we are different and how we view the world is different.

In the end, there is no "objective" film, so even the technical issues of filmmaking can have differencing opinions. (Honestly, that is what makes any artistic form interesting and worthy of comment, discussion, emulation and outright theft.)

[Samari]

Originally Posted by Tetra Vaal

I'm not pushing any agenda, I'm not the one with a biased conjecture here. I've been in numerous film classes, great ones. I excelled in those studies and that's where my passions, interests, and knowledge lies. I know what I'm talking about here. If you want to call me an "elitist" or something, or even an asshole with a prickish attitude or something-- fine. I can deal. I've heard worse. But the thing is, I possess an adequate enough amount of knowledge to know that my words hold merit when I say Christopher Nolan is a very incompetent action director-- well, he's an incompetent director in general, but he's especially bad at staging action.

Yes you are. You're assuming that I have a bias attitude towards Christopher Nolan just because I like what he has showcased in his action scenes and because I don't agree with you. You have zero evidence to claim that I have a bias. Even if I may like something that is not pleasing aesthetically to a consensus, that does not mean I have a bias. I already told you that I didn't even know who Nolan really was when I saw Begins, yet I liked what I saw on the screen. Of course you ignored this point.

Me liking something that you don't does not equal that I have bias. And like I said it is actually possible to like something without having a bias. You don't like his action scenes, fine. I really don't care. I just said I think they are fine. Really, it's like you're getting ticked that I'm not in agreement with you. I like his action sequences while not being biased. And that's just a reality you're going to have to deal with. Get over yourself.

[Tetra Vaal]

How can I get over myself? I'm easily the most knowledgeable film goer on this board. Call me arrogant all you'd like-- I know my stuff. There's not a single person on here that could ever beat me in any type of film debate. I guarantee that.

Anyway, for the time being I'll leave this thread and allow all of you to rejoice for 'The Dark Knight Rises.'

[Samari]

Originally Posted by Tetra Vaal

How can I get over myself? I'm easily the most knowledgeable film goer on this board. Call me arrogant all you'd like-- I know my stuff. There's not a single person on here that could ever beat me in any type of film debate. I guarantee that.

Anyway, for the time being I'll leave this thread and allow all of you to rejoice for 'The Dark Knight Rises.'

I'm just saying that I do have the right to like whatever I please.

This was never about you or how much knowledge you claim to have. That has nothing to do with what I personally find pleasing to watch in film. You don't like what I enjoy that's fine. I never indicated that I actually cared in the first place.

[Elo the Blue]

I don't love the Bane design, but I don't hate it as much seem to either.

I'm still stoked for the movie.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Tetra Vaal

How can I get over myself? I'm easily the most knowledgeable film goer on this board. Call me arrogant all you'd like-- I know my stuff. There's not a single person on here that could ever beat me in any type of film debate. I guarantee that.

Anyway, for the time being I'll leave this thread and allow all of you to rejoice for 'The Dark Knight Rises.'

You just convinced me to put you on the Ignore list without ever needing to insult me in any way. Congratulations, that takes real skill.

[SoldierOfDarkness]

Originally Posted by Haladflire65

BTW, it looks like snow, judging from the set video.

Sigh

I'm sure in the movie it'll look great but seeing it like that just seems to take the "oomph" away from it

On that matter I notice that some of the cops are carrying guns....why are you not using them?

That and it's also occurred to me that Bale is taller than Hardy.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by SoldierOfDarkness

Sigh

I'm sure in the movie it'll look great but seeing it like that just seems to take the "oomph" away from it

On that matter I notice that some of the cops are carrying guns....why are you not using them?

That and it's also occurred to me that Bale is taller than Hardy.

The cops? How did you ever miss some of the hobos slinging AK-47s, and also not using them apparently?

[Ithekro]

Probably a riot. The crowd is too thick for guns without hitting civilians. Why the other guys aren't using their larger guns...quarters are too tight and too likely to hit your own guys?