The Dark Knight Trilogy (Christopher Nolan, 2005-2012)

Discuss films of the 21st century including current cinema, current filmmakers, and film festivals.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Big fan of the former president
Posts: 2311
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

The Dark Knight Trilogy (Christopher Nolan, 2005-2012)

#1 Post by Fletch F. Fletch » Thu Apr 28, 2005 9:30 am

The new trailer is online.

Looks pretty snazzy! Some nice visuals.

THX1378
Posts: 291
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 5:35 am
Location: Fresno, CA

#2 Post by THX1378 » Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:09 am

Now I'm really looking forward to this. I love the fact that the film looks set in the real world for once. Batman was never a part of this neon day-glow, candy colored world *well unless your tyring to make your film look like a take-off on the TV show :lol: *.

User avatar
Lino
"Without obsession, life is nothing"
Posts: 3529
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:18 am
Location: Sitting End
Contact:

#3 Post by Lino » Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:27 am

I don't know...the more trailers I seem to be watching the more divided I become in my opinions.

A part of me misses the whole cartoony look of the previous movies which I think are an integral part of the whole agenda. Another part is glad that this one looks more real and is taking matters with a lot more serious take on things than before. However, one other part of me is afraid that this one will amount to not much other than another all-explosing, all-FX laden blockbuster like the ones we've been having lately.

I think this movie is causing me schizophrenia!

User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Big fan of the former president
Posts: 2311
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#4 Post by Fletch F. Fletch » Thu Apr 28, 2005 12:39 pm

Annie Mall wrote:I don't know...the more trailers I seem to be watching the more divided I become in my opinions.

A part of me misses the whole cartoony look of the previous movies which I think are an integral part of the whole agenda. Another part is glad that this one looks more real and is taking matters with a lot more serious take on things than before. However, one other part of me is afraid that this one will amount to not much other than another all-explosing, all-FX laden blockbuster like the ones we've been having lately.

I think this movie is causing me schizophrenia!
Well, I think one thing this film's got going for it is a very solid cast: Christian Bale, Morgan Freeman, Liam Neeson, Gary Oldman... so at the very least the dialogue will be delivered well and I think they will all give the material some serious credibility. I also think that Christopher Nolan's direction will also keep the film on track. Personally, I was never crazy about the cartoony look of the previous films and I like the notion that he's going to give it a more gritty, realistic look.

J M Powell
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:20 am
Location: Providence, RI

#5 Post by J M Powell » Thu Apr 28, 2005 3:28 pm

God, I wish this movie could turn out well. To me, Batman Returns was one of the greatest-of-all-time fuck-you love-letters from a director to a mass audience. It was right and necessary to change the franchise's course completely after that film, but Joel Shumacher is a tasteless hack. I'd love to see a great Batman movie again. But I'm not hopeful.
Fletch F. Fletch wrote: Well, I think one thing this film's got going for it is a very solid cast: Christian Bale, Morgan Freeman, Liam Neeson, Gary Oldman... so at the very least the dialogue will be delivered well and I think they will all give the material some serious credibility.
You do have a point, but here's a counterpoint: the participation of this particular group of actors is hardly a reliable predictor of the film's quality. To me, the constellation of these four cast members actually bodes poorly, not well. Yes, each of them has turned in stellar performances in admirable films -- but they also all have appeared in at least their fair share (for Freeman and Neeson in particular, I would say far more than their fair share) of putrid shit. In fact, I don't think I can come up with another group of four mainstream actors who could fill these four roles, and whose talent is comparably impressive, but who, taken together, have appeared in a greater number of utterly worthless movies.

And Michael Caine makes five.

User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Big fan of the former president
Posts: 2311
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#6 Post by Fletch F. Fletch » Thu Apr 28, 2005 4:26 pm

J M Powell wrote:You do have a point, but here's a counterpoint: the participation of this particular group of actors is hardly a reliable predictor of the film's quality. To me, the constellation of these four cast members actually bodes poorly, not well. Yes, each of them has turned in stellar performances in admirable films -- but they also all have appeared in at least their fair share (for Freeman and Neeson in particular, I would say far more than their fair share) of putrid shit. In fact, I don't think I can come up with another group of four mainstream actors who could fill these four roles, and whose talent is comparably impressive, but who, taken together, have appeared in a greater number of utterly worthless movies.

And Michael Caine makes five.
True. But let's face it, every actor has some crappy films in their resumes. Some more than others but that also may because they are more prolific so there's more opportunity for them to be in some turkeys.

I think Nolan will be the deciding factor in all this. If he is able to get good performances out of his cast and get them to sell the material no matter how cliche or hoaky it might be than he should have a winner on his hands. I mean, box office-wise the film will go through the roof no matter just in the opening weekend alone. The anticipation for this one is pretty high. The real test will if it has legs, if it survives on word of mouth.

Personally, I hope it is good. All the footage I've seen so far looks quite impressive for this kind of movie. We shall see.

THX1378
Posts: 291
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 5:35 am
Location: Fresno, CA

#7 Post by THX1378 » Fri Apr 29, 2005 1:27 am

Somehow I think this is going to turn out better than everyone thinks. I think that the bad thing is that we still have the bad taste of Batman and Robin in our mouths.
Joel Shumacher is a tasteless hack
He's not so much a tasteless hack as he was made to change the look for the 3 and 4 film which didn't work. It made the films look like they were big screen versions of the 60's TV show. I love Batman Returns but can see why changed were made for the 3nd film.

User avatar
lord_clyde
No. 33 Killer
Posts: 492
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:22 am
Location: Ogden, UT

#8 Post by lord_clyde » Fri Apr 29, 2005 3:18 am

THX1378 wrote:
He's not so much a tasteless hack as he was made to change the look for the 3 and 4 film which didn't work. It made the films look like they were big screen versions of the 60's TV show. I love Batman Returns but can see why changed were made for the 3nd film.
He gave the batsuit nipples for chrissakes!

Fletch F. Fletch wrote:
I think Nolan will be the deciding factor in all this.
I agree. I like all three of the films he has done so far, his direction is sure and he knows how to keep a story on track (just look at Memento, a film that could have easily become a jumbled mess) and it's always nice to know that a fan of the source material is at the helm. While I haven't read anything saying he is a batfan I recall in Following the protagonist has the batman logo on his flat door, very cool!

THX1378 wrote:
*well unless your tyring to make your film look like a take-off on the TV show *.
If you ask me the Adam West movie is still the best Batman movie made.

User avatar
Jean-Luc Garbo
Posts: 2637
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 1:55 am
Contact:

#9 Post by Jean-Luc Garbo » Sun May 01, 2005 4:02 pm

I agree that the new trailer is good. They released it at a good time as the new stuff is a great appetizer. I am a little worried that the movie will be a bomb, but the vote of confidence here is quite a good sign. Also, DC just released a new edition of the movie's souce material: Batman Year One.

User avatar
The Invunche
Alleged Socialist
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:43 am
Location: Denmark

#10 Post by The Invunche » Sun May 01, 2005 4:33 pm

The movie script and Batman: Year One have very little in common. Fantastic comic tho.

User avatar
Cobalt60
Posts: 158
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:39 pm

#11 Post by Cobalt60 » Sun May 29, 2005 10:56 pm

lord_clyde wrote:If you ask me the Adam West movie is still the best Batman movie made.
I agree...seriously. It was the only one of the five live action films that really achieves what it set out to do: translate its source material to the screen. Now, granted the West film is really nothing but a 90 minute episode of the series, but it was not trying to be anything more then that. The 2 Burton films, while both having their own attributes, ultimately fail for me overall. I have more hope for this film, but I do hate that damn batsuit. He looks like a 6 foot action figure.

User avatar
dx23
Posts: 3794
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:52 pm
Location: Puerto Rico

#12 Post by dx23 » Mon May 30, 2005 1:15 am

lord_clyde wrote:
If you ask me the Adam West movie is still the best Batman movie made.
I agree...seriously. It was the only one of the five live action films that really achieves what it set out to do: translate its source material to the screen
.

It all depends on what source material you are talking about. The Golden Age and the Modern Age Batman (and some late Silver Age) is dark and mysterious, with compelling storylines, very film noir. For most of the Silver Age, when the superheroes revival took place (Early 60's) Batman comics were more child oriented and campy, just like the TV series. Batman is not supposed to be that way. Batman is supposed to be the opposite of what Superman and Captain Marvel are. He is supposed to be a tortured, schizophrenic soul, with no super abilities whatsoever, just relying on intelligence and the maximum human abilities he can reach. He is the Yang to Superma's Ying. That is the reason why the Shumacher films are so despised and why the best TV/Film incarnation Batman has ever been in is the Animated series by Paul Dini and voiced by Kevin Conroy, which has spanned for over 10 years and that continues today on the Justice League cartoon series. Dini truly understands the character (something I hope Nolan does too) and has develop Batman entire universe into the most interesting canon of all incarnations, which fans of all ages have apreciated.

User avatar
Cobalt60
Posts: 158
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:39 pm

#13 Post by Cobalt60 » Mon May 30, 2005 2:28 am

dx23 wrote: It all depends on what source material you are talking about. The Golden Age and the Modern Age Batman (and some late Silver Age) is dark and mysterious, with compelling storylines, very film noir. For most of the Silver Age, when the superheroes revival took place (Early 60's) Batman comics were more child oriented and campy, just like the TV series. Batman is not supposed to be that way. Batman is supposed to be the opposite of what Superman and Captain Marvel are. He is supposed to be a tortured, schizophrenic soul, with no super abilities whatsoever, just relying on intelligence and the maximum human abilities he can reach. He is the Yang to Superma's Ying. That is the reason why the Shumacher films are so despised and why the best TV/Film incarnation Batman has ever been in is the Animated series by Paul Dini and voiced by Kevin Conroy, which has spanned for over 10 years and that continues today on the Justice League cartoon series. Dini truly understands the character (something I hope Nolan does too) and has develop Batman entire universe into the most interesting canon of all incarnations, which fans of all ages have apreciated.

The source material that I was referring to was the TV series that the West film was taken from. It was, like I said before, basically an extended episode, with more villains, vehicles and 1-liners. The TV series was not an attempt at translating the look and feel of the comic book, it delibertly took the the character in a totally different direction. So it can't be faulted for missing the point of the comic, as it was intentional. I do, however, fault Burton for both his films being at least some what flawed. While I will say that 1989's "Batman" was a good try, there is much less to like in "Batman Returns". But I will agree wholeheartedly that the Batman: Animated Series and the movies made from it have been the best translation of Batman from the comic to any other media in terms of maintaining the integrity of the character as Bob Kane envisioned him. They even managed to introduce Robin and make the character not suck, which is no small task. I think that it is almost a given that Batman Begins will be, at best, 2nd to the animated series. That show has hit everywhere that the films missed.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Posts: 4246
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

#14 Post by hearthesilence » Mon May 30, 2005 8:22 am

I agree, the original Animated Series was the best, though to be fair, it was heavily influenced by Burton's films and the classic late 60's, early 70's comics (many episodes were adaptations of good stories taken from that era).

I did see Super Friends and the Super Powers cartoon when I was a kid, but it wasn't until the original Animated Series that they did a good series on Batman. The smaller, second set of episodes that ran on Saturday morning were pretty good (they were called the "Adventures of Batman & Robin" and were apiece with the original - half of what they aired were re-runs of the original). I liked the look of the sleeker, updated rendition that followed the "Superman" cartoon (which was also the best series ever done on Superman - even the original 1940's cartoons, IMO), but it still wasn't as good as the original. I caught snatches of the new one on the Cartoon Network, and it doesn't look bad. There's another new one on the WB on Sunday mornings, but I get the feeling they used Batman as an excuse to churn out another Kung Fu cartoon.

User avatar
Matt
Posts: 6302
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm

#15 Post by Matt » Tue May 31, 2005 10:41 am

THX1378 wrote:Batman was never a part of this neon day-glow, candy colored world
Beg pardon?

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Posts: 2077
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

#16 Post by Andre Jurieu » Tue May 31, 2005 11:35 am

matt wrote:
THX1378 wrote:Batman was never a part of this neon day-glow, candy colored world
Beg pardon?
I agree with Matt that it's misguided to think Batman was never part of a candy-colored comic world back in the day, but THX1378 has a point that the Batman comic book really found itself when the writers made the world that surrounded Batman darker, and the Batman character more disturbed and bordering on psychotic. The golden age Batman was a function of its times, when every comic used a similar color scheme and the plots were detective stories for children. Since the 70s, Batman's personality, and Gotham itself, has become much more cynical to reflect the cultural psyche of its times. Let's face it, bats are scarier in the dark, rather then when they're made into a gigantic joke by Schumacher, as if they were battling Bugs Bunny in a Looney Tunes cartoon.

God, I'm such a nerd.

cbernard

#17 Post by cbernard » Tue May 31, 2005 6:08 pm

You don't have to accept the dressing-up idea on a literal level*, but it raises interesting issues. Most comic books do. The whole idea of disguise-as-way-of-life isn't just something somebody pulled out of thin air, nor the idea of the doppelganger, and so forth.

The problem with these dreaded "fanboys" is that, truthfully, they don't take their objects of adoration seriously enough. And if they don't, how can anyone else?

* EDIT: Scratch that, actually you do. Transsexuality, transvestite culture, and on and on...this stuff you have to take seriously. And it's not just the domain of "alternate" sexuality: you put on a suit and tie, or a dress, and you're in the realm of costume and performance.

User avatar
Poncho Punch
Posts: 267
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:07 pm
Location: the emerald empire

#18 Post by Poncho Punch » Tue May 31, 2005 6:23 pm

If you want to get right down to it, just getting dressed in jeans and a t-shirt on the weekends is using costume as a form of artifice. Likewise for not putting clothes on at all. Most of us are constantly performing in some way for someone. Well, I am, at least. And I can't imagine I'm the only one who realizes it. I'm not that smart.

User avatar
milk114
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:38 pm
Location: Mar Vista, Los Angeles

#19 Post by milk114 » Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:08 pm

One of the reasons artists originally drew characters in tight-fitting costumes was that they were drawing the naked human body and adding color. Muscles (at least before Rob Liefeld et al) are easier to draw than textured clothing flowing with movement.

User avatar
Faux Hulot
Jack Of All Tirades
Posts: 300
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:57 am
Location: Location, Location

#20 Post by Faux Hulot » Thu Jun 02, 2005 1:40 pm

Poncho Punch wrote:If you want to get right down to it, just getting dressed in jeans and a t-shirt on the weekends is using costume as a form of artifice. Likewise for not putting clothes on at all. Most of us are constantly performing in some way for someone. Well, I am, at least. And I can't imagine I'm the only one who realizes it. I'm not that smart.
"Everybody in this room is wearing a uniform, and don't you forget it."
-- Frank Zappa

DrewReiber
Posts: 680
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:27 am

#21 Post by DrewReiber » Thu Jun 02, 2005 8:27 pm

Ain't It Cool News posted two overwhelmingly positive reviews from some international press screenings. MAJOR SPOILER WARNING for those of you who are thinking of reading it. In fact, I'm going to warn all of you that if the plan is to see Batman Begins with any twists intact, don't even ask your friends too much about it. Avoid all reviews, etc. There is something that effects the plot enough that someone explaining the movie to you in retrospect could easily ruin the fun.

Sorry for those of you would have prefered not to know there are even twists, but trust me in that it's better to be guarded for the sake of the first viewing than find out by casual accident.

THX1378
Posts: 291
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 5:35 am
Location: Fresno, CA

#22 Post by THX1378 » Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:50 pm

Just watched Ebert and Roper and they did their early review of the film. Both of them really like the film a lot, Roger went as far as saying that this is the Batman film that he and many others have been waiting for, and both of them said that it was one of the best films of the year. Means that come the end of the year like last year with Spider-Man 2 I bet that Begins makes Rogers top ten list. They both said that this was the darkest of the all the Batman films and had the best story also. And thank god for once that the focus is totaly on Batman this time. I hated it that really all the films, even the first one, the villains always outshined Batman and it seemed that in Returns the focus was more on them than it was on Batman. After seeing this, and reading the reviews over at AICN I'm a little more jazzed for this film than I was for Star Wars.

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Posts: 2077
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

#23 Post by Andre Jurieu » Mon Jun 06, 2005 10:28 am

Given the people involved in this project (Nolan, Bale, Freeman, Oldman, Neeson, Murphy, Watanabe, Wilkinson) I was probably going to try and watch this opening weekend. Now that I know Ebert, Roeper, and a bunch of AICN geeks are singing its praises, I might have to reconsider. Knowing these people enjoyed the film is a crushing, almost demoralizing, blow to my anticipation.

User avatar
dekadetia
was Born Innocent
Posts: 108
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 11:57 pm
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

#24 Post by dekadetia » Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:49 pm

analoguezombie wrote:definitely
#-o

analoguezombie

#25 Post by analoguezombie » Mon Jun 06, 2005 1:34 pm

dekadetia wrote:
analoguezombie wrote:definitely
#-o
sorry i cunt spell

Post Reply