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

[Cold Bishop]

Robocop

Hardly a superhero movie.

[Mr Sausage]

Robocop

Hardly a superhero movie.

Well, if Ironman counts as a superhero, Robocop certainly does. The thrust of the movie is basically the same as any superhero movie: the world is going to pot, so an entity enhanced in some way so as to be above the common victims comes in, fights adversity, and makes the world safer. Works for me.

Although, neither Howard the Duck nor Spawn were rated R (Spawn was later released on homevideo in an R-rated cut, tho').

[Cold Bishop]

Well, if Ironman counts as a superhero, Robocop certainly does. The thrust of the movie is basically the same as any superhero movie: the world is going to pot, so an entity enhanced in some way so as to be above the common victims comes in, fights adversity, and makes the world safer. Works for me.

Ironman doesn't have the incredible sarcasm Robocop does. I would hardly think the fact he is still a reluctant shill for OCP qualifies the world "as a safer place". Plus, he can't fly, nor does he fight supervillians. Not a superhero.

Robocop 2 on the other hand...

[Jeff]

Besides the two Punisher films, has there ever been an R-rated superhero film?

There have been several films that come to mind:

Howard the Duck

Howard the Duck is PG

[Mr Sausage]

Well, if Ironman counts as a superhero, Robocop certainly does. The thrust of the movie is basically the same as any superhero movie: the world is going to pot, so an entity enhanced in some way so as to be above the common victims comes in, fights adversity, and makes the world safer. Works for me.

Ironman doesn't have the incredible sarcasm Robocop does. I would hardly think the fact he is still a reluctant shill for OCP qualifies the world "as a safer place". Plus, he can't fly, nor does he fight supervillians. Not a superhero.

Robocop 2 on the other hand...

His being a 'reluctant shill' is hardly true, since he mucks their plans up so much they set out to exterminate him. OCP is shown as good, but subverted by corrupt elements within it, which Robocop defeats. As for the sarcasm, doesn't much matter; this is a matter of tone, and satire and super-heroes have never been mutually exclusive. If Clarence Boddicker, Dick Jones, and ED 209 don't count as supervillains, who does? You're willing to accept Jeff Bridges' Obadiah Stane and his suit of armour as a villain, but not Dick Jones and his ED 209 (which works at his command)? Ok.

Batman can't fly either.

[HerrSchreck]

But he get's the job done in his own way, bless his heart!

[Cold Bishop]

Yes, there are "corrupt" elements in OCP, only as so much as there are some people in bed with street-level criminals. But to say the company is shown as good is going a little far. I'd say Verhoeven's view of corporate America and Big Business is nothing if not damning, and OCP is the biggest and most corporate of them all. Just because the rest of the board aren't cutting deals with drug dealers doesn't make them incorrupt or any less cutthroat and immoral; Dick Jones isn't the only one not to bat an eye for the one guy when Ed-209 goes berserk during the demonstration. That Robocop gets rid of Dick Jones doesn't change the fact he is still OCP property, and will be used as they seem fit. The ending, right down to the one-lineresque exchange between Murphy and The Old Man, is ironic, and completely in line with the subversive use of the Action genre; he got rid of the "bad guy" but the organization that enabled the bad guy to exist in the first place gets off scott free, hence not "a safer place", just a place with a temporarily lower crime rate.

Clarence and Dick are villains, but not super. One is a drug dealer, the other corporate America; hardly anything fantastic about the two. Ed-209 is getting there, but he really doesn't do anything; he provides a punchline in the beginning, and is quickly disposed of in the end (once again, the sarcastic/subversive element, as were denied the type of showdown we hoped for). There is the first fight, but there is something comically sloppy about it, right down to Ed-209 bawling. With Robocop in shut down mode, he really wasn't even necessary, making the whole fight absurd, a detail I'm sure Verhoeven was aware of.

And Batman has always been the odd duck, and his lack of super-powers is exactly what leaves him a cut above his peers, and easily the most cinematically interesting story. If the films weren't based off a comic book with a long legacy placing him strictly in the Super-hero zone, and if everyone didn't run around in such flamboyant costumes (and I do not consider the Robocop outfit flamboyant) I maybe would make the argument he isn't really a Super-hero. In fact I will: the fact he doesn't have superpowers means Batman is not a superhero.

[Mr Sausage]

Clarence and Dick are villains, but not super. One is a drug dealer, the other corporate America; hardly anything fantastic about the two.

What are we basing this on, exactly? They're as cartoonish and over-the-top as you get. You seem to be equating supervillain with "having magical powers." This is not at all the case. And as I said: if Ironman's Obadiah Stane--a much more realistic human--counts as a supervillain (since Ironman is a superhero), then doubly so for these two.

The rest of your points are moot because they fail to account for their underlying assumption: that a superhero movie cannot contain either irony or satire.

[Cold Bishop]

They're as cartoonish and over-the-top as you get. You seem to be equating supervillain with "having magical powers."

Pretty much. "Super", to me, designates something in the realm of the fantastic. If not a super ability, a genius outside the realm of what's believable. Cartoonist and Over-the-Top characterizations occur in plenty of non-comic situations.

In fact, you could put Iron Man in the category of superheroes who are arguably not superheroes save for the comic tradition, although I think Tony Stark's genius (which is what allows Obadiah to create his own suit) kind of pushes him over the top into the fantastic.

The rest of your points are moot because they fail to account for their underlying assumption: that a superhero movie cannot contain either irony or satire.

They can contain them, but I feel the use of them in Robocop places it over the top from a superhero film with elements of irony and satire, into a parody and spoof of the structure and archetypes of a superhero film (and thats if we accept the superhero tag, which I don't).

Maybe I'm too hung up with the equating of Superhero= Comic Book perception of Superhero, as I guess its possible to be part of the former, with having very little to do with the latter.

[HerrSchreck]

I'd really have to agree with sausage on this one, cold-b. A superhero means exactly that: he dedicates himself excessively, with success, to the proposition of being a hero, meaning he's a brave fucker who can take on just about anyone. "Superhero" doesn't neccessarily mean "posesses magical powers"... it just means they have in some manner found a way to be powerful enough to Kick Villain Ass, usually involving a custume and some form of mystery. Lasers and inborn (or sci-fi-cultivated) ability to fly not neccessarily required, but always helpful. Look at Spidey who's a combo of all these-- sticking to a wall and spider strength wasn't the sum of the biscuit: his ingenuity in fashioning his webslinging apparatus elevated his Asskickonicity Quotient.

[Antoine Doinel]

New trailer and apparently the runtime of the film is 152 minutes.

[exte]

Wow... Will it be rated R you think? Two and a half hours is pretty impressive if you think about it. IMAX should be a must here...

[domino harvey]

Wow... Will it rated R you think?

Of course not

[flyonthewall2983]

Maybe an unrated version?

[Antoine Doinel]

The film has been rated PG-13 (see earlier in the thread).

New edition of The Gotham Times.

Here's a clip of Two Face.

[starmanof51]

And Batman has always been the odd duck, and his lack of super-powers is exactly what leaves him a cut above his peers, and easily the most cinematically interesting story.

Hardly an odd duck, if you're talking about comics. There's a fistful of non-powered heroes like him in the history of the funny books to say nothing of prose literature - most pointedly the Bat-comics themselves have often referenced Zorro as a source of the character's inspiration. True comic book non-powered guys (at least a couple of which precede him) include Sandman, Green Arrow, the original Atom, the Crimson Avenger, the original Black Canary, and Wildcat, just from the early days. If you want to make a distinction between characters with uber powers and those that don't thats fine, but its unusual that it affects the story - the good guys end up fighting the bad guys because they can, whether they earned their abilities (exercise and ovaltine) or lucked into them (glowwy spider bites).

This is what connects these stories to the things that made them and the traditions they attempt (attempt, I say) to carry forward - your Robin Hood, your King Arthur, your Scaramouche and Three Musketeers , right up through the pulps and The Shadow and Conan. I'm not sure a distinction between "Superhero" and what might be regarded as more traditional "Adventure" fiction (Indiana Jones?) is ordinarily useful.

[Antoine Doinel]

New Joker poster.

[Serris]

DK Poster

CC Jubilee

Does anybody else find these two to be uncannily similar?

[mfunk9786]

Wow, IMAX tickets in my area for the 12:01 am show are already sold out, and they've opened up sales for a show at 3:20 am. I've never seen this happen before. This movie's going to make so much money.

I elected to see it on IMAX on Friday night, rather than see it on standard 35mm at midnight. I can't recall the last time I've been so excited for a sequel to a movie that I didn't care for very much in the first place.

[Cde.]

I elected to see it on IMAX on Friday night, rather than see it on standard 35mm at midnight. I can't recall the last time I've been so excited for a sequel to a movie that I didn't care for very much in the first place.

Marketing is working.

Every now and again I find myself looking forward to this, but then I remind myself of how terribly mediocre Batman Begins was. There's no great evidence this will be any different.

[mfunk9786]

I elected to see it on IMAX on Friday night, rather than see it on standard 35mm at midnight. I can't recall the last time I've been so excited for a sequel to a movie that I didn't care for very much in the first place.

Marketing is working.

Every now and again I find myself looking forward to this, but then I remind myself of how terribly mediocre Batman Begins was. There's no great evidence this will be any different.

I tend to disagree with that sentiment when it comes to this franchise. The Joker is a much more effective, interesting, and frightening villain than the Scarecrow; Maggie Gyllenhaal is a much more engaging and talented actress than Katie Holmes; and we get to skip the whole boring pre-Batman plot that clogged up the first act of Batman Begins.

I'd say those are reasons enough to be excited.

[Antoine Doinel]

Nolan talks to Wired about the film's digital effects (and lack thereof) as well as shooting in IMAX. He also confirms that there were no post-production audio overdubs/loops done of Ledger's performance.

Also, another new TV spot.

[chaddoli]

I'm somewhat confused about the whole IMAX thing. Now that there are reports of screenings already selling out I need to make my decision on how to view this. "Key sequences" are filmed in IMAX? Does this mean if I go see this on an IMAX screen that for most of the feature the frame will be smaller (normal sized in a theater), then for the big set pieces it'll blow up to a full IMAX image? That sounds kind of annoying and distracting. The small to full size blowup in Shine a Light worked because it was b&w doc footage to begin with and blew up when the Stones started the concert, but going back and forth.....

I don't know, I may just see this on a regular screen.

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

"Key sequences" are filmed in IMAX? Does this mean if I go see this on an IMAX screen that for most of the feature the frame will be smaller (normal sized in a theater), then for the big set pieces it'll blow up to a full IMAX image?

Why would they do that? Why wouldn't they just blow up the 35mm segments to "full IMAX" size like almost every other DMR release to date? Just because Shine a Light alternated frame sizes doesn't oblige any other DMR release to do the same.

[Cde.]

Every now and again I find myself looking forward to this, but then I remind myself of how terribly mediocre Batman Begins was. There's no great evidence this will be any different.

The Joker is a much more effective, interesting, and frightening villain than the Scarecrow; Maggie Gyllenhaal is a much more engaging and talented actress than Katie Holmes; and we get to skip the whole boring pre-Batman plot that clogged up the first act of Batman Begins.

For me, the opening section where Bruce trains with ninjas (?!) is admittedly cliche, but still the most interesting part of the film. Once he returns to Gotham and dons the suit the whole thing just collapsed under its own weight. Very dull, with terribly uninspired art-direction for a franchise that really needs a great look. Batman Begins always felt it was straining too hard to be 'dark' and the plot didn't move me at all.

I have to admit that The Dark Knight looks far more structurally and visually interesting though. I just hope Maggie Gyllenhaall doesn't defeat the Joker when he attempts to menace her by shocking him with a handheld device.