The Dark Knight Rises - Pre-release Discussion [** NO SPOILERS PLEASE **]

paddy kerins

Possible Batwing?



The more **** that leaks from this film the more I lose faith in it. From all the set pics we've seen it looks like it's gonna be one big cheese-fest

krudler

^ just looks like a removable cover for the chassis of the tumbler.

and the set pics arent in context. if you saw pics of Batman Begins where Batman was surrounded by ninjas and Cillian Murpy was riding a horse you would have thought Nolan had lost his mind. Yet it worked in the film.

paddy kerins

krudler wrote: »

^ just looks like a removable cover for the chassis of the tumbler.

and the set pics arent in context. if you saw pics of Batman Begins where Batman was surrounded by ninjas and Cillian Murpy was riding a horse you would have thought Nolan had lost his mind. Yet it worked in the film.

True. I'm just not gonna pay any attention to any more leaked set pics.

Anyway here's the supposed Batwing in video form

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1Y4EJOZ6c0

Turtyturd

paddy kerins wrote: »

Possible Batwing?

http://media.comicbookmovie.com/images/users/uploads/20773/371034986.jpg
The more **** that leaks from this film the more I lose faith in it. From all the set pics we've seen it looks like it's gonna be one big cheese-fest

Eh....that's quite obviously the Bat-Crane.

Mr Freeze

Was gonna say that's just a Tumbler or part of one but the video definitely looks more like a bat wing type thingy!

Didn't expect that in a Nolan flick!

I do kinda think a lot of these leaks could be purposely to mis direct us but that bat wing thing would be a seriously expensive looking way to throw us off the trail.

paddy kerins

Yeah it's definitely the Batwing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pg4xDYJh8Os

Mellor

Looks a bit mad tbh, not sure if I like it

Mickeroo

looking like Harvey Dent could return after this spoilery new poster......

Oafley Jones

paddy kerins wrote: »

Yeah it's definitely the Batwing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pg4xDYJh8Os

Batcopter apparently. Rotor blades will be added in post.

Sad Professor

Whatever it is, it looks pretty awesome if you ask me. All the people moaning about it need to do themselves a favour and stop looking at amateur set photos and video from the set. It's called amateur for a reason. Things look and sound very different after being shot through the lens of an IMAX camera and edited together with sound effects, musical score, etc.

And I don't think it's a helicopter. There's not enough room for rotor blades. It looks more like some type of VTOL (vertical take-off and landing) aircraft. Similar to the harrier jet in True Lies:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xvVUgZEXWM

pixelburp

I have to say, the backlash by the great unwashed of the internet is hilarious at this stage. It's like people are going out of their way to be reactionary & foolish. As if they're searching for set photos & videos, just so they can feel disappointed & aggrieved. I'm genuinely amazed people are actually judging a movie - before filming has even finished - based on set photos.

This just in - The Millennium Falcon is not a real spaceship & was actually just a plastic model on a pulley.

Why_So_Serious?

pixelburp wrote: »

This just in - The Millennium Falcon is not a real spaceship & was actually just a plastic model on a pulley.

:eek: u just ruined my childhood, and my belief that there was ever a decent spaceship out there somewhere :P

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

I have to say, the backlash by the great unwashed of the internet is hilarious at this stage.

Wait till the first proper trailer is released and see what they say then

fontanalis

pixelburp wrote: »

I have to say, the backlash by the great unwashed of the internet is hilarious at this stage. It's like people are going out of their way to be reactionary & foolish. As if they're searching for set photos & videos, just so they can feel disappointed & aggrieved. I'm genuinely amazed people are actually judging a movie - before filming has even finished - based on set photos.

This just in - The Millennium Falcon is not a real spaceship & was actually just a plastic model on a pulley.

In fairness they were right about Heath Ledgers casting.

Handsome Bob

The first trailer will be released and they'll be all jizzing in their pants upon viewing it.

pixelburp

fontanalis wrote: »

In fairness they were right about Heath Ledgers casting.

In your opinion, and you'd be in the minority tbh; the general consensus has been praise for Ledger's personal performance, and a performance that redefined the cinematic character of the Joker. The ludicrous overreaction by fanboys upon his casting just showed how childishly immature, reactionary, and to be honest - idiotic, the internet can be.

paddy kerins

pixelburp wrote: »

In your opinion, and you'd be in the minority tbh; the general consensus has been praise for Ledger's personal performance, and a performance that redefined the cinematic character of the Joker. The ludicrous overreaction by fanboys upon his casting just showed how childishly immature, reactionary, and to be honest - idiotic, the internet can be.

I think he may have been joking

LighterGuy

scene of catwoman riding down the street

Duggy747

Was definitely not expecting the flying machine. I hope this film doesn't go too far out there with it's ideas. I found the whole Sonar thing in TDK just didn't fit with the rest of the movie.

Anywho, the good thing about Nolan is he's always one for practical effects so at least they're actually driving this thing around the streets and not just sticking a CGI model on some blank footage.

Heh, looks like Batman isn't faring too well in controlling it either :pac:

LighterGuy

LighterGuy wrote: »

scene of catwoman riding down the street

YEOW!

I just watched Season 1 and Season 2 of the animated series and I like the way Catwoman isn't a villain, or an accomplice. It's more complicated than that. I'm kind of hoping (and picturing) Nolan going down that route with her.

Mr Freeze

PhoebeCarter wrote: »

nolan has done close to no mistakes in his career so far, and i hope that this won't be the first one. i have this feeling that casting hathaway wasn't the best decision, and it could bring the whole thing down alot, as cat woman is one of the most iconic villains ever. dunno, hope i'm mistaken.

Would kind of agree with ya, Hathaway was a surprise casting choice, time to break out the old Ledger gem of a reference, but he proved us wrong with the Joker when Ledger was 1st announced.

And I would say that Katie Holmes was a huge casting mistake in BB, and it didn't ruin the film, I was hoping Bruce would just deck her every time she appeared on screen moaning though.

Handsome Bob

The guy over at batman-news.com got info from a source ages ago that said Catwoman steals the Batpod. He didn't pay attention to it at the time but after the first official image of her was leaked, he of course went back and had a full look at everything the source said. The same source stated that WB are very excited about Hathaway's performance and that she may be the best written character in the franchise to date. Spoilers ensue:

http://batman-news.com/2011/08/06/exclusive-details-on-catwoman-in-the-dark-knight-rises/

fontanalis

pixelburp wrote: »

In your opinion, and you'd be in the minority tbh; the general consensus has been praise for Ledger's personal performance, and a performance that redefined the cinematic character of the Joker. The ludicrous overreaction by fanboys upon his casting just showed how childishly immature, reactionary, and to be honest - idiotic, the internet can be.

Yes I agree, and that's why I'mnot worried about anythign I've seen. Regarding Catwoman, I'm not too fussed about what I've seen as I think the angle they will go is that of a burglar. What has been seen so far woudl go with that and that's ok, now if you're someone who sits in their mothers basement having fantasies about what you want that character to be wearing during your imaginary coupling then nothing will please you.
The jet/copter thingy I think will look deadly, reminds in some way of the machines from the terminator series.

cursai

http://ie.movies.ign.com/articles/118/1187559p1.html

Go on go on go on




SPOILERS

yourdeadwright

Does anyone think we will ever see a good 18's rated Batman movie,
Considering he is one of the darker comic hero's im a little surprised they haven't already made a gritter batman flick, Dark Knight was the darkest so far,

Sad Professor

They weren't gritty, but Burton's two films were pretty dark, darker than anything Nolan has done. Given that the general perception in Hollywood was that the problem with Burton's take on Batman was that it was too dark, I can't see them ever deciding to go darker. And I suspect the big criticism of Nolan's next film will be that it's too serious. People already say this about TDK. So if anything I can see the next reboot going in a slightly less serious direction.

But yeah I'd love a really dark and gritty take on Batman along the lines of Batman Year One.

aidan_walsh

Sad Professor wrote: »

They weren't gritty, but Burton's two films were pretty dark, darker than anything Nolan has done. Given that the general perception in Hollywood was that the problem with Burton's take on Batman was that it was too dark, I can't see them ever deciding to go darker. And I suspect the big criticism of Nolan's next film will be that it's too serious. People already say this about TDK. So if anything I can see the next reboot going in a slightly less serious direction.

But yeah I'd love a really dark and gritty take on Batman along the lines of Batman Year One.

Speaking of Year One, the animated movie will be interesting to see.

Mickeroo

aidan_walsh wrote: »

Speaking of Year One, the animated movie will be interesting to see.

I can't wait to see that, they're going adapting The Dark Knight Returns next!!

Oafley Jones

Sad Professor wrote: »

They weren't gritty, but Burton's two films were pretty dark, darker than anything Nolan has done. Given that the general perception in Hollywood was that the problem with Burton's take on Batman was that it was too dark, I can't see them ever deciding to go darker. And I suspect the big criticism of Nolan's next film will be that it's too serious. People already say this about TDK. So if anything I can see the next reboot going in a slightly less serious direction.

But yeah I'd love a really dark and gritty take on Batman along the lines of Batman Year One.

Do you really think that Year One is really that dark and gritty? Honestly, I always got a weird slightly warped golden age vibe of it. I certainly wouldn't describe it as any more "dark and gritty" than Nolan's movies although I must confess to not really caring for Miller and have always found his stuff slightly puerile. Of the DD, TDK influences I'd much prefer the Sale/Loeb books. As for Burton, I'd firmly place his work as a product of his Goth aesthetic.

Anytime I hear people wishing for dark and gritty in their comic books/movies I'm not sure what they're looking for? Do they want Batman to investigate a child porn ring villan - try to sell that toy to kids - or is it OTT violence they're after. To be honest when I usually hear D&G in the context of comic books I usually think of hack writing because D&G is the easiest go-to for a story that's meant to be "adult and edgy". That's not to say you can't have good D&G stories e.g. Batman Beyond:Return of the Joker is probably one of the darkest things - probably because I didn't expect it - I've seen in the Batman universe.



The Dark and Gritty Batman and Robin

eroticvultcha

Grant Morrisson's Arkham Asylum is definitely one that could be legitimately classified as dark, anyway.

Why_So_Serious?

eroticvultcha wrote: »

Grant Morrisson's Arkham Asylum is definitely one that could be legitimately classified as dark, anyway.

Morrison can't write ****....Should read the Joker book by Brian Azzarello and Lee Bermejo, it was one of the most enjoyable Joker Stories i'd read and depending what way you look at stuff being Dark and Gritty it could be a good contender.

Brian Azzarrello should write more Batman stuff i think

Fiesta111

bnt wrote: »

There are various tidbits on the Batman On Film blog, including:

• Nolan wants to shoot the whole thing on IMAX film, is not keen on 3D at all;
• Emily Blunt wants to be Catwoman;
• Cillan Murphy has no idea whether the Scarecrow will be back.

As for me: I still want to know what happened to Zsasz, since such an evil psychopath should not be at liberty in Gotham for so many years. :eek:

I think emily blunt would be a great catwoman! if i thought about it anyway!

Sad Professor

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Do you really think that Year One is really that dark and gritty? Honestly, I always got a weird slightly warped golden age vibe of it. I certainly wouldn't describe it as any more "dark and gritty" than Nolan's movies although I must confess to not really caring for Miller and have always found his stuff slightly puerile. Of the DD, TDK influences I'd much prefer the Sale/Loeb books. As for Burton, I'd firmly place his work as a product of his Goth aesthetic.

Anytime I hear people wishing for dark and gritty in their comic books/movies I'm not sure what they're looking for?

Well personally I’d like something a bit more grounded in reality and the law of physics, which Nolan’s films certainly aren’t. I always found it strange that people complained about about the scene in TDK where Batman and Rachel fall several stories onto a car without a scratch but had no problem with a CGI Batman flying around with his magic cape in Begins.

I think I preferred Burton’s whole psychological take on the character. Keaton’s Batman is a deeply damaged individual whose vigilantism borders on the psychotic, where as Bale’s Batman is a bit too much of self-aware existential hero to be fully believable.

I’m not an expert on Batman comics though and it’s a long time since I read Year One, but I probably responded to it visually more than anything else. I like the way the city was depicted, the focus on Gordon and the fact that Batman really messes up.

krudler

Sad Professor wrote: »

I think I preferred Burton’s whole psychological take on the character. Keaton’s Batman is a deeply damaged individual whose vigilantism borders on the psychotic, where as Bale’s Batman is a bit too much of self-aware existential hero to be fully believable.

Bale's Batman is taking on mob bosses and trying to give the entire city hope, whereas Keaton's Batman was happy beating the sh1t out of petty thugs stealing people's wallets. I always liked that about the Burton one in the beginning, there isnt some call for a hero its just a guy with some mental issues cracking skulls at night time that escalates into something bigger, he doesnt become Batman to stop the mob, just to do what cops won't.

Burtons movies are way darker than Nolan's, Batman Returns is still the darkest movie by far, there's not many comic movies that begin with a disfigured child's parents throwing their infant into a sewer at Christmas time and end with him as an adult trying to murder the first born sons of the rich in the city.

I like how theres essentially 3 different Batman franchises, Burtons, Schumachers and Nolan's, gothic, comic and realistic (well as realistic as a movie with ninjas and fear gas can be anyway). Its funny how people complained about the Rachel/Batman falling scene as unrealistic, yet him being dragged through the streets of Gotham attached to a speeding train in Begins isnt ridiculed at all, he would have went around a corner and splatted into a street lamp ffs.

Mickeroo

My favourite thing about Nolan's movies is how right they're getting Batman's relationship with Gordon. I always thought it was a shame they overlooked that in the Burton movies, the camaraderie and mutual respect between Gordon and Bats was always one of my favourite things in the animated series and the books.

Sad Professor

I think “serious” is the word I would use to describe Nolan’s films rather than realistic. As I’ve said before, there’s nothing realistic about his take on Batman, but he does craft a world in which all this is potentially believable. He achieves this largely by treating everything seriously. It’s a lot easier for an audience to suspend disbelief when the film isn’t laughing at itself, which is the problem with Schumacher’s films and arguably but to a far lesser extent Burton’s as well. In that sense Nolan’s films are made in the same spirt as Donner’s Superman. I suppose the critical difference between Nolan and Burton's Batman is that Nolan believes in heroes but Burton doesn't.

One thing that has kind of been lost in the furore over the set photos though is just how impressive it is that Nolan is shooting all this stuff for real with nary a blue screen in sight. I was watching some of the extras on the TDK Blu-ray recently and he even wanted a stunt guy to jump off that building in Hong Kong but they wouldn't let him.

LighterGuy

Sad Professor wrote: »

....One thing that has kind of been lost in the furore over the set photos though is just how impressive it is that Nolan is shooting all this stuff for real with nary a blue screen in sight. I was watching some of the extras on the TDK Blu-ray recently and he even wanted a stunt guy to jump off that building in Hong Kong but they wouldn't let him.

I shall and will always respect that the most about Christopher Nolan. That he hates the use of cgi. To wanting (as you say) have a stuntman do that 'gliding' bit in Hong Kong for the Dark Knight. Every other director out there would sooner do it with cgi. Good on him.

Another documentary clip from the Dark Knight even says how annoyed he was that the windows got stolen from the second floor of the hospital they built and blew up. Having to comprimise on putting some windows in later with cgi in post production.

Only problem is tho. While he reduced the amount of CGI possible on Inception. It was still necessary for most shots. So will he have a different view on the dark knight rises in regards to using more cgi shots this time around?

Sad Professor

I doubt it. It might have seemed like it had more, but Inception actually had less visual effect shots than TDK.

LighterGuy

Sad Professor wrote: »

I doubt it. It might have seemed like it had more, but Inception actually had less visual effect shots than TDK.

Inception had less shots than TDK?
Serious?

Sad Professor

Yeah. Inception had about 500 visual effect shots, while TDK had about 650. But not all computer generated effects are noticeable. The Social Network had 1000 effect shots.

LighterGuy

Sad Professor wrote: »

Yeah. Inception had about 500 visual effect shots, while TDK had about 650. But not all computer generated effects are noticeable. The Social Network had 1000 effect shots.

Makes sense when you think about it. I totally forgot the Two face scenes not saying that racks up alot, but definitely some.

Dman001

Sad Professor wrote: »

Yeah. Inception had about 500 visual effect shots, while TDK had about 650. But not all computer generated effects are noticeable. The Social Network had 1000 effect shots.

:eek: It's been almost a year since I've seen the film, but the only obvious use of visual effects in The Social Network I can think off hand was doing the Winklevoss twins.

Edit: Opps just re-read that post.

Mellor

I always think that people let the Schumacher sequels mask how dark the Burton films were. some of the scenes with penguin eating raw fish, and the stabbing soembody with a feather blade complete with blood are far more graphic than any other superhero movie.
I can always remeber the two of them being the first movies rated 15s that I watched.

LighterGuy wrote: »

Only problem is tho. While he reduced the amount of CGI possible on Inception. It was still necessary for most shots. So will he have a different view on the dark knight rises in regards to using more cgi shots this time around?

I don't think inception has that much CGI, given the material.
It has plenty of special effect of course, but Nolan only went to CGI when he had to and used physical effects where he could. Eg that corridor scene wasn't CGI it was an actual corrior and flywires (first example i can think of)

Kess73

Mellor wrote: »

I always think that people let the Schumacher sequels mask how dark the Burton films were. some of the scenes with penguin eating raw fish, and the stabbing soembody with a feather blade complete with blood are far more graphic than any other superhero movie.
I can always remeber the two of them being the first movies rated 15s that I watched.



I don't think inception has that much CGI, given the material.
It has plenty of special effect of course, but Nolan only went to CGI when he had to and used physical effects where he could. Eg that corridor scene wasn't CGI it was an actual corrior and flywires (first example i can think of)

Gunshot blasts to the face on camera says Punisher Warzone is more graphic.:D

krudler

Mellor wrote: »

I don't think inception has that much CGI, given the material.
It has plenty of special effect of course, but Nolan only went to CGI when he had to and used physical effects where he could. Eg that corridor scene wasn't CGI it was an actual corrior and flywires (first example i can think of)

even the explosion outside the Parisian cafe was done for real, then augmented with cgi, huge air cannons shot all the debris at Di Caprio and Jane Exposition as they say there, must have been fun to shoot.

Mark Hamill

krudler wrote: »

even the explosion outside the Parisian cafe was done for real, then augmented with cgi, huge air cannons shot all the debris at Di Caprio and Jane Exposition as they say there, must have been fun to shoot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGdF9TQLM7s

Mellor

Kess73 wrote: »

Gunshot blasts to the face on camera says Punisher Warzone is more graphic.:D

It was also 15-20 years beforehand?????

I was refering to the fact that it was more graphic than any super hero film before then, it was the first that wasn't made for kids. I'm sure there are plenty of examples of more voilent stuff since, especially low budget obscure stuff.

purcela

Howcome this is being filmed in Pittsburgh instead of Chicago? Gotham will look different.

paddy kerins

purcela wrote: »

Howcome this is being filmed in Pittsburgh instead of Chicago? Gotham will look different.

Probably a different section of Gotham. They'll probably film fly-overs of Chicago