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

Handsome Bob

Mickeroo wrote: »

Surely it must be!?!

Fair play to Nolan, he really is destroying any idea that these bat films are firmly grounded in realism. I never thought he'd use Bane or Catwoman, now this! I'm so excited!

Mickeroo

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Fair play to Nolan, he really is destroying any idea that these bat films are firmly grounded in realism. I never thought he'd use Bane or Catwoman, now this! I'm so excited!

He'll probably come up some water tight sctentific theories to explain everything I'm sure :P Yea I was extremely surprised (and a little dismayed by Catwoman tbh) that he would use either of those characters, I reckon in the case of Bane anyway he will be depicted slightly differently to what we're used to.

BopNiblets

Oh god... do I click the link or reveal the spoiler?
Will it be spoiled for me later anyway...?

*hand slowly starts to reach for the mouse.... other hand grabs it!*
NO!

Josey Wales

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Fair play to Nolan, he really is destroying any idea that these bat films are firmly grounded in realism. I never thought he'd use Bane or Catwoman,

Mickeroo wrote: »

Yea I was extremely surprised (and a little dismayed by Catwoman tbh)

Has Nolan even confirmed that Catwoman is in the film? Did the press release not say that Anne Hathaway would be playing Selina Kyle? There is the possibility they could just have her play that role and not use her Catwoman persona.

Handsome Bob

For TDK, all of the press releases only referred to Eckhart as playing Harvey Dent.

Sad Professor

Josey Wales wrote: »

Has Nolan even confirmed that Catwoman is in the film? Did the press release not say that Anne Hathaway would be playing Selina Kyle? There is the possibility they could just have her play that role and not use her Catwoman persona.

Sure, but what would be the point? Selina is Catwoman, Catwoman is Selina. People read far too much into her only being listed as Selina in the press release. Eckhart was only announced as playing Harvey Dent in TDK. Besides, Pfister more or less confirmed that she's playing Catwoman.

Sad Professor

Btw, what film does everyone think will be the key influence on TDKR? Before Begins started shooting Nolan screened Blade Runner to the crew as an example of the type of film he wanted to make. For TDK he showed them Heat. What film do you think he might have screened for them this time?

pixelburp

Sad Professor wrote: »

Btw, what film does everyone think will be the key influence on TDKR? Before Begins started shooting Nolan screened Blade Runner to the crew as an example of the type of film he wanted to make. For TDK he showed them Heat. What film do you think he might have screened for them this time?

Weekend at Bernies.

Looking at those set photos, I can't seriously imagine that Nolan would suddenly do an about-face on the "realism" angle and decide to introduce immortality-inducing swimming pools. Seems like a bit of a stretch. I suspect the answer is going to be far more mundane than we think: that shade of green may suggest some sort of CGI compositing is going to be done.

Mickeroo

pixelburp wrote: »

Weekend at Bernies.

Looking at those set photos, I can't seriously imagine that Nolan would suddenly do an about-face on the "realism" angle and suddenly decide to introduce immortality-inducing swimming pools. Seems like a bit of a stretch. I suspect the answer is going to be far more mundane than we think: that shade of green may suggest some sort of CGI compositing is going to be done.

Bats survived a fall from a high-rise building which totalled a car in the last one. It's impossible to tell if it is indeed

the lazarus pit

but I think it would be no more of a stretch than introducing the norse god of thunder into the same movie as Iron Man.

pixelburp

Mickeroo wrote: »

Bats survived a fall from a high-rise building which totalled a car in the last one. It's impossible to tell if it is indeed

the lazarus pit

but I think it would be no more of a stretch than introducing the norse god of thunder into the same movie as Iron Man.

Yeah but there's a big difference between stretching the laws of physics & human endurance when it comes to film action - which nearly every other Hollywood action movie does, from Die Hard to ugh... Die Hard 4 - and introducing pseudo-science that smacks of magic & the supernatural.

There's equally no point comparing this with the Iron Man / Thor situation as it's completely different franchises, director, mythology etc. etc. Let them do what they want to do; we've yet to see whether Iron Man and Thor can actually live in the same film

tony1kenobi

Sad Professor wrote: »

Btw, what film does everyone think will be the key influence on TDKR? Before Begins started shooting Nolan screened Blade Runner to the crew as an example of the type of film he wanted to make. For TDK he showed them Heat. What film do you think he might have screened for them this time?

The Lion King surely?

krudler

They can just have Morgan Freeman say the pool rejuvenates injuries/old age, and it'll be grand, because its Morgan Freeman, anything he says has instant gravitas, from prison breaks to curving bullets around corners, if you need something ridiculous to sound not ridiculous, have Morgan Freeman say it

Handsome Bob

pixelburp wrote: »

Weekend at Bernies.

Looking at those set photos, I can't seriously imagine that Nolan would suddenly do an about-face on the "realism" angle and decide to introduce immortality-inducing swimming pools. Seems like a bit of a stretch. I suspect the answer is going to be far more mundane than we think: that shade of green may suggest some sort of CGI compositing is going to be done.

I'm skeptical myself, but Pence and Bale are both in India filming scenes. Now they could be filming separate scenes of course, then again, they might not be. :pac:

Mickeroo

pixelburp wrote: »

There's equally no point comparing this with the Iron Man / Thor situation as it's completely different franchises, director, mythology etc. etc. Let them do what they want to do; we've yet to see whether Iron Man and Thor can actually live in the same film

I disagree entirely, the fact that Mjolnir was

in Iron Man 2

and Agent Coulson has been popping up in both films has me convinced they'll co-exist happily. If Stark had shown up in THor it wouldn't have seemed one bit out of place. And its a valid comparison because Iron Man was quite similar to Batman in that he only uses technology

Plus the supernatural melds fine with Batman in the comics and animated series even though a lot of them are just as much set in reality as the two Nolan movies.

:P

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBpXt8_6xs

Mellor

Mickeroo wrote: »

Bats survived a fall from a high-rise building which totalled a car in the last one. It's impossible to tell if it is indeed

the lazarus pit

but I think it would be no more of a stretch than introducing the norse god of thunder into the same movie as Iron Man.

Batman and iron man are both just "men" with fancy gadgets and lots of money. But Nolans Batman is a lot more grounded in reality than Iron man was, the the whole suit idea simple isn't possible (jetpack and expskeletons have been built, but nothing in the movie is possible) I'd be surprised in Nolan went that way

pixelburp

Mickeroo wrote: »

I disagree entirely, the fact that Mjolnir was Spoiler: in Iron Man 2 and Agent Coulson has been popping up in both films has me convinced they'll co-exist happily. If Stark had shown up in THor it wouldn't have seemed one bit out of place. And its a valid comparison because Iron Man was quite similar to Batman in that he only uses technology

Plus the supernatural melds fine with Batman in the comics and animated series even though a lot of them are just as much set in reality as the two Nolan movies.

I disagree, as so far the overlapping has just been fanboy hints and winks, with the odd secondary character popping up, ala Agent Coulsen. As for Iron Man's similarity with Bats, well that's fine, but comparing the tone of both movies makes the strange & far-out fit far better in the comic stylings of Iron Man / Thor, than the overt & gritty "reality" of Nolan's Batman franchise.

It doesn't matter what is or isn't in the comics, Nolan's movies have taken a very specific direction and outlook on the Batman universe; there haven't even been any fanboy hints of a wider "super" world in this new franchise. To suddenly introduce some degree of the supernatural or "wacky" pseudo-science I don't believe would work. The operative word being "believe" because Nolan could yet knock it out of the park.

krudler

pixelburp wrote: »

I disagree, as so far the overlapping has just been fanboy hints and winks, with the odd secondary character popping up, ala Agent Coulsen. As for Iron Man's similarity with Bats, well that's fine, but comparing the tone of both movies makes the strange & far-out fit far better in the comic stylings of Iron Man / Thor, than the overt & gritty "reality" of Nolan's Batman franchise.

It doesn't matter what is or isn't in the comics, Nolan's movies have taken a very specific direction and outlook on the Batman universe; there haven't even been any fanboy hints of a wider "super" world in this new franchise. To suddenly introduce some degree of the supernatural or "wacky" pseudo-science I don't believe would work. The operative word being "believe" because Nolan could yet knock it out of the park.

weaponised hallucinogenic gas that makes your worst fears come true and sonar with pinpoint accuracy showing a fully 3D world with sound nonwithstanding of course :pac:

Nolan did kind paint himself into a corner with the realistic Batman angle, even though its not realistic at all, the first movie has ninjas in it for feck sake, ninjas!

Mickeroo

pixelburp wrote: »

I disagree, as so far the overlapping has just been fanboy hints and winks, with the odd secondary character popping up, ala Agent Coulsen. As for Iron Man's similarity with Bats, well that's fine, but comparing the tone of both movies makes the strange & far-out fit far better in the comic stylings of Iron Man / Thor, than the overt & gritty "reality" of Nolan's Batman franchise.

It doesn't matter what is or isn't in the comics, Nolan's movies have taken a very specific direction and outlook on the Batman universe; there haven't even been any fanboy hints of a wider "super" world in this new franchise. To suddenly introduce some degree of the supernatural or "wacky" pseudo-science I don't believe would work. The operative word being "believe" because Nolan could yet knock it out of the park.

The realism in batman is no different to Iron Man, he performs feats equally as impossible in both batman movies, the tone is darker, but that's all. I'd be surprised if Nolan introduced any more supernatural elements in this next one, even though Batman Begins hints at quite a lot of supernatural stuff going on with the league of shadows. Nolan has taken a specific direction, but as to where that leads we can't be sure, but the fact that Ra's Al Ghul (sp?) was in the first movie would logically mean the pit exists within that universe in some form or another. WE'll see when the movie comes out I guess

And actual presence of Mjolnir in Iron Man 2 and Tony Stark appearing in Incredible Hulk is more than a fanboy hint and wink, those movies are all very clearly set in the same universe.

Sad Professor

There was never anything remotely realistic about Nolan's Batman. In fact, the lack of realism was the reason I was so disappointed with Begins. However, there is undoubtedly a very strong sense of verisimilitude to Nolan's Batman. In other words, Nolan tries to create a universe in which these things are believable.

For example, as already mentioned, a man falling several stories onto a car and surviving is not realistic. But Nolan spent a a great deal of time in the first film showing how Bruce became Batman, how he trained and how his gadgets work. As a result, within the context of the universe Nolan has established, we believe that Batman is able to survive a fall like that.

But consistency is essential, which is why introducing a supernatural aspect won't work. Nolan has been going in a very existential, Michael Mann-type direction in his last two films. It's a world that he seems very comfortable in, and I can't see him changing his approach in the third film. Bruce may well go to

India hoping that some pool will heal his injuries

, but that doesn't mean that it will.

krudler

Sad Professor wrote: »

There was never anything remotely realistic about Nolan's Batman. In fact, the lack of realism was the reason I was so disappointed with Begins. However, there is undoubtedly a very strong sense of verisimilitude to Nolan's Batman. In other words, Nolan tries to create a universe in which these things are believable.

For example, as already mentioned, a man falling several stories onto a car and surviving is not realistic. But Nolan spent a a great deal of time in the first film showing how Bruce became Batman, how he trained and how his gadgets work. As a result, within the context of the universe Nolan has established, we believe that Batman is able to survive a fall like that.

But consistency is essential, which is why introducing a supernatural aspect won't work. Nolan has been going in a very existential, Michael Mann-type direction in his last two films. It's a world that he seems very comfortable in, and I can't see him changing his approach in the third film. Bruce may well go to

India hoping that some pool will heal his injuries

, but that doesn't mean that it will.

Its all about context, in fairness you cant really complain about realism in a movie where a billionaire playboy has gadgets that dont exist and goes around at night dressed as a giant flying rodent beating up people who like to wear clown makeup and scarecrow masks. Believability within the universe itself is fine, if a plant can make you see light flying out of peoples eyes and giant monsters walking around Gotham then

Bruce trying to find a non medical cure for his back injury (if thats where they go with it) isnt that far past it.

Mickeroo

krudler wrote: »

Its all about context, in fairness you cant really complain about realism in a movie where a billionaire playboy has gadgets that dont exist and goes around at night dressed as a giant flying rodent beating up people who like to wear clown makeup and scarecrow masks. Believability within the universe itself is fine, if a plant can make you see light flying out of peoples eyes and giant monsters walking around Gotham then

Bruce trying to find a non medical cure for his back injury (if thats where they go with it) isnt that far past it.

Not to mention a bomb that instantly evaporates all the water in the city.

Liamario

POTENTIAL SPOILER

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Has-Bane-s-Dark-Knight-Rises-Origin-Been-Revealed-24609.html

Handsome Bob

Liamario wrote: »

POTENTIAL SPOILER

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Has-Bane-s-Dark-Knight-Rises-Origin-Been-Revealed-24609.html

I don't get the logic of the article. The Lazarus Pit is too unrealistic for these films, yet a big well of venom isn't?

senordingdong

krudler wrote: »

Nolan did kind paint himself into a corner with the realistic Batman angle, even though its not realistic at all, the first movie has ninjas in it for feck sake, ninjas!

I think so too.

I feel TDK undid all the realism of BB.
With this in mind I see no reason why TDKR wouldn't continue down this road.

Mellor

Mickeroo wrote: »

The realism in batman is no different to Iron Man, he performs feats equally as impossible in both batman movies, the tone is darker, but that's all.

Sad Professor wrote: »

For example, as already mentioned, a man falling several stories onto a car and surviving is not realistic.

I'm not makign a case that nolan's Batman is realistic. It isn't.
But it's no where near the level of Ironman.
Falling on to the car is one thing, but the idea that a human could fly around in a suit at mach speed and not be turned into mush is nonsense. Even ignoring the impact from landing and crashes which alone would kill him (he fell on a car from a lot higher than a few stories), even flying and turning at those speeds would mess him up.

People might moan about the technology behind the 3D sonar not being possible, which is true. But starks chest generator :rolleyes: Basically runs the suit on nothing, is a far bigger leap of faith.

The obvious answer is that the suit is so hi tech - which is nonsense.
his skeleton would be crushed - but ignoring that he was blasted miles away with when escaping the cave in Iraq and that was in a low tech suit.

Using Iron-man and thor for justification of TDKR being allowed to take it further is silly. i for one will be disappointed if Nolan takes TKDR much further into the fantasy world. a little past TDK would be ok, but not much.

Mickeroo

I get what you're saying, but it looked to me like bats fell somewhere in the region of 20 stories, maybe more, there was no reason to think his suit can take that impact much less Rachel Dawes' dress, where as they make it very clear in Iron Man that his suits can(except the one he made in the cave, that was as silly as bats' suit taking the fall). Both films require a similar suspension of disbelief but then they wouldn't be sci-fi/superhero movies if they didn't. I still think the Thor/Iron Man comparison is sound, there's nothing magical in either Iron Man movies. Having said that, I'd be equally as surprised as you if the lazarus pit shows up, but as said above the pit is no more ludicrous than the venom which makes Bane so strong, so its hard to know what direction Nolan will take with Bane either. Anyways, kinda going round in circles here....

Pepe LeFrits

I always thought that the implication was that bats' cape was deployed and slowed the fall sufficiently for him to survive. That he landed on a car roof, as opposed to concrete, would also have helped.

Mickeroo

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

I always thought that the implication was that bats' cape was deployed and slowed the fall sufficiently for him to survive. That he landed on a car roof, as opposed to concrete, would also have helped.

Pretty sure he didn't deploy the cape, thats what I thought too but I saw it again a week or two ago and didn't seem like he did, could be wrong though.....


God we're such nerds....

Pepe LeFrits

heh heh, indeed.

The FAQ on IMDB reckons the cape was partially deployed. His suit could have some degree of shock-absorbing capablity too. I just read an interesting article there about a construction worker in New York who fell 500 feet but only broke 10 bones. He grabbed onto some scaffolding as he fell and it provided enough resistance to reduce his speed.

Anyway, slightly off topic

Vokes

Cape was deployed but wasn't strong enough for 2 people, so it sort've ...broke ? That's what I had always thought anyways. Seemed reasonably realistic anyway.