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

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

Turtyturd

purcela wrote: »

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

It won' really make too much difference... Gotham in TDK was a completely different city to Gotham in BB.

krudler

Turtyturd wrote: »

It won' really make too much difference... Gotham in TDK was a completely different city to Gotham in BB.

both were shot in Chicago but yeah it looks different, in TDK its a regular American city, in BB it has a massive slum in the centre and a huge monorail

Turtyturd

krudler wrote: »

both were shot in Chicago but yeah it looks different, in TDK its a regular American city, in BB it has a massive slum in the centre and a huge monorail

Yeah that's what I meant... Gotham had a distinctive look in the first film and my biggest criticism of the sequel would be that it looks like it takes place in a completely different place ( also the lack of mention of the escaped cons, bar the scarecrow).

Sad Professor

A lot of Begins was shot on sound stages as Nolan was trying to get a look similar to Blade Runner. In TDK nearly everything was shot on real locations, which he said he preferred. I think we'll see a different part of Gotham in TDKR, but it's very unlikely he'll return to the sound stage look of Begins.

krudler

Turtyturd wrote: »

Yeah that's what I meant... Gotham had a distinctive look in the first film and my biggest criticism of the sequel would be that it looks like it takes place in a completely different place ( also the lack of mention of the escaped cons, bar the scarecrow).

I much prefer the look of Gotham in Begins, its real but still comic bookish, especially The Narrows, in TDk it just looks like Chicago, nothing wrong with that its a very cinematic looking city, but in Begins it was more stylish. sure theres a Starbucks in the background of the scene where they flip the semi truck in TDK :pac:

pixelburp

In fairness though, the emphasis during the first two movies were on 2 completely separate parts of the city & 2 completely separate sections of society: the first being the Kowloon-inspired slums of The Narrows, with its forgotten population; the second more around the downtown area of the city & the "white collar" population. No more than in real life, different parts of a city can feel like worlds apart from each other.

Mickeroo

krudler wrote: »

both were shot in Chicago but yeah it looks different, in TDK its a regular American city, in BB it has a massive slum in the centre and a huge monorail

The monorail was still there in the TDK no? thought he used the pillars from it to flip jokers lorry.

I liked the feel of the city in Batman Begins, felt more like Gotham to me.

Sad Professor

Mickeroo wrote: »

The monorail was still there in the TDK no? thought he used the pillars from it to flip jokers lorry.

Those were lampposts.

If the monorail is in TDK I've never seen it. However, the Chicago El Train is visible in several scenes.

krudler

was chatting to a friend about TDKR earlier who doesnt follow movies much, until release anyway, and he was suprised to hear Tom Hardy is playing Bane considering how massive he's portrayed in the comics, not that Hardy hasnt bulked up, he certainly has, but he doesnt tower over Batman like Bane should really , its a pity he probably wouldnt have had the acting chops to pull off the role but Nathan Jones would have been a great choice, purely for the size of him (he's that dude Brad Pitt fights in the opening of Troy)

Professey Chin

krudler wrote: »

was chatting to a friend about TDKR earlier who doesnt follow movies much, until release anyway, and he was suprised to hear Tom Hardy is playing Bane considering how massive he's portrayed in the comics, not that Hardy hasnt bulked up, he certainly has, but he doesnt tower over Batman like Bane should really , its a pity he probably wouldnt have had the acting chops to pull off the role but Nathan Jones would have been a great choice, purely for the size of him (he's that dude Brad Pitt fights in the opening of Troy)

For size Nathan would be fine but if Nolans going for the cerebral proper version of Bane, Nathan would have the acting chops of a brick wall. Ive seen his attempts and remember him attempts in WWF. It wouldnt have gone well