Jump to content

The Dark Knight Rises thread


Kyyle23
 Share

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Jul 23, 2012 -> 02:35 AM)
I liked it even better the 2nd time around, particularly the end. Allows you to appreciate the story-telling and the visuals even more. What an incredible movie.

 

The only thing that seemed out of place that made me start thinking something was up, was the fact that Bruce Wayne had a will that left stuff to the orphans and John Blake. Where the hell over the course of the movie did he have time to do that, especially John Blake?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 402
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jul 23, 2012 -> 10:50 AM)

The only thing that seemed out of place that made me start thinking something was up, was the fact that Bruce Wayne had a will that left stuff to the orphans and John Blake. Where the hell over the course of the movie did he have time to do that, especially John Blake?

When he installed the auto-pilot on The Bat, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jul 17, 2012 -> 08:36 PM)
Watching Batman Begins right now, this movie is so severely underrated because of how good TDK was.

 

Especially Jonathan Crane/Scarecrow IMO.

I was glad to see him make an appearance in all three, however small the role.

I wish Nolan did more with that character. As for the first movie in general- I think it's the best of the three. There's something about it that the next two seem to be missing. I think the essence of whatever that is can be best viewed during the dock fight scene early in the first movie.

 

 

 

QUOTE (knightni @ Jul 20, 2012 -> 01:02 AM)
Just got back. Pretty good. 3 1/2 stars.

 

The Dark Knight was better, in my opinion.

 

2 HOURS AND 45 MINUTES

 

Bane's voice

literally made me lol

 

Sean Connery from Celebrity Jeopardy is the conclusion I reached.

 

Now that this is over and done with, my order of preference is:

 

1)Batman Begins

2)The Dark Knight

3)The Dark Knight Rises

 

I prefer The Dark Knight over The Dark Knight Rises by the smallest of margins. It's possible that this could change as it sinks in or give it another viewing.

 

That said, it was incredible. I feel sorry for any movie that I'll see for roughly a year's time. I'll most likely find myself watching it again within two weeks, and then again when it eventually begins showing at the cheap theaters like Ogden 6.

 

The thing I liked best about this movie is exactly what I wasn't too sure I would like going into it. The villain(s). Ra's Al Ghul was an excellent part of Batman Begins. To have his daughter in that role bringing the story full circle. For the last film of a trilogy, Bane by himself wouldn't have been able to cut it- it would be underwhelming when measured against the first two. Having him as the secondary villain next to Ra's Al Ghul's daughter was awesome.

Edited by Swingandalongonetoleft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jul 23, 2012 -> 01:14 PM)
One thing I noticed about these three movies is that Gotham looks different in each movie.

 

I don't know if that was done on purpose or what.

It absolutely was. In BB, Gotham was in it's worst state ever with crime and poverty, and most of the movie was set in the Narrows, the ghettos of Gotham. TDK and TDKR are in a more peaceful Gotham in which Wayne Enterprises and the police force have helped clean up the city and the streets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Jul 23, 2012 -> 12:20 PM)
It absolutely was. In BB, Gotham was in it's worst state ever with crime and poverty, and most of the movie was set in the Narrows, the ghettos of Gotham. TDK and TDKR are in a more peaceful Gotham in which Wayne Enterprises and the police force have helped clean up the city and the streets.

 

That would explain the grittiness of the first movie that I think was missed in the next two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Swingandalongonetoleft @ Jul 23, 2012 -> 01:28 PM)
That would explain the grittiness of the first movie that I think was missed in the next two.

 

I liked the second and third movie more, but I think Gotham looked the best in the first movie.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jul 23, 2012 -> 01:14 PM)
One thing I noticed about these three movies is that Gotham looks different in each movie.

 

I don't know if that was done on purpose or what.

 

 

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 23, 2012 -> 01:16 PM)
BB was filmed in England, TDK was filmed in Chicago, TDKR was in New York.

 

Actually Batman Begins was shot primarily in both England and Chicago. They used Lower Wacker Drive alot as well the city's skyline, though they did a great job hiding the main building to make it seem like it was actually not Chicago.

 

The Dark Knight was filmed primarily in Chicago.

 

The Dark Knight rises was shot in Pittsburgh, New York, LA and I think a tiny bit in New Orleans. Reason being is that Chicago was charging more to use it as a backdrop and Nolan didn't like it considering he got a lot of people to follow him in droves and start using Chicago a ton more to the point where Chicago was interested in building movie studios on the west side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 23, 2012 -> 05:15 PM)
Its actually a pretty big continuity problem as the Narrows/El dont exist in Rises. As if the entire storyline of Begins just vanished.

 

Well there was a lot less CGI used in the last two movies. Batman Begins was supposed to have such a dark overtone which was particularly grimy, and influenced by crime. Essentially, it was supposed to be ghetto Gotham as the crimelords didn't care for the city, nor the people in it. Wayne's father was trying to keep it alive. One of the symbols of that is the Narrows/EL and it being all tagged up.

 

The Chicago Board of Trade was primarily used as Wayne's HQ along with Wayne's Manor(which was shot in England I believe) in Batman Begins. In the 2nd one, it's the Daley Center IIRC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Jul 23, 2012 -> 05:36 PM)
Well there was a lot less CGI used in the last two movies. Batman Begins was supposed to have such a dark overtone which was particularly grimy, and influenced by crime. Essentially, it was supposed to be ghetto Gotham as the crimelords didn't care for the city, nor the people in it. Wayne's father was trying to keep it alive. One of the symbols of that is the Narrows/EL and it being all tagged up.

 

The Chicago Board of Trade was primarily used as Wayne's HQ along with Wayne's Manor(which was shot in England I believe) in Batman Begins. In the 2nd one, it's the Daley Center IIRC.

 

There really wasnt too much CGI in the first, really. Basically seeing through the eyes of the people who were on gas, and when the gas was released into the city. I love that Nolan stays away from CGI as much as he can

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 23, 2012 -> 05:43 PM)
There really wasnt too much CGI in the first, really. Basically seeing through the eyes of the people who were on gas, and when the gas was released into the city. I love that Nolan stays away from CGI as much as he can

Uh, they CGI'd the s*** out of Gotham in BB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 23, 2012 -> 06:02 PM)
Cities do change, but I cant name 1 city that completely lost its elevated track system or had an island disappear within 8 years.

 

Arkham was in the Narrows, its a pretty important thing to just completely forget about.

 

You doubt the powers of comics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont doubt it, if it was legitimate plot line that would be fine. But when its simply that he didnt want to spend the money to keep the continuity on a film thats going to make hundreds of millions, its hard to reconcile. I just found it silly sometimes when it switched from Pitt to NY, as if I couldnt tell the difference between bridges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 23, 2012 -> 09:42 PM)
I dont doubt it, if it was legitimate plot line that would be fine. But when its simply that he didnt want to spend the money to keep the continuity on a film thats going to make hundreds of millions, its hard to reconcile. I just found it silly sometimes when it switched from Pitt to NY, as if I couldnt tell the difference between bridges.

You are ridiculous. Seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 23, 2012 -> 09:51 PM)
Yes Im ridiculous cause I gave the film a B, or 3 stars.

 

Its not the best film ever, sorry.

 

The ridiculous part is nitpicking about the cities which I didn't even notice, giving it a B grade is perfectly understandable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 23, 2012 -> 03:24 PM)
Saw an interesting point elsewhere:

 

In the other movies, we saw and heard more from the people of Gotham. In this one, they were almost entirely background extras. The way they react to the Joker's plot to blow up the barges and Bane's plot is also 180* different.

 

That would be one of those details that gave the movie a different feel, but I couldn't pinpoint the reason after one viewing. I'd imagine that this can at least partly be attributed to it's 3/4 of a month running time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...