New TDKR trailer today!!!

I just got word over at Comicbookmovie.com that a new official trailer for TDKR will be available online sometime later on today. Personally I was hoping we get the six minute prologue available online but I guess an official trailer will have to do for now!

I'll keep y'all posted in case the trailer turns up anytime soon, most likely Youtube.com!

Comicbookfan-V2 wrote:I just got word over at Comicbookmovie.com that a new official trailer for TDKR will be available online sometime later on today. Personally I was hoping we get the six minute prologue available online but I guess an official trailer will have to do for now!

I'll keep y'all posted in case the trailer turns up anytime soon, most likely Youtube.com!

Please do. I expect I'll be all over the place with work stuff and won't have time to surf YouTube for it. Thanks!

Wellbcant wait to see what they show. As for the prologue its bound to get online soon enough.

Yeah, I most likely won't go to the Tom Cruise movie at IMAX to see it & I don't believe the one in my area is gonna have it anyway. So yeah, someone 'leak' the prologue! Sure, it'll be all over the place soon enough but sheesh! Bring on the hulking 190-lb. Bane!

Interestingly the guys at SHH have already seen it:

http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/169007-weve-seen-the-dark-knight-rises-imax-prologue

We've Seen The Dark Knight Rises IMAX Prologue!
by Silas Lesnick
December 08, 2011

One of the most anticipated films of 2012, The Dark Knight Rises revealed tonight, for the first time anywhere, its six-minute prologue that can be seen before select IMAX screenings of Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, beginning December 16th. (Click here to find a participating location near you.)

Introduced by Christopher Nolan himself, the footage was unveiled at Universal City's AMC IMAX and met with rounds of heavy applause. SuperHeroHype was on hand and, while we've been asked to keep the details of the footage relatively light, here's a taste of what you can expect to see next Friday:

Even though the opening is in 35mm, the footage moves immediately to IMAX and the events that transpire during a hostage situation. We get to see Bane and an ensuing fight that takes every advantage of the IMAX frame. Think less The Dark Knight and more Inception or, even closer, an IMAX version of a James Bond film.
In his introduction, Nolan stressed the importance of returning filmgoing to the grandeur that it was for him as a child, warning that said scale, "is being chipped away at in all kinds of ways."

Though the response from the crowd was overwhelmingly positive, there was much discussion about Bane's voice. Muffled by his mask and featuring a British accent, it's difficult to fully understand exactly what he is saying (but likely intentionally).

At the conclusion of the footage, there's a rapid montage of shots, all in IMAX, that features a lot to excite fans.

"I've barely started to edit the rest of the film," Nolan cautioned with a laugh, "so don't ask me what happens at the end or anything like that."

Set for release on July 20, 2012, The Dark Knight Rises stars Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, Tom Hardy, Anne Hathaway, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Marion Cotillard, Juno Temple, Josh Pence, Daniel Sunjata and Nestor Carbonell.

Also, be sure to check back with SuperHeroHype early tomorrow morning for details on the film's viral event, Operation Early Bird.

Duh apologists are gonna 'jizz' all over themselves I expect.

The page formerly known as Singerman Hype wrote:Though the response from the crowd was overwhelmingly positive, there was much discussion about Bane's voice. Muffled by his mask and featuring a British accent, it's difficult to fully understand exactly what he is saying (but likely intentionally).

Um, whaa? His voice is muffled and indiscernible? THEY'RE NOT GOING TO EVEN FUCKING ADR/OVERDUB IT?!!? I mean, this is more than just a trailer (where half ass MIGHT fly). This is an extended preview. I have to assume that this is more or less what we'll see in the final movie... AND THEY'RE GOING TO LEAVE HIS VOICE MUFFLED?!?!?!

Yeah, "grand filmmaking" there, Nolan!

EDIT- And this kinda seems to be a problem with the movie in general. In the teaser, Gordon's sacked out in the hospital. I realize he's probably supposed to be ten kinds of fucked up but he's a little TOO indecipherable. Call me crazy but sometimes the realism of something needs to be sacrificed so that the audience can understand Whiskey Tango Foxtrot is going on.

Sooo...... This was bullshit then?

Heads up you guys, this may not have high quality definition since it happens to be leaked but this is the only video I can find that features the second trailer for TDKR!

Well, it's a cell phone video. It is what it is. In case the video's gone in the next five seconds, the only thing that really jumped out at me (that was audible) was the bit of Alfred giving a Bruce a really emo line about swearing to take care of him... and failing.

That's not the only failure going on, incidentally, but I'll spare you a repetition of my usual rant...

thecolorsblend wrote:Well, it's a cell phone video. It is what it is. In case the video's gone in the next five seconds, the only thing that really jumped out at me (that was audible) was the bit of Alfred giving a Bruce a really emo line about swearing to take care of him... and failing.

Yeah, that seemed VERY un-Alfred like, especially as he has been portrayed in Nolan's own film's.

That's not the only failure going on, incidentally, but I'll spare you a repetition of my usual rant...

Wool-coated Hardly "Bane" makes me laugh. They obviously aren't going to do anything about his height either.

Failing "Bane" is fail.

Here's what I don't get. As we were discussing in the other thread about the 6-min. prologue, here's what I don't get. I saw that but the quality was so bad! Both video and audio. So it was hard for me to get a decent grasp on the so-called 'action' that was going on. It appeared to me that some guy on the plane kept either threatening and/or killing people by opening up the plane high up. Was he dangling them out the bottom of the plane or what? I believe a gun was involved? Anyway, he comes to trench-coat Bane & carries on some dialogue with him like, did they intentionally get captured? Was he in pain without the mask? Like I said, the quality was bad, just like the 1st 'leaked' teaser trailer.

But here's the part that I don't get. The guy in question from the previous paragraph, he says something to Hardly Bane like, "You're a big guy!" HUH?! And that mirrors Hardly's own comments about him being a 'big guy'. Can someone tell me what's wrong with this picture? I wish I had some newer pics of Nolan to post so I don't have to keep posting the other one but if the shoe fits.....

Apologist Puncher wrote:Wool-coated Hardly "Bane" makes me laugh. They obviously aren't going to do anything about his height either.

Failing "Bane" is fail.

I wonder now that the reason he's wearing the coat is because somebody realized how small the dude is and wanted to cover it up as much as they can in a bulky coat. Sure, we already know he takes the coat off at least a few times but still...

Audio was hard to hear here and there. But I did like some of the visuals.

thecolorsblend wrote:I wonder now that the reason he's wearing the coat is because somebody realized how small the dude is and wanted to cover it up as much as they can in a bulky coat. Sure, we already know he takes the coat off at least a few times but still...

I'm pretty sure this is the case.

Found another leaked video of the trailer accept this one has slightly better quality!

Click here... http://www.megavideo.com/v/0LIBDESA7198d33ae0e4e4f809f3ad88b9f029c92

Comicbookfan-V2 wrote:Found another leaked video of the trailer accept this one has slightly better quality!

Click here... http://www.megavideo.com/v/0LIBDESA7198d33ae0e4e4f809f3ad88b9f029c92

It's still up.....for the moment. Definitely better quality than before but still like Cloverfield. Can't say that I'm impressed with the hulking 190-lb. Bane though!

Some of the dialogue is clearer. Bane is as garbled as in the crappier version but what can you do? Besides hire a filmmaker who gives a fuck, I mean. Also, I guess it's Selina shit-talking Bruce at that costume party or whatever that is?

thecolorsblend wrote:Some of the dialogue is clearer. Bane is as garbled as in the crappier version but what can you do? Besides hire a filmmaker who gives a fuck, I mean. Also, I guess it's Selina shit-talking Bruce at that costume party or whatever that is?

Trailer is now removed due to infringement!

As for Nolan as a filmmaker, here's some points to consider. Here's a 41-year old guy. He doesn't even have a cell phone or an e-mail address! He barely even gets on the Internet because he reasons, "That gives me more time to think." I read this in one of those articles affiliated with those links I click on here. So the dude ain't too 'tech-savvy' huh?! And we know he doesn't like CGI & prefers 'practical effects' which ain't necessarily a bad thing. I kinda like that the new Spiderman film is using some practical effects because I've heard people say that the original Raimi film looked like a cartoon at times. So 'practical effects' have their place but why does Nolan prefer them? That is the $64,000 question. Could it be because he himself is a dinosaur? Personally I think his entire 'old-timey' mindset drives his filmmaking!

As for the trailer itself, it's heavy on Bruce Wayne but almost non-existent on Batman. This is a Batman film, no? And of course, it's heavy on Hardly Bane. But the part with Anne Hathaway at the dance reminds me of how Catwoman was treated in BATMAN RETURNS. It may not be identical but it sure looks like it 'riffs' on it. As for what Alfred says, I think you guys had the wrong impression before. Instead of Alfred concerned about Bruce not taking care of him, it sounds the other way around. He states that he promised Bruce's parents that he'd take care of him (Bruce) & he hasn't!

Personally I think I'm already looking for to the reboot......again!

non_amos wrote:Trailer is now removed due to infringement!

"Shocker".

As for Nolan as a filmmaker, here's some points to consider. Here's a 41-year old guy. He doesn't even have a cell phone or an e-mail address! He barely even gets on the Internet because he reasons, "That gives me more time to think." I read this in one of those articles affiliated with those links I click on here. So the dude ain't too 'tech-savvy' huh?! And we know he doesn't like CGI & prefers 'practical effects' which ain't necessarily a bad thing. I kinda like that the new Spiderman film is using some practical effects because I've heard people say that the original Raimi film looked like a cartoon at times. So 'practical effects' have their place but why does Nolan prefer them? That is the $64,000 question. Could it be because he himself is a dinosaur? Personally I think his entire 'old-timey' mindset drives his filmmaking!

If practical effects was his STRICT "mantra", then why not pick a more "realistic" villain for the film? The Riddler is a normal person. The Penguin can be made to be a fat, short, normal person with bird-like features. Why pick one that has a certain look and history, and completely jettison them for something horribly stupid and visually disappointing?

Ego, that's why.

As for the trailer itself, it's heavy on Bruce Wayne but almost non-existent on Batman. This is a Batman film, no? And of course, it's heavy on Hardly Bane. But the part with Anne Hathaway at the dance reminds me of how Catwoman was treated in BATMAN RETURNS. It may not be identical but it sure looks like it 'riffs' on it.

The very first thing I thought of when I saw that Hathaway/Bale scene was 'Batman Returns'. Why be so unoriginal?

As for what Alfred says, I think you guys had the wrong impression before. Instead of Alfred concerned about Bruce not taking care of him, it sounds the other way around. He states that he promised Bruce's parents that he'd take care of him (Bruce) & he hasn't!

It's groan-inducingly cheesy.

Personally I think I'm already looking for to the reboot......again!

For some reason, with the Bros. Warner track-record, I am predicting "more of the same" when it comes to the eventual reboot.

Apologist Puncher wrote:If practical effects was his STRICT "mantra", then why not pick a more "realistic" villain for the film? The Riddler is a normal person. The Penguin can be made to be a fat, short, normal person with bird-like features. Why pick one that has a certain look and history, and completely jettison them for something horribly stupid and visually disappointing?

Ego, that's why.

Exactly. Nolan went on the record saying he wanted a villain that could pose a physical threat to Batman (and he chose Hardy to play him?!?!) and that informed his decision. But, um, Batman has other villains he can scrap down with. King Snake and Lady Shiva come to mind off-hand.

Ego.

Apologist Puncher wrote:For some reason, with the Bros. Warner track-record, I am predicting "more of the same" when it comes to the eventual reboot.

I guess TDKRises will be what tells the story but there's some justification in sticking with something Nolan'ish after he leaves. Personally, I think there's a possibility they won't reboot. That may very well be against the public mood... which gives me an even more dismal opinion of the public, but what are you going to do, right?

What I'd find most interesting would be abandoning continuity between films and letting a new director make a new Batman movie every couple of years. There are a lot of directors out there that would make for an interesting anthology franchise. Of course, that may be the complete antithesis of any movie studio's business formula for a superhero franchise but Batman is one of the very few comic book characters out there that could survive and even thrive under that kind of new vision approach. The sky's the limit, really. B&W noir crime films (kinda like Sin City), period pieces, Batman Beyond'ish type concepts, nightmare gothic stuff like Tim Burton, etc etc etc. Just do something, go out of your way to be different from everyone else. There's a lot of potential there, if you ask me.

Totally he could have picked a few other villains who would have been different from bane but still pose physical threat. As for possible reboot/new film series in a few. Yrs. Hopefully who ever takes ovr will find a good balance of realistiic tone/feel. With the more Fantastical elements of the comics.

Ya know what gets me about how the Nolan Bat-films are being treated now? It's like Batman is no longer the star of his own movie!

Case in point. Whether you liked BATMAN BEGINS or not, you will have to admit that Batman was treated as the star of the film. Christian Bale also was treated as having the lead role. The Scarecrow was considered a 'secondary' villain. Sure, we had Liam Neesen as Ducard/ Ras Al Guhl but I still believe that Batman/Bruce Wayne was the focal point & that Bale didn't have to take a 'back seat' to anyone. The way that this was handled may have also been part of the reason for BB's continuing popularity even on DVD. Speculation on my part but I think it's a reasonable guess. So we had a Batman film with secondary villains only & Batman took the spotlight.

Fast-forward to THE DARK KNIGHT. Then, even prior to the death of Heath Ledger, it's like Bale was no longer the star of his own film! I mean, the notoriety went to Ledger & then when he died, it really went to Ledger. It's almost like TDK became a JOKER movie, not a Batman one. Even though Ledger won the Oscar & all for supporting role if I'm not mistaken, it's really like he had the LEAD ROLE while Bale was relegated to '2nd fiddle, 2nd Banana, 5th Wheel, Spare Tire, Chopped Liver', you name it! It didn't help that Bale also seemed to 'phone in' his performance. And consider this. In the 1989 film, even though Jack Nicholson was built up as the Joker, Michael Keaton did not take a back seat to Nicholson. So why did Bale to Ledger?

Now look at THE DARK KNIGHT RISES. Once again Batman seems to be taking a 'back-seat' to the villain, in this case the hulking 190-lb. Hardly Bane. Bale seems to have been usurped by Tom Hardly. The spotlight is on Hardly! Gee, does this sound familiar? And once again Bale is relegated to 2nd-class citizenship. You'd also think that Bale would give a crap about how these things are handled?! I mean, look at the trailers & such. Give the Oscar nomination to Hardly already!

My hope is if they reboot Batman and/or continue it, that whoever takes the helm will have a different vision.

non_amos wrote:Fast-forward to THE DARK KNIGHT. Then, even prior to the death of Heath Ledger, it's like Bale was no longer the star of his own film! I mean, the notoriety went to Ledger & then when he died, it really went to Ledger. It's almost like TDK became a JOKER movie, not a Batman one. Even though Ledger won the Oscar & all for supporting role if I'm not mistaken, it's really like he had the LEAD ROLE while Bale was relegated to '2nd fiddle, 2nd Banana, 5th Wheel, Spare Tire, Chopped Liver', you name it! It didn't help that Bale also seemed to 'phone in' his performance.

Can't believe I'm half-ass defending TDK but compare Ledger with Bale and what you notice is that the Joker plays a relatively small role in the film as far as screen time goes. People really locked in on Ledger in that movie but, going from memory, I'd argue his screen time is fairly comparable to Neeson's in BB.

My hope is if they reboot Batman and/or continue it, that whoever takes the helm will have a different vision.

You and me both. I think it's high time we had one.

thecolorsblend wrote:

Can't believe I'm half-ass defending TDK but compare Ledger with Bale and what you notice is that the Joker plays a relatively small role in the film as far as screen time goes. People really locked in on Ledger in that movie but, going from memory, I'd argue his screen time is fairly comparable to Neeson's in BB.

It sure didn't seem that way to me. Maybe it was all of the hoopla surrounding Ledger. Maybe that affected one's perception of it, I don't know. But even if you're right about the amount of screen-time, it still seems like Bale took a back-seat to Ledger. I guess it's kind of like being at a party that's supposed to be honoring you in some way (birthday, anniversary, awards, etc.) but instead one of your close 'friends' gets all of the attention & becomes the life of the party, at your expense.

That's what Nolan's Bat-films now remind me of. It's like Bale's Batman was 'the man' in the 1st film but now?! Now it's almost like he's a supporting character to showcase the latest 'talent' that Nolan brings on board to play the villain. Now it's Tom Hardy with his Hardly Bane. When you get the chance, look at that trailer again. It should be permanently online shortly anyway in High-Def. Then look to see how much 'air-time' Batman ,the character, actually gets. I do remember seeing him, a fleeting glance anyway. But it seems like the remaining time was either Bale as Bruce Wayne but even more so, the hulking 190-lb. Bane!

Now, I know we've discussed this in the past, but I recall you stating that one reason Michael Keaton didn't return for a 3rd film was because he was not gonna be '2nd fiddle' to Jim Carey. And can you blame him?! But in hindsight it sounds like Keaton was open to the idea, if it had been handled properly. Obviously it wasn't. So my question then is, why does Bale tolerate this crapola? It would've been interesting to have been a 'fly on the wall' to have known how Bale actually felt when Oscar time came a few years ago.

I just saw the trailer on the big-screen when I went and saw 'Sherlock Holmes'. Every time Hardly's "Bane" was on-screen, I said aloud one word:

Fail.

non_amos wrote:It sure didn't seem that way to me. Maybe it was all of the hoopla surrounding Ledger. Maybe that affected one's perception of it, I don't know. But even if you're right about the amount of screen-time,

I think I am but I haven't and won't do a stop watch test.

non_amos wrote:it still seems like Bale took a back-seat to Ledger. I guess it's kind of like being at a party that's supposed to be honoring you in some way (birthday, anniversary, awards, etc.) but instead one of your close 'friends' gets all of the attention & becomes the life of the party, at your expense.

I'll ride with that. In some ways, it was smart business for WB to (tastefully) capitalize on the Joker given the chimichanga surrounding Ledger's death and the general buzz his performance was building at the time. But that can only affect how people perceive the movie. Marketing is powerful stuff. You combine Ledger's performance (which, even if I don't like that take on the Joker, I have to acknowledge he did well with what he was given) with the marketing and Bale (someone else... you?) phoning it in and, yeah, the Joker walks away with the movie.

non_amos wrote:That's what Nolan's Bat-films now remind me of. It's like Bale's Batman was 'the man' in the 1st film but now?! Now it's almost like he's a supporting character to showcase the latest 'talent' that Nolan brings on board to play the villain. Now it's Tom Hardy with his Hardly Bane. When you get the chance, look at that trailer again. It should be permanently online shortly anyway in High-Def. Then look to see how much 'air-time' Batman ,the character, actually gets. I do remember seeing him, a fleeting glance anyway. But it seems like the remaining time was either Bale as Bruce Wayne but even more so, the hulking 190-lb. Bane!

Weird that Batman franchises seem to go through Villain Showcase Syndrome every time. The Adam West Batman movie certainly struggled with that, the original franchise obviously did after Batman Returns and now the same shit's happening with the Nolanverse. My theory behind all this is that most comic book characters can only be grown and developed so much because, at the end of the day, a lot of the superheroes aren't characters so much as icons. You can only take that stuff so far. Maybe Nolan truly did shoot his load with the first movie and now just has to keep coming up with new villains and general bullshit to fill up the time.

The best example I can come up with is the seemingly conflicting themes between the various movies. For Bruce Wayne's participation, his arcs from movie to movie seem to be "one man can make a difference" in BB, "Bruce wants to quit being Batman but comes to realize it's his destiny, his duty" in TDK to "Bruce is dragged back to being Batman kicking and screaming". Those may be good arcs but I don't see how one organically comes from the others. I'll spare you the bullshit literary analysis and just say that I don't see any connective tissue there whatsoever.

non_amos wrote:Now, I know we've discussed this in the past, but I recall you stating that one reason Michael Keaton didn't return for a 3rd film was because he was not gonna be '2nd fiddle' to Jim Carey. And can you blame him?! But in hindsight it sounds like Keaton was open to the idea, if it had been handled properly.

Not to derail your point but there are a lot of conspiracy theories out there about this. The one I find easiest to believe is that Keaton was showing solidarity with Burton. Rumor has it that WB desperately wanted him back but he was done. So, to find a politically correct way of bowing out, Keaton asked for some ridiculous amount of money for the role. Something like $20 mill or something. He figured no movie studio in their right mind would EVER pay him that kind of cash. So imagine his surprise when his agent allegedly got a call saying "yeah, Keaton's a go for $20 mill!" Then he had to figure out another way to excuse himself.

The above comes from "anonymous sources" quoted in various interviews as well as my own research and interpretation but that's basically my theory. Take it as you will.

non_amos wrote:So my question then is, why does Bale tolerate this crapola? It would've been interesting to have been a 'fly on the wall' to have known how Bale actually felt when Oscar time came a few years ago.

To my understanding, Bale was contracted for three films from the get-go. So he was basically at the studio's mercy. If they'd really wanted to, they could've forced him into a World's Finest movie right after TDK and left Nolan out entirely (not that they would've, just that they could've), and Bale wouldn't have been able to say a damned word about it as Nolan apparently only ever signed on for one movie at a time. So if Nolan hadn't come back for TDKRises or if WB decided they wanted some sort of team-up for his third film, Bale would've been left with his dick in the wind.

As a matter of fact, I've wondered that Nolan only came back for this one out of sympathy for Bale. Again, interpretation on my part. I could very well be wrong. Let's face it, a third movie would've garnered even more good will from WB, thus perhaps allowing Nolan to make some more of his own types of films. A big pay day and an attitude of "right away, Mr. Nolan" may have been very enticing. He's got a virtual gravy train going with WB so why break the spell? Why not play ball on a third Batman movie while he develops his next two or three movies? Best to have several irons in the fire all at once, eh? For all I know, Nolan coming back for third helpings had nothing to do with Bale and everything to do with advancing his own career.

Anyway. Why does Bale tolerate it? Because, assuming the three movie deal was true in the first place (and signs indicate that it was), from a contractual point of view, his opinion was probably the very last that anybody involved gave two fucks about since his participation was never in question.

EDIT- At least for this stuff, none of this is to be understood as a disparagement of Nolan. Quite the opposite. Assuming I'm right about him looking out only for his own career, I'd do the same thing and milk the son of a bitch for all it's worth. Hell, in this economy? Every. Last. Nickel. Nothing would be left to chance. So go ahead, make a third Batman film while you develop other scripts and other ideas, maybe get some producing gigs going, do all of it. Nothing lasts forever so there's no sense in not taking advantage of every opportunity that comes your way. Keeps you busy and the money rolling in. Obviously I'm a greedy bastard so how can I criticize Nolan... assuming this even was his motivation? I'm not shit-talking the guy here, that's the point.