THE DARK KNIGHT RISES FILM REVIEWS (SPOILERS. PERIOD.)

You've got a point there (RE: James Stocks) but now Hollyweird & the comics film industry seems to be consumed with 'reboot madness'. Sure, it was definitely necessary with SUPERMAN especially after Singerman & it was also necessary with BATMAN but the point is, it should never have been necessary. Period. From Day One. But we can thank duh brothers Warner for 'gross mismanagement', thereby making reboots absolute musts. But it's been pointed out that a 'needless reboot' was with the SPIDERMAN franchise. Now, I'm not taking back any complimentary comments I made about how much I liked it. No, not at all, but I think I can agree that in this case, a reboot wasn't really necessary. Maybe they would've still had to 'pull a James Bond' with an all-new or largely new cast, director, etc., but they could've marched on. I still liked the reboot but they could just as likely have continued Raimi without Raimi. Just saying....................

Man it would been fun if hero film series did work out like bond films. But like you guys said after you past the top tier/second tier main go to villains. That leaves you with c/d villains and in time you have to reuse one of the big ones. So its like what to do now.

webhead2006 wrote:Man it would been fun if hero film series did work out like bond films. But like you guys said after you past the top tier/second tier main go to villains. That leaves you with c/d villains and in time you have to reuse one of the big ones. So its like what to do now.

Here's the problem I see with some of the film franchises: KILLING OFF THE MAIN VILLAINS!

Jack ruled as the Joker but Tim Burton killed him off. Ditto for the Penguin. Didn't Shumacher even kill off Two-Face? Enter duh Nolan. Ras Al Ghul? Axed. Talia? Likewise. Hardly Bane? Blown away. He kills off Two-Face & never ever should he have done that! He spared the Joker with the expressed intent to use him again & then Ledger died for real. So he bans the character from his film series.

Marvel I believe does better but they're still not exempt from this. Raimi killed off the Green Goblin in the 1st Spiderman film. However, there is some precedent for that as he also died in the comics way back in the day. But then he kills off Dr. Octopus too! Who wasn't killed off in the comics!

So here's the problem. These film producers/directors feel the need to give the axe to the bad guy! However, it's not in the fans' best interests. It's not even in the film franchise's best interests. Think about it. Did Burton have to kill off the Joker? No! Even though I love that film I've never agreed with that ending! It's almost like Burton was making a 'one-shot' film & therefore 'blowing his load' on one big send-off or something but then he got a sequel. He still kills off the villain! But consider this about Jack's Joker. Let's say Batman didn't cross the line & kill him. Instead he apprehended him & then the Joker was locked away in Arkham Asylum. Which could've fueled future sequels as well. And Nolan could've taken a page out of this playbook as well.

The benefit of this is that if future directors continued the same franchise 'James Bond' style then there would be NO problem reusing the same villains like the Joker. But when directors constantly feel the need to whack the villains, reboots become necessary even by default. Look at Nolan. Even as wildly popular as his franchise is, there's no reasonable way anyone is gonna be able to continue it anyway, that is, unless you don't mind a string of films with 2nd-tier villains.

Ya I hate when they kill a villain off. There goes the chance of a cameo down the road. Or in the case of certain ones who do teamups and all that with others. And if they ever did have film sseries go like bond tossing villain in jail gives them a good reason for them to be gone for a bit and return when they like to bring them back.

webhead2006 wrote:Ya I hate when they kill a villain off. There goes the chance of a cameo down the road. Or in the case of certain ones who do teamups and all that with others. And if they ever did have film sseries go like bond tossing villain in jail gives them a good reason for them to be gone for a bit and return when they like to bring them back.

Kinda like the Reeve Superman films did with Lex Luthor? Smallville killed him off & cloned him back but not so with the original Donner series. Luthor was tossed in jail. Repeatedly. And even though people got tired of that Luthor, at least they didn't whack him. Those people had the right idea.

And if you include the deleted scenes, Zod, Non and Ursa are taken into custody at the end (though in Donner cut they're sent back to the zone via time reversal). Then there's the third film where none of the villains are killed, instead tossed into jail. The only villain to ever get killed in a Superman film is Nuclear Man, which was probably for the best.

I'm glad Loki wasn't killed off in THE AVENGERS and that he'll play some part in the next THOR.

non_amos wrote:Here's the problem I see with some of the film franchises: KILLING OFF THE MAIN VILLAINS!

Jack ruled as the Joker but Tim Burton killed him off.

Mmm, there was considerable controversy and speculation about that at the time. Did he really die? Fair or not, justified or not, people sure thought it was a possibility that the Joker could be back.

non_amos wrote:Didn't Shumacher even kill off Two-Face?

Schumacher himself says it's intentionally ambiguous. Partly because it's not like we saw a body really and partly because his jacket is plainly visible in Arkham in B&R. According to Schumacher, that wasn't just an easter egg. It is kind of interesting that the one Batman film where no villain dies is B&R.

The above equivocations aside, I think this tendency comes from the practicalities of filmmaking. Most directors want to show audiences something new each time out. So that instantly calls returning villains into question. The other part is how tricky it can be to get an actor to reprise his role as a villain. Normally it's tricky enough to get him to get onboard even once. A second time, esp if he was contracted only for one film, could be more trouble and money than it's worth.

And I guess third, most directors tend to take the traditional film point of view that a villain should get his comeuppance at the end of the movie. That means death. The idea of just sending a villain to prison or something if not done properly could be seen as anti-climactic. From a storytelling point of view, the thinking goes that the audience wants the villain to die.

Are there exceptions? Sure. Hackman in Superman, Cillian Murphy in Nolan's Batman, arguably Harry in the Raimi Spider-Man films and maybe others I'm blanking on.

non_amos wrote:Enter duh Nolan. Ras Al Ghul? Axed. Talia? Likewise. Hardly Bane? Blown away. He kills off Two-Face & never ever should he have done that!

Yeah, I'll bet the Nolanites aren't going to play the "at least the villains survive" card anymore.

non_amos wrote:Marvel I believe does better but they're still not exempt from this. Raimi killed off the Green Goblin in the 1st Spiderman film. However, there is some precedent for that as he also died in the comics way back in the day. But then he kills off Dr. Octopus too! Who wasn't killed off in the comics!

Eh, Doc Ock was killed at the on-set of the Clone Saga. I mention this because it was intended to be permanent. Now, obviously it was undone later on but at the time... yeah, they meant it.

thecolorsblend wrote:

Mmm, there was considerable controversy and speculation about that at the time. Did he really die? Fair or not, justified or not, people sure thought it was a possibility that the Joker could be back.

I don't remember exactly where I read this now but I'm sure it was online in within the past couple of years or so. Anyway, Jack Nicholson was asked that very question about the Joker being killed off because I think the point was, Jack regretted not being able to reprise his role. When asked about how they'd explain the Joker not dying, he said something along the lines of, "Simple. It wasn't me." That may not be the exact quote since I'm going by memory but that's the gist. So if that wasn't the Joker who fell to his death, then who did? His clone? But as to the 'speculation at the time' you're talking about, can you elaborate? I may not have a link handy but I could definitely be pointed in the right direction. I know I can always Google but it's late now, not in the mood. But I would like to know why people thought he could've survived

Eh, Doc Ock was killed at the on-set of the Clone Saga. I mention this because it was intended to be permanent. Now, obviously it was undone later on but at the time... yeah, they meant it.

I wasn't aware of that. That was no doubt one of those periods that I was neither reading or collecting comics.

At the time Batman preventing the Joker from falling to his death was one of the most refreshing things not just for a superhero flick but also blockbuster movies in general, because as said above nearly every villain in a movie is killed off. I also liked the little nod to their long conflict in the comics "I believe you and I are destined to do this forever". But then Ledger dies, and then Batman retires immediately. OOPS.

But yes, this should be adopted more so that they can reuse villains for different stories. It looks like MARVEL will perfect it.

James Stocks wrote:At the time Batman preventing the Joker from falling to his death was one of the most refreshing things not just for a superhero flick but also blockbuster movies in general, because as said above nearly every villain in a movie is killed off. I also liked the little nod to their long conflict in the comics "I believe you and I are destined to do this forever". But then Ledger dies, and then Batman retires immediately. OOPS.

But yes, this should be adopted more so that they can reuse villains for different stories. It looks like MARVEL will perfect it.

That's not the Bat-film I meant.

non_amos wrote:I don't remember exactly where I read this now but I'm sure it was online in within the past couple of years or so. Anyway, Jack Nicholson was asked that very question about the Joker being killed off because I think the point was, Jack regretted not being able to reprise his role. When asked about how they'd explain the Joker not dying, he said something along the lines of, "Simple. It wasn't me." That may not be the exact quote since I'm going by memory but that's the gist. So if that wasn't the Joker who fell to his death, then who did? His clone? But as to the 'speculation at the time' you're talking about, can you elaborate? I may not have a link handy but I could definitely be pointed in the right direction. I know I can always Google but it's late now, not in the mood. But I would like to know why people thought he could've survived

There's not much to elaborate on because the media were different back in the 80's. They would say something like "rumors have surfaced that the Riddler will be played Denzel Washington" to start rumors of that very thing. So I'm not sure how credible it ever was. But basically you had a lot of entertainment gossip channels and shows saying stuff like "rumors continue to swirl that Nicholson may reprise his role in 'Batman 2' in spite of his apparent death in 'Batman 1'. This is some Bubble-Headed Bleach Blonde reporting at 5." You get it? It became a rumor because someone said it was a rumor. I mention it though as much as anything to emphasize just how popular Nicholson was as the Joker. People wanted more of that even if the plain evidence said it wouldn't be possible.

non_amos wrote:I wasn't aware of that. That was no doubt one of those periods that I was neither reading or collecting comics.

It stands out to me only because that period represented me giving it my dead level best shot to become a Spider-Man collector. Unfortunately, I dove right as the Clone Saga was kicking off. I'd read a few issues of Spider-Man Classics (reprints of Amazing Spider-Man from the 60's) and Marvel Tales (reprints of Amazing Spider-Man from the 70's) and even followed Untold Tales of Spider-Man (stories set between pages or between issues of the 60's Amazing Spider-Man) but the core titles just... ugh! I couldn't do it. Neophyte Spiderfan though I might've been, even I knew something was rotten in Denmark in trying to replace Peter with Ben. I tried to give them my money but it was as if Marvel was determined to turn me away. How different things might have been if I'd attempted this during the Michelinie/McFarlane run on Amazing Spider-Man just a few years earlier...

non_amos wrote:

James Stocks wrote:At the time Batman preventing the Joker from falling to his death was one of the most refreshing things not just for a superhero flick but also blockbuster movies in general, because as said above nearly every villain in a movie is killed off. I also liked the little nod to their long conflict in the comics "I believe you and I are destined to do this forever". But then Ledger dies, and then Batman retires immediately. OOPS.

But yes, this should be adopted more so that they can reuse villains for different stories. It looks like MARVEL will perfect it.

That's not the Bat-film I meant.

Wasn't meant as a reply.

http://screencrush.com/dark-knight-rises-directors-cut/

‘The Dark Knight Rises’ DVD to Include Bane’s Origin, 30 Minutes of New Footage?

by: Mike Sampson 2 hours ago



The ‘Dark Knight Rises‘ DVD hasn’t been officially announced yet but the current rumor is that the DVD and Blu-ray will include a “Director’s Cut” that will include the heretofore unseen origins of Bane.

Nuke the Fridge is reporting that Warner Bros. and Nolan are working on a Director’s Cut DVD that will include 30 minutes of new footage, specifically the origins of Bane and extended fight sequences with Ra’s Al Ghul (Liam Neeson).

While this should be taken as a rumor – ‘The Avengers’ was also rumored to have a Director’s Cut, which was eventually debunked – there definitely is a considerable amount of Bane’s origin that was cut from the film. Says costume designer Lindy Hemming:

He has this scar from the back injury. Even if he hasn’t got the bulletproof vest on, he still has to wear the waist belt and the braces. In that scene in the prison, where he’s learning to fight the same way Batman learned to fight, he’s wearing an early version of his waist belt. It’s showing support, but it’s not the finished one he eventually wears. He’s also wearing an early version of his gas mask, all glued together….There’s a whole early section for Tom Hardy where he’s fighting and being taunted by people. He’s got chains on him, and he’s standing on a wooden thing while people are attacking him. And in that scene, he’s wearing a much more ragged, primitive version of the mask. There was another section that showed you why he had the mask and where it came from.

So there is footage of Bane’s origin that exists and it seems likely that would be included on the DVD and Blu-ray but will Nolan actually edit it back into ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ and make the 2 hour and 35 minute film over 3 hours?

It seems unlikely and we’ll put our money on a bunch of deleted scenes instead (Christopher Nolan, perhaps as much as anyone, has the clout necessary to release a “Director’s Cut” in theaters – it’s not like Warner Bros. was forcing him to make edits…).

The original link:
http://nukethefridge.com/2012/09/04/ntf-exclusive-banes-origins-to-be-included-in-the-dark-knight-rises-blu-ray-directors-cut/

So what say you? A 3+-hour version of Hardly Bane? Didn't we have enough already? And more fight sequences with Liam Neesen? Neesen is always welcome but how do you do it logically unless it's another hallucination? And we still don't get the real Banes's origin.

Oy.

Oh yippy more of bane lol.

screencrush.com wrote:It seems unlikely and we’ll put our money on a bunch of deleted scenes instead (Christopher Nolan, perhaps as much as anyone, has the clout necessary to release a “Director’s Cut” in theaters – it’s not like Warner Bros. was forcing him to make edits…).

This is why I doubt it too.

non_amos wrote:So what say you? A 3+-hour version of Hardly Bane? Didn't we have enough already? And more fight sequences with Liam Neesen? Neesen is always welcome but how do you do it logically unless it's another hallucination? And we still don't get the real Banes's origin.

That's kind of my attitude, actually. I enjoyed the movie (mostly for the ending)... but even I don't need a 3'ish hour version of TDKRises.

http://graphicspoileralert.wordpress.com/2012/08/19/the-dark-knight-rises/

There's nothing in there that isn't genius.

Ha, that was bloody fantastic, thanks for posting AP. I also had a few giggles reading this: http://www.cracked.com/article_20012_if-dark-knight-rises-was-10-times-shorter-more-honest.html not sure if it was posted around here, but it's a fun read.

Pretty funny stuff there ap.

Alf wrote:Ha, that was bloody fantastic, thanks for posting AP. I also had a few giggles reading this: http://www.cracked.com/article_20012_if-dark-knight-rises-was-10-times-shorter-more-honest.html not sure if it was posted around here, but it's a fun read.

This part is the best:

CHRISTIAN BALE

Maybe the next Batman could, and I know this is a crazy thought, actually draw more than character names and politics from the comic books that define him? You know, the ones that everyone loves and completely reinvented the industry?

Another TDKR director's cut dvd/bluray rumor:
http://nukethefridge.com/2012/09/09/ntf-exclusive-the-dark-knight-rises-directors-cut-blu-ray-to-hit-just-before-man-of-steel-debuts-in-theaters/

NTF Exclusive: “The Dark Knight Rises” Director’s Cut Blu-ray to Hit Just Before “Man of Steel” Debuts in Theaters
September 9, 2012 by admin

Recently we reported that Christipher Nolan is working on the “Directors Cut” for the “The Dark Knight Rises.” The question is, when will it be released? We know that the theatrical cut of the film will be available on Blu-ray sometime before the end of the year, but will the extended version be released at the same time?

Today, we got word from the same source that gave us the heads up about the “Directors Cut” about the potential release date for that Blu-ray. So according to that person a new version of “The Dark Knight Rises” will be out on Blu-ray sometime right before Zack Snyder’s, “Man of Steel,” opens in theater.

Although “Man of Steel” is directed by Zack Snyder and produced by Christipher Nolan, it will open theatrically on June 14th, 2013. While Blu-rays are almost always released on Tuesdays, we should expect the Director’s Cut on June 10th (the Tuesday before “Man of Steel” hits.)

Can’t wait!

Until an official announcement it make we are treating this as a rumor.

Web, I can't get ANY of your links to work today! And I know I tried like 5 or 6?!

Non don't know what's up just was checking stuff I posted eaarlier and all are working on my end. Maybe its something with your pc/mobile device or the site could have been down.

webhead2006 wrote:Non don't know what's up just was checking stuff I posted eaarlier and all are working on my end. Maybe its something with your pc/mobile device or the site could have been down.

The 'Arrow' link is working now. I haven't checked the others yet.

Well as said working on my end. Only one that isn't is the wolverine one which looks like latino review themselfs took the story down.