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

James Stocks wrote:Speaking of Talia being behind it all, it's another instance of Nolan incorporating Bond film elements into his Batflicks. Specifically the whole plot of the Bond girl being the mastermind behind the scheme while the faux villain was really the muscle man executing it in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH.

Tough to explain but I'd sort of forgotten she was even going to be in the movie until the scene where she fires up the reactor, in so doing saving that old crusty board member guy. Fox adamantly refused to turn the thing on but Tate gave in immediately, right? So it was about then that I remembered Talia was going to be in the movie (although I couldn't remember which actress would be playing her), you had this chick with a goofy accent that I couldn't quite place and so that scene is pretty much where I slapped the cuffs on her. When she had her reveal, I'd already long ago convicted her.

James Stocks wrote:I'll say, Nolan improves on it (which isn't much of a feat, as I regard that Bond film as the worst of the series).

Heh heh, love it!

It probably would have been best to have that actress dubbed since french actresses have an awkwardness when they try pulling off a certain accent of the English language. Same thing kind of happened with Eva Green in CASINO ROYALE where at times her delivery seemed off. Marion Cotillard is no different, but I give her a pass because she's hot.

You know what would have made things more interesting? If they incorporated more of that Bond plot with Bruce Wayne actually falling in love with Talia. That probably would have added even more running time to this flick but I think that would have made the shock more effective. It didn't work for THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH because of the incompetence of the filmmakers (and the absurdity of Bond of all people falling for a one night stand) but it might have worked with Wayne had they followed it through, but again I guess there was already too much plot threads for them to handle and a lot of alterations would have had to be made.

James Stocks wrote:It probably would have been best to have that actress dubbed since french actresses have an awkwardness when they try pulling off a certain accent of the English language. Same thing kind of happened with Eva Green in CASINO ROYALE where at times her delivery seemed off. Marion Cotillard is no different, but I give her a pass because she's hot.

You know what would have made things more interesting? If they incorporated more of that Bond plot with Bruce Wayne actually falling in love with Talia. That probably would have added even more running time to this flick but I think that would have made the shock more effective. It didn't work for THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH because of the incompetence of the filmmakers (and the absurdity of Bond of all people falling for a one night stand) but it might have worked with Wayne had they followed it through, but again I guess there was already too much plot threads for them to handle and a lot of alterations would have had to be made.

I see where you're coming from but I'm sick to death of every single superhero movie coming down the pipeline having a friggin love story in it. Yeah, I realize studios like being able to transcend demographics, and an action movie with a love story is a proven formula. But it is a formula, and a pretty tired one at that. Whatever issues I may have with TDKRises, I can at least appreciate that Nolan mostly put the relationship bullshit out to pasture. Yeah, I guess there kind of was one with Selina (because we can't call her Catwoman!!!) but that was pretty minimal.

Yup colors it would be good for bats to have a rest. You still have other bat stuff going in tv to fill the void. Plus I wouldn't want a reboot out in two or three yrs. Far to early. And not enough time to past. So do like I said hulk/spidey did and wait 5 to 7 yrs. So then we can get the light shown on superman, flash and who ever else they can get off the ground if they can get off the ground in next few yrs. Then when we have at least mos 2 done and one or two other dc solo films out then we bring in a jl fitting batman solo reboot.

Also cbmfan just cause nolan style/approaach was liked. Doesn't mean a new director/writers/cast can't hit it out of the park. Nolan take was just one view of the character. And as we seen in tv shows/other films batman can be done in many different ways. So if they ie wb/dc can get a director/writer on board that can do like I said in other thread make a realistic world characters live in but zany stuff happens to them and they deal with it. And throw in the rright amount of comic stuff we could see a big hit and good comics take on character like we seen marvel studios do with there characters. We don't need to rely on nolan batman forever. Just like it was a mistake for singer thinking the world needed donner superman again.

webhead2006 wrote:We don't need to rely on nolan batman forever. Just like it was a mistake for singer thinking the world needed donner superman again.

I never said that "The Dark Knight Trilogy" will be the BE ALL AND END ALL but it'll still be everlasting in years to come even after a reboot is out. A majority of people will see Nolan's Batman series as the DEFINITIVE take on the franchise but does raise the question on how long will TDKT will keep that title? And as for Donner's Superman series... Thats a wholly deferent story considering that "Superman Returns" came out 19 years after "Superman IV" and we all know where all that anticipation gone to with the edition of waiting another 7 years for another "Superman" film to be out and the one we're getting is long term over due!

thecolorsblend wrote:

James Stocks wrote:It probably would have been best to have that actress dubbed since french actresses have an awkwardness when they try pulling off a certain accent of the English language. Same thing kind of happened with Eva Green in CASINO ROYALE where at times her delivery seemed off. Marion Cotillard is no different, but I give her a pass because she's hot.

You know what would have made things more interesting? If they incorporated more of that Bond plot with Bruce Wayne actually falling in love with Talia. That probably would have added even more running time to this flick but I think that would have made the shock more effective. It didn't work for THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH because of the incompetence of the filmmakers (and the absurdity of Bond of all people falling for a one night stand) but it might have worked with Wayne had they followed it through, but again I guess there was already too much plot threads for them to handle and a lot of alterations would have had to be made.

I see where you're coming from but I'm sick to death of every single superhero movie coming down the pipeline having a friggin love story in it. Yeah, I realize studios like being able to transcend demographics, and an action movie with a love story is a proven formula. But it is a formula, and a pretty tired one at that. Whatever issues I may have with TDKRises, I can at least appreciate that Nolan mostly put the relationship bullshit out to pasture. Yeah, I guess there kind of was one with Selina (because we can't call her Catwoman!!!) but that was pretty minimal.

Not that it should be the main plot surely, just something on the side weaved nicely into Bruce's story. I'm happy with how it all turned out, but I think it would have made a nice alternative.

James Stocks wrote:Not that it should be the main plot surely, just something on the side weaved nicely into Bruce's story. I'm happy with how it all turned out, but I think it would have made a nice alternative.

Maybe, but it might've felt a bit much. We're supposed to believe that the death of Rachel is ultimately why Batman went to ground. I don't buy that but whatever. By the end of the movie, he's obviously shacked up with Selina. Don't completely buy that either on the merits of their interactions but, again, whatever. But sandwiching Talia in between those two... eh, I honestly don't see a way to make that work. A one night stand? Yeah, I guess I could see that. From Bruce's angle anyway. But genuine love? It's a big bridge to sell under the circumstances.

As a separate thing, and to be fair to Nolan, I usually go to Batman movies with an eye on wanting him to get into a lot of fights. When I was a kid, you could've made a Batman movie that was nothing but 90 minutes or two hours of Batman beating the piss out of everybody within arm's reach with no plot or character stuff and I'd have felt like I got my money's worth. Fact is I'd be lying if I said that's radically changed now. But there isn't too much of that in TDKRises so whatever favorable impressions I have of the movie are in spite of how relatively few ass-beatings Batman administers. As much as I might piss all over TDK, dude, Batman kicked the fuck out of quite a few people in that one. Whatever our problems with Nolan might be, you have to respect that.

That having been said, a potential issue with the movie that struck me today is when Batman saved Catwo-- uh, I mean, Selina from LOS dudes on that rooftop. Basically Batman said those guys were trained killers. We're supposed to conclude that Selina may have moves that serve her well in minor scraps with street thugs but she's just not ready for prime time when it comes to LOS types. Which I could believe, actually. But, um, doesn't she kick some LOS ass later on in the movie? Those LOS guys are bad comedy for Batman, he cuts through 'em like butter, but you get the idea that Selina's way out of her league there. In the beginning anyway. But somehow she's able to do it later on? Did I misinterpret something?

From what I remember she could take them on it's just during her first encounter with them she underestimated that they were not the type to bargain with and that's what Batman pointed out.

I found this the other day but been busy. Might as well post it here since it is somewhat related to an opinion of the film & get this, by none other than Bane's co-creator, Chuck Dixon:

http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/171917-bane-co-creator-on-his-portrayal-in-dark-knight-rises

Bane Co-Creator on His Portrayal in Dark Knight Rises

by Spencer Perry
July 23, 2012

Though not the newest member of Batman's rogues gallery, Bane is certainly still 'younger' than a lot of the other bad guys in the Batman mythos. Introduced in Batman: Vengeance of Bane in January of 1993, the character was created by co-writers Chuck Dixon, Doug Moench, and artist Graham Nolan so that he could be introduced later on in the comics for the one thing he's always remembered for, breaking the bat.

If you remember the 1997 film Batman & Robin and the portrayal of Bane there (writer Chuck Dixon does), then you know they kind of did it wrong. While talking about the character with Philly.com, the Joel Schumacher film was brought up.

"They had him as almost an imbecile, when in the comics he is extremely smart," Dixon said.

Dixon was much more happy with the way Nolan and Tom Hardy handled the character.
"Apparently, Warner Bros. was pressuring Nolan to use the Riddler, which would have been too similar to the Joker," Dixon continued. "Plus, the Riddler, like the Joker and so many of Batman's villains, is no challenge against him in a mano-a-mano fistfight. Batman will wipe the floor with him in that situation.

“I am beyond glad that Nolan had the juice in Hollywood to stick to his guns," he added. "From interviews I've seen, it's clear he understands the character and he gets what we were going for. It's not exactly what I created, but he's physically imposing and Tom Hardy is one hell of an actor. I can't imagine Bane being better portrayed."

What do you think of how Bane was portrayed in The Dark Knight Rises?

There's also the link they got this from. I won't post the entire thing because it covers 3 pages but here's another quote from Dixon:

http://articles.philly.com/2012-07-20/news/32765111_1_chuck-dixon-doug-moench-bane

WHEN LONGTIME Batman comic book writer Chuck Dixon learned that his co-creation Bane (writer Doug Moench and artist Graham Nolan are also credited with co-creating the character) would be the main villain in "The Dark Knight Rises," possibly the most anticipated superhero film of all time, one word summed up his feelings.

"I thought, ‘Wonderful,' " Dixon said. "I kept thinking and hoping they would use Bane. It just made sense. For a big, climactic film like this, you need someone who can give Batman a real fight, who is really physically strong and intimidating and can go toe-to-toe with him. Though Batman's rogues' gallery is well known, his bench is pretty thin in that regard. The only other foe that rivals Bane in a physical sense is Killer Croc, and he is not as smart and is kind of science-fictiony, which goes against the realism in [Christopher] Nolan's Bat-films."

Take note how I placed in bold that statement about Killer Croc. What Dixon is really saying is that Killer Croc is too 'comic booky'. And of course Nolan wouldn't approve. How about I reiterate another of his quotes from the SHH version of the article:

It's not exactly what I created, but he's physically imposing and Tom Hardy is one hell of an actor. I can't imagine Bane being better portrayed."

Not exactly what you created? Ain't that the under-statement of the century! Notice how he was not pleased at all by the version that Jeep Swenson did. True, B&R was a poor portrayal but you will have to give them this, they at least were trying to get the look right. Obviously they didn't get the rest right. Now Nolan comes along & tries to get the 'character' right but doesn't get the look right.

Would it have been too difficult to have gotten an actor that could've filled both parts?! Even if he is a wrestler, 'The Rock' could've pulled off both parts & been believable. Camera tricks wouldn't have been necessary either. And what's this mentality that says they can't use villains like the Riddler because none of them are a match for Batman physically? Last time I checked Batman was just an ordinary man too. Besides, ain't Bat's rogues gallery about more than just fisticuffs? A lot of it is mental any. But ain't that why Batman is also a detective?

Opinions, please. Words fail me!

Nice find on co creator views on nolan take on his character.

non_amos wrote:I found this the other day but been busy. Might as well post it here since it is somewhat related to an opinion of the film & get this, by none other than Bane's co-creator, Chuck Dixon:

http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/171917-bane-co-creator-on-his-portrayal-in-dark-knight-rises

Bane Co-Creator on His Portrayal in Dark Knight Rises

by Spencer Perry
July 23, 2012

Though not the newest member of Batman's rogues gallery, Bane is certainly still 'younger' than a lot of the other bad guys in the Batman mythos. Introduced in Batman: Vengeance of Bane in January of 1993, the character was created by co-writers Chuck Dixon, Doug Moench, and artist Graham Nolan so that he could be introduced later on in the comics for the one thing he's always remembered for, breaking the bat.

If you remember the 1997 film Batman & Robin and the portrayal of Bane there (writer Chuck Dixon does), then you know they kind of did it wrong. While talking about the character with Philly.com, the Joel Schumacher film was brought up.

"They had him as almost an imbecile, when in the comics he is extremely smart," Dixon said.

Dixon was much more happy with the way Nolan and Tom Hardy handled the character.
"Apparently, Warner Bros. was pressuring Nolan to use the Riddler, which would have been too similar to the Joker," Dixon continued. "Plus, the Riddler, like the Joker and so many of Batman's villains, is no challenge against him in a mano-a-mano fistfight. Batman will wipe the floor with him in that situation.

“I am beyond glad that Nolan had the juice in Hollywood to stick to his guns," he added. "From interviews I've seen, it's clear he understands the character and he gets what we were going for. It's not exactly what I created, but he's physically imposing and Tom Hardy is one hell of an actor. I can't imagine Bane being better portrayed."

What do you think of how Bane was portrayed in The Dark Knight Rises?

There's also the link they got this from. I won't post the entire thing because it covers 3 pages but here's another quote from Dixon:

http://articles.philly.com/2012-07-20/news/32765111_1_chuck-dixon-doug-moench-bane

WHEN LONGTIME Batman comic book writer Chuck Dixon learned that his co-creation Bane (writer Doug Moench and artist Graham Nolan are also credited with co-creating the character) would be the main villain in "The Dark Knight Rises," possibly the most anticipated superhero film of all time, one word summed up his feelings.

"I thought, ‘Wonderful,' " Dixon said. "I kept thinking and hoping they would use Bane. It just made sense. For a big, climactic film like this, you need someone who can give Batman a real fight, who is really physically strong and intimidating and can go toe-to-toe with him. Though Batman's rogues' gallery is well known, his bench is pretty thin in that regard. The only other foe that rivals Bane in a physical sense is Killer Croc, and he is not as smart and is kind of science-fictiony, which goes against the realism in [Christopher] Nolan's Bat-films."

Take note how I placed in bold that statement about Killer Croc. What Dixon is really saying is that Killer Croc is too 'comic booky'. And of course Nolan wouldn't approve. How about I reiterate another of his quotes from the SHH version of the article:

It's not exactly what I created, but he's physically imposing and Tom Hardy is one hell of an actor. I can't imagine Bane being better portrayed."

Not exactly what you created? Ain't that the under-statement of the century! Notice how he was not pleased at all by the version that Jeep Swenson did. True, B&R was a poor portrayal but you will have to give them this, they at least were trying to get the look right. Obviously they didn't get the rest right. Now Nolan comes along & tries to get the 'character' right but doesn't get the look right.

Would it have been too difficult to have gotten an actor that could've filled both parts?! Even if he is a wrestler, 'The Rock' could've pulled off both parts & been believable. Camera tricks wouldn't have been necessary either. And what's this mentality that says they can't use villains like the Riddler because none of them are a match for Batman physically? Last time I checked Batman was just an ordinary man too. Besides, ain't Bat's rogues gallery about more than just fisticuffs? A lot of it is mental any. But ain't that why Batman is also a detective?

Opinions, please. Words fail me!

Big guy actors generally are thought of as not very good; the real giants make their living as either creature performers (like Derek Mears or Kane Hodder) or as barely articulate henchmen who get their asses kicked by the hero to show how much of a badass the hero is. I am pretty sure the line of thinking is that if you cast a huge actor, especially as a character who is fiendishly intelligent, the character will suffer for it. Look at the difference in the performances between Tyler Mane as Sabertooth and Liev Schrieber. One was a grunting hulk, the other was a sadistic, real character who is more in line with the at times Lecter-esque character.

I have joked that Nolan doesn't audition actors; everyone whose name is at the top of the poster in his Batman movies are name actors who are long established or who have just come off of a critically acclaimed performance or two, and an Oscar nomination helps. Note that they got an Oscar nominee to play the decoy for the main villain in BB, another Oscar nominee. He almost seems to read reviews rather than actually screen test them.

And of course, he uses the same actors over again. So the Rock not having an Oscar nomination doesn't get him in a Nolan movie, and also puts him at a further disadvantage against other actors who have worked with Nolan before. In other words, Nolan probably doesn't think the Rock could play and intelligent and cunning Bane who can intimidate with more than his muscles because other critics haven't told him so.

The ironic thing is that a lot of the supporting performances are laughably hammy, like the Chechen, Michael Jai White(who is awesome sometimes), Tom Wilkinson, and most of the nameless thugs. that almost gives credence to my joke theory.

Anyway, I can understand the mentality of wanting to pack a movie with all of these actors you like, even the supporting character actors- the "That Guy" actors. But I think actually discovering lesser knowns or complete unknowns would be just as exciting. To me, at least.

I think Dixon was also referring to more than Bane's size when he said it wasn't exactly his character; its the fact that Bane in TDKR is more of a terrorist whose goals go simply beyond breaking Batman to prove he is the toughest. He's not Hispanic, and he doesn't take steroids that allow him to grow in size instantly.

My view on that if you have a big huling guy/creature u just hire a stunt guy/wrrestler what ever to do the body work. Then in bane case and others wearing masls or what not. You then just hire someone else to be voice. And there you go.

webhead2006 wrote:My view on that if you have a big huling guy/creature u just hire a stunt guy/wrrestler what ever to do the body work. Then in bane case and others wearing masls or what not. You then just hire someone else to be voice. And there you go.

Yeah, but snooty Chris Nolan would want an actor who can do all of it and not parse out parts of the character. Even with Bane, who is never seen speaking without his mask.

Oh I understand that. I was just pointing out my view on how I would have handled a character like bane if I was doing a movie. Same also if we see darkseid/doomsday ever make it into a film.

One of my favourite elements of TDKR is that it retains the original comics notion that Bane and Batman are mirrors of each other. A man born in a mansion and a man born in a prison, but both trained themselves to near physical perfection, both became more than men but became ideas, but representing opposite values. The same methods, differing goals. Bane is the anti-Batman. Or, to place it in literary terms, Carton and Darnay.

James Bond wasn't originally written as a 5'10'' foot blonde but that didn't matter because Daniel Craig nailed the role. It's nice that Chuck Dixon can acknowledge there are differences with Nolan's Bane but it doesn't bring the whole house down, what matters for him is if the essence of the character is intact. Schumacher's Bane may look more like that character than Hardy's, but it doesn't mean shit when it comes to the essence.

webhead2006 wrote:My view on that if you have a big huling guy/creature u just hire a stunt guy/wrrestler what ever to do the body work. Then in bane case and others wearing masls or what not. You then just hire someone else to be voice. And there you go.

I agree with this. Physically, Hardy didn't do much of anything that any body builder couldn't have done. If it's a matter of his voice, the wrestler (or whoever) could've been overdubbed. Bane's physicality is a big part of his character. Sometimes, compromises have to be made.

Unless you're Chris Nolan, and then you can just hire a midget in a mask to play the part.

Totally colors its no different like in ff 2 they had that creature guy do body for surfer but then dubbed his voice, or even sv used wrestlers for big guys/stunt dudes to fill a role. There is probably many other tv/films I am blanking on that done simular things but if all the body actor is doing is standing around/fighting why bother hiring a big name actor who be doing not much. When you can hire a cheaper stunt guy and then grab a cool voice person like a james earl jones, michael clarrk duncun and other cool voices and use budget wisely/better.

webhead2006 wrote:Totally colors its no different like in ff 2 they had that creature guy do body for surfer but then dubbed his voice, or even sv used wrestlers for big guys/stunt dudes to fill a role. There is probably many other tv/films I am blanking on that done simular things but if all the body actor is doing is standing around/fighting why bother hiring a big name actor who be doing not much. When you can hire a cheaper stunt guy and then grab a cool voice person like a james earl jones, michael clarrk duncun and other cool voices and use budget wisely/better.

That brings up a good point. Many wrestlers are actors in a sense already. The difference is that they perform in a different mode than modern Hollywood acting. Fine. But they're there already in many respects. They understand theatricality and screen presence.

My point is that they may not be good as actors in terms of what we expect from Hollywood movies... but isn't it kind of stupid to pre-suppose they CAN'T BE TRAINED TO DO THE JOB?!?! Look, this isn't even about what Hardy is or isn't. Not anymore. I honestly hadn't considered this possibility before but where the hell is it written in stone that a wrestler must alwaysalwaysalways be a horrible actor with no hope of improvement and that actors like The Rock are the exception? Who's to say that other all pro wrestlers absolutely don't have the capability to switch gears and give a credible performance in a different style of acting?

If Chris fucking Nolan is half the director that his proctologists... uh, I mean, fans would have us believe, surely he can pull a good performance out of someone who's already an actor to begin with, right? Shit, Kevin Smith pulled decent performances out of his high school friends in Clerks. You mean to tell me some tubby fanboy with a camera can do the job but somehow it's impossible for Chris Nolan?

Or maybe it's just beneath him?

As for the voice in an overdub, shit, you've got a litany of choices. If Bane must be reimagined as a crusty white European, why not overdub Christopher Lee's voice? It's plenty menacing and it's not like he has no experience playing villains.

Believe it or not, Hulk Hogan may have given pro wrestlers a bad name as actors. He did do well in ROCKY III when his popularity was first starting to explode as a wrestler but then later on he tried to really get into acting with his own films & flopped. To be fair though he did have a decent 'TV movie' called ASSAULT ON DEVIL'S ISLAND which co-starred Carl Weathers & Shannon Tweed. Yes, that Shannon Tweed. Anyway, I think his acting career for the most part was considered a failure. But 'The Rock' comes along & did both successfully but like you said, he's considered the exception.

Since he's been brought up recently, people also remember another wrestler's performance, Jeep Swenson as Bane. I suppose when you take into account things like this, duh public perceives wrestlers as being meatheads when it comes to acting but they're already acting! Even 'Triple H' was discussed online as being THOR but was also dismissed.

I can say this. If they want size for a villain, this may be the place to look. Even bodybuilders & powerlifters may be an option. However, it goes back also to the perception that they 'can't act'. But it may be something worth considering. There is something to work with there but it's not gonna happen without some kind of preparation.

Remember, there was once upon a time a bodybuiler who wasn't given much of a chance because they didn't even think his name was marketable, much less could act. His name is Ahh-nulld!

So right guys some been bad but others are good. Its just on what they are given and directed as. And colors again ya with voice guys u can go in any direction you want. And I was just throwing out names ofba few guys I like and done voice work. But it could be any one.

As far as the whole broken back angle goes, am I the only one who had a problem with this? Not so much that it happened but more how it happened. I've always said Batman isn't a brawler. He doesn't usually fight somebody until/unless he knows how to win. A tough guy like Bane, esp given Alfred's warnings, would inspire Batman to research the guy's history and what he's all about. He for damn sure wouldn't go into a life-or-death combat situation in less than top form if he could avoid it. He'd build himself back up, train again, etc.

Now, you could argue that there just wasn't enough time for that or that Bruce had a death wish or whatever else. Not buying it. The guy was a threat to Gotham City. There's no way in hell Batman would leave anything to chance when it comes to that.

It's not worth losing your shit over, I guess, but this is one part of the movie I've had trouble believing in.

Although I haven't read KNIGHTFALL I have seen some of the images of Bane breaking Batman's back. They're actually kinda disturbing. However, what Hardly Bane did in TDKR was about like 'fake' wrestling. Do you see where I'm coming from? If you've ever watched wrestling I'm sure you know it's scripted & 'entertainment'. Nevertheless those wrestlers really are physical guys. Even though they're 'faking' things it still takes it's toll. But if you watch closely you can see them 'telegraph' moves to each other, pull punches, etc. Well, what Hardly Bane did to Batman in this film reminds me of that. It was like a quick 'suplex' or whatever. The point is, there was nothing disturbing about it. At all. Unlike the comic that is.

non_amos wrote:Although I haven't read KNIGHTFALL I have seen some of the images of Bane breaking Batman's back. They're actually kinda disturbing. However, what Hardly Bane did in TDKR was about like 'fake' wrestling. Do you see where I'm coming from? If you've ever watched wrestling I'm sure you know it's scripted & 'entertainment'. Nevertheless those wrestlers really are physical guys. Even though they're 'faking' things it still takes it's toll. But if you watch closely you can see them 'telegraph' moves to each other, pull punches, etc. Well, what Hardly Bane did to Batman in this film reminds me of that. It was like a quick 'suplex' or whatever. The point is, there was nothing disturbing about it. At all. Unlike the comic that is.

A friend from high school was a wrestler for years. Her neck is completely jacked up as a result. If she ever wrestles again, she'd better have a wheelchair on standby. So yeah, it can definitely take a toll on you.

I remember the moment in the movie but I guess I didn't take note of how it looked. If I see it again, I'll pay closer to attention. But what you say... I dunno, sounds about right.

Knightfall is worth reading for historical purposes if nothing else. Some people really hate the storyline, some love it, but I've always been kind of ambivalent about it. The issue where Bane breaks his back (Batman #497) was drawn by Jim Aparo. By about this point in his career, the guy was way past his prime. Sacrilegious though it may seem, I've often wondered how Graham Nolan or Norm Breyfogle (other artists from that period) would've handled the job. Methinks they would've turned in art that was a lot more dynamic. Aparo's art just doesn't really convey the brutality of it. Bane pretty much kicks Batman's ass all over the Batcave for something like half the issue. But I don't think Aparo really sold the savagery of it all, you know?

This seems as good a place as any to post this.

http://screenrant.com/batman-dark-knight-trilogy-best-parts/

The Themes
Superhero movies are often seen as popcorn flicks. Viewers enter the theater to be entertained and a great superhero film can do that. But Nolan's Batman films were deeper and more thoughtful than that. Each of them was entertaining, but the movies spoke to something deeper about the human spirit. They struggled with profound themes such as heroism, honor and integrity.

District Attorney Harvey Dent was a prime example of this. A public icon who stood for clean streets and ethical superiority became a vengeful monster when his loved one was murdered. But even after his death, Dent's legacy was maintained by those who thought to serve a greater good.

The idea of hiding the truth about a political icon in order to maintain public morale, while undermining a true hero's innocence, was a fine example of how the Nolan's films took on deep concepts and made them a core part of the franchise.

Not seeing a theme being expanded upon there. You ever see Idiocracy? Shit like this reminds me of that. "Brawndo: it's got electrolytes". There's not a single character in the whole movie who can explain wtf electrolytes are; all the Idiots know is that Brawndo has 'em. Same deal with Nolan. "It's got THEMES!" Yeah? Enlighten me. Not saying I disagree (or that I agree, for that matter), just that I question their ability to break it all down.

But let's run with Harvey for a minute. He's the golden boy, thought to be incorruptible. He falls. Then there's Batman. He set out to embody an ideal. Through invasive counter-measures not to mention taking the fall for murders he had nothing to do with (and skirting the blame for a murder he's directly responsible for)... he falls. Alfred knew the truth about what choice Rachel made... and chose to conceal it. He was never presented as a paragon of morality in any of the movies but, either way, he too falls.

The take away? There are no heroes. There's no such thing as incorruptibility. The good guys lost the fight, they got the shit beaten out of them but they claim victory anyway based upon one lie built on top of another. You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become a villain. There are no martyrs. There are no happy endings. Life sucks.

(A) If that's considered a theme, well, whatever. But (B) I totally just pulled it out of my ass. I've never seen anybody else marshal the above arguments. So either I'm right to question just how thematically driven Nolan's films are or else I'm right that the majority of those films' admirers are fucking idiots.

Either way, I win.

The Tone
Many of the previous Batman films were dark affairs. Tim Burton's films presented Gotham as a cold and dark town with seedy characters and an ugly underbelly. But Nolan's films took the darkness even deeper.

Never descending into silliness or caricature, these movies maintained a serious tone even as other superhero movies offered more light-hearted fare.

Put another way, Nolan sucked every last bit of fun out of the concept of Batman. The darkness of the material is what it is but at the same time you can't tell me that every last freakin scene needed to include instructions on how to slit your wrists.

The Boldness
In the latest episode of the Screen Rant Underground Podcast, Kofi Outlaw noted how shocking Rachel Dawes' death was in The Dark Knight. Dawes, an important supporting player in the first two films, was Bruce Wayne's on-again, off-again love interest. Few writers would dare to kill off such a character, and even fewer would dare to do it in the middle of a movie.

But TDK showed that the filmmakers were willing to do anything to tell a good story. It was hard not to be surprised when Dawes was killed, but it was difficult not to be impressed with how Nolan used that tragedy to transform both Dent and Wayne into even more troubled figures.

There were several other notable tragedies in this trilogy, but Rachel Dawes' death was the most interesting; killing off such a vital character set in motion a series of events that made this trilogy even more profound than it would have been, otherwise.

Spare me. I was relatively active on a certain Batman forum at the time TDK was in production and I'm here to tell you that the vast majority of Nolanites on that message board correctly predicted the Joker would whack Rachel. True, they perhaps erred in how directly responsible he would be but they nonetheless called it. Shit, I think a lot of us called it when we found out more about TDK's style and tone during principal photography. The one thing nobody can claim is that they didn't see it coming. Or I guess if they can, they're either lying or they're stupid. Take your pick.

I can't even dig through the rest of that drivel.

http://whatculture.com/film/the-dark-knight-rises-sequel-10-things-warner-bros-must-get-right.php/2

The above is written by your typical Nolan gusher. Maybe I'm the one with the problem but it had pretty much never occurred to me to do a sequel to TDKRises. Not as a serious proposition. I've assumed a warm reboot of some kind is not only the best option, it's probably already on some WB exec's docket. But this guy? A sequel is apparently the only option on the table.

Can't speak for anybody else but I wasn't exactly primed going into TDKRises. Asking me to get excited about a "Batman" movie presumably without Bruce Wayne anywhere in sight... no. Just no. Zero enthusiasm for that.