The Dark Knight Rises

[Visions of Khas]

So I saw this opening night. I was skeptical walking in, and my fears were somewhat well founded. In my opinion the movie's a bit overblown. It's not a fitting sequel to The Dark Knight so much as an endcap for the Nolan Batman trilogy. I think everyone going in to see it will forever see it in the shadow of Heath Ledger's stellar performance. And if you constantly compare it against that movie, like I did, then you will be disappointed. If you see it however as the end of a saga, then it's much more fitting.

I was disappointed with Bane, but I'm not gonna talk spoilers right now.

Any of you see it yet? What did you think?

[DemolitionSquid]

I think we should talk about the Denver shooting.

[Hawki]

What's to talk about with the shooting?

I don't mean to trivialize it, but in the end, it was a psychopath attacking people at their most vulnerable. Unless you want to get into issues such as televised violance and gun control, there's not much left to say apart from our condolences to all those who lost their lives/were injured and their friends and family.

Concerning the movie itself...I found it to be "okay." Definately the weakest installment in the trilogy IMO, namely its rushed plot, the plot itself, the fact that it feels more like Blake's story than Bruce's, its lack of subtlety when it comes to its themes and Bane...who even now, I had trouble understanding at times. By no means a bad movie, and I think the trilogy's been closed out nicely, but I definately consider the previous installments to be superior.

[Turalyon]

Haven't seen it yet but just like to comment in general.

Up until TDKR, I've never considered Nolan's Batman movies to be considered as one continuous and linked trilogy. The first and second were so different as to be considered individual one-shots of Batman. Each were able to stand on their own merits.

I think one of the many reasons why TDK works so well is because you can go into it without knowing what happened previously. I'm not sure if this can be said of TDKR but based on some early reviews I've read, it seems that TDKR relies a lot on exposition and flashbacks to previous events in key scenes. This would imply it's capacity to be stand-alone, in the sense that it is a 'positive' when done well as TDK did, is hampered.

Sure, there's always going to be some disappointment due to hype and 'familiarity breeding contempt'-type feelings; however, in another sense, I'm actually quite happy to hear that the movie works well as a continuous trilogy. It is an extremely rare commodity these days to see unique interpretations (that is, not one sourced from previous works like the Lord of the Rings) be able to maintain the quality throughout the entire 3 movies without the third being a major let-down (see Spidey 3...).

[Hawki]

I think one of the many reasons why TDK works so well is because you can go into it without knowing what happened previously. I'm not sure if this can be said of TDKR but based on some early reviews I've read, it seems that TDKR relies a lot on exposition and flashbacks to previous events in key scenes. This would imply it's capacity to be stand-alone, in the sense that it is a 'positive' when done well as TDK did, is hampered.

Pretty much. It wasn't flashback wild or anything but it's definately less stand-alone than The Dark Knight.

Sure, there's always going to be some disappointment due to hype and 'familiarity breeding contempt'-type feelings; however, in another sense, I'm actually quite happy to hear that the movie works well as a continuous trilogy. It is an extremely rare commodity these days to see unique interpretations (that is, not one sourced from previous works like the Lord of the Rings) be able to maintain the quality throughout the entire 3 movies without the third being a major let-down (see Spidey 3...).

Hmm...you know, I actually consider Spider-Man 3 to be "okay."

Don't get me wrong, it's also the weakest installment of its trilogy, and there's a dozen things wrong with it, but...yeah, I see the pitchforks now. Still, it is a good point that while there are a few sequels I consider superior to their predecessors (TDK included), I can't think of many, if any where the third installment lives up to its predecessors bar Return of the King, and that was shot back to back with the previous films.

[Turalyon]

Hmm...you know, I actually consider Spider-Man 3 to be "okay."

So you rate Spidey 3 in the same league as TDKR then?

Barring individual opinions on their own for the time being and in consideration that it's early days for TDKR (TDKR backlash here we come!), it seems that TDKR is fairing better at both a critic and general consensus/ wider public opinion level than when compared to Spidey 3.

Still, it is a good point that while there are a few sequels I consider superior to their predecessors (TDK included), I can't think of many, if any where the third installment lives up to its predecessors bar Return of the King, and that was shot back to back with the previous films.

Yeah, I may have guessed (correctly?) that TDKR suffered a bit from "sequelitis". The problem with most film trilogies, despite what the creators say (they're lying if they say otherwise), is that they were NOT conceived as a whole right from the start unless the trilogy is already based off a seminal piece of a work (ie: LOTR).

A third film almost always often tries to justify itself such that it automatically necessitates it being continuous with the previous movies. This is especially the case when the franchise is slated to be a trilogy but when in reality there was no framework for it in the beginning. One only needs to look at Spidey 3, Godfather 3 and even Return of the Jedi as examples (there are many, many more) of how bogged down they feel because of the unspoken need to "tie-in" with the previous movies. The rare exception to all this in modern times is Matt Damon's Bourne trilogy. I can only hope the Bourne Legacy can maintain it.

As far as track records go, it seems the the best trilogies are either conceived right from the get-go (with perhaps a little help from source material that was developed over many years by an English professor ) and are really just one giant work like LOTR or are those that are only loosely connected with each part being powerhouses on their own merits like the Toy Story movies.

[Hawki]

So you rate Spidey 3 in the same league as TDKR then?

Barring individual opinions on their own for the time being and in consideration that it's early days for TDKR (TDKR backlash here we come!), it seems that TDKR is fairing better at both a critic and general consensus/ wider public opinion level than when compared to Spidey 3.

Sort of. I think one can divide things into the realms of "bad," "okay" and "good," with subdivisions such as "atrocious" and "excellent." That being said, I think The Dark Knight Rises is still better than Spider-Man 3 in the long run, but both fall into my middleground. Certainly the higher ratings don't surprise me.

Yeah, I may have guessed (correctly?) that TDKR suffered a bit from "sequelitis". The problem with most film trilogies, despite what the creators say (they're lying if they say otherwise), is that they were NOT conceived as a whole right from the start unless the trilogy is already based off a seminal piece of a work (ie: LOTR).

A third film almost always often tries to justify itself such that it automatically necessitates it being continuous with the previous movies. This is especially the case when the franchise is slated to be a trilogy but when in reality there was no framework for it in the beginning. One only needs to look at Spidey 3, Godfather 3 and even Return of the Jedi as examples (there are many, many more) of how bogged down they feel because of the unspoken need to "tie-in" with the previous movies. The rare exception to all this in modern times is Matt Damon's Bourne trilogy. I can only hope the Bourne Legacy can maintain it.

As far as track records go, it seems the the best trilogies are either conceived right from the get-go (with perhaps a little help from source material that was developed over many years by an English professor ) and are really just one giant work like LOTR or are those that are only loosely connected with each part being powerhouses on their own merits like the Toy Story movies.

Ah, I'd forgotten about Toy Story. Haven't seen any of the Bourne movies though.

I definately agree with what you said about film trilogies. Something I've noticed in some is that the first is stand-alone effectively, then two more are made to make it a trilogy ("trilogy" is a nice word and all that) and suffer because of it. The Matrix and Pirates of the Caribbean are examples IMO, where not only is the first film in both trilogies effectively stand-alone, but also the strongest installment. And when a sequel is better than the first installment (Terminator 2 and Aliens), the next installment takes things on a nose-dive in both cases.

Still, of the Star Wars prequel trilogy, I'd consider Revenge of the Sith to be the strongest installment. Go figure.

[GnaReffotsirk]

Any of you see it yet? What did you think?

I don't know exactly, but something was wrong. All I can say is that I wasn't "pulled" into the story.

I ended up trying to "ride" with the film, rather than being "carried" by it.

[Turalyon]

Still, of the Star Wars prequel trilogy, I'd consider Revenge of the Sith to be the strongest installment. Go figure.

What's there to figure? I think a large majority of people think the same thing.

IMO, the issue with the SW prequels is their misguided focus. They say that the prequel films are supposed to be about the character of Anakin but he is consistently the weakest aspect of the whole trilogy (yes, that includes Revenge of the Sith too). In retrospect, the series is actually (and perhaps should have been) about the Emperor/Palpatine. For those who aren't that savvy with their Star Wars lore, that particular revelation is actually quite shocking and it could of been mined a lot more for its worth than what we actually got.

One also has to keep in mind that Revenge is also only considered the best of the prequel SW trilogy because of the fluffery that are the first two installments. There wasn't so much as a lead-up but rather a "it's about time!" feel to Revenge if you catch my meaning. In other words, the prequel trilogy is largely a waste of time such that Revenge could've easily been re-written as the start of the prequel trilogy or as a single stand-alone prequel. In either case, it would have started with a meaningful contribution to the original trilogy (which is what it's all about in the end) straight-away rather than the tepid and far-removed feel that the Phantom Menace brought.

Lastly, the SW prequels (as a whole) are still technically sequels since they were produced after the original trilogy. Just because the chronology of the fictional world says it's a prequel does not make the prequel itself any less susceptible to the problems of "sequelitis" (which is essentially the issue of "wait, but there's more..." ).

[Visions of Khas]

I don't know exactly, but something was wrong. All I can say is that I wasn't "pulled" into the story.

I feel the same. Bane just wasn't that compelling as a villain. Even Ra's al Ghul was more interesting, in his own way. But one of my biggest problems with the plot....

SPOILER:
Is the fact that, by the end of the movie, you don't know whether Bane is as intelligent as he's initially portrayed to be. Did Talia orchestrate everything from behind the scenes, with Bane as her agent and enforcer? This diminishes his unique capacity as a villain to Batman by half; he's supposed to be equal parts brain and brawn, but in the end he seemed all brawn to me.

Especially considering his motives made no sense. Or Talia's, for that matter. Both were, in a sense, abandoned by Ra's al Ghul; Talia was born in a prison which was her home for 8 years, never knowing her father. And Bane would later be cast out from the League of Shadows. So I just don't understand their deep-seated dedication to Ra's. Doesn't make sense to me.

Anyways, that's all I can think of for right now.