The Dark Knight Rises

H

hellrasinbrasin

Guest
I had 2 - 3 minor gripes with the film but nothing that caused me to not enjoy it. The majority of the complaints from fans in the community is stemming from "the way" Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy ends. The complaints have no basis whatsoever in reality and if these folks had paid attention to Batman Begins and The Dark Knight the way this iteration concludes makes perfect sense. I look forward to discussing the film with u all Saturday...
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
hellrasinbrasin said:
The complaints have no basis whatsoever in reality and if these folks had paid attention to Batman Begins and The Dark Knight the way this iteration concludes makes perfect sense.

Oh no, is it that bad? :sad:

Just kidding, don't answer that. Actually, please don't talk about the movie, especially its ending, with cryptic foreknowledge. It's not a spoiler technically speaking, but it definitely spoils the experience in the spirit of the rule.
 
H

hellrasinbrasin

Guest
Which is why I will not officially begin talking about the Trilogy as a whole until 12:00 am Saturday Morning... Which gives me from 2:00 am Thursday 7-19-12 - 12:00 am Saturday 7-21-12 to crank out summary Spoilers for RISES and core plot points from Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.
 
Could've gone sooner but I'm watching it on Wednesday next week, 10:10 PM with a few friends. I'm avoiding this topic from this moment on.
 
H

hellrasinbrasin

Guest
Walter said:
Just curious, how did you see it already?
I had gotten my ticket through friends who do advertising in Los Angeles and is how I was able to get a ticket for the screening I went to Walter that ended up becoming a 2 day affair due to a glitch with equipment.

---------

IncantatioN said:
Could've gone sooner but I'm watching it on Wednesday next week, 10:10 PM with a few friends. I'm avoiding this topic from this moment on.
Don't worry Incantation I don't intend to post spoilers until the Midnight screenings let out Friday morning...
 

Scorpio

Courtesy of Grail's doodling.
Just got back from the 5am showing here in Scotland. I've read a few negative reviews, but they all seem to agree that the previous two films were flawless (ha) and that it makes this one poor in comparison; which is false. This is exactly the same standard as the other movies- expect more corny moments, simply strange plot points, and odd cameos in what ultimately results in a enjoyable few hours. Really, this movie plays it safe by recycling a lot of the previous films in what I suppose is supposed to be a thematic, full circle affair. Some of it works, and some of it misses the mark, but as a result you get a familiar movie with a few tweaks. It works, and I enjoyed it.

Though I am curious as to how some of the misses affected all of your viewing experiences... I feel like those moments will make or break it for the viewer depending on how well they deal with them.
There's lots of details to point out, but one of the parts that lost my suspension of disbelief the most was when the armed police force confronted the armed criminals outside city all. Instead of say, using their guns in an urban skirmish, they both forgo their weapons after a few seconds to instead charge each other in direct melee combat. Still puzzled.

I also wouldn't mind discussing the ending at some point, but people should probably see it first.
 

Saephon

Die young and save yourself
Just got back. For some context on my opinion, I thought both of the first two films were, while exaggerated and not "Batmany" enough, still pretty darn good. They were slightly overrated in general, but I'm not the type of guy who wages war against overrated things unless they're actually terrible.

Anyway I expected The Dark Knight Rises to be a notch below the previous movie, and I'd say it was actually a little better than that. Now onto my indepth review and spoilers:

Though the cheese and belief-stretching details were present, the story was entertaining and mostly easy to follow, if a bit predictable. The character reveals/twists at the end were a tad obvious I thought. But one strength I hope other people noticed is that the movie did not seem to ride on the coattails of The Dark Knight. In the opening scenes it almost seems like it will, with all the Harvey Dent pictures and mentions. But then it just....stops. After the first ten minutes the movie finds an identity of its own and avoids the pretension its predecessor had in spades.

Christopher Nolan is quoted as saying that he didn't think Rises would top or even run par with The Dark Knight. While I think he turned out to be correct, I find this to play in the movie's favor. It's as if the film is self-aware of its purpose and shortcomings, and doesn't really try to hide them. It's a mildly cheesy, suspenseful film with a decent theme: Not fearing death isn't always admirable, and sometimes it takes more courage to live and find yourself. I think the way it ends satisfies that. It's still a somewhat confused-feeling spectacle, with half crime drama and half Batman. Our caped crusader may have had the least screentime in costume ever in this installment. I also maintain that Catwoman was out of place, and did not add much that any other character could have. At least Nolan did not try to make her into a competing villain a la Spiderman 3's Sandman.

If I have one sharp criticism of Rises, it's Bane's acting. While I enjoy the choice of villain, I feel he was not adequately directed. There was so much questionable line delivery, and throughout the film he felt like more of an instrument of skewed justice than a person with his own motivations. But perhaps that was the point? Overall I think The Dark Knight Rises is worth seeing, if you can forgive the inconsistency in its details and the fact that its villain(s?) fall quite short not of just Heath Ledger's Joker, but what would be expected of anyone else hell-bent on razing Gotham to the ground.

Saephon's Rating: 8/10
 
Trying to follow up what I believe is the best superhero movie to date is a hard task, but Rises I felt didn't try to. Nolan really wrapped up the series in fan pleasing fashion with enough tease and food for thought to keep fans talking, but enough closure to ensure that Christopher Nolan's Batman will never return. I personally enjoyed many of the performances especially those of Hardy, Gordan-Levitt, Hathaway and Bale. But I wish Bane's character could've been better handled, there was something missing that muddled the great performance from Tom Hardy. It's interesting to think what Heath Ledger's Joker might've brought to the movie had Ledger not passed away, if he had been added at all.

Overall I give the movie 9/10, to which I pray that this will be the last rating I ever give a Batman movie.

P.S. John Blake=Robin? Nightwing? Neo-Batman?
 
H

hellrasinbrasin

Guest
The Dark Knight Rises Trilogy is the quintessential example of how to do a comic book series. For as long a we can recall comic book film have had an opening chapter but never a middle or a definitive end and in turn became episodic pieces not a cohesive story. But with Nolan we know that a series like Batman can be taken seriously enough by someone that gets the character, world that the characters dwell in, and the rogues gallery that best mirror Batman. While many may not be to fond of a definitive end to a theatrical interpritation of Batman you have to respect the fact that the studio's trusted him enough to tell the story he wanted to tell and just stepped back and let Nolan do his job.
 

MrWeatherby

What's up, ketchup?
This was no TDK or Begins, but I'd still recommend it to anyone who wants to watch a great movie. Just be prepared going into this thing, it's pretty much Bane!: The Movie, with actual appearances by Batman being ridiculously slim. Not that it's a bad thing, hell given
the fact that it goes the Knightfall route, it's very much a part of the narrative
. But, apparently a bunch of people are real bent out of shape about that.

Also, damnit if that thing didn't end in a very ballsy way.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Well, I enjoyed it. It wasn't even close to The Dark Knight, which was pretty much the whole point of this Batman sandwich, but it was technically very impressive, if a bit underwhelming in some regards. The reviews are pretty spot on, including the ones here, not as good as the last one (there's an argument to be made between this and Begins), but a good movie in its own right. I really like the first act, even though it's he part most are criticizing because it's slow, but I liked it, and more amazingly, the third act wasn't the Nolan false start never-ending no rhythm special (though you could argue the whole movie is one giant unwieldy third act =). It kind of flowed to a natural conclusion action-wise and ended when you felt it should (or maybe a scene or two late, depending on your tastes). If anything, while it was too long, it was actually too short for everything it was trying to do and felt rushed, particularly the middle. Things sort of spin out of control a little faster than you can suspend disbelief. I didn't really mind though, because my stance coming out is what I thought going in, these movies (Begins and Rises) are bookends to The Dark Knight, which is Nolan's quintessential Batman movie. They're good movies in their own ways, but they're not essential, and thematically Rises is much more the sequel to Begins than it is TDK anyway. These two make a nice set (they should have just stuck Katie Holmes in the picture frame for Rachel =), but TDK is better on it's own; a silent guardian, a lone protector.

Anyway, let's get to the specific pros and cons:

Love crazy eccentric Bruce Wayne. The first third of this movie had great potential for him, like he was really going to shine as a character here, and I would have been up for 3 hours of just this, but that went away as soon as he climbed out of that pit and became the same guy from Begins and TDK. I liked that he enjoyed being Batman again, that there was a selfish angle to it, and good lord the first fight with Bane and this Batman's literal and figurative deconstruction were great. To the point I don't quite understand how he was able to overcome a finely-tuned killing machine like Bane simply by doing pushups, chin-ups and the easy course at a rock climbing gym. I think he might have been better served practicing fighting again, ya'know? Also, I have a couple better ideas how to get past that jump on the ledge. First, don't even do it since there's a million jutting grips going all the way to the top. Second, how about a running start? His back would have really broken on those falls anyway.

Bane was good, though I have to concede sometimes I couldn't understand him and I rarely have that problem at the movies. I liked most of his lines, though some were cheesy, particularly some of the reaction to him ("OMG, you're pure evil, waaaaaaah!" gimmie a break). He looked impressive in the fights with Bats. The movie really slowed down though when he took over. Like I said, I didn't buy the whole takeover of Gotham and it was the worst parts for Bane (well, almost, get to that next). Unfortunately, after he gets beat, suddenly he's just this big thug crybaby pussy stooge in love after being totally in command for the first two hours of the movie. That wasn't cool. It was like Darth Vader's reverse arc in the Star Wars series in one movie.

Also, the Talia reveal wasn't worth how obvious it was and the whole thing made little sense with Bane and her father and her phony need for revenge. Also, thematically, I thought there'd be more to all the social commentary, but it was really just BS background noise. I'm glad it wasn't too preachy, but it didn't really engage the issues it was grabbing onto any more deeply than a drum circle. It actually kind of undermined those issues, making them the phoney cover story for these killers. Also, it was just too over the top and unreal. The Joker worked because he was insane and believed in chaos, and his antics pretty much stretched your suspension of disbelief to the fullest (that the army wouldn't just take over the city), and this was over that line, particularly because the baddies don't believe in anything that makes sense and yet won't just set off their silly giant movie bomb for the win (the non-interference of the outside world was such, right down to fake old whitey movie President; they should have just got Obama, he doesn't refuse any media invitation =). Anyway, Talia sucked, though it explained why she just randomly jumped into bed with Bruce so fast, though I don't know why he was suddenly so in love with her.

Catwoman was better than expected, but that's not saying much. She was still unnecessary and unbelievable. Particularly her ending with Bruce. She direct helps bankrupt him and destroy his body but as soon as he's back it's all under the bridge without even hashing it out? MARRIAGE MATERIAL! I guess after eight years in isolation you'll fall in love with any woman willing to sleep with you.

Ok, the ending... I'm glad he lived, because the whole nuclear martyrdom was a BIT much. Also, the explosion looked like shit, and a water detonation.. nevermind, moving on. Too much the mega happy ending, right down to the cheesy preordained in this movie moment with Alfred (whom there otherwise wasn't enough of), and c'mon, they still didn't say "hi" under the circumstances? Alfred just left with a grouchy look on his face like the service sucked and someone farted on his food. Anyway, whatever. It was an ending, but man did it suck compared to the last one. It was like out of M:I 1.

Finally, Blake, who I liked, and it was obvious he was going to be taking over as Batman by the end of the movie from the first scene he talks to Wayne, but I would have preferred a synthesis of the endings (not to be confused with a SYNTHESIS ENDING) where there's an official transfer of power from Wayne to him. That would have been perfect and basically what I was expecting, and they sort of met all the criteria, but in sort of an awkward way where Bruce is off having Mai-tai's with the woman that ruined him and not speaking to the man that raised him. I think the transfer of power would have been less contrived.

Also, Robin? Really, I was so excited at the, "Oh, try my LEGAL name" moment, but then, ROBIN!? How about just Dick Grayson? Or Tim Drake, or even Jean-Paul Valley (though that's a hell of a legal name =) or Terry McGinnis. I don't think it needed to be so dumbed down.

Anyway, there are my initial thoughts, though my brain is fried and I'm forgetting half the stuff I thought to say at work today (I probably fucked up a lot writing too, but you'll know what I mean =). My main take away is that this film just goes to show how good TDK is, because it's somehow exponentially better as a heavy-handed serious film, message movie, and popcorn flick. It makes this one look like a typical superhero movie, but it's actually technically kind of amazing.

hellrasinbrasin said:
The Dark Knight Rises Trilogy is the quintessential example of how to do a comic book series. For as long a we can recall comic book film have had an opening chapter but never a middle or a definitive end and in turn became episodic pieces not a cohesive story.

Hard to accept that when the second movie actually stands better on its own if you ignore the other two. Also, I don't think it's a quintessential example of anything any more than the Spider-Man trilogy was, which actually parallels this series in more ways than one would think when considering the quality of the films in each series relative to the other films in their series, and for similar reasons (that order being: 2, 1, 3). That's especially specious when you consider he admitted the only point to do doing this one was as a bookend to the first. The point of the trilogy was basically to make TDK.

hellrasinbrasin said:
But with Nolan we know that a series like Batman can be taken seriously enough by someone that gets the character, world that the characters dwell in, and the rogues gallery that best mirror Batman.

When one of the main criticisms of your Batman series is that your Batman himself is kind of a bore, I don't know that it's fair to say he got the character better than anyone has gotten a hero on screen. It's certainly a strong vision/interpretation of Batman in its own right, as this paragon struggling to maintain his principles in the most extreme circumstances; but again, that's best exemplified in the second film, where it's also self-contained minus all the stereotypical Eastern mumbo-jumbo of the first and last films.

hellrasinbrasin said:
While many may not be to fond of a definitive end to a theatrical interpritation of Batman you have to respect the fact that the studio's trusted him enough to tell the story he wanted to tell and just stepped back and let Nolan do his job.

That doesn't have anything to do with anything. It's about how good the ending was and I'd say it was ok. I can't say I liked it or that it really resonated with me. Not to beat a dead horse, but the last movie's ending was great, and better still minus this movie because it established Batman's adversarial relationship with police while also solving the problem of criminals having figured out he won't kill, which is completely negated by the premise of this movie. It would be like if they'd done something stupid like brought Harvey Dent back from the dead. :troll:

MrWeatherby said:
But, apparently a bunch of people are real bent out of shape about that.

I don't see why, it should have been more of that.

MrWeatherby said:
Also, damnit if that thing didn't end in a very ballsy way.

Really? I didn't think it was unexpected
, and kind of sappy even
. Again, compare it to the last one, which I will stop sucking off for the moment... NOW!
 

MrWeatherby

What's up, ketchup?
Yes, really.
Batman as we've known him for three films now has very much died. Bruce may have lived, but Batman evaporated in that explosion as far as Gotham and even the viewer is concerned. It's also weird seeing Batman have a definite ending, and a happy one at that. It was well telegraphed, though unconventional and gutsy.

Can we talk about the
Clean Slate program for a second, and how it might have been the dumbest thing ever? It's literally a "happy ending" button and never really elaborated on to be much else. Like, yeah, Catwoman wants it because I guess she's terrified of Bane, but then also they seem to be on non-confrontational terms. She sold Batman out to him, and she was able to waltz right in and boss his goons around later. The only person who wanted her dead was that guy who assumed he had bought Bane, but clearly his authority didn't last. In general it doesn't even seem like Bane cares about Catwoman, and hardly acknowledges her. Even if she wanted it as some tool to enable her sloppy style of thievery, it wasn't very well telegraphed. Did I just miss something or was it there just to give us a peachy ending?

Just so I don't seem pessimistic (because I do like this movie), here's some points I thought stuck out as being great:

- The Bat. I wasn't sold on this thing even up until starting the movie, but I loved it by the end.
- Bane. He has this real Darth Vader nature to him, where he'll step into a room and command attention by his mere presence.
- Bane breaking Batman's back. Right out of Knightfall.
- The whole third act, especially Bane flipping out after his mask started to break.
- Scarecrow running a kangaroo court. He's so damn giddy and happy to be there.

I don't see why, it should have been more of that.

I liked it too. They kept his struggle interesting enough that he didn't need to be in the cape and cowl the whole time.

edit: Also thought it was pretty weird how
Batman unceremoniously kills Talia and one of her goons. I'm sure it's because he knew it was her or the whole city, but earlier he even makes a point to mention no guns, no killing. Hell it's even called back on shortly before that when Catwoman blasts Bane away and goes "HAW HAW, OOPS!"
 

Saephon

Die young and save yourself
With regards to Mr. Blake, I jokingly said to my friend before the movie started that I hoped there'd be a post-credits scene setting up Batman Beyond.

So close!!! Oh if only that name had been Terry...
 
H

hellrasinbrasin

Guest
http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_doubts-surround-250-million-film-the-dark-knight-rises_1717988
 
hellrasinbrasin said:
http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_doubts-surround-250-million-film-the-dark-knight-rises_1717988


Its just another case of misplaced hysteria by a public who doesn't know any better.(Jaws 2.0) And seriously, if I hear about people bashing the movie for causing violence, I'll throw up. So a movie like The Dark Knight Rises makes someone shoot up a movie theater and Hostel doesn't? Really??????????????
 

Kompozinaut

Sylph Sword
JoeZeon said:
P.S. John Blake=Robin? Nightwing? Neo-Batman?

He struck me as a mashup of a couple Robins. He deduced Batman's identity (albeit not in the same way) like Tim Drake did. And then he presumably took Bruce's place as Batman just as Dick Grayson did in the wake of Batman's supposed death. Those were what immediately came to mind for me.

Also, does anyone else kind of wish this had been called Knightfall, or do you think that would have given false expectations? I mean, the movie shares some similarities with the comic arc. I'm having an OCD moment with the titles of the Nolan-verse. They feel too unbalanced.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
hellrasinbrasin said:
http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_doubts-surround-250-million-film-the-dark-knight-rises_1717988

www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDQob4AOCsQ#t=1m43s


Anyway, doesn't look like it's actually hurting business too dramatically:

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=batman3.htm

It's the 3rd highest opening weekend ever, practically already made back it's production/advertising budget, and is sure to be plenty profitable still. If it doesn't become the biggest movie ever in the wake of the shooting, so be it. As I pointed out to co-worker today that also saw a midnight showing, we're among the few people that experienced the movie without the weight of those killings on our mind. I wonder how that changes one's perception of the film. I had a pretty light experience despite some of the heavier content (I didn't think it was as dark as The Dark Knight). Did people that saw it after take it more seriously?
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Groovy Metal Fist said:
Did anyone else get a very neoconservative vibe from these last two films?

Oh God. :schierke:

Yeah yeah, the listening device in TDK was pro-Bush, and this one is pro-cop (:isidro:) and down on class warfare. Or, the opposite? The listening device was bad, and so are the greedy rich that ruin us all (plus, BANE obviously equals BAIN, liberal Hollywood does it again before the big election)! Anyway, these movies are actually so broad in their good vs. evil stances that people can read whatever they want into it... and probably be annoying for it.

But here's someone that agrees with you:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/07/21/Dark-Knight-Rises-Review-Nolte?

:casca:
 
H

hellrasinbrasin

Guest
If we look at The Dark Knight + The Dark Knight Rises as a segmented Knightfall story then The Joker full filled Bane's role of breaking Batman's Mind in TDK and Bane breaks Batman's body and spirit in TDKR.
 
Griffith said:
Oh God. :schierke:

Yeah yeah, the listening device in TDK was pro-Bush, and this one is pro-cop (:isidro:) and down on class warfare. Or, the opposite? The listening device was bad, and so are the greedy rich that ruin us all (plus, BANE obviously equals BAIN, liberal Hollywood does it again before the big election)! Anyway, people see what they want to see... and are annoying for it.

It's not a matter of me wanting a neoconservative message, because I don't, it's that certain aspects of the story pop out at me. Using the listening device was shown as necessary and beneficial to Batman. Batman is put under a ticking time bomb scenario and has to beat a confession out of the Joker. Batman and Gordon lie to the public for their own good and there's more stability and less crime until the lie is exposed. Bane and Catwoman's rhetoric has overlap with OWS's rhetoric and spreading those views around caused mass chaos in the story.

What I see in reality, however, is far different from what I see in a fictional universe where writers can manipulate information, events, and people however they wish.

Griffith said:
But here's someone that agrees with you:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/07/21/Dark-Knight-Rises-Review-Nolte?

:casca:

I could just as easily reply to a post by a progressive opposing the Iraq War by posting a link to a white supremacist website also opposing the Iraq War. 2 people can agree on the same issue, but still have extremely different world views or motivations for taking their stances, so I would never do that and would strongly object to anyone who did.
 

Oburi

All praise Grail
Groovy Metal Fist said:
Did anyone else get a very neoconservative vibe from these last two films?

I highly suggest you read Nolan's interview in the latest Rolling Stone. All the politics within the film are a backdrop for the story. He's writing from a place of creativity for the fictional city of Gotham.

Nolan says "The films genuinely aren't intended to be political".
The interviewer then adds, "A lot of people would argue all art is political".
"But what's politics"?
So would Bruce Wayne vote for Mitt Romney"?
"Before or after Bruce goes broke"?

Thought that was funny.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Well, you win, I'm hooked, let's do this. :guts:

Groovy Metal Fist said:
It's not a matter of me wanting a neoconservative message, because I don't, it's that certain aspects of the story pop out at me.

Yeah, I know (I've read your posts before), instead what you're proposing is some kind of surreptitious conservative message, just as a bunch of obnoxious conservative critics out there are constantly "on the lookout" for liberal Hollywood's propaganda messages (perhaps you're both right =). I hate that kind of grousing though, even when probably true it strikes me as... whiny.

So, I'm not denying one can see it that way, one can easily see a "conservative" slant if they have that idea, just as a conservative could rail against all the perceived "liberal" messages or criticisms in the movies. But, in either case, it's more annoying than relevant here, and more about what one thinks politically than what's allegedly political about these movies (which are vague and simplistic, probably intentionally). There's probably a larger debate that could be had about the politics of Batman in general, but who would want to? (maybe me =)

Groovy Metal Fist said:
Using the listening device was shown as necessary and beneficial to Batman. Batman is put under a ticking time bomb scenario and has to beat a confession out of the Joker. Batman and Gordon lie to the public for their own good and there's more stability and less crime until the lie is exposed. Bane and Catwoman's rhetoric has overlap with OWS's rhetoric and spreading those views around caused mass chaos in the story.

Again, goes both ways, Lucius made a big speech about how it was still wrong and it had to be destroyed. There's plenty of other liberal ideas expounded on that would make an actively listening conservative roll their eyes, as there are other "conservative" points you could cite. Batman didn't actually beat the confession out of the Joker, his enhanced integration techniques failed, the Joker mocked and played him for a fool, and all and all it didn't work. The lie was harshly condemned in the third film and was made thematically ineffective, as was the "Dent Act." Practically every cop in Gotham was corrupt in the first two movies, as was the entire system corrupt and ineffectual in all of them (could go either way, anti-government vs. anti-authority =). To be fair, I'd agree with you on the OWS-like rhetoric thematically, but it didn't really do anything in the story, the chaos was basically because Bane said so and blew everything up, disappointingly (I was hoping for something more overtly politically meaningful myself).

Groovy Metal Fist said:
What I see in reality, however, is far different from what I see in a fictional universe where writers can manipulate information, events, and people however they wish.

In this case you may be the writer, though. You're smarter and more informed than anything in these movies. They're like a blank canvas, the ideology is so basic one can see whatever they want and cast the characters and themes accordingly; "they're for/against us," "we're obviously the good guys/bad guys." It's a Rorschach test; if you just see a giant bat, you're not a political ideologue.

Groovy Metal Fist said:
I could just as easily reply to a post by a progressive opposing the Iraq War by posting a link to a white supremacist website also opposing the Iraq War. 2 people can agree on the same issue, but still have extremely different world views or motivations for taking their stances, so I would never do that and would strongly object to anyone who did.

Uh huh... not that I shouldn't be censured for my heinous foul, but it's a good thing we're just talking about BATMAN, not the bloody Iraq War! Why so serious? That's mainly my objection to this topic, if you want to talk the politics of The Dark Knight (and again, fine, here we are, you win), you should probably do so with a lighter touch than you'd reserve for the Iraq War. Though, I would like to hear your political take on The Sin War... namely, Diablo III. Didn't you find that everything was always sort of justified by the greater good, no matter how horrible? They're constantly spouting shit like that. Particularly, Tyrael commenting on the Worldstone and the consequences for the barbarians. Did this stuff just not bother me when I was a teenager, or was Diablo II just not as stupid?

Oburi said:
Nolan says "The films genuinely aren't intended to be political".
The interviewer then adds, "A lot of people would argue all art is political".
"But what's politics"?
So would Bruce Wayne vote for Mitt Romney"?
"Before or after Bruce goes broke"?

Thought that was funny.

That is funny. And there you go, Nolan says the movies aren't political, right from the auteur's mouth. Like when Mel Gibson said the Passion of the Christ wasn't Anti-Se... ooooh.
 

Saephon

Die young and save yourself
I think people try too hard to read into movies these days, but on that note, isn't nearly everything about how we live our lives technically political? There's an important distinction between political and partisan, and if you told me a movie like The Dark Knight was literally apolitical, I'd assume it was directed by someone who...well, doesn't stand for anything. :ganishka: There can be a message without an agenda.
 
Top Bottom