Can The Dark Knight Rises Rise Above Its Predecessors?

[Loonerinoes]

I remember John Cleese during an interview, where he was asked as to why he didn't do a third series of Fawlty Towers. His answer was simple after a bit of a search for words:

"I could not win."

Similarly, I remember everyone going to Christopher Nolan after The Dark Knight and him making a good comment in that same kind of vein. "Eh...how many really awesome third parts of a trilogy can you really name?" I immediately picked up on that and quite frankly...I wouldn't have blamed him if he decided to turn down every offer to make the 3rd movie.

But he's obviously decided to go for it full force. He certainly does have the talent for it, no doubt whatsoever for that, as well as the drive and savvy to make the right choices. But as with all things...nothing's certain and everyone will see what they'll want to see.

I guess it's the same kind of tredipitation with which I look forward to it as I do when thinking about Mass Effect 3. Sure, Bioware made a great start in my mind with the first game, and they utterly blew me away with the second. But by now...I'm just afraid they don't either stumble upon their own hubris...or that they quite simply go batshit from the stress.

But back to the topic, I think there's every chance of the third Batman being genuinely awesome. But as always...the devil lies in the details. And when you're under tremendous amounts of pressure, a few details always escape your notice. The only question is will they be significant enough to make the audience go "This sucks compared to the last one." or will they be overshadowed by all the good so that, in the end, people will regard it as a good movie?

We'll see I guess.

 

[Sixcess]

I think he should have called it quits after TDK.

I'm not a Nolan fan. Begins bores me and I think TDK is an average movie made great by a couple of scenes and one outstanding performance (hint: it wasn't Bale's)

That aside - The Terminator, Alien, Superman and The Godfather all had great first and second instalments and an inferior third. However this goes it's unlikely to hit the heights of public and critical approval that TDK reached, so the only way is down really.

 

[cynicalsaint1]

Really I don't think it needs to do exceed The Dark Knight to be worth seeing. I think most people have all this wrong, it can still be an awesome movie, and not be as good as TDK.

 

[CJ1145]

Elizabeth, you seem to forget how Bane "broke the Bat", during this article. When I heard the news I assumed that this would not be the vast film you were referring to the other two as. It would, in my mind, be more of a psychological film and look more closely at Batman, his motivations, and such. Bane being here could lead to a very interesting set up, as a newly bedridden Batman has to find a way to continue to fight injustice against a man who knows everything about him, including his greatest weaknesses. It'd be a perfect way to bring Robin into the series, if you ask me. And I don't mean "Holy Heisenberg, Batman!" Robin, I mean one that will actually bring some depth to Batman's character as the perfect foil.

 

[Forktongue]

Honestly, I don't think Catwoman is going to be in this movie.

In the press release they describe Christian Bale as "Bruce Wayne/Batman" and Tom Hardy as Bane. They only refer to Anna Hathaway as Selina Kyle, not as Catwoman. My guess is that we'll see glimpses of the origin of Catwoman in this film but that's it. We'll see a relationship start to grow in this film that is tested in the next when Kyle takes on the Catwoman persona. The press release also mentions Bane being re-imagined for the film, similarly to the description given to the Joker in the press release announcing Ledger in the role.

So far Nolan has done a great job in taking over-the-top villains and making them work in a more realistic universe (no murderous laughing gas that makes people look like Joker or giant Two-Face coins meant to crush Batman). I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[notsosavagemessiah]

this will disappoint everybody, no matter how good it actually is.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Spidey would tear his arm off

Even when you take his extra strength into account?

Strength won't matter given the G-Forces he'd be under on a normal swing. Especially as it's attached to a needle thin point on his wrist, or wrapped around his gloved hands.

It's obvious that Batman Begins bored you, because you don't remember the line when Bruce Wayne is all like, "Bruce Wayne is just a man, he can be ignored, but if I become a symbol, then I can become something else entirely", that's why he 'dresses up'.

I remember it, but then he ignores it and acts like a man beating up criminals.

Batman is so much more than a costume, as are all Superheroes. (And he is because he has the two most common super-powers: Sculpted Physique and Dramatic Immunity)
Batman, like Zorro - who he's based on, can do things that men can't do. And that includes things like disappearing into thin air (though it's really a shadow), striking fear into the hearts of criminals (charisma) and still having time to sleep.

What he's not is a dirty fighter, which is what BB made him. Batman is a symbol. And the film forgot that and made him an everyman.

The Dark Knight made him a symbol. And Joker. That's why it worked.

 

[Xanadu84]

Realistically, I expect that it will be a great movie that doesn't quite reach TDK heights. As a general rule, I value story, writing, and plot above all other concerns, and can usually deal with pretty bad acting. But in TDK, Ledgers acting was all I could think about. I don't think that that will be topped.

But it is still Nolan, and he doesn't appear to have gone insane. Nolan seems to be following his working approach. take the most believable, human bad guys, and look at there craziness in depth. Between the 2 films, the only thing that is even remotely, "Wacky" is scarecrows toxin, but even that is handled with an air of believability. Now we have Catwoman (probably), who is not only not a wacky character, but also a bit of an Anti-Hero at times. Good opportunity for a juxtoposition of an anti-hero thief and a, "Villain" Batman, to rub the salt of Batman's sacrificing his image for the greater good into his wounds a little more (Probably made even more tense by a love interest, conveniently timed). Bane is a character that is amazing in competent hands, horribly stupid in others. I think it will be interesting to have Batman deal with a villain who is as cold and calculating as Ra's, yet as focused on Batman as The Joker. In keeping with the more down to earth tone, the effect of Venom on the individual will likely be a good measure of how good the movie will be. If it causes crazy mutations and noticeable changes in size, the movie will probably be a mess. But if it is downplayed, focusing more on Banes intelligence and cunning, the movie will be much better.

 

[Riff Moonraker]

All I will say is that I have learned to trust in Nolan.

I remember when I first heard that Heath Ledger would be playing the Joker. I laughed, no... I guffawed. I thought it was the most horrendous mistake EVER.

Obviously, I got served a huge plate of humble pie. I will never doubt the man again, mark my words. Nolan knows his craft.

 

[Blind Sight]

You seem to ignore the ending to the Dark Knight in the article and what it actually entails in your conclusion (though you do touch on it slightly before that). Batman is now a 'criminal' after taking the blame for the Two-Face problem. To Gotham this is basically a fall from grace, their perfect crusader knight suddenly negating their trust. So this next movie, like the first two, will probably deal with elements similar to fear and chaos, possibly involving the perception of people towards Batman. I'm guessing it'll have to do with Batman regaining the trust of the population somehow.

 

[x-machina]

Nolan obviously had plans for the joker in the 3rd movie, but because of what happened to ledger, I really think they should simply leave the series alone after the dark knight. I thought the ending of the dark knight was fine, and doesnt really need a sequel.

 

[ChildofGallifrey]

I think it has a chance to break the box office records set by TDK, simply by being it's sequel. A high profile blockbuster that EVERYONE in the world will know about whether they want to or not. Many people who liked TDK will go see it simply for that reason.

As for quality wise, it could easily be just as good, if not better. Let's get one thing out there right now: TDK was NOT a 10/10 film, not even a 9/10. Was a good film? Undeniably. Should it be the 11th highest rated film or all time right now? Hell no. It was a popcorn film. An exceptionally good one, but it's hardly a timeless classic.

The reason it exploded the way it did, sadly, was Heath Ledger's death. That was the films unintended marketing device. He turned out a spectacular performance, and I was fully in support of him winning the Oscar for it, but that was the only truly spectacular thing about the film (direction is arguable, because Chris Nolan is really, really good at what he does).

In short, it will probably be an incredibly entertaining film that will make serious bank by riding the coattails of its predecessor for the first few weeks, and more serious bank on its own merits.

 

[RJ Dalton]

Meh. Any skepticism I had about Nolan's ability to make the Batman franchise work was destroyed by TDK. He's already got my money for at least one viewing and if it's good, I'll give him more than that. Until it comes out and I see it, I'm not going to make predictions.

 

[WhiteFangofWhoa]

Standards like that are impossible to live up to. Doesn't mean he can't try.

I always wanted to see Bane revitalized in the 3rd one. The reason being, while all of Batman's rogues' gallery reflect some aspect of his character, it's Bane who most reflects the idea of self-empowerment, the idea that certain strong-willed people (himself and Bats) can accomplish anything they want if they set their minds to it. Bane survived a childhood spent in one of the harshest prisons in the world and made a name for himself with nothing but a strength-boosting drug and cunning. He'll be the bigger threat than Selina for certain.

Would have liked to see Talia instead because I liked Ra's and wanted to see more connections to him, but hey, we can't get everything we want. Some kind of new female character would be timely to help Bruce deal with his grief.

 

[Plinglebob]

All I will say is that I have learned to trust in Nolan.

I remember when I first heard that Heath Ledger would be playing the Joker. I laughed, no... I guffawed. I thought it was the most horrendous mistake EVER.

Obviously, I got served a huge plate of humble pie. I will never doubt the man again, mark my words. Nolan knows his craft.

I'm guilty of this as well.

Bane is an interesting choice for Nolan's final movie. There is a part of me that hopes Nolan ends the movie with Batman's back broken and Catwoman saving the day in some strange way. Wayne recovering from the broken back while crime starts to go on the rise again (Making people realize how much they miss Batman) would provide an unconventional backdrop to the inevitable 4th installment.

That could actually work all in the 3rd film. Act 1: Bat & Cat meet, Selena and Bruce meet, Bane orchestrates breakout from Arkham and breaks the Bats back. Act 2: Time skip (training montage as well probably) showing Bruces recovery, crime rising with Bane in charge, Cat joins up with Bane and Bruce and Selena getting closer. Act 3: Bat is back, fights Cat, realise who each other are and then fight Bane together.

However, not matter how good it is, movie rules dictate it won't be as good as number 2.

 

[Goldeneye1989]

Short answer. No.

Long answer. Altough beating begins and the dark night is going to be one hell of a task i dont think it will be pulled off, i think that it will become a fantastic movie in it's own right however i dont think it can surpass. I am hoping for a 3rd movie success (and sequals are normally hated whist threequals are loved).

I love the idea of Bane. As we have had so far mainly mental players (Raz, Joker, Scarecrow) Dent had his small 6 round salute. So giving someone who can kick the crap out of the Bat is fantastic.
Catwoman, someone to give batman a reason to come back, while still keeping the Bruce Wayne character pre-occupied in the story? Sign me up

And with Nolan proving himself to be able to be an awesome director on his own as shown with inception.

 

[Steve Butts]

Batman Begins bored me. It's a tired re-hash in the name of REALISM, that that hack Frank Miller started without realising certain simple rules.

Superheroes aren't realistic.

Except for that part about Batman, and almost all of his major villains, not having any superpowers. The characters have always been about achievement and psychology which are amplified but still on a human scale. The whole point of the Batman is that he's realistic. He's part of a (then) vital legacy of pulp era heroes like Zorro or Sherlock Holmes. No one would complain, I hope, about making a realistic movie about those characters, so it doesn't make sense to complain about it with Batman. I admit his early association with Superman, which was National's only other popular character, makes him part of an unrealistic world, but that's a consequence of business, not conception.

 

[bojac6]

I think Catwoman and Bane are brilliant choices, and here's why.

Spoiler: Spoilers for many Nolan films follow

All of Nolan's films, not just Batman, are about how far a man is willing to go for a goal. Memento is about vengence, and how much he'll sacrifice to get it. Inception is about the main character getting back to his kids, and the fact that he will use and abuse all of his friends and push everyone as hard as he deems necessary to do it. He burns every bridge and takes the riskiest jobs. The Prestige is the best example of this, Hugh Jackman willing kills himself repeatedly to be better than Christian Bale. And Batman is no different. In Batman Begins, he sacrifices his easy life, Bruce Wayne's reputation (by portraying himself as an idiot playboy) and his relationship with Rachel (though it gets fixed) in order to bring justice to Gotham. In The Dark Knight, Batman sacrifices everything to bring the Joker in, he obviously (and the film makes a point of it too) crosses the line with the sonar device, almost losing a powerful ally (Lucius Fox) in the process. He willingly accepts the label of terrorist in order to save the city.

There are only two lines left that he has not crossed.
The first is outright murder. Yes, yes, I know he left al-Ghul to die in Batman Begins and that's a bit of a hole in my argument, but let's assume the weak "it's not murder, I'm just not saving you from this situation" argument works. (And I'm not fully convinced all the people he beats the shit out of will survive their injuries.) Batman has not directly killed. This is especially evident at the end of The Dark Knight, when he has the Joker at his mercy, he has every reason to kill the Joker. Personal vengeance, a pretty strong suspicion that the Joker will weasel his way out of jail, or escape, and continue to cause chaos. But he doesn't. Batman lets him live. And I think, had Ledger lived, we would have seen the Joker again in 3 because of this. Because the conflict can be what happens when Batman meets irredeemable evil. A killing machine that cannot be reintegrated with society, cannot be reasoned with, cannot be held in prison, and will kill again. The movie can examine the moral dilemma this presents. Without Joker, Bane is a good choice to fill this role. Especially once he juices up. Then he becomes as much of an outcast as the Joker with his scars. Bane or the Joker will never fit in with society again. And both of them will never stop killing until they are killed. There's your story hook for Bane.

The second line, believe it or not, is love and the want of a future other than Batman. I think it was one of the most important parts of The Dark Knight, but nobody seems to mention it or everybody missed it. The Joker switched the addresses of Rachel and Harvey Dent. Batman wasn't trying to save Harvey, he went to save Rachel. Because he loved Rachel. Harvey Dent was the white knight, the man who would, in Batman's eyes, save the city. He was the best hope for Batman reaching his stated goal of a crime free and safe Gotham City that no longer needs a Gotham. And he left him to be saved by the police because Rachel was so important, he needed to see to it personally. Think about that in the context of Nolan films. There finally was a conscience and unarguable (unlike Batman killing) decision by a lead character to give up on his main goal, because something else was more important to him. It didn't work, but that's the plot.
Selina Kyle is the chance to really explore this. Here is a woman that Batman falls in love with, but is on the other side of the law. Not a killer, not evil, just a crook (usually portrayed as in it for the thrill more than anything). When Batman finds out, will he turn her in? To what extent can he ignore her lawbreaking? I see a lot of potential here to explore Batman's limits.

In short, for people scared of spoilers: Bane could represent the internal struggle Batman would face when confronted with irredeemable evil. Does he get pushed into taking a life and killing Bane, or let him live, knowing he will kill again. Catwoman could represent the struggle of love versus Batman's quest for vengeance. He falls for her and may even be willing to retire with her, but then finds out she's a criminal. Does love mean he breaks it off, lets her run away, or captures her?

 

[cerebus23]

avatar should not be the highest grossing film of all time either nor titanic, both wholly mediocre films and tdk certainly tops either of them in quality.

Tdk was considered "great" not only because it was heath ledgers final film, but it also took superhero films out of the emo kiddy vein, tdk was a taught thriller built into a superhero film, it is by far and away the best superhero film to date, which put it in class pretty unique among it's peers.

Was it the godfather? no. but many films on the top grossing films of all time are not the best films ever made, they are just the ones the appealed to the public or got lucky. tdk i think deserved it's place n that list for being a great film, not the greatest film ever made but a great superhero film.