The Dark Knight Rises (Spoilers)

[Batman]

Every commercial I've seen for DKR-print or TV-claimed it was 3D.

[FSTargetDrone]

Every commercial I've seen for DKR-print or TV-claimed it was 3D.

There is no 3D version of The Dark Knight Rises:

Tuesday, Jul 17, 2012 5:15 PM UTC

No “Dark Knight” 3D

Christopher Nolan sticks to two dimensions

By David Germain, Associated Press

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Batman has all the gadgets Bruce Wayne’s resources can buy, but he doesn’t have one thing nearly every other summer blockbuster has: 3-D.

Director Christopher Nolan made the 2-D vs. 3-D choice easy for fans seeing “The Dark Knight Rises,” the finale of his superhero trilogy that began with 2005′s “Batman Begins” and continued with 2008′s wildly praised “The Dark Knight.”

Nolan is not a fan of digital 3-D, which essentially has turned a fleeting 1950s cinema gimmick into a multi-million-dollar value-added tax on fans who decide they want to put on the glasses and see a film with the illusion of depth.

With “Avatar” and other early hits in the digital 3-D era, studios took in two-thirds or more of their revenue on that third dimension, which costs a few dollars more than 2-D screenings. The 3-D fever has cooled since, with movies now typically earning well under half of their income in 3-D, sometimes as little as a third.

That still means a lot of extra cash on a movie that nets hundreds of millions at the box office, but Nolan never considered following the crowd and going 3-D on Batman.

“The question of 3-D is a very straightforward one,” Nolan said in a recent interview. “I never meet anybody who actually likes the format, and it’s always a source of great concern to me when you’re charging a higher price for something that nobody seems to really say they have any great love for.

“It’s up to the audience to tell us how they want to watch the movies. More people go see these films in 2-D, and so it’s difficult data to interpret. And I certainly don’t want to shoot in a format just to charge people a higher ticket price.”

The choice this week as “The Dark Knight Rises” opens is whether to see it in a regular theater or in a huge-screen IMAX cinema, a format once reserved mainly for documentaries but whose Hollywood possibilities Nolan greatly advanced with a splashy IMAX release on “The Dark Knight.”

Nolan shot nearly half of his Batman finale using bulky IMAX cameras, whose frame is about 10 times the size of a standard movie camera. He also insisted that distributor Warner Bros. release “The Dark Knight Rises” in at least 100 IMAX cinemas that can project it on film rather than in the digital format that has been gradually replacing celluloid.

The expanded use of IMAX makes for a consistent “Dark Knight” trilogy whose scale has grown with each film, while shooting in 3-D on the last one would have been out of step with the first two, the filmmakers say.

“It would have been inappropriate and somewhat gimmicky to have ‘Dark Knight Rises’ in 3-D,” said Christian Bale, who stars as Batman. “It seemed that we should continue in the vein that we had started. I think Chris recognizes the need for spectacle, but for him, IMAX is the spectacle that he believes will draw people out.”

Anne Hathaway, who co-stars as Catwoman, said she saw “Avatar” in 2-D and 3-D at a regular cinema and again in 3-D at an IMAX theater. The IMAX experience was the best.

“It was a lot of information to take in, but I could get lost in the visuals a bit more,” Hathaway said. “When you have a filmmaker like Chris or in that case like James Cameron, who pays such amazing attention to detail with the visuals, why not give yourself more space to enjoy it in?

The giant screens, the clarity provided by the larger frame size and the ineffable warmth that purists insist film provides over digital make the IMAX film experience the best way to see the movie, Nolan said. Like 3-D, IMAX costs more — nearly $20 a ticket for evening shows in some cities.

Fans are getting their money’s worth, though, Nolan said.

“People who are lucky enough to find those venues are going to see something they can’t see anywhere else and will have never seen before, frankly,” Nolan said. “I know that I can give the audience something that I really believe is going to give them added value when they see the movie.”

Nolan said he’s open to shooting in 3-D one day, but only if it would enhance the story. He considered converting his 2010 blockbuster “Inception” to 3-D, saying the added dimension might have been a nice fit with the film’s dreamscapes. But he dropped the idea because there was not time to do a quality 3-D conversion.

While generally not a 3-D fan, Nolan likes seeing what other filmmakers do with the format, which until now has been used largely on action films and animation. Martin Scorsese earned raves for the 3-D on “Hugo” and says he wants to shoot only in three dimensions from now on.

Nolan recently saw footage of Baz Luhrmann’s 3-D “The Great Gatsby,” coming out in December with Leonardo DiCaprio, Carey Mulligan and Tobey Maguire. He figures he’ll see that one in 3-D because it looks like a wild trip where “you’re going to be inside Baz’s head.”

“I’m fascinated to see what he’s going to do, but I don’t want any filmmaker to be pushed into doing something they don’t want to,” Nolan said. “3-D did not feel like the right thing for this movie.”

Any print ad you saw claiming 3D is in error, and as far as TV commercials, I have seen no such thing. It is emphasizing IMAX, if anything.

Furthermore, the movie's website has no mention of 3D, only IMAX.

[JLTucker]

I couldn't say who this film was supposed to be about.

It's about Bruce rising up and fulfilling the role of Batman in the same manner he did in Begins. The evidence is as blatant as my gimp hand. The pit in hell symbolizes this. That's where the film shines the most. Batman was so used to victory that he became defeated by it, as Bane says. The many victories completely erased the fear that made him the way he was. I watched Begins yesterday and holy shit they played that angle up even when he had donned the suit. The fear that drove him was no longer present in TDKR. He became lazily static for eight years.

Here is notable dialogue, directly from the shooting script (it's out in the UK). Of course things change while shooting, so there may be some additions.

BANE: Peace has cost you strength. Victory has defeated you.

BANE: You fight like a younger man. Nothing held back. No reserves. Admirable. But mistaken.

BANE: I wondered which would break first - your spirit... or your body.

This is the most important exchange and the film and it tells you exactly what it's about:

WAYNE: Why didn’t you just kill me?
BANE: You don’t fear death. You welcome it. Your punishment is to be more severe.

WAYNE: You’re a torturer...
BANE: Yes. But not of your body. Of your soul.

WAYNE: Where am I?
BANE: Home. Where I learned the truth about despair. As will you. There is a reason that this prison is the worst hell on earth. Hope. Every man who has rotted here over the centuries has looked up to the light and imagined climbing to freedom. So simple. So easy. And, like shipwrecked men turning to sea water from uncontrollable thirst, many have died trying. I learned that there can be no true despair without hope. So as I terrorize Gotham, I will feed its people hope to poison their souls. I will let them believe they can survive so that you can watch them clamber over each other to stay in the sun... You will watch as I torture an entire city to cause you pain you thought you could never feel again. Then, when you have truly understood the depths of your failure, we will fulfill Ra’s al Ghul’s destiny. We will destroy Gotham. And when it is done...when Gotham is ashes...then you have my permission to die.

[Crazedwraith]

Dear god, Thank you for summarising the film for me. That really helps. It's not like what i was getting at was that the sheer number of needless characters and plotlines was diluting the film to the point where the central character and plot had less impact for me.

[JLTucker]

Dear god, Thank you for summarising the film for me. That really helps. It's not like what i was getting at was that the sheer number of needless characters and plotlines was diluting the film to the point where the central character and plot had less impact for me.

Except, you know, your post didn't say any of that. Instead it contained a vague complaint, a reference to a comic, you found it the weakest, and what you saw the other two films to be about. How about next time you put more thoughts into your complaints so I don't waste time trying to explain a film whose biggest flaw is spelling out its point?

[Crazedwraith]

Oh go fuck yourself. You don't get to dictate how and what I post. I didn't force you to waste your oh so precious time.

[JLTucker]

Oh go fuck yourself. You don't get to dictate how and what I post. I didn't force you to waste your oh so precious time.

Of course I don't dictate what you post and of course you didn't force me to respond. Would it be safe for me to assume that if you post in this thread you want your opinions to be known? Would you disagree that somewhat detailed opinions help with the discourse? I simply responded to your complain that you didn't know who TDKR was about (turns out you did). Your response was more than adequate to show what problems you had with the film. It would have just saved two posts had you put more thought into your complaints, like anyone who cares about discussion would.

[Crazedwraith]

Again, you're dictating that i have to hit some level of detail before my posts are worthy to be in your wonderful high-brow discussion thread. Anyway, if you wanted to quotes to sum up the film, wouldn't Alfred's blantant foreshadowing about moving on have been a better choice.

But if blah, you want more complex thoughts; is gotham supposed to still need a batman? Bruce retiring says no. But the existence of the Robin character says yes.

If its yes, I feel that Bruce shouldn't really have retired at the end of the film.

But if no, then Robin is pointless and the film is then saying 'The Dent Act' is right. The solution to crime is not rehabilitation its locking them up and throwing away the key. Because in leiu of the anti-batman busting them all out, it apparently works. Gotham is a crime less wonder land with the dent act in place. (exaggeration i know)

Unlike the end of TDK with no-one detonating the bombs, i don't think there's any real victory for batman and his philosophies in this film. in fact he betrays his one rule. Really he wins because, what, he's become more determined and better able to beat Bane up?

Ok thinking as i type. But I guess his inspiration of his allies may count. After all that's what BB said he was supposed to be. A dramatic symbol to shake people out of apathy.

if the film intended this though it was a lot more subtle about it that it was about any other plot point. There was no flash back!

[Skylon]

If its yes, I feel that Bruce shouldn't really have retired at the end of the film.

Well, Bruce leaves Blake with access to the Bat-cave, so he acknowledges a need for Batman. But, one of the other threads in the film was it is impossible for someone to be Batman for long. Bruce was a physical wreck at the start of the film from the years of punishment.

With that in mind, the film could have ended with Bruce waiting in the cave to mentor Blake, but they wanted to show Bruce happily moving past Batman. Alternatively you could say the goal was to show Blake would forge his own path as Gotham's protector (just using Batman's nifty toys).

[Crazedwraith]

If its yes, I feel that Bruce shouldn't really have retired at the end of the film.

Well, Bruce leaves Blake with access to the Bat-cave, so he acknowledges a need for Batman. But, one of the other threads in the film was it is impossible for someone to be Batman for long. Bruce was a physical wreck at the start of the film from the years of punishment.

This is a good point. But if that was the point, then the film kind of shot itself in the foot after Bane broke Batman. Because after a broken back. All it takes is a bit of chiropractise and some push ups and he's apparently perfect physical condition again.

And Bruce being a wreck didn't really gel with the end of TDK either. Since well there's no indication he's a wreck at the end of that film, he running and using the batpod fine. And TDK wasn't supposed to be that long after BB as far as I know. So really this batman had a really short career as a crime fighter.

[InnerBrat]

And Bruce being a wreck didn't really gel with the end of TDK either. Since well there's no indication he's a wreck at the end of that film, he running and using the batpod fine. And TDK wasn't supposed to be that long after BB as far as I know. So really this batman had a really short career as a crime fighter.

Ah HA. Something I can help with! Cause I was just working this out this morning. In BB we see Barbara Gordon snr, pregnant, with a kid of about 1 or 2. In TDK, James and Babs jnr are about... 7 and 5, for a low estimate? So there is 5 years between BB and TDK.

[Crazedwraith]

Really? Wow. Batman really wasn't that concerned about the Joker then. I mean I know he was going for the mob first but really five years? Damn.

Though it does make the knackered body bit more plausible. Put doesn't change the fact he apparently got better while in the pit.

Anyone elsie like Bum reviews Doug's serious review also outline a lot of the same problems with the movie I had. Though he does tend to ramble on abit.

[InnerBrat]

Though it does make the knackered body bit more plausible. Put doesn't change the fact he apparently got better while in the pit.

*waggles fingers* maaaaaagic chiropractic!

Which, you know, the things cured by chiropractic in the movie aren't that far off the things chiropractors have claimed it really can fix, as anyone who followed the Singh case would be all too aware.

[Scrib]

But if blah, you want more complex thoughts; is gotham supposed to still need a batman? Bruce retiring says no. But the existence of the Robin character says yes.

If its yes, I feel that Bruce shouldn't really have retired at the end of the film.

But if no, then Robin is pointless and the film is then saying 'The Dent Act' is right. The solution to crime is not rehabilitation its locking them up and throwing away the key. Because in leiu of the anti-batman busting them all out, it apparently works. Gotham is a crime less wonder land with the dent act in place. (exaggeration i know)

The Dent Act allows them to prevent parole, not lock someone up past their actual sentence, that's what I think Bruce was thinking of when he hedged his bets with Blake. As for Robin...I guess it's just more satisfying to see the legacy continue?

[Skylon]

And Bruce being a wreck didn't really gel with the end of TDK either. Since well there's no indication he's a wreck at the end of that film, he running and using the batpod fine. And TDK wasn't supposed to be that long after BB as far as I know. So really this batman had a really short career as a crime fighter.

That's part of the reason I assume that for those 8 years between TDK and DKR Bruce wasn't just sulking in his mansion. To get all the physical damage the doctor mentioned to him, he must have been up to some crime fighting during part of that time.

Further, there is a difference between getting yourself worked up for one final bout than say, preparing to keep doing the same physical stuff that Batman does, night after night, for years. Bruce was able to get himself physically and mentally ready for a final fight (something he wasn't prepared for when he first faced off against Bane). Further, in that first fight he fought without recognizing his own physical limitations.

[FaxModem1]

I thought it was six months between Batman Begins and Dark Knight, according to the interview the mayor got at the start of the Dark Knight.

[Gandalf]

I thought Nolan said it was about a year, when TDK was out and he was doing reviews.

[The Cooler King]

I thought Nolan said it was about a year, when TDK was out and he was doing reviews.

In the movie, when Joker confronts the gathered mob bosses, he says:

Let's wind the clocks back a year. These cops and lawyers wouldn't dare cross any of you. I mean what happened? Did... did your balls drop off? Hmm?

So at LEAST a year has passed.

[Grumman]

Let's wind the clocks back a year. These cops and lawyers wouldn't dare cross any of you. I mean what happened? Did... did your balls drop off? Hmm?

So at LEAST a year has passed.

Don't you mean at most a year? Assuming we take Batman's alliance with Gordon and incarceration of Falcone as the tipping point, this tipping point happened at some point in between the "present day" and "a year ago".

[fgalkin]

The Dark Knight Rises might as well be called Batman: Triumph of the Will.

Man, what a piece of shit that was. Not only is everything determined by one's Will For Victory or something (what is this, anime?), it's also a bunch of anti-Occupy Corporatist propaganda whose message can be summarized as "social revolution and redistribution of wealth are bad! Sit tight until Jesus Batman shows up to save you!"

To say that it has plotholes is an understatement- the movie basically follows its own bizzaro-world logic where things such as character motivations are totally subservient to the Plot and the Message. Thus, Bane, whose life experiences should have made him either into Bane the Revolutionary or Bane the Villain Who Treats His Followers like Talking Meat Puppets. It's one or the other, it cannot be both. But of course, the movie operates with cartoonish stereotypes of revolutionaries (taken from the French Revolution, complete with a Bastille scene and the Reign of Terror), so making a sympathetic revolutionary is out of the question. Add to that stupid shit like Batman growing new cartilage in his legs through sheer willpower (because he's the goddamn Batman), and you get a move that makes TDK's plot seem brilliantly logical.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Scrib]

Why the fuck would Bane, who wants to burn Gotham down, do anything that might lead to the rise of even a marginally sympathetic revolution? He went out and freed prisoners to do the exact opposite! Revolution is not a goal for Bane, it's simply a...cherry on the cake that is Gotham's destruction. Well, that and a way to terrorise people while he and his men wait for the bomb to go off.

[Alyeska]

Bane was not a revolutionary. That was merely a guise to ke Gotham locked up while he forced Wayne to watch the city fall apart.

[JME2]

Bane was not a revolutionary. That was merely a guise to ke Gotham locked up while he forced Wayne to watch the city fall apart.

If the citizens' self-destruction and the nuking of the city helped sell the city's downfall as a global symbol -- as Ra's' original plan had been -- then that would have been an added bonus to Bruce's destruction.

[fgalkin]

Bane was not a revolutionary. That was merely a guise to ke Gotham locked up while he forced Wayne to watch the city fall apart.

That's the point though. The message of the film is "don't listen to people who advocate for social change" because they're actually evil. There was absolutely no need for Bane to engage in populist rhetoric- he could have gone on to free the convicts and nothing would have changed (see Ra'as original plan). The fact the he DID play the populist card for no in- or out-of universe reason is what gives the film it's anti-Occupy message (in other words, it was put in there because of political reasons, not for story purposes).

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Alyeska]

I am going to call bullshit. You are going to have to prove Nolan put that in deliberately as an anti-occupy message.

Screenshots of Bane standing in front of Blackgate prison were being shown on the internet last year. Well before OWS became public.