The Dark Knight Rises **WITH SPOILERS**

QPCloudy wrote: Agreed. Screw your opinion. If you think these movies were bad, you're just plain wrong.

Who? My opinion? Okay, consider it screwed even though I never stated the Nolan Bat films were bad.

GREEN LANTERN HATES BAT MAN- GET HIM BOYS!

OK, it's a total thread crash but I have to do this:

Seriously, not trying to flame bait or anything but Blade Runner is incoherent at best. Why exactly were the replicants on Earth trying to hold down day jobs?

They're not. They went rogue and came back to Earth to look for their creator. Batty needs to speak to "god"/Tyrell to see about fixing the incept date. They're in disguise and on the lam.

Why were there midget toys randomly wandering around an apartment?

Because people in this setting are _lonely_. It's not touched on as much in the film as it in the novel. People make fake animals because there aren't any left (i.e., the snake, the owl) and JF Sebastian makes friends. He's a replicant engineer and a man-child, so he makes living toys to keep him company.


Why do I care about Ford's character and his search for the fugitives?

One, because it's detective noir and he has to be there and two because he's a replicant himself.


Why did he dream of unicorns???

One, because it's Ridley Scott and two because it was the 1980s. Just be glad there wasn't a billowing curtain.

Michael Barnes wrote: Why did he dream of unicorns???

One, because it's Ridley Scott and two because it was the 1980s. Just be glad there wasn't a billowing curtain.

Also, unicorns are more beautiful than electric sheep.

Thanks for the responses to my Blade Runner questions, Barnes. Sorry to everyone for the digression. There's a novel you say? I need to check that out then and see if that helps me gain a better appreciation for the film. When that unicorn made an appearance I was sure Tom Cruise was going to show up walking in slow motion through a waterfall of rose petals with a heavy ballad by Tangerine Dream playing in the background. It was quite surreal.

Green Lantern wrote: There's a novel you say?

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K. Dick

Green Lantern wrote: I need to check that out then and see if that helps me gain a better appreciation for the film.

I doubt it. I watched the movie right after reading the book and I found the movie to be terrible. Years later, after my memory of the book had faded, I watched it again as a stand-alone movie and I liked it much better.

When that unicorn made an appearance I was sure Tom Cruise was going to show up walking in slow motion through a waterfall of rose petals with a heavy ballad by Tangerine Dream playing in the background. It was quite surreal.

Funny enough, it actually was footage from Legend. The director's cut has that piece to tie into the unicorn origami that Gaff leaves, the meaning of which is ambiguous in that version but is pretty much spelled out by the narration in the original theatrical version.

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is very different- the film is more complementary, I think, than a retelling of the same story. Definitely similar, but there are some notable differences. That said, there's a lot of things in the film that are supplemented by reading the book, like the business with the fake animals, the fact that the Earth is underpopulated because everyone is leaving (hence the loneliness).

Anyway, it is my favorite film of all time. I have to say that not much could have made a bigger impression on me when I was seven years old than that movie. I remember laying in bed at night thinking about stuff from that movie when I was small.

The best casting in the entire series of films, Joker notwithstanding, is Gary Oldman. He owns Jim Gordon.

He's the best Gordon yet, but he's also the first Gordon we got that wasn't fat, old, and useless. Oldman does a good job with the role; he's a great "character actor," and it's a very "character actor" sort of part, but I think the writing is mostly why Gordon comes off so well in this triology (when he's actually used, that is).

Me, I've always been dissatisfied with Gordon in the Nolan pictures. I wanted to see the Gordon from Batman: Year One. That's how you do that character. He's intelligent, capable, definitely not a man to be fucked with, but also as deeply flawed and tortured as Batman. Compared to that Gordon, Oldman is a milquetoast. And no, I don't think that's asking too much from the films, because they yanked plenty of other material from Year One in the new series.

Also, Gordon pre-white hair should have been a ginger.

And so should R.P. McMurphy GODDAMNIT!

I see what you're saying, I just re-read Year One last week and that is definitely more of a "man of action" Jim Gordon. He's a bad ass. But come on, he's in the shit enough in the films between faking his death and participating in the resistance. He's also older, it isn't hard to imagine that he could have been the same kind of character as his BYO persona back in the day.

I really liked the recent Detective Comics backup story about his murderous son...it REALLY gets into the flawed, tortured Gordon.

"Triology"...I swear, this thread has the BEST typos ever. I've actually started saying "Catwomen" instead of "Catwoman".

Anyway, the single greatest Gary Oldman moment of all time?


EVERYONNNNNNNNNNNE!!!!!!!!!!

he moves with out a sound though. and they say he kills with out emotion, and even disappears without a trace. good film

Blade Runner is probably my favorite film. I read Do Androids after it. In my view it's a good example of how to adapt a book to film. Take some of the raw ideas and adapt them rather than going 50/50 on being true to the book. Another film that does this well is Apocalypse now. It captures the feel of Heart of Darkness, but you cant really compare it to the book on artistic merit.

I've just got back from seeing DK Rises and i was impressed. It could almost be a direct sequel to the first film.

I'm not sure they're the best trilogy ever. I think they're three good films but they are two similar to each other to deliver and trilogy narrative imo. Each film asks very similar questions of the viewer and Batman; Is Gotham worth saving, what must Batman sacrifice / become to save it, is vigilantism actually a solution etc? I don't like the two later LOTR movies because i think they lack magic have some dumb dialogue and are drawn out in areas they don't need to be and lacking in others. But as a trilogy each film has a more distinct narrative than the batman movies. The latest film and the first have very very similar plot lines and twists.

It occurred to me that the Batman movies could make a good board game. Essentially you have two players, Batman and his nemesis fighting for the soul and survival of Gotham and using their various resources to try and trap each other / slog it out. It would be hard to do well but if you could some how equip the players with the resources the two characters have and create Gotham both as the object they fight for and the unruly mass that it is you could get a very engaging game. Good luck getting the rights though.

Michael Barnes wrote: Anyway, the single greatest Gary Oldman moment of all time?


EVERYONNNNNNNNNNNE!!!!!!!!!!