# Osage's Home Theater Shack Preview of...THE DARK KNIGHT RISES (Blu-ray; Warner Bros./DC)



## Osage_Winter

*THE DARK KNIGHT RISES - BEST BUY EXCLUSIVE STEELBOOK (Blu-ray; Warner Bros.)*

*PLEASE NOTE: The official title of this thread has changed from "preview" to review of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES - BEST BUY EXCLUSIVE STEELBOOK EDITION (Blu-ray; Warner Bros.)


[img]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRRTIVTAPVN2HPQfBWhV_RfskAR8hd6VQmOJcdA6HGlsH9IRQC_zw[/img]Title/Release Version: The Dark Knight Rises Blu-ray + DVD + Digital Copy Best Buy Exclusive Combo Pack 
Studio(s): Warner Bros./DC Comics/Legendary Pictures/Syncopy 
Disc Release Date:  December 4
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 165 Minutes
Disc/Transfer Information:  Region “A” (U.S.) Disc Tested;1080p High Definition 2.40:1 plus IMAX Sequences in 1.78:1
Video Codec: MPEG-4 AVC
Tested Audio Track: English DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1
Director: Christopher Nolan
Starring Cast: Christian Bale, Tom Hardy, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Anne Hathaway, Morgan Freeman







NOTE: THE DETAILS BELOW IN THE PLOT ANALYSIS SECTION CONTAIN PLOT SPOILERS OF VARYING INTENSITY. PLEASE CONSIDER THIS IF YOU HAVE NOT YET SEEN THE FILM.


THE LEGEND ENDS.


PLOT ANALYSIS:*

A bit controversial to diehard fans of Tim Burton’s original _Batman_ while eagerly anticipated by enthusiasts of the darker run of the character in the comics, Chris Nolan’s reboot of this franchise with his _Batman Begins_ explored some elements of the character, backstory and even a villain – the legendary “Scarecrow” – we had never been exposed to before. Unlike Burton’s contemporary take on the character and his story – which had questionable plot holes to begin with, such as the Joker backstory regarding his “Jack Napier acid accident” – Nolan’s _Batman Begins_ delved into Bruce Wayne’s training at the hands of the League of Shadows, which, depending on what series of comics you look back into, turned him into the master ninja assassin who cleans up Gotham’s streets once returning home after his training on a different continent. And, Nolan also explored, to the delight of diehard fans, Wayne’s childhood at the Manor, his relationship with his doctor father, his connection to Rachel as well as going into the death of his parents in a little more detail. Some questions still remained, though, when comparing Burton’s film with Nolan’s – first, who was it that actually killed Bruce’s parents…was it this “Joe Chill,” or was it “Jack Napier” who eventually becomes the Joker, as Burton explains it? From all the research I have done, and from my past memory with regard to the comic’s run, the Joker’s existence and origins have been vague and open to interpretation; it’s widely accepted that this character didn’t have any past, didn’t have any specific method of infiltrating Gotham and its criminals and had various “explanations” for his horrendous facial scars. As told by Burton, this “Jack Napier” character – played brilliantly by Jack Nicholson in the ’89 film – is involved with the mobster running the criminal underground in Gotham (Jack Palance) and in a scuffle with Batman at the AXIS Chemical Plant is thrown into a vat of acidic solution, which turns him mad and destroys his facial tissue, giving him the horrendous appearance of always walking around with a scarred smile. In Nolan’s _The Dark Knight_, Heath Ledger’s Joker comes from out of nowhere, with no previous aliases, no prints, no background – he arrives on Gotham’s crime scene and takes over like a mysterious wildfire…which leads to the next controversy between these two franchises.

In Burton’s _Batman_, we are thrown right into the chaos and darkness of Gotham life, as we witness Michael Keaton’s Bruce Wayne/Batman taking out some thugs who just robbed a family in an alleyway – no backstory, no training sequence, nothing. Burton introduces us to perhaps Batman’s most popular and formidable foe, the Joker, in this original film, later introducing Penguin (Danny De Vito) and Catwoman in the sequel. Nolan, on the other hand, did a smart thing, much like Marc Webb did with his _Spider-Man_ reboot: He introduced a villain no one had seen on the screen yet, Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy) for his original _Batman Begins_, while delving deeper into the Wayne training/beginnings story. While I thought the Scarecrow character was hokey, not threatening or menacing in the least or really that interesting, it was good to see a new character and villain introduced and explored – the fact that Nolan brought Murphy back for _The Dark Knight_ and _The Dark Knight Rises_ was a totally different issue, and one I thought better left on the back burner. 

While visually and genuinely interesting, the training sequence involving Wayne’s roots with the League of Shadows in Nolan’s first film also dug up questions about how true those scenes were with regard to the comic authenticity – when Bane arrives in _Dark Knight Rises,_ there’s yet another connection to the League of Shadows and their outcasts/members, but again the question becomes how authentic was this in comparison to the books? Don’t get me wrong – I loved Liam Neeson’s portrayal of Wayne’s quasi-mentor and senior trainer, developing him to be a killer ninja never seen before, but the whole thing regarding the Shadows’ intentions of “destroying” a civilization before it can doom itself always rubbed me the wrong way, lending a certain air of disappointment once the end of _Batman Begins_ comes. Although the hand-to-hand combat sequence between Christian Bale and Neeson was awesome aboard the speeding train.

Then, there’s the issue of role portrayal and who did it better – for what it’s worth, I have always been, and always will be, most likely, more of a fan of Burton’s take on this material as well as his choices for character actors. While at the time of _Batman_’s release a big gamble and a questionable selection by worldwide fans and critics, Michael Keaton’s portrayal in the lead role I thought was great. Further, I always thought no one who ever played this role – whether it was Christian Bale, George Clooney or Val Kilmer – ever got what I like to call the “Batman sneer” down as perfectly as Keaton. Recall the sequence in Burton’s first film when the Caped Crusader is holding Napier (Nicholson) up over the vat of chemicals at the AXIS plant…when Napier’s right hand henchman, “Bobby,” puts a gun to Gordon’s head and demands the Bat release Napier, he puts him down slowly while Napier says “Nice outfit.” It is at this point Keaton gives this blood-chilling smirk from beneath the cowl that was simply perfect – in all, I thought Keaton looked fantastic behind the mask. Let’s forget the jokes that were Joel Schumacher’s neon-drenched later sequels in the original franchise and the utterly horrific decisions to cast Val Kilmer and then George Clooney in the lead role of the Bat and Wayne, as these were some of the worst examples of casting-gone-wrong in the history of cinema – however, _Batman and Robin_ did have a connection to _Dark Knight Rises_ in the form of Bane, which I will get to. Still – Christian Bale looks good beneath Nolan’s darker take on the iconic suit, if the gravely, overdone voice when he “becomes” Batman is a bit off-putting after three films. With regard to who played the iconic Joker better, boy has this been a topic of severe controversy – I have always held a spot in my heart for Nicholson’s portrayal of the demented character, but I see where Nolan was going with Ledger’s rendition of him…more mysterious, perhaps more deadly, definitely grittier as a more fitting place in Nolan’s Gotham. Both actors poured their souls into this role, and it shows in both films – Burton’s _Batman_ and Nolan’s _Dark Knight._ In summary, Burton's Joker, as played by Nicholson, was the more "cartoonish" of the two renditions and takes, while Nolan's variant, through Ledger, was the more "real world grounded" per the different way in which Gotham and its world is portrayed in the franchise's reboot. 

Of course, then there’s the differences between the takes on the Batmobile – again, I was a fan of Burton’s wildly finned and out-there car in his two films, and I even liked the way the vehicle evolved to become some rolling neon monster in the later awful Schumacher sequels. When Nolan’s “Tumbler” came along, I didn’t know what to make of it – I still say Bale should have been driving some “proper” Batmobile instead of a war-ready buggy of some kind, but as Nolan’s trilogy went on, the technology got a bit more “comic like” in my opinion, until we had flying machines and other new weapons in _Dark Knight Rises_. And here yet again – we must explore which of these visions were more closely connected to the original source material…did Wayne ride around the streets of Gotham at night in a big-wheeled Tumbler, or was it more like the TV show’s large-finned, sleek-bodied car?

Let’s skip to the conclusion of Nolan’s _Dark Knight_ – unlike the end of _Batman Begins_, which hinted at the Joker being the next villain, _Dark Knight Rises_ didn’t have any tip-offs to suggest Bane would be coming next. The villain choices was always something else that kind of bugged me in Nolan’s trilogy; from what I understand, the filmmaker didn’t want to go with “clichéd, tired and goofy” Batman foe characters like Riddler or Penguin, instead concentrating on darker, more hardened criminals. But when you know you’re only doing three films for a franchise, there’s so much material that must be stuffed in there it’s difficult to pick what should be included and what shouldn’t – Nolan ended up going with Neeson’s Ducard, Murphy’s Scarecrow, Ledger’s Joker, Eckhart’s Dent/Two-Face and Hardy’s Bane. I always thought he should have somehow squeezed legendary adversaries like Penguin (though who else was going to play this like De Vito?) and Riddler (curiously, one would have thought Jim Carrey would have been born to play this role…unfortunately, it didn’t really turn out that way), but from rumors I have read and heard, there is yet another plan for re-booting this franchise now that Nolan has completed his take on it, so maybe we’ll see different takes on Riddler and Penguin and some others (though this second re-boot seems like a desperate attempt by Warner Bros. and DC to get a new Batman in place for their always-delayed _Justice League_ project). Nolan’s decision to bring in Bane as the final villain, though, was a smart one in that here is the character that was Batman’s physically toughest adversary – in fact, he’s the ones that literally broke the Bat’s back in one of the darker spins on the comics. Here’s what bothered me about Nolan’s choice to have Tom Hardy play this role: From all accounts, the filmmaking team was pondering the idea of bringing in some super-hyped, muscular, ridiculously huge and shredded guy from the likes of perhaps the WWE or a boxing circuit; after all, Bane in the comics was an unstoppable muscle machine the likes of which Bruce or Gotham had ever seen before. Instead, they decided to go a more humble, human-grounded way, with a pumped-up Tom Hardy playing the role without the use of muscle prosthetics, CGI or anything else. While commendable, I personally think this would have worked better with an over-the-top wrestler or fighter in the role, someone with beyond-believable muscular elements to better match the visuals of Bane in the books. Still, Tom Hardy’s rendition of this character was probably the most terrifying of all comic-to-film adaptations. 

And so let’s get into the meat and veggies surrounding Nolan’s latest – and, presumably last – entry of his franchise, which is the focus of this preview. Disturbingly, we never learn what happens to the Joker at the end of _Dark Knight_; we know he’s not dead, as Batman spared him on the building, but we don’t know where he is (we have to assume Arkham Asylum…but isn’t he too smart and dangerous to be kept alive?). The events depicted at the end of that film suggest that the Dark Knight (Bale) has taken the blame for Harvey Dent’s crimes (Aaron Eckhart’s portrayal of Harvey “Two-Face” Dent always bothered me, too; first, this character wasn’t given nearly enough screen time development as he was a brutal iconic criminal in the comics, and I am unsure if I “bought” Eckhart as I did Tommy Lee Jones in the over-the-top role in _Batman Forever_) and is now on the run as a true outlaw vigilante. But in the midst of Wayne Manor being rebuilt from its destruction at the hands of Liam Neeson’s character at the end of _Batman Begins_, Wayne is now in hiding, nursing some injuries that left him limping and nearly lifeless. Nolan re-introduces us to the “Catwoman” character (Selina Kyle), this time played by Anne Hathaway (who looks great in the short black dresses she tramps around in during the film), who turns out to be a cat burglar of the highest degree. Instead of Michelle Pfeiffer’s “supernatural” rendition of the Catwoman character in Burton’s _Batman Returns_, in which she’s “bitten” magically by cats after being thrown to her death out a window by boss Max Shreck (Christopher Walken) waking up to suddenly have cat-like powers and abilities, Nolan introduces Selina Kyle as a criminal that simply has extra-ordinary abilities to fight, kick, flip and climb like a feline…without explaining how she obtained these abilities. Further, while starting out as one of the Dark Knight’s enemies, she ends up teaming up with him towards the end of _Dark Knight Rises_ against Bane and his army. Here yet again, we must ask which was the more accurate following of the source material…

So in one of the opening frames, Selina Kyle (Hathaway) poses as a gorgeous, curvy housekeeper, complete with a frilly French maid costume on, working at the still-under-construction Wayne Manor in order to steal the pearl necklace that belonged to Thomas Wayne's wife/Bruce's mother -- as well as obtain Bruce's fingerprints for the criminal organization she's working with, who, in turn, are working with Bane and his army and who have given them the resources to come to Gotham. We get our first glimpses of the injured Wayne here, limping around the shadows of the Manor using a cane and sporting a great deal of facial hair growth. It’s clear Batman has gone into hiding – but he still has his intellectual instincts about him, evidenced when he catches Kyle breaking into a safe in one of the rooms. From there, we meet the film’s archenemy: the seemingly indestructible Bane (Hardy), a terrorist with supposed ties to the League of Shadows, who requires a specialized mask to breathe due to severe injuries he sustained at the hands of rogue warriors years earlier (explained in a flashback sequence in this film, but which became a subplot that got way too thick and deep for the average viewer's own good) and who is reportedly impervious to any kind of pain so long as this mask is pumping an anesthetic chemical into his blood. Hardy’s rendition of Bane can be paralleled to the rather goofy take on the character in Schumacher’s _Batman and Robin_, which portrayed him as a chemically-hyped-up superbeing who ran around with Poison Ivy (Uma Thurman) committing her every act of crime with her each time she pressed a turbo-like button on his chestpiece…absolutely ridiculous and laughable, but it’s interesting to compare to an actor playing this iconic villain years later. Anyway, Bane escapes a prisoner transfer in a plane with his henchmen, finding their way to Gotham where they plan on continuing the plot the League of Shadows had for this city years before – utter chaos, self-destruction and ultimately non-existence. It isn’t until Bane and his men start receiving news coverage of their crimes -- and a visit from Gordon-Levitt's Gotham PD character who tips him off to an abduction attempt by Bane and his men of Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) in which Gordon ended up babbling the name "Bane" in his hospital bed -- that Wayne sits up and takes notice, deciding to ignore his doctor's assessment of his rapidly decaying physical condition and get back into shape so Batman can resurface and stop them. Of course, Bane knows who the Caped Crusader is from his ties and history with the League of Shadows, and all arrows point to a classic face-off between the two martial arts masters.

Before they clash, Bane’s army's aforementioned attempt to capture Gordon leads to the police chief’s hospitalization and the death of many of his men; meanwhile, Batman demands Kyle take him to Bane's lair beneath Gotham's sewers and streets (the connection she has with Bane's organization and how she came to "know" of them before Wayne or any of his associates is still baffling), and underestimating Bane’s strength, our hero is double-crossed by Kyle and finds himself trapped in a no-way-out scenario against the monster, instead deciding to go punch-for-punch with him. This first fight sequence has been the hoopla of every online fan site and discussion forum on _The Dark Knight Rises,_ and for good reason – it’s harrowing and even difficult to watch. Making it even more terrifying is Nolan’s decision to leave any background score out of the scene – Bane and the Dark Knight square off with blowing punch after punch, but of course due to his lack of any sensation having to do with pain, Bane gains the upper hand as we witness a page right out of one of the darker comics dealing with the Batman character…the infamous “back breaking” moment. We hear Hardy beneath his mask seethe _“Ahhh yes...I was wondering what would break first…your spirit...or your body”_ as he brings the Bat above his head like he’s a sack of potatoes. As I said, it was one of the more difficult-to-watch moments in comic film adaptations. Never before, I will go so far to say, has a hero character been manhandled and had his rear end handed to him by a villain as witnessed in this scene. And that’s taking into consideration that the Green Goblin (Willem Dafoe) absolutely wiped the floor with Spider-Man (Tobey Maguire) in Sam Raimi’s first film, before Spidey, of course, got his second wind and turned the tables.

Batman is stripped of his Bat costume by Bane, left to rot and die (well, as Bane puts it, to dish out punishment for him that must be "more severe" than death which entails torture, but not of Wayne's body -- of his soul, as he watches on a screen Bane's unleashing of hell on Earth in Gotham) in a cold, dark cell within the "pit" this vicious terrorist was supposedly raised in, Wayne learning then what Bane's plans are for Gotham – but over time, Wayne, with the help of gritty cell neighbors, regains his strength and even learns how to fix his own broken spine before retraining right there in his confines. After multiple failed attempts to climb up a wall and jump to a ledge to escape -- something no prisoner in this pit has reportedly ever been able to do -- Wayne finally achieves it and returns to Gotham to don the black cape once more (the notion that he has multiple Bat battlesuits at the ready was something else that bothered me, but this is an element of the comic that is common and also seen throughout the Burton and later films). At this point, the overtly long running time of _The Dark Knight Rises_ splinters into multiple subplots regarding Bane's plans for the city -- which are thicker and more daunting than Liam Neeson's character's was at any point during _Batman Begins_ -- before setting up the inevitable second and final fight sequence between the now-angry and more in-shape Batman and Bane; the terrorist who has seized Gotham by its neck by sheer intimidation first nearly blows up a football stadium, traps most of Gotham's police force underground with this explosion and then informs the spectators of his intentions: A weapon originally designed by Wayne Enterprises to yield sustainable energy (but which is now under the control of a woman who has taken over Wayne Enterprises from Bruce and his board because the company went bankrupt) has been altered by Bane and a scientist he has under his control (and who was assisted by Morgan Freeman's Fox character unwillingly) to become a ticking nuclear time bomb to destroy the entire city. Why? According to Bane, this goes back to the League of Shadows' original plan for the town -- it must be "destroyed" in order to be "saved" (a concept that was completely and utterly lost on me in _Batman Begins_ as well) -- but Bane is taking it to a whole other level, releasing the prisoners in Gotham's most dangerous jail to "reclaim" their streets and allowing the citizens to rampage, loot, revolt and pretty much become savages; to be completely honest, this entire notion in the plotline went over my head, as we see citizens being "tried" in a makeshift court within an abandoned downtown Gotham building presided over by none other than the "Scarecrow" (Murphy)...I just didn't get the last 45 minutes or so of this film. 

The remaining cops in the city gather to make one last stand against Bane's men in the desolate streets of Gotham, while Batman arrives to have his final hand-to-hand slugfest with the monster and attempt to beat the location of the nuclear bomb's detonator out of him (in an interesting sequence, the Caped Crusader initiates a "new Bat Signal" in which the top of one of the remaining bridges in the city becomes engulfed in flame in the shape of the hero's legendary symbol, which causes Bane, when he sees it, to say _"It isn't possible!"_); this final fight sequence is every bit as exciting and nail-biting as any comic-to-film adaptation and for the first time, we even see the Dark Knight fight his way through a gang of thugs in broad daylight (albeit with snow falling around them) – without the protection of the night’s darkness to conceal him. From here, the blow-by-blow punches between the two begin again, with Bane simply not believing how strong the Bat has become in his hiding. Eventually, the Dark Knight finds a way to dislodge Bane’s weapon of strength – the anesthetic mask – and cuts into it with his ninja armor, leaving the criminal nearly defenseless and beaten. We can’t help but sit up in our chairs and cheer the hero on, as he channels all his rage and strength at Bane, now lifeless and crumpled on the floor of a building Batman has kicked him into. Wow, was the end of this fight sequence exciting as Batman delivers punch after punch upon Bane's face, bellowing in a maddening rage at him _"WHERE'S THE TRIGGER?? WHERE IS IT? WHERE IS IT? YOU'D NEVER GIVE IT TO AN ORDINARY CITIZEN!! WHERE IS IT?? WHERE'S THE TRIGGER?? WHERE IS IT??? TELL ME WHERE THE TRIGGER IS....THEN....YOU HAVE MY PERMISSION TO DIE..."_ Awesome. A plot twist comes at the climax of this scene involving the woman who supposedly took over Bruce's company -- but I will not divulge that in case there are some who still have not seen this. Further, what I found interesting and uplifting even was the fact that Nolan left the very end sequence of _Dark Knight Rises_ completely open and possibly ready for a continuation of these characters even perhaps by Nolan himself – despite the claims that this was the “end of the trilogy.” 

The ending also brings up yet another debatable element, and that has to do with Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s Gotham police character – Nolan suggests, through visuals and dialogue references, that he may in fact become the famous “Robin” sidekick of Batman’s. But this doesn’t mesh with Nolan’s view on ignoring the Robin character altogether, which he has stated he wanted to do on several occasions, nor does it explain the “end” of Batman, which all the marketing materials for this film suggested takes place; I mean, if Batman is gone, why would Robin be here? Is there going to be a Robin spinoff film, like _Catwoman_ or _Elektra_? Furthermore, if you do some research on these characters within the Batman comic universe, you’ll find that Levitt’s character actually becomes, in some renditions, the “Nightwing” sidekick, but at this point, it’s uncertain if he is going to carry this character by himself in a new film, if he is in fact going to become “Robin” or if the whole thing is going to be dropped for a new director to reboot.


[img]https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQECUN3dTvTmH2qttrakND4uyqbVgxj4jyuFl-A1UF4rrJDnstKiw[/img]*VIDEO QUALITY ANALYSIS:*

Yes, indeed. _The Dark Knight Rises_ switches aspect ratios almost more aggressively than its predecessor did -- still, the visuals here were pretty top-notch...at least on par with the _Dark Knight_ Blu-ray transfer. What I found interesting, however, was that the previous film's 1080p video encode seemed to be just a tad bit sharper and dimensional -- not that the quality here was a slouch in any way. It seemed to me, though, that this transfer was a slight bit softer, darker and more film-like than the "jumping into your face" visuals on the _Dark Knight_ disc. Dimly-lit interior shots were, as I noted, soft and gauzy, rendering some images off to the sides of the main characters being focused on to appear hazy and somewhat indistinguishable, while facial skintones appeared, on my display, to be somewhat oversaturated and exhibiting a nearly orange push to the coloring -- I noticed this immediately during the opening Harvey Dent memorial scene at Wayne Manor, in which Gary Oldman speaks and then the action switches to the tents where Gotham police and others are talking. Matthew Modine's cop character, in this sequence, had a somewhat orange-y tinge to his face, as did other characters, and this seemed to continue as the film went on to my eye. Additionally, like I found with _The Dark Knight_ transfer, the IMAX sequences here, which open up the frame to fill a normal widescreen display with no letterboxing, were definitely sharper and more pleasing to look at than the 2.40:1 shots -- but these differences were very subtle. 

Outside of that issue, the transfer exhibited clean characteristics, and the image remained rock-solid throughout the ridiculously long running time (or so it felt like). Again -- I found the visuals on the _Dark Knight_ Blu-ray to be slightly sharper and more "high-def-like" than this film's Blu-ray transfer; weird, I know...but something I also found regarding the audio, which I will get to now...

[img]https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS0O4EF93jxZhk6yVQutvdncFLYCgNU_Gf2LF4YJPNXYtKqmuafug[/img]*AUDIO QUALITY ANALYSIS:*

The first thing that struck me about _The Dark Knight Rises'_ 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio track (in English) was the sheer volume -- refreshingly, this track didn't require ridiculous amounts of master volume goosing in order to come alive and appear dynamic. The sequence towards the beginning involving Bane's escape on the plane was pounding, loud and set the tone for the rest of the film -- LFE was here in spades, as most reviewers have reported, and wall rattling will definitely be a problem if you have your volume levels up too high. Surround activity was aggressive, proper and wildly panning; there really was nothing wrong with this mix from beginning to end. Interestingly, I _still_ think the English Dolby TrueHD track on _The Dark Knight_ Blu-ray was slightly more aggressive and wall-shakingly dynamic than this film's DTS-HD MA track; in terms of sheer dynamics, that mix gets the edge for raw sonics alone. On my system, it's difficult to raise the master volume while watching _Dark Knight_ up very far at all before my wife tells me the walls are crumbling and it's just way too loud -- of course, _Dark Knight Rises_ has moments like this, too, but the previous film had a slight edge to it that made it a bit more aggressive and satisfying in my opinion. Also, with regard to Tom Hardy's voice as Bane beneath his special mask -- while controvertial from the start in all the teaser trailers (in which everyone was complaining how downright difficult it was to make out what he was saying in any scene), Hardy's somewhat bizarre voice for this character comes across powerfully and crystal clear on this Master Audio track. Every so often, it was difficult to make out what he was saying for a line or two, but for the most part, Bane's growling seething from beneath the mask boomed cleanly from the center channel. 

One nitpick I noted: Dialogue (outside of the aforementioned Bane sequences) was sometimes very difficult to discern; the scene in which Bruce is talking with Alfred inside the Manor on the staircase and Alfred tells him about Rachel and her letter (from the previous film) was so ridiculously low on my system, we couldn't even hear what Bale was saying during his dialogue delivery, and this was without touching the system's master volume at all prior to the scene arriving. This happened a few times during my viewing, but that sequence stands out -- there were these "dynamic sweep" issues in which action would pound the soundstage and then dialogue-driven sequences would get hushed to the point you couldn't hear what was being said, or would have great difficulty hearing dialogue. 

[img]https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTtUYwh7wzZZbZggAwzyJvr6nZZNzSC9Wefbrn72aF5nwTE7MPO[/img]*SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATIONS:*

This is a no-brainer purchase. As I previously mentioned in my "preview" of this title, Warner is also releasing a _Dark Knight Trilogy_ box with all three Nolan films for those who don’t own the previous two. There were other elements I didn’t get around to exploring in the preview’s Plot Analysis above, such as Morgan Freeman’s Lucius Fox character never explored before by Schumacher or Burton, and the comparisons between Michael Caine’s Alfred Pennyworth and Michael Gough’s Alfred Pennyworth...but I must say, after watching this film last night, boy does this play like a very long and overtly drawn out motion picture -- I honestly don't know how often I am going to pull this off the shelf to revisit out of sheer length alone. It's just difficult to sit through (in that way).

On somewhat of a side note, I would still like to know what happened to the Joker character; of course, Heath Ledger isn't with us any longer, but what happened to his Joker character in the storyline? He's not even mentioned or hinted at by Nolan in any aspect of the conclusion of _Dark Knight_ or in _Rises_; I can't believe a criminal this smart and dangerous would just "go quietly" to the Asylum or a maximum security prison...does anyone have any theories?


----------



## JBrax

Thanks for the review Osage. I normally wait for the Blu-ray release but I was unable to refrain on this one. We enjoyed this one at IMAX and it was spectacular. I personally prefer Nolan's version of the series and this was by far the best. Not in a comic book comparative way but simply pure entertainment. I never got into the comic book thing. From beginning to end I never left my seat and by the end all I could say was wow! I can't wait to watch this at home and I'll be picking up the BB tin version on Tuesday.


----------



## Todd Anderson

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I would have preferred that this release didn't switch between aspect ratios... For me, watching on a 2.40:1 screen, it's kind of annoying when it switches.


Great movie, btw, and I agree Jbrax, it was awesome in the IMAX theater!


----------



## bxbigpipi

Hey Osage, I think that Nolan's take on Batman is the best! This was a great trilogy! Definitely will be picking this up. As for the Robin character, according to the movie he will be picking up the mantle next. He will be the next batman. As said in batman begins, batman can be anyone.


----------



## Osage_Winter

JBrax said:


> Thanks for the review Osage. I normally wait for the Blu-ray release but I was unable to refrain on this one. We enjoyed this one at IMAX and it was spectacular. I personally prefer Nolan's version of the series and this was by far the best. Not in a comic book comparative way but simply pure entertainment. I never got into the comic book thing. From beginning to end I never left my seat and by the end all I could say was wow! I can't wait to watch this at home and I'll be picking up the BB tin version on Tuesday.


Hey Brax,

Thanks for the input; this wasn't actually an "official review," but more of a discussion of the film and the franchises prior to being able to analyze Warner's video and audio presentation of the highly-anticipated Blu-ray. :T 

Do you mean you normally view films at home on Blu-ray, and not in the theaters? We too saw this at an IMAX if I am not mistaken; unfortunately, the BD release will have that "back-and-forth" aspect ratio thing going on to reflect Nolan's filming vision/style as did _Dark Knight_, which I totally didn't care for -- however, Nolan's storytelling is so compelling during that film, you begin not to notice the aspect changes...

Yes, it seems I am _always_ the minority when it comes to comparing Burton's 1989 film with Nolan's reboot/revision -- for whatever reason, probably because I grew up on a diet of _Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever_ and _Batman and Robin_, I always liked Burton's take on this material better; I always thought it was more "cartoonish" and less "real world" grounded than Nolan's...but, this is definitely a good thing for Nolan's franchise, so it's a weird situation (the last two of the old franchise were of course not helmed by Burton, but I'm just sayin'...). 

As for not getting into the comic aspect of these pictures, I wish I could relate, but...these are comic story adapations! I always have high expectations of these comic-to-film variants in terms of staying true to the book's origins and storylines, but the problem is over the years, so many artists and writers make changes to the characters, their powers, their stories, etc. that filmmakers have to decide which of these they want to go with, and ultimately leave some fans cold because they were expecting a different kind of take on the material...

Which version will you be picking up on Tuesday?


----------



## Osage_Winter

27dnast said:


> Maybe I'm in the minority, but I would have preferred that this release didn't switch between aspect ratios... For me, watching on a 2.40:1 screen, it's kind of annoying when it switches.
> 
> 
> Great movie, btw, and I agree Jbrax, it was awesome in the IMAX theater!


Hey nast,

No, I don't think you're in the minority about the ratio switching; it annoyed the crud out of me when I first saw it on _Dark Knight_, but over time, I got used to it when I popped in the Blu-ray to watch. Being that I don't have a "proper" 2.40:1 screen with the theatrical masking system in place, rather just a TV display, I preferred when the IMAX sequences opened up the frame, taking up all that screen real estate with no letterboxing...on my particular screen, at my seating distance, 2.40:1 and 2.35:1 films look _real_ narrow with very little viewing area due to the aggressive letterboxing. 

Unfortunately, _Dark Knight Rises_ will exhibit this switching ratio phenomenon...:hissyfit:


----------



## Osage_Winter

bxbigpipi said:


> Hey Osage, I think that Nolan's take on Batman is the best! This was a great trilogy! Definitely will be picking this up. As for the Robin character, according to the movie he will be picking up the mantle next. He will be the next batman. As said in batman begins, batman can be anyone.


Hey bxb,

Thanks for your opinions; are you picking up the trilogy box, or just this on Blu come tomorrow? 

What do you mean by "according to the movie?" Do you mean what Nolan suggests at the end of _Dark Knight Rises?_ If so, this doesn't necessarily mean he will become the next Batman; as hinted at earlier in the film, this character goes by the name -- or it may have been a middle name, I can't recall -- "Robin" and so this suggests he would become Batman's sidekick, not the Caped Crusader himself. If you read some info online, you'll find where this Gotham PD character Levitt plays actually became "Nightwing" in some variants of the books (a name hinted at by Chris O'Donnell's Robin character in _Batman Forever_) -- so some are speculating (and I discussed this in the Plot Analysis) that whoever picks up the direction mantle next, Levitt (or someone else) will be portraying the Bat's sidekick; also, I am uncertain as to what you mean by "as said in Batman Begins, batman can be anyone"...:huh:


----------



## JBrax

Osage, yes I meant we hardly ever go to the theaters anymore. We had family in town visiting and they wanted to go to the movies so of course I jumped all over the IMAX experience with this one. I'll be picking up the tin Best Buy version. By the way I haven't been called Brax since high shcool so that brought back some memories.


----------



## Osage_Winter

JBrax said:


> Osage, yes I meant we hardly ever go to the theaters anymore.


I know what you mean; with my wife's crazy work schedule and a very sick dog, we don't get around to it much either -- but I always manage to see the big comic adaptation films, like _Dark Knight Rises_, theatrically. :T 

Because of a great deal of stuff going on in our lives, we have also been forced to blind-buy a couple of titles that we missed in theaters but really wanted to see, as we assume we would want to own them, including _Taken 2_ and _Skyfall._



> I'll be picking up the tin Best Buy version.


Yeah; I think that's gonna be the one for me too...though Target is much closer to us than Best Buy, the steelcase packaging looks too good to resist...but, I have to say, the Target exclusive digibook versions don't look too shabby either...



> By the way I haven't been called Brax since high shcool so that brought back some memories.


I meant totally no disrespect -- what do you prefer to be called? I was only going by your screen name...:wave:


----------



## JBrax

No offense taken in any way Osage. I just hadn't heard it in awhile. It's all good and it was what my friends called me.


----------



## Osage_Winter

JBrax said:


> No offense taken in any way Osage. I just hadn't heard it in awhile. It's all good and it was what my friends called me.


Understood; was there anything else you would like me to refer to you as? Is "Brax" okay or do you want me to call you "J"?


----------



## JBrax

Osage_Winter said:


> Understood; was there anything else you would like me to refer to you as? Is "Brax" okay or do you want me to call you "J"?


Jeff or Brax is fine.


----------



## Osage_Winter

JBrax said:


> Jeff or Brax is fine.


Gotcha.

Have you seen _Men in Black 3_?


----------



## JBrax

Oh yes. If it's a blockbuster type I've seen it. MIB3 was better than 2 but fell short of the original. Still a good watch.


----------



## Osage_Winter

JBrax said:


> Oh yes. If it's a blockbuster type I've seen it. MIB3 was better than 2 but fell short of the original. Still a good watch.


Oh, okay, because I didn't hear from you in my review thread for the title, which I normally do, so I was just asking -- your sentiments summed up my feelings of the film perfectly, that is, it was better than the sequel but still fell flat compared to the original, and is what I conveyed in the Plot Analysis...let me know if you agreed with my findings by checkin' out the review and commenting in that thread! :T


----------



## JBrax

I missed that one somehow. I shall seek it out Osage.


----------



## JBrax

I just picked up my Best Buy tin version. I'm looking forward to my second viewing at home. Is the aspect ratio switching only affect projectors?


----------



## ALMFamily

JBrax said:


> I just picked up my Best Buy tin version. I'm looking forward to my second viewing at home. Is the aspect ratio switching only affect projectors?


What is the "tin" version?

I believe it would only affect projectors - but do not quote me on that. It has been a while since I watched The Dark Knight so I cannot recall for certain if it switches.....


----------



## JBrax

The tin version is a Best Buy exclusive that comes in a metal case. Basically it just means they charge you more for cool packaging.


----------



## JBrax

The aspect ratio changes for regular displays also. It was a bit distracting at times.


----------



## Osage_Winter

JBrax said:


> I missed that one somehow. I shall seek it out Osage.


Please do! The review is right below this thread on _Dark Knight Rises_ -- Savjac and I are discussing it in that thread now...:bigsmile:


----------



## Osage_Winter

With regard to the "tin" and "steelbook" references -- yes, this is a Best Buy exclusive package in which the discs related to _Dark Knight Rises_ are sealed in a metal "steelbook" container, which studios such as Universal are fond of offering some of their titles in.

*In keeping with this topic, I actually just got back from buying the Best Buy steelbook edition of the title, and as soon as I watch it with my wife, I'll report back with my findings...so we can all discuss!*


----------



## Osage_Winter

And yes (as J pointed out in an earlier post), with _Dark Knight_, and now with _Dark Knight Rises_, the aspect ratio switches even on the smallest of television displays -- not only full-tilt front projection systems with massive screens and letterboxing masking algorithms; it has to do with Nolan's filming style and the fact that IMAX sequences have been interjected between the "standard" widescreen aspect ratio he shot in...


----------



## sdurani

JBrax said:


> Basically it just means they charge you more for cool packaging.


Sometimes _very_ cool packaging: 
































































(Not all of the above steelbooks are Best Buy.)


----------



## Osage_Winter

Actually, after viewing the disc last night -- wow, was the viewing time exhausting; this plays like a film even longer than its already-daunting running time -- there are a great many elements I need to update and correct in my Plot Analysis. Once I do that, I will update the audio and video quality areas...


----------



## Osage_Winter

Updating review in progress...


----------



## Osage_Winter

Edit


----------



## Osage_Winter

bxbigpipi said:


> Hey Osage, I think that Nolan's take on Batman is the best! This was a great trilogy! Definitely will be picking this up. As for the Robin character, according to the movie he will be picking up the mantle next. He will be the next batman. As said in batman begins, batman can be anyone.


Hello again, bxb!

I wanted to respond to this statement you made above, again, because I think I see what you were referring to -- though, I don't think it was stated in _Batman Begins_, but rather in _Dark Knight Rises!_ The scene in which Wayne is now broke and gets a ride with Gordon-Levitt's character in the cop car allows us to hear a dialogue exchange in which Wayne tells him "anyone could be Batman" (or some such wording); this could suggest, as you suspect, Gordon-Levitt's character becomes the next Caped Crusader, as he is left the coordinates and details about the Batcave by Wayne before Wayne disappears from Gotham and is later seen by Alfred in another country (can't divulge more than that about that scene because there are still people who haven't seen this)...but still, I don't think he will become Batman, especially with the nod to his name being "Robin" earlier in the film (the whole connection between him and Wayne and how he knew Bruce was Batman, and how Wayne's family funded the orphanage he was from etc. etc.)...

Just my two cents...:bigsmile:


----------



## Osage_Winter

*Audio and video analysis elements have been updated; please -- let's discuss and let me know if you agree or disagree with my findings!* :T:T


----------



## Osage_Winter

Edit.


----------



## Osage_Winter

*Review has been re-edited and re-polished to reflect updated info.

Let's discuss Dark Knight Rises!*


----------



## sdurani

Osage_Winter said:


> I don't think he will become Batman


He can't, because...
*Spoiler* 



Batman is dead. People saw him die (so they believe). The people of Gotham even erected a memorium for him in City Hall. It would be weird if Batman came back; folks would wonder what to do with that statue (maybe sell it on eBay?). 

No doubt that the end of the movie sets up who is going to be Gotham's next protector (John Blake), as well as his likely supporting team (Jim Gordon and Lucius Fox). But Blake can't do it in the guise of Batman. Instead, I think he will be the next incarnation of Robin: the "*Nightwing*" character you mentioned earlier. Besides, that's even a cool name for the film.


----------



## Osage_Winter

Makes sense. :bigsmile:

Still, there are always methods by which to "explain" plot elements -- for example, do you recall when the "Bobby" character from the TV series Dallas was presumably shot and killed, yet returned in a following season? I'm just saying that the statue element and the fact that Gotham "assumed" he had been killed could be kind of explained away by a director; he could simply come back to the city and the statue could still remain (i.e. Rocky in Philadelphia) -- however, that said, the "Nightwing" avenue is most likely what is going on here, even if the name "Robin" was clearly hinted at by Gordon-Levitt's character.

But do you think this would most likely be a spinoff situation, like _Elektra_ or _Catwoman?_ Further, do you think Nolan is going to helm it?


----------



## sdurani

Osage_Winter said:


> do you recall when the "Bobby" character from the TV series Dallas was presumably shot and killed, yet returned in a following season?


If the next Dark Knight movie starts off with Bruce coming out of the shower and explaining to Alfred that he had had a dream about being a caped crimefighter, I'll be hurling my Milk Duds at the screen!


Osage_Winter said:


> the "Nightwing" avenue is most likely what is going on here, even if the name "Robin" was clearly hinted at by Gordon-Levitt's character.


Yup, turns out that John Blake's full name is Robin John Blake (he doesn't like to use his androgynous first name). That's one of the reasons I didn't think he'll end up as Robin (a superhero using his own first name?). That would be like Mr. Wayne deciding to call his superhero persona 'The Bruce'. Quick, to the Brucemobile!


Osage_Winter said:


> But do you think this would most likely be a spinoff situation, like _Elektra_ or _Catwoman?_ Further, do you think Nolan is going to helm it?


Much as it would be my dream come true, I doubt Nolan will helm it. I think he's told his story, thoroughly and completely, and he's done. However, IF Warners does decide to do the next chapter in the Gotham City saga, I hope Nolan is involved (writing and/or producing) the way he is for next summer's 'Man of Steel', even though he's not directing it. 

Personally, I would like nothing more than to see another trilogy that takes the ending of 'Dark Knight Rises' and runs with it. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is an excellent actor (been watching his rise since he was a child actor in the sitcom 'Third Rock From the Sun'). BTW, the very last shot of the movie, when the title comes on the screen, who do you see (literally) rising? So, fingers crossed for a few summers from now.


----------



## Savjac

Ok Osage, I did it, I followed your recommendation and bought the disc over renting it. It is sitting on my shelf pulsating and waiting to be viewed. I wasnt able to watch it last night, my wife wanted something a bit lighter and I acquessed, but Tonight is MINE HAHAHAHAHAHA. 

Did I sound a little bit evil at least like I have some say in the matter ??:dontknow:


----------



## Osage_Winter

sdurani said:


> If the next Dark Knight movie starts off with Bruce coming out of the shower and explaining to Alfred that he had had a dream about being a caped crimefighter, I'll be hurling my Milk Duds at the screen!


I was just using the Dallas reference for purposes of pointing out that plots can be explained, unexplained, re-explained, debunked, rebunked, etc. etc....



> Yup, turns out that John Blake's full name is Robin John Blake (he doesn't like to use his androgynous first name). That's one of the reasons I didn't think he'll end up as Robin (a superhero using his own first name?). That would be like Mr. Wayne deciding to call his superhero persona 'The Bruce'. Quick, to the Brucemobile!


LOL...yeah, and we do remember _Batman Forever's_ attempt at explaining the Robin (Chris O'Donnell) backstory, don't we? That is..."Dick's" family as a group of circus artists and the son's failed try at saving them from the clutches of Dent (Two-Face at that point)...thus leading to his residency at Wayne Manor, stumbling upon the Batcave, demanding he become Batman's sidekick and his taking the name "Robin" from a story he tells Alfred (Michael Gough) about how he swooped in and rescued one of his family members years ago from certain tragedy, contributing to his being called "Robin" after the extraordinary bird... 



> Much as it would be my dream come true, I doubt Nolan will helm it. I think he's told his story, thoroughly and completely, and he's done. However, IF Warners does decide to do the next chapter in the Gotham City saga, I hope Nolan is involved (writing and/or producing) the way he is for next summer's 'Man of Steel', even though he's not directing it.


Indeed, he is directly involved with executive producer duties on the _Man of Steel_ project... 



> Personally, I would like nothing more than to see another trilogy that takes the ending of 'Dark Knight Rises' and runs with it. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is an excellent actor (been watching his rise since he was a child actor in the sitcom 'Third Rock From the Sun').


Interesting; though I think there is going to be more of a new reboot with regard to concentrating on Batman again and perhaps going with fresh perspectives on classic advesaries fans didn't get a chance to see with Nolan's tenure on the material -- i.e. Riddler, Penguin, Freeze, Poison Ivy, etc. etc...I read somewhere that the new reboot is already in pre-production stage but it hasn't gone any further than script writing searches. 



> BTW, the very last shot of the movie, when the title comes on the screen, who do you see (literally) rising? So, fingers crossed for a few summers from now.


I saw "something" rising, but not "someone" rising...:huh:


----------



## Osage_Winter

Savjac said:


> Ok Osage, I did it, I followed your recommendation and bought the disc over renting it. It is sitting on my shelf pulsating and waiting to be viewed. I wasnt able to watch it last night, my wife wanted something a bit lighter and I acquessed, but Tonight is MINE HAHAHAHAHAHA.
> 
> Did I sound a little bit evil at least like I have some say in the matter ??:dontknow:


LOL...yeah, if tonight is yours, Jack, crank that sucker up and hold on -- this one is gonna blow your walls down...

Come back and let me know what you thought of the audio track after you watch it. :T


----------



## Savjac

Yabadabadoooo

You know I will turn it up a tad, but you know, owning the house and having to fix the walls is a bit of a turn off, so I will just move some pictures ok ????:innocent:


----------



## Osage_Winter

Ummmm...okay...:blink: :hsd:


----------



## sdurani

Osage_Winter said:


> I was just using the Dallas reference for purposes of pointing out that plots can be explained, unexplained, re-explained, debunked, rebunked, etc. etc....


Yeah, I know. I was just joking about tossing my Milk Duds. I still remember how much that scene from Dallas, where Bobby is in the shower, annoyed the #@!&% out of me (what! the last two seasons were a dream?).


Osage_Winter said:


> Indeed, he is directly involved with executive producer duties on the _Man of Steel_ project...


He and his wife (Emma Thomas) are credited as producers on 'Man of Steel', he also has a credit for story along with David Goyer (who co-wrote the Dark Knight trilogy).


Osage_Winter said:


> I think there is going to be more of a new reboot with regard to concentrating on Batman again and perhaps going with fresh perspectives on classic advesaries fans didn't get a chance to see with Nolan's tenure on the material -- i.e. Riddler, Penguin, Freeze, Poison Ivy, etc. etc...I read somewhere that the new reboot is already in pre-production stage but it hasn't gone any further than script writing searches.


Nolan wants a re-boot; being a Batman fan, he wants to enjoy other people's take on the character. A good time to re-start the franchise would be after Warners comes out with 'Justice League', where the Batman character will be re-introduced to the audience. If it turns out that the actor they use for Batman in that movie is a hit with the audience, then Warners can consider their lead actor cast for the Batman re-boot (they can even continue the story after the events of the 'Justice League' movie, just like 'Iron Man 3' plays off the ending of 'The Avengers').


Osage_Winter said:


> I saw "something" rising, but not "someone" rising...:huh:


Who was on the platform? I found it interesting that they put the title over the image of him.


----------



## Osage_Winter

sdurani said:


> Yeah, I know. I was just joking about tossing my Milk Duds. I still remember how much that scene from Dallas, where Bobby is in the shower, annoyed the #@!&% out of me (what! the last two seasons were a dream?).


I took a chance thinking you may have been a Dallas fan... :unbelievable:



> He and his wife (Emma Thomas) are credited as producers on 'Man of Steel', he also has a credit for story along with David Goyer (who co-wrote the Dark Knight trilogy).


Indeed, I'm aware. :bigsmile:



> Nolan wants a re-boot; being a Batman fan, he wants to enjoy other people's take on the character. A good time to re-start the franchise would be after Warners comes out with 'Justice League', where the Batman character will be re-introduced to the audience.


You think it would make sense for them to re-introduce Batman _after_ Justice League? Who do you think should/would play him in the Justice League feature, then...Bale again? Or the actor they plan on using going forward with the re-reboot?

You know, I used to be against all these reboots and re-envisionings of material I thought should have been left alone, but I am finding it interesting to see the different takes and visions on these iconic characters (Nolan's Batman franchise, now to be redone again, and Marc Webb's Spider-Man reboot, which I still think takes a back seat to Sam Raimi's vision of New York and the wall-crawler's world, but it was undeniably cool to see a parallel perspective on the story and to finally see Lizard realized). I am actually looking forward to the Batman re-reboot, as perhaps this time we'll see a different, perhaps darker take on iconic guys like Riddler and Penguin...



> If it turns out that the actor they use for Batman in that movie is a hit with the audience, then Warners can consider their lead actor cast for the Batman re-boot (they can even continue the story after the events of the 'Justice League' movie, just like 'Iron Man 3' plays off the ending of 'The Avengers').


Okay, scratch the last question I asked you then about who would play Batman -- I didn't see this part of your statement until this very second...:T



> Who was on the platform? I found it interesting that they put the title over the image of him.


To be honest, I didn't see _anyone_ on that platform, but I will watch carefully again -- who was it? (You can reply in a spoiler bracket if you wish.)


----------



## Osage_Winter

Would anyone care to discuss the whole Joker element I brought up at the end of the review? Though it has nothing to do with _Dark Knight Rises_, apparently, it's still a curious angle because they just kind of "forgot" about him, as opposed to Burton's film in 1989 when Nicholson as Joker falls to his death from the helicopter he's hanging on to...

What happened to Ledger's Joker, do you think? Why was he just kind of forgotten about after he says to Bats "Madness, as you know, is like gravity...all it needs is a little push..." as well as all the Harvey Dent stuff; but we never see him again, making us assume he's been locked away somewhere...but Nolan never refers to him again. What do you all think happened to him? Is he in Arkham? Wouldn't he be too dangerous to be kept alive even in a maximum security facility?


----------



## sdurani

Osage_Winter said:


> What happened to Ledger's Joker, do you think? ...Is he in Arkham? Wouldn't he be too dangerous to be kept alive even in a maximum security facility?


Rumor had it that Nolan might edit in unused footage of Joker filmed during the previous movie, but he ended up instead making no mention of Joker whatsoever, maybe out of respect for Ledger. 

However, the novelization of 'Dark Knight Rises' does make a quick mention, providing a possible answer to your question above: 

_“Now that the Dent Act had made it all but impossible for the city’s criminals to cop an insanity plea, it [Blackgate Prison] had replaced Arkham Asylum as the preferred location for imprisoning both convicted and suspected felons. The worst of the worst were sent here, except for the Joker, who, rumor had it, was locked away as Arkham’s sole remaining inmate. Or perhaps he had escaped. Nobody was really sure. Not even Selina.”_


----------



## sdurani

Osage_Winter said:


> I took a chance thinking you may have been a Dallas fan... :unbelievable:


I was, since I grew up with Dallas and its spin-off Knots Landing (with a young Alec Baldwin).


Osage_Winter said:


> I used to be against all these reboots and re-envisionings of material I thought should have been left alone, but I am finding it interesting to see the different takes and visions on these iconic characters...


Aside from 'Batman Begins' and this year's Spiderman movie, I thought 'Casino Royale' and 'Star Trek' were terrific re-boots (meeting Bond before he was OO7, meeting Kirk/Spock/McCoy before they were the crew of the Enterprise). It will be interesting to see the upcoming 'Oz' prequel from Disney, which explains how carnival magician Oscar Diggs ended up becoming the Wizard of Oz. 

As much as I love some prequels (especially when they explain how some iconic characters became ...well, iconic), I don't think a prequel is necessary for a re-boot. Do we really need the next Superman or Batman movie to take up precious screen time for an origin story? At this point I think most audiences know how those characters got their capes, so I think a re-boot can be done without going back to the begining.


----------



## Osage_Winter

sdurani said:


> Rumor had it that Nolan might edit in unused footage of Joker filmed during the previous movie, but he ended up instead making no mention of Joker whatsoever, maybe out of respect for Ledger.


That could very well be; I am just bothered by the whole notion that Batman left him hanging on that building at the end of _Dark Knight_, without us knowing exactly what happens to him. After all, this is one of the most dangerous criminals Gotham had ever experienced... 



> However, the novelization of 'Dark Knight Rises' does make a quick mention, providing a possible answer to your question above:
> 
> _“Now that the Dent Act had made it all but impossible for the city’s criminals to cop an insanity plea, it [Blackgate Prison] had replaced Arkham Asylum as the preferred location for imprisoning both convicted and suspected felons. The worst of the worst were sent here, except for the Joker, who, rumor had it, was locked away as Arkham’s sole remaining inmate. Or perhaps he had escaped. Nobody was really sure. Not even Selina.”_


My assumption was that indeed he was sent to Arkham, but I'd still like to know, for sure, what happened to him...


----------



## Osage_Winter

sdurani said:


> I was, since I grew up with Dallas and its spin-off Knots Landing (with a young Alec Baldwin).


Right. My mom watched these religiously on Friday nights, along with "Falcon Crest"...remember that one?



> Aside from 'Batman Begins' and this year's Spiderman movie, I thought 'Casino Royale' and 'Star Trek' were terrific re-boots (meeting Bond before he was OO7, meeting Kirk/Spock/McCoy before they were the crew of the Enterprise). It will be interesting to see the upcoming 'Oz' prequel from Disney, which explains how carnival magician Oscar Diggs ended up becoming the Wizard of Oz.


I didn't even hear about the Oz prequel -- very interesting; as for Trek, I could not stand Abrams' reboot/prequel and nothing about that casting, staging or production is Trek at all, to me, as a diehard fan who grew up with the original Roddenberry show. Abrams' film was Trek for the Smallville generation, with Spock getting it on with our lovely Communications officer and Kirk (Chris Pine) speeding through rural Iowa listening to the Beastie Boys' "Sabotage"? What? Casino Royale was awesome though, and really re-injected a much-needed action and serious edge to the franchise -- I think Daniel Craig is downright awesome in the lead role, regardless of the moans and groans concerning his "light hair and eyes" that "don't belong on a James Bond"...



> As much as I love some prequels (especially when they explain how some iconic characters became ...well, iconic), I don't think a prequel is necessary for a re-boot. Do we really need the next Superman or Batman movie to take up precious screen time for an origin story? At this point I think most audiences know how those characters got their capes, so I think a re-boot can be done without going back to the begining.


I agree to a point, and I think that's why Bryan Singer's _Superman Returns_ did a wise thing in kind of introducing Clark again but as a man who went to investigate rumors regarding pieces of his home world that were supposedly found, leaving Metropolis to the citizens' dismay...they didn't go through the whole "coming to Earth and landing in Smallville, being raised by the two farmers" thing, which was refreshing. It will be interesting to see where Snyder goes with _Man of Steel_ in this regard. 

I am also looking forward to Marvel/20th Century Fox's reboot of _Daredevil_, which is rumored to be in pre-production, albeit with a ton of issues plaguing it. I loved Mark Steven Johnson's film, and I'm also one of the only humans who thought Affleck did a good job in the lead; supposedly, this reboot is going to delve into everything Johnson left out of his film, and is rumored to be called _The Man Without Fear_...hopefully, it will go into Matt's upbringing and training at the hands of the "Stick" character, plus some other elements...


----------



## Osage_Winter

So, what did y'all think of the audio and video quality on _TDKR_ Blu-ray? I haven't heard any yays or nays about it! :scratch: :gulp:


----------



## sdurani

Osage_Winter said:


> I'd still like to know, for sure, what happened to him...


Me too, but as the novelization says _"Nobody was really sure. Not even Selina."_ Who knows, maybe it's better this way, leaving the character open for a return.


Osage_Winter said:


> My mom watched these religiously on Friday nights, along with "Falcon Crest"...remember that one?


Sure do, though I only watched the first 4-5 seasons before losing interest. Between 'Dallas', 'Knots Landing', 'Falcon Crest' and 'Flamingo Road', Lorimar Productions was on a roll.


Osage_Winter said:


> I didn't even hear about the Oz prequel -- very interesting;


Take a look: http://youtu.be/5NdeuYgRoTI


----------



## Savjac

Osage_Winter said:


> So, what did y'all think of the audio and video quality on _TDKR_ Blu-ray? I haven't heard any yays or nays about it! :scratch: :gulp:


WOW, I felt like I was the Maxell guy in those magazine ads from so long ago. What an incredible sountrack. I did not have any problems with dialogue except occasionally from Bane, the discussion on the stairs, while subdued was quite clear and emotional. I did not have to mess with the volume at any time, I just turned it to where it normally is set and let it ride. Some incredible ...well everything, dynamics, surround, slam, LFE, and quiet moments. This movie did not miss a trick. Even the ginormous drum thwack near the end when Alfred does, ..well what Alfred does, about took my breath away.

Visually is was great, there are always dark moments in a movie like this, but nothing really distracted me to any great extent. Yes when there was extra light in a given scene, the image got much clearer but that is the way of film making.

I really liked this movie and in no way for me did it seem as long as it was. The down side if there has to be one, is the complexity in the story. So much going on that for me it cannot be a one time view. I will have to go back and watch, probably all 3. How horrible will that be ? :clap:


----------



## Osage_Winter

Savjac said:


> WOW, I felt like I was the Maxell guy in those magazine ads from so long ago. What an incredible sountrack.


Indeed; this one really rocked -- I couldn't even contain the bass levels on my system; my walls were shaking and objects on them rattling to the point that my wife was continuously asking me to turn this down...and that is with a mere 10-inch driver and a hundred or so watts going to it...I can only imagine what folks with much bigger setups experienced with this track...:blink::blink::hsd::hsd::gulp::gulp::unbelievable:

On a side note, boy do I ever know what Maxell ads you're referring to -- I was a huge fan of their blank audio tapes back in the day, using nothing but the XLIIS bias variants when I did any kind of home recording...:T To this day, I use, almost exclusively, their blank CD-R media, as well...



> I did not have any problems with dialogue except occasionally from Bane


Interestingly, I found Bane's vocal delivery on the track to be clear, booming and, in an overall sense, ridiculously linear and direct...some moments were difficult to discern in terms of actually understanding _what he was saying_ because of the forced accent overtones and the way it seethed through the mask, but it wasn't because of center channel intelligibility issues. 

Tom Hardy's voice, through the mask, was an issue from the pre-production clips people and critics saw for this film -- the original teasers featured Bane clips that concerned eagerly awaiting fans because almost none of what he said was intelligible; that was cleared up in post-production work, and I actually found the dialogue from Hardy's scenes more intelligible than when I saw it in theaters. :huh: :scratch:



> The discussion on the stairs, while subdued was quite clear and emotional.


Yes, it was indeed emotional -- but man was this sequence _low_ in output on my setup...and I have my center channel set at some "+8dB" on the AVR's calibration setup (2dB hotter than the mains and one surround channel); at the moment Wayne (Bale) is talking about Rachel and how there was nothing he could have done about the situation between them, the track almost dipped into complete silence on my setup. I didn't find it clear, at all, until I jacked the master volume back up to compensate... 



> I did not have to mess with the volume at any time, I just turned it to where it normally is set and let it ride. Some incredible ...well everything, dynamics, surround, slam, LFE, and quiet moments. This movie did not miss a trick.


For the most part, I didn't have to mess with the master volume that much, either, but because of the constant LFE wallops that were annoying my wife, and then the subsequent hushing of the dialogue due to the lowering of the master volume to fix the bass that was bothering her, I found myself riding the volume control a bit on this. 

For the most part, this DTS-HD MA track ended up being nearly on par with the previous film's Dolby TrueHD mix -- which was a stellar example of what the high resolution formats are capable of. Dynamics on that track were off the hook, varying wildly from explosive and crunching to involving and completely immersive; _The Dark Knight Rises_ took on most of those characteristics, and will most likely be the demo track of the year. 



> Even the ginormous drum thwack near the end when Alfred does, ..well what Alfred does, about took my breath away.


Here's another moment to look -- and listen -- for in the film...when Selina Kyle (Hathaway) moves in at the end to kill Bane before he's about to strangle a once again double-crossed Wayne/Batman, the sequence is accompanied by a _ridiculous_ thudding of LFE and dynamics crush when she blasts him with the weapons on the Batpod...wow was this hair-raising... :T



> Visually is was great, there are always dark moments in a movie like this, but nothing really distracted me to any great extent. Yes when there was extra light in a given scene, the image got much clearer but that is the way of film making.


Right; I just found the opening Wayne Manor sequences in which Gordon (Oldman) is speaking with regard to Dent to be bathed in a soft-ish color timing, in which the remainder of the sequence, all the way up until Selina steals the pearls in her fetching short maid outfit and back-seamed thigh-highs, came off as veiled and subdued in terms of impact. This happened in other darker scenes throughout as well, but I bring it up because I recall the dark, black sequences in _Dark Knight_ to be rock-solid and really rich in characteristic -- I think that was a bit lost on this transfer...



> I really liked this movie and in no way for me did it seem as long as it was.


Oh, I disagree; it definitely got to be a bit much after the second half of the film, to the point I found myself getting antsy on my own sofa...I don't recall this happening in the theater, though. 



> The down side if there has to be one, is the complexity in the story. So much going on that for me it cannot be a one time view. I will have to go back and watch, probably all 3. How horrible will that be ? :clap:


Cut out some time from your day for that marathon, if you're gonna do it in one viewing...:gulp: :unbelievable: :yikes:

The complexities of what was going on here can be devoted to an entirely new, dedicated thread; I agree there was too much, but this always seems to happen in the "third and final" chapter of these kinds of sagas...i.e. Raimi's _Spider-Man 3_, in which Parker is fighting his friend Harry (as the "New Goblin"), Sandman, Venom and his own personal demons, plus is dealing with MJ leaving him, and then has to deal with the death of Harry...it got so convoluted for its own good that many fans felt it was a terrible way to end the franchise (myself included). I think that's what happened with Nolan's _Rises_ -- though it wasn't a "terrible end" by any means...


----------



## Dale Rasco

I finally watched it last night! Which is strange for me not to see a movie like this for almost a week after it was released and I have been analyzing it ever since. Knowing that going in that both Bale and Nolan are done with the franchise in the acting and directing roles respectively, I am not sure how else to end it outside of the way they did. I like that Nolan, Goyer and Nolan used 'John Blake' as an imalgum of Dick Grayson, Tim Drake and Jason Todd and he actually served the role of Robin by helping Batman. Although having that as his 'real name' was kind of campy. But the background of Blake mirrors Jason Todd and Tim Drake and his present mirrors that of Dick Grayson when he becomes Nightwing.

I find it hard to believe that they would introduce a new batman in Justice League of America, but I also find it hard to believe that they would reboot Batman within the next five years. Sony got a lot of flack from rebooting Spiderman, they would be better off fleshing out some of the other heroes from the JLA; like rebooting Green Lantern for sure!


----------



## Osage_Winter

Dale Rasco said:


> I finally watched it last night! Which is strange for me not to see a movie like this for almost a week after it was released and I have been analyzing it ever since. Knowing that going in that both Bale and Nolan are done with the franchise in the acting and directing roles respectively, I am not sure how else to end it outside of the way they did. I like that Nolan, Goyer and Nolan used 'John Blake' as an imalgum of Dick Grayson, Tim Drake and Jason Todd and he actually served the role of Robin by helping Batman. Although having that as his 'real name' was kind of campy. But the background of Blake mirrors Jason Todd and Tim Drake and his present mirrors that of Dick Grayson when he becomes Nightwing.
> 
> I find it hard to believe that they would introduce a new batman in Justice League of America, but I also find it hard to believe that they would reboot Batman within the next five years. Sony got a lot of flack from rebooting Spiderman, they would be better off fleshing out some of the other heroes from the JLA; like rebooting Green Lantern for sure!


Interesting analysis, Dale; thanks for the input...

I, myself, am baffled by the entire Blake/Robin/Nightwing slant as well; I am not sure where Goyer and Nolan were going with that final frame of this film, but I suppose we'll have to see...this is the major gripe I have with comic-to-screen adaptation projects: It's so hard to gather material from so many different takes on the characters and stories over the decades from these books, that directors have to kind of make a "mixed bag" film, where many different plots and stories are summarized and borrowed to make a Frankenstein-like motion picture final product -- a good (or bad, however you want to view it) example of this was with _Iron Man 2_, where Mickey Rourke's "Whiplash" character was based on varying pieces of different "takes" of this storyline throughout the book's run..."Ivan Vanko" was a Russian scientist with a grudge against Stark Industries, yes, but from what I understand, he didn't actually "become" Whiplash and in certain takes on the comic, Whiplash wasn't even Russian. At any rate, it's difficult to make these films based on so much back comic history, I understand -- but if I were making one of these, I would try to keep as closely to the main run of the book as possible by studying every page and story twist that took place to make the film variant as close as possible to the books. That's a major gripe I have about the Sam Raimi/Marc Webb Spider-Man debacle (which you bring up below): In Raimi's version, we are introduced right away to Norman Osborn as Harry's father and head of Oscorp -- which delves more in government weaponry than biomedics as seen in Webb's reboot...however, in _The Amazing Spider-Man_, we are first introduced to Doctor Curtis Connors, a scientist working for Oscorp trying to save Norman's life through genetics research (the connection to Peter's father in the beginning of the film, who played a major part in designing the altered spiders) but who has no connection to Peter in school (remember in Raimi's films, where it's suggested that Connors was Peter's high school science teacher?)...which is the "correct" take on the material? I almost get the feeling that some filmmakers simply do whatever they want to alter the timelines and background of these stories and characters from the comic origins because they feel as though these modern audiences aren't going to care anyway and never grew up on the books -- but what is the point of making a comic adaptation film then, anyway? 

Going back to Grayson in the _Batman_ saga, I had always thought Chris O'Donnell's rendition of the character in _Batman Forever_ was the more accurate one in terms of following the books -- that his family is killed by Two-Face while he was trying to save them during a circus act, and his rage and need for revenge is satisfied by becoming Batman's sidekick, "Robin." However, then there's the whole Nightwing thing to consider -- the end of _Dark Knight Rises_ simply brings up more questions about where this whole thing may be going and which is the more "accurate" of the material-following; as for the Justice League project, I get the distinct feeling, like I have said before, that Warner Bros. and DC Comics Studios is in a rush to get this to the screen to compete with the success of _Avengers_. There are a ton of problems here though -- they have not yet introduced Wonder Woman, _Green Lantern_ was a stink bomb of the highest magnitude and needs to be rebooted (like you mentioned), we don't have a new Batman as of yet and we don't know what is going on with Superman...and wasn't Aqua Man or Sub Mariner part of this group as well? No one has even attempted a film version of either of these water-based characters...

I wasn't aware that Sony/Columbia got "flack" for rebooting Spider-Man; do you mean with critics and fans, or with the studio execs themselves? I was one of the fans of Raimi's franchise who felt the series never needed to be redone -- instead, what they should have done, because of the creative differences between Sony, Raimi and even Maguire in terms of where they saw this series headed, was have a new filmmaker come onboard and simply continue the saga by introducing The Lizard, or whatever, but not re-introduce the origin story. This has lead to yet another conflicting version of what happened -- did Peter get bitten by the spider on a class trip, as suggested by Raimi's version, or was it during an investigation on his own of Oscorp, trying to get to the secrets of his father in the company as seen in Webb's reboot? Why such varying versions of these events?


----------



## Dale Rasco

Osage_Winter said:


> Interesting analysis, Dale; thanks for the input...
> 
> I, myself, am baffled by the entire Blake/Robin/Nightwing slant as well; I am not sure where Goyer and Nolan were going with that final frame of this film, but I suppose we'll have to see...this is the major gripe I have with comic-to-screen adaptation projects: It's so hard to gather material from so many different takes on the characters and stories over the decades from these books, that directors have to kind of make a "mixed bag" film, where many different plots and stories are summarized and borrowed to make a Frankenstein-like motion picture final product -- a good (or bad, however you want to view it) example of this was with _Iron Man 2_, where Mickey Rourke's "Whiplash" character was based on varying pieces of different "takes" of this storyline throughout the book's run..."Ivan Vanko" was a Russian scientist with a grudge against Stark Industries, yes, but from what I understand, he didn't actually "become" Whiplash and in certain takes on the comic, Whiplash wasn't even Russian. At any rate, it's difficult to make these films based on so much back comic history, I understand -- but if I were making one of these, I would try to keep as closely to the main run of the book as possible by studying every page and story twist that took place to make the film variant as close as possible to the books. That's a major gripe I have about the Sam Raimi/Marc Webb Spider-Man debacle (which you bring up below): In Raimi's version, we are introduced right away to Norman Osborn as Harry's father and head of Oscorp -- which delves more in government weaponry than biomedics as seen in Webb's reboot...however, in _The Amazing Spider-Man_, we are first introduced to Doctor Curtis Connors, a scientist working for Oscorp trying to save Norman's life through genetics research (the connection to Peter's father in the beginning of the film, who played a major part in designing the altered spiders) but who has no connection to Peter in school (remember in Raimi's films, where it's suggested that Connors was Peter's high school science teacher?)...which is the "correct" take on the material? I almost get the feeling that some filmmakers simply do whatever they want to alter the timelines and background of these stories and characters from the comic origins because they feel as though these modern audiences aren't going to care anyway and never grew up on the books -- but what is the point of making a comic adaptation film then, anyway?
> 
> Going back to Grayson in the _Batman_ saga, I had always thought Chris O'Donnell's rendition of the character in _Batman Forever_ was the more accurate one in terms of following the books -- that his family is killed by Two-Face while he was trying to save them during a circus act, and his rage and need for revenge is satisfied by becoming Batman's sidekick, "Robin." However, then there's the whole Nightwing thing to consider -- the end of _Dark Knight Rises_ simply brings up more questions about where this whole thing may be going and which is the more "accurate" of the material-following; as for the Justice League project, I get the distinct feeling, like I have said before, that Warner Bros. and DC Comics Studios is in a rush to get this to the screen to compete with the success of _Avengers_. There are a ton of problems here though -- they have not yet introduced Wonder Woman, _Green Lantern_ was a stink bomb of the highest magnitude and needs to be rebooted (like you mentioned), we don't have a new Batman as of yet and we don't know what is going on with Superman...and wasn't Aqua Man or Sub Mariner part of this group as well? No one has even attempted a film version of either of these water-based characters...
> 
> I wasn't aware that Sony/Columbia got "flack" for rebooting Spider-Man; do you mean with critics and fans, or with the studio execs themselves? I was one of the fans of Raimi's franchise who felt the series never needed to be redone -- instead, what they should have done, because of the creative differences between Sony, Raimi and even Maguire in terms of where they saw this series headed, was have a new filmmaker come onboard and simply continue the saga by introducing The Lizard, or whatever, but not re-introduce the origin story. This has lead to yet another conflicting version of what happened -- did Peter get bitten by the spider on a class trip, as suggested by Raimi's version, or was it during an investigation on his own of Oscorp, trying to get to the secrets of his father in the company as seen in Webb's reboot? Why such varying versions of these events?


When I mention flack I was just talking about the timeframe between the last Raimi film and the new Webb entry. I liked Raimi's movies as well except for that stupid dance sequence in the third one, but other than that I thought it was solid. 

Everything you mention is dead on. I feel like Warner is rushing the JLA movie like they are trying to play catch up to Marvel instead of taking their time and really building something grand over the next several years. And, as you mentioned, we don't know how Man of Steel is going to play out. I have a lot of hope for that one because he has always been my favorite superhero and 2006 Superman Returns was such a letdown. I think of Warner as being where Marvel was with comic book movies about 2003-2005 when they had Elektra, Daredevil, and Ang Lee's Hulk. They had several missteps until they got their footing and figured out what worked and what didn't. Hopefully Warner will get all of that in line and try not to rush the JLA film.


----------



## Osage_Winter

Dale Rasco said:


> When I mention flack I was just talking about the timeframe between the last Raimi film and the new Webb entry. I liked Raimi's movies as well except for that stupid dance sequence in the third one, but other than that I thought it was solid.


Oh, because you had mentioned that Sony "got a lot of flack" for rebooting the franchise, that's why I was confused...

I, too, liked Raimi's Spider-Man "world" and felt he did it better than Webb, whose reboot simply feels like a ploy to satisfy and relate to the current "guys in skinny jeans with skateboards" generation (why Raimi's "world" that Peter, played excellently by Tobey Maguire, lived in needed to be re-imagined for a "new" generation I'll never get) -- with regard to the third Raimi film, you are so right about the stupid dance sequences...I don't understand why that was even left in during the editing process or what value it gave to the story...absolutely ridiculous and laughable. I understand Raimi was trying to show Parker's dark side through his contact with the meteorite, but to jump off lamps in a jazz club and snap his way into a clothing store in New York's Greenwich Village to the "delight" of skanks in denim miniskirts? Give me a break...

However, the film did have its merits, as you point out via your "solid" reference, in the first Sandman/Spidey fight sequence atop the armored car etc. -- but there were more bad than good moments in that film...first of all, may I ask, what was Sandman/Flint Marko doing in a radioactive testing chamber outside the limits of New York City? Did that even actually exist? I am a long-time resident of The Big Apple, and I don't recall any "molecule reactor building" residing in any swampland outside the city as suggested by Raimi -- especially one monitored by a cute lead female scientist as suggested in the film. Further, the fight sequence between Harry and Peter in the beginning, while cool when first viewed in the theater, seems campy and stupid now -- Peter without his suit on flinging the balls of webs at Harry while attached to a Manhattan building (I think it was the Chrysler or Empire State Building)...I don't know; just kind of dumb. The whole "New Goblin" thing was stupid, too, I thought -- making Harry into an "aero skateboarding adversary" really did nothing to justify the legacy of the awesome and classic Green Goblin his father was, and even Raimi admits in a special feature on the Blu-ray that this was simply done to "jazz up" the storyline and give a new perspective of the Goblin...but why? Why not just go with what fans wanted to see in the first place by that point -- The Lizard? 



> Everything you mention is dead on. I feel like Warner is rushing the JLA movie like they are trying to play catch up to Marvel instead of taking their time and really building something grand over the next several years. And, as you mentioned, we don't know how Man of Steel is going to play out. I have a lot of hope for that one because he has always been my favorite superhero and 2006 Superman Returns was such a letdown.


Thank you...we're normally on the same page with regard to our cinema, my good friend! :T

But did you really think _Superman Returns_ was a big letdown? It was a decent reboot, I thought, in that Singer didn't simply re-hash the whole "farmer finds little boy" thing again, and instead made it seem as though Clark left Earth to search for pieces of his home world, supposedly found by scientists -- almost a continuation of the great _Superman II_. I thought the Lex Luthor dominance scene at the end, where Supes loses his powers due to the Kryptonite Luthor (Spacey) has injected in the "structures" around them and then Luthor's henchmen have their way with him, was inspiring and followed the logical trail whereby Luthor, of course no match strength-wise for Superman, keeps to "Mind Over Muscle" and gains the upper hand by finding a way to strip the Man of Steel from his powers. However, Singer left the whole Luthor thing open at the end by stranding him and Kitty on that island, and I still don't know what to make of Spacey as Luthor -- they got the bald head right, but I didn't buy him as much as I bought Hackman all those years playing the iconic role. 

I always had an issue with the casting of that film too -- just because Chris Reeve was gone, why couldn't they try to re-cast Margot Kidder or Gene Hackman in their respective roles? After all, it was assumed years had passed since Superman left -- this was not a re-telling of the origin story...so all of a sudden, Lois Lane looks younger than she ever did as played by Kidder? The same with Luthor? Singer could have at least reached out to someone like, say, Courtney Cox to play Lane, as she resembles a somewhat older Lois/Kidder, don't you think? 

Whatever the case, _Man of Steel_, as you can imagine being a diehard fan, is going to be refreshing in that there isn't going to be yet another Lex Luthor story, but instead will re-introduce the awesome General Zod character -- we just have to see how the lead does in the playing of the iconic role (a role I will ALWAYS associate with the late great Chris Reeve) and where the story takes the material. 



> I think of Warner as being where Marvel was with comic book movies about 2003-2005 when they had Elektra, Daredevil, and Ang Lee's Hulk. They had several missteps until they got their footing and figured out what worked and what didn't. Hopefully Warner will get all of that in line and try not to rush the JLA film.


Well put and absolutely agreed; plus, those "spinoffs" never worked right -- _Elektra, Catwoman_ et al -- but I tell you...I actually liked _Daredevil_ and thought Affleck worked in the role, if you compare the books with the frame-by-frame of Mark Steven Johnson's film...the only thing missing was a solid backstory to explain how he (Matt Murdock) was able to manipulate his "senses" and abilities to fling himself above the New York rooftops, something that is going to be explained in the eventual reboot (dubbed _The Man Without Fear_) and which will detail the character's training at the hands of the mysterious "Stick."

"The Man Without Fear" designation will most likely change, probably to yet again, just simply, "Daredevil" or perhaps "Daredevil: The Man Without Fear"...much like what filmmakers do when they want their work to be recognized as different, i.e. "The Amazing Spider-Man," "Man of Steel" and "Batman Begins"...


----------



## Dale Rasco

> But did you really think _Superman Returns_ was a big letdown? It was a decent reboot, I thought, in that Singer didn't simply re-hash the whole "farmer finds little boy" thing again, and instead made it seem as though Clark left Earth to search for pieces of his home world, supposedly found by scientists -- almost a continuation of the great _Superman II_. I thought the Lex Luthor dominance scene at the end, where Supes loses his powers due to the Kryptonite Luthor (Spacey) has injected in the "structures" around them and then Luthor's henchmen have their way with him, was inspiring and followed the logical trail whereby Luthor, of course no match strength-wise for Superman, keeps to "Mind Over Muscle" and gains the upper hand by finding a way to strip the Man of Steel from his powers. However, Singer left the whole Luthor thing open at the end by stranding him and Kitty on that island, and I still don't know what to make of Spacey as Luthor -- they got the bald head right, but I didn't buy him as much as I bought Hackman all those years playing the iconic role.
> 
> I always had an issue with the casting of that film too -- just because Chris Reeve was gone, why couldn't they try to re-cast Margot Kidder or Gene Hackman in their respective roles? After all, it was assumed years had passed since Superman left -- this was not a re-telling of the origin story...so all of a sudden, Lois Lane looks younger than she ever did as played by Kidder? The same with Luthor? Singer could have at least reached out to someone like, say, Courtney Cox to play Lane, as she resembles a somewhat older Lois/Kidder, don't you think?


I really was let down by Superman Returns, but that didn't mean that I thought it was a bad film. Just in the sense that there was so much more it could have been. The film basically picks up after the events of Superman II and completely disregards Superman III and IV. Now don't get me wrong, those movies were wretched and completely disgraced the Superman franchise, but I would have rather Singer just did a whole new thing. Even going as far as putting Marlon Brando in it as Jor-El from older stock footage. And don't even get me started on the whole 'Truth, Justice and all that stuff' thing!



> Whatever the case, _Man of Steel_, as you can imagine being a diehard fan, is going to be refreshing in that there isn't going to be yet another Lex Luthor story, but instead will re-introduce the awesome General Zod character -- we just have to see how the lead does in the playing of the iconic role (a role I will ALWAYS associate with the late great Chris Reeve) and where the story takes the material.


To me Christopher Reeve will always be Superman. I distinctly remember my mother picking me up from school and taking me to see it on opening day in 1978 when I was seven years old and I was fascinated and hooked on Superman from that day on. So I think that seven year old kid in me sees Singer's film as a kind of a let down in the sense of 'been there, done that. Show me something new!



> Well put and absolutely agreed; plus, those "spinoffs" never worked right -- _Elektra, Catwoman_ et al -- but I tell you...I actually liked _Daredevil_ and thought Affleck worked in the role, if you compare the books with the frame-by-frame of Mark Steven Johnson's film...the only thing missing was a solid backstory to explain how he (Matt Murdock) was able to manipulate his "senses" and abilities to fling himself above the New York rooftops, something that is going to be explained in the eventual reboot (dubbed _The Man Without Fear_) and which will detail the character's training at the hands of the mysterious "Stick."
> 
> "The Man Without Fear" designation will most likely change, probably to yet again, just simply, "Daredevil" or perhaps "Daredevil: The Man Without Fear"...much like what filmmakers do when they want their work to be recognized as different, i.e. "The Amazing Spider-Man," "Man of Steel" and "Batman Begins"...


I actually agree with you on Daredevil and I did not mind Elektra either. I thought the Fantastic Four was a bit too cartoonish and I really did not enjoy HULK at all. I hope Warner finds their footing and gets some of the other JLA characters going on track. I really liked the Green Lantern comic books and was obviously disappointed in the movie as any comic buff would be. I guess we will have to wait and see what happens.


----------



## Savjac

_On a side note, boy do I ever know what Maxell ads you're referring to -- I was a huge fan of their blank audio tapes back in the day, using nothing but the XLIIS bias variants when I did any kind of home recording...:T To this day, I use, almost exclusively, their blank CD-R media, as well..._

I too used Maxell almost exclusively with a few TDK's. Actually I may still have a few in the garage, no cassette player but one never knows when they will be back...or not. 

_Interestingly, I found Bane's vocal delivery on the track to be clear, booming and, in an overall sense, ridiculously linear and direct...some moments were difficult to discern in terms of actually understanding what he was saying because of the forced accent overtones and the way it seethed through the mask, but it wasn't because of center channel intelligibility issues. _

The vocal delivery was quite good, I guess we playing the same tune, we are page just in a different key. I could not always understand what he was saying which appears to be what you are saying as well. Trying to replicate the dialogue as if it is coming through a drug delivery mask just might on occasion cause some intelligibility issues. Although I always understood Vader, THE FORCE IS STRONG WITH THIS ONE :rofl2:

_For the most part, this DTS-HD MA track ended up being nearly on par with the previous film's Dolby TrueHD mix -- which was a stellar example of what the high resolution formats are capable of. Dynamics on that track were off the hook, varying wildly from explosive and crunching to involving and completely immersive; The Dark Knight Rises took on most of those characteristics, and will most likely be the demo track of the year. _

I have not done a re watch on this film as yet but will in due course to get my stories straight. I do not believe there is a substantive difference between Dolby HD and DTS HD so I can believe the previous film was well done. 



_Right; I just found the opening Wayne Manor sequences in which Gordon (Oldman) is speaking with regard to Dent to be bathed in a soft-ish color timing, in which the remainder of the sequence, all the way up until Selina steals the pearls in her fetching short maid outfit and back-seamed thigh-highs, came off as veiled and subdued in terms of impact. This happened in other darker scenes throughout as well, but I bring it up because I recall the dark, black sequences in Dark Knight to be rock-solid and really rich in characteristic -- I think that was a bit lost on this transfer..._

Lost or was it meant to be this way ?? There are so many different things going on in this print that we may never know. The 35mm portions most probably will never look as good as IMAX, and it is clear no one wanted a soap opera clarity on this film. It is kind of like audio in that we can only guess on what is supposed to be heard clearly as opposed to semi hidden being used to support something else. 


_Oh, I disagree; it definitely got to be a bit much after the second half of the film, to the point I found myself getting antsy on my own sofa...I don't recall this happening in the theater, though. _

Yeah I can see where many would disagree, but again, this one just seemed to work pretty well for me. Although I did take a potty break about half way through, does that count ?? :heehee:


----------



## Osage_Winter

Dale Rasco said:


> I really was let down by Superman Returns, but that didn't mean that I thought it was a bad film. Just in the sense that there was so much more it could have been. The film basically picks up after the events of Superman II and completely disregards Superman III and IV. Now don't get me wrong, those movies were wretched and completely disgraced the Superman franchise, but I would have rather Singer just did a whole new thing. Even going as far as putting Marlon Brando in it as Jor-El from older stock footage. And don't even get me started on the whole 'Truth, Justice and all that stuff' thing!


Oh, see, I thought it was pretty awesome that he just picked up after the events of II, and that he didn't do a brand-new thing; the fact that he kind of assumed everyone knew the "birther" story and just went with a continuation -- however, I'm not as intense a fan of Superman as you, so your logic more than likely makes more sense. Whatever the case may be, thank "ZOD" whoever it was that rebooted this ignored III and IV like they were never made; you should be glad, though, that Zack "Dawn of the Dead" Snyder is rebooting this once again with a new origin take...

I thought it was a very respectable nod, also, that Singer used stock footage of Brando instead of re-casting this; who else can be Jor-El? As a matter of fact, I'll go so far to say I still think they should have tried to get Kidder and Hackman back to reprise the roles...



> To me Christopher Reeve will always be Superman.


Absolutely, without one single tiny doubt in mind, 100 percent agreed; no one will ever play that iconic role like him, and he is who I think of when I think of the "Man of Steel"...:T

An absolute tragedy that happened to him, and then his beloved wife; I hope they are in Heaven together resting in eternal peace...



> Singer's film as a kind of a let down in the sense of 'been there, done that. Show me something new!


Well, in what way do you mean -- the whole Smallville/Lois Lane/Perry White/Lex Luthor thing? Other than that, I, again, applaud Singer for doing a "continuation" story instead of a rehash of the birther origins...:huh:



> I actually agree with you on Daredevil and I did not mind Elektra either. I thought the Fantastic Four was a bit too cartoonish and I really did not enjoy HULK at all. I hope Warner finds their footing and gets some of the other JLA characters going on track. I really liked the Green Lantern comic books and was obviously disappointed in the movie as any comic buff would be. I guess we will have to wait and see what happens.


Ang Lee's _Hulk_ was not Hulk at all, and don't get me started about Eric Bana in that role -- I have said it before and I will say it again...no one, to this day, in my opinion, has nailed the Bruce Banner character in any film adaptation, and that goes for Mark Ruffalo, who I know everyone loves in the role. If you compare the comic renderings of this scientist, no one who has played him has qualified -- out of everyone, I think it was Ed Norton that played him the best, if only because his performance so mimicked the TV show/Bill Bixby elements. As a film, _The Incredible Hulk_ was the much better take on the material, especially since we got to see the monster finally fight an enemy more along his speed, in The Abomination (though I think the whole Tim Roth thing was a bit far-fetched and didn't keep with the books all that much; the exact problem we have been discussing here with Batman, et al). Did you notice towards the end of that film when the "serum" drips onto "Mr. Blue" and his head begins to morph? Some say this is setting up the next Hulk adversary to be The Leader, with the huge head from the comics...

I agree about _Fantastic Four_, and feel Tim Story could have done a much better job with the material -- it was just corny, though I did like the sequel (_Rise of the Silver Surfer_) and yet still thought it could have been so much better...did you know they're rebooting that too? I think the role of "The Thing" is going to be CGI rendered this time around...but you gotta love Jessica Alba, even with those creepy eyes of hers in these films...especially how delicious she looks in that body-hugging wedding dress in _Silver Surfer_...yummmm-o! :blink::blink::T:unbelievable:

As for _Green Lantern_, wow was I expecting more, as well -- the trailers were cooler than the actual film, and I just don't know if I cared for the ever-cocky Reynolds in the lead...

But I did love looking at and drooling over the delectable Blake Lively...


----------



## Osage_Winter

Savjac said:


> I too used Maxell almost exclusively with a few TDK's. Actually I may still have a few in the garage, no cassette player but one never knows when they will be back...or not.


I know what you mean -- I used TDKs as well, which were fine, but I always gravitated to Maxell's products for some reason...their tapes were the best, and now I use their CD-R blank media...especially the now-out-of-print "Pro Audio CD-R" which were awesome... 



> The vocal delivery was quite good, I guess we playing the same tune, we are page just in a different key. I could not always understand what he was saying which appears to be what you are saying as well.


Yes, I believe that's what I am saying...



> Trying to replicate the dialogue as if it is coming through a drug delivery mask just might on occasion cause some intelligibility issues. Although I always understood Vader, THE FORCE IS STRONG WITH THIS ONE :rofl2:


Absolutely agreed...:T



> I have not done a re watch on this film as yet but will in due course to get my stories straight. I do not believe there is a substantive difference between Dolby HD and DTS HD so I can believe the previous film was well done.


I have found, in back-to-back A/B-ing tests, that curiously, Dolby's TrueHD codec on most of the earlier BD titles, bests the DTS-HD Master Audio tracks for sheer sonics and dynamics; for some reason, the TrueHD-equipped titles I have demo'ed and have in my collection simply sound punchier and more aggressive than most of the films with DTS-HD MA mixes...:huh:



> Lost or was it meant to be this way ?? There are so many different things going on in this print that we may never know. The 35mm portions most probably will never look as good as IMAX, and it is clear no one wanted a soap opera clarity on this film. It is kind of like audio in that we can only guess on what is supposed to be heard clearly as opposed to semi hidden being used to support something else.


Well, what I meant by "lost" is that I just didn't think the blacks were as "inky" or "deeply rich" in this transfer compared to the previous film's -- but, as you stated, perhaps Nolan simply meant for it to be this way... 



> Yeah I can see where many would disagree, but again, this one just seemed to work pretty well for me. Although I did take a potty break about half way through, does that count ?? :heehee:


Don't get me wrong -- I didn't think it was "long in the tooth" because of material or boredom or anything like that...I just found myself saying "Jeeeeeez....this is a really long film...." towards the end...

Potty break....LOL.....:clap:


----------



## bxbigpipi

Saw this one last night and still love it!! Picture quality and audio quality were on the money!! Great movie and great trilogy!!!


----------



## bassman_soundking

I rented the DVD copy of this.
I loved the movie and love the review!!

I didnt like the fact that everything was in DD except the movie, which was in 2 ch audio....
I am going to buy a Bluray player soon to replace the dead one.
I didnt realize that without bluray you couldnt enjoy surround sound anymore!
I just wanted to vent about my disgust with the MPAA and movie mfgs...forcing out dvd by making the quality lower than when it 1st came out.

Sorry guys rant over.
I am going to rent the bluray version after I get my new player.


----------



## orion

I watched it at a drive in movie theater. We were using our vehicles speakers and the sound was subpar(ofcoarse) anyhow cant wait to buy it and watch it with some real speakers


----------



## Osage_Winter

Sorry for the delay in getting back to this thread, and all the others; we recently had a tragedy in our lives in which our beloved Black Lab/Aussie Shepherd had to be put to sleep due to medical complications...it really, really threw us for a loop because we were utterly devoted to this canine, who had a plethora of issues ranging from seizures due to a brain tumor (which ultimately killed him) to diabetic complications, intestinal problems, panchriatitis, IBS and much more. He was taking no less than 26 or so pills a day to keep his conditions under control, which was working for some time, but he couldn't hold on any longer and lost the battle with his tumor...

I will get back to everyone's comments in my review threads as soon as I can; thank you.


----------



## bxbigpipi

Sorry for your loss Osage.


----------



## JQueen

As stated above truly sorry for your loss


----------



## Osage_Winter

Thank you, guys! It means a lot.....


----------



## Savjac

I am sorry. I understand how close we get to our pets.


----------



## Osage_Winter

Thank you, Sav...

We were UBER close to this guy...he was originally my folks' dog, which I named without having even met him after Russell Crowe's character in _Gladiator_, Maximus, but a whole slew of problems took place, beginning with my dad's death that eventually took my life and spiraled it downward, to the point that I got married, then took possession of Max after he was diagnosed with diabetes because my mother couldn't take care of him as she had two Malteses to look after and she just couldn't do his daily double insulin injections...and so my wife and I took Max and oversaw his diabetes, which lead to violent grand maul seizures, all sorts of other complications and eventually a growing brain tumor...

We were VERY close with him, and his death has not been easy, at all; we can't even seem to get over it, and it has been a few months now, as the house just seems so "empty" without him. It is often said that time heals all wounds, but like Evanescence's track "My Immortal" clearly states, there's just too much that time cannot erase here and the wounds are just too real and too deep; sure, we can attempt to adopt another one, but we just don't feel like we're ready yet, at all, nor do we think we will ever find one that we would bond with like we did with Maximus...and we're _avid_ animal lovers.....:sad::sad:


----------

