That was a smaller budget. I might be ready to believe that Fox left Cameron alone for Avatar, or Snyder for Sucker Punch...but I just don't get that sense with Nolan. I do think Nolan was probably given more power than Whedon was for Avengers, and in that case I expect Rises to be a better movie than Avengers. But that's pretty faint praise, since I consider Avengers as one of the worst movies I've ever seen, along with Avatar (Dark Knight, in fairness, much better than both).

You're talking about marketing a movie, not making it. And that's a big assumption about Inception. Marketing will only get you so far; if it's a shit movie, then you aren't going to fool many people past the first weekend. I would argue that Nolan's films have done well despite how they were marketed.

In the age of the internet, criticism is part of the marketing. I don't believe the studios bribe anybody; they don't have to. Movies get so much hype these days, and most people don't want to be party-poopers. If a film appears to be exactly what everyone wanted, what right do they have to criticize it? I think there's different ways to go about making a movie, one being dishonest and disingenuous:

1. A director balances his/her interests against what's most cinematically sound, and does what's best for the movie. This can create some mild friction with fans who highly anticipated it, but that's as it should be, as it requires everyone, from layman to die-hard fan, to think about the movie critically.

2. A director, or producer, makes a movie in terms what he/she thinks people most want to see at a given time.

The latter is an incorrect way to make a movie, because at that point the marketing IS the movie. I admit, Nolan is a lot closer to #1 than Whedon was, but I still don't see how Inception is in any way separable from its marketing. It was marketed as a mind-fuck with action, and that's what it tried to be. It was neither better nor worse than fans expected, and it wasn't better or worse than I expected, not being a fan. It offered no true surprises, and it didn't take any risks. Maybe it wasn't the studio playing things safe, so much as Nolan himself playing things safe. Either way, the resulting film would be the same.

I honestly have no idea what you're arguing. All I was saying was that Nolan probably gets more power over his movies because they make shitloads of money. And you can't say that they make shitloads of money because of studio oversight, because Inception and The Prestige exist. And you also can't say that any of his movies would have been different, because there is no way you could know. I don't think its right to compare Inception and The Avengers either, because the former had no preexisting advertising complex, and the latter has been built up for years and is adapted from comic books.



I'm pretty sure the marketing came after the movie was made. And like I said before, the marketing of a movie doesn't matter for very long after it's been released. So at a certain point, you just have to take it for what it is. And in Nolan's case, whether you like his movies or not, they make shitloads of money.



Do you... know what website you're on?

Friend just came out of press screening in LA. I'll see if I can get a peek at his review.

I know what happens in the film, and now believe that the embargo is indeed spoiler-related. It's probably because of what happened with The Avengers. Most reviews outlined the entire movie while forgetting to tell people that with a movie like Avengers, they shouldn't worry about the plot. Hence, JB describing in detail what transpires during the climax. Nolan won't have any of that, but it doesn't matter since people loved Avengers just as much anyway.

It's because Batman is going to die. Who doesn't think Batman is going to die?

Me. But Bruce Wayne might.

This is the first official review that's been leaked:

http://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/dark-knight-rises-review-leaks-online/

Semantics. This is the response I keep getting.

As the comics showed, the death of Bruce Wayne wouldn't necessarily mean the end of Batman, as someone else could take up the mantle. In the case of the comics, it was Dick Grayson (the first Robin), though Wayne didn't end up being dead after all (comic book deaths, pfeh). If Nolan wants to establish the idea of Batman being a symbol or idea more than just a man, this could be a way to do it. In fact, I'm wondering if perhaps Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character is meant to fill this role...

Raises hand. Me. I highly doubt Bruce Wayne will die. I definitely think there could be and probably will be some major deaths, but I don't think Bruce will be among them.

OK, admit it......

Who has watched/or will watch "Batman Begins" and/or "The Dark Knight" in preparation for "The Dark Knight Rises"?

I've watched both films so many times already that I don't need to do again before going to see TDKR. In particular, I think I've gotten to that point with TDK where I can recite the lines before the character does in each scene- it's one of those films for me that I can watch over and over without getting tired of it, ever.

I haven't bought my ticket yet, but I'll be attending the dark knight marathon at my local regal. They'll be showing batman begins, followed by the dark knight and then leading up to the midnight screening of the dark knight rises. It'll be an awesome night.

So RT was doing their top 50 list of comic book adaptations, and somehow TDK ended up 2nd to The Avengers despite having a higher critic rating. My opinion of the staff at RT has dropped precipitously- they should just stuck to running the site and avoid looking like morons when they express their opinions.

Why do we care how they're ranked in a list? The RT score is hardly an indication of quality, especially considering it's based on a binary rating of good/bad. If every review gave a rating of 3 stars out of 5, which is generally a borderline fresh, the tomato-meter would be at 100%. Similarly if every reviewer gave a score of 2-2.5 stars, which is simply an average rating, the tomato-meter would be at 0%. Of course things rarely work out this way, but the system as a whole is deeply flawed.

But even besides the whole RT score nonsense, it's just their opinion. Both TDK and The Avengers are imperfect movies. The Dark Knight, despite working well on a visceral level, has some very wonky plot turns. And while The Avengers is a very fun and light-hearted romp, there is a considerable lack of substance, and not once did any of the heroes seem truly vulnerable, destroying any real tension. Of course these are just my opinions, but I would never lessen my opinion of anyone for disagreeing with me.

AHAHAHAHAHA.

Man, I want you to reread what you wrote here, and take a deep breath, and maybe go for a walk somewhere. Because seriously dude.

Seriously.

The Dark Knight only deserves to be #1 if you don't count graphic novel adaptations. Because if you do include graphic novel adaptations then, IMO, it comes in third place.

In 2nd place would be V for Vendetta and #1 would be Road to Perdition.

Actually, I'm The Dark Knight and V for Vendetta are REALLY close to each other. So I'm not sure about that. But Road to Perdition would definitely be #1.

I reread it, and my opinions stands. I see you disagree. Perhaps you should refrain from imbibing the lighter fluid before posting, my friend?

J/K, but seriously, you're nuts.