Second Dark Knight Rises Trailer Leaked

[aeka]

Well peeps, as some of you may know, the second trailer along with the prologue will debut tonight at midnight with Sherlock Holmes and Mission Impossible. However, as usual, someone was kind enough to leak it online.

The sound and visual quality isn't great, but at least this gives us an idea of what we're in for. :}



Source link: http://www.movieweb.com/movie/the-dark-knight-rises/trailer-2

Description of the trailer in case video goes bye bye: http://batman-news.com/2011/12/15/the-dark-knight-rises-trailer-2-leaked-descriptions-are-online/

Hmmm...is it just me or has Bruce and Selina dancing at a masquerade ball become a cliche now in Bat cinema?

For legality:

Comments

[mrstatham]

Yeah, but I haven't seen that in a good year! - which is a shame, because it's a way better film than The Dark Shite. But then I've never really thought much of Nolan's dialogue. He and his brother tend to make people into either Mr Exposition or Mr On-The-Nose.

[aeka]

Awww, what didn't you like about The Dark Knight? I'm just curious. :P

[mrstatham]

*takes a deep breath*

Okay, so, from the top. We have the utterly ridiculous and memetic Joker character which is meant to be a hardcore murderer and gang leader with a much grittier interpretation than usual being peddled to kids with posters, toys and the like, all featuring that 'why so serious' bullshit that's twenty times more annoying when some wannabe hipster spouts that and the Joker's chaos stuff (and that people use that 'chaos' stuff to try and explain the Joker is farcical, given it's all just bullshit he spouts to get Harvey going off the rails) as though it's some great understanding of the character. The Joker also verges on being some kind of freaking savant or clairvoyant, given he can predict EVERYTHING everyone's going to do. The chase scene in the tunnels is insane for this reason, frankly.

You have the passive idiot Batman, who flipflops through the film needing constant nudges from Alfred and Gordon and Dent to keep going, who treats a woman like a piece of property he can go back to when his work is done, like he's taking a break in a movie or something. You have his forty-a-day voice, which is unexplained and utterly ridiculous. The Batpod is a laugh and whilst useful, doesn't fit the context of the Tumbler in the slightest. Rachel goes from moderately capable woman who can shoot a supervillain in the face with a tazer to a piece of meat the two good guys unknowingly fight over, and then she gets turned into a well-done steak and brings about TDK's biggest sin, which is turning it into a complete fucking sausagefest. You have Alfred's magical rants about stuff that's just conveniently appropriate to whatever crisis of faith Bruce is going through, and then his bizarrely antagonist about-faces when Bruce finds things have gone wrong in his war on crime.

You have Harvey's rushed and pretty poor rampage, IMO, although given the way Nolan employs him, I don't see how else it could've played out. And then, amongst many, many other things, you have Gordon playing Mr On-The-Nose with his blatantly obvious and corny 'Batman is actually the hero' speech near the end, and the ridiculous coverup he and Batman concoct to cover for Harvey - which could fall apart in say, a month, before crooks Batman has detained turn up in police custody clearly NOT DEAD like the people Harvey shot.

*shrugs* Batman Begins might be the less ambitious film, but it's easier to watch, more enjoyable and way, way less bleak.

[aeka]

Much agreed on Harvey Dent, though truthfully I feel as though Nolan has skimmed the surface with most of the baddies in Batman's rogue's gallery, particularly in Harvey's case. I felt that his time as Two-Face was cut short and didn't demonstrate that same obsession with duality that he has in the comics.

I think what annoyed me most about Nolan's Joker was the fact that I couldn't buy into the idea of the Joker wearing face paint. It just doesn't scream as something the Joker would do and I believe he could have been a bleach-white pale guy without needing to go into details about his origin. Just leave it a mystery. As for the whole anarchy thing...that wasn't Joker either. Joker commits crimes for amusement, not because he feels the need to turn big "plans" inside-out. One thing Nolan *did* get right was the calculating nature of the Joker and his fascination with breaking people. But I do agree that he was *too* good at it in the film.

With regards to Rachel...I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head with that one. She went from being a determined assistant DA in Batman Begins to being reduced to sandwich filling between Bruce and Harvey in TDK.

[mrstatham]

The facepaint thing was just.. Dubious, to me. I mean, you get the guys at the beginning with the 'war paint' explanation, but then it's never elaborated upon as to why he chose a clown as war paint, I think? We get his multiple-choice origins for the scars, which I think are more bullshit from him and he did the scars himself, but why a clown? Why does he dress up like he does? The film deliberately teases these things and then pulls them away, whereas the comics at least toy with giving us answers every now and then.

But.. Yeah. Surface-skimming seems about right with Nolan and the Batvillains, but I suppose it's because about nine tenths of them are too realistic for him.

[aeka]

Hence why I felt it would have made much more sense for him to have bleach-white skin in the first place. At least he'd have a *reason* or at least a good excuse for looking the way that he does. XP

[turtlefu]

That was a big problem with me too, that if Joker is supposed to represent chaos/anarchy/Theater of the Absurd, why does all of his plans involve gigantic Xanatos Gambits and putting little tiny pieces into place in just the right way? And then somebody says "well, the contradiction just reinforces his chaotic character!" And I say "No, it's just terrible writing."

I definitely don't think it's bad, but the horrific Nolan fanboying makes me want to tear about the film piece by piece. It's okay, but it is not fucking perfect.

[mrstatham]

It does make me laugh to myself when people act as though they know the Joker based on watching this three hour movie and it's basically the Joker telling us what he's like. Only they forget he's actually bullshitting to Harvey to fuck him up something rotten, because he enjoys the game. And yeah, the 'do I look like a guy with a plan' routine is more bullshit there so Harvey won't shoot him in the face immediately. The guy plans everything to the last letter.

The movie isn't awful, but I'm sick and tired of hearing about the film being the best thing ever and how Nolan is some sort of God and how Bale is the best Batman of all time.

[espanolbot]

To be fair, the Joker in the Dark Knight was first and foremost a almost compulsive liar, for example, he claims to just make it up as he goes while his schemes have to be MASSIVELY planned out in order to work as the situation changes, I think the whole "I'm an agent of chaos" thing was just another part of his spiel to Dent etc. to trick them into thinking that he was something he wasn't.

With the Joker in that movie, it seemed to be more about collecting power and using it to mess with people, so he can get more power to troll an even larger "audience". For example, he robs mob banks at the beginning of the movie because it gets him funds and henchmen while keeping the police off his back (the mob aren't going to admit that their money was stolen).

He then goes to the mob with his plan to kill Batman, which gets him more money and manpower, from which he movies from terrorising the Mafia to terrorising the Gotham legal system, and from there the entire city as the movie progresses while driving Dent crazy and sending him off to kill the few members of the Mob left that could oppose him.

He wasn't trying to punish "schemers" or any of those other things he said, after all he was the biggest schemer in the whole movie. He was just deciding to mess with people's minds through fear and mindgames because it amused him. Which kind of makes Alfred "some men just want to watch the world burn" speech the best description of the Joker in the whole movie, as it's the only fully accurate one.

Similarly, Batman might come off as being kind of reactionary once the Joker's plot starts moving, though that could be interpreted as a combination of him only being a year into the superheroing gig at this point and acting under the assumption that the Joker is "just another gangster", which arguably even the Scarecrow was at the point the movie began at. He thought that the Joker could be easily worked out, "Criminals aren't complicated" as he explained to Alfred, which proved to be his downfall as he had to run around after him as he didn't know what he was going to do next due to the aforementioned superhuman planning ability the Joker seemed to have.

Maybe the movie had been the second or third time that Batman and the Joker had gone up against each other... I don't know, many Batman would have been a bit less reactionary as he'd have a bit more of an insight to the Joker's thought processes and thus wouldn't be stumbling around in the dark as much.

Maybe in the eight years in between the Dark Knight and DKR, Batman has interacted with more actual supervillains (Scarecrow arguably doesn't count on the same level as the Joker, and Ra's had the disadvantage of basically showing Bruce his methods and resources in advance) and is thus more in line with stopping them, like he is in the comics. Maybe he and the Joker battled some more off screen, though from an interview I read ages and ages back, they said that the Joker was executed in between the movies, so I don't know. We'll have to see.

The fact that they made colouring in books etc. isn't really the fault of the movie though, to address one of your other points. That's the marketing department's fault.

[mrstatham]

No, I very much get that the Joker is full of shit nearly every time he opens his mouth to one of the protagonists in this movie, and I get that he's lying through his teeth to Harvey in the hospital - It's just that everyone who likes to think they understand the character goes to that scene as though the Joker is some kind of a saint and never lies, and uses it as a summation of his character. In reality, Joker might as well be fucking Satan himself in that scene, because it is a lie.

And it isn't so much Batman's reactionary stance to the Joker as the fact that the film unfairly tips the deck in Joker's favour, to me. In the chase scene, we do have the benefit of the dirty cops on the mob's payroll to let him know the basic route Dent's truck will take. But how does the Joker process and deploy henchmen as necessary when he shouldn't know the detour onto the main streets that the truck will take, shouldn't know the police are deploying a chopper, and other things? It's not possible to explain it, in my eyes. So the film tips the deck in Joker's favour, since Batman doesn't do an awful job of keeping up with him.

As for the colouring books and toys, I know it's silly to complain about such things, but it does just seem at odds with Nolan's mission to make it a film we take very seriously, especially one with a Joker like TDK's.

[valtyr]

I have issues with TDK myself, but I will say that the point of the Joker, as I interpret it, is that he isn't a character. As you say, he's impossible. He's Bruce's personal demon. He's a competing ideology, and he's defeated when the people of Gotham refuse to subscribe to his view of the world - the punching is secondary.

Nolan is awkwardly straddling the ground between allegory and straight-up story, and only half pulls it off, in my view.

[mrstatham]

But he's still the personification of that ideology, really, and has a variety of different mannerisms and the like that signify him as being his own person, just like Batman is the embodiment of whatever ideology he represents. I just think Ledger's Joker is a very poorly thought out character, in some ways. Astonishing, yes, but that doesn't mean the character's perfect.

I always thought the scene with the ferries fell drastically short of what Nolan was trying to accomplish, though. The prisoners, for instance, don't display their will for good, as Batman declares - One big-ass guy with facial scars simply intimidates the Hell out of the officer holding the detonator and throws it out the window. The people on the other boat were perfectly willing to use the detonator until it came to crunch time and they couldn't turn the switch; That they at least considered it half-proves Joker right, and that they eventually decide otherwise half-proves Batman right..

The Joker is, again, full of crap anyway. He's willing to drop his own ideology in a second when people don't go along with his suggestions, as his attempt to use his own detonator shows. So Nolan definitely should've focused on delivering a more consistent message, I think.

[valtyr]

Well, that's just it - I don't think he is, or is meant to be, his own person. That's why his story changes depending upon who he's speaking to.

I think the boats are meant to indicate that a mass of people can shamble towards goodness on average, mostly, and the acts of a few people can make a significant difference there. I mean, of course they considered it! People fear death. It doesn't prove Joker's ideology that they considered it.

[mrstatham]

I'll be honest, I thought the Joker's tall tales about his scarring was just a really badly incorporated reference to Killing Joke's 'multiple choice' idea. He's a character, otherwise bunches of people wouldn't recognise him as one, and he's his own person - he clearly has fun fucking around with people, but I think he's just contradictory and difficult to pin down - and not in the oft-quoted agent of chaos-bullshit way, more a 'Nolan threw some shit together and kept what stuck' way.

As for the boats.. I'm inclined to agree with the 'acts of a few' idea, since that mirrors Batman's own plight, but I still don't see that entirely as what Nolan meant to put across.