aeka: (Huntress [computer]:)
Diane Darcy ([personal profile] aeka) wrote in [community profile] scans_daily2011-12-15 03:51 pm

Second Dark Knight Rises Trailer Leaked

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:

Description of the trailer in case video goes bye bye: it just me or has Bruce and Selina dancing at a masquerade ball become a cliche now in Bat cinema?

For legality:

icon_uk: (Default)

[personal profile] icon_uk 2011-12-15 10:54 pm (UTC)(link)
My primary problem with Nolan's Bat movies is that they lack what the recent Marvel movies have, a certain glee in the sheer nuttiness of their core concept.

They're big and flashy and nicely made, but they're so determined to be serious, that they're just no bloody FUN. (Even Michael Caine sounds like he's phoning it in)
mrstatham: (Default)

[personal profile] mrstatham 2011-12-15 11:00 pm (UTC)(link)
'Oyy am Alfred, Mahster Wayne, and Oy'm ere to give yew a lecture that's conveniently associated to the plot of this film'.

Shit. Rag on Burton's movies all you like, but at least Alfred filled the role of 'supportive aide' rather than 'Mister Exposition'.
espanolbot: (Default)

[personal profile] espanolbot 2011-12-16 12:28 am (UTC)(link)
I thought that he did both well to be honest. :(

Plus, who else was he supposed to do to for sage advice? Going to Lucius instead of Alfred would have been a little strange from a Batman perspective (plus considering who Fox was played by, just having him stood them giving sage advice to the hero would lead to some... comments about similar roles Freeman's had over the years) and Rachel...

...Rachel had some good points, but she wasn't exactly the kind of person someone could to go for advice. In the first movie she seemed on the verge of lecturing Bruce on how much he sucked every time he appeared on the screen (lecturing with bad, BADDDD acting), and in the second she was acted a lot better, but she seemed to not so much in the confidante role as much the "I have an eccentric wealthy friend whose behaviour I disapprove of but I begrudgingly accept as he's a good tool for making my job easier".

This isn't really helped that much by Bruce fawning over her as she's implictly the only woman that he's ever been around who wasn't his or her mother (Bruce's housekeeper or something, "help" ever way).

This in turn made Bruce look like kind of a dick, as it seemed that he was trying to win Rachel by getting her boyfriend to replace him as a crime fighting symbol, so he (Bruce) could have her instead.

Good intentioned but... more than a little emotionally stunted there Bruce.

Hopefully with the introduction of Selina he'll actually be able to deal with women as an adult without his odd childhood crush thing he was trying to engage in with Rachel despite her cleanly and repeatedly indicating she wasn't interested.
shadowpsykie: Information (Default)

[personal profile] shadowpsykie 2011-12-16 02:16 am (UTC)(link)
my dream for selina here is this (i've said this to people before)

Batman Begins was about fear, facing them and using them to your advantage.

The Dark Knight was about the darkness within, and the line batman walks.

The Dark Knight Rises: Crushed by the death of Rachel and the man who was supossed to be the man he is not, Bruce's heart grows cold. Enter Catwoman. A woman who embodies the joy and thrill of life. She's the side of batman that is not just about the mission, but the shear thrill of being batman, of swinging through the skies, saving innocent lives, and heart pounding feeling of being alive. Catwoman awakens a part of his being that he thought had died not when Rachel died, but when his parents were taken from him.....

[identity profile] 2011-12-15 11:56 pm (UTC)(link)
Alfred: I suppose they'll arrest me as your accomplice, sir.

Bruce: Accomplice? I'm going to say it was your idea.

They had some jokes here and there, but I think with Batman it pays to be more serious overall ;)
icon_uk: (Default)

[personal profile] icon_uk 2011-12-16 12:12 am (UTC)(link)
I think BTAS proves otherwise! ;p

[identity profile] 2011-12-16 12:31 am (UTC)(link)
BTAS, the mean the series that reinvented the goofy Mr. Freeze into a tragic villain or turned Robin into Joker 2.0? ;)
icon_uk: (Default)

[personal profile] icon_uk 2011-12-16 12:35 am (UTC)(link)
What does that have to do with being fun? Yes, there was tragedy, but there was also wit from both Batman and his supporting cast, and wit is sorely lacking in Nolan's Gotham.

[identity profile] 2011-12-16 12:43 am (UTC)(link)
They had wit to break the tension (usually pretty dry), but the stories veered towards tragic, serious or sad the vast majority of the time. In addition, they had years to show wit and humor without undermining the tone.

Given the different format, I think Nolan did fine.
shadowpsykie: Information (Default)

[personal profile] shadowpsykie 2011-12-16 02:09 am (UTC)(link)
i think both Alfred and Luscious provided some humor.
sadoeuphemist: (Default)

[personal profile] sadoeuphemist 2011-12-16 07:40 am (UTC)(link)
In Batman Begins practically every other line of dialogue was someone repurposing an old line to totally burn someone else. That movie was witty one-liner central, it was ridiculous.
mrstatham: (Default)

[personal profile] mrstatham 2011-12-16 12:24 pm (UTC)(link)
And also the series that featured Joker delivering a partly hilarious eulogy and Harley playing Amazing Grace on a kazoo, right. BTAS could be dark, but it new balance. Mask of the Phantasm was as dark as it got, IMO - and Mr Freeze wasn't necessarily dark like the Nolan films are - and too dark like I think TDK is.
eightleggedbeast: (Default)

[personal profile] eightleggedbeast 2011-12-16 12:25 am (UTC)(link)
I think the Adam West series proves you wrong!
big_daddy_d: (Default)

[personal profile] big_daddy_d 2011-12-16 01:16 am (UTC)(link)
One of my favorite scenes actually. Just in that alone you see the relationship between Bruce and Alfred. Not to mention it was refreshing to see Bruce loosened up and joking.
sadoeuphemist: (Default)

[personal profile] sadoeuphemist 2011-12-16 07:38 am (UTC)(link)
The Marvel movies are all sort of generized and dull, though. Why is the Red Skull a threat when the Howling Commandos can zipline directly into his office? Why does Cap crash the plane in the end, instead of, y'know, just turning it around? Who cares, it's in the comic books. Tony Stark gets captured in the desert and learns the consequences of his irresponsible weapons manufacturing. In response he totally blows off all his corporate duties and locks himself in the lab to build himself the ultimate weapon that he uses to fly around and have fun. The Marvel studios movies are soulless and pandering and, yes I think, joyless.
espanolbot: (Default)

[personal profile] espanolbot 2011-12-16 09:13 am (UTC)(link)
He crashed the plane 'cause the Red Skull removed the ship's power source, there probably wasn't enough room to fly it back to Europe or attempt a safer landing some place.
sadoeuphemist: (Default)

[personal profile] sadoeuphemist 2011-12-16 09:56 am (UTC)(link)
But there is enough power to fly it all the way to New York (I think?) where it will automatically bomb everything even without a power source? I don't even understand how that plane was supposed to work or why it was such an impossible threat or anything at all in that last bit, basically. But it turns out not to matter because Captain America does not even consider turning it around, he just grabs the wheel and dives straight down. The Heroic Sacrifice, a plot point ticked off, without any rhyme or reason behind it.

[identity profile] 2011-12-16 08:46 pm (UTC)(link)
There was plenty of reason to it.

They establish early on that the power source for Red Skull's weapons is extremely powerful. Stark cut off a small sample of it, and it blew him through the air, even though the devise was inside a reinforced chamber.

Even if he did turn it around, the land gear and other controls were damaged, so Cap crashed the plane rather than risking an explosion in a populated area.
sadoeuphemist: (Default)

[personal profile] sadoeuphemist 2011-12-17 01:08 am (UTC)(link)
The best thing Skull can think to do with his power source is send out planes and bomb (suicide bomb?) the world into submission on his own. Cap is literally the only person left alive on a plane and he does not even try, does not even consider the possibility that he can turn it around and land it. He does not have to do this in a populated area! He can try for a deserted plains or something, and radio them to pick him up afterwards. It's just dumb and empty and pointless.

[identity profile] 2011-12-17 01:28 am (UTC)(link)
Hey, they said the Red Skull was nuts. Razing the world with an untouchable airforce is right up his alley.

As for Cap, he'd have to fly over a populated area to reach another isolated area. Deserted plains are pretty from from the south pole, and are surrounded on all side by populated areas.

Given that he was flying a plane of highly explosive energy, it would have been stupid to try anything like that, especially given that the controls were mostly junked.

So Cap weighed one life against endangering hundreds, and made the right choice. That's far from empty.
sadoeuphemist: (Default)

[personal profile] sadoeuphemist 2011-12-17 02:20 am (UTC)(link)
It is utterly empty because the Red Skull is completely incompetent at battling Cap, and yet the dozens of raids the Commandos have done have not hindered Skull's idiotic world destroying air force in the least. Nothing that happens in the plot has any effect on the ending, everyone simply ziplines into Red Skull's office and that sets off the final fight. It's a completely arbitrary sacrifice that you can only justify through made-up logistical problems that aren't in the movie to begin with. (hint: Captain America never suffers from logistical problems. Captain America can save dozens of POWs from a self-destructing labor camp and ride home a conquering hero despite doing nothing to compensate for the self-destruction. But nope, he can't even make an attempt at landing a super hi-tech plane (that doesn't even explode when he crash land it!!! (the surface of water when traveling at that velocity is as hard as concrete)))

[identity profile] 2011-12-17 02:31 am (UTC)(link)
"Logistical problems that weren't in the movie to begin with."

You mean besides the controls being damaged, the energy that powers Red Skulls devises being shown to be very explosive, and the fact that the plane lost it's power source?

Cap got lucky at the end sure, but his reasoning was sound. The plane lost it's power source, meaning he had no way of knowing how much flight time he had left. So he could either crash it into the deserted area underneath him, or, as you suggest, pilot a flying bomb over various populated areas to reach another deserted area, risking hundreds of lives, just to save himself.

sadoeuphemist: (Default)

[personal profile] sadoeuphemist 2011-12-17 03:25 am (UTC)(link)
Why must he fly over populated areas? Why was the plane even flying without a power source? Why would the plane even have exploded so badly / such an incredible danger that Captain America has to stop it right now if there was no power source left? You are claiming this plane is far too dangerous to even fly over people without it suddenly crashing, and yet it can either automatically finish its bombing run in America / purposely crash land intact. That's not lucky, that is outright denying the facts shown in the film. You are making things up!

Here is a hint: action movies have no logistics. The Howling Commandos can zipline right into Red Skull's office because they are the good guys and he is the bad guy and they must win. You are trying to critique a scene as if it were something that happened in real life (nothing in the movie could have happened in real life). I am condemning this scene because it had no emotional impact, was poorly set-up by the rest of the plot, was a completely arbitrary resolution, i.e., I am criticizing it as a story.

(no subject)

[identity profile] - 2011-12-17 03:34 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] sadoeuphemist - 2011-12-17 03:48 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] - 2011-12-17 04:00 (UTC) - Expand
(deleted comment)

(no subject)

[identity profile] - 2011-12-17 04:39 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] sadoeuphemist - 2011-12-17 04:47 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] - 2011-12-17 14:09 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] sadoeuphemist - 2011-12-17 04:48 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] sadoeuphemist - 2011-12-17 04:17 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] - 2011-12-17 04:40 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] sadoeuphemist - 2011-12-17 04:30 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] - 2011-12-17 04:41 (UTC) - Expand
mrstatham: (Default)

[personal profile] mrstatham 2011-12-16 12:25 pm (UTC)(link)
I don't know what films you were watching if you consider the Iron Man movies joyless.
sadoeuphemist: (Default)

[personal profile] sadoeuphemist 2011-12-16 12:31 pm (UTC)(link)
The fun is in watching Tony Stark tool around and amuse himself, but in the context of the movie having fun is making Tony Stark a worse person. I didn't bother to watch the second movie, but from what I've heard it amplifies the sins of the first. Tony doesn't bother with personal growth or a heroic journey or anything of the sort, he just wins at the end because he's the star of the movie.