Tuesday, July 19, 2011

DKR Teaser (and about "Avengers")

Here's the good-quality version of the "Dark Knight Rises" trailer, with your first tiny glimpses of Bane, flashbacks to "Begins" and Jim Gordon looking pretty beat up.

Incidentally, no - I'm not running the bootlegged "Avengers" thing yet, but I'll say this: While I understand their thinking, Marvel Studios really needs to get off the guitar-riff/tagline/guitar-riff/tagline/guitar-riff/tagline/guitar-riff/KABOOM!/punchline formula for their trailers. It's not a dealbreaker, but c'mon guys! You're selling the first-ever superhero continuity-cross teamup movie! Low angles, slow-motion, orchestral swells, dramatic-nods, y'know? get your shit together...

So... the MAIN speculation based on what we see in this, to my mind, has to go like this:

1.) It's Gordon who get's "broken" by Bane instead of Batman.
2.) By now, Gordon is aware that Bruce Wayne is Batman, and keeping that a secret is why we don't see whether not he's in costume.
3.) The "arc" of the story involves Batman quitting for awhile.
4.) Heavily referencing "Begins" (whereas TDK ignored it almost-entirely) means The League of Shadows are back in some way, and that's probably them chanting at the end. As such, I renew my earlier very-unlikely-but-not-unthinkable assertation that the COOLEST possible thing that could happen in this movie is for revivified Liam Neeson to show up and be the big heavy.


Elessar said...

I'm gonna ignore the kinda immature self-importance you want to assign to the Avengers movie (yes it's the first superhero movie crossover. Which means having multiple characters in the film will lower your ability to have grown up introspection. So it's a high budget action film. So let's treat it that way, shall we?) and simply comment on the Ra's thing:

What indication do we have that Ra's Al Ghul is Liam Neeson's actual name as opposed to Ducard? Why can't it be a title?

Seriously, we don't get to see it a lot but Ken Watanabe was taking Bruce apart in their fight, and they were following his orders. Maybe Ra's was a title and Ducard was just the new bearer of that title.

So Ra's could show back up without having to compromise the integrity and lack of supernatural elements that the first two had. And thus continue to be good, as opposed to being crap.

motyr said...

Y' know, I refrained from saying this in the comment section of your Harry Potter 7.2 review, but I'm going to go ahead and say it here: I agree with Elessar in that you're treating The Avengers as something wayyy more important than it actually is. I honestly don't understand what the big deal is, and how it's more of an accomplishment than the 8-movie/10-year Harry Potter project.

Chris Cesarano said...

I'm surprised you didn't mention what looked like someone crawling out of the Lazarus Pit.

Adam said...


If I were to guess, I think it's because it would be more challenging to link multiple seemingly unrelated films/characters together for one team big production, particularly when I sizable portion of the people who went to the setup movies had no idea there was anything more to it (my mother loved the original Ironman, and she wanted to see it because she likes Robert Downey Jr. and couldn't tell you what an Avenger is to save her life). Also it will be interesting to see if they can finally nail a superhero team movie since no one has done that yet. X-Men gave it a good try, but I don't think any incarnation has got it completely right yet. I'll be excited to see if they do, but I'm not confident that it will spark a bold new direction for film even if it does. Same thing with the Harry Potter series. On its own merits it is quite the remarkable acheivement, and I don't see it being repeated anytime soon. The logistics of it are just too much of a headache.

Arturo said...

I really hope Bob's Liam Neeson theory is correct. It would be just like in YDK where the marketing was focused on Joker and Two-Face was largely, if not completely, kept under wraps.

Incidentally, here's my idea for an ideal Avengers teaser:
I would go for an invasion from the Skrulls (if it happens), large shots of their ships arriving ala ID4. And then they start blasting everything to hell. And then for the reveal of the big 4, I would have several innocent bystanders saved from Skrull foot soldiers, all getting sucker-punched by:
-a blast of energy following a high pitched whirring sound
-Mjolnir being thrown
-The shield being thrown
-Hulk landing on a group of Skrulls, crushing them.
All of these as individual scenes, followed by rapid cuts to black.
Finally, a shot from the shield's POV as it flies through the air in slo-mo until it lands on the Captain's hand (he's wearing his "iconic" suit). The camera slowly pans out as we see the big four regrouping. Then another cut to black where there's text that says "It was a day like any other..." followed by a loud shot of "ASSEMBLE!!" from Chris Evans (not on screen).
And then the logo, release date, etc.

Ezenwa said...

I'm intrigued by this teaser. Nuff said. Now, Bob, the teaser for Spider Man was released. Can't wait for your thoughts there.

CraftyAndy said...

"So Ra's could show back up without having to compromise the integrity and lack of supernatural elements that the first two had. And thus continue to be good, as opposed to being crap."

Kind of funny you put importance in not having a supernatural element. How exactly does it ruin the movie? Something wrong with imagination and suspension of disbelief.

CraftyAndy said...

and why do you care so much about not airing leaked footage? just curious. would save us time from searching for it.

Peter LaValle said...

Maybe the Joker was Ra's attempt to destroy Batman so that Bane could destroy Gotham. Bane was crazy strong, but he was also rather intelligent (according to Wikipedia anyway)

[Never going to happen Avengers idea] They could shoot and cut together enough material for 2 or 3 movies - then rotate which one was on. If they share the same plot but have different Act 1, variations on Act 2 and changed perspectives in Act 3 I'd go see them all!

Sssonic said...

"(whereas TDK ignored it almost-entirely)"

Um...I'm sorry, what? Wayne Manor's burning down and being repaired, Scarecrow's cameo at the beginning, quoting Rachel's line from "Begins" about how she and Bruce can only be together when Gotham no longer needs Batman (which feeds into a significant sub-plot of "Dark Knight"), the fact that the entire Joker storyline is spun off of "Begins"' last scene,; "The Dark Knight" does not ignore "Batman Begins" almost entirely, and indeed only makes half as much sense if a viewer goes to see it without seeing "Begins" first. What it ignores entirely is the League of Shadows, but that's a rather different thing from ignoring "Begins" "almost entirely". That's like saying "X2" ignores the original "X-Men" almost entirely becayse it doesn't have any explicit references to Magneto's mutant-making machine.

Aiddon said...

I'd rather Neeson NOT return as the big bad. Surviving a CRASHING EL-TRAIN does not happen, Bob. Having him come back would NOT be cool, it would be cheap and silly in regards to the movie canon.

My theory: it turns out that Cottilard's character is actually Talia al Ghul who's taken up her father's legacy.

Tim said...

The Avengers trailer is here.


For fuck sake Bob, link people next time. Do you know how long it took me to find that DKR teaser?

Capt. Phileas J. Werewolf said...

@Elessar, @motyr
I think the main reasons he's making such a big deal about the Avengers movie are:
1) The idea of a "shared universe" where different movies can play in the same sandbox hasn't really been done in the past, and doing so now opens up a lot of storytelling possibilities in the future, both in the short-term with Marvel or superhero properties, and in the long-term with others (because it will introduce the idea to a larger audience than would really "get it" right now).
2) The idea that the movie will bring together different properties from all along the fantasy/sci-fi genre axis (with Thor at one end, Hulk in the middle, and Iron Man on the other end) will make people more comfortable with "anything is possible" storytelling--so you can have magic mixed with sci-fi, and people won't bat an eyelash. The hope is that it will go a long way toward breaking genre barriers (like Star Wars did back in the day).

Anonymous said...

@ Capt. Phileas J. Werewolf

Regarding your first point, yeah, the first generation Godzilla series did it first by crossing over tons of separate, stand alone monster movies into a shared universe. Surprising that the supposed Godzilla fan MovieBob hasn't pointed this out.

Joe said...

OK, the audio on that bootleg was crap, but I couldn't make out any guitar riffs.

@BS Digital Q,

Fair point. But in equal fairness, Godzilla/Gojira is a niche-y franchise from a culture that's been accommodating to genre mash-ups for decades. Japan as a culture generally seems pretty cool with freely mixing magic, religion, psychology, advanced technology or super martial arts into a single fictional property. In North America, you only see this in really niche things like comic books, pen & paper RPGs, and certain video games (mostly Japanese imports).

Avengers represents a mash-up via A-level, tentpole summer blockbuster, from Hollywood, who until recently wouldn't touch this kind of material. That is a pretty awesome feat.

Aiddon said...

If the Avengers doesn't turn out to be a critical flop I will be surprised. Plus the reason Bob is interested is because of fanboyism (y'know, despite the fact that this type of stuff doesn't really work in film). I'm not holding that against him, but that's what's going on.

loveinamist said...

@aiddon even though it worked out on film with just about every marvel film before hand both with the public and with critics. Right you're an idiot.

Aiddon said...

uh...huh? What are you even talking about? I'm just talking about the idea of the crossover thing. You can do that in comics (though in all honesty their success is mixed at best), but in film it doesn't work. Plus Marvel Studios' movies from Iron Man 2 onward have just been lackluster. I wouldn't mind this if their films were actually good, but they're just dead space. It's obvious they're pulling a Michael Bay trick with people hyping up the climax (The Avengers) and completely forgetting you go through three-five films of little to nothing happening.