Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Post-Movie Podcast does "The Dark Knight"

Steve Head and John Black invited me back onto The Post-Movie Podcast to discuss "The Dark Knight" and a few other things and, yes, the Aurora Shootings did come up (we were recording this literally about ten hours after the actual event took place.)

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

The mayor isn't wearing eyeliner- the actor, Nestor Carbonell, just looks like that. In fact, if you search his name on google, the autofill will say 'eyeliner'. Buts its just his eyes.

Emil said...

Interesting, Anonymous. I always wondered if that was the case, since his eyes look like that in every role.

Regicidal Maniac said...

In reference to your question about neutron bombs, Bob, a neutron bomb is actually meant to release even more radiation than a traditional atomic bomb. It's designed so that the radiation is what does most of the killing rather than the actual explosion.

Blue Highwind said...

Stereotype: people from Boston hate the Dark Knight Rises. I don't blame them, Boston is already filled with utter fools. Its Red Sox country, what do you expect?

Anonymous said...

Who's the schlub with the pronounced Boston accent? This idiot gets to go to press screenings? He's considered a serious film critic? "The Dark Knight Rising"....nice one buddy.

Arturo said...

I'm liking how they keep inviting Bob whenever the big blockbuster of the moment comes around.

Arturo said...

Also, that was a pretty good Michael Caine impression.

Daddy Flava said...

Hi Bob,

I'm a big fan of your reviews and agree with you more often than not. But I just wanted to drop a note and say that your rant on this podcast about people taking babies to the movies is a little off-base. Specifically, you say that if you can't afford a babysitter then you shouldn't afford a movie. I just wanted to point out to you that quality babysitters in our neck of the woods cost $12 an hour. So let's say that, conservatively, you need about 3.5 hours of babysitting to go see the Dark Knight Rises. What originally was a $20 night for a couple jumps to a $62 night when the babysitter is included. I think you'd agree that a surcharge of $42 is significant even if you can afford it.

I've got two kids, and we never took them as babies or toddlers to anything but a children's movie. But I just wanted to say that having kids is pretty expensive and if someone has a baby that can sleep for a 3 hour block then bringing them to the movies doesn't necessarily mean they are a negligent parent, just thrifty.

Keep up the great work.

thanks,
Sam

JPArbiter said...

@daddy Flava

as a father myself I have to vehemently disagree with you. yes getting a babysitter does make a substantially more expensive, no one will ever deny that.

but that does not change the fact that infants do NOT belong in a movie theater. and they most certainly do not belong in the Dark Knight Rises. A parent that does so is missing the point of mommy and daddy date nights (to get away from their child for a little bit) and simultaneously forcing their child on the rest of the theater goers most of whom do not want to deal with a crying child.

I waited until my son was almost 3 years old to take him to his first movie, Brave. I was ready to yoink him out of the theater at the slightest sign of trouble, and was amazed that he sat in silence and watched the entire time. to many parents of younger children do not do that. they let thier kid cry and misbehave and howl and ruin experiences for others. if it is not that then parents bring small children to PG-13 or R rated movies which should be grounds for a Stink Eye as is.

it is not negligence on the parents part, it is being inconsiderate to the rest of the theater goers.

Brick said...

Both you and Devin Faraci have said that you think Chris Nolan hates comic books, and I just don't agree with that at all. If he didn't like comic books, he wouldn't have done these movies, and Nolan doesn't strike me as someone to do something just for the money. Seriously, that comment is completely off base. Hell, if I'm not mistaken it was David Goyer that wrote Begins and came to Nolan to direct, so if Nolan doesn't like comics he probably would have just denied Goyer and said, "Sorry I don't like comic books".

Besides, this dark and "hyper"-realistic take on Batman is just that, a take on the mythos, a "What if" scenario, where the "What if" is "What if Batman was real", and so they wrote the stories to try and reflect that. It's like anything with that sort of mindset of setting a character is a different dimension, just like how Batman Beyond is a look at on older Batman in the future training a new younger Batman, or how there was Spider-Man 2099, or a Spider-Man in the 1600s, and even video games do it with Zelda having a toony cel shaded look, and some fans would want one set in the future. That's because it's fun to think about how these characters would exist in those scenarios, like how would Spider-Man work in that time period, or how would Ganondorf look in the future, so it's fun to think about how Batman and his various villains would exist in the real world. That's basically all that Nolan and team have been doing. After all they needed a new, cool take after the franchise was dead, and people hated what Schumacher had done previously.

In fact this criticism seems more like blaming Nolan because other, lesser film makers have been trying to copy these movies because they've been so successful, but really how is that Nolan's fault? Dark and realistic works for Batman, but it doesn't work for Spider-Man or Fantastic Four, etc. but again Nolan can't be blamed for others trying to catch some of the success he got.

Again, if Chris Nolan hated comic books then do you really think he would have signed up to help produce the new Superman film? I don't think so, esp. if he hated comic book strangeness, and Superman is definitely one of the more "out there" heroes, I mean he is an alien after all. To repeat, dark and realistic works for Batman, so that's what Nolan decided to focus on, so maybe I could understand if the comment was "Chris Nolan doesn't like the more eccentric, comicy quirks in Batman", but I doubt that's going to crop up with Superman, and I'm sure it will be very comicy. It's not like Nolan doesn't make some weirder films himself either, Inception was about going into other people's dreams after all, and The Prestige features a freaking cloning machine for crying out loud. Not to sound insulting but this whole "Nolan hates comic books" comment just sounds like fanboy whining because his movies didn't feature some of the more wild aspects of Batman that comic book fans love, wild comic book things that I'm sure will be featured in Man of Steel.

Not to make myself sound like a rabid Nolan fan, defending any criticism laid upon him, the kind that attacks any negative review posted on Rotten Tomatoes, but still I just don't see this "Nolan hates comic books" thing, so please stop it. He only watered it down with a single franchise after all.

Lord Slithor said...

Well, it's not as bad as hearing the three of you when you collectively bashed The Amazing Spider-Man, but it's close. As with that, and with The Avengers, it felt like a circle-jerk. For all of you professing to really like the movie, you certainly could have fooled me what with all the extensive complaining you all did about it.

I saw it yesterday, and I really liked it. And while I had problems with it myself, they were hardly deal-breakers. I'll agree with you that Bane's dialogue was at times hard to make out through that mask, and there were scenes where it was clear that they called Tom Hardy back for some more ADR sessions, as it was those scenes that had better audio clarity than the others. But it begs the question of why they couldn't just do it with all his dialogue?

Also, I was disappointed that you didn't bring up the film's non-mention of the Joker. Considering his role in the events of TDK, I also felt that his lack of mention felt like an awkward question that everyone was just too polite to ask. Did Nolan ever have an explanation for that? The only two I could possibly come with with was it was either their way of honoring Heath Ledger's memory, or that showing and mentioning him would distract from the rest of the movie. It's most likely the latter, but I'd think that not mentioning him at all would be even more distracting than if they did, which is how it appears to have turned out.

Aiddon said...

The idea of Nolan hating comic books is absurd. If he didn't at least respect comics he wouldn't have revived Batman. This is not rocket science. Nolan strikes me as a guy who respects the medium, but is also aware that at times it can get stuck up its own ass and become self-indulgent. Heck, Nolan himself is a geek, having watched Blade Runner 200 times and admits to loving stuff like Star Wars and James Bond. If anything we need MORE Nolan-esque guys; people willing to be respectful of the source material but not being its bitch. Heck, Nolan handles Batman a lot better than most comic book writers.

Joe said...

I pretty much agree with everything that was said. It was a good movie; it wasn't a great movie. But probably one of the better endings to a trilogy ever, up there with Back to the Future and Lord of the Rings, and in none of these cases was the third film the best.

There was no way it was ever going to live up to The Dark Knight, although Anne Hathaway might be my favourite Catwoman ever.
But like the Sean Connery-era Bond films, the trilogy has pretensions of being profound without really saying anything, before getting back to the ninja clans, magic fear gas, gimmicky henchmen and villainous masterminds with globe-spanning operations governments can't touch and access to weapons of mass destruction. I like all those things, but how any of that makes Nolan's take "realistic" is ridiculous.

Also, do we have video game reviewing to blame for some of these dumb comments? Where somehow "I liked the movie, but had these problems with it" is translated into "YOU HATED THE MOVIE I LIKED, YOU BIASED PIECE OF SHIT!"?

Steven said...

Hi Bob,

Thank you for this podcast. I really enjoyed this feature.
I am really excited to see this movie, but also saddened with what has happened in Aurora.
Please keep up the good work.

And yes, the Amazing Spiderman was pretty un-amazing. Pathetic.

Also, if anyone is interested I stumbled upon some nice behind the scenes footage of the film over at http://www.digititles.com/movies/the-dark-knight-rises-2012

David (The Pants) said...

If there had to be a fourth one (there is, via duality, a fourth Transformers in the works) I want it to be without Batman. That reveal of his life (which was rather surprising to me as I expected a cut too but I ultimately liked) shows that he's out of Gotham.

A fourth movie in this canon should be a spin-off with Blake becoming Nightwing and hanging out at the boy's home mansion with Alfred and getting help from Fox.