Impressive Metaphor
The Dark Knight Rises, the just-announced title of Chris Nolan‘s next Batman film, really sucks eggs. It’s almost as if Nolan is trying to subliminally make fun of himself and the film by saying “here’s the lamest dorkiest title I could think of.”
Plus the new film will have no Riddler. Instead the apparent intention is for the villain to be played by Tom Hardy.
WB Marketing Exec #1: “We have to give it a title that immediately clicks with the fans of The Dark Knight. No Batman 3 titles. It has to say ‘same thing only newer and without Heath Ledger‘!”
Marketing Exec #2: “How about The Dark Knight, Only Newer and with a Different Villain?
WB Marketing Exec #1: “Are you gonna stop fucking around?”
Marketing Exec #2: “Okay, I got it…I got it.”
WB Marketing Exec #3: “Yeah?”
Marketing Exec #2 “We call The Dark Knight Rises!”
WB Marketing Exec #1: “Jesus, that’s fucking brilliant! The phallic thing, I mean. Total guy magnet. And gays too!”
Honestly? If I was Nolan, I would call it The Dark Knight Gets and Maintains an Action Erection. That has a certain ring to it, no?
I know you’re joking around… but why do you think anyone at WB — much less marketing execs — had any say whatsoever over the title? Here’s how the conversation REALLY played out:
Chris Nolan: “I’m calling it THE DARK KNIGHT RISES.”
WB Marketing Execs, without missing a beat: “Whatever, we love it! It’s going to make as much as THE DARK KNIGHT, right?”
What’s more interesting to me is the possibility that Two Face does return, as Nolan hinted that the title refers not just to Batman, but to Harvey Dent as well. (Which, if that’s true… sort of puts to shame your accusation that it’s a dumb, meaningless title)
Thank God these aren’t just money grabs like the Avatar pre/sequels, huh?
Don’t Call It A Comeback: Dark Knight 3
Fucking terrible title, but no one really cares – everyone is just gonna call it “Batman 3.”
I stand by my original prediction: big hit but a critical and boxoffice “disapointment” (TDK was lightning in a bottle re: Ledger etc, not gonna happen again) and the fans are going to gradually turn against Nolan as they realize that he has no intention of using best-loved elements like Harley Quinn, Robin, Killer Croc, whoever. Maybe less so if “mystery foe” is someone only comic fans know like Deadshot or Black Mask, because then they get the satisfaction of breathlessly explaining them to everyone else. OR if they actually do pull a “surprise! Not really dead!” with Two-Face; in which case the fans will just flip their shit (#1 comic movie complaint: “why do they always kill off the bad guy?”)
They missed the obvious: “The Dark Knight 3D”!!!
Jeff, you would save a LOT of time if you just put up a post every week or two saying:
“I hate comic book movies – a reminder”
Because you’ve definitely reached the point of diminishing returns with your continual spleen-venting posts.
Naturally, this is where the inevitable question comes up:
If “The Dark Knight Rises” really does suck eggs, than I’m sure JW can think of plenty of better titles, right?
I am a little disappointed that they decided not to use the Riddler. In the Nolanverse, I figure the Riddler would be a Beautiful Mind-type mathematical savant that would have created these incredibly complex puzzles for Batman to solve. It would have been right up Nolan’s alley, considering Inception.
It’s not a terrible title. Not particularly inspired, but you can see why WB wanted it. Maybe it was a trade-off. Nolan got to shoot in 2D and WB insisted on having The Dark Knight somewhere in the title. But it makes sense – he’s seen at his lowest point at the end of TDK, so he’ll inevitably rise again during the third.
Better than some of the fanboy faves: “Shadow of the Bat” and “The Caped Crusader” (instantly brings to mind the camp ’60s TV show).
Probably makes sense that they’re ditching the Riddler. I was keen on the idea of a Fincher-esque serial killer-type Riddler to fit in the murky Nolan universe, but in essence he’s a very similar character to the Joker, so Nolan is probably wise to avoid him. Interested to see who he brings to the story. Rumours about Catwoman recently, although that all seems to stem from the fact they’re reported to be searching for a female lead. Hardly concrete evidence.
Of course, the title works on several levels. First and foremost, it is simple and elegant. Batman was left low and torn down in the last picture and this will be the story of Batman coming back as guardian of Gotham. It’s ingenious and only a filmmaker of Nolan’s caliber (that would the most exciting, dynamic big budget director in the biz today) could have the guts to pull it off. Who can doubt such a talented guy?
Along with CARLOS, INCEPTION remains the high mark of the cinema year. Nolan’s films are daring, breathtaking and mind boggling, everything people less talented can’t do, so they must snark on him.
This post is nothing more than the usual JW line: Hate everything about a pic before a frame has ever been shot, then when the film is released give it a back-handed rave.
While Nolan continues to amaze us and the rest of the moviegoing public and up his game with each picture, the critics are demolished in his awesome wake.
His work is both profound and popular. Is it any wonder Wells bites first?
It’s fitting that this news breaks on the same day as the Avatar sequel because it has the same “I’m just cashing in” vibe. Even the prequel-era George Lucas could have come up with something better.
MovieBob:
“the fans are going to gradually turn against Nolan as they realize that he has no intention of using best-loved elements like Harley Quinn, Robin, Killer Croc, whoever.”
I don’t think the comic fans are that big a portion of the box office for this movie. It was such a huge hit because it crossed over. The man in the street knows about Robin, but typically associates him with the shit Schumacher films, or the twink from the ’60s show. The other three have no wider recognition beyond the ComicCon crowd, so there won’t be able problem there.
Your average member of the public knows: Batman, Robin, Gotham City, The Batmobile, The Joker, The Riddler, Two-Face, Catwoman and The Penguin. Maybe Commissioner Gordon, and Alfred. But that’s about it.
“OR if they actually do pull a “surprise! Not really dead!” with Two-Face; in which case the fans will just flip their shit (#1 comic movie complaint: “why do they always kill off the bad guy?”)”
I’ll be amazed if they resurrect Dent. For one, if he was alive, surely Gordon would have checked his body for signs of life and arrested him before leaving the scene? He was clearly in no position to just get up and run away. I guess it shows how we’ve become so used to graphic death scenes and surprise resurrections in horror, etc. that we won’t believe someone’s really dead unless we see their head explode or whatever. Having said that, Nolan pulled the same trick with the not-really-dead Gordon, so yeah.
I think the original plan was to bring The Joker back for the third film. Goyer said something to that effect – wondered why comic book movies always kill the best villains. But obviously Ledger’s death forced their hand a bit.
Jeff, why bash the title when you give two shits about the film to begin with? I recall your disappointment that Nolan was even directing the film in the first place. Odd.
Wells, I’m also surprised you didn’t at least praise Nolan for insisting he would neither shoot it in 3D nor convert it after the fact. THAT would have been an obvious money grab.
Yeah, I’m of the mind that if the tie-in title is Nolan’s only (apparent) concession, I can deal with that.
” Maybe it was a trade-off. Nolan got to shoot in 2D and WB insisted on having The Dark Knight somewhere in the title.”
That’d be ironic, since I seem to remember there was some concern over his decision to NOT have the word, ‘Batman’ in the sequel’s title….and look how that turned out.
What’s wrong with The Caped Crusader as a title? In fact, I thought that was the working title until today.
Just thinking of other sequels to sequels and their Nolanized titles.
The Empire Strikes Back Again
No More Silence Of The Lambs
Back To Back To Back To The Future
Yeah, this title kinda sucks. Shoulda stuck with The Caped Crusader.
I liked Caped Crusader. I also like MAN OF STEEL, for the Superman project.
The Caped Crusader sounds far more gay than the current title. It almost sounds like a slogan for a safe/sex campaign.
I liked the rumor that Nolan would just go with GOTHAM, which would have captured the idea that the movies aren’t as much about Batman as they are the society that would create, respect, and fear him…
Still, if anyone has earned the benefit of the doubt more than James Cameron, it’s Nolan; every two years I go to the midnight showing of his newest movie, and every time I walk out enthralled (elevated, on a movie-induced high, as I believe Wells described his reaction to No Country for Old Men).
“The Caped Crusader sounds far more gay than the current title. It almost sounds like a slogan for a safe/sex campaign.”
Yeah, if you’re 10.
Ha. Didn’t think of the “rising” as a boner thing until you mentioned it.
But all of Nolan’s films ARE pretty homoerotic. Handsome men trying to get inside the heads of other handsome men. (Was I the only one who thought the amount of good-looking dudes in Inception was a little weird?)
I’d like to see the director step out of his comfort zone and craft a really strong, really sexually charged leading lady. He’s never done that.
With Catwoman, and any actress in Hollywood, at his disposal this could be the film to do it.
Bait, meet hook.
Please. It’s a fantastic title.
Yeah, I really dug the rumored Gotham City – or, in the other direction, just Batman. The Dark Knight Rises sounds like it should come directly after Batman Begins, but maybe the title has a deeper connection to this new film’s plot.
Fucking terrible title, but no one really cares – everyone is just gonna call it “Batman 3.”
Just like everybody called the last one Batman 2?
It’s just the title. It could change. Not one frame has been exposed. Nolan hasn’t let me down yet.
It should be called Batman 2 Part 3.
Massey: the new Batman console game is called ARKHAM CITY. I imagine that would have taken GOTHAM CITY off the table as a possible title… though again, whatever Nolan wants, Nolan gets.
As far as THE CAPED CRUSADER: is it possible using the term “Crusader” in what they hope will be a crossover, worldwide smash, might alienate a certain large percentage of the planet’s population in this day and age, and that Nolan and WB just didn’t want the hassle of dealing with that?
“The Caped Crusader” reminds me of that awful 60s Batman TV show, the antithesis of Nolan’s Batman.
Only a latent homosexual like yourself would equate this title to Batman getting an erection.
How about calling it FOR DARKER KNIGHTS WHO HAVE CONSIDERED SUICIDE WHEN THE RAINBOW IS ENUF?
@Eloi,
The two aren’t conjoined, re: boxoffice and fans, I meant it as paralell predictions.
TDK (a movie I loved, for the record) being this massive cultural “thing” was a once-in-a-lifetime confluence of “omigod JOKER!!!” and “omigod tragic-early-actor-death!!!” It aint gonna happen again, and WHEN the film “fails” to knock Avatar off the #1 spot its going to be called a “dissapointment” compared to the last one no matter how much it makes. Unfair, sucks, but there ya go.
The mainstream critics, meanwhile, are likely to be “sick of” superheroes by then. Remember, by the time this comes out we’ll already have had Captain America, Thor, the shitty new Spider-Man, XMen: First Class, Wolverine 2 and a YEAR’S worth of ongoing hype for The Avengers. One can easily see them “taking it out” on this one, with “a step backwards from Inception” as the most popular line.
The fans, even most of the ones who legitimately appreciate film as film, largely want to see the stuff they already love “realized” – and Nolan has largely used up the comic-based Batman stuff that’ll work in his “realistic” universe. Meanwhile, “Avengers,” probably the biggest love-letter to hardcore fans since the LOTR cycle, will be opening the same year.
It’ll be good, almost definitely, but it won’t be another TDK-level across the board juggernaut.
Am I the only one who never thinks of a massive erection when I read the word rise? Also eddiemars FTW.
Also I would have preferred GOTHAM CITY: A CITY OF JUSTICE A CITY OF LOVE A CITY OF PEACE FOR EVERY ONE OF US
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4njtmTEPQIo
Didn’t think of erections either until I read Jeff’s take on it. I think my comment from last week stands about Jeff being strange.
I read this news before work and thought the title works. Obviously from a marketing perspective they’ll make sure people know it’s a sequel to The Dark Knight. Even though it’s a part of a trilogy, WB and Nolan would be wise to treat it as a part two of TDK.
I too did like the rumoured “GOTHAM CITY” title (or even the simpler Gotham), but as Mr. F points out, the Arkham Asylum video game’s sequel is already using the word City in its subtitle. Doubt anyone would actually have been confused, but you know how these things go.
I imagine it starts filming pretty soon. Should be exciting with all of the non-news and opinions of what the plot is. If I remember correctly, not a lot of movie sites had TDK’s grand details even close in their theories.
Baxter: “Thank God these aren’t just money grabs like the Avatar pre/sequels, huh?”
Well, Nolan’s only shooting one of ‘em, and intentionally avoiding 3D, so, for now it isn’t.
Bob: Much as I’d like a new Riddler to make up for Jim Carrey, I don’t see how he’d fit in the current story arc. Also, last time I checked, how many non-comic fans know Scarecrow and Ra’s al Ghul?
Rich: Inception was a different movie and a remake of Paprika. The Riddler would work in a later installment after the trilogy, but his character would slow down the pace for this one. And the last one was already slow enough.
HHH: “INCEPTION remains the high mark of the cinema year. Nolan’s films are daring, breathtaking and mind boggling, everything people less talented can’t do, so they must snark on him.”
http://6.cn/watch/13674448.html
Eloi: “I’ll be amazed if they resurrect Dent.”
Well, villains never really get “killed off” for obvious reasons. Hell, I remember one of the rumours for the Burton/Schumacher Batman sequels was they wanted to bring back the Nicholson Joker.
Jensen: “Only a latent homosexual like yourself would equate this title to Batman getting an erection.”
http://superdickery.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=32:seduction-index&id=303:batmans-boner&Itemid=36
This title is FUCKING AWFUL. Seriously, Warners – sort it out. Make it stop. Row it back. Absolutely godawful title. YUCK. I’m turning on this movie already. The Dark Knight Rises?!? Fuck this.
This is the title they SHOULD have gone with:
Wherein a Wealthy Oprhan Dressed as a Bat (man) Continues His Against the Odds Crusade Against Crime in a Bleak City Somewhere on the East Coast, Aided by an Avuncular British Butler and a CEO of an Impossible Gadgets Company (also avuncular, but with more gravitas). A Villain of Questionable Sanity Arises to Confront the Vigilante and Murders At Least One Semi-Major Supporting Character, There is Sexual Tension With a Female, Our Vigilante Speaks in an Unearthly Growl and Questions His Identity, There Are Various Practically Staged Action Scenes, Possibly Including One Where The Vigilante Must Fight the Police Without Killing Them, Semi-Deep But Easily Digestible Symbolism is Present Throughout the Narrative, The Hero Angsts Over His Rule About Not Killing Anyone (Although He Has Violated This Several Times), and There is Bombastic, Ominous Music Blaring on the Soundtrack.
Claiming that Warner marketing has any say over the title of a Chris Nolan film is completely laughable.