 Join our Discord!
|
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Talk:The Dark Knight Rises
EMP Weapon
- I don't know if this would be worthy of inclusion or not. But the prop company for the film actually based this weapon on Delta-V Engineering's CG-33 portable 1.24kJ coilgun.
Images from the film's prologue...
Are they legal or from an officially released source relating to the movie or to the studios? Cause if they aren't (they look like they were captured from a camera inside a movie theater), then they should be taken down right away. The last thing we need is the studio lawyers coming after us for illegal, bootlegged images from an unreleased movie. --ThatoneguyJosh 20:41, 31 January 2012 (CST)
How is it that this page may have Potential Spoilers? Has any real info even been released on the script?--Spades of Columbia 11:18, 2 February 2012 (CST)
- Because whoever put up those bootlegged images were potentially giving away a major plot spoiler as to what's going to happen in the beginning of the movie. Not to mention putting us at risk from getting negative attention from the studio lawyers. --ThatoneguyJosh 13:02, 2 February 2012 (CST)
Catwoman's pistol
In a TotalFilm article Catwoman (Anne Hathaway) can be seen with a CZ 75 "Pre B". --commando552 11:53, 11 May 2012 (CDT)
New TV spot
In the new TV spot titled "Ouch"...if you look carefully and pause at 0:19 as Catwoman fights a bad guy, she disarms him of a suppressed pistol.
It looks like she disarms him of a suppressed Glock 17 while holding a CZ 75 "Pre B" herself. --Thejoker I think the Glock looks more like a compact 19 than the full size 17. --Mormonpowerranger521
Selina Kyle and the SIG-Sauer P226
I dont recall seeing Selina handling a SIG-P226 during the movie, even though there is a publicity still of her doing so. Though as I've only seen it once yet I cant be sure. --Thejoker.
I just saw it again last night and it's possible it might have been in the bar scene, but I honestly can't say for sure. The action moves pretty fast to catch all the guns without being able to pause. Could have sworn I saw a guy with a Beretta PX4 Storm in the bar scene though.EDIT: Never mind, it was the Cougar actually. Someone else had caught it as well Bristow8411 14:55, 29 July 2012 (CDT)
Downgrade in SWAT weaponry
I just feel a little disappointed for the downgrade of Gotham City's SWAT weaponry, going from G36s and UMPs (Begins) to M16s, M4s and MP5s (Dark Knight) to all MP5s (Rises).
Isn’t MP5s a little obsolete, especially when real life SWAT teams faded it out for the more powerful M4s, even when encountering heavily armed adversaries? Dangerman1973 17:41, 4 August 2012 (CDT)
It's seen a lot in movies and even today, a lot of police department still use the MP5. The AR platform has really come to its own in the passed years. If you pay attention in the movie, there were quite a few G36Cs, used by both the mercs and the SWAT teams. That one guy picked on up at the end and fired it semi instead of full, which is rare Excalibur01 23:38, 4 August 2012 (CDT)
I just found the charging at the end of the movie to be a bit weird. At first, from the trailers, I thought everyone just ran out of ammo or had no guns and decided to go at it, but everyone had a gun and they just charged at each other like that? That is against all forms of modern tactics. Now it's really cool and you get into it, but during the initial charge, a lot of the guys in front were getting mowed down by one guy with a rifle before getting overrun and then it just broke down to hand to hand combat Excalibur01 23:41, 4 August 2012 (CDT)
- Actually a lot of officers were only holding their batons during the final assault, only some uniform officers in the front row had their sidearms while some SWAT officers had their primary weapons. During the charge, the officers with weapons were charging while firing their weapons, unfortunately we didn't see any mercenaries/thugs getting taken out on screen (though in my mind I would like to believe so...). In any case, it's nice to see that GCPD had evolved from a totally corrupt force to stepping up and defending Gotham.--Wildcards 03:00, 6 August 2012 (CDT)
- That does bring up the question of WHY the officers were only holding their batons though. I mean, I assume they all went into the sewers with at LEAST a sidearm and a couple of magazines, did they just pass the time down there plinking at garbage and run out of ammo or what? DKS01 07:20, 7 August 2012 (CDT)
- Maybe Bane's men demanded that they hand over their weapons in exchange for the food and water? So they were only able to keep a few for themselves.--Wildcards 12:39, 7 August 2012 (CDT)
- Unless I missed something, Bane's men weren't feeding them, food was being smuggled to them. DKS01 18:12, 7 August 2012 (CDT)
- Bane's men were feeding the cops, it was just messages that were being smuggled in. --cool-breeze 09:50, 8 August 2012 (CDT)
- Unless I missed something, Bane's men weren't feeding them, food was being smuggled to them. DKS01 18:12, 7 August 2012 (CDT)
- Maybe Bane's men demanded that they hand over their weapons in exchange for the food and water? So they were only able to keep a few for themselves.--Wildcards 12:39, 7 August 2012 (CDT)
- That does bring up the question of WHY the officers were only holding their batons though. I mean, I assume they all went into the sewers with at LEAST a sidearm and a couple of magazines, did they just pass the time down there plinking at garbage and run out of ammo or what? DKS01 07:20, 7 August 2012 (CDT)
Going back to this, there is still no logic behind the cop's massive charge against a bunch of heavily armed men. Let's say all the cops had whatever they brought with them down the sewers when they got trapped, average cop has handgun and 2 mags and maybe a backup. SWAT would be all decked out and let's say for the sake of it, they each brought enough ammo for war. Did suddenly all the cops forgot about taking cover? Excalibur01 (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2012 (EST)
Screencapping
So which of us is planning on doing the screen captures? I'd like to do it, but I know Ben41 is also planning on doing so. Anyone other users interested? --Markit (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2012 (EST)
I'll watch the movie again, but I don't have blu ray, which is what this page deserves. Excalibur01 (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2012 (EST)
Aspect ratio
I noticed that there are two different aspect ratios for the screenshots, is it the case that it switches from 2.39:1 to 16:9 for the scenes that were shot in IMAX? If so, does anyone know if it did this for the non IMAX theatrical release? --commando552 (talk) 08:35, 5 December 2012 (EST)
- No it didn't. I saw it at a non-IMAX cinema and it had a constant aspect ratio throughout the film. --cool-breeze (talk) 08:39, 5 December 2012 (EST)
- That's how I remembered it, but wasn't sure. If not, that means they were cropping out a hell of a lot of the image for the IMAX scenes. --commando552 (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2012 (EST)
- I would leave them as is to be honest because it won't be as simple as taking the top and bottom off to fit the 2.35:1 ratio as I'm sure that they would have re-positioned the image in post for standard theatrical release. --cool-breeze (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2012 (EST)
- I wasn't suggesting we changed them, just wanted to verify that it was the case that the 16:9 parts were due to the IMAX scenes and not due to different sources. --commando552 (talk) 13:02, 5 December 2012 (EST)
- Ah right, I thought you were talking about cropping them to 2.35:1 when you mentioned the cropping out a hell of a lot for the images but I realise you were talking about the film makers. I don't get why they didn't just shoot the whole film is 1.85:1 to be honest if they are going to keep the full IMAX ratio for the IMAX camera shot scenes. It would make a lot more sense to me. --cool-breeze (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2012 (EST)
- I wasn't suggesting we changed them, just wanted to verify that it was the case that the 16:9 parts were due to the IMAX scenes and not due to different sources. --commando552 (talk) 13:02, 5 December 2012 (EST)
- I would leave them as is to be honest because it won't be as simple as taking the top and bottom off to fit the 2.35:1 ratio as I'm sure that they would have re-positioned the image in post for standard theatrical release. --cool-breeze (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2012 (EST)
- That's how I remembered it, but wasn't sure. If not, that means they were cropping out a hell of a lot of the image for the IMAX scenes. --commando552 (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2012 (EST)
Well, the DVD releases and the digital copy releases were all in a constant 2:35:1 aspect ratio. The only exceptions are the Blu Ray copies, which retained the 16:9 aspect ratio of the IMAX scenes. - Kenny99 (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2012 (EST)
Suggested image additions
Some images that should be added:
- Bane disarming one of the lobby security guards at the Stock Exchange as the guard tries to draw a Glock pistol.
- Blake's killing of the two construction workers with his sidearm.
- Maybe a couple additional images of the different guns used in the bar and alleyway shootout
Just suggestions. DReifGalaxyM32 (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2012 (EST)
Unknown
Armoured vehicles on the bridge?
There are a number of armoured vehicles on the bridge when the army blockades it, and a couple look like self-propelled guns rather than any sort of appropriate vehicle. Can anyone identify them?--Awmperry (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2012 (EST)
- Not seen it in a little while so way be wrong, but seem to remember they were actually old British FV433 Abbot SPGs (L13A1 105mm gun), so they are inappropriate both in terms of role and origin. --commando552 (talk) 06:27, 31 December 2012 (EST)
- The FV433 is a common movie stand-in for the M109 Paladin. Spartan198 (talk) 07:03, 3 January 2013 (EST)
About the Stock Exchange hostage scene
It's amazing the actors and crew didn't use blanks especially in a crowded scene. Just a bunch of sparks and some motion of the hands. Dangerman1973 (talk) 10:19, 6 January 2013 (EST)
- Because a scene like that is too dangerous to do with blanks. Flashpaper, digital muzzle flashes and other tricks. The Wierd It (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2013 (EST)
- Post production could have at least added some digital muzzle flashes, though. Spartan198 (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2013 (EDT)
Anyone disappointed with the ending of the Nolan franchise?
Not the quality of TDKR, I mean, but the fact that Nolan-era Batman's story is over? I'll admit it's hard to follow a villain like Bane that was better than Batman in every way, but I would have liked to see one more film in the franchise. Nolan achieved in erasing Michelle Pfeifer's Catwoman and Robert Swenson's Bane from my memory, but I would have much loved if he could have done the same with Jim Carrey's Riddler and Uma Thurman's Poison Ivy. Spartan198 (talk) 08:54, 1 July 2013 (EDT)
- I don't know if Poison Ivy would've been doable (hehe) in the Nolan-verse. And years ago I read an article on how realistic a character Batman is, and the article noted that while it's possible for someone to pick up all the skills and do what Batman does, he couldn't have done it for long, as it takes a physical toll on the body, which the Nolan movies did touch on. (The article, which I can't find now, compared Batman to an NFL running back, who have an average career length of 2.57 years compared to the NFLPA.) So that's the downside of having a realistic Batman, he won't be around for long. --Funkychinaman (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2013 (EDT)
- I think Poison Ivy could be done believably, as long as her toxins are treated as biological weapons that induce plant-like mutations in people instead of giving her unnatural powers that allow her to control flora (but obviously villains like Killer Croc, Man-Bat, and Scarface are out of the question, yeah). I definitely liked how Nolan touched on what kind of toll that kind of life would take on a person, though. I also appreciated the new dimension he gave Alfred as a human being concerned for the well-being of someone who's basically his adopted son, rather than the almost blindly loyal robot servant who never speaks out like he's always portrayed as. Spartan198 (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2013 (EDT)
- That's actually what bothered me the most about the ending of DKR. (Spoilers ahead) First we see Alfred, totally distraught after losing his (basically) adopted son and losing the last link to the family he served and loved, and with the final reveal that Bruce IS alive, happy, and settled down, just as Alfred had always hoped, all he does is tip his glass? I would've knocked over the table rushing over to him. --Funkychinaman (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2013 (EDT)
- Maybe, but the scene was supposed to be a nod to an earlier statement Alfred said about wishing that Bruce did do that during the years he went mission in Asia. Of course there's a lot of plot holes about DKR that is stupid but they don't ruin the experience of the movie Excalibur01 (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2013 (EDT)
- I know, but that was when Bruce was still traveling the world and Alfred assumed he was still alive. At the end of DKR, he knew Bruce was dead. Now, leaving the theater, my first thought, after "wow," was whether or not Bruce was actually alive in the end or if it was just Alfred's fantasy. After all, if Bruce was going to fake his death, how could he NOT tell Alfred, his surrogate father and best friend? That, or he did fake his death, he did tell Alfred, and Alfred, which in the comics had a background as an actor, put on a good show at the funeral/memorial. --Funkychinaman (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2013 (EDT)
- The fixed autopilot in the Bat and the fact that Bruce had Selina Kyle with him in the ending is enough for me to believe it's real. After all, why would Alfred fantasize about Bruce with some random temp doing maid work in the house? Nothing in either of the previous films implied he had any habit of messing around with the help. And on top of that, he was in love with Rachel during both those films. The only thing I can't really make my mind up on is whether he and Bruce planned the faked death or not because Alfred's heartbreak during the funeral looked every bit real to me. I've seen people cry in real life that looked faker than Caine's performance in that scene. But at the same time, it's hard to fathom the two of them randomly ending up in the same place at the same time on this huge planet with Bruce just happening to turn and look over his shoulder to see Alfred at that very moment. Spartan198 (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2013 (EDT)
- You're right, if it was just a fantasy, it would've been Rachel sitting with Bruce. Oh well. And hey, if I was a reclusive billionaire and the help looked like Anne Hathaway... --Funkychinaman (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2013 (EDT)
- ...you'd probably get sued for sexual harassment. :P Spartan198 (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2014 (EST)
- You're right, if it was just a fantasy, it would've been Rachel sitting with Bruce. Oh well. And hey, if I was a reclusive billionaire and the help looked like Anne Hathaway... --Funkychinaman (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2013 (EDT)
- The fixed autopilot in the Bat and the fact that Bruce had Selina Kyle with him in the ending is enough for me to believe it's real. After all, why would Alfred fantasize about Bruce with some random temp doing maid work in the house? Nothing in either of the previous films implied he had any habit of messing around with the help. And on top of that, he was in love with Rachel during both those films. The only thing I can't really make my mind up on is whether he and Bruce planned the faked death or not because Alfred's heartbreak during the funeral looked every bit real to me. I've seen people cry in real life that looked faker than Caine's performance in that scene. But at the same time, it's hard to fathom the two of them randomly ending up in the same place at the same time on this huge planet with Bruce just happening to turn and look over his shoulder to see Alfred at that very moment. Spartan198 (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2013 (EDT)
- I know, but that was when Bruce was still traveling the world and Alfred assumed he was still alive. At the end of DKR, he knew Bruce was dead. Now, leaving the theater, my first thought, after "wow," was whether or not Bruce was actually alive in the end or if it was just Alfred's fantasy. After all, if Bruce was going to fake his death, how could he NOT tell Alfred, his surrogate father and best friend? That, or he did fake his death, he did tell Alfred, and Alfred, which in the comics had a background as an actor, put on a good show at the funeral/memorial. --Funkychinaman (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2013 (EDT)
- Maybe, but the scene was supposed to be a nod to an earlier statement Alfred said about wishing that Bruce did do that during the years he went mission in Asia. Of course there's a lot of plot holes about DKR that is stupid but they don't ruin the experience of the movie Excalibur01 (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2013 (EDT)
- That's actually what bothered me the most about the ending of DKR. (Spoilers ahead) First we see Alfred, totally distraught after losing his (basically) adopted son and losing the last link to the family he served and loved, and with the final reveal that Bruce IS alive, happy, and settled down, just as Alfred had always hoped, all he does is tip his glass? I would've knocked over the table rushing over to him. --Funkychinaman (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2013 (EDT)
- I think Poison Ivy could be done believably, as long as her toxins are treated as biological weapons that induce plant-like mutations in people instead of giving her unnatural powers that allow her to control flora (but obviously villains like Killer Croc, Man-Bat, and Scarface are out of the question, yeah). I definitely liked how Nolan touched on what kind of toll that kind of life would take on a person, though. I also appreciated the new dimension he gave Alfred as a human being concerned for the well-being of someone who's basically his adopted son, rather than the almost blindly loyal robot servant who never speaks out like he's always portrayed as. Spartan198 (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2013 (EDT)