Rising to be Seen: The Dark Knight Rises Shows Its Face for the First Time

What a month it's been for Christopher Nolan's next feature film, and finale in his Batman trilogy, The Dark Knight Rises. We went from knowing hardly anything about the film, to images of Bane and Selina Kyle, to a teaser poster, and a trailer, all in a matter of a few weeks. I'm going to dissect everything we've learned and been given hints at so far, and then reveal what my plan is for the inevitability of more trailers and posters as July 20, 2012 nears.

Anticipation for Nolan's third Batman flick has been stirring ever since The Dark Knight was released. There were so many questions surrounding the film before it was even written, and if you haven't seen The Dark Knight yet (what is wrong with you?), then skip to the next paragraph......last chance.....okay, many were wondering mostly about the villain situation in Nolan's third film. After the sudden, and tragic death of Heath Ledger, rumors flew that the Joker would appear again in the next feature, but played by a different actor. Then, it was that he wouldn't appear at all; then, there was the idea that he would be shot from a distance, so as to look like Ledger playing the character; then, the rumor started that Nolan was going to use footage from The Dark Knight that wasn't previously released. This all came to a halt when Nolan flat out stated that the Joker would not be in the follow up, at all. Period. Nolan stated he simply wasn't comfortable with the idea, and I applaud him for it. Next, there were rumors that Harvey Dent/Two-Face, portrayed brilliantly by Aaron Eckhart, would be back, as The Dark Knight made it fairly ambiguous as to whether he perished in the films conclusion. Both Nolan and Eckhart both shot this idea down as well, simply stating the character was dead. I applaud this as well, as it gives The Dark Knight such a variable comparison on who is really the main subject of the film, Batman or Two-Face? But that's another topic for another post.

Okay, spoilers done, we now arrive at The Dark Knight Rises. There's first the issue of the title. I personally do not have a problem with it, but many have called it shallow and/or weak, which is such a stark contrast to the "ooohs" and "aaahs" when The Dark Knight was named. Perhaps Batman Rises may have worked better (and not have been such a mouthful), but I'm not going to dwell so much on a film's title. Next was the issue of the villain, or villains. Nolan announced the two "main" "villains" as being Bane (played by Tom Hardy) and Selina Kyle/Catwoman (played by Anne Hathaway). Groans were heard almost immediately. Bane hasn't been seen in a Batman film since the disastrous Batman & Robin, so needless to say people had terrible flashbacks. People are also skeptical that by announcing Hathaway is playing Selina Kyle means that she won't be Catwoman in the film. Also, and I can't believe I'm saying this, people have argued that Hathaway isn't "sexy" enough to play Catwoman, and that Hardy can't put on enough muscle in order to play Bane. To that, I have this to say:

                                                             

Really?

I can't help but remember people who questioned Nolan's casting of Ledger as the Joker for The Dark Knight; at the time, I thought it was a terrific choice, but who knew the outcome would be so extraordinary it would earn him an Oscar? I'm not saying that Hardy or Hathaway will be on that level, but these are two terrific actors given roles that they are excited about, and I have no doubt both will give great performances.

We then come to the pieces we've been given in the past month. The first is a tease photo of Hardy as Bane, seen below:

If anyone still had doubts about Hardy's training ability, this photo puts those questions to rest. It's obvious he's bulked up quite a bit since we last saw him on screen in Inception. What I love about the photo is that, like all of the other villains Nolan has had in his trilogy, he's very realistic looking. You can see what appears to be camo pants, and that mask. I can only imagine how terrifying this Bane will look when we see him for the first time up close and shot from the front. But one thing that intrigues me about this photo more than anything else: what's up with the light directly to the left of Bane? It could just be an error when the picture was taken, but Nolan is too methodical of a director to let something like that be just an error. It could be the light at the end of his tunnel per say, as in the comics Bane breaks out of prison to begin his reign of terror. I really have no ideas on it, but I find it really interesting.

Next we come to the teaser poster:

Nailed it. Completely on target. This is by far one of the best teaser posters I have ever seen. The entire concept is something I can't get over. It's obvious the theme of escalation in damage control and darkness will still be present in Nolan's trilogy, and will come to its breaking point in the final film. It's also apparent that before the Dark Knight can "rise", Gotham must "fall". The crumbling buildings, which give way to the bat symbol outlined with a clear sky, give the idea that the sun may shine on Gotham at some point. Even the idea of looking up to see the symbol, which is such a stark contrast to the bleak teaser poster to Batman Begins, which had a silhouette of Batman looking down, set against a scorched red sky:

Fittingly enough, that red and yellow color scheme was used dominantly in the film. The case was the same with the teaser poster for The Dark Knight, which gave the idea of a blue color scheme, that was prominent in the movie:

The black, white, and gray color seen in the Rises poster gives me the thought that the film will be shot in that way, with a very bleak and dark tone; darker than we've seen with the first two.

There is also the first image of Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle, also known as Catwoman:

Honestly, I don't mind the costume. At this point we really don't know if this is in fact the final costume, but it is obvious that Nolan will be taking a much more realistic take on the character, shying away from the Michelle Pfeiffer costume of Batman Returns. An outcry happened almost immediately, but to be honest, I don't see this as a finished costume. Maybe Kyle won't ever take on the Catwoman nickname in the film, yet, I can't see that happening. Set photos have recently leaked of a mask being carried around by Hathaway stunt doubles, which hint at the iconic Catwoman ears. If that is the case, then this is perhaps early on in the film, and we'll see a complete Catwoman about halfway into the film, kind of like Two-Face from The Dark Knight. 

Finally, there is the teaser trailer that was shown before the final Harry Potter film, and released in HD a week later:

This trailer does what I think it should. I like it more than the teaser for The Dark Knight, but at the same time I feel it gives just a bit too much away for a teaser. Unless this all happens within the first fifteen minutes, I think we've discovered too much for a teaser trailer. From this trailer, we can understand that Commissioner Gordon has been badly injured somehow, perhaps in a fight with Bane, and that the person he is speaking with is not Batman, but in actuality is Bruce Wayne. I only assume this because that is in fact Christian Bale's voice we hear speaking with Gordon, and the dialog, which points to Batman in the third person, with Bale saying, "What if Batman doesn't exist anymore?".

Also, we get a clear shot of Bane, if only for a split second, and if you can pause it, his mask looks just as terrifying, and realistic, as I think it could. There's no mention of Catwoman in the trailer, but that will be coming I'm sure in the first full trailer, due, I would assume, some time in December.

There's a lot here to digest, and I think we've been given more than enough to whet our appetite until the full trailer hits sometime in December.

However, I won't be covering it. If you read my earlier post about why I hate trailers, you'll understand my reasoning here. I am planning on not even viewing the full trailer when it is released. I do not want to know more about the movie than I already do; finding out that Batman reveals his true identity to Gordon, and seeing Bane up close, is more than enough to keep me satisfied until next summer.

Okay, maybe I'll watch the trailer once, but I won't be dissecting it on here at all, so this shall be my final post on The Dark Knight Rises until the inevitable review of the film next summer.

Why I Hate Movie Trailers

They're almost as timeless as the films they're associated with, and in some cases, are just as anticipated. In many respects, a film's trailer can make, or break, its success at the box office opening weekend. This is a fact that has become increasingly true as the years have gone on, as Hollywood has become more interested in the profit a film makes rather than how many awards it recieves.

Which is why I despise them. Sure, I admit that I watch them just like anyone else, and give an early judgment of the film based on its trailer (it is footage from the movie after all), but for the most part, I can't stand them, for a number of different reasons.

For one thing, and this is my biggest complaint, movie trailers show us far too much of a movies plot. This is a trend that I see happening more and more. One of the biggest examples of this is the trailer for the anticpated mixed martial arts film, Warrior, starring Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton:

The trailer shows us pretty much everything about the movie, except which brother wins at the end. This is a film I am really looking forward to seeing. I love Hardy's work in films like Bronson and Inception, and Gavin O'Connor is an intriguing director (he's previously done the forgotten but worth-a-look crime film Pride and Glory, and Miracle, the story of the 1980 U.S. Hockey team). Obviously I know that just about every synposis you read for the film mentions that the brothers fight in the championship bout, and that it would probably be pretty obvious early on in the film that they will, but why bother putting that in the trailer? Why not let the audience see it develop on the screen as the film occurs?

I feel also as if, when you see a trailer, and you maybe see it a few times before the film is released, whether it be from screenings of other films or TV spots, that you remember the scenes they show. This is pretty obivous, but consider this: You're in a suspense or mystery film, about twenty minutes away from the ending. The protagonist is in a tight spot, they may or may not live...and you remember a scene from the trailer that has yet to make it into the movie. So the suspense of the scene is runied, because you know the protagonist will somehow get away. I recently had this happen with Cowboys & Aliens. One of the main characters had a touching and emotional "death", but I remembered seeing that character in a scene in the trailer that had yet to show itself in the film, so the emotional resonance, and shock when that character wasn't dead, was taken away.


Cast Away, starring Tom Hanks is the quintessential example of showing far too much footage for trailer. If you haven't seen it, Hanks plays a FedEx man who gets stranded on a deserted island. The trailer tells us that he gets back home. Let me say that again: The trailer tells you he makes it home safe:

It's as if Dreamworks didn't want audiences thinking they'd leave Mr. America Tom Hanks on the island, or worse, kill him. Although I suppose not revealing that Wilson wouldn't make it would have been much easier on audiences to take.

I worry that every time I see a film's trailer, I will have somehow been exposed to too much of the films plot. Could we imagine Soylent Green being as shocking if we found out in the trailer it was people? Or finding out that Planet of the Apes was actually Earth? Or that in Casablanca, Rick doesn't get the girl? Trailers far too often nowadays reveal their plot twists in their trailers, and it not only spoils a good plot for us, it may also ruin a films credibility.

One great example of this is the 2009 film Terminator: Salvation. While the film was panned by critics (33% of critics gave it a positive rating on the site Rotten Tomatoes), and performed terribly at the box office (it only brought in $125 million in the US, while it's budget was around $200 million, although making a strong opening weekend of $51 million), I personally enjoyed it, and although it's nowhere near the first two Terminator films, I feel has some amount of credibility in the series.

However, I think the film loses much of its appeal thanks to its final theatrical trailer, shown below:

By revealing that Marcus (Sam Worthington) is in fact a "terminator" per say, kind of gives away the films huge emotional side. Salvation isn't so much about John Connor's (Christian Bale) fight to save humanity from Skynet, but about Marcus' journey from a murderer, to a pawn for Skynet to use, to ultimately, a hero and savior. It's a pretty powerful story, yet when a big chunk of that is revealed in the trailer, it loses its value on screen. I'm not saying that the film is considerably weaker because of the trailer; the film has many faults, but revealing a big secret (mind you, the scene where Marcus finds out does not come until about the middle of the picture), it diminishes it's shock or awe factor on an audience.

One final thing that I notice with trailers comes with comedy movies. Let's be honest here, how many times have we seen a trailer for a comedy that has some very funny parts in it, seen them in the actual film, and just not laughed as hard, or at all? There's a countless amount of movies that fall victim to this, with recent examples being films like Bad Teacher, The Hangover Part II and even something like Horrible Bosses, a much better film than the previous two, but still, several jokes lost their appeal because I had seen the trailer so many times.

I have always found that my experiences with seeing a movie without seeing any footage of it beforehand in a trailer make it all the more enjoyable. The best example of this I can think of is Woody Allen's new film Midnight in Paris. I had not seen one trailer for it before my screening, and only saw it based on its cast, and  the fact that it was Woody Allen. I was intrigued from opening scene on. The terrific twist that comes at the end of the first act is so pleasantly shocking and wonderful that seeing it in a trailer previously would have probably weakened its awe factor. It's just better watching a film without any prior knowledge of it whatsoever.

But the big question is: what is there that we can do about it? The answer, unfortunately, is nothing. We yearn for trailers, just to get a glimpse of footage from one of our most anticipated movies of the year. Trailers have been a staple as long as movies have been around. However, they should be a way to intrigue you about a movies premise, not give away its best moments or biggest twists. The best thing Hollywood can (and should) do with trailers is have them reveal only footage from the first act of a film, or footage shot exclusivley for a trailer. That way, we get intrigued by what we see, but are not spoiled with middle and end plot twists and big action scenes. To me, there should also only be one or two trailers per movie.This idea of films having a teaser, and then a full theatrical trailer, and then one or two more full trailers is overwhelming, and, in many cases, could be viewed as a way to see most of the film.

I will no doubt be anticipating the full trailers for upcoming movies like The Dark Knight Rises, The Hunger Games, Man of Steel, and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, but, in a way, I'll be hating myself for being exposed to perhaps far too much footage of a film, just to whet my appetite even more for a movie I know I'll be seeing opening weekend. It's tough to get away from them, especially for those of us who are constantly going to the movies, but maybe that is an excuse for us to take just a little extra time getting to the theater.