The Dark Knight Rises may Occupy Wall Street at the end of October
In September, we reported The Dark Knight Rises will shift production to New York City on October 29, and a new report indicates that director Christopher Nolan is gearing up to shoot within the Occupy Wall Street protests.
These plans are not quite finalized yet, but an insider reveals that cast members have been told their New York scenes will happen at the protest sites. It appears the actual movement, which has been happening for 30 days, won't be a part of the storyline, but director Christopher Nolan may use scenes at the rally as the backdrop for an existing plot point.
A Warner Bros. spokesperson confirmed The Dark Knight Rises will be shooting in New York at this month's end, but wouldn't elaborate on the Occupy Wall Street aspect of the production.
The casting call, which went out in September, is seeking extras to portray law enforcement or military figures, particularly those with weapons or martial arts training.
The Dark Knight Rises comes to theaters July 20th, 2012 and stars Liam Neeson, Tom Hardy, Christian Bale, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Anne Hathaway, Gary Oldman, Aidan Gillen, Marion Cotillard. The film is directed by Christopher Nolan.
Comments (46)
To leave a comment, please sign in or use
Facebook or Twitter
TheDude1
@ejk1 Taxes is always a big issue. I myself believe that we need a flat tax because the rich already pay enough taxes and some believe they still aren't paying their fair share. The people in American who aren't paying their fair share are the millions who pay no federal income tax at all. Now that is unfair and has to change.
7 months agoby @thedude1Flag
Dan
@ejk1 I read about the laptop story. Shook my head...
As for your question regarding whether "wealthy" (I find that term relative, considering different areas of the country have different standards of living (well)) individuals should be made to pay a higher tax on income, I say nay. $70,000 on a million bucks per year is a hefty number in my view as it is. I think the case should rather be made about how to reduce spending on dead end projects like Solyndra, which I heard was about 550 million pretty much wasted. If we didn't have wasteful spending like that going on, how much the wealthy are being taxed wouldn't be as big an issue. I refuse to jump on this popular bandwagon that it is our duty to demand more from those who make more, when the real goal should be to figure out how to use what we already have at a more efficient level.
7 months agoby @dan1Flag
ejk1
@shuabert Well, technically the USA, while it claims to be a democracy, is more in line with a republic in the way the government is set up. But I guess that's neither here nor there. As for the protesters, obviously none of them are terrorists, but a few are criminals. Some members of OWS have been stealing phones, laptops, etc. This brings up a question: If someone has a $5500 laptop, which at least one person had while at OWS, then is their life all that bad? I mean, my laptop cost about $600, and left me broke, so if someone can plunk down $5500, then they seem to be doing fine in my eyes.
Anyways, the real problem with OWS is the lack of vision. There is no coherent message from the crowd, which is probably because of the fact that, as a large crowd made up of such diverse people from different age groups, many have different agendas. Yes, it is true that some to have the government out of "the pockets of the wealthy," but others are just there to stir things up, have a party, etc. What I find funny is that MTV is doing a casting call of OWS members for The Real World, calling for people between 20-24 to share their "unique" stories. How can they have unique experiences when they are part of the 99%? I find that rather funny. And sad.
As far as the taxes are concerned, I have a general question for everyone: Should the wealthy be made to pay a higher percentage of taxes? Let's figure this out with say a 7% tax on income, just as an example (you can use any number if you want). A person that clears $50.000 would be taxed $3500, a person that clears $100,000 would be taxed $7000, while a person that makes $1,000,000 would be taxed $70,000. Now is that difference in taxes enough for you, or should the person with the million dollar salary be made to pay a higher percentage (and if you can, explain why)?
I agree with @shaubert that this isn't a political web site, but since this topic has been broached, I just want to get a feel for the situation through the opinion of fellow MWers.
7 months agoby @ejk1Flag
Josh
Anyway, this is a movie site and I'm tired of arguing (that's usually what Facebook is for), so appropriately, I'm bringing movies back into it, with a little OWS thrown in. ;)
http://boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/427036777.jpg
7 months agoby @shuabertFlag
Josh
@ejk1 Great points. I'll make another. We can vote, but that doesn't mean we have a democracy. The government is so deeply in the pockets of the wealth-holders, that it doesn't matter who the majority votes for, they can't get a government that will look after their best interests. THAT is fundamentally what OWS protestors (and I mean really, it's going on all over the world, not just in the US) are sick of.
Also, if you look hard enough at the group of protesters, you'll find someone saying anything. Just be careful not to paint them all with the same brush. Which, really, is what started this whole conversation anyway, when @thedude1 made a sweeping generalization about a very diverse group of people and called them "sick" and law-breakers. That's just irresponsible. They're people who want things to change, and they're engaging in civil disobedience and peaceful protest to do it. I have friends in that crowd, and for you to tar & feather them like criminals and terrorists is awful.
7 months agoby @shuabertFlag
Bawnian©-Dexeus
@ejk1 They dropped out of college for this?
*facepalm*
7 months agoby @bawnian-dexeusFlag
ejk1
@thedude1 @dan1 @shuabert Interesting debate here, fellas. Let's see, from what I remember, President Obama had a filibuster proof Congress from June 2009 (or when Al Franken took his seat in the Senate) until January 2010 (when Scott Brown won the election for Ted Kennedy's vacated seat). During this time, the democrats could have put whatever they wanted to through, but did not because republicans said they would not vote in favor of any bill. This was the summer where Obamacare was in its pure form, before the congress, led by Nancy Pelosi, altered it significantly. It was Pelosi, democrat from California, that actually began the downfall of Obamacare, because in late July 2009 Pres. Obama was very desirous and somewhat demanded congress pass his healthcare bill before they took their six week vacation, republican concerns be damned (if the dems did this, I would have been impressed). Pelosi, during a news conference, told reporters that she had no intention of doing what Obama asked, saying "I don't think we'll be doing that," or something to that effect (she also said it with a smile, which was disconcerting to me, and probably more so to the president). Anyways, the democrats dragged their feet and Ted Kennedy's death gave the republicans a chance to get back in the healthcare game. Scott Brown's election in Massachusetts gave the reps back their filibuster, and forced the dems to alter Pres. Obama's healthcare bill, which has pretty much left everyone angry and unsatisfied. On the one hand, it is easy to blame the republicans because they refused to play ball with Pres. Obama and co. But, remember that the democrats had months to put the president's plan through, and did not. If they actually believed in his bill 100%, they would have done exactly what the reps did years earlier for G.W. Bush and the invasion of Iraq: voted for it. Instead, the dems did not believe fully, and used the republican refusal to cooperate as a shield to cover the fact that they simply did not want to risk their political careers on a bill they did not fully trust (ironic, since the bill they passed probably led to the reps taking back the House of Representatives).
Now why did I tell that story? Well, because I think it is funny. Seriously, this is only one of many stories where these two parties have been pretty dumb. I think it all goes back to the stained dress of Monica Lewinsky. It seems that since then, both political parties have been petty when dealing with each other. Perhaps if they grew up, then some real progress could be made in fixing America's problems, instead of putting band-aids on everything.
I also feel like commenting on one Warren Buffet. To put it mildly, he's an *sshole and a hypocrite. I know, I know, he seems like one of the good guy billionaires, but he's full of sh*t. Last year, Buffet earned roughly 63 million dollars in gross income. However, after his accountant were finished with deductions, Buffet had taxable income of under 40 million dollars. Yes, I know what some may say. Buffet paid big taxes on close to 40 million. However, thanks to good accounting work (so to speak), Buffet cleared 23 million from taxation. The gov't can't touch that money. Now here's the thing: Buffet espouses a willingness to pay extra money and that others should follow his example, yet he made sure that more than a third of his earnings was untouchable, unless he donated that 23 million to the gov't (which he can do; a website, http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html has more information). But if he intended to donate this money, why go through the trouble of paying accountants to clear this money from taxes? The answer is simple: he doesn't intend to donate that money. I may be off base, but it looks like Mr. Buffet, the guy saying that the wealthy should be taxed more, is doing everything he can to limit the damage to his own bank accounts. What a martyr you are, Mr Buffet.
Now, as for the OWS people, this is rather foolish. They have no direction, and unfortunately @shuabert you are wrong. Some of the people there do in fact want a socialist government. An example is a kid that has the last name of Ruiz (I forgot his first name--it may be Carlos or Christian). The kid dropped out of college to join OWS (shockingly, a lot of kids did). He told the NY Daily News that he is in fact a socialist, and wants everyone to pool their money together. A few others have essentially said the same thing. What I don't get is why kids would drop out of college to do this. This is not France, circa 1789, where the Third Estate finally erupted after being held down for hundreds of years. They couldn't vote--we can. If anything, the 99% (which I am a part of, unfortunately) has the power to change the direction this country takes, and sadly, it always seems to pick the wrong leaders. Until the 99% is willing to drop whatever ideology it holds in favor of a new path, nothing will change in the government. And while these goofballs sit in Zuccotti Park wasting whatever potential they have, their lives will not get any better, nor will they change anything. That's all I got for now.
7 months agoby @ejk1Flag
Bawnian©-Dexeus
Reminds me back home in PR where the people where arguing on a daily bases about not having enough money to pay their mortgage, bills, kids education, etc...And what do you know, they were at the Big Mall on a daily bases.
7 months agoby @bawnian-dexeusFlag
Josh
@dan1 Nice to see we are on the same page in some respects. However . . .
We need to get rid of this attitude that the rich got there through hard work alone and no help. That does not happen. People succeed because they work hard, yes, and also because they seize opportunities. And opportunities don't just happen randomly, they are constructed (often by the government, if it's doing its job). There's no way I would be able to go to school if it weren't for the government helping to pay for it.
So no, "sharing the wealth" is not stealing from the rich, it is how you hold the rich accountable to pay back into the system that allowed them to get there in the first place. This isn't Robin Hood. No one is talking about taking cash out of rich people's bank accounts and just dropping bags of money at the feet of poor people and saying, "well, see ya later!" The rhetoric that gets thrown around about how the poor are only poor because they don't work hard is total and utter horsesh*t. Are there people who abuse the system? Yes. Are they the norm? No. When you give people opportunities, you help them get ahead. That's where the concept of microfinancing came from (hey, Capitalist and Socialist values working TOGETHER. How about that?), and it's how women in the third world are getting out of poverty through work they're doing.
Don't believe me, though. Consider these words from an anonymous member of your own military:
"Dear 53%ers:
Congratulations on all your success. I mean that. But all this "the gov't never helped me" stuff? Yeah, about that:
- That no-frills State U. education you paid yourself through was so cheap because it was subsidized with tax dollars. The scholarship you earned, same deal.
- The road you drive on to work didn't magically appear there. It was a gov't project.
- You've likely never been hospitalized for food poisoning. Federal food inspectors do good work.
- Your business has been able to flourish in part thanks to protection from police and fire departments ... UNION WORKERS and gov't employees all.
- The Internet is a wonderful thing that makes wide dissemination of your ideas quick and easy, isn't it? Yep, another innovation of the bloated, incompetent federal government.
- At this very moment you are paying my salary to defend your right to your poorly-formed opinion and to be callous toward your fellow man. You're welcome, jerks.
Sincerely,
An American soldier in Afghanistan"
7 months agoby @shuabertFlag
Lord McLovin of MovieWeb
@dan1 So do i. Call me crazy, but this is what i'm talking about:
Batman Begins- The League of Shadows acted like Al Qaeda terroists in which they wanted to take down Gotham's society (just like with the 9/11 Attacks, they wanted to destroy America) Batman, acts like the War on Terror, in which he fights terror with terror.
The Dark Knight- Batman was looked at the same way President Bush was. Bush was a president who was berated and pushed to his limits as a president who tried to do good for the country, and Americans protested and did not agree with his policies. Same way how Batman was looked at as a criminal vigilante and how the Joker pushed him from crossing the line.
Does that make sense to you? I know it won't be presented in your face, but if you study the story, you'll find political undermining with the plot.
7 months agoby @ghostmanFlag
Dan
@ghostman Okay, lemme clarify that statement. It can be political, just not directly tied to real life politics. I don't want to go see the movie, and feel like I just got some liberal message shoved down my throat. I just want to see Batman kicking ass and doing detective work.
7 months agoby @dan1Flag
Lord McLovin of MovieWeb
@dan1 well, TDK had some political issues in it, but it was hidden well and was kept in-between the lines. @jayaottley mentioned how Bane is trying to take over Gotham and mass-weaponize using socialistic policies. Everything we've seen so far, makes sense in what he is saying.
7 months agoby @ghostmanFlag
Dan
@ghostman Hopefully f*cking NOT. I don't want TDKR to be political, I just want it to be good escapism. Dear God.....
7 months agoby @dan1Flag
Lord McLovin of MovieWeb
@dan1 @shuabert @thedude1 This is a great debate we got going on down below, hopefully TDKR will be politically themed about the topic we're debating about :)
7 months agoby @ghostmanFlag
Dan
I also believe it speaks volumes that Obama has had a difficult time passing anything when for a time there Democrats had a super majority, in which Nancy Pelosi uttered her infamous line "We have to pass it for you to know what's in it", and besides the health care law (which they saw as the holy grail, the Clintons tried and failed where Obama succeeded), even his own people recognize how radical the guy is, not just those scary, evil Republicans. Elsewise he'd have already passed all sorts of crazy ideas.
7 months agoby @dan1Flag
Dan
@shuabert I also agree that GM, Fannie Mae, and all of those other "too big to fail" companies should have been allowed to fail. Would it have been a shock to the system? I'm sure, but from the ashes of that could have came more honest bankers and lenders, because they'd see with their own eyes if they didn't shape up, they'd be toast. No saving them. Instead, both the Bush and Obama administrations have done the American people a huge disservice.
7 months agoby @dan1Flag
Dan
@thedude1 Luckily, Obamacare is being rejected on many levels.
7 months agoby @dan1Flag
Dan
@ghostman And yes, I am conservative. I believe I've said that on this site before.
7 months agoby @dan1Flag
Dan
@shuabert Parts of those ideas sound good, as I said I agree that our system needs refinement (putting laws and ideas forward that make crony capitalism extremely difficult), but these occupants make it hard to remember that when I'm constantly reading about them either coming close to breaking the law, or flat out breaking it.
And f*ck spreading the wealth. If I made my millions off a great idea, I would tell you to keep your grubby paws off it, you didn't come up with the idea, you don't deserve a penny of that money. If Obama had his ridiculous way, he'd be taxing people who make 200,000 the same amount as people who make 200,000,000, which wouldn't be fair at all to people who live in the big cities, where 200,000 isn't a lot of money if you're feeding a full size family in a nice part of town.
Both Socialism and trickle-down economics don't work. We need a new system that doesn't involve either.
7 months agoby @dan1Flag
Josh
How is that dictatorship? It's just the alternative to trickle-down economics, which have clearly shown that they don't work. Well, not for the middle-class, at least.
7 months agoby @shuabertFlag
TheDude1
@shuabert "The federal government already forces you to buy things. It's called taxes". What does that even mean? And spreading the wealth more evenly is a dictatorship plan and simple. That can't be changed.
As to your other point I don't disagree with everything they say but far more often than not I will disagree with them because there ideas are crazy.
7 months agoby @thedude1Flag
Josh
What I'm saying is having socialist policies doesn't make you a socialist nation. Canada is a capitalist country. We have sociliazed medicine (which everyone here loves). The federal government already forces you to buy things. It's called taxes. All these people want is for the taxes to distribute the wealth more fairly so that people can get a leg up. Punishing poverty is not the way to make it go away.
Furthermore, the fact that you said "We need people to understand that bailouts for big banks and auto companies is not the answer. Let the free market work. If the free market wanted General Motors to go under it should have happened", which is pretty much in agreement with the fundamentals of OWS philosophy, just shows how the movement is a moral and social issue and not a partisan issue.
7 months agoby @shuabertFlag
TheDude1
@shuabert What is it then? If these protesters had any power they would move to bring socialistic programs into America. Even Obama has done that. Look at his universal health care plan. That is also socialism because the federal government is forcing you to buy something.
7 months agoby @thedude1Flag
Josh
@thedude1 Having socialist ideas is not the same as wanting a socialist nation.
7 months agoby @shuabertFlag
Lord McLovin of MovieWeb
@shuabert @dan1 So I take it that @thedude1 and I are both conservative :P
7 months agoby @ghostmanFlag
TheDude1
@shuabert Look at what these Occupy Wall Street protesters believe. Look at their ideas. By definition they are socialistic.
I can sit here and blame the liberals and others can blame conservatives but like you said that doesn't get us anywhere. We need people to understand that bailouts for big banks and auto companies is not the answer. Let the free market work. If the free market wanted General Motors to go under it should have happened.
7 months agoby @thedude1Flag
Josh
Case in point: the reason we aren't having the same financial crisis in Canada as you're having in the US is that our government voted against deregulating banks (something our current Prime Minister opposed before he came to power, but that's beside the point).
There is one thing protestors (for those who can't understand the symbolism, anyway) need to realize, though. It's not the banks they should be protesting, it's the government. But that in itself is a whole pile of clusterf*ck because Obama can't pass anything even if he wants to because the Republicans will do everything they can to see him fail and then blame him.
7 months agoby @shuabertFlag
Josh
@dan1 Everyone relies on corporations in our society, and no one is under the illusion that we don't. This "socialism" scare rhetoric that gets thrown around by the FOX News crowd (like @thedude1) obscures the fact that people aren't calling for an end to capitalism flat out, they're calling for it not to run unchecked. What people are asking for is for the government to hold corporations accountable and not let them continue using business practices that damage the American people, like outsourcing thousands of jobs overseas while the domestic unemployment rate is around 9%. Furthermore, the occupation of "Wall Street" is a protest against ghost banks that have gambled with citizens' money and gotten away with it, while the government stands up for them and the auto giants rather than the citizens. No one is calling for the US to become a socialist country, and anyone who says that is a f*cking troll who is twisting the issues.
7 months agoby @shuabertFlag
Dan
@thedude1 The truth is, those ultra rich people, the ones they detest so much, they run those mega corporations that most of us shop from (Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Chase Bank, etc), and these protestors likely shop the same damn stores I do, so that makes them hypocrites. I'd love nothing more than for the country to go back to mom and pop's all over the place, that'd be great, and I know my city actively works towards promoting it's independent places, and this is where capitalism is slightly flawed. You can make your mega millions, and then become easily swept up in the politics of this new world, and suddenly it isn't about the elbow grease, it's about who's palm to grease. But I'd still take that system versus a system where everyone is equally super poor and .5% are super rich because someone has to be behind these businesses, and ya know, pay people...
7 months agoby @dan1Flag
Dan
@thedude1 Those are the crazy idealogies I was talking about. I'm sick of people bitching about unrealistic sh*t. Go work hard and make your own millions instead of filthy-ing it up in some park. You think those fat cats give a flying f*ck about your whining? LOL. I don't have time to listen to such nonsense.
7 months agoby @dan1Flag