View Single Post
Old 08-12-2013, 05:20 PM   #89
justpassinby
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 80
Default Re: Lol...if i didnīt know the critics and GAīs score for this movie...

Quote:
Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises View Post
A lot happened between BB and TDK too,
Gee, haven't we been there already?

Quote:
and not all of it was how the ending of BB pointed to.
When it comes to pointing out flaws in TDK, one thing must be clear: there's a LOT of them. And not least thanks to its hype, people have taken their fair share of bites at probably every single one of them over the course of the past 5 years, so when we have a discussion like this one here, the main question can only be: are the flaws equally bad, or is there like a major qualitative gap?
Especially given how it also abandons a lot of the stuff from BB in favor of its own new plotlines, even though the question still remains whether that's good, bad or neutral... with TDK/TDKR, our general point here is that it's bad/disappointing.

So with the basics explaned, let's start shall we:
Quote:
"I'll look into it." Eh, not so much, actually you won't take it that seriously can continue focusing on the mob.
Would it have been better if Batman's (obviously unsuccessful, and why not? Joker and all) attempts to pin down the Joker inbetween the movies had been somehow confirmed, or even given some attention? Yea, probably. But the damage is very small, especially the way the "him again" scene swiftly pulls one into the action.
Apparently he did "look into it", but the Joker just kept slipping away everytime... chasing him was like chasing a ghost etc.
Would it have improved the overall suspense if they had added a line like this somewhere around the area? Again, probably yes - and again, the loss isn't all that big. Didn't find him, strikes again, "him again", you're in.

The "entire mob" line, of course, is the part where you being wrong comes in: they weren't closing in on the "entire mob" back when debriefing on that rooftop.

Quote:
Then there's the introduction of Dent as the new DA. Unbeknownst to us during BB, this guy was earning his stripes at Internal Affairs investigating corrupt cops and now he's this political superstar that everyone believes in.
Dent is obviously the new main character whose arc arguably becomes the central conflict of the movie, and a lot of things can be (and have been) said about him:
-how convenient his nickname, coin-tossing habit appears to coincide with both one half of his face and one half of his coin getting burned in the explosions, and the somewhat choppy/rushed manner in which these gimmicks are set up prior to that.
-his related IA backstory.
-his sudden introduction as the new white knight Marty Stu on the scene.
-an arguably swift turn to the dark side that may not make too much sense / tries to make too much sense with psychological trauma and confusion to fall back on when it doesn't, and the coin/nickname gimmicks that come into play there aren't helping.
-somewhat forced sounding debate between the three at the climax.

Given all that, and even conceding that all of those were demerits dragging the movie down - the way he's introduced to Gordon and Batman, and how he gets into their circle after initial distrust and anger from either side, is still more natural and believable than what was done with, in descending order, Miranda Tate and John Blake.
As a counterbalance to that, though, neither of those have anywhere this much forced important-sounding gimmickry being blown at the viewer's face, and their "arcs" aren't quite as important or pretentious, so there's less to damage. Do you think that? Or does Dent's arc do all that gimmicky **** with such a commitment and disarming impact that it wins out in the end (and in that case, by a looooong way...)?

Quote:
Oh, and Gordon now runs a Major Crimes Unit full of cops that Dent investigated.
And now we're really entering discovered territory.
Yes, these cops are new, but the "corrupt cops (Gordon has to work with)" image already exists - and they had to be new (and merely suspected) in order for their betrayal to work*. Would a couple more (perhaps even one of these) corrupt or suspect cops in BB have helped the seamlessness? Sure - but once again, damage is minimal at worst.

*The real problem with this subplot being that Dent happily gets in the car with one of them, and that after getting escorted by the other one. And then he's angry at Gordon... yea. Y u overlook plot hole?!

Quote:
Boom instant tension between Gordon and the new guy.
The only problem with that being Dent's side of the coin, namely his IA backstory. Once that's set, yea, he's been going against corruption (just like he does now), Gordon's got corrupt creeps, seeing tension coming a mile ahead.
He could've been a lawyer and found problems with those cops; those cops might've been Flass who Gordon's still working with somehow - just details; the conflict automatically comes from their respective roles as the "white knight" and the pragmatic cop working in the dirt.

Quote:
Oh, and Dent is dating Rachel too, so instant tension between Bruce and the new guy.
Except there is no tension - averted

Somewhat forced? Dent's even more of a Marty Stu now? Maybe, but hey - two idealistic DAs in the same town, seems plausible. And introduced smoothly, too.

Know what's the real problem with this subplot, once again overlooked by your humble self? Bruce's immature behavior. He's "fine" with their relationship, but still can't stop talking to Rachel about finally getting together WHILE SHE AND HARVEY ARE STILL TOTALLY DATING. "Remember what you said back there? Remember?" ****ing stupidest subplot in the whole movie.

Quote:
Also, for some reason every gang in Gotham has been pooling its money together.
Um yea whatever. They're just doing it now, with Lau, aren't they? Gordon tracking the mob money seems to be the real new plot device here...


Quote:
All of that stuff is great though.
Maybe it's great, maybe it's not. If it's not, the damage certainly is minimal (again, save possibly for the Dent stuff, he's a bit of a bigger deal).
A general stylistic thing running through TDK (and, to a lesser extent, the first half of Rises) is its swift and “economic” way of setting up and establishing things (that may become important later) – the way Würtz and Ramirez are pretty much only given minimal attention before their betrayal suddenly comes like out of nowhere, how Dent is silently abducted off-screen and it takes quite a while for it to be revealed to the audience, too; the camera quickly sweeping sideways just to catch him overwhelming Maroni’s bodyguard, or Crane showing his face for like a second, blink and you miss it; and the less said about that hostage bus at the hospital, the better.
So, is it rushed and sloppy? Or does it create a “larger world”? But does it disorient and alienate while doing so? Me personally, I dig it, for adding to the unsettling, ambiguously surreal atmosphere of the movie. It boosts the “breathlessness” of its frantic downward spiral, and hey – is the best way to distract from how awfully little sense some of those elements really make

Haste, and Irony – powerful agents ah **** it. Point is, either way, they’re powerless to do much damage, if any at all – too small, too insignificant, merely the ligament between the whatever.
In TDKR however… this stuff makes the off-screen world so large, it’s literally slipping out of your grasp like a really huge piece of soap.


With a few exceptions… like the whole bit with the Congressman – man does it revive that old charm again! Arrives at the bar, with stubble and Hawaiian shirt, barely shows his face and quickly forgotten for the rest of the scene... and then that ****ing punchline
Awesome to say the least.

Quote:
and keeps the story ahead of us.
Behind, is more like it. Sideways maybe – anything but “ahead”. TDKR I mean

Quote:
All of the movies are standalone films that complete a thematic trilogy.
True… to an extent, but not really – 2nd part is much closer to the 1st than the 3rd to either of them; ignoring the League of Shadows plot (and boy does it ignore it), all it does is adding a new story on top of continuing the old one; not even that – it continues the old one, developing it naturally, and then “focuses” the conflicts arising from that through those new characters that come out of nowhere.
They’re still fighting the mob, still fighting corruption – but now it’s about the promised escalation (“personified” by the Joker – that’s who the mob turns to) as well as the positive effect Batman’s had on the city’s morale (…), and the former obviously tries to do what’s it there for in the first place: nipping said morale in the bud.
What’s new is that this “escalation” actually turns out to be a madman out to disprove morality altogether… partially/mainly by destroying said morale and its representative.
And Dent's obviously got his gimmicks like "making his own luck" and backstory exposition that also don't necessarily have to do with described "thematic" role. Yea, once the characters have grown out of the story, sure they do go on to do a bit (or a lot) of their own stuff, as well

TDKR, on the other hand, doesn’t really continue anything; instead, it invents a completely new point A to set up its eponymous point B (replacing the better version that is the previous movie), and then picks up on on old threads like Harvey or the LoS, although even those with visible flaws – the former see previous post, and the latter really cool except for the revenge plot, but slightly hampered by the former.
Ironically, while being the most “separated” of the threesome, it also tries hardest to reconnect them all with reminders and flashbacks, in order to seemingly bring all them threads to one final conclusion – which ironically weakens the “it’s its own story!” excuse in addition to everything else

Quote:
Yes, there are strong plot threads connecting them, but each film really is a different genre so some plot points become more/less important in each film.
The DK series is an interesting case in that regard, almost being a “triumvirate” of a trilogy in the sense that each pair has a specific connection that makes the respective other stand alone by itself.
It’s really a topic for another thread (which it doesn’t deserve), but basically:
-1 and 2 have the fight against the mob as its central conflict, corrupt police, Alfred as the retired badass with the "hard advice" who's "more invested in Batman than Batman himself" -Christophr Nolan, and basically all the other set pieces that eventually fall victim to TDKR’s “retool”. And all the crowds of extras aside, none of them were really the “epic” fireworks with armies beating each other to a pulp at its climax and a lot of "this is it, folks" scattered around the general area that number three obviously was.
-2 and 3 are the closest stylistically – both being semi-“nightmarish” pieces with a mysterious, creepy villain in a mask spending the first half of the movie unpredictably appearing in midst of the scene while underestimated by heroes and “employers” alike, and then unleashing a plan involving plunging the city into violent chaos in the 2nd, accompanied by the aforementioned “choppy”, slightly idiosyncratic editing and presentation style.
Begins had a much more straightforward (as well as square) feel to it, but instead was full of “gothic” stylistic elements like the fear toxin, the Narrows (what? based on a real place? whatever) and of course the bats – all dropped by both sequels in favour of a drier “realistic” style.
-1 and 3 are obviously both about the League of Shadows, which Dark Knight methodically ignores, and has parts taking place in “exotic” Eastern lands in which Bruce “rises” in order to reappear in his city and rattle the cages of oppression / right in time to stop a WMD.

So yea, I know all of their parallels and differences, and different genres – 3rd is the most “removed” of them all, and doesn’t really benefit from that circumstance.

Quote:
I get that 8 years was too much for some people to swallow and I respect that, but it seemed to fit the epic tone they were going for to me.
The effects of those years are the crux of the issue, not their number, but yea – you’re right in one regard, it does seem to work for the whole “long peacetime, dwindling worries… and then BAM! devil comes to collect your soul” angle it’s going for, and how could it not? That’s this film’s central ark, after all! And certain cracks (noticeable, grating cracks, unlike arguably TDK which used sleights of hand to distract from most of them – took time for the Bruce/Rachel bs, and, well, look where that got it) aside, it does execute its “finally comes out of hiding, swiftly falls, rises up again” structure pretty engagingly. Unlike something like Matrix Revolutions, you’re not sitting there during the big climax, wondering when the promised pay-offs and exciting developments will show up already – no, once (forcibly) separated from the TDK mood, you’re pretty much pumped to see Bane’s plan (mostly just Bane though) and defeat, and by the time it builds up to the climax, the cry of the previous movie’s ending montage is a but a distant shadow… cause it’s got its own annoying stuff to distract you at the moment, that other stuff comes back once you’re finished ;p

And, well, now it’s finished and why did it let down Dark Knight, man

Quote:
The events and aftermath of TDK becomes a part of the history of this world, rather than platform for continued plot developments.
Exactly what I’ve been saying – but how is that a good thing? TDK was SCREAMING for its pay-offs and naturally following developments/continuation – that’s where a great bulk of excitement for a sequel came from, after all.
Had it not been, this “new story picking up way after” might’ve been sweet. This way, it only disregards, wastes, forgets.
Building a nice thing on top of it? Sure – but still building it on sand essentially

Quote:
They respected TDK by not making TDK 2
The only thing I see that applying to is the Joker – and in his case, creating this strange void of silence around him even kinda works in an uncanny sort of way. It’s like he’s left too much of a trauma… or alternatively, has been “forgotten” like a night spook, implying that the aftermath he left behind mattered more to these sane people than the random raving madman behind them.
Either way, the “respect” angle seems blatantly obvious in his case. With the rest, it rather seems like they *thought* they were respecting it, but through a series of misconceptions and miscalculations, instead achieved the exact opposite of that.
And the only instance where they DID try to do a “Dark Knight 2”, guess what: kept name-dropping Harvey for half of the movie, and totally botched it up

Yea, if I can agree with this sentiment in any way, it’s only in the sense of what Nolan’s been saying here and there about not having been certain initially if he really wanted to make a third one, and only eventually deciding to do so when he could think of a “proper story” to tell in it. So you can really see the first two as a sort of open-ended “duology”, with the third one as a kind of optional continuation Nolan and co. thought would be cool to add, if you want to include it – and easier to ignore and separate mentally if you don’t.
Had it been closer to TDK and kind of, somewhat gotten botched up, that might’ve been more difficult… then again I don’t have any such problems with Empire or Reloaded, so whatevs.


Last edited by justpassinby; 08-12-2013 at 08:08 PM.
justpassinby is offline   Reply With Quote