View Single Post
Old 08-13-2013, 12:37 AM   #96
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 80
Default Re: Lol...if i didn´t know the critics and GA´s score for this movie...

Don't take it too personally.
Not taking it "personally" - it's more like a thing I've seen pretty much from every defender (not every defender is an apologist; the ones here seemed to be though) here, and, well, let's just say that motivated me to respond a little bit more

...all of a sudden a guy with a low post count comes in guns blazing, breaking down posts I made weeks ago, if not over a month ago.
Ah, sorry, was it the Reese thread? I just kinda went through the whole thread, trying to reply to the stuff not covered by other responders... did I treat on covered ground there?

Heh, don't kid yourself though, tvtropes is an excellent resource for aspiring writers.
And fanfiction for aspiring critics
Just talking about their main focuses you know.

The moments in the film that some people think are great are the very moments that others think are bad (IE your first response to me where you criticized the Gordon/Blake scene).
Hm, and I kind of thought I'd made quite an accomodating / considering opposite perspectives and values synthesis of sorts in this post... was it hidden too well?

The thing is, I just don't see why making creative choices to move forward in a way different than expected denotes an author misunderstanding their own prior work.
Sorry if I still respond in fragments?
Okay, again, I think I pretty much just said I WASN'T saying the mere fact of going in unexpected directions was a wrong thing.

which I never thought was a cliffhanger, more of an ambiguous ending that left them room to go plenty of directions
Not a cliffhanger, no, but it kind of set the tone for what was gonna happen in this "next phase", which was then unceremoniously left out, that was my point.

The decision to make Bruce no longer Batman at the start of the next film immediately sets it up as a bookending "Bruce Wayne's journey" film, which is exactly what the film needed to be in order to properly end the story that began in 2005, IMO. Could this have been done with him still active? Sure. But the idea that the Dent lie ends up cleaning up Gotham while Bruce's (and Gordon's) soul is still rotting is just too rich to pass up. This is the main reason I see it as a valid continuation of the's all about consequences, and it feels appropriate that the ending of TDK has positive surface repercussions for the city and negative internal repercussions for Bruce and Gordon. And on top of that it puts Bruce in this "lost" state, feeling useless, similar to how he was that the start of BB...adding to this feeling of things coming full circle. This is not to say that it's the only way the story could have continued, but I don't see it as any more or less valid than the alternatives. If Nolan's biggest crime here is retroactively turning a cliffhanger into a non-cliffhanger...well, as I said I don't even necessarily agree with that in the first place, and even if I did it still wouldn't bother me because the movie I got was better than the one I had been envisioning in my head for four years. To me the biggest crime they could have committed was having the lie accomplish nothing tangible or play no factor in the story. It would reduce the ending of TDK to a bunch of wishy washy mumbo jumbo and a sacrifice that doesn't end up making all that much sense in the grand scheme of things.
1) You seem to be saying that since TDK "ended" the larger chapter, it made sense to leave that book end be and start anew, correct?
That’s the thing though - I don't see how TDK "ended" that storyline; more like showed the “beginning of the end”; and while without a sequel on the horizon, it would've really been a worthy closure, in a “what, unfinished stories are a bad thing? since when?” kinda way – leaving at its very peak, not giving it the chance to become a villain – but once the continuation is included in the picture, well, that conclusion suspended in the air still hasn’t gone anywhere has it

*And*, that conclusion, or a comparable development, was something that movie’s conclusion had totally built up to! So, what seems like the more natural thing to do… paying off the thing, or unceremoniously skipping it with the sentiment that eh, wasn’t all it was cracked up to be anyway.

I repeat: that totally awesome thing that got you pumped to see the sequel more than anything else – wasn’t all that hot anyways. So while, without TDKR, it’s something really cool and unknown about to happen on zhe horizon, once you include it? Suddenly, meh, nothing really – they cleaned up the streets kind of, and it must’ve been pretty uneventful!

Now can it at least be established that it IS a loss, and a waste, before starting to measure it with whatever advantages this move brought with it?

2) One of those seems to be that it’s a way to better acknowledge the impact those ugly events had on Bruce and Gordon… okay, or what about back then when it was still fresh? Yes - on the one hand, showing how the trauma still persists after 8 years, does help give it more gravity…. but then again a long time has passed since then, and other things grown on top of it.
Gordon is also exhausted by his police work, and then his family left him (oops! sure hope they’re still friends… or they were like “hey, so you finish there and come along right?”, cause man), and for Bruce it was obviously the failed energy project that gave him the final kick to disappear.

So really – increasing the gravity, or rather muddying the waters?

3) Bring it to full circle? Oh but in order to “bring it” to the full circle, it actually has to *bring it*… to the circle… doesn’t it. Not just skip to the full circle… but bring it. And what it does in actuality is just more or less revert to the same state from in the 1st movie in order to rehash that story arc. Well what kind of "circle" is that supposed to be? More like a broken record
Remember that Bruce has already “fallen only to pick himself up again” at least once in each of the previous movies, as well as this one actually – only there, it was actually SHOWN happening! How is that important?
Well, a guy who tries to climb up a rock, then falls down, but after a moment of despair starts climbing again with renewed determination and finally comes out on top – that’s just good drama. But let’s imagine he’s climbing it, let’s say the 2nd time now, and, after mastering a particularly difficult passage, causing him to drop half of his equipment and provisions but still going on in spite of that, soon reaches a point where the rock starts becoming interesting… assuming shapes, shades of colors, and looking up at the top, it almost seems like some sort of shimmering, exotic landscape takes over from there; the top isn’t very far now…
… next shot, he sits back at the bottom again, depressed and disinterested, and it takes a considerable time for him to even get convinced to take up the rock again, cause why man? and even when he starts climbing again, he kind of doesn’t want to, almost wants to fail, and, of course, that’s exactly what he does – falls again, lies around for another period of time, and eventually makes it – but by that time, autumn’s set in, and that landscape has sort of withered and doesn’t look all that great overall, either.
And why did he give up back then? Eh – dropping his equipment must’ve really gotten to him after all, what else? That’s TDKR in a shell

4) Now in conclusion, all of that seems to take a backseat anyway because what the movie ended up delivering, was totally worth all those downsides (even if they were downsides - or maybe just appealing for *not* going the *natural* way, and feeing jarring). Fine… that more has to do with the movie’s internal quality then, a bit of different topic from this one, but not seeing anything wrong with the concept for now.
And we seem to agree on Dent, so there’s at least that

Last edited by justpassinby; 08-13-2013 at 03:05 AM.
justpassinby is offline   Reply With Quote