View Single Post
Old 01-04-2014, 01:01 PM   #695
BatLobsterRises
Lobsterized
 
BatLobsterRises's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: NJ
Posts: 7,063
Default Re: The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Quote:
Originally Posted by milost View Post
So you agree with me, but you don't agree? I don't get it.

I said that an outline for Walter White from the beginning makes sense when the character debuts as a cancer patient that only has a few years to live AND your pitch is to take a good, kind chemistry teacher and turn him into "Scarface". It's only natural when you have those qualities to have somewhat of an idea of where you're headed. And that's right, they had no idea about Todd, or Uncle Jack, or of Gretchen and Elliot, so my argument still stands. Is it that hard to think ahead that, "yeah, Walt is going to die in a blaze of glory but still kinda-sorta redeem himself"? No.
Yes, I agree with you about Breaking Bad. I disagree with your refusal to accept the possibility of a similar approach to the trilogy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by milost View Post
But since you're so determined to tie the quality of one thing to Nolan's Batflicks (like Star Wars, other trilogies, etc.) . . .
Nothing to do with quality. This is simply a discussion about how long-form storytelling can be approached.


Quote:
Originally Posted by milost View Post
NOT really the same as your main character having cancer, living two years tops and destined for some kind of downfall.
Sure, it's not exactly the same but it's not entirely dissimilar if they viewed the Batman persona as something that would bring about some kind of unforeseen downfall in Bruce's life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by milost View Post
What's the point of all of it? By TDKR, there are conflicting messages. They state by the films end that the law doesn't work with shackles and all that. They encourage the cowl over the badge. So there isn't any real hope for Gotham? If that's the case, why the hell wouldn't you take it darker? You can't have it both ways.
I'm going to skip the summation of the movies since it's stuff we've been over before and just focus on this bit here. I disagree. I think you can have it both ways, and in fact need to have a little bit of both in order for an ending to a dark story to feel authentic. I tend to think the best Batman endings are a mixture of light and dark. "Dark victories" if you will. TDK ends with a lie to cover ugly truths, but there's a silver lining there because of how awe-inspiring Bruce's sacrifice is. TDKR inverts this- it may end with statues and cafes, but it also ends with a tinge of Bruce's cynicism and obsession. He's thinking ahead and knows that while things may be on the upturn for the time being, evil will always rise and the world's systems are always vulnerable to corruption, therefore there may once again come a time when someone outside the system is needed. And he also accomplishes all of this through lies and deception, again. I think the moral grayness of favoring the cowl over the badge is pretty intentional. But the overriding feeling is triumph, because Bruce sees a life for himself beyond all that- finally. And he hasn't forced anything on Blake- Blake has a choice to make for himself.

Again, to draw a parallel to Walter White's journey- it feels triumphant and "Hollywood", almost deceptively so. You have to stop and consider how much he truly lost along the way. Why must an ending either be purely dark or purely "happy"? Most poignant endings are able to find some kind of middle ground there.

And before you say I'm trying to make some kind of equation to the "quality" of Breaking Bad's ending...I actually was one of those people who wasn't a huge fan of it. I respect it and understand why they did it, but it left me wanting a little more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by milost View Post
It doesn't add up, none of it. Going back to "it's a contradiction", well, it is. It's a muddled mess of differentiating views and ideals. They would have been better off simply embracing this guy, like they did in Dark Knight,


Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:
I disagree. Rather than a muddled "mess" I see it as a progression of ideas building upon each other.

And the thing is, if you're saying Bruce reached the fruition of his arc in TDK then there really was no need to make another film. Even IF they had 0 clue as to how Bruce's story would end before making TDKR (which I don't believe), I still think they finished his arc in the right way. You don't make the third film unless you have something new to say about the character.

I just think it's interesting that you refuse to accept the notion that maybe...just maybe, the same Nolan and Goyer that made TDK did have a notion about where Bruce's ultimate story was going in mind. It doesn't mean you have to suddenly like the idea. But it's just like you only are willing to accept that they just had a big brainfart and everything "bad" about the movie must be confined to post 2008 and only post 2008.

Quote:
Originally Posted by milost View Post
You should have left that British thing in there and not edited it, because that sort of indicated that you knew exactly what I was talking about with the way I described it.
Heh, I didn't wish to offend anyone. But anyway, I still think Nolan's a cool cat with a dry sense of humor despite his super serious demeanor. And a certain honesty about his process.


Quote:
Originally Posted by milost View Post
So you agree with me, but you don't agree? I don't get it.

I said that an outline for Walter White from the beginning makes sense when the character debuts as a cancer patient that only has a few years to live AND your pitch is to take a good, kind chemistry teacher and turn him into "Scarface". It's only natural when you have those qualities to have somewhat of an idea of where you're headed. And that's right, they had no idea about Todd, or Uncle Jack, or of Gretchen and Elliot, so my argument still stands. Is it that hard to think ahead that, "yeah, Walt is going to die in a blaze of glory but still kinda-sorta redeem himself"? No.
Yes, I agree with you about Breaking Bad. I disagree with your refusal to accept the possibility of a similar approach to the trilogy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by milost View Post
But since you're so determined to tie the quality of one thing to Nolan's Batflicks (like Star Wars, other trilogies, etc.) . . .
Nothing to do with quality. This is simply a discussion about how long-form storytelling can be approached.


Quote:
Originally Posted by milost View Post
NOT really the same as your main character having cancer, living two years tops and destined for some kind of downfall.
Sure, it's not exactly the same but it's not entirely dissimilar if they viewed the Batman persona as something that would bring about some kind of unforeseen downfall in Bruce's life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by milost View Post
What's the point of all of it? By TDKR, there are conflicting messages. They state by the films end that the law doesn't work with shackles and all that. They encourage the cowl over the badge. So there isn't any real hope for Gotham? If that's the case, why the hell wouldn't you take it darker? You can't have it both ways.
I'm going to skip the summation of the movies since it's stuff we've been over before and just focus on this bit here. I disagree. I think you can have it both ways, and in fact need to have a little bit of both in order for an ending to a dark story to feel authentic. I tend to think the best Batman endings are a mixture of light and dark. "Dark victories" if you will. TDK ends with a lie to cover ugly truths, but there's a silver lining there because of how awe-inspiring Bruce's sacrifice is. TDKR inverts this- it may end with statues and cafes, but it also ends with a tinge of Bruce's cynicism and obsession. He's thinking ahead and knows that while things may be on the upturn for the time being, evil will always rise and the world's systems are always vulnerable to corruption, therefore there may once again come a time when someone outside the system is needed. And he also accomplishes all of this through lies and deception, again. I think the moral grayness of favoring the cowl over the badge is pretty intentional. But the overriding feeling is triumph, because Bruce sees a life for himself beyond all that- finally. And he hasn't forced anything on Blake- Blake has a choice to make for himself.

Again, to draw a parallel to Walter White's journey- it feels triumphant and "Hollywood", almost deceptively so. You have to stop and consider how much he truly lost along the way. Why must an ending either be purely dark or purely "happy"? Most poignant endings are able to find some kind of middle ground there.

And before you say I'm trying to make some kind of equation to the "quality" of Breaking Bad's ending...I actually was one of those people who wasn't a huge fan of it. I respect it and understand why they did it, but it left me wanting a little more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by milost View Post
It doesn't add up, none of it. Going back to "it's a contradiction", well, it is. It's a muddled mess of differentiating views and ideals. They would have been better off simply embracing this guy, like they did in Dark Knight,


Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:
I disagree. Rather than a muddled "mess" I see it as a progression of ideas building upon each other.

And the thing is, if you're saying Bruce reached the fruition of his arc in TDK then there really was no need to make another film. Even IF they had 0 clue as to how Bruce's story would end before making TDKR (which I don't believe), I still think they finished his arc in the right way. You don't make the third film unless you have something new to say about the character. I know this is exactly why you pretend TDKR didn't happen, and that's probably the exact right approach to take with it.

I just think it's interesting that you refuse to accept the notion that maybe...just maybe, the same Nolan and Goyer that made TDK did have a notion about where Bruce's ultimate story was going in mind. It doesn't mean you have to suddenly like the idea. But it's just like you only are willing to accept that they just had a big brainfart and everything "bad" about the movie must be confined to post 2008 and only post 2008.

Quote:
Originally Posted by milost View Post
Yeah, and he also made Looper.
Ew.
I liked Looper. Didn't love it, but I did like it quite a bit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by milost View Post
You pointed out that Gilligan not being infallible. I agree. Neither is Nolan, or his writing team, or ANYONE for that matter.
Of course not.

__________________
IMAGINE THE FIRE
My TDKR Metal cover
My MOS Trailer 3 score recreation
My take on why there is no "DC Films" Division at WB:
http://forums.superherohype.com/show...&postcount=158

Last edited by BatLobsterRises; 01-04-2014 at 01:07 PM.
BatLobsterRises is offline