TDKR Oscar Chances? - Part 1

[Tequilla]

Originally Posted by jmc

The people of Gotham are exactly like the background characters in Inception - nameless, faceless, beings. That is far from being handled perfectly.

Considering Inception is not about those background characters , and its a typical derivate genre movie...there's nothing wrong with it. The catharsis of scarecrow is well played , and cobb's relationship is beautifully developed. They move the plot forward and their actions are related to their basic archetypes characterizations. No unnecessary development time spent on unnecessary characters motivations.

Cinema is not a booklet of rules.

To me it's bizarre criticizing a movie about aspects that the story doesn't want to rely on. In that sense , and considering the choices made , i think Gotham was handled perfectly . The last thing this movie needed was common citizens or political mumbo jumbo. The important thing is the social context , and how that is utilized by the antagonist .

[jmc]

Cinema is not a booklet of rules, I agree, but when you stray from certain conventions your executions need to be handled perfectly otherwise you're open to justifiable criticism. If Nolan and co are happy with the fact this horrific event is not seen from the perspective of regular people then that's fine, but it's not fine for me and others especially when the last two films depicted how ordinary people are affected by the insanity that is happening around them. That is why Gotham is very much a character in both films one and two, because the city is given a voice on multiple occasions by the Joe averages. In TDKR Gotham is a hollow shell of the city it was in the previous films, again if Nolan was ok with that then that's his decision and he has to live with it, but it is a valid criticism to make when people have invested so much in not just Batman but Gotham City as well throughout the whole series. To simply forget about the people of Gotham is frankly inexcusable, especially when a large part of the whole series has been about getting Gotham back on its feet. The last thing the movie needed was common citizens? Nothing could be further from the truth, this film out of all the films needed the people of Gotham to be seen and heard.

[Tequilla]

Originally Posted by jmc

Cinema is not a booklet of rules, I agree, but when you stray from certain conventions your executions need to be handled perfectly otherwise you're open to justifiable criticism. .

I completely agree with this. I understand people not liking the execution Nolan chose. But the moment he did it , i see no reason for him to develop what isnt needed for the story that his being told.

Everything in this movie is related to Bruce's emotional state. Gotham in general is one of many facets the director manipulates in order to serve the story. I've got more than enough visual cues and scenes to help me understand Gotham reaction to a certain point. The rest is unnecessary. Because its irrelevant , or because other characters actions are enough to convey a particular information.

I would agree to a certain type of criticism , if the movie was about a clash of ideals or something. I also understand it might have been what people expected. But the movie isnt about that. It's and individual story. And i love the bold choice by Nolan ,instead of cheap reactions and irrelevant story-lines. Gotham is more than personified by the characters that operate in this movie , and that type of basic outline was already present in the previous movies.

That's why i see a lot of opinions (good ones , and very elaborated) that talk about a movie that doesn't exist , and never tries to achieve anything like that. Rises is all about Bruce's journey.

[BatLobsterRises]

This citizens of Gotham POV stuff...it's neither the first or last time Nolan will he accused of being a "cold" filmmaker. Ironically, I found Rises to be his most emotionally accessible film to date.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by jmc

That makes zero sense given film one was also a Bruce Wayne focused story.

The Dark Knight was the least-focused film on Bruce Wayne though.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

The Dark Knight was the least-focused film on Bruce Wayne though.

Even Nolan acknowledged that TDK "left audiences hanging" with regards to Bruce Wayne's journey. That was part of the reason he wanted to come back for one more film.

[atomicbattery]

Originally Posted by jmc

Cinema is not a booklet of rules, I agree, but when you stray from certain conventions your executions need to be handled perfectly otherwise you're open to justifiable criticism. If Nolan and co are happy with the fact this horrific event is not seen from the perspective of regular people then that's fine, but it's not fine for me and others especially when the last two films depicted how ordinary people are affected by the insanity that is happening around them. That is why Gotham is very much a character in both films one and two, because the city is given a voice on multiple occasions by the Joe averages. In TDKR Gotham is a hollow shell of the city it was in the previous films, again if Nolan was ok with that then that's his decision and he has to live with it, but it is a valid criticism to make when people have invested so much in not just Batman but Gotham City as well throughout the whole series. To simply forget about the people of Gotham is frankly inexcusable, especially when a large part of the whole series has been about getting Gotham back on its feet. The last thing the movie needed was common citizens? Nothing could be further from the truth, this film out of all the films needed the people of Gotham to be seen and heard.

The stillness of the city was a beautiful illustration of the terror visited upon it.

Gotham during the occupation had become the antithesis of the American city as we know it to be (Walt Whitman- "Manhattan streets with their powerful throbs... the endless noisy chorus"). Ross Douthat wrote in The New York Times ('The Way We Fear Now') that Nolan's films are a "cultural touchstone for our era of anxiety".

The deafening silence of Gotham was shocking, the theme of fear from Batman Begins had reached an societal apotheosis.

[jmc]

Originally Posted by Tequilla

I completely agree with this. I understand people not liking the execution Nolan chose. But the moment he did it , i see no reason for him to develop what isnt needed for the story that his being told.

Everything in this movie is related to Bruce's emotional state. Gotham in general is one of many facets the director manipulates in order to serve the story. I've got more than enough visual cues and scenes to help me understand Gotham reaction to a certain point. The rest is unnecessary. Because its irrelevant , or because other characters actions are enough to convey a particular information.

I would agree to a certain type of criticism , if the movie was about a clash of ideals or something. I also understand it might have been what people expected. But the movie isnt about that. It's and individual story. And i love the bold choice by Nolan ,instead of cheap reactions and irrelevant story-lines. Gotham is more than personified by the characters that operate in this movie , and that type of basic outline was already present in the previous movies.

That's why i see a lot of opinions (good ones , and very elaborated) that talk about a movie that doesn't exist , and never tries to achieve anything like that. Rises is all about Bruce's journey.

The reason there is so much talk for a film that doesn't exists is because the ideas of that non-existent film is presented to us in Rises. Rises is a hodgepodge of ideas that could span about 3 or 4 different movies, and yet they're all presented to us in one 2 hour 45 mins time frame. That is a great deal of why many of us are unsatisfied with the final product and believe it to be a clunky movie and the worst of the series. It's trying to be simultaneously an epic blockbuster, deep character story, a war film, a crime drama, and a thinking mans movie. That's all well and good if the execution is perfect, it's ambitious as hell to try and cram so much into such a short run time (relative to the size of the story), but it's execution dependent. If those elements don't gel together perfectly you're left with a film where the ideas presented start to cancel each other out because they're all jockeying for attention, and as a consequence of that lack of cohesion the other flaws in the film become all the more adamant - plot issues, under developed characters, gaps in logic, weak motives, etc, TDK and Begins both suffer from similar problems as well to varying degrees (all films do really), but because the stories in those two films are far more focused you don't notice the flaws as much.

It's all well and good to say judge the film for what it is, but that's all any of us have done. Most of us who don't like the film as much as others have seen the film multiple times, and I'll hazard a guess it because we were trying to work out what it is about the film that didn't work for us. I'm probably not the only one who's replayed the movie in their head and altered it to follow one of the ideas presented to us, and the reason we do that is because we look at the previous two films and see what it is about them we loved. We feel Rises doesn't live up to those movies because there is an absence of what made those movies great. Is it fair to judge this movie based on the past two? Yes and No. I do admit every film should be judge on it's own merit, sequel or not, but in a series that has gone out of it's way to be a thinking mans superhero story to depart from certain aspects in the final chapter to many is unforgivable. Add in repeated elements from Batman Begins and Nolan's entire body of film work and you've got yourself a potent mix ready for criticism if it's anything short of well executed.

I'll finish by saying I'm pretty certain those of us 'haters', 'whiners', 'nitpickers', whatever we've been labeled, can appreciate what the movie was trying to accomplish and can admire it's scope and ambition, but all we're doing is calling it as we see it, and we don't see it as good as either films one or two. Frankly, we believe there's a better movie within Rises, maybe even better than TDK, and that Nolan could have produced something far grander. In time we may be able to appreciate Rises to some degree, but we're never going to love it.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by jmc

That makes zero sense given film one was also a Bruce Wayne focused story.

Originally Posted by jmc

The people of Gotham are exactly like the background characters in Inception - nameless, faceless, beings. That is far from being handled perfectly.

Originally Posted by jmc

Cinema is not a booklet of rules, I agree, but when you stray from certain conventions your executions need to be handled perfectly otherwise you're open to justifiable criticism. If Nolan and co are happy with the fact this horrific event is not seen from the perspective of regular people then that's fine, but it's not fine for me and others especially when the last two films depicted how ordinary people are affected by the insanity that is happening around them. That is why Gotham is very much a character in both films one and two, because the city is given a voice on multiple occasions by the Joe averages. In TDKR Gotham is a hollow shell of the city it was in the previous films, again if Nolan was ok with that then that's his decision and he has to live with it, but it is a valid criticism to make when people have invested so much in not just Batman but Gotham City as well throughout the whole series. To simply forget about the people of Gotham is frankly inexcusable, especially when a large part of the whole series has been about getting Gotham back on its feet. The last thing the movie needed was common citizens? Nothing could be further from the truth, this film out of all the films needed the people of Gotham to be seen and heard.

Originally Posted by jmc

The reason there is so much talk for a film that doesn't exists is because the ideas of that non-existent film is presented to us in Rises. Rises is a hodgepodge of ideas that could span about 3 or 4 different movies, and yet they're all presented to us in one 2 hour 45 mins time frame. That is a great deal of why many of us are unsatisfied with the final product and believe it to be a clunky movie and the worst of the series. It's trying to be simultaneously an epic blockbuster, deep character story, a war film, a crime drama, and a thinking mans movie. That's all well and good if the execution is perfect, it's ambitious as hell to try and cram so much into such a short run time (relative to the size of the story), but it's execution dependent. If those elements don't gel together perfectly you're left with a film where the ideas presented start to cancel each other out because they're all jockeying for attention, and as a consequence of that lack of cohesion the other flaws in the film become all the more adamant - plot issues, under developed characters, gaps in logic, weak motives, etc, TDK and Begins both suffer from similar problems as well to varying degrees (all films do really), but because the stories in those two films are far more focused you don't notice the flaws as much.

It's all well and good to say judge the film for what it is, but that's all any of us have done. Most of us who don't like the film as much as others have seen the film multiple times, and I'll hazard a guess it because we were trying to work out what it is about the film that didn't work for us. I'm probably not the only one who's replayed the movie in their head and altered it to follow one of the ideas presented to us, and the reason we do that is because we look at the previous two films and see what it is about them we loved about them. We feel Rises doesn't live up to those movies because there is an absence of what made those movies great. Is it fair to judge this movie based on the past two? Yes and No. I do admit every film should be judge on it's own merit, sequel or not, but in a series that has gone out of it's way to be a thinking mans superhero story to depart from certain aspects in the final chapter to many is unforgivable. Add in repeated elements from Batman Begins and Nolan entire body of film work and you've got yourself a potent mix ready for criticism if it's anything short of well executed.

I'll finish by saying I'm pretty certain those of us 'haters', 'whiners', 'nitpickers', whatever we've been labeled, can appreciate what the movie was trying to accomplish and can admire it's scope and ambition, but all we're doing is calling it as we see it, and we don't see it as good as either films one or two. Frankly, we believe there's a better movie within Rises, maybe even better than TDK, and that Nolan could have produced something far grander. In time we may be able to appreciate Rises to some degree, but we're never going to love it.

Well said, mate. Especially the bolded part in your latest post.

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

Even Nolan acknowledged that TDK "left audiences hanging" with regards to Bruce Wayne's journey. That was part of the reason he wanted to come back for one more film.

Batman Begins left audiences hanging, too, with Crane and half the Arkham inmates still being on the loose, the talk about escalation, and most important of all the big teaser of a new theatrical criminal in town who leaves Joker cards at the scene of his crimes. After that audiences were gasping to see Nolan's version of the Joker.

This more focused on Bruce Wayne argument doesn't make any sense. What kind of weak script is unable to show some Gotham reactions and still keep the story focused on Bruce?

[TheBat812]

Not many people have argued that TDKR is stronger than either of the other two entries, we're more arguing that to us it is still above average as a film. IMO all three films are head over heels above any other comic book entry or any most films in general. The part where many of us have disagreed is whether or not the film is actually bad as a result of the flaws. Most of us recognize that it is sloppier and too ambitious for its own good at times, but that does not mean the film is not an extreme triumph at what it does get right, which to me considerably overwhelms the few problems I have with the film.

[Anno_Domini]

I think it would be very fair to argue between TDKR and BB though.

Even though I never mind RT, take a look at their scores as TDKR is at least higher even with the top critics.

[Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by jmc

The reason there is so much talk for a film that doesn't exists is because the ideas of that non-existent film is presented to us in Rises. Rises is a hodgepodge of ideas that could span about 3 or 4 different movies, and yet they're all presented to us in one 2 hour 45 mins time frame. That is a great deal of why many of us are unsatisfied with the final product and believe it to be a clunky movie and the worst of the series. It's trying to be simultaneously an epic blockbuster, deep character story, a war film, a crime drama, and a thinking mans movie. That's all well and good if the execution is perfect, it's ambitious as hell to try and cram so much into such a short run time (relative to the size of the story), but it's execution dependent. If those elements don't gel together perfectly you're left with a film where the ideas presented start to cancel each other out because they're all jockeying for attention, and as a consequence of that lack of cohesion the other flaws in the film become all the more adamant - plot issues, under developed characters, gaps in logic, weak motives, etc, TDK and Begins both suffer from similar problems as well to varying degrees (all films do really), but because the stories in those two films are far more focused you don't notice the flaws as much.

It's all well and good to say judge the film for what it is, but that's all any of us have done. Most of us who don't like the film as much as others have seen the film multiple times, and I'll hazard a guess it because we were trying to work out what it is about the film that didn't work for us. I'm probably not the only one who's replayed the movie in their head and altered it to follow one of the ideas presented to us, and the reason we do that is because we look at the previous two films and see what it is about them we loved about them. We feel Rises doesn't live up to those movies because there is an absence of what made those movies great. Is it fair to judge this movie based on the past two? Yes and No. I do admit every film should be judge on it's own merit, sequel or not, but in a series that has gone out of it's way to be a thinking mans superhero story to depart from certain aspects in the final chapter to many is unforgivable. Add in repeated elements from Batman Begins and Nolan entire body of film work and you've got yourself a potent mix ready for criticism if it's anything short of well executed.

I'll finish by saying I'm pretty certain those of us 'haters', 'whiners', 'nitpickers', whatever we've been labeled, can appreciate what the movie was trying to accomplish and can admire it's scope and ambition, but all we're doing is calling it as we see it, and we don't see it as good as either films one or two. Frankly, we believe there's a better movie within Rises, maybe even better than TDK, and that Nolan could have produced something far grander. In time we may be able to appreciate Rises to some degree, but we're never going to love it.

Has anyone said that you had to "love" TDKR? To me, it just sounds like your searching and looking for reasons to not like the film, because it wasn't the kind of Batman film you, personally wanted or expected. Not everyone can get what they want.

To each his own brotha....if you didn't like the film or even hated it, than that is your opinion.

[jmc]

Originally Posted by Dark Knight

Has anyone said that you had to "love" TDKR? To me, it just sounds like your searching and looking for reasons to not like the film, because it wasn't the kind of Batman film you, personally wanted or expected. Not everyone can get what they want.

To each his own brotha....if you didn't like the film or even hated it, than that is your opinion.

Did you even read what I just wrote or quoted it simply to make some kind of pointless comment to show your support for the film?

[Optimus_Prime_]

I've never said I hate The Dark Knight Rises just that I felt like it was grossly inferior, and just kind of a messy film. Like many point out: just too much going on. Too many characters I'm not sure I cared about, too many characters I did care about getting shafted for screen time, too much character development that got rushed into one or two knee jerk scenes, which is all fine from an entertainment perspective. It's a bit like being taken on a really dangerous cab ride through NYC. However I just can't watch that, and the previous two and say "oh, well that's better then the other two".

[Brain Damage]

Originally Posted by jmc

The reason there is so much talk for a film that doesn't exists is because the ideas of that non-existent film is presented to us in Rises. Rises is a hodgepodge of ideas that could span about 3 or 4 different movies, and yet they're all presented to us in one 2 hour 45 mins time frame. That is a great deal of why many of us are unsatisfied with the final product and believe it to be a clunky movie and the worst of the series. It's trying to be simultaneously an epic blockbuster, deep character story, a war film, a crime drama, and a thinking mans movie. That's all well and good if the execution is perfect, it's ambitious as hell to try and cram so much into such a short run time (relative to the size of the story), but it's execution dependent. If those elements don't gel together perfectly you're left with a film where the ideas presented start to cancel each other out because they're all jockeying for attention, and as a consequence of that lack of cohesion the other flaws in the film become all the more adamant - plot issues, under developed characters, gaps in logic, weak motives, etc, TDK and Begins both suffer from similar problems as well to varying degrees (all films do really), but because the stories in those two films are far more focused you don't notice the flaws as much.

It's all well and good to say judge the film for what it is, but that's all any of us have done. Most of us who don't like the film as much as others have seen the film multiple times, and I'll hazard a guess it because we were trying to work out what it is about the film that didn't work for us. I'm probably not the only one who's replayed the movie in their head and altered it to follow one of the ideas presented to us, and the reason we do that is because we look at the previous two films and see what it is about them we loved about them. We feel Rises doesn't live up to those movies because there is an absence of what made those movies great. Is it fair to judge this movie based on the past two? Yes and No. I do admit every film should be judge on it's own merit, sequel or not, but in a series that has gone out of it's way to be a thinking mans superhero story to depart from certain aspects in the final chapter to many is unforgivable. Add in repeated elements from Batman Begins and Nolan entire body of film work and you've got yourself a potent mix ready for criticism if it's anything short of well executed.

I'll finish by saying I'm pretty certain those of us 'haters', 'whiners', 'nitpickers', whatever we've been labeled, can appreciate what the movie was trying to accomplish and can admire it's scope and ambition, but all we're doing is calling it as we see it, and we don't see it as good as either films one or two. Frankly, we believe there's a better movie within Rises, maybe even better than TDK, and that Nolan could have produced something far grander. In time we may be able to appreciate Rises to some degree, but we're never going to love it.

Brilliant post

[BatLobsterRises]

I've been pretty vocal in my defense of TDKR but that was a great and honest post jmc. I appreciate where you were coming from with it. For me, my first viewing was the worst, but I was delighted to discover that a lot of the problems I thought I had seemed to whither away the more I saw the movie and unraveled it. But I could see how it could go the other way too, depending on how you feel about certain elements.

[Tequilla]

Originally Posted by jmc

The reason there is so much talk for a film that doesn't exists is because the ideas of that non-existent film is presented to us in Rises. Rises is a hodgepodge of ideas that could span about 3 or 4 different movies, and yet they're all presented to us in one 2 hour 45 mins time frame. That is a great deal of why many of us are unsatisfied with the final product and believe it to be a clunky movie and the worst of the series. It's trying to be simultaneously an epic blockbuster, deep character story, a war film, a crime drama, and a thinking mans movie.

This is where we completely disagree. To me , the movie does not try to simultaneously be any of that. Some people might have wanted that , but not the director. His choices are clear. He simply uses those contexts , to tell Bruce's journey. Now , anybody might not like that execution , but nowhere in that movie the director is concerned to fully develop anything else. Everything in the movie resonates according to Bruce emotion state. Gotham's apathy when reacting to Bane's actions , is one of the many aspects of the story that exist solely to portray Bruce's journey.

Stories exist within context. From genre conventions , narrative structures , formula resolutions , archetypes , yada yada yada. The same goes for the surroundings , the area (physical , social aspects , whatever) where its told. Its a vast notion. In that "space" authors manipulate and deviate ,as much as the story they want to be presented needs. This is exactly what Nolan does in Rises. He relies on those to help him exploit the story he wants to tell. What you call "hodgepodge" , i call strong characterizations. Not of individuals. But of the limits of that space.

On the internet especially i see a lot of difficult to differentiate a personal opinion based on enjoyment vs a more critical opinion. And they're totally different. I also have a very hard time to separate two things. But a film should be evaluated by its merits and demerits. Not by projections people make regarding what they are seeing and what they would have like to see. I remember jim cameron when asked about prometheus said something like "well i would have done things differently , but you could said that about any other movie". That's what most people do , they talk about what they would have liked to see , not what the director intended.

Not comparing the movies (im not making an hyperbole of Batman's quality) but lets grab 2001 Space Odyssey. A movie about...evolution. Evolution of the Species. Evolution of Technology. The relationship between them. Now , could have Kubrick made a movie about Space Adventures ? Yes. A movie about encountering new forms of life ? Yes. The impacts of Space Programs in our society ? Yes. Everything i said exist in the boundaries of that movie. But that's not the story. It's irrelevant. Nobody is going to opinate about that movie regarding what it should have been. Movies are what they are. Some people like it , other people dont. But a strict critical opinion about something , shouldn't be about the tangents of the story. What people keep doing are rationalizing why they didn't like it. Its completely different than evaluating.

That's why I

Originally Posted by jmc

Frankly, we believe there's a better movie within Rises, maybe even better than TDK, and that Nolan could have produced something far grander

agree with this. Yes it could have been something different. You might say that regarding a lot of movies. But it isnt. Rises story is not that. That's why i keep saying some people talk about a movie that doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by TheBat812

Not many people have argued that TDKR is stronger than either of the other two entries, we're more arguing that to us it is still above average as a film.

I firmly believe its a better movie.

[DACrowe]

Originally Posted by jmc

Cinema is not a booklet of rules, I agree, but when you stray from certain conventions your executions need to be handled perfectly otherwise you're open to justifiable criticism. If Nolan and co are happy with the fact this horrific event is not seen from the perspective of regular people then that's fine, but it's not fine for me and others especially when the last two films depicted how ordinary people are affected by the insanity that is happening around them. That is why Gotham is very much a character in both films one and two, because the city is given a voice on multiple occasions by the Joe averages. In TDKR Gotham is a hollow shell of the city it was in the previous films, again if Nolan was ok with that then that's his decision and he has to live with it, but it is a valid criticism to make when people have invested so much in not just Batman but Gotham City as well throughout the whole series. To simply forget about the people of Gotham is frankly inexcusable, especially when a large part of the whole series has been about getting Gotham back on its feet. The last thing the movie needed was common citizens? Nothing could be further from the truth, this film out of all the films needed the people of Gotham to be seen and heard.

I think he meant for Selina, Blake and the orphanage guy to speak for the lower classes, Folley to speak for the middle class, and Fox, that likable Wayne Enterprises guy from BB, Dagget and the Wall Streeters to speak for the different sides of the rich and privileged.

I agree that it was a mistake to only have cops in the final scene. It'd be great if the Bat's symbol on the Bridge rallied not just Folley but everyday citizens to stand up to Bane and fight for their city. But oh well.

[MAKAVELI25]

Originally Posted by jmc

Cinema is not a booklet of rules, I agree, but when you stray from certain conventions your executions need to be handled perfectly otherwise you're open to justifiable criticism. If Nolan and co are happy with the fact this horrific event is not seen from the perspective of regular people then that's fine, but it's not fine for me and others especially when the last two films depicted how ordinary people are affected by the insanity that is happening around them. That is why Gotham is very much a character in both films one and two, because the city is given a voice on multiple occasions by the Joe averages. In TDKR Gotham is a hollow shell of the city it was in the previous films, again if Nolan was ok with that then that's his decision and he has to live with it, but it is a valid criticism to make when people have invested so much in not just Batman but Gotham City as well throughout the whole series. To simply forget about the people of Gotham is frankly inexcusable, especially when a large part of the whole series has been about getting Gotham back on its feet. The last thing the movie needed was common citizens? Nothing could be further from the truth, this film out of all the films needed the people of Gotham to be seen and heard.

Exactly, the argument that this film didn't need the ordinary citizen's perspective is flat out ridiculous. I don't even know how people are defending Nolan's decision. TDK and BB handled the city as a whole much better than the movie that needed it the most out of the whole trilogy.

[DACrowe]

I actually do not think BB handled it that much differently. The voice of everyday Gothamites were Rachel, Gordon and Alfred for much of that with the upperclass being represented by board members of Wayne Enterprises and their dates. In TDKR the upperclass is again represented by the Wayne Board, as well as smug Wall Streeters, while the voice of the middle and working classes are supposed to be echoed through Blake, Selina and Folley.

I will agree TDK felt more like an entire city was being painted. That is one of the reasons it is the best film of the three.

[MAKAVELI25]

Originally Posted by Optimus_Prime_

I've never said I hate The Dark Knight Rises just that I felt like it was grossly inferior, and just kind of a messy film. Like many point out: just too much going on. Too many characters I'm not sure I cared about, too many characters I did care about getting shafted for screen time, too much character development that got rushed into one or two knee jerk scenes, which is all fine from an entertainment perspective. It's a bit like being taken on a really dangerous cab ride through NYC. However I just can't watch that, and the previous two and say "oh, well that's better then the other two".

I would argue that TDKR isn't on the same level as the other two. BB and TDK are head and above all other movies in the genre

BB- Did a great job of showing why someone would want/need to become a masked hero in the first place. People who don't even like movies in the superhero genre love this movie for a reason. It's definitely not a perfect movie, but it is by far the best superhero origin movie of all time

TDK- Best superhero movie ever. Manages to show the real life consequences of being a superhero, never has their world felt so real. Great villain, great performances, good writing, BB made me a Nolan fan, TDK made me a Nolan stan.

TDKR- Certain decisions like the 8 year absence can be excused, not showing the populace cannot. TDKR fails at the very thing its predecessors succeeded so marvelously at, making us care about the thing the hero is fighting for (the city of Gotham). I would not have gave a damn if the bomb had gone off in TDKR, yet I was tense as hell when watching that ferry scene in TDK. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it is a failure on Nolan's part that there is more tension/intrigue in a finale where only a few hundred people might die than where an entire city might be annihilated. The villain's motivations are cliche and boring, their plan is stupid and contrived.

What most of the people who think the hate for the movie is excessive don't get is that the criticism is coming from fans of the trilogy. Neither BB nor TDK were perfect movies, and they were completely different type of movies so people who say we were were expecting TDK part 2 are incorrect. I loved BB and TDK and will continue to think they are the best superhero movies ever, I am thankful to Nolan for the first two. But I was very dissappointed by the last entry

[Anno_Domini]

Imo, it's pushing it so say people who aren't fans of CBMs enjoyed Batman Begins.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by DACrowe

I actually do not think BB handled it that much differently. The voice of everyday Gothamites were Rachel, Gordon and Alfred for much of that with the upperclass being represented by board members of Wayne Enterprises and their dates. In TDKR the upperclass is again represented by the Wayne Board, as well as smug Wall Streeters, while the voice of the middle and working classes are supposed to be echoed through Blake, Selina and Folley.

I will agree TDK felt more like an entire city was being painted. That is one of the reasons it is the best film of the three.

Bingo. TDK actually gave the entire city a voice. I don't understand how BB is suddenly mentioned as a film that gives Gotham a voice when it's only solo characters, much like TDKR.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by jmc

Did you even read what I just wrote or quoted it simply to make some kind of pointless comment to show your support for the film?

It's the latter. He says it to everyone who posts an opposing opinion against TDKR, but you'll never catch him telling the defenders that they are just posting opinions, too.

Originally Posted by Optimus_Prime_

I've never said I hate The Dark Knight Rises just that I felt like it was grossly inferior, and just kind of a messy film. Like many point out: just too much going on. Too many characters I'm not sure I cared about, too many characters I did care about getting shafted for screen time, too much character development that got rushed into one or two knee jerk scenes, which is all fine from an entertainment perspective. It's a bit like being taken on a really dangerous cab ride through NYC. However I just can't watch that, and the previous two and say "oh, well that's better then the other two".

I couldn't have put it better myself. That was a huge problem with TDKR. Great characters we did care about did not get enough screen time (Selina, Alfred) or interesting things to do (Gordon). Then we had to suffer dull characters like Foley taking up precious screen time.

Originally Posted by MAKAVELI25

I would argue that TDKR isn't on the same level as the other two. BB and TDK are head and above all other movies in the genre

BB- Did a great job of showing why someone would want/need to become a masked hero in the first place. People who don't even like movies in the superhero genre love this movie for a reason. It's definitely not a perfect movie, but it is by far the best superhero origin movie of all time

TDK- Best superhero movie ever. Manages to show the real life consequences of being a superhero, never has their world felt so real. Great villain, great performances, good writing, BB made me a Nolan fan, TDK made me a Nolan stan.

TDKR- Certain decisions like the 8 year absence can be excused, not showing the populace cannot. TDKR fails at the very thing its predecessors succeeded so marvelously at, making us care about the thing the hero is fighting for (the city of Gotham). I would not have gave a damn if the bomb had gone off in TDKR, yet I was tense as hell when watching that ferry scene in TDK. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it is a failure on Nolan's part that there is more tension/intrigue in a finale where only a few hundred people might die than where an entire city might be annihilated. The villain's motivations are cliche and boring, their plan is stupid and contrived.

What most of the people who think the hate for the movie is excessive don't get is that the criticism is coming from fans of the trilogy. Neither BB nor TDK were perfect movies, and they were completely different type of movies so people who say we were were expecting TDK part 2 are incorrect. I loved BB and TDK and will continue to think they are the best superhero movies ever, I am thankful to Nolan for the first two. But I was very dissappointed by the last entry

Very well said. BB was rife with Gotham persona who were NOT main characters;

Joe Chill, an example of the desperate who took the lives of Bruce's parents. Shows how bad in Gotham things got. An example of the kind of person who kills when they're hungry as Ra's put it.

The homeless man, a flavor of the lowest in Gotham who are not bad guys, haven't given into the desperation and accept the poverty situation of Gotham. He could have mugged Bruce or tried to steal from him, but he didn't.

D.A. Finch and his reluctance to prosecute because Falcone has half the city bought and paid for. An example of the "Good people scared" that Rachel spoke about.

Flass, the corrupt Cop. An obvious one. The rotten apples good people like Gordon has to work with and can't do anything about it.

Judge Faden, the corrupt judge. This man can set people free to line up for assassination for Falcone. An example of how Falcone's corruption has spread into the legal system.

The upper class people at the hotel scene. People who are not desperate, not affected by crime, and therefore have a divided opinion on Batman tackling crime in Gotham. Some think he's great, others think he is crazy, shouldn't take the law into his own hands etc.

Earle, more upper class. A man in power who abuses his power by covering up thefts in his company. He's not corrupt. He's just a bad egg.

The Felafel guy, the lower class. Struggles to earn a living and is abused by the corrupt like Flass by taking his money.

The Narrows kid, more lower class. The kind of good people who populate the Narrows. The "dirty" section of Gotham.

There's a whole bunch of different types and classes of Gothamites and all used effectively in the story to paint a personality and reaction to all things in Gotham.

To paraphrase what someone else said; If the story revolves around a city being taken over you need to know how the city is reacting. Gotham IMO felt more like a city in TDK than TDKR. Gotham looks in good shape to me. The "Ghost town" thing is just a cheap excuse to me to convey Gotham's state. We've seen Gotham reactions in BB and TDK a few examples being the BB dinner table scene (swimming pool), Police discussion in BB, Rachel and her lawyer friend, things working differently after Falcone's taken down, Dinner table scene in TDK, Chaos in hospitals, Ferry scene, Chaos outside TV station, Pub with Engel's Joker speech, Army around with heaps of traffic and others. All these things no matter how big or small or whether you like them or dislike them build a city outside of Batman/Gordon/Dent/Alfred etc.

Yet in TDKR the city felt contained. At NO POINT does anyone other than Blake/Gordon and that orphan really get across that the city needs/wants Batman. It is as if the city doesn't care.

[BatLobsterRises]

Maybe I cared more about Gotham in BB and TDK, but I cared about Bruce Wayne SO much more in TDKR than both of those movies combined. I was just scared for Gotham in TDKR. The truth about Dent getting out and the people tearing themselves apart pretty much meant The Joker won after all. It was crushing to see everything Bruce had fought for just lay to waste. The only hope left for Gotham was Batman, even if the people were too lost to know it until he came back.

As has been pointed out in the past, the tension wasn't so much whether of not Gotham was going to get nuked at the end. The film knows that we know that Batman will save the day. The question the film asks is whether or not Bruce will "die a good death" or choose to live his life. I found this question a pretty compelling one to place at the center of the film, because both alternatives sound plausible for Bruce.

The fact that in a film with plane flippings, stadium implosions, revolutions, flying lobsters and nukes, the one image that truly made the film soar for me was Christian Bale sitting in a cafe in a pink shirt. That to me speaks volumes. TDKR just had such a great ending. If the ending didn't work, I'd probably end up having more problems with the film than I do. But the culmination of Bruce Wayne's journey was just so satisfying and essential to what this trilogy was all about.