Am I the only one that feels like TDKR prevents Nolan's trilogy from being perfect?

[-JKR-]

No. I loved it. It tied everything up nicely, and as a movie on its own, I thought it was great. Better than Batman Begins, not quite like The Dark Knight (but not by much).

[rickfox]

Originally Posted by Fudgie

Ya can thank Rises for the short Batman career by doing that stupid 8 year time gap.



The Dark Knight Rises says hello back.



HA! What is this nonsense? Just because one movie is bad doesn't make the others bad because they're sequels to it. X-Men 1 and 2 ain't crap because X-Men 3 is. Neither is Spider-Man 1 and 2 lame because the third one was either.

one movie---N's trilogy---that is not a common rule which can apply to every single movie
-------------------------
none of them are Dark Knight triolgy

[Bruce_Begins]

I feel each movie is different and still it feels as one cohesive trilogy.

But it is not a definitive Batman trilogy, but the best one we have had so far.

[Tequilla]

First , i dont think you're ever alone whatever is your opinion. If you have an opinion regarding something , its very probable that someone shares the same opinion

I also dont think the trilogy is perfect , because its a concept very hard to achieve . Perfection is something immaculate , which is something difficult to present in movies (and with all the subjectivity that art carries).

But regarding the content , i dont agree with you. I actually think its the other way around. The Dark Knight Rises put this trilogy at a level that completely transcends the other movies. It brings a closure to the story , consolidating the strong aspects of the previous movies , and at the same time it puts the story , thematically and emotionally , at a whole other level. The biggest compliment i can say to Rises is that it not only capitalizes of the strong foundations it had , it makes them even better.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Fudgie

The Dark Knight Rises says hello back.

Wow.

Just wow.....glorious comeback there

[BlueLightning]

Saying that something is perfect is a bold statement, nothing is perfect. While I understand that people have issues with these films, it all comes down to our personal tastes. For me, Nolan's Batman films have been just my cup of tea, and as now the Trilogy stands as one of my favorites, along with Back to the Future and the first Star Wars trilogy.

EDIT: OK. I just thought of something. If they would have used the same DC logo from the first films instead of the sticker one, then it would have been perfect :P

[joker1524]

Only problem I've had with rises is that I felt it held back just a little too much because of the full circle rule.... The film had a setting and momentum to do something different... Other than the ending which was risky.... I felt Nolan played this movie very safely by going over similar plot points from bb and basically tying up loose ends from bb that honestly didn't need anymore explanation...... As much as I loved the movie... There is alot I would have changed and left out... I know I and many others would have loved this movie even more if it had gone a different route

[TheBat447]

Rises was the best of the lot.. seriously. Ledger made TDK - every member of the cast made this just what it is/was... PERFECT.

[bane]

Originally Posted by Fudgie

The Dark Knight Rises says hello back.

Just watch the original Insomnia and come back later, Nolan's remake is laughable.

[JackWhite]

Originally Posted by TheBat447

Rises was the best of the lot.. seriously. Ledger made TDK - every member of the cast made this just what it is/was... PERFECT.

I think most will agree on Ledger being the "MVP" of TDK. But Bale, Eckhart and Oldman all held their own in regards to the characters they portrayed.

[TheBat447]

Originally Posted by JackWhite

I think most will agree on Ledger being the "MVP" of TDK. But Bale, Eckhart and Oldman all held their own in regards to the characters they portrayed.

True, but that could be said on the trilogy as a whole - as oppose to one film.

[Human Torch]

I don't get people who wanted more of "The voice of Gotham."Isn't that partly what Blake was supposed to be and most people say he got too much screentime?

[Deserana]

Originally Posted by Human Torch

I don't get people who wanted more of "The voice of Gotham."Isn't that partly what Blake was supposed to be and most people say he got too much screentime?

In BB and TDK there were many moments and characters that reflected Gotham that weren't part of the central cast. This was mainly seen in TDK but was also quite a bit in BB we just had random people which expanded the world outside the central characters. In TDKR we never really had that (IMO) for the story we had there was no reflection on how Gotham was coping under Bane. And if Blake was the voice then I'd say Gotham was pretty fine . Blake was just the point of the trilogy personified to me.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Deserana

In BB and TDK there were many moments and characters that reflected Gotham that weren't part of the central cast. This was mainly seen in TDK but was also quite a bit in BB we just had random people which expanded the world outside the central characters. In TDKR we never really had that (IMO) for the story we had there was no reflection on how Gotham was coping under Bane.

Exactly.

[Fudgie]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Wow.

Just wow.....glorious comeback there

That's how I roll.

Originally Posted by joker1524

Only problem I've had with rises is that I felt it held back just a little too much because of the full circle rule.... The film had a setting and momentum to do something different... Other than the ending which was risky.... I felt Nolan played this movie very safely by going over similar plot points from bb and basically tying up loose ends from bb that honestly didn't need anymore explanation...... As much as I loved the movie... There is alot I would have changed and left out... I know I and many others would have loved this movie even more if it had gone a different route

Yup. Nolan was playing it safe, rehashing crap from BB except it didn't even make sense in this flick, and there's a ton of useless crap they could have left out.

Originally Posted by bane

Just watch the original Insomnia and come back later, Nolan's remake is laughable.

Insomnia is gold compared to Rises for moi. I could watch more than I could Rises.

Originally Posted by Deserana

In BB and TDK there were many moments and characters that reflected Gotham that weren't part of the central cast. This was mainly seen in TDK but was also quite a bit in BB we just had random people which expanded the world outside the central characters. In TDKR we never really had that (IMO) for the story we had there was no reflection on how Gotham was coping under Bane. And if Blake was the voice then I'd say Gotham was pretty fine . Blake was just the point of the trilogy personified to me.

Quoted for truth.

[Doctor Octopus]

Batman Begins and The Dark Knight had flaws but they were still brilliant movies. The Dark Knight Rises is predominantly flawed and only a handful of really good scenes. It's the X-Men 3 of the trilogy. Too much story tried to cram into one movie.

[TheBat812]

Originally Posted by Deserana

In BB and TDK there were many moments and characters that reflected Gotham that weren't part of the central cast. This was mainly seen in TDK but was also quite a bit in BB we just had random people which expanded the world outside the central characters. In TDKR we never really had that (IMO) for the story we had there was no reflection on how Gotham was coping under Bane. And if Blake was the voice then I'd say Gotham was pretty fine . Blake was just the point of the trilogy personified to me.

I think people just want that because it's expected, though. We had enough of an idea of how the people felt in general, never once did I wonder how the people felt about anything. The reason a writer/director chooses to show crowd reactions is to show how the character should feel. Blake and Foley (among others) definitely handle that. It would be superfluously tedious to show it through the people because the point has already been conveyed.

[BatLobsterRises]

Honestly? When I walked out of TDKR, one of the positives my friends and I immediately highlighted was that there was a refreshing lack of cutaways to bad extras.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus

Batman Begins and The Dark Knight had flaws but they were still brilliant movies. The Dark Knight Rises is predominantly flawed and only a handful of really good scenes. It's the X-Men 3 of the trilogy. Too much story tried to cram into one movie.

[Deserana]

Originally Posted by TheBat812

I think people just want that because it's expected, though. We had enough of an idea of how the people felt in general, never once did I wonder how the people felt about anything. The reason a writer/director chooses to show crowd reactions is to show how the character should feel. Blake and Foley (among others) definitely handle that. It would be superfluously tedious to show it through the people because the point has already been conveyed.

But for me that didn't work with this kind of story, if the city has been occupied I would like to see that city slowly crumble away. Okay maybe not show individual people but at least show Gotham in a bad state physically as if its hanging on by a thread. If those characters were meant to reflect the people then it did a poor job for example based on Foley's desicion to hide at home does that suggest everyone has decided to take to their homes? If all Bane's occupation has done is make people hide in their home then to me Gotham really isn't in that much of a bad state.

I think for such a vast plan the film really should have either been A) Longer or B) split into two films (an option that I understand creates mixed feelings here). Bane's plan didn't seem life threatening it just looked like a bit of an annoyance to the citizens and they hid away as if they were waiting for it to all blow over.

Now if this was the first Batman film this wouldn't be a problem for me (at least not as much as it is) but the first two films built this city up and now it just seemed to abandon it. The narrows for example doesn't even get a mention in this film. It also for me should have been the point where the people turn to Batman to save them but that's never shown. Blake still has faith but that doesn't mean it reflects the general out look, remember in TDK you had the press conference calling for Batman to turn himself in? You had Coleman Reese prepared to turn him in, phone calls on GCN... you have two films of a city unsure whether Batman was good or bad (the dinner/swimming pool scene in BB) so this should have been THEE moment to show the city root for his return. When he does return I get the vibe that the city doesn't care.

Even with the statue at the end we don't see people clapping or anything to show that the city now looks up to Batman. There was a really good bit at the beginning of TDK where you had the rusty Bat-signal/inspired cop (Blake)/Mayor's speech against Batman/Day dedicated to Dent where you feel that the time had past and the city looked up to Dent. When they realised that he was a fraud they should have turned to Batman IMO.

I remember a really cool sounding theory that all the chalk Bat-symbols were drawn by civillians hoping that he would return and we kinda see that with the kid at the beginning but that idea fades away. The courtroom scenes were also awesome but again we only saw how the rich were being affected. That's good but you sorta need to see how the poor are being affected as well seeing as it gave the impression that Bane wanted them to rise up. If he did why not show it? Just a couple of shots of people joining Bane. A few shots of people turning against him perhaps... this all expands Gotham and lets us know how its coping.

If you didn't feel this way thats fine but I and a few others did.

I'm not asking for 5-10 minutes of screentime I was hoping for literally the odd 30 second scene or shot just something to show that needed Batman to return or that Gotham was being torn to shreds from within itself. I love the film but this is without doubt my main issue with it (and ironically an issue that never sticks out when I watch it but only after I watch it).

[Deserana]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

Honestly? When I walked out of TDKR, one of the positives my friends and I immediately highlighted was that there was a refreshing lack of cutaways to bad extras.

I'm not talking about bad extras or anything but something to take us outside of Gordon/Blake etc... etc... just a few shots here and there. When you watch set videos Gotham looks like a war zone, you have the czech hedgehogs everywhere and also propoganda posters this all adds to the detail.

[TheBat812]

Originally Posted by Deserana

But for me that didn't work with this kind of story, if the city has been occupied I would like to see that city slowly crumble away. Okay maybe not show individual people but at least show Gotham in a bad state physically as if its hanging on by a thread. If those characters were meant to reflect the people then it did a poor job for example based on Foley's desicion to hide at home does that suggest everyone has decided to take to their homes? If all Bane's occupation has done is make people hide in their home then to me Gotham really isn't in that much of a bad state.

That is exactly the implication. And to me it means they're too terrified to leave their homes because the city is in control of convicts and terrorists. That certainly doesn't seem like a good state to me...

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by TheBat812

That is exactly the implication. And to me it means they're too terrified to leave their homes because the city is in control of convicts and terrorists. That certainly doesn't seem like a good state to me...

I was just hit hard by Hurricane Sandy. My neighborhood was without power for most of last week. During the first few days everyone just stayed in their homes, the streets were very empty and it was very eerie. Definitely not a good sign of anything. It was like life stopped.

I know obviously that a natural disaster and a terrorist takeover aren't the same thing, but I couldn't help but think of that shot in TDKR where the city blacks out for a bit there. Wow, my lights started flickering just as I was typing this post, no joke.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Deserana

But for me that didn't work with this kind of story, if the city has been occupied I would like to see that city slowly crumble away. Okay maybe not show individual people but at least show Gotham in a bad state physically as if its hanging on by a thread. If those characters were meant to reflect the people then it did a poor job for example based on Foley's desicion to hide at home does that suggest everyone has decided to take to their homes? If all Bane's occupation has done is make people hide in their home then to me Gotham really isn't in that much of a bad state.

I think for such a vast plan the film really should have either been A) Longer or B) split into two films (an option that I understand creates mixed feelings here). Bane's plan didn't seem life threatening it just looked like a bit of an annoyance to the citizens and they hid away as if they were waiting for it to all blow over.

Now if this was the first Batman film this wouldn't be a problem for me (at least not as much as it is) but the first two films built this city up and now it just seemed to abandon it. The narrows for example doesn't even get a mention in this film. It also for me should have been the point where the people turn to Batman to save them but that's never shown. Blake still has faith but that doesn't mean it reflects the general out look, remember in TDK you had the press conference calling for Batman to turn himself in? You had Coleman Reese prepared to turn him in, phone calls on GCN... you have two films of a city unsure whether Batman was good or bad (the dinner/swimming pool scene in BB) so this should have been THEE moment to show the city root for his return. When he does return I get the vibe that the city doesn't care.

Even with the statue at the end we don't see people clapping or anything to show that the city now looks up to Batman. There was a really good bit at the beginning of TDK where you had the rusty Bat-signal/inspired cop (Blake)/Mayor's speech against Batman/Day dedicated to Dent where you feel that the time had past and the city looked up to Dent. When they realised that he was a fraud they should have turned to Batman IMO.

I remember a really cool sounding theory that all the chalk Bat-symbols were drawn by civillians hoping that he would return and we kinda see that with the kid at the beginning but that idea fades away. The courtroom scenes were also awesome but again we only saw how the rich were being affected. That's good but you sorta need to see how the poor are being affected as well seeing as it gave the impression that Bane wanted them to rise up. If he did why not show it? Just a couple of shots of people joining Bane. A few shots of people turning against him perhaps... this all expands Gotham and lets us know how its coping.

If you didn't feel this way thats fine but I and a few others did.

I'm not asking for 5-10 minutes of screentime I was hoping for literally the odd 30 second scene or shot just something to show that needed Batman to return or that Gotham was being torn to shreds from within itself. I love the film but this is without doubt my main issue with it (and ironically an issue that never sticks out when I watch it but only after I watch it).

Excellent post. Well said

[Deserana]

Originally Posted by TheBat812

That is exactly the implication. And to me it means they're too terrified to leave their homes because the city is in control of convicts and terrorists. That certainly doesn't seem like a good state to me...

Yes initally its not a good state. I could expect this for a few weeks maybe even a month but it stays under occupation for 5 months now I can't buy that the city would remain just people hiding indoors for that whole time. Some may, I personally can't. I think the city would be out of control yes many would still be hiding indoors but I think Bane would have at least ruffled some stuff up even though he did want control or some people would have attempted a rebellion (even if Bane did have a nuke).

As stupid as this may sound out of the whole trilogy this is the one thing that really didn't ring true for me in the world of this film. This is the same city where even at the mere mention of blowing up a hospital or that a mayor would be getting killed that the city broke down in to chaos (remember the jammed streets/panic outside the studio/clogged up boats). I know Bane had a bomb but I cant believe those people just ran and hid. Like I said if this was a solo Bat-film it would make sense if they hid but after what I saw in TDK this just irked me a little. I can see why some understand it but it just feels off to me.