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

[Brain Damage]

I made a post in another thread explaining why I felt TDKR was a disapointment, but I thought I'd post it here, cause this is where the best discussion takes place (IMO) and I'd like to get you guys' thoughts on it.

It was a letdown on it's own as well. It's full of needless new characters who either don't get enough development (Talia) or get too much (Blake), and worse, it neglects some of its main players for them (Alfred). The story is not a natural progression of events, as TDK and BB were. Instead, it relies on tons of forced exposition and events that we don't get to see on screen but get to hear characters talk about (the energy project). Not to mention one too many plot conveniences (every cop going down into the sewers, Bruce magically appearing in Gotham, Bruce's magic leg brace which gets mentioned once and then is completely forgotten). It tries to balance two love interests and completely forces it with Miranda. They have two scenes before they suddenly decide to do the deed, one of which is her being hostile towards him. Selina Kyle gets a lot to do with both Bruce and Batman, but she spends half the movie screwing him over and then their relationship is quickly rushed so they can end up together before the movie's over. Not to mention she gets about thirty seconds of screen time in the entire second act. It has a fascinating, menacing villain, who gets perfectly fitting motivations and a fascinating background, only to have that background be taken away and put into the much less developed character. All so there can be a big dramatic plot twist at the end of the film. And to add icing on the cake, it relies on a generic ticking time bomb scenario for its finale.

However.

It's an amazingly well shot film. Seeing this in IMAX was unbelievable, and Wally really did do some of his best work here. As did the entire cast. Both Hathaway and Hardy killed it in their respective roles, I can't praise their performances enough. Bane is of the scariest, most intimidating villains I've ever seen on film. The scale is immense, and this movie really does feel larger than life. While I wish we got to see more of the final battle (the cops vs mercs, not the Bat chase), what we did see was extraordinary. Zimmer also brought his A game for this, developing spectacular new themes for Bane and Catwoman and expanding on his and JNH's work from the previous films. There are some moments/scenes that are more than up to the BB/TDK caliber, like the stock exchange scene and Alfred's confession to Bruce. All in all, the action is some of the best in the entire trilogy, like the opening scene and both of Batman and Bane's fights.

So yes. It's story does not live up to either Begins or TDK. It's certainly way more ambitious than either of them, but because of that, it doesn't manage to live up to its own aspirations. But there's still a lot to love in this film, and it's exceptionally well made. You have to respect it for what it tries to do, if you had told me 10 years ago that one day someone would make a Batman movie with Talia Al Ghul as the villain, or with Bane breaking Batman, I wouldn't have believed you. As Batman fans, I think we all gotta give Mr. Nolan and company a hand.

[MAKAVELI25]

Originally Posted by Brain Damage

I made a post in another thread explaining why I felt TDKR was a disapointment, but I thought I'd post it here, cause this is where the best discussion takes place (IMO) and I'd like to get you guys' thoughts on it.

Completely agree. Whether or not someone likes this movie or not, it boggles my mind that those of us who didn't like it can post solid arguments as to why and still be dismissed by posters like batfreakforever as not liking the movie because of other reasons. I don't dislike it because it deviates from the comics or because "its not what I expected". I dislike the film because I don't feel its a good movie. Why do proponents of the movie always have to rationalize why some might not like it? Just because you feel thats its a perfect movie and you wouldn't change anything doesn't mean the rest of us have to feel the same way

[Tequilla]

Originally Posted by MAKAVELI25

Completely agree. Whether or not someone likes this movie or not, it boggles my mind that those of us who didn't like it can post solid arguments as to why and still be dismissed by posters like batfreakforever as not liking the movie because of other reasons. I don't dislike it because it deviates from the comics or because "its not what I expected". I dislike the film because I don't feel its a good movie. Why do proponents of the movie always have to rationalize why some might not like it? Just because you feel thats its a perfect movie and you wouldn't change anything doesn't mean the rest of us have to feel the same way

It goes both ways.

[MAKAVELI25]

Originally Posted by Tequilla

It goes both ways.

Not that I've seen, I've never once seen posters like Fudge or The Joker try to personally discredit people who DID like the film. They simply state their opinion and argue the point. Yet I always see posters like Dark Knight and batfreakforever trying to say that critiques of the film come from people who expect something different or didn't get exactly what they wanted. Its getting flat out ridiculous, Dark Knight especially has pretty much been a condescending jerk in almost every thread where a debate has arisen

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Brain Damage

I made a post in another thread explaining why I felt TDKR was a disapointment, but I thought I'd post it here, cause this is where the best discussion takes place (IMO) and I'd like to get you guys' thoughts on it.

That's a great analysis. You highlight many of the flaws as well as the strengths. Completely agree with your comments on the so called "romance" with Miranda.

Originally Posted by MAKAVELI25

Completely agree. Whether or not someone likes this movie or not, it boggles my mind that those of us who didn't like it can post solid arguments as to why and still be dismissed by posters like batfreakforever as not liking the movie because of other reasons. I don't dislike it because it deviates from the comics or because "its not what I expected". I dislike the film because I don't feel its a good movie. Why do proponents of the movie always have to rationalize why some might not like it? Just because you feel thats its a perfect movie and you wouldn't change anything doesn't mean the rest of us have to feel the same way

After reading that 'The movie has no problems, only the people who dislike it do' comment he made, I can never take anything he says seriously again. Of all the ridiculous comments to make!

[Tequilla]

Originally Posted by MAKAVELI25

Not that I've seen, I've never once seen posters like Fudge or The Joker try to personally discredit people who DID like the film. They simply state their opinion and argue the point. Yet I always see posters like Dark Knight and batfreakforever trying to say that critiques of the film come from people who expect something different or didn't get exactly what they wanted. Its getting flat out ridiculous, Dark Knight especially has pretty much been a condescending jerk in almost every thread where a debate has arisen

I've read here a user writing someone is an idiot if he thinks tdkr is better than tdk. A lot of times someone is labeled a Nolanite , or a blind apologist , if he enjoyed the movie. Another one said Nolan wrote the movie for a retarded audience. Bat-fanboys and yada yada yada.

Yeah it goes both ways.

[uniqueweasel]

Am I the only one that can't quite decide on it still?

I mean I watched it first time, flat out was disappointed, went a week later for a second viewing and liked it, but now after seeing it again by lets say 'various methods' I am back again in the not impressed camp. Granted i'm not going to list too many nitpicks/moans whatever you want to call it, as many posters before me have given excellent points to argue both ways. But my personal impression at this point, and to answer the op's question, yes I feel TDKR does let the trilogy down.

Now thats not to say it's a bad film, I mean we had a great looking film with great set design, accompanying soundtrack that helps drive scenes. But it's not enough to cover the story for me. To me there just seems a hollowness on watching it, not all of it might I add, for example the sewer fight is brilliance, you actually fear for Batman in that scene and feel the helplessness. But overall I find after viewing there is a feeling that, the film you have just seen isn't the film it should of been, like a basis of ideas that isn't quite fleshed out to the point of making a smooth story, it feels somewhat disjointed at times.

One my second viewing I tried to pass it off as me placing unfair hype onto it that it could never live up to. But on viewings there after the problems for me still surface, but on the same note I can't exactly dismiss it as a bad film. It just isn't quite the film that we needed to finish this trilogy off and take it to the level of brilliance.

[JackWhite]

Originally Posted by uniqueweasel

Am I the only one that can't quite decide on it still?

I mean I watched it first time, flat out was disappointed, went a week later for a second viewing and liked it, but now after seeing it again by lets say 'various methods' I am back again in the not impressed camp. Granted i'm not going to list too many nitpicks/moans whatever you want to call it, as many posters before me have given excellent points to argue both ways. But my personal impression at this point, and to answer the op's question, yes I feel TDKR does let the trilogy down.

Now thats not to say it's a bad film, I mean we had a great looking film with great set design, accompanying soundtrack that helps drive scenes. But it's not enough to cover the story for me. To me there just seems a hollowness on watching it, not all of it might I add, for example the sewer fight is brilliance, you actually fear for Batman in that scene and feel the helplessness. But overall I find after viewing there is a feeling that, the film you have just seen isn't the film it should of been, like a basis of ideas that isn't quite fleshed out to the point of making a smooth story, it feels somewhat disjointed at times.

One my second viewing I tried to pass it off as me placing unfair hype onto it that it could never live up to. But on viewings there after the problems for me still surface, but on the same note I can't exactly dismiss it as a bad film. It just isn't quite the film that we needed to finish this trilogy off and take it to the level of brilliance.

Sounds like you just don't like it, lol. At least you gave it several chances.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by Brain Damage

Wonderful post
Parallels like that really make me believe that a truly amazing film lies somewhere in TDKR. But instead we got a film made off a script that clearly needed at least another draft or two to polish up and weave the story fluidly.

Thanks.

Although, the point of my post was to illustrate the subtext and symbolism that was in play in TDKR. Subtext doesn't need to be developed, that's why it's subtext. It's the kind of stuff that shouldn't be spelled out, but enriches the story. All three films have plenty of it. I think TDKR was the most densely packed with it though, and placed more trust in the audience to interpret it as a means of understanding the story. This made the film a much more mythological experience for me.

That's not to say a smoother version of this movie, with these themes, can't exist. It certainly can. It would just be a lot longer than the film we got.

[uniqueweasel]

Originally Posted by JackWhite

Sounds like you just don't like it, lol. At least you gave it several chances.

haha true, not the most positive of posts I admit, but I mean i've still got the boxset on preorder and can't wait to see it again on blu-ray, I dunno it's a strange one!ha

[J0k3r]

Originally Posted by uniqueweasel

Am I the only one that can't quite decide on it still?

I mean I watched it first time, flat out was disappointed, went a week later for a second viewing and liked it, but now after seeing it again by lets say 'various methods' I am back again in the not impressed camp. Granted i'm not going to list too many nitpicks/moans whatever you want to call it, as many posters before me have given excellent points to argue both ways. But my personal impression at this point, and to answer the op's question, yes I feel TDKR does let the trilogy down.

Now thats not to say it's a bad film, I mean we had a great looking film with great set design, accompanying soundtrack that helps drive scenes. But it's not enough to cover the story for me. To me there just seems a hollowness on watching it, not all of it might I add, for example the sewer fight is brilliance, you actually fear for Batman in that scene and feel the helplessness. But overall I find after viewing there is a feeling that, the film you have just seen isn't the film it should of been, like a basis of ideas that isn't quite fleshed out to the point of making a smooth story, it feels somewhat disjointed at times.

One my second viewing I tried to pass it off as me placing unfair hype onto it that it could never live up to. But on viewings there after the problems for me still surface, but on the same note I can't exactly dismiss it as a bad film. It just isn't quite the film that we needed to finish this trilogy off and take it to the level of brilliance.

The first time I saw Rises, I simply didn't knew what to feel about the movie. I didn't hated, but was strange, maybe because I wasn't expecting some paralels, flashbacks and the way the story was developed. I didn't had an opinion, but I kinda accepted the movie the way it was.
Then I watched the second time and I think was better than the first because I started to realize some things that in the first I didn't because I was anxious. Rises made me thought about things from Begins and TDK that never occurred to me and how some aspects are fulfilled by the three movies.
I'm not saying the movie is perfect, none of them are. But I liked to see that Nolan did some things I never thought he could, like include Selina Kyle and Bane, see Alfred leaving Bruce and let him in a miserable way, without anyone and anything, showing the consequences of Bruce and Gordon choices.
As movie itself, I still prefer The Dark Knight, but Rises didn't
disappointed me.

[JackWhite]

Originally Posted by uniqueweasel

haha true, not the most positive of posts I admit, but I mean i've still got the boxset on preorder and can't wait to see it again on blu-ray, I dunno it's a strange one!ha

I've seen worse, in regards to someone's dislike of the film. Seems like you really want to like the film. Good luck with your future viewings!

[Deserana]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

Yeah, I listened to the second one when you first posted it. Wasn't too impressed with that guy. Most of the arguments are ones I've responded to on here in the past, so it's hard to comment on them without getting overly redundant.

A couple of new ones that stood out to me though:

He goes off on a whole tangent about why Bane's "precious armory" line is such a bad line. Supposedly because Bruce has been out of action and those weren't technically Tumblers he had been actively using. Now, I agree, it's a comic-booky line. But I don't get how that's such a bad line. The implication is obviously that it's Wayne's company's property, and it's all tucked away in secret- therefore it's essentially his if he wants it. The idea is that Wayne Enterprises is Batman's armory, which is true. Bane is exploiting Bruce's main superpower- his wealth and resources.

The other thing was his failure to understand the stadium scene. As I said a few pages back, Bane plays the "anonymous trigger man" card as a way of complicating the entire situation both for Gotham and the outside world. If Bane said, "I have the trigger and will blow Gotham to hell if anyone tries to stop my revolution!"...well, that puts a target squarely on Bane's head. You can rest assured that the government would have smuggled in Navy Seal snipers to take him and any of his highest ranking men out, and secure the detonator. The mere possibility that there's an anonymous, radicalized Gothamite ready to hit the trigger throws a monkey wrench into that course of action. It's impossible to attack that. And it's also his way of showing Gotham that he's "for the people". Trying to get Gotham to believe that one of their own is committed to his cause is his first bit of propaganda. As Bane says (lies), they're liberators, not conquerors. I thought it was all pretty brilliant to be honest. The Joker himself would have to marvel at such a devious scheme on that big a scale.

Also, his comment about how "no one cared who I was until I put on the mask" was a pointless line...that's a classic case of "this movie wasn't what I wanted it to be!". That "great superhero film" he was hoping for that dealt with what it means to be a superhero and the importance of masks? It's called Batman Begins. That line is an obvious callback to that, and it's establishing Bane as the anti-Bruce. "As Bruce Wayne I'm flesh and blood I can be ignored...". By film 3, we've already well established the importance of masks in this story. Even TDK carried this theme forward by having Joker apply his own "war paint". The guy in the video seemed frustrated that we didn't get to learn more about Bane's mask...but ultimately, what does it matter? You could see the adulation from Barsad when he says "They work for the mercernary...the masked man." The movie is saying that the mere fact that Bane wears a mask adds to his mystique and legend. Both Bruce's and Bane's masks represent an earlier trauma in their lives. Both masks are their ways of dealing with pain (Bruce emotional, Bane physical). But they both use it to inspire fear. And they also use it to protect people they care about, as Bruce instructs Blake later on in the film. In the case of Bane of course using the mask/his persona, by being the guy that has everyone's attention throughout the course of the film, he is able to protect Talia. The prologue manages to set up Bane as Bruce's evil doppleganger in a mere 6 minutes, while delivering a thrilling action set piece. Go figure!

The fact that Bane physically needs the mask to survive is very symbolic too, of course. Bane is unable to live without the mask. By the end of TDKR, Bruce finally is. So, the mask theme is clearly at play in the film. It just didn't pan out the way that guy was hoping/expecting.

Brilliant post and you also brought up things I never even considered! I haven't watched/listened to those videos but if these are the kind of issues the guy had then I don't really want to no offence to the guy but some of those points just sound... petty.

[Bane Cook]

Originally Posted by Deserana

The only problem for me with TDKR was that there was no Gothamite voice (a common issue looking at these boards) but everything else is lovely to me. Bane's plan makes more sense when I think about it, Talia is also an issue I have but not a huge one like it seems to be for others.

For me Nolan's trilogy is MY trilogy. Some had Star Wars, some had Lord of the Rings, Nolan has given The Dark Knight Trilogy. And I don't think any other trilogy will come close the story throughout the trilogy is just brilliant.

The only way TDKR was gonna affect my feelings in a poor way was if it somehow made the previous films weaker. But for me TDKR makes BB and TDK stronger. TDKR wraps it all up beautifully, ties up the point made clear in the first film and throughout the second. Each film leads wonderfully into the next and each story and the direction they go just seem logical. It is not perfect but its as close as anything has ever gotten and it will be a mighty hard task for anything else to get close.

For many Blake has ruined these films for them but that a non win situation he HAD to have lots of screentime otherwise we'd all be crying "why has that side character got to wear the suit he's not worthy!" by the end of the film if there was anyone who would be worthy of the mantle throughout the trilogy it would be Blake IMO.

Each film has its pros and cons, each film has great moments and poor moments. They are just as strong/weak/good/bad as one another. To claim TDKR lets down the other is saying that the other two are better which just isn't the case. I will never have a solid answer to the question "What's your favourite film in the Batman trilogy?" because I simply could not choose.

Exactly! Blake figured out who Batman is just by looking at him! The only person who can do that is... well, Batman! Therefore he deserves to be Batman. Robin John Blake Batmen(full legal name).

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Bane Cook

Exactly! Blake figured out who Batman is just by looking at him! The only person who can do that is... well, Batman!

That's why it's so unbelievably stupid. Bruce Wayne losing his parents when he was a child is common knowledge. He would hardly be the first person in the world to suppress his sadness and anger over that. I did when I lost my little brother. Does that make me Batman or some kind of angry vigilante?

Just because Bruce is angry about losing his parents, how does that make him Batman? Did Blake get a good close look at Batman's face and see the same thing on his face, too? None of it makes a lick of sense.

It was such a silly plot device to make Blake know Wayne was Batman. Shockingly bad in fact.

[redfirebird2008]

There is no such thing as a perfect movie, never mind a perfect trilogy of movies. So in that sense, the premise of this thread seems flawed to me. I find all three of the Nolan Batman movies to be very enjoyable despite their flaws. Begins is the best of the bunch IMHO.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by Deserana

Brilliant post and you also brought up things I never even considered! I haven't watched/listened to those videos but if these are the kind of issues the guy had then I don't really want to no offence to the guy but some of those points just sound... petty.

Thanks man. Yeah, it's not really worth the time honestly, it's mostly complaints you've heard before with a few newer, more perplexing ones thrown in. The guy sounded reasonably smart too so I was surprised that he said he had no idea what was going on in the stadium scene.

Another cool thing about that scene is that I think the "unsung hero" trigger-man aspect of Bane's plan is also a dark mirror of Bruce's goal of wanting to inspire Gotham with the assurance that a "a hero can be anyone". It's like the ultimate twisted perversion of that ideal. The mirrors between the two characters are constant throughout the movie, from obvious things like Bane using Camo Tumblers, to little visual cues like Bane's escape with Pavel as a callback to Batman escaping with Lau, as a lot of people pointed out after first seeing the prologue.

And as far as the Blake thing goes...I think with Bruce Wayne all you need is a motive. The fact that he fits the bill physically, is one of the wealthiest men in the world and mysteriously went missing for seven years and returned around the same time as the emergence of the Batman are three major boxes you can check after you have a motive for this guy to fight criminals. Once you can see through the playboy facade, it's pretty easy to figure him out. That's why Alfred urges him to start acting like playboy in the first place...there is the question waiting to be asked of "what Bruce Wayne does with his time and his money".

People make fun of the Blake thing and say it's dumb that he figured it out because he "saw Bruce's pain". He never said that. He saw his anger. We all lose people and eventually have to bury the pain and sometimes anger that comes with that, without a doubt. But it's different in the case of Blake and Bruce. Their fathers were both shot and killed by criminals. They had a specific shared experience. I'm not saying it makes literal sense, but it makes movie sense and it makes emotional sense. That scene truly didn't bother me. On top of that, the orphans were already making up stories about Bruce being Batman. So that thought was already with Blake when he first saw Bruce and didn't come out of nowhere. He just had a gut feeling that it ended up being true. And his gut continues to be an asset to him throughout the film and quickly gets him promoted to detective.

Originally Posted by redfirebird2008

There is no such thing as a perfect movie, never mind a perfect trilogy of movies. So in that sense, the premise of this thread seems flawed to me.

Totally

[BatLobsterRises]

Double post.

[Fudgie]

Originally Posted by Brain Damage

I made a post in another thread explaining why I felt TDKR was a disapointment, but I thought I'd post it here, cause this is where the best discussion takes place (IMO) and I'd like to get you guys' thoughts on it.

Your reasons about the sucky parts are spot on.

Originally Posted by MAKAVELI25

Completely agree. Whether or not someone likes this movie or not, it boggles my mind that those of us who didn't like it can post solid arguments as to why and still be dismissed by posters like batfreakforever as not liking the movie because of other reasons. I don't dislike it because it deviates from the comics or because "its not what I expected". I dislike the film because I don't feel its a good movie. Why do proponents of the movie always have to rationalize why some might not like it? Just because you feel thats its a perfect movie and you wouldn't change anything doesn't mean the rest of us have to feel the same way

Quoted for truth.

[Brain Damage]

Originally Posted by The Joker

That's why it's so unbelievably stupid. Bruce Wayne losing his parents when he was a child is common knowledge. He would hardly be the first person in the world to suppress his sadness and anger over that. I did when I lost my little brother. Does that make me Batman or some kind of angry vigilante?

Just because Bruce is angry about losing his parents, how does that make him Batman? Did Blake get a good close look at Batman's face and see the same thing on his face, too? None of it makes a lick of sense.

It was such a silly plot device to make Blake know Wayne was Batman. Shockingly bad in fact.

Quoted for absolute truth.

[Deserana]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

People make fun of the Blake thing and say it's dumb that he figured it out because he "saw Bruce's pain". He never said that. He saw his anger. We all lose people and eventually have to bury the pain and sometimes anger that comes with that, without a doubt. But it's different in the case of Blake and Bruce. Their fathers were both shot and killed by criminals. They had a specific shared experience. I'm not saying it makes literal sense, but it makes movie sense and it makes emotional sense. That scene truly didn't bother me. On top of that, the orphans were already making up stories about Bruce being Batman. So that thought was already with Blake when he first saw Bruce and didn't come out of nowhere. He just had a gut feeling that it ended up being true. And his gut continues to be an asset to him throughout the film and quickly gets him promoted to detective.

That is exactly how I feel on the situation. I've always thought as Blake never really knowing and just guessing and it just happening to be true rather than Blake actually knowing. I do still however think the reasoning behind it all is a kinda weak (though not as bad as some on here make out).

Blake is one of a few things I have zero issue with in the film. I think he is a pretty damn good character played to perfection by Levitt, I watched (500) Days of Summer and 50/50 recently and Levitt seemed like a cop in TDKR. He seemed very mature, smart, brave and strong he brought the character to life. As someone who was growing up in a world with Batman and Gordon and the Dent act he is exactly the way I'd envision him to be with all the attributes above but also a little naive.

[Bruce_Begins]

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


I my opinion, TDKR makes the trilogy perfect.

[TheBat812]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

Thanks man. Yeah, it's not really worth the time honestly, it's mostly complaints you've heard before with a few newer, more perplexing ones thrown in. The guy sounded reasonably smart too so I was surprised that he said he had no idea what was going on in the stadium scene.

Another cool thing about that scene is that I think the "unsung hero" trigger-man aspect of Bane's plan is also a dark mirror of Bruce's goal of wanting to inspire Gotham with the assurance that a "a hero can be anyone". It's like the ultimate twisted perversion of that ideal. The mirrors between the two characters are constant throughout the movie, from obvious things like Bane using Camo Tumblers, to little visual cues like Bane's escape with Pavel as a callback to Batman escaping with Lau, as a lot of people pointed out after first seeing the prologue.

I only saw this figurative meaning until my third viewing. But the 'unsung hero' is literally Talia, is it not? She has made her way into Gotham's elite, and is a key part of their biggest corporation.

[Deserana]

Originally Posted by Bruce_Begins

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


I my opinion, TDKR makes the trilogy perfect.

This.

TDKR makes BB and TDK better IMO. (awaits sarcy comment who that says "they are only better cause TDKR sucks so hard")

[TheGuy]

BB still stands as the weakest for me. TDK and TDKR are just as good.