Skyfall vs. TDKR

[rickfox]

Originally Posted by The Joker

Blake: "When you and Dent cleaned up the streets you cleaned them good. Pretty soon we'll be chasing overdue library books"

The theft of some jewels is hardly a huge crime wave lol.

no huge crime wave = No more crime?

what did Mayor say--- No city is without crime. But this city is without organized crime---Gotham is a city still with crime(unless someone claim that Gotham does not defined as a city any more)

[rickfox]

Originally Posted by The Joker

Oh for god's sake, I give up with you on this one. I showed you a plethora of links where people in those situations turn to crime for survival.

This is the exact same thing, except in a Batman movie the poor are turning to the LOS. But it's the same thing. Turning to crime.

You are SO literal about everything.

just curious

This is the exact same thing---in which city that criminal group can offer jobs to youngster(that is common, but) and they offer morejobs than youngster can find up there and "social charity(rich people)'s proceeds go to the big fat spread/ social "charity" is not about charity" ?

[The Guard]

Why should he feel gratitude for something that was done at Talia's request? All of this was done out of the grace of Talia's charity to Bane for being her protector. "His only crime was that he loved me". But Ra's didn't see it that way. He could never accept Bane, he didn't want him there, and so he excommunicated him.

I don’t understand the writers need to shoehorn an emotional reason for Ra’s Al Ghul excommunicating Bane into the script. Worse, it was an expository emotional reason and just falls flat. Bane being too violent for the League wasn’t a good enough reason to excommunicate him? The whole relationship between Bane. Ra’s and Talia was just kind of melodramatic and muddled, and as a result, the idea of Bane being kicked out by Ra's just has little to no impact on the film. It feels a bit extraneous and tacked on, especially since he’s leading them again anyway, with no exploration of how he felt about being excommunicated in the first place, and why he’d decide to lead them other than caring for Talia. It’s just really, really thin.

No, I'm saying rich people being greedy is a nonsense reason to need to destroy the city. Every city in the world suffers from poor people. Lower class. Orphans. Desperation. It doesn't make them terrible hopeless cities.

Agreed. It would have been better if they’d only said “We’re just going to finish what Ra’s started as an act of revenge, to send a message”. But it seems they were trying to cover up the relatively thin/rehash villain plot and justify the destruction of Gotham.

[rickfox]

Originally Posted by The Joker

Who is "they"? And what distance do you mean? The Joker's brand of terrorism is very real. Check this out; http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts...r_isn_t_joking

It gets compared to real life terrorism. It's the characters involved (Batman and Joker), and the motive for the terrorism (trying to make Gotham go crazy to prove a point) that makes it comic booky.

http://forums.superherohype.com/show...&postcount=185

so in real life, authorities yield to terrorists and fulfil their demands ,right?

just like assuming some idiots would believe if authority fulfil jihadist's demand to execute Sam Bacile, then no despicable attack will ever happen again

http://forums.superherohype.com/show...&postcount=162

who is the one lost touch of reality/real world?

Batman is the one who led to such extreme methods by people like the Joker in the first place----did you ever heard people in Mexico say that after so many civil servants got butchered?--in real life,only a fool will yell-" actions against crime lords( Zetas, etc) should be xxx，because (Zetas, etc) are using such extreme methods to create chaos"

[rickfox]

Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus

All of Nolan's Batman movies are analogies to events in the real world.

......ok

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by The Joker

Btw Anno, that is hilarious

At least someone got it, haha.

[Fudgie]

Originally Posted by Tony Stark

I think that TDKR is a very good movie, but it didn't live up to the hype, and I don't know that any movie could have lived up to that much hype, it wasn't the best Nolan batman film, and IMO, it's not as good as Batman '89.

Yup agreed. I don't even think that much of Burton's Batman but even that was better than Rises.

Originally Posted by Brain Damage

Fantastic article, really digs into the thematic problems with TDKR, and more importantly, how they could have been avoided.

Quoted for truth. Thanks for posting that, J-Man. That's what I'm talkin' about.

Originally Posted by Brain Damage

rickfox, no offense, especially if English isn't your first language, but could you at least TRY to have some grammatical structure in your posts? It makes your arguments seem quite convoluted and half the time I'm not quite sure what the point you're trying to make is.

Also about the color coding and making certain words bigger, I can't for the life of me understand why you'd choose to post like that, but, to each his own.

I can never understand what the hell that guy does be talking about. I think he's pulling our chains half the time.

Why the hell do ya keep posting links to my posts that have nothing to do with what ya are even saying rickfox?

Originally Posted by The Guard

I don’t understand the writers need to shoehorn an emotional reason for Ra’s Al Ghul excommunicating Bane into the script. Worse, it was an expository emotional reason and just falls flat. Bane being too violent for the League wasn’t a good enough reason to excommunicate him? The whole relationship between Bane. Ra’s and Talia was just kind of melodramatic and muddled, and as a result, the idea of Bane being kicked out by Ra's just has little to no impact on the film. It feels a bit extraneous and tacked on, especially since he’s leading them again anyway, with no exploration of how he felt about being excommunicated in the first place, and why he’d decide to lead them other than caring for Talia. It’s just really, really thin.


Agreed. It would have been better if they’d only said “We’re just going to finish what Ra’s started as an act of revenge, to send a message”. But it seems they were trying to cover up the relatively thin/rehash villain plot and justify the destruction of Gotham.

Quoted for truth.

It was just a thin rehash of the Begins plot only it was worse and a contradiction.

You are spot on about the emotional bull about Ra's kicking Bane out. It sounded better when we thought he was kicked out for being too brutal instead of all that soppy crap about loving Talia. Bane really was whipped.

[TheBat812]

Originally Posted by The Joker

Part 2...



Now to clarify I don't agree with every single aspect of this article, such as Bruce getting a happy ever after is not really suited to his character. I didn't mind that at all, and I loved that Bruce did end up with Selina because out of all the Batman love interests, I think Selina is the 'one' he would end up with.

This entire article misses the point that these characters are evolving throughout the series. At the end of TDK they THINK the noble lie is what they need to be successful, only to realize that the sham that allowed a much more rigorous crime policy was not the right course of action. Sometimes you need to face the truth and let it "have it's day." TDK is only the second chapter of the journey, so while some of the thematic elements hold true for the characters at that moment, it is not necessarily a static idea throughout the entire trilogy.

IE in TDKR, Alfred only ASSUMES Bane's methods were too radical for Ra's. He's wrong, as Talia later explains. Just because a character says something does not mean he's right about it or that ti's a universal truth from then on, it's a reflection of the characters' at that moment. And unlike what Guard posted, I find this personal motivation to be key to the parallel to Bruce. All of these characters are driven to extreme actions because of intense personal anguish, and loss of loved ones that drive them to obsession. Only Bruce comes out of the situation being truly free of the guilt of their pasts (I guess Talia probably dies thinking she has as well).

[Fudgie]

Originally Posted by TheBat812

This entire article misses the point that these characters are evolving throughout the series. At the end of TDK they THINK the noble lie is what they need to be successful, only to realize that the sham that allowed a much more rigorous crime policy was not the right course of action. Sometimes you need to face the truth and let it "have it's day." TDK is only the second chapter of the journey, so while some of the thematic elements hold true for the characters at that moment, it is not necessarily a static idea throughout the entire trilogy.

IE in TDKR, Alfred only ASSUMES Bane's methods were too radical for Ra's. He's wrong, as Talia later explains. Just because a character says something does not mean he's right about it or that ti's a universal truth from then on, it's a reflection of the characters' at that moment. And unlike what Guard posted, I find this personal motivation to be key to the parallel to Bruce. All of these characters are driven to extreme actions because of intense personal anguish, and loss of loved ones that drive them to obsession. Only Bruce comes out of the situation being truly free of the guilt of their pasts (I guess Talia probably dies thinking she has as well).

Nope the article shows that Rises doesn't evolve the characters from that moment, it just contradicts them. It ain't about living in the moment lol. What kinda character development would that be.

Alfred's wrong assumption about Bane being kicked out was just a teeny tiny minor little thing. It was just fodder to tell ya he had something to do with the LOS so the twist about Talia could come out later.

Simples.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by The Guard

I don’t understand the writers need to shoehorn an emotional reason for Ra’s Al Ghul excommunicating Bane into the script. Worse, it was an expository emotional reason and just falls flat. Bane being too violent for the League wasn’t a good enough reason to excommunicate him? The whole relationship between Bane. Ra’s and Talia was just kind of melodramatic and muddled, and as a result, the idea of Bane being kicked out by Ra's just has little to no impact on the film. It feels a bit extraneous and tacked on, especially since he’s leading them again anyway, with no exploration of how he felt about being excommunicated in the first place, and why he’d decide to lead them other than caring for Talia. It’s just really, really thin.

Exactly. That's just how I see it. It doesn't have any impact on the movie. We don't even hear about it until Talia's reveal, and like with her character it's just revealed and then that's that. Nothing more comes of it. We're just told this revelation and that's the end of it.

I believe the Bane being excommunicated because he was too violent thing wasn't true. Talia revealed the real reason why he was kicked out. It had nothing to do with his violent side, which dilutes his character even more, IMO. Bane sounded more fierce when we thought he was excommunicated for his violent side. Then we learn it's because he was just a reminder of what happened to Ra's wife in the pit.

Agreed. It would have been better if they’d only said “We’re just going to finish what Ra’s started as an act of revenge, to send a message”. But it seems they were trying to cover up the relatively thin/rehash villain plot and justify the destruction of Gotham.

Once again, very much agreed

Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus

All of Nolan's Batman movies are analogies to events in the real world.

I've been trying to explain that to a certain party for nearly two pages. I've given up that pointless task.

You're on your own if you want to try.

Originally Posted by Fudgie

Nope the article shows that Rises doesn't evolve the characters from that moment, it just contradicts them. It ain't about living in the moment lol. What kinda character development would that be.

Alfred's wrong assumption about Bane being kicked out was just a teeny tiny minor little thing. It was just fodder to tell ya he had something to do with the LOS so the twist about Talia could come out later.

Simples.

Exactly.

I get that there's an evolution of the characters here, but there's a difference between something like say Batman believing his war on crime would simply entail taking down the mob, to a movie sending the message that Batman can endure, will be hunted, is always going to need Batman several times in one movie, then is christened a Dark Knight, only to have him cease to exist in the following movie.

[Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by The Joker

Exactly. That's just how I see it. It doesn't have any impact on the movie. We don't even hear about it until Talia's reveal, and like with her character it's just revealed and then that's that. Nothing more comes of it. We're just told this revelation and that's the end of it.

I believe the Bane being excommunicated because he was too violent thing wasn't true. Talia revealed the real reason why he was kicked out. It had nothing to do with his violent side, which dilutes his character even more, IMO. Bane sounded more fierce when we thought he was excommunicated for his violent side. Then we learn it's because he was just a reminder of what happened to Ra's wife in the pit.



Once again, very much agreed



I've been trying to explain that to a certain party for nearly two pages. I've given up that pointless task.

You're on your own if you want to try.



Exactly.

I get that there's an evolution of the characters here, but there's a difference between something like say Batman believing his war on crime would simply entail taking down the mob, to a movie sending the message that Batman can endure, will be hunted, is always going to need Batman several times in one movie, then is christened a Dark Knight, only to have him cease to exist in the following movie.

Well of course.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSIBSuYAPAI

[Mace Dolex]

Maybe someone can better explain to me just how Skyfall compares to TDKR, they have absolutely NOTHING in common, James Bond doesn't get injured and the villian in Skyfall isn't a calculating brute like Bane.

[Mr. Wooden Alligator]

I saw Skyfall yesterday.

I preferred TDKR to Skyfall. However I was never a big fan of Bond on film or in the novels. Overall, I thought Skyfall surpassed The Dark Knight when it came to the villain. After his introduction and capture by MI6, Silva was either on par, or had surpassed, the Joker as a villain. I would love to see Silva's actor as the Joker in the next franchise.

[Spoonman]

I just posted this in the Misc. part of the forums, my intent is not to criticize but just to point out that Movie series like Batman and Bond can make references to each other from time to time, take this example. It seems that an integral part of The Dark Knight Rises plot is lifted from The World Is Not Enough, only with three times the characters, three times the stuff going, etc.

SPOILERS FOR BOTH MOVIES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

In both movies we have this villian, a bald guy, with a pain related injury (Bane in constant pain keep at bay with his mask and Renard with a bullet in his head that prevents him from feeling a thing) who seems ruthless and unstoppable. Only to find out later on that said baddie is doing everything for a female that is the actual mastermind behind the curtains (Talia in TDKR and Elektra in TWINE). Said female serves as a love interest for the hero and takes advantage of the trust and affair with the hero only to betray him later on and expose her plan to him.

Both movies involve the detonation of a nuclear device that would destroy a City (Gotham and Istanbul). And finally, this is probably pushing it but in both movies the hero sustains injuries from the beginig through out the end of the films (Batman and his crippled leg, Bond and his injured shoulder).

[Mr. Wooden Alligator]

Perhaps the older Batman comic took some hits from the Bond film you mention. I think the title was simply "Bane." It was released around the same time as the film Batman and Robin. There, Bane was given a connection to the Al Ghuls and had possession of a nuke.

I still wouldn't put the stuff you mentioned past Nolan. He is a Bond fan.

[Doctor Octopus]

I think Silva was much better villain than Bane.

[Frodo]

Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus

I think Silva was much better villain than Bane.

I agree , and personally I liked Skyfall more than TDKR. While they deal with a few of the same themes , Skyfall is a smaller scaled and more personal story that TDKR is imo. I also think it communicates alot of the same themes in a much better way than TDKR did. That's mainly do to the fact that it isnt a conclusion to a trilogy and that it isn't bogged down trying to do several things at once the way TDKR did. But they are different animals .

I just prefer Skyfall because for the most part, everything comes together to tell a coehesive, great , emotional story. TDKR at times feels like several seperate set pieces and ideas which never really gell to a united narrative imo, and in the end ,i'm left wishing Nolan had taken a couple of more rewrites of the script.

[Tequilla]

Originally Posted by Tequilla

Its funny you said that about spectacle , because i was reading the art and making and Nolan stated that when he made TDK and Begins , he thought about action set pieces before knowing how they would appear on the story. He knew that such scenes should exist ,and when they should appear (not how). He also said in Rises everything was much more organic , and every spectacle we see was according to what the felt the story needed (and not the other way around)

.

About this i brought up , and the whole TDKR looked like a bunch of set pieces thought beforehand , and a narrative to glue them...its funny how sometimes perception is completely distorted from reality.

From the book

In scripting the film , Nolan and his co-writers didn't invent action sequences for their own sake ; rather , the action grew , organically , out of the story. "In Putting together the story for Begins " , said C.Nolan , "and then moving on to TDK , David and I had plotted out exactly how many action beats we would need , where they would be in the film , and so forth. When we came to TDKR , it was very important to me that we not engage in that process at all. It had worked very well for us in the first two films, but for this one , I wanted to throw that away and just write the story that needed to be there for the characters-and then we would create whatever action arose from that story naturally.

"The danger of going into a third action film is that you inflate the action components as a way to meet audience expectations. Most third films are very disappointing to people exactly for that reason. So i wanted to go with the characters and their stories , first and trust the action would arouse out of that approach.

"We absoluted resisted the idea of making TDKR bigger just because it was a thrid movie " affirmed David Goyer. We didnt go into it saying that we were going to make an epic war movie , and then develop the story from that idea. It was decidedly the opposite of that. In fact , again , the first thing that we came up with was the ending , which was very personal , and we wrote the beginning that also had Bruce Wayne in a very personal place. That's what we had when we started. It wasn't until a month or two into the writing process that things got very big and destructive in the middle.

[Omegabat]

Saw Skyfall,great flick.I thought it was even better than Casino Royale,I can see why some might prefer it to TDKR,but I enjoyed both movies and performances by the cast.Excluding the Bond girls though,I mean why the heck is Berenice Marlohe getting so much hype?

[Omegabat]

Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus

I think Silva was much better villain than Bane.

Eh no,Bardem was brilliant but Bane is in a different league.Silva was more enjoyable while Bane was the bigger badass.

[Elevator Man]

Originally Posted by Frodo

I just prefer Skyfall because for the most part, everything comes together to tell a coehesive, great , emotional story. TDKR at times feels like several seperate set pieces and ideas which never really gell to a united narrative imo, and in the end ,i'm left wishing Nolan had taken a couple of more rewrites of the script.

This is pretty much how I feel about TDKR. Nolan bit off more than he could chew. Despite it's many flaws I still thought it was a pretty good movie. Just wasn't what it could've been, imho.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus

I think Silva was much better villain than Bane.

Very debatable, but I certainly don't feel that Silva was better.

[Frodo]

I depends I think on the kind of villan you prefer. Bardem has your attention the whole time and almost steals the show. Hardy's Bane is inhibited by the mask and the odd voice, and isn't as memorable or chasimatic as Bardem. Ultimately being able to kick the **** out of the hero is meaningless unless the villan is captivating . I don't think Bane is, at least in TKDR.

[Anno_Domini]

Hardy had a great performance through his eyes and physicality with being hindered by a mask though. That should say a lot about an overall performance as well.

[kvz5]

I finally saw Skyfall over the weekend and I enjoyed it a lot (I still prefer Casino Royale though). There are some things that were better in Skyfall FOR ME like the cinematography (although it's pretty close) and the villain. Skyfall is smaller in scale than TDKR so it felt more cohesive and tight to me. I can't fault TDKR for being ambitious but I felt that part of its problem was that it was trying to be too many things which ended up making some things messy. Other than those things, TDKR was better than Skyfall. The biggest edge TDKR had over Skyfall is probably the female characters.

Having said all of that and with the addition of my personal preference of Bruce Wayne/Batman over Bond, I'm giving the vote to TKDR.