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

[TheSpectacular]

To answer the question, yes. I find DKR to be the only Nolan Batman film that is bad. BB and TDK were amazing. I will admit I did enjoy Batman vs. Bane fights though.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Because he had to protect his city. But he did have a dying wish the first part of TDKR while he was just waiting for something bad to happen again. Something happened that made Bruce want to live only to fight another day, but for a moment, he did want to die while in the Pit.

I kinda lost track now of our little debate now, cause I completely agree haha.

[Ryan]

100%. Batman Begins set the tone on how reboots could be successfully done. TDK transcended what people thought a comic book movie could be. TDKR? In my opinion was a pretty 'safe" movie. They followed the route of making the movie bigger, and putting in a "badder" villian...but in the end..was it better?

[Anno_Domini]

TDKR set the tone of how to end a trilogy perfectly, as we've seen countless of times how CBM trilogies never do.

[MAKAVELI25]

Originally Posted by Ryan

100%. Batman Begins set the tone on how reboots could be successfully done. TDK transcended what people thought a comic book movie could be. TDKR? In my opinion was a pretty 'safe" movie. They followed the route of making the movie bigger, and putting in a "badder" villian...but in the end..was it better?

Agreed, after how innovative TDK was for the genre TDKR felt so......conventional. The finale of TDK had me on the edge of my seat while the finale of TDKR had me no more interested than The Avenger's.

[Fudgie]

Originally Posted by Ryan

TDKR? In my opinion was a pretty 'safe" movie. They followed the route of making the movie bigger, and putting in a "badder" villian...but in the end..was it better?

Nope it wasn't.

[storyteller]

Honestly I don't understand why some people see TDKR as terrible when they see the first two movies as good(was it really vastly different?). I mean at the very least I understand it not being a favorite. Personally I though it was the best because I really felt that Bruce in TDK kinda took a back seat to Batman who took a back seat to Gordon and Dent. I think it's the perfect ending to a three course meal.

I don't think it was safe. They just didn't kill someone close to Bruce. They didn't need to. The man has experienced loss.

I also feel that some people are trying hard to hate this movie. Some seem convinced that Batman can't have a happy ending. He must die being Batman. No he doesn't and at the very least this is an elseworld.

To go back to the original post. No you aren't. I'm sorta not one of those people. I feel TDKR makes Nolans first near perfect trilogy. It certainly is not the end all be all Batman series though. I'm a fan of the Batman who mixes it up with the JL. When they get that trilogy going, then we can talk about the perfect Batman trilogy.

[Anno_Domini]

If TDKR was safe, then I assume every critic talking about the ambitions TDKR had were talking straight out of their ass. No other CBM in a while will be as ambitious as TDKR was and THAT'S what makes TDKR not a safe movie.

[Deserana]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

TDKR set the tone of how to end a trilogy perfectly, as we've seen countless of times how CBM trilogies never do.

Because possibly for the first time ever a comic book franchise actually had a Director willing to put their foot down and say "this is the end". Even though I have issues with this film I'd admire Nolan much more for some of the things e did with this trilogy.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Deserana

Because possibly for the first time ever a comic book franchise actually had a Director willing to put their foot down and say "this is the end". Even though I have issues with this film I'd admire Nolan much more for some of the things e did with this trilogy.

Not really just "this is the end", but also "this is how I want to end it". No other studio has ever really given this much freedom to a director. One could say this works with FOX and Bryan Singer as when he's behind a X-Men film, that's the only reason a X-Men film seems to be outstanding, but to retire a known comic book character and pass down the iconic superhero mantle...it's unheard of.

Everything Nolan has truly done with TDKR makes it not a safe movie. Whoever says otherwise is kidding themselves to say Nolan made no risks and made a safe TDKR.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Everything Nolan has truly done with TDKR makes it not a safe movie. Whoever says otherwise is kidding themselves to say Nolan made no risks and made a safe TDKR.

It's also pretty rich to hear people call it safe when some of those risks Nolan took are exactly what ticked 'em off.

I was convinced for a few minutes that Batman was dead...on that merit alone I wouldn't dare call it a safe flick.

People talk about how Batman had the least screentime in this movie than any of the other films. How's that safe again? As a matter of fact, making the third film without The Joker was one huge risk to begin with. This movie was ballsy from top to bottom IMO.

[LeoGal83]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

TDKR set the tone of how to end a trilogy perfectly, as we've seen countless of times how CBM trilogies never do.

This!

[Ryan]

For me it was completely a "safe" movie. I always love on the messageboards how it becomes so personal to people to attack other's posts. "Whoever thinks its safe is kidding themselves'. The question was asked whether anyone feels like tdkr prevents the trilogy from being perfect, which I answered. I could go on like many posters and describe in detail why I feel like the film was a bloated debacle, but what's the point. If some people think that this film was the Second Coming, that's entirely their opinion and nothing I say will change their mind. Same goes for others claims of this movie being ambitious will change my mind. I will say this, and I could be wrong. I dont' remember the other 2 previous films being this fiercly debated on messageboards and met with mixed feelings by critics. The countless threads in this forum speak to the division that this movie has caused. I'm a huge Nolan fan, and a gigantic fan of the first 2 films, so its not about me "wanting to hate" the third film. I was wanting it to succeed more then anyone and in my opinion it didn't.

[Robin91939]

How was The Dark Knight Rises safe?

Was the part where Batman (in a third film, not an origin film) took 45 minutes to be seen in costume safe?

Was the part where they give their title character (Batman, not Bruce Wayne) less screen time than Bane, John Blake or Gordon the safe part?

Was giving a big-budget summer blockbuster a 2 hour and 37 minute running-time the safe part?

Was having the title character brutally beaten and taken out of commission 1 hour and 15 minutes into the film and only 30 minutes after first re-appearing in costume and then not reappearing for another 50 minutes (2 hours and 7 minutes into the film) the safe part?

Was shooting Gordon and putting him into a hospital bed for three quarters of the movie the safe part?

Was using Bane as the main villain and Talia as another villain with more marquee named villains (for the public) readily available (Penguin, Riddler, Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze) the safe part?

Was hinging the entire "twist/third act reveal" on the reveal of a character that not even many Batman fans knew of (Talia) the safe part?

Was shooting as much of the film in IMAX that they did the safe part?

Was killing off Batman, having Bruce Wayne retire and passing the mantle to a new soldier to take up the Batman mantle the safe part?


Honestly, I can understand not liking the film. But claiming that as far as tentpole actioners go, this was anything but standard and/or safe...

-R

[Ryan]

Again, completely up to reading other's thoughts on the film. No intentions of getting into long drawn out messageboard wars on why I feel the film was completely safe, again, in my opinion.

[Robin91939]

Originally Posted by Ryan

Again, completely up to reading other's thoughts on the film. No intentions of getting into long drawn out messageboard wars on why I feel the film was completely safe, again, in my opinion.

I understand it is in your opinion. You said it, that's implied.

I'm not holding your opinion against you -- nor was I responding to only your opinion.

I was just wondering how you consider it a "safe" film, other than the fact that they naturally went larger and bigger.

Outside of that -- I feel like they pushed the larger and bigger further than the boundaries of "safe." I also think that they took these iconic characters into very non-safe areas. Whether you think it was done poorly or done well -- I feel it is hard to have said that it was "safe."

-R

[Ryan]

I guess my only question would be after reading your list 'non safe" reasons, did that make the film great? Honestly none of the things that you listed formed my opinion of why the movie was safe, however alot of things you mentioned were reasons why I didn't like the movie. Also, as you stated, the fact that they "naturally" went with bigger equals better does figure into my reasoning that it was a pretty safe movie. I personally just dont' see the boundaries that were broken down by this film as Begins and TDK had done, but again, that's just me.

[Tequilla]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

But TDKR also wrote its own rules after the ending of TDK and wasn't the logical continuation. While the whole story was about Bruce Wayne trying to find himself outside of the cape and cowl, he did put his life into it and this love of his life at the time has been destroyed. His life outside the cape and cowl were literally taken away from him so he could have very well died as the man he became, the Batman.

I would say every movie sets a new goal , that builds upon what has happened. The important thing was him being able to choose to live on.

[BatmanBeyond]

Originally Posted by TheBat812

Just gotta say, the worst form of posting is simply quoting long ass posts and saying "QFT." What a waste of a page, and what a meaningless addition to a conversation.


And back on topic, honestly each movie has its own small issues. Ie, the pacing in TDK after the hospital is distracting to me, as that feels like a climax and then we get a whole other sequence on the boats that to me just feels long as hell. Doesn't ruin the film at all, just a personal preference. I never felt this kind of thing in TDKR. Basically I'm saying there is pretty much no such thing as a perfect film, and this trilogy never was going to be perfect from a cinematic standpoint, but goddamn, it's still gotta be the best trilogy I've ever experienced and the perfect Batman/Bruce Wayne experience.

QF...I meeeaaaan, I agree with what you're saying here. Nicely done.

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

...Not gonna say it....not gonna say it...

Annnyhow....nah, TDKR definitely isn't what's preventing this trilogy from being perfect.

The "okay that's NAHT good!" guy in TDK is.

Originally Posted by Deserana

I think I'm the only one who actually liked the 8 year gap as for me this was never a Bruce that seemed devoted to doing this for his whole life. His parents were his motivation still but it always seemed that if there was a way out he'd take it. Just look at TDK as soon as Harvey stood up he was ready to step down.

Unless I'm remembering it wrong when Bruce is asked how long he wants to do this for he says "As long as I have to" (I think that is in the film) so that clearly isn't a man who wants to do this forever. You also have Dent in TDK saying "The Batman doesn't want to do this for the rest of his life how could he? He is looking for someone to take up his mantle." then in TDKR he found that in Blake and then Bruce moved on.

The 8 year gap seemed logical to me yes it may seem like Bruce was barely Batman but he still made a mark on this Gotham. The actions of TDKR were exactly the same IMO and not out of characater. I've seen people say he takes an 8 year gap because of Rachel! He didn't. There was no need for him to be Batman. I've seen people say that Batman should still be fighting small crime. Nolan's Batman has never been shown doing that he has only attacked some sort of organised crime. And people have said Batman would never quit. Nolan's Bruce was never devoted to Batman it seemed more like a period of his life he wanted to get past.

Nolan isn't claiming to make thee definitive Batman. It was just another take on the character. I have issues with TDKR but Bruce was not one of them I thought his arc was perfect and entirely in line with the previous two films.

Nicely pointed out. Count me among those who didn't have a problem with the 8 year gap, though I would've liked for Bruce to have been Batman for one or two years during that period considering it was a rather long one.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Ryan

I guess my only question would be after reading your list 'non safe" reasons, did that make the film great?

Things like IMAX stuff is great. But other stuff like putting Gordon in a hospital bed for half the movie or leaving Talia until the end of the movie didn't help at all. In fact it hurt the movie.

Honestly none of the things that you listed formed my opinion of why the movie was safe, however alot of things you mentioned were reasons why I didn't like the movie. Also, as you stated, the fact that they "naturally" went with bigger equals better does figure into my reasoning that it was a pretty safe movie. I personally just dont' see the boundaries that were broken down by this film as Begins and TDK had done, but again, that's just me.

I agree with you. Frankly some of those reasons have been done by other superhero movies already. There's far more Peter Parker screen time than there is Spider-Man in all of the Spider-Man movies made. Spider-Man vanishes for practically the whole middle act of Spider-Man 2, and that's considered the best one. Putting Gordon out of action for most of the movie wasn't risky, it was just bad writing. It's the equivalent to under using a character, which so many superhero movies are guilty of. TDK is only 12 minutes shorter than Rises etc.

The only real boundary I see TDKR breaking is the superhero threequel curse.

[Anno_Domini]

Why does TDK being only 12 minutes shorter have to do with anything?

[I Am The Knight]

Originally Posted by The Joker

Things like IMAX stuff is great. But other stuff like putting Gordon in a hospital bed for half the movie or leaving Talia until the end of the movie didn't help at all. In fact it hurt the movie.



I agree with you. Frankly some of those reasons Robin listed have been done by other superhero movies already. There's far more Peter Parker screen time than there is Spider-Man in all of the Spider-Man movies made. Spider-Man vanishes for practically the whole middle act of Spider-Man 2, and that's considered the best one. Putting Gordon out of action for most of the movie wasn't risky, it was just bad writing. It's the equivalent to under using a character, which so many superhero movies are guilty of. TDK is only 12 minutes shorter than Rises etc.

The only real boundary I see TDKR breaking is the superhero threequel curse.

True. For example, another threequel, Spider-Man 3, also features a relative unknown character as it's main villain, Sandman. And the villain every kiddy wanted desperately to see, Venom, was only in the film for about 10 minutes, and then he gets killed. Also, turning your main character into an emo b*tch is far more polarizing than putting him into a Pit Or turning Superman into a womanizing drunkard in Superman III, and then have him battle himself in some kind of psychological junkyard fight.

Besides, once TDK became a HUGE hit, Nolan knew he had carte blanche to do whatever he wanted, and the audience would eat it up. I'd say Batman Begins was a riskier film to make, despite adhering to a more conventional superhero formula than it's sequels. It was a complete reinvention of the character for main audiences, with a villain even more obscure than Bane, to the GA at least. TDKR was always going to be a huge hit, anyway. It still adheres to formula, especially during the third act. And It even has a happy ending where the main character overcomes all obstacles and goes off to live in Europe with a hot woman.

The actual interesting and "not safe" aspects of the film are under developed, and they have more to do with commentaries on modern society than "Durr Bane has more screentime than Batman, so transgressive".

[BatLobsterRises]

I think the fact that they conceived a Batman story in the vein of a historical epic separated it from the herd, including the two previous movies. It's also the only superhero film to age its characters 8 years from the previous film. So I think it had the biggest scope for a film in its genre (besides maybe Watchmen, which was a slavishly faithful adaptation).

I think TDKR, like many of Nolan's movies, rely on convention as much as it subverts it. I wouldn't say it subverts it as much as TDK (the biggest trick TDK pulled was using the "save the girl or X choice" and actually not letting the hero save both), but I liken it to a very turbulent flight that manages to come in for a smooth landing. TDKR was coming off a movie so dark that it was able to establish a scenario in which Batman's death seems like the inevitable outcome. The movie uses this as a starting point and reverse engineers itself towards a happier ending from there. So I'd say the end result could be considered to be "safe", but it's kind of hard to make an "unsafe" movie when everyone's expecting you to make one after TDK. It played with expectations in an interesting and engaging way, to me.

[Ryan]

Whatever people's opinions are, its interesting how much passionate debate surrounds this film, which I didn't seem to see after the last 2 films. Lots of forums get tired of the Nolanites and I guess with this film I can see their perspective. I've been a huge fan of his films and his first 2 Batman films have been what I"ve been waiting for. I still consider those 2 films to not only be the best Batman films ever made but the best superhero movies I"ve ever seen. Despite my love of those films, it didn't mean that TDKR would get a 'free ride" and it seems with some, that to suggest its anything less then perfect is to committ some type of heresay. I liked certain aspects of the film, but as a whole I did not. I agree that it apparently ended the threequel curse but it seemed to do so in the safest way possible, with a tried and true formula, without ruffling too many feathers in the process. The risks taken with BB and TDK will always be what made them magical to me.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by Ryan

Whatever people's opinions are, its interesting how much passionate debate surrounds this film, which I didn't seem to see after the last 2 films. Lots of forums get tired of the Nolanites and I guess with this film I can see their perspective. I've been a huge fan of his films and his first 2 Batman films have been what I"ve been waiting for. I still consider those 2 films to not only be the best Batman films ever made but the best superhero movies I"ve ever seen. Despite my love of those films, it didn't mean that TDKR would get a 'free ride" and it seems with some, that to suggest its anything less then perfect is to committ some type of heresay. I liked certain aspects of the film, but as a whole I did not. I agree that it apparently ended the threequel curse but it seemed to do so in the safest way possible, with a tried and true formula, without ruffling too many feathers in the process. The risks taken with BB and TDK will always be what made them magical to me.

It is interesting how much debate surrounds the film. That's why I found it a bit odd to call something rather controversial, "safe". Seems almost like an oxymoron to me. If you look back at my posts in this thread though, I was never trying to say your opinion was invalid or that you were or speaking heresy if you didn't like the movie. Just to clarify, that one post I made about how the things that made it "safe" were the very things that upset people...I wasn't addressing you specifically, it was more addressing people that were agreeing with you, some of which I've had more extensive debates with on here so I was familiar with their gripes. Sorry if that came across as a personal attack.