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

[Alex Logan]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

Bull.

Agreed.

[BatLobsterRises]

I think, Foley, in his own small way showed that in times of crisis "a hero can be anyone"...even an arrogant d-bag like he was. I think you needed someone in the film to mark the change in the GCPD opinion of Batman considering we go from Batman being chased by the entire department to leading them into war over the course of the film. Granted, we got the bare bones of an "arc" for Foley and he definitely wasn't a great character by any means...which makes me unsure if I'm glad we didn't get too much of him, or wishing he had more development.

Now that I think of it, I think his role in the story could have been a nice one for Harvey Bullock to play. If they had set him up in TDK and established his hatred for Batman, it could have been a nice payoff to have him be the one who gets inspired by the burning symbol and lay down his life for Gotham in the end. Would give it some more weight.

[BatmanBeyond]

Originally Posted by JackWhite

I wasn't bothered by him for the most part. Really enjoyed him during the stock exchange scene all the way through Batman's return scene.

I understand most people hated his repetitive hot head comments and the fact that he took up what could have been Gotham citizens POV moments. The latter really bothered me, but besides that I was fine with Foley. Just hated how his awesome death via tumbler was cut out.

Speaking of which, were they really THAT repetitive? I seem to remember only two instances where they occurred.

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

I think, Foley, in his own small way showed that in times of crisis "a hero can be anyone"...even an arrogant d-bag like he was. I think you needed someone in the film to mark the change in the GCPD opinion of Batman considering we go from Batman being chased by the entire department to leading them into war over the course of the film. Granted, we got the bare bones of an "arc" for Foley and he definitely wasn't a great character by any means...which makes me unsure if I'm glad we didn't get too much of him, or wishing he had more development.

Now that I think of it, I think his role in the story could have been a nice one for Harvey Bullock to play. If they had set him up in TDK and established his hatred for Batman, it could have been a nice payoff to have him be the one who gets inspired by the burning symbol and lay down his life for Gotham in the end. Would give it some more weight.

Good way of looking at it and that would've been an actually inspired way of using Bullock.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by The Guard

I don't think there's anything really wrong with Modine's performance, but I would have had less of a problem with Foley if he hadn't been portrayed as such a dunderhead.

If there'd been more made of his desire to replace Gordon and the political aspects of that, some stakes regarding Gordon's possible loss/removal, such as the possible return of corruption to the department that Gordon cleaned up, he could have worked as a character. But instead, half his role in the film focuses on an almost cartoonish inefficiency and his desire to take down Batman and ignore basic police procedure.

Exactly. Nine times out of ten it's not the actors at fault, it's the terrible writing of the character they are playing.

Foley was fool.

Originally Posted by CrypticOne

I would have not minded Foley if he was in TDK, but he just shows up here. BAM! And we're supposed to feel something for this character?

That's exactly how I feel. The way the camera zooms in on his body after he's been killed as though he as some great character we were all supposed to care about.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by The Joker

That's exactly how I feel. The way the camera zooms in on his body after he's been killed as though he as some great character we were all supposed to care about.

I actually got the opposite impression. I felt like the starkness of seeing his corpse without actually seeing him go down made him feel like just another casualty of war and nobody special. I think it would have felt like more of an emotional cheat if they tried to play it as a glorious death scene (like how they had shot it with that Tumbler stunt). I feel like as is, the intended emotional impact of his death is kind of ambiguous.

[jmc]

Originally Posted by AnneFan

You'd no doubt know this, but a copy does come with the Blu-ray.

Yeah....what's your point?

[The Joker]

We'd already seen lots of casualties of this siege. It wasn't necessary for that at all. I've never seen a movie zoom in on one body like that unless it was meant to show the audience someone important has been killed.

[Anita18]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

I actually got the opposite impression. I felt like the starkness of seeing his corpse without actually seeing him go down made him feel like just another casualty of war and nobody special. I think it would have felt like more of an emotional cheat if they tried to play it as a glorious death scene (like how they had shot it with that Tumbler stunt). I feel like as is, the intended emotional impact of his death is kind of ambiguous.

That's what I felt about all the "important" deaths in the LOTR series.

-ducks-

[BatLobsterRises]

Well, yeah he was "important" per se, as he's a high ranking officer. That doesn't mean the movie is telling us we should feel sad. I know I didn't

[Ryan]

Foley's arc good or bad was still just a waste of time to me. It is to be the final installment of a great trilogy with characters that I've grown to love. Instead, Nolan starts bringing in non existant characters like Foley to kill screen time that could have been better served elsewhere.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Ryan

Foley's arc good or bad was still just a waste of time to me. It is to be the final installment of a great trilogy with characters that I've grown to love. Instead, Nolan starts bringing in non existant characters like Foley to kill screen time that could have been better served elsewhere.

It isn't the first time we've seen Nolan use non-existant characters, though. To make it sound like a brand new thing sounds weird to read. You still get characters that you love from the entire trilogy, but also new created characters specifically for this film such as Mr. Earle and DA Finch with BB, Mr. Reese, Lau, Gambol and the Chechen for TDK(you could include Ramirez, Wuertz and Stephens if you don't count them as being inspirations of comic book characters) and now someone like Foley for TDKR.

[BatLobsterRises]

Technically "Foley" was in No Man's Land though. Like Daggett, they changed his first name, but in both stories he's a cop at odds with Gordon. They did similar loose adaptations of Loeb and Flass too.

[BlueLightning]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

Technically "Foley" was in No Man's Land though. Like Daggett, they changed his first name, but in both stories he's a cop at odds with Gordon. They did similar loose adaptations of Loeb and Flass too.

I didn't know that, thanks for the info!

[JackWhite]

Originally Posted by BatmanBeyond

Speaking of which, were they really THAT repetitive? I seem to remember only two instances where they occurred.



Good way of looking at it and that would've been an actually inspired way of using Bullock.

Oh snap, I never thought of it like that! Foley could have easily been Bullock!

But yeah, I only remember the hot head comment being said twice. I guess twice was too much in some people's eyes.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

Technically "Foley" was in No Man's Land though. Like Daggett, they changed his first name, but in both stories he's a cop at odds with Gordon. They did similar loose adaptations of Loeb and Flass too.

Ahh ok, didn't know that. Still, thought it was a waste of time. I don't know. For a movie that was almost 3 hours long, I felt like main characters like Alfred were way under served.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by Ryan

Ahh ok, didn't know that. Still, thought it was a waste of time. I don't know. For a movie that was almost 3 hours long, I felt like main characters like Alfred were way under served. I felt like we had enough new character with Bane and Catwoman to deal with in addition to tying up Batman, Bruce's and Gordon's storylines.

Yeah, I see where you're coming from. Foley to me was a "functional" character. He had his role to play in the story and you can understand why he's there, but his presence isn't exactly "adding" to the quality of the film, if you know what I mean.

That said though, they started the trend of introducing a crapload of supporting characters with TDK. I think this is done in part to make the world of Gotham feel inhabited.

I still maintain...swap out Foley for Bullock, and a lot of fans would've been way more accepting of it. Though this would have been preferable if Detective Stephens from TDK had been Bullock from the start.

[Ryan]

I have to agree with you that probably more fans would have been understanding if it had been Bullock then Foley, but again, not to the expense of screen time of faves from the series. I'd have even been fine if the newcomers Bane,Catwoman or Talia would have got that time. LIke you said, Foley was a functional character, and I do understand why Nolan used him. But when your trying to keep that bad boy under 3hours, wrap up storylines, introduce new characters and new storylines, its alot to get under one roof.

[The Eradicator]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

That said though, they started the trend of introducing a crapload of supporting characters with TDK. I think this is done in part to make the world of Gotham feel inhabited.

Bingo! This is exactly what felt somewhat 'off' about TDKR, in comparison to BB and TDK. Gotham did not feel like an inhabited world, especially when it came to the police department.

Besides all the complaints about a lack of a voice for the citizens of Gotham, the lack of an actual world for Gotham in TDKR was perhaps its biggest weakness.

[ShadowBoxer]

Foley, Daggat, and Holly were three characters in the movie that should have been cut out entirely, they added nothing to the overall movie.

[JackWhite]

Originally Posted by ShadowBoxer

Foley, Daggat, and Holly were three characters in the movie that should have been cut out entirely, they added nothing to the overall movie.

Daggett was awesome. If you cut him out, you don't get the famous scene of Bane killing him!

[ShadowBoxer]

Originally Posted by JackWhite

Daggett was awesome. If you cut him out, you don't get the famous scene of Bane killing him!

It would have been awesome if he didn't get killed off scene. LOL

[JackWhite]

Originally Posted by ShadowBoxer

It would have been awesome if he didn't get killed off scene. LOL

That's artistic merit though. Kind of like how in the original ESB you don't see the wampa, and in Scarface you don't see his brother getting sliced up with a chainsaw in the bathtub, just the bloody residue being spewed.

[GENERAL RAAM582]

While it's definitely not all it could of been, I don't think it ruins the trilogy. In fact, I still think Begins is the "worse" of the trilogy. I love all three movies, and it's my favorite film trilogy of all time. Begins gets a 9, TDK gets a 10, and TDKR gets a 9.5.

[Caekzor]

Originally Posted by BatmanBeyond

Speaking of which, were they really THAT repetitive? I seem to remember only two instances where they occurred.

It was only two instances.

[JackWhite]

Originally Posted by Caekzor

It was only two instances.

Uhhh, are those allowed here?