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

[Deserana]

Originally Posted by TheBat812

The only reason they did that was to affect Bruce. So we see more of how it's affecting him, not the people, who are doing nothing, just being in their homes. I still haven't heard a good example of where these shots are actually needed. The only one has been seeing more reactions about Gordon's letter, but even that is pretty arguably not necessary.

But shouldn't we also need to feel that Gotham must be saved? I think if this was not following on from TDK and BB it would be fine but because this is after two films where the city is thought about and realised and made a part of the film it sticks out like a sore thumb in this one.

I think the first act deals with this beautifully. We have the fact that young orphans are turning to Bane, cops like Blake have been inspired by Batman, Gotham is very peaceful and that no one is afraid, poor people like Selina fighting against the rich etc etc... in the first act Gotham is realised beautifully.

It's only when Batman returns and the scale kicks up that I think the feel of Gotham plummets. I personally felt the weight of Batman's absense in the first act. From the way the character's were talking, the dark peaceful shots of Gotham, little set details (the rusty bat symbol), Bruce... I felt like this was a different Gotham affected by the events of TDK and that 8 years really had passed. I'm one a few that felt that an 8 year gap was infact a logical step and the first act was one of the most intimate and well done moments of the trilogy. But then when Batman returns Gotham ceases to exist outside Selina, Gordon and Blake.

Bane wanted the people to take back their city. I'll buy that. Infact I love it in theory. But you have to show it. As that honest trailer showed there was no one. As in NO ONE. You saw no one turn to Bane, no one turn to Batman, no one rebel, no one do anything. Hiding in their houses is a lame excuse IMO as that would either A) make Bane's plan fail as the citizens do nothing or B) make Bruce's symbol fail as the people clearly haven't been inspired to do anything. I'm leaning toward B even more so as the people now know that Batman did what he did for the good of the city.

As convoluted as it would be I would have rather they had a plot around Selina in Gotham with the ordinary citizens (making them wish for Batman's return), a plot with the undercover police and Bruce in the pit plot. All of which building up to some sort of rebellion against Bane then Batman comes along and kicks start the whole thing. As it stands it is just Bruce and the police fighting for the city then various shots of Gothamites leaving their houses. Fine. That's good for a run of the mill comic-book film infact it's probably what you'd expect. I know I've sometimes criticised people for expecting far far too much for TDKR but in this aspect I did. After what has been created in the first two films it is hard for me to believe this Gotham would hide in their houses till all was clear. Did they do this with Joker's threat? No the city went absolutely crazy.

Yes they had the threat of a bomb but when the war started that's a signal to take back the city. And the stuff with the police showed under-the-radar work was easily doable.

[Frodo]

The plan was about making Bruce suffer and fufilling Ra's Al Ghul destiny , though I would argue it woulda made him suffer more and really follow through with Ra's plan ,if they just nuked the joint. Bruce would have seen his city melt , and there would be nothing he coulda do about it.

On the other hand, the bomb takes five months to explode , which is a bit too cute , and gives him just enough time to recover and stop Bane, but its one of those things that I just suspend disbelief. I think I woulda liked to have seen more of the "people of gotham" stuff , but imo Blake fills that role in a sufficent way, even though its not the way I would have preferred.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Deserana

But shouldn't we also need to feel that Gotham must be saved? I think if this was not following on from TDK and BB it would be fine but because this is after two films where the city is thought about and realised and made a part of the film it sticks out like a sore thumb in this one.

I think the first act deals with this beautifully. We have the fact that young orphans are turning to Bane, cops like Blake have been inspired by Batman, Gotham is very peaceful and that no one is afraid, poor people like Selina fighting against the rich etc etc... in the first act Gotham is realised beautifully.

It's only when Batman returns and the scale kicks up that I think the feel of Gotham plummets. I personally felt the weight of Batman's absense in the first act. From the way the character's were talking, the dark peaceful shots of Gotham, little set details (the rusty bat symbol), Bruce... I felt like this was a different Gotham affected by the events of TDK and that 8 years really had passed. I'm one a few that felt that an 8 year gap was infact a logical step and the first act was one of the most intimate and well done moments of the trilogy. But then when Batman returns Gotham ceases to exist outside Selina, Gordon and Blake.

Bane wanted the people to take back their city. I'll buy that. Infact I love it in theory. But you have to show it. As that honest trailer showed there was no one. As in NO ONE. You saw no one turn to Bane, no one turn to Batman, no one rebel, no one do anything. Hiding in their houses is a lame excuse IMO as that would either A) make Bane's plan fail as the citizens do nothing or B) make Bruce's symbol fail as the people clearly haven't been inspired to do anything. I'm leaning toward B even more so as the people now know that Batman did what he did for the good of the city.

As convoluted as it would be I would have rather they had a plot around Selina in Gotham with the ordinary citizens (making them wish for Batman's return), a plot with the undercover police and Bruce in the pit plot. All of which building up to some sort of rebellion against Bane then Batman comes along and kicks start the whole thing. As it stands it is just Bruce and the police fighting for the city then various shots of Gothamites leaving their houses. Fine. That's good for a run of the mill comic-book film infact it's probably what you'd expect. I know I've sometimes criticised people for expecting far far too much for TDKR but in this aspect I did. After what has been created in the first two films it is hard for me to believe this Gotham would hide in their houses till all was clear. Did they do this with Joker's threat? No the city went absolutely crazy.

Yes they had the threat of a bomb but when the war started that's a signal to take back the city. And the stuff with the police showed under-the-radar work was easily doable.

Excellent post

I also wanted to see some of the common man's reaction to the Harvey Dent cover up, not just moralistic Blake giving Gordon a verbal dressing down, much as I enjoyed Oldman's acting there.

[BlueLightning]

Originally Posted by Anita18

TDK and TDKR are about different things. TDK confronts the issue of order and chaos and what kind of world would allow for both a vigilante and a terrorist who aims to destroy just what a society consists of. TDK was about very big ideas - it was never about Batman just stopping Joker's terrorist acts. Those big ideas necessitate how the public views Batman and just how useful he is. Does a society need Batman to continue functioning? It tries to justify his existence, and in the end, it turns out Gotham doesn't need him. It does fine without his continued existence. "We won."

With that, comes TDKR, where Bruce is still emotionally caught up in Batman and can't move on. The rest of the movie gives him two choices - continue in his self-destructive course personified by Bane and Talia, or give himself a chance to start fresh, personified by Selina and Blake. It's a highly personal movie, about one man's journey, but on a much bigger canvas that involves the city. But it's not about society the way TDK was. It's about Bruce, the way BB was.

Would I have liked to see more Gothamites involved in TDKR? Of course. The more the better, since it's such a rich world. But IMO we would have moved on to HBO miniseries land rather than feature film land. TDKR was never about Gotham as a society.

I feel the same way. As I said before, Rises goes around to make an internal exploration of Bruce's character, unlike TDK which the exploration is external.

I must admit that in the Dark Knight, my preoccupation was that if Batman could save Gotham from the Joker, since he attacked the city in a very personal way. Batman just couldn't punch the Joker to win this one, it was to save Gotham's soul.

In Rises is all about Bruce. I was way more worried about Bruce's fate (would he die?, would he survive?, would he move on?). I almost took Gotham safety for granted (it is Batman after all). The focus of the film is just different.

And yes, I would liked to hear more Gotham's voice, but I don't think it hinders the movie goals.

[TheBat812]

Desarana, I certainly wouldn't have been against trying to include it, there is a way they could have made it work, but I can see why they didn't, and I personally just don't think it was needed. If I hadn't care about Gotham at all, it would be a different story, but they made me care about Gotham over the course of the entire trilogy. They made me care, as Bruce cares, about the fate of Gotham, and I don't need to see the citizens reacting to things to make me care about them. Overall, they correctly chose to sacrifice those kinds of shots in this film to provide us with more direct characters who represent them. To me it was never an issue because as Anita pointed out, it's just not at the core of what the film is about.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd

Nolan tried to put too much into the film and then paid the price when he had to cut portions out to satisfy the 2:50 runtime of IMAX reels. With luck, there may someday be an extended edition.

Nolan definitely tried to put too much into the film, but even if Gotham needed more of a "voice", I feel the final product was still fine. It just sucks though that the next Batman film could have the chance of not having to go by an IMAX time limit and be better than TDKR because of what TDKR missed with its chances.

The downfall of IMAX, and really the biggest downfall of IMAX.

[Deserana]

Originally Posted by TheBat812

Desarana, I certainly wouldn't have been against trying to include it, there is a way they could have made it work, but I can see why they didn't, and I personally just don't think it was needed. If I hadn't care about Gotham at all, it would be a different story, but they made me care about Gotham over the course of the entire trilogy. They made me care, as Bruce cares, about the fate of Gotham, and I don't need to see the citizens reacting to things to make me care about them. Overall, they correctly chose to sacrifice those kinds of shots in this film to provide us with more direct characters who represent them. To me it was never an issue because as Anita pointed out, it's just not at the core of what the film is about.

But one of the main points at the end of the film was that Gotham will always need a Batman however we don't even know if Gotham had taken back this Batman. IMO it was vital that we saw Gotham change it's opinion of Batman in this film. Bruce rised but The Dark Knight didn't as far as I'm concerned (I'm aware that sounds cheesy ) based on what we see, which in the end is all that really matters, I could say that Gotham has the exact same viewpoint in the beginning than it does in the end. In BB and TDK we had people going from "you can't take the law in to your own hands" to "at least he's geting something done" to the city accepting him to people dressing up as him to maybe Gotham may need him forever to "look at how crazy Batman made Gotham" to "he should turn himself in" to a masked criminal outlaw. I can assume they accepted him with the statue but that doesn't mean the people did and we definitely didn't see it.

In TDKR I just can't shake the feeling that the city doesn't give a toss about Batman at all.

I think Batman's redemption and Bruce moving on should have been the two big big points of the film. I can see why this wouldn't bother people and when watching them back to back it probably doesn't stick out but on reflection to me it really does.

[Anita18]

Originally Posted by Raiden

And I still think that Talia was literally clueless at the end, when she was being chased by Batman inside his Batwing. Why is it that she did not have the detonator in her hand as the contingency plan, anyway? There was no way for her to get out of Gotham in time, so she could've blew everything sky high, instead of crashing the van and gave Batman all the time he needed (under 5 minute) to airlift that bomb out of Gotham and still live to tour the world with Selina. The whole ending just irks me because when you really think about it, the plan was executed poorly by criminals that were supposed to be smarter than everyone and always be one step ahead.

She DID have the detonator in her hand - it's just that Gordon was guarding the bomb in the back with the EMP thingie blocking the signal. The only way for her to blow up the city then was either wait for it to blow up (and hold off Batman trying to stop her, which we see her try to do), or go into the back to remove the EMP thingie so the detonator would work. And remember, Gordon is still there, and he probably still has a gun. She could try to still pretend to be Tate when she gets in the back, but once she removes the EMP thingie, the jig would be up. He definitely trusts Batman more than Tate, especially when he finds the first bomb truck (the one she helped mark) to be empty.

Originally Posted by Deserana

Bane wanted the people to take back their city. I'll buy that. Infact I love it in theory. But you have to show it. As that honest trailer showed there was no one. As in NO ONE. You saw no one turn to Bane, no one turn to Batman, no one rebel, no one do anything. Hiding in their houses is a lame excuse IMO as that would either A) make Bane's plan fail as the citizens do nothing or B) make Bruce's symbol fail as the people clearly haven't been inspired to do anything. I'm leaning toward B even more so as the people now know that Batman did what he did for the good of the city.

As convoluted as it would be I would have rather they had a plot around Selina in Gotham with the ordinary citizens (making them wish for Batman's return), a plot with the undercover police and Bruce in the pit plot. All of which building up to some sort of rebellion against Bane then Batman comes along and kicks start the whole thing. As it stands it is just Bruce and the police fighting for the city then various shots of Gothamites leaving their houses. Fine. That's good for a run of the mill comic-book film infact it's probably what you'd expect. I know I've sometimes criticised people for expecting far far too much for TDKR but in this aspect I did. After what has been created in the first two films it is hard for me to believe this Gotham would hide in their houses till all was clear. Did they do this with Joker's threat? No the city went absolutely crazy.

Yes they had the threat of a bomb but when the war started that's a signal to take back the city. And the stuff with the police showed under-the-radar work was easily doable.

Because he told them if they stayed, he would have run of the entire city and do whatever he wanted with them. So everybody tried to leave. Bane threatened that if anyone left, he would blow up the entire city. So everybody stayed put. Of course the people reacted differently - they were completely different threats!

And Jen and her folk were certainly celebrating their newfound run of the city, partyting in the mansions. Sure she didn't align herself with Bane in particular, but did they have to? Most people are opportunists and followers, not leaders who want a slice of the dictator pie.

Originally Posted by Deserana

But one of the main points at the end of the film was that Gotham will always need a Batman however we don't even know if Gotham had taken back this Batman. IMO it was vital that we saw Gotham change it's opinion of Batman in this film. Bruce rised but The Dark Knight didn't as far as I'm concerned (I'm aware that sounds cheesy ) based on what we see, which in the end is all that really matters, I could say that Gotham has the exact same viewpoint in the beginning than it does in the end. In BB and TDK we had people going from "you can't take the law in to your own hands" to "at least he's geting something done" to the city accepting him to people dressing up as him to maybe Gotham may need him forever to "look at how crazy Batman made Gotham" to "he should turn himself in" to a masked criminal outlaw. I can assume they accepted him with the statue but that doesn't mean the people did and we definitely didn't see it.

In TDKR I just can't shake the feeling that the city doesn't give a toss about Batman at all.

I think Batman's redemption and Bruce moving on should have been the two big big points of the film. I can see why this wouldn't bother people and when watching them back to back it probably doesn't stick out but on reflection to me it really does.

Nolan never says if Batman is what the city really, actually needs. He never says unequivocally that Batman is "right." He gives arguments on both sides in all the movies, but he never plants his flag on one side or another.

Batman is mostly something that Bruce needs to live through, within the canvas of Gotham, to grow as a person. Not about what the city itself needs. So I find that Gotham as a whole not giving a toss about Batman to be pretty consistent.

[Anno_Domini]

Didn't it seem like Gotham City finally "took back" Batman with making a statue of him at the end? The hero that Gotham definitely deserved and Gotham had finally acknowledged this.

[Anita18]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Didn't it seem like Gotham City finally "took back" Batman with making a statue of him at the end? The hero that Gotham definitely deserved and Gotham had finally acknowledged this.

Someone could say that it was the officials in Gotham who felt the need to erect a statue in the name of guy who sacrificed his life for the city.

[solidsnake86]

Originally Posted by Raiden

I don't really subscribe to the theory that they did all that just to make Bruce suffer. If it was, then Talia would've revealed her identity and plan to Bruce when he was at his most venerable, and not when he almost foil their master plan. Oh, and not to have any kind of monitor on the man that supposed to be the center of their attention while he was in the Pit made no sense whatsoever.

Only one person ever escaped the pit. That was hubris on their part. Especially when Bane explicitly says "impossible." It makes a lot of sense. Just because you choose not to see it doesn't mean it was poorly done.

A lot of the arguments I see are people ignoring what was presented in the film. I get that people don't like the film and thats fine. But when people start making up their own ideas of what the characters should do, I have to roll my eyes.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Anita18

Someone could say that it was the officials in Gotham who felt the need to erect a statue in the name of guy who sacrificed his life for the city.

If that's the case...where's the statue of District Attorney Finch!

[Anita18]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

If that's the case...where's the statue of District Attorney Finch!

He didn't singlehandedly drag an atom bomb out of the city limits.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Anita18

He didn't singlehandedly drag an atom bomb out of the city limits.

Well...well...Finch would have if he was alive!!!!

FINCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He's the ****ing real Dark Knight

[Doc Samson]

For all the small issues I have with this film, watching it again in the comfort of my home reaffirms what I've always thought. Over time, it's going to get a lot better with age IMO.

We can nitpick to death, but I say, take BB & TDK out of the equation. How many other superhero movies compare to TDKR in that sense? We're comparing Nolan to himself and his previous work, instead of the landscape of the comic book film in general. When I look at it from that regard, it's still a masterful piece of work. I love it more already...

[Happy Jack]

Originally Posted by Doc Samson

We can nitpick to death, but I say, take BB & TDK out of the equation. How many other superhero movies compare to TDKR in that sense? We're comparing Nolan to himself and his previous work, instead of the landscape of the comic book film in general. When I look at it from that regard, it's still a masterful piece of work. I love it more already...

I think it's very important to view it on its own merits out of the shadow of hype from TDK or any other high profile superhero film. At the same time, the story in the film is dependent on the previous installments so it is kind of not possible to look at it in a complete vacuum. I don't think a person could get the movie at all unless they had seen the other two.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Doc Samson

For all the small issues I have with this film, watching it again in the comfort of my home reaffirms what I've always thought. Over time, it's going to get a lot better with age IMO.

We can nitpick to death, but I say, take BB & TDK out of the equation. How many other superhero movies compare to TDKR in that sense? We're comparing Nolan to himself and his previous work, instead of the landscape of the comic book film in general. When I look at it from that regard, it's still a masterful piece of work. I love it more already...

I don't even think about it getting better with age.

It is already better even with some nitpicks here and there. It's still a highly-praised film and while not as much as The Dark Knight, it can be viewed as receiving as much praise or even more than Batman Begins.

[Doc Samson]

Originally Posted by Happy Jack

I think it's very important to view it on its own merits out of the shadow of hype from TDK or any other high profile superhero film. At the same time, the story in the film is dependent on the previous installments so it is kind of not possible to look at it in a complete vacuum. I don't think a person could get the movie at all unless they had seen the other two.

Absolutely, the other two are needed to fully understand and appreciate it. But I also don't think enough people, around here specifically, compare it as a standalone film to other superhero movies outside of the trilogy. It's grandiose, big spectacle entertainment on a scale rarely seen. I think over time, it will get that recognition.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

I don't even think about it getting better with age.

It is already better even with some nitpicks here and there. It's still a highly-praised film and while not as much as The Dark Knight, it can be viewed as receiving as much praise or even more than Batman Begins.

I agree. To me, it's far and away a better overall film than BB, but that's my particular preference. Going outside of the trilogy, I'm hard-pressed to see many that rival it in the history of the genre.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by Doc Samson

For all the small issues I have with this film, watching it again in the comfort of my home reaffirms what I've always thought. Over time, it's going to get a lot better with age IMO.

We can nitpick to death, but I say, take BB & TDK out of the equation. How many other superhero movies compare to TDKR in that sense? We're comparing Nolan to himself and his previous work, instead of the landscape of the comic book film in general. When I look at it from that regard, it's still a masterful piece of work. I love it more already...

I feel exactly the same. I honestly feel pretty spoiled with just how good this series was. It's been an entire Bat-rennaissance period. Christopher Nolan changed the way I think about superhero movies...3 times in a row.

And my need to compare to the other films keeps diminishing. It's going to be a mood thing for me more and more as time goes on. The films are all so different that I'll have to be in a particular mood for each of them. In fact, each time I finish watching TDKR, I feel that urge to go back and watch BB and relive the whole story again. Just like every time I see that Joker card turned over, I want to launch right into TDK. The films are cyclical like that.

[TheDarkKnight08]

I personally consider this one the best in the trilogy. It was great to see Bruce out there, struggling emotionally and physically. It's something comic book movies lack in general. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and I'm no one to take that away, but is it really that insulting and bad that people actually loved this movie?

Nolan's films were never meant to be literal translations of the source material. Hell, not even Marvel's films do that. They're meant to present, IMHO, certain hypothetical aspects of the Batman mythology. How would Bruce Wayne become Batman? How would someone as chaotic as the Joker affect a modern metropolitan city? How would Bruce Wayne finally end his journey as Batman, that didn't lead with him dying or forever in misery?

I think the harder you look for those direct allusions to the comics, the harder it'll be to enjoy them, and I understand the frustration. But, to me, these films did so much more than the first X-Men and Spider-Man movies did. They turned the character into something more than just a superhero in a costume. Nolan turned him into a symbol. I'm not a Nolanite, but, dammit, I have respect for him and what he's done.

So, I can't really agree with the OP. TDKR made it perfect for me.

[Doc Samson]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

And my need to compare to the other films keeps diminishing. It's going to be a mood thing for me more and more as time goes on. The films are all so different that I'll have to be in a particular mood for each of them. In fact, each time I finish watching TDKR, I feel that urge to go back and watch BB and relive the whole story again. Just like every time I see that Joker card turned over, I want to launch right into TDK. The films are cyclical like that.

For sure. It's definitely a mood thing. They're probably the most unified yet different group of films I can think of, at least in terms of those trilogies that are marginally good, that is.

Originally Posted by TheDarkKnight08

Nolan's films were never meant to be literal translations of the source material. Hell, not even Marvel's films do that. They're meant to present, IMHO, certain hypothetical aspects of the Batman mythology. How would Bruce Wayne become Batman? How would someone as chaotic as the Joker affect a modern metropolitan city? How would Bruce Wayne finally end his journey as Batman, that didn't lead with him dying or forever in misery?

Which is why its so good to me. Nolan distilled each character down to their base qualities, then rebuilt them through his own personal prism. It was what I always wanted from a film interpretation, to be close to the original comic motivations and personality, and at the same time it was nothing I could've expected beforehand visually & thematically.

[TheBat812]

Just got done watching this movie on Bluray. I really think this is my favorite out of the three. Sure it has a few issues from being incredibly compact with so much story to tell, but it's just an amazing ending to this story, and it's so grandiose and epic. It ended and I finally felt the pang of "Oh ****, this really is the end of Nolan's run." I really want to just watch it again, haha.

[TheDarkKnight08]

Originally Posted by TheBat812

Just got done watching this movie on Bluray. I really think this is my favorite out of the three. Sure it has a few issues from being incredibly compact with so much story to tell, but it's just an amazing ending to this story, and it's so grandiose and epic. It ended and I finally felt the pang of "Oh ****, this really is the end of Nolan's run." I really want to just watch it again, haha.

Same here. Bruce's last shot is so damn gratifying to me. As a long-time fan, to finally see him happy made me shed a tear the first time I saw it. This was my favorite superhero growing up, reading comics, watching the Burton movies, then growing up on Nolan's into adulthood. It was a bittersweet feeling seeing it end.

[redfirebird2008]

Originally Posted by Doc Samson

Absolutely, the other two are needed to fully understand and appreciate it. But I also don't think enough people, around here specifically, compare it as a standalone film to other superhero movies outside of the trilogy. It's grandiose, big spectacle entertainment on a scale rarely seen. I think over time, it will get that recognition.



I agree. To me, it's far and away a better overall film than BB, but that's my particular preference. Going outside of the trilogy, I'm hard-pressed to see many that rival it in the history of the genre.

That's because the genre is (a) still pretty new at only 34 years old and (b) pretty weak overall. By default of the genre sucking for the most part, Nolan's three movies are definitely in the top 10 of the genre and I'm sure many would put all three in the top 5. I've got Begins at #1, TDKR at #6, and TDK at #7.

[jmc]

Originally Posted by Doc Samson

Absolutely, the other two are needed to fully understand and appreciate it. But I also don't think enough people, around here specifically, compare it as a standalone film to other superhero movies outside of the trilogy. It's grandiose, big spectacle entertainment on a scale rarely seen. I think over time, it will get that recognition.

The issue you bring up here is probably where a lot of the problems people like me have with the film - how its stand on its own. Films one and two are almost two completely different movie universes linked together by the underlying thread of getting Gotham City back on its feet. The beauty is film two doesn't rely on film one to tell its story, it could easily have been the launching point for a franchise as opposed to a follow up film. TDK works because it's its own thing entirely and is more of a compliment to Begins than a direct sequel. The downfall of Rises is that it relies too heavily on film one for its narrative, not only making it a weak stand alone movie, but creating this weird situation where it's more of a sequel to the first movie than what film two is. And the biggest issue is it doesn't even complete the task the Bruce sets out to do in getting Gotham back on its feet, if anything its worse off by the end of film three. TDK is now the odd child out in this whole story, it's not Bruce Wayne story it's Harvey Dent's, there are no links to the LoS or the events of film one, and it's the one that's treated far more realistic than the other two. It baffles me how instead of following that same path Nolan chose to unnecessarily drag back in elements that didn't need revisiting as the foundations for film three.