The Dark Knight Rises - letdown or not?

[RustyCage]

Originally Posted by BlueLightning

The facade of Bruce Wayne is the trick. However, I see why it's one of those things that bugs some people. But I kind of like it.

I like it too, but he wasn't basing it on very much.

Not that it's terribly hard to 2 + 2 who Batman is if you were really trying to figure it out. The coincidence of his return from "death" and Batman's arrival being the major sore thumb.

[shauner111]

Originally Posted by Spider-Vader

I loved TDKR, I don't see anything wrong with it. People were expecting another story similar to TDK (which IS a better movie & what a Batman movie should be), but it's not the story that Nolan wanted to tell.

I loved the story that Nolan did tell, it was a fantastic end to the series. & I loved the movie's Bane, I hope he becomes as iconic as TDK's Joker.

I figured they would go with Riddler or Strange for the dark knight sequel. With Riddler, i guess an Arkham Asylum type of storyline would have fit. And with Strange, i assumed it would be the Prey storyline. The latter was what i wanted early on and i imagine most people who disliked the movie thought Nolan would go in one of those directions too. But i loved what we got.

It's fair to say that if Heath had lived he would have had a small role in Arkham and the movie would take place a year later or so. Nolan would have probably teased the younger Dick Grayson version of Robin at the end, setting up the next director to carry the franchise forward. I truly believe this would have happened.

This is what im getting out of the haters. They envisioned something in their minds beforehand so they set themselves up for major dissapointment. It's their own bloody faults, not the movies. Nolan didnt owe the fans anything.

If those people got what they wanted, or if Nolan went in another direction with Heath still alive, everybody would get a more comic book-esque franchise with BB/TDK as the basis of Batmans early years. That sounds fantastic so i understand wanting it but people perhaps get too attached to an idea in their heads.

Im reading a lot of these "letdown" posts and a good chunk of them feel like the poster wanted something VERY specific leading into the movie.

[Kevin Smith]

Originally Posted by BlueLightning

I don't think he needed to see Batman. The point that is made is that the children at the orphanage made stories about Bruce Wayne "Billionaire Orphan", legends of him, implying that they toyed with the idea of Bruce being Batman at one point. You know in the vein of, "Wouldn't it be cool if this guy was Batman?". But Blake recognized this as the truth the moment he saw himself behind Bruce's facade.

Yeah...ya know that's pretty retarded sounding, right? Even for a movie about a guy dressed up as a bat. "Realism"

Maybe it's me, but that's just too damn thin for a franchise that analyzes and over analyzes everything about Batman.

[Kevin Smith]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Only a vertebrae was protruding out that someone popped back in and he had to stay in a single position for who knows how long until he was able to walk again(I THINK it had to be at least a month). It's not great medical science, but neither was a man that should be in extreme pain being able to walk around out of a hospital bed for about half a day's time.

I probably get flack for always bringing up previous mistakes made from Nolan during the TDK trilogy, but it's fact that if Nolan messed up one way, then he's not going to become correct when it comes to another situation in the next film.

Yeah, but this is kind of a big ****in deal. It was like no research was put into how and how long it takes for a broken back to heal. A quick google search could have done that. TDKR just threw out all credibility as far as I'm concerned. The nuke scene is still ridiculous.

I buy this before I buy the ending to TDKR:

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

However, the best Batman to dispose of a bomb is still this guy:

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Kevin Smith

Yeah, but this is kind of a big ****in deal. It was like no research was put into how and how long it takes for a broken back to heal. A quick google search could have done that. TDKR just threw out all credibility as far as I'm concerned. The nuke scene is still ridiculous.

Again, I would say the "throwing out all credibility" was when Two-Face is thrown out of the window of how an actual person would be with so much pain and would probably not even last less than a hour if they didn't take medication or ask for skin grafts. But then again, people will explain Two-Face in the comics, and then I can say...didn't Bruce Wayne take only six months to heal in Knightfall? And Bane left him a paraplegic. Bruce is not in TDKR.

[Kevin Smith]

Hmm.

You know, and I'm not knocking on the "reality grounded" takes, because I find them enjoyable as long as they are still recognizable as their comic book counterparts (and by "comic book counterparts" I don't by any means mean silly or hokey), but the more "realistic" they try to make them, the less "realistic" they become if you know what I mean. It's funny.

[Anno_Domini]

Indeed.

I simply take it for what they are. As Nolan is trying to go for a realistic, relatable take of his Batman, he had to take certain turns with this trilogy when he took care of villains like Two-Face or the whole "Breaking of the Bat" plot.

[Kevin Smith]

Yeah. The more I think about it Two Face is a tough one to do.

[BlueLightning]

Originally Posted by Kevin Smith

Yeah...ya know that's pretty retarded sounding, right? Even for a movie about a guy dressed up as a bat. "Realism"

Maybe it's me, but that's just too damn thin for a franchise that analyzes and over analyzes everything about Batman.

What can I say? There is something about the concept of a child that figures out things that adults can't that is fascinating. You could find it thin, but personally, I find it a very rich.

As for the rest of the film, you can deconstruct everything to strip the object from the message: "An invincible guy who can fly and shoot lasers from his eyes", "A rich man who dresses up like Dracula to punch the mentally ill", "A kid who gets bitten by a radioactive spider and gains his abilities". After all, this is comic books. Nolan's approach was never aimed to strict realism: microwave water vaporizers, reconstruction of bullets to find finger prints, an atomic bomb... (suddenly that last one somehow seems more plausible).

The point is that Nolan's world is something akin to augmented reality, it's plausible and reminds us of the real thing to touch important themes: fear, chaos, pain, mortality, heroism, sacrifice. Maybe in some places its rough around the edges, but there is little that I don't like from the trilogy.

[Human Torch]

Smith has a point on how little Batman there is.I watched just the Batman scenes yesterday,and it took less than a half hour.It didn't really seem that noticable originally.But I think the re-play value goes down a bit because of it.

[Gotham's Knight]

Originally Posted by Human Torch

Smith has a point on how little Batman there is.I watched just the Batman scenes yesterday,and it took less than a half hour.It didn't really seem that noticable originally.But I think the re-play value goes down a bit because of it.

Batman's in there a lot. I think you're referring to the cape and cowl, not Batman as a character.

[The Guard]

]What can I say? There is something about the concept of a child that figures out things that adults can't that is fascinating. You could find it thin, but personally, I find it a very rich.

There's nothing wrong with the concept. Its the execution that was lacking.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Human Torch

Smith has a point on how little Batman there is.I watched just the Batman scenes yesterday,and it took less than a half hour.It didn't really seem that noticable originally.But I think the re-play value goes down a bit because of it.

Depends on what kind of movie someone wants to see. The story itself called for little Batman to be shown and that's what I appreciate the most about TDKR.

[Rorschach2012]

Not a letdown, I was let down by a few little things though. I wanted to see Scarecrow and Ra's Al Ghul's traditional comic appearances in this film, it was the perfect opportunity for that. And I wish John Blake would've been Dick Grayson

[Kevin Smith]

Originally Posted by BlueLightning

What can I say? There is something about the concept of a child that figures out things that adults can't that is fascinating. You could find it thin, but personally, I find it a very rich.

The point is that Nolan's world is something akin to augmented reality, it's plausible and reminds us of the real thing to touch important themes: fear, chaos, pain, mortality, heroism, sacrifice. Maybe in some places its rough around the edges, but there is little that I don't like from the trilogy.

It's when it starts to violate its own ********, its own set of rules that it loses credibility and stops holding water as a movie for me. TDKR did that. I'd maybe be willing to accept the whole Blakeman Begins knows Bruce is Batman by a "look in his eye" if they at least called him Dick Grayson, but that whole scene is laughable to me. And Bruce is just like "okay...oh wow so you figured it out. Because I looked sad. Hmm. Well okay then let's work together". He just gives it to him.

[Kevin Smith]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Depends on what kind of movie someone wants to see. The story itself called for little Batman to be shown and that's what I appreciate the most about TDKR.

That's the thing I hated the most about it. I go to a Batman movie to see Batman, Bruce dressed up in a bat suit doing cool **** (not at the expense of story, but I highly doubt if they advertised a Batman movie as "Bruce sips cocktails in a mansion for 2 hours" people would show up to see it). This was 3 hours of Nolan's stance on politics wrapped in "A Tale of Two Cities" with the cast of Inception and Prestige with a special appearance by Batman. If you got up to go piss or grab popcorn at any part Batman (BATMAN) showed up, I feel bad for you, because by the time you got back to your seat you missed over half of his appearances in the whole movie.

The other thing is, due to how little Batman is actually in it (and plenty of other reasons, namely that it drags and is hard to watch) the rewatchability factor of it is very low. It is for me anyway. Begins, TDK, and the 89 Batman I can pop in any time and be consistently entertained. Hell, I'll even back up a scene or two I liked it so much just to watch it again with those. But TDKR I want to skip some parts. It's a drag to watch...I don't feel like I've "escaped" and lost track of time like with the other films, I'm looking at my watch going "God, how long is this damn thing?" and the only "escape" I'm thinking of is from the movie itself. Seriously, I was so unengaged by some of it I was sitting there asking myself questions like "so Bane can't take the mask off at all or else he is in extreme pain...okay...so how the hell does he eat and drink?", things I shouldn't be asking myself about the movie. Certainly not while watching it at least. The movie just violates its own ******** in so many ways. And it's almost always because of a departure from the comics. Catwoman was the best thing. Don't get me wrong, I didn't hate it, I was just a little disappointed.

And seriously. Why couldn't they have brought Ra's back? That would have been epic. Showing him in a dream....what a cop out. And waste, IMO.

[RustyCage]

Originally Posted by Gotham's Knight

Batman's in there a lot. I think you're referring to the cape and cowl, not Batman as a character.

In many ways, Bruce Wayne was written more like Batman than Batman was in Rises. The way he appears to Selina, the obsession, etc.

Batman in full suit was written more like an afterthought by comparison. There was no meaningful dialogue or personality (apart from some initial rage at being unable to hurt Bane), it was mostly business talk.

Bruce Wayne was Batman in this film. Outside of the typical sense.

[Kevin Smith]

Originally Posted by Human Torch

Smith has a point on how little Batman there is.I watched just the Batman scenes yesterday,and it took less than a half hour.It didn't really seem that noticable originally.But I think the re-play value goes down a bit because of it.

That's exactly it.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Kevin Smith

That's the thing I hated the most about it. I go to a Batman movie to see Batman

After Burton's/Schumacher's films, I would say I would have always wanted to go see a Batman film because of Batman, but I've been amazed since Batman Begins that I became more intrigued on Bruce Wayne and not Batman and Nolan even gave Wayne a story besides just being this facade to the real face of Batman too.

Originally Posted by RustyCage

In many ways, Bruce Wayne was written more like Batman than Batman was in Rises. The way he appears to Selina, the obsession, etc.

Batman in full suit was written more like an afterthought by comparison. There was no meaningful dialogue or personality (apart from some initial rage at being unable to hurt Bane), it was mostly business talk.

Bruce Wayne was Batman in this film. Outside of the typical sense.

Never really thought of it that way, but I wouldn't call Batman an afterthought, only that Wayne was the main focus of this film as Nolan wanted to make Bruce realize he needed to move on.

[Kevin Smith]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

After Burton's/Schumacher's films, I would say I would have always wanted to go see a Batman film because of Batman, but I've been amazed since Batman Begins that I became more intrigued on Bruce Wayne and not Batman and Nolan even gave Wayne a story besides just being this facade to the real face of Batman too.

I did enjoy Bale's performance. I do believe he is the best Bruce Wayne to date. And yes, with enough of the other Batman films themselves out there, seeing Bruce Wayne in the spotlight more is a little forgivable. But as someone pointed out, he's still Batman, just stripped of his costume here. It's not like he's doing the playboy facade the whole movie, he's doing things Batman would be doing. So I digress a bit.

[shauner111]

Originally Posted by Kevin Smith

That's the thing I hated the most about it. I go to a Batman movie to see Batman, Bruce dressed up in a bat suit doing cool **** (not at the expense of story, but I highly doubt if they advertised a Batman movie as "Bruce sips cocktails in a mansion for 2 hours" people would show up to see it). This was 3 hours of Nolan's stance on politics wrapped in "A Tale of Two Cities" with the cast of Inception and Prestige with a special appearance by Batman. If you got up to go piss or grab popcorn at any part Batman (BATMAN) showed up, I feel bad for you, because by the time you got back to your seat you missed over half of his appearances in the whole movie.

The other thing is, due to how little Batman is actually in it (and plenty of other reasons, namely that it drags and is hard to watch) the rewatchability factor of it is very low. It is for me anyway. Begins, TDK, and the 89 Batman I can pop in any time and be consistently entertained. Hell, I'll even back up a scene or two I liked it so much just to watch it again with those. But TDKR I want to skip some parts. It's a drag to watch...I don't feel like I've "escaped" and lost track of time like with the other films, I'm looking at my watch going "God, how long is this damn thing?" and the only "escape" I'm thinking of is from the movie itself. Seriously, I was so unengaged by some of it I was sitting there asking myself questions like "so Bane can't take the mask off at all or else he is in extreme pain...okay...so how the hell does he eat and drink?", things I shouldn't be asking myself about the movie. Certainly not while watching it at least. The movie just violates its own ******** in so many ways. And it's almost always because of a departure from the comics. Catwoman was the best thing. Don't get me wrong, I didn't hate it, I was just a little disappointed.

And seriously. Why couldn't they have brought Ra's back? That would have been epic. Showing him in a dream....what a cop out. And waste, IMO.

Interesting perspective but not one that i can relate to. I found the film more compelling and wished it was closer to 3 hours actually. I've seen plenty of movies that drag and this didn't because of the action sequences (for me at least).

Ra's died in Batman Begins, end of story. You can't bring back a character who died in an explosion unless it's a more fantastical story that's being told from the beginning. The Nolan movies were never that. In Burtons world or the reboot im sure it would be a no-brainer if Ras was in a scene like that. Bringing him back to life or saying that he escaped in the nick of time would be reasonable.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Kevin Smith

I did enjoy Bale's performance. I do believe he is the best Bruce Wayne to date. And yes, with enough of the other Batman films themselves out there, seeing Bruce Wayne in the spotlight more is a little forgivable. But as someone pointed out, he's still Batman, just stripped of his costume here. It's not like he's doing the playboy facade the whole movie, he's doing things Batman would be doing. So I digress a bit.

That's just part of the charm of TDKR, imo, as Bruce, while having "retired", he can't let go of this monster and is chomping his teeth just waiting for Batman to be needed again as he isn't fearful of dying or anything when he returns as Batman.

[BlueLightning]

Originally Posted by Kevin Smith

I'd maybe be willing to accept the whole Blakeman Begins knows Bruce is Batman by a "look in his eye" if they at least called him Dick Grayson, but that whole scene is laughable to me. And Bruce is just like "okay...oh wow so you figured it out. Because I looked sad. Hmm. Well okay then let's work together". He just gives it to him.

You better stick to your guns there, because I doubt a change of name would make this fact different for you, me or anyone else. It is what it is, an amalgamation of the concept of Robin that fits the themes of the film. If you don't like the concept or the execution is fine. But speaking for myself, I freaking loved it.

Originally Posted by Kevin Smith

This was 3 hours of Nolan's stance on politics wrapped in "A Tale of Two Cities" with the cast of Inception and Prestige with a special appearance by Batman. If you got up to go piss or grab popcorn at any part Batman (BATMAN) showed up, I feel bad for you, because by the time you got back to your seat you missed over half of his appearances in the whole movie.

I fail to see the political message of the film. This aren't political films, nor Rises, or its predecessors. The themes are others, but I see could some people could believe this.

As for the cinematic experience, that doesn't bother me. I learned to watch my movies prepared, so no bathroom or going for popcorn for me. If I miss something of any movie, specially one I look forward to see, I would lose my mind.

Originally Posted by Kevin Smith

The other thing is, due to how little Batman is actually in it (and plenty of other reasons, namely that it drags and is hard to watch) the rewatchability factor of it is very low. It is for me anyway. Begins, TDK, and the 89 Batman I can pop in any time and be consistently entertained. Hell, I'll even back up a scene or two I liked it so much just to watch it again with those. But TDKR I want to skip some parts. It's a drag to watch...I don't feel like I've "escaped" and lost track of time like with the other films, I'm looking at my watch going "God, how long is this damn thing?" and the only "escape" I'm thinking of is from the movie itself. Seriously, I was so unengaged by some of it I was sitting there asking myself questions like "so Bane can't take the mask off at all or else he is in extreme pain...okay...so how the hell does he eat and drink?", things I shouldn't be asking myself about the movie. Certainly not while watching it at least. The movie just violates its own ******** in so many ways. And it's almost always because of a departure from the comics. Catwoman was the best thing. Don't get me wrong, I didn't hate it, I was just a little disappointed.

And seriously. Why couldn't they have brought Ra's back? That would have been epic. Showing him in a dream....what a cop out. And waste, IMO.

If you didn't like the movie it's fine. It is only natural that you find yourself for something different. But there are others who find the film to be a truly rich and entertaining experience. Just different perspectives. As a side note, I enjoy asking questions from my movies, but it isn't really hard to imagine how Bane eats and drinks.

If you could elaborate a little in how this movie violates its own rules it would be great.

And seriously, bringing Ra's back would be a real rule violation.

[Human Torch]

At that point,I wish they just went for it.Bring Ra's back.

I guess what I find most disappointing was after all the talk of Batman's "One Rule" in TDK,he still manages to kill the truck driver and Talia.

And,yeah,I'd rather it not end with Bruce passing it on to "Blakeman", but whatever.

In the end I still say I wasn't "letdown",since there was a lot I liked,but I think it's clearly the weakest of the three.

[Gotham's Knight]

Originally Posted by RustyCage

In many ways, Bruce Wayne was written more like Batman than Batman was in Rises. The way he appears to Selina, the obsession, etc.

Batman in full suit was written more like an afterthought by comparison. There was no meaningful dialogue or personality (apart from some initial rage at being unable to hurt Bane), it was mostly business talk.

Bruce Wayne was Batman in this film. Outside of the typical sense.

Exactly (except I disagree about Batman being an afterthought). People seem to ignore Batman moments as Bruce like:

-The tracking device in the pearls
-Analyzing the crime scene of the safe
-Tracking the identity of the thief (Selina, of course)
-Tracking Selina to her home

And others throughout the movie.