In hindsight what changes would you do - Part 1

[georgec]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

I have a hunch both Selina and Bruce used the clean slate program when they left Gotham City.

True. I meant more during the film, it was a plot device but for some reason felt a little out of place.

Not a complaint, per se, but I guess if there's one thing I would "improve" it would be the introduction of the clean slate.

[Brain Damage]

The clean slate gets me thinking just how many classic movie tropes played BIG parts in TDKR.

The McGuffin - The Clean Slate
The Femme Fatale (specifically the type the hero falls for and is betrayed by) - Talia
The Ticking Clock Finale- The bomb

Maybe BB and TDK had similar tropes as well, but if that's the case, they certainly felt fresher and less generic than those in TDKR.

[BatLobsterRises]

TDKR to me felt like more of a celebration of genre films in general. It had just a touch more pulp to it than the previous ones.

[Anno_Domini]

Every film's gonna have classic tropes one way or the other. You could call Batman's gauntlets in TDK a Chekhov's gun.

[MAKAVELI25]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

I LOVE the character of Blake myself. I even wish he had more screentime if TDKR was longer.

Good ole' Anno. Atleast we always know where you'll stand

[Anno_Domini]

Yah, shame on me for not hating Blake just like you

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Brain Damage

The clean slate gets me thinking just how many classic movie tropes played BIG parts in TDKR.

The McGuffin - The Clean Slate
The Femme Fatale (specifically the type the hero falls for and is betrayed by) - Talia
The Ticking Clock Finale- The bomb

Maybe BB and TDK had similar tropes as well, but if that's the case, they certainly felt fresher and less generic than those in TDKR.

Well said.

[Anno_Domini]

Of all the cons the film has, such as not giving the city much focus on either returns of Batman or of Bane's siege, of certain characters not receiving more screen time or even of script/editing issues...the pros definitely outweigh the negatives. Just got done watching TDKR once again earlier today and it's just one of those films that I can watch over and over(and there are only a few of those). Really pleased to say that I still love the film so much.

[Shikamaru]

In hindsight, I would add a scene where Batman kicks a corrupt hot dog vendor repeatedly in the nuts.

Let's see if anyone gets the reference.

[Anno_Domini]

Well ****, I don't, lol.

[Gotham's Knight]

That would be perfect. We could bring back the Falafel guy but this time he's selling hot dogs. And he's selling overpriced hot dogs in the middle of No Man's Land, creating a monopoly on food. Then, when Batman returns, he takes him out first to topple the power structure.

[Shikamaru]

I can't post videos with uncensored language so I'll just post a link to the video:

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

[Dude]

The only thing I'd consider changing would be the 8 year sabbatical and that is because it cheapens the Jokers "we are destined to do this forever" line, which was so iconic.

[TheBat812]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

TDKR to me felt like more of a celebration of genre films in general. It had just a touch more pulp to it than the previous ones.

Each film in the trilogy is an exploration of the action genre in a different way. To think that TDKR utilized more convention or tropes is just wrong. Whether or not it worked for an individual or not is subjective.

That article posted debunking 10 of the most common 'issues' with TDKR is a great one.

[Anno_Domini]

The only true complaint I feel TDKR should receive is the fact that the nuclear bomb doesn't even act like a nuclear bomb in the end and nothing of radiation is discussed. The other complaints are quickly downsized when reading that article regarding the top ten most common issues.

[Visualiza]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

The only true complaint I feel TDKR should receive is the fact that the nuclear bomb doesn't even act like a nuclear bomb in the end and nothing of radiation is discussed. The other complaints are quickly downsized when reading that article regarding the top ten most common issues.

Really? That editorial was about as insipid as the criticisms it attempted to deflect, but really, for as much as you engage in debate on these boards, that sort of sentiment makes you seem far too enamored with this film to be objective. There isn't a single film, let alone piece of fiction, in the history of mankind that is so infallible as to only have one legitimate criticism.

[BatLobsterRises]

The editorial wasn't insipid, it pretty much mirrors the thoughts of most people who loved the movie. Sean Gerber is a smart dude and a Bat-fan with a good head on his shoulders.

[Visualiza]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

The editorial wasn't insipid, it pretty much mirrors the thoughts of most people who loved the movie. Sean Gerber is a smart dude and a Bat-fan with a good head on his shoulders.

Which is exactly part of the problem - it's framed from the POV of a defensive supporter; there isn't much, if any, impartiality present in it. In most cases, the logic applied was no better than the criticisms themselves.

I'm sure that Sean Gerber is a great dude; however, that's neither here nor there.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by Visualiza

Which is exactly part of the problem - it's framed from the POV of a defensive supporter; there isn't much, if any, impartiality present in it. In most cases, the logic applied was no better than the criticisms themselves.

I disagree, but fair enough. I thought the arguments were cogent and well presented, regardless of his opinion. Which, he was completely within his rights to express as it was an op-ed.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Visualiza

Really? That editorial was about as insipid as the criticisms it attempted to deflect, but really, for as much as you engage in debate on these boards, that sort of sentiment makes you seem far too enamored with this film to be objective. There isn't a single film, let alone piece of fiction, in the history of mankind that is so infallible as to only have one legitimate criticism.

Really really. I have zero problems with those ten issues that are also easily debunked as actual issues and the whole nuclear bomb part is my biggest complaint of them all(which you don't see in that article because there's no way to dispute that one).

Besides my issues of TDKR needing more time as well as using Coleman Reese which I have personally mentioned for months, my biggest complaint will always be the fact that a nuclear bomb doesn't feel like a nuclear bomb.

http://whatculture.com/film/10-quest...ight-rises.php

10. Alfred would nevah give up on Bruce - actually he has left Bruce in the comics.

9. Talia nullified Bane - Bane was the face behind everything that happened up until the very end when Talia made her presence known; to say she nullified him would be saying that the viewer should just not care that Bane was the face of everything what was going on as well as being the threat that Broke the Bat. And Bane also had the respect of his men, even having one of his soldiers totally fine that Bane told him to stay in the soon-to-be fiery ball of an airplane.

As well as the fact that he even disobeyed the one order he received.

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

And at least Bane wasn't a paid actor who only showed up on video

8. All Gotham cops were foolishly trapped underground - Aside from Gordon not being the first Commissioner to send all of his forces into one area(Loeb in Batman Begins), Gordon did try to get Foley to search for Bane and he never tried or didn't even cared to do such. And personally, I feel like Gordon was trying to do what he can when he knows that Batman is gone once again.

7. The case of the disappearing limp - Either A.) Bruce continued to wear his knee brace the rest of the film, which shouldn't have been a focus anymore, or B.) His leg was fixed either by Conti's character or in a more "fantastical" or "mystical" level of him climbing out of the Pit a new person.

6. Bruce would never do that to Alfred - Wanting it to be seen that he's indeed dead was the better option of making Gotham City move on and realize that Batman has always been that face of hope that the city needed. A time with Alfred believing Bruce is actually dead is minimal to what that sacrifice meant for a city as a whole.

5. John Blake outsmarted Jim Gordon - A man who went through the same pain knew that Bruce Wayne is Batman over another man who didn't want to know and didn't care to know. Shocking

Besides, Gordon was always known to be someone who tried to play dumb in that aspect of who Batman really was. It wasn't something Gordon wanted to know.

4. Bruce Wayne never wanted copycats - He surely didn't want copycats who has no idea what they're doing shooting guns. Robin John Blake doesn't fit that category and can take up the mantle respectably. Sure, he needs training, but his arc is similar to Bruce's in BB so much that Blake can be the next guy to truly be Batman again and not have to wear hockey pads.

3. Bruce would not have quit over Rachel's death - And he didn't quit being Batman over Rachel's death. He only quit being Bruce.

2. How did Bruce get back to Gotham - The first sentence in that part of the article is so damn right on point: "Dramatic effect be damned.". It's like people want dramatic effects, but then they don't when they have to end up thinking for themselves. I'm glad Nolan made the correct call into showing the audience Bruce leaving and then his next scene is him meeting Selina Kyle. Her reaction fit alongside the audience.

1. Bruce Wayne would never retire - Officially retire, most likely no. But it did fit with Nolan's whole agenda with Bruce from the beginning in creating a symbol. He was never going to do this his entire life, but the legend of Batman became a legacy.

[Clerk]

I think we're discussing the WhatCulture article correct?

I read that and the ArkhamForum post. They all make convincing arguments and Ill definitely need to rewatch TDKR with those in mind. If all of that was explained more in depth on screen, I'd be "I dig this interpretation." May not dig Batman quitting, but the narrative reasoning is understandable.

But as some screenwriter in the WC comments said, I pay to see what's presented on camera.

I feel as if small details like Bruce getting back to Gotham or Bane not removing the leg brace are fine to gloss over- it's a movie, real life rules are broken. However, the bits about "oh he could've contacted Alfred" or "there's a line where Alfred says 'you never left Batman' ignore the 30 minutes of Rachel talk"- I feel as if those are narrative issues and character development points that really needed to be more fleshed out.

Ive said this earlier, but had Alfred/Batman talked more about the "Your victory has defeated" you instead of "Rachel," I think more people, including myself, would be more accepting. Same kinda goes for the point on the Alfred crying scene- I viewed it as "Bruce you jackass," and the WC guy kinda filled in the blanks of "Maybe he thought the momentary pain was worth the cafe smile." I personally think filling in the blanks for heavy narratives isn't the best in filmmaking. There's a difference between ambiguity and "why did he say X but now he's doing Y?" Just my two cents, but I really think the character motives shouldve been explained more in depth.

[Anno_Domini]

Of course we pay to see what's presented on camera...but what exactly isn't presented on camera that the article speaks of?

"Batman wasn't needed anymore, we won." should tell you right there that that's the reason Batman is gone.

All the other talk about Rachel, though? It was meant to push further the idea that this film is about Bruce Wayne first and foremost. He never moved on with a life after Rachel's death. That's why the "Rachel talk" is so important.

[Visualiza]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

I disagree, but fair enough. I thought the arguments were cogent and well presented, regardless of his opinion. Which, he was completely within his rights to express as it was an op-ed.

Hey, no doubt; I'm not disputing as much, but if the point was to debate and debunk criticism that stems from contrarian opinions, then pandering to a like-minded audience is not the way to go about it. The end result is little more than preaching to the choir, so I can't imagine anyone who isn't already in agreement with him taking this seriously.

[Clerk]

Well yes and no- I think some and some arent in that article. For example, the Bruce/Alfred arguments- from what I remember, most of the lines are heavily focused on Rachel, so one would think it's just all about Rachel. The implication after TDK and a few lines say "victory has defeated you." You have to really focus on those few lines to really fill in the character motives there.

The same goes for Bruce faking his death after Alfred went "oh it would kill me if you died." The WC article discusses off screen stuff, like "oh well Bruce could've thought X." But on screen, it's easy to go "wait WHY DID YOU DO THIS TO HIM." It's not as if Bruce turned to the camera as he was driving off and said "the temporary pain Alfred will endure will be forgiven when I smile in the cafe." There is some filling in the blanks with character motives there, which I really dont dig personally.

Sorry if my argument is worded terribly, Im taking a break from math finals so I can't really think in terms of ENGLISH.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Clerk

Well yes and no- I think some and some arent in that article. For example, the Bruce/Alfred arguments- from what I remember, most of the lines are heavily focused on Rachel, so one would think it's just all about Rachel. The implication after TDK and a few lines say "victory has defeated you." You have to really focus on those few lines to really fill in the character motives there.

The same goes for Bruce faking his death after Alfred went "oh it would kill me if you died." The WC article discusses off screen stuff, like "oh well Bruce could've thought X." But on screen, it's easy to go "wait WHY DID YOU DO THIS TO HIM." It's not as if Bruce turned to the camera as he was driving off and said "the temporary pain Alfred will endure will be forgiven when I smile in the cafe." There is some filling in the blanks with character motives there, which I really dont dig personally.

Sorry if my argument is worded terribly, Im taking a break from math finals so I can't really think in terms of ENGLISH.

It's not worded terribly at all man, I can read it just fine

And I feel that the idea of how Bruce Wayne quit being Batman are noticeable, such as Bruce Wayne quit being Bruce Wayne because of Rachel. The latter was the most important though as the movie dealt heavily with the idea that Bruce has to move on. Him quitting being Batman is of course mentioned, but not heavily and I feel that that was the point.

And it indeed brings up questions on what Bruce could have done, and I think what he could've done as well, but showing Gotham that Batman is dead means more than Bruce letting Alfred know what was going to happen, especially when Alfred was gone. Alfred getting his own hope back in the last seconds makes it all worth it, imo.