The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > Batman > The Dark Knight Rises

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-12-2013, 10:35 PM   #201
Anno_Domini
Banned User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,997
Default Re: In hindsight what changes would you do - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shikamaru View Post
Actually, inexperience means both. Bruce is not experienced enough mentally throughout BB and TDK constantly grows into being more and more like the Batman we know mentally. Also, he still screws up in many moments in BB and TDK. He fails to save his home from being burned down, gets knocked unconscious by the Joker, etc. His skills also double/triple in that sonar scene at the end. You see the growth of Batman physically, mentally, and emotionally throughout the first 2 films. Or at least I see it.
So if it meant both, shouldn't we have seen mistakes then? I would have hoped so, but we really didn't. Bruce is at his game from the beginning as Batman when tailing Judge Faden, when taking out Carmine's men at the docks, Carmine himself, stopping those muggers who were after Rachel.

There was no way he could even save his house as he was being overtaken by LoS. That's not inexperience, that's being outnumbered. And he was knocked unconscious by falling off his Bat-pod; not by Joker's doing, because Joker couldn't even knock Bats out.

Quote:
We hate because we love .
Exactly, and that's perfectly fine. I love because I love, lol.

Anno_Domini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2013, 10:50 PM   #202
JackWhite
Third Man
 
JackWhite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,588
Default Re: In hindsight what changes would you do - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shikamaru View Post
When he fell off the Batpod. It was right before the reveal that Gordon was alive.
Batman skidding and falling off the bat-pod is due to Batman at the last second not wanting to kill the Joker. The Joker didn't leave Batman unconscious, it was Batman's own fault because of his no kill rule.

JackWhite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2013, 12:07 AM   #203
BatLobsterRises
Lobsterized
 
BatLobsterRises's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: NJ
Posts: 11,648
Default Re: In hindsight what changes would you do - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shikamaru View Post
Sir, I want to congratulate you on the excellence of this post . You are right about TDK's ending. I remember saying when the film first came out that even if there was no sequel, I wouldn't mind due to the epic ending.

Regarding Batman's sacrifice being for nothing, first of all, I don't think the alternative with the Dent Act that just wipes out organized crime made any more sense than what you fear would've happened especially since not only is the act, in my opinion, a complete deus ex machina act that makes no sense but also because they had to drop an entire theme developed and set up in the first two movies due to it which is not how good and consistent storytelling works. Second, I don't think Batman would sacrifice his reputation for nothing. Dent gave the city hope to fight off against the crime that was poisoning their city for decades. They no longer needed Batman for that but Batman would still operate in the shadows taking out the rest of the freaks before they would rise to accomplish something as big as what the Joker accomplished. Gotham's citizens wouldn't be aware of this, of course. I trust overall that Nolan would've found a way to make it work even if he said he couldn't, because I believe that Nolan's heart was not in this movie and that he did not give it his best. I think this is mainly due to Heath's death. I'm not talking mainly from a story point of view but from an emotional point of view. Someone from WB/the production crew (can't remember which) has said that Heath's death had such an impact on Nolan that he was surprised Nolan even came back for a third film.

One thing that really bugs me about TDKR is the wasted potential I believe it had. I'll admit that it is superior to the other 3rd comic book movies - Spider-Man 3, X-Men 3, Superman 3, etc. - but at the same time, it is also a far bigger dissapointment than them due to the sheer amount of wasted potential IMO. Given all the things set up in BB & TDK and the foundations TDKR had to build upon, it had the potential to be so much better than what we got IMO. Whenever I bring this up though, a lot of people just dismiss me by saying that I expected it to be just as good as TDK and that I dislike it because it's not. I find that to be an incredibly stupid claim and just a way to dismiss criticism not only because I stated many times that TDKR didn't need to be on TDK's level to still be a great film but also because I stated many times that I don't even find TDKR to be on BB's level.
Thanks, I'm glad you appreciated where I was coming from with my post.

I will agree that the Dent Act was something of a Dues Ex Machina, but in my opinion it was a necessary dues ex machina. The problem for me is the that idea of Gotham having a dead heroic DA is a bit abstract. It's a hard pill to swallow that Gotham would automatically improve just because he was dead now. Did Gotham improve after their "first family", the Waynes' were murdered? Nope, it just slid further into corruption. So I think the idea of Dent's legacy actually affecting the law in Gotham to the point where it's approaching a police state was an interesting way of tipping the scales and taking an abstract idea/hope and giving it some definition. I was legitimately worried that about the Dent legacy being handled in a wishy washy way, so although the Dent Act is very on the nose and convenient, I still like it because for me it was a good way of continuing Dent's legacy in the story even after his death (since he couldn't be back in the third part to continue the "freaks" story as perhaps planned once upon a time prior to TDK).

But the thing is, regardless- we're only arguing about stuff that didn't happen on screen. Even if he had been Batman for the 8 years, quietly putting out fires and stopping freaks before they rise to power (I don't really know how he'd do that all completely unnoticed...he certainly can't go riding around on any of his vehicles anymore to do that), it's still just stuff that is backstory. And if Batman had been able to stop all freaks in Gotham completely unnoticed, without alerting the GCPD and the citizens of Gotham thinking that they're living in peace time...then I think that's just as convenient as the Dent Act. Then again, these larger than life characters like Batman and Joker are so extreme that they are almost walking D.E.Ms. Maybe that's exactly why I'm okay with the Dent Act. It's a D.E.M., but it only exists because of an extreme choice made by Batman. It's something he indadvertedly wills into existence, and I guess I like the idea of Batman's actions and decisions having so much power that they actually transform the fabric of the city. It's a different expression of his omnipotence I suppose. Sure they name the act after Dent, but Bruce still tells Gordon "We won", after all.

If we were gonna get a story about Batman doing his job while being hunted, there would've been drama there to exploit...how does Gordon deal with it, how does Gotham react etc. And therefore, saying "that happened", while skipping over it would make us feel like we missed out on a big chunk of the story. My point here is that, even if that all happened as part of the TDKR backstory, would that have even constituted TDKR following up on the rise of the freaks plot thread? To me it'd only be paying lip service to the idea while pushing the story in a new direction. So it's the same end result ultimately.

Every story has contrivances. I think this is more a matter of you and others having issues with the story they chose to tell than anything else problematic with the film. I know you disagree, but that is consistently what I've observed these discussions tending to come down to. If you had gotten more of the story you were hoping for or one that you were more pleased with, I bet you'd go a lot easier on all the contrivances that allowed it to exist.

BatLobsterRises is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2013, 12:16 AM   #204
Anno_Domini
Banned User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,997
Default Re: In hindsight what changes would you do - Part 1

BatLobster, I think Gotham only got better because of the Dent Act and not because of him dying made the city better. He did end up sending 500+ away during the events of TDK afterall. The wheels were churning already then.

Anno_Domini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2013, 12:21 AM   #205
BatLobsterRises
Lobsterized
 
BatLobsterRises's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: NJ
Posts: 11,648
Default Re: In hindsight what changes would you do - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
BatLobster, I think Gotham only got better because of the Dent Act and not because of him dying made the city better. He did end up sending 500+ away during the events of TDK afterall. The wheels were churning already then.
You're absolutely right, and I did neglect that in my post.

But I think there were two aspects of the TDK ending. Keeping those prisoners locked up, and giving Gotham it's "true hero". The Dent Act was a good way to show that the city had changed as a result of his legacy, while also throwing away the key for the mobsters he'd already prosecuted (or was still in the process of prosecuting technically).

And also, remember how the mayor warned Dent that the head guys would make bail, but Dent said the mid level guys couldn't afford it and would have to cut deals that included jail time? "Think of all you could do with 18 months of clean streets". I think the idea was to pounce and take advantage while the mob was weakened...because the head guys could eventually regroup and rebuild. So really the Dent Act is how Mayor Garcia ends up capitalizing on the existing situation AND Dent's death to put the final nail in the coffin for the mob. Idk, it's convenient, but it actually flows pretty nicely out of TDK for me.


Last edited by BatLobsterRises; 04-13-2013 at 12:34 AM.
BatLobsterRises is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2013, 03:45 AM   #206
Anno_Domini
Banned User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,997
Default Re: In hindsight what changes would you do - Part 1

Exactly

As I mentioned, the wheels were churning back even in TDK and the streets of Gotham were slowly becoming safer, albeit after Joker was taken down obviously since Batman took him down after Dent was able to send the mid level guys packing.

Anno_Domini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2013, 02:58 PM   #207
Clerk
You Look Plump Today
 
Clerk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 14,480
Default Re: In hindsight what changes would you do - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises View Post
Every story has contrivances. I think this is more a matter of you and others having issues with the story they chose to tell than anything else problematic with the film. I know you disagree, but that is consistently what I've observed these discussions tending to come down to. If you had gotten more of the story you were hoping for or one that you were more pleased with, I bet you'd go a lot easier on all the contrivances that allowed it to exist.
This is spot on to the god-tier degree. If we wanted to, we could sit here and discuss some stuff in TDK/BB that more or less would've been nitpicked had this been TDKR- like Joker suddenly rolling into a bunch of buses and no one noticing, or no one getting dehydrated by a dehydration machine, etc. And I say this as someone who really hated TDKR, but my God this post.

Clerk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2013, 03:09 PM   #208
milost
Banned User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,005
Default Re: In hindsight what changes would you do - Part 1

That's the thing though, it's got to work for you.


Batman Begins? The Dark Knight? I totally buy what's going on. I was thrilled and enjoyed with what was playing out. There was stuff in there that just pulled me in. You can't really beat an on screen origin story of Batman, seeing that for the first time. Batman vs. The Joker never gets old either.


TDKR? Not really. I don't think it's being hypocritical or nitpicking, for some people it just doesn't work. You don't "feel it" whether it's the direction they went, what they didn't do, plot holes, nitpicks, inconsistencies, or what have you. I've given the movie plenty of chances and tried to open up a bit, especially around the blu ray release, but I just can't.


It simply doesn't work for some folks. Are they being hypocritical? I don't think so. The more I watch, the more faults I see, the more I want to nitpick the hell out of it.


Joker buses? Hospital bombs? I was totally invested in it. I think there was one moment in 2008 where I was taken out (and that was after the party where the Joker just gets away, I was waiting for the moment in the car). Other than that? No problems.


Expectations for TDKR were higher, so of course it would be judged with a more critical eye. It was, after all, advertised as the EPIC CONCLUSION TO THE DARK KNIGHT LEGEND! It was controversial the night it debuted.

What's a person to do if they're not invested in it and they don't buy into or agree with what's going on? You can't force something you're not digging onto yourself. I'm not comparing Batman and Robin to TDKR, in terms of quality they're worlds apart, but should I try and find merit and greatness in Batman and Robin if I'm not invested with what it offers me just because "hey, it's Batman"?

milost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2013, 06:28 PM   #209
Anno_Domini
Banned User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,997
Default Re: In hindsight what changes would you do - Part 1

Indeed it does have to work for you. It worked for me, and I'm glad it did. If I had an ounce of concern as you do milost, or other posters on here, then I'd probably feel the same way. I saw it as a clean transition with Harvey Dent and the Dent Act. Had Ledger been alive, TDKR could have been a very different animal, but I see how Nolan chose the route he chose and for me, it definitely worked.

Anno_Domini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2013, 11:45 PM   #210
BatLobsterRises
Lobsterized
 
BatLobsterRises's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: NJ
Posts: 11,648
Default Re: In hindsight what changes would you do - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clerk View Post
This is spot on to the god-tier degree. If we wanted to, we could sit here and discuss some stuff in TDK/BB that more or less would've been nitpicked had this been TDKR- like Joker suddenly rolling into a bunch of buses and no one noticing, or no one getting dehydrated by a dehydration machine, etc. And I say this as someone who really hated TDKR, but my God this post.
You're a fair man Clerk, and far too kind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by milost View Post
That's the thing though, it's got to work for you.


Batman Begins? The Dark Knight? I totally buy what's going on. I was thrilled and enjoyed with what was playing out. There was stuff in there that just pulled me in. You can't really beat an on screen origin story of Batman, seeing that for the first time. Batman vs. The Joker never gets old either.


TDKR? Not really. I don't think it's being hypocritical or nitpicking, for some people it just doesn't work. You don't "feel it" whether it's the direction they went, what they didn't do, plot holes, nitpicks, inconsistencies, or what have you. I've given the movie plenty of chances and tried to open up a bit, especially around the blu ray release, but I just can't.


It simply doesn't work for some folks. Are they being hypocritical? I don't think so. The more I watch, the more faults I see, the more I want to nitpick the hell out of it.


Joker buses? Hospital bombs? I was totally invested in it. I think there was one moment in 2008 where I was taken out (and that was after the party where the Joker just gets away, I was waiting for the moment in the car). Other than that? No problems.


Expectations for TDKR were higher, so of course it would be judged with a more critical eye. It was, after all, advertised as the EPIC CONCLUSION TO THE DARK KNIGHT LEGEND! It was controversial the night it debuted.
Yeah of course milost, nobody is saying you're wrong or hypocritical for not liking it though, that's the thing.

I just find that a lot of the arguments against TDKR are trying to pin down the film in such a way like- "This is wrong because of X, Y and Z and that is why the film fails" but IMO I haven't found any of these arguments to actually "nail" the film in a truly objective manner. And maybe it helps the "coping" process to dig deep and attempt to identify what it is you didn't like it, but you just have to realize that for us who did love the film it's as if you're conducting an autopsy on something that's alive and well. A lot of the things that are criticized about this movie are the very things that others of us love about it. I wouldn't be arguing in defense of the film if I wasn't "feeling it" or wasn't completely emotionally invested in it. I'm sure you know what it's like to have someone lay into something that you love and think is quality work. If you're passionate about it, you can't help but want to jump in and defend it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by milost View Post
What's a person to do if they're not invested in it and they don't buy into or agree with what's going on? You can't force something you're not digging onto yourself. I'm not comparing Batman and Robin to TDKR, in terms of quality they're worlds apart, but should I try and find merit and greatness in Batman and Robin if I'm not invested with what it offers me just because "hey, it's Batman"?
Well, at this point you certainly can't force yourself to like it, that's no question, you've given it enough chances and made up your mind about it. But I do think if years from now, you're ever able to separate the film from all your baggage and disappointment with it, you might be able to take a step back and appreciate it on its own terms and for what it was trying to accomplish with the story. Granted, that's probably still kind of a longshot for you, but maybe it'll happen for others. Time is a funny thing.


Last edited by BatLobsterRises; 04-13-2013 at 11:50 PM.
BatLobsterRises is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2013, 01:00 AM   #211
FeedOnATreeFrog
(A Metal Gear reference)
 
FeedOnATreeFrog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 5,813
Default Re: In hindsight what changes would you do - Part 1

In general, there'd be a lot less internet arguing if people simply said:

"This didn't work for me. I didn't like it " (subjective)

vs

"This doesn't work. This is bad." (objective)

FeedOnATreeFrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2013, 08:20 AM   #212
batfreakforever
A real fan
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,048
Default Re: In hindsight what changes would you do - Part 1

Nolan's films are aimed more at the comic book fans. They delt with the inner workings of Bruce waynes mind and world. Is that what us fans want? Well yeah. How many comic book moments and story lines the film-makers draw upon? Too many great ones. These guys knew what they were doing to a tee. We all want more batman-time but it's Bruce wayne's story after all. We want to see him win. Setting yourself up for life to fight crime works for the comics but for a trilogy with an beginning,middle & ending you have to have an end game/goal. Batman is the best thing for gotham but it has to get darkest before the dawn. They got the themes down good. Even people that I know who are not comic book fans but had a little bit of info from the other movies and shows said that if Batman were to end up with someone it would be Catwoman and if anybody would take over the Bat-mantle it would be Robin. True to that.

batfreakforever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2013, 08:54 AM   #213
The Navigator
Side-Kick
 
The Navigator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 15,744
Default Re: In hindsight what changes would you do - Part 1

My two cents--

Only two things I would change was the verbal diarrhea and the timing of the Talia "reveal." Maybe have her be waiting in the armory as Bane's goons break in and just looking down on Bruce contemptuously, with a fuller explanation towards the end.

Oh, and Catwoman's mask seemed like a really dumb justification when it's in the same movie as Batman's and even-less-practical-or-realistic Bane's. Just make it like the comic's/cartoon/video games' depictions. (But that's a minor quibble)

Aside from that,

The Navigator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2013, 01:07 PM   #214
Anno_Domini
Banned User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,997
Default Re: In hindsight what changes would you do - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by batfreakforever View Post
Nolan's films are aimed more at the comic book fans.
No CBM are aimed more for the CB fans. Well, maybe Watchmen was because the GA didn't even appreciate it, but to say Nolan's trilogy was aimed more at the CB fans would contradict the high ratings Nolan's trilogy has from the GA. Example, look at RT's audience ratings for the three films: 90%, 96%, 92%.

Anno_Domini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2013, 01:10 PM   #215
Shikamaru
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 7,743
Default Re: In hindsight what changes would you do - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
So if it meant both, shouldn't we have seen mistakes then? I would have hoped so, but we really didn't. Bruce is at his game from the beginning as Batman when tailing Judge Faden, when taking out Carmine's men at the docks, Carmine himself, stopping those muggers who were after Rachel.
We did see mistakes being made. How many people could he not save throughout TDK? Also, as I keep saying over and over again, making mistakes is just a part of the young Batman. Growing is another part. Both are very important. And we see Batman grow throughout BB and TDK very well. The Batman from the end of TDK is already more like the Batman we know compared to the Batman at the end of BB, both physically and mentally.

Quote:
There was no way he could even save his house as he was being overtaken by LoS. That's not inexperience, that's being outnumbered. And he was knocked unconscious by falling off his Bat-pod; not by Joker's doing, because Joker couldn't even knock Bats out.
Fair enough point about the Wayne Manor incident.

I still count the Batpod incident though. Batman has had times when he hesitated killing the Joker but nothing to the extent that he was knocked unconscious cause of it (unless Joker or someone else did it while he caught off guard). The Batman as we know him would have also stopped the Batpod in time or would've avoided the Joker without ending up unconscious. This is not a criticism towards TDK btw. I'm just commenting on the development of Batman.

Quote:
Exactly, and that's perfectly fine. I love because I love, lol.

__________________
How I rate movies:
http://forums.superherohype.com/show...5&postcount=14
Shikamaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2013, 01:51 PM   #216
Anno_Domini
Banned User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,997
Default Re: In hindsight what changes would you do - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shikamaru View Post
We did see mistakes being made. How many people could he not save throughout TDK? Also, as I keep saying over and over again, making mistakes is just a part of the young Batman. Growing is another part. Both are very important. And we see Batman grow throughout BB and TDK very well. The Batman from the end of TDK is already more like the Batman we know compared to the Batman at the end of BB, both physically and mentally.
Not being able to save lives isn't really a mistake from an inexperienced Batman though. If that's the case, would it be shown that Arkham Asylum and Arkham City's Batman is inexperienced who makes mistakes as well since people did die that he could not have saved?

Quote:
I still count the Batpod incident though. Batman has had times when he hesitated killing the Joker but nothing to the extent that he was knocked unconscious cause of it (unless Joker or someone else did it while he caught off guard). The Batman as we know him would have also stopped the Batpod in time or would've avoided the Joker without ending up unconscious. This is not a criticism towards TDK btw. I'm just commenting on the development of Batman.
Joker and Batman were both playing chicken and Batman just couldn't finish it as Batman doesn't just kill, thus he had to turn the Bat-pod quickly and it turned over, knocking Bats down. It's nothing to do with Joker getting the upperhand and knocking him out himself.

Anno_Domini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2013, 01:53 PM   #217
Llama_Shepherd
Banned User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 9,713
Default Re: In hindsight what changes would you do - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anno_Domini View Post
No CBM are aimed more for the CB fans. Well, maybe Watchmen was because the GA didn't even appreciate it, but to say Nolan's trilogy was aimed more at the CB fans would contradict the high ratings Nolan's trilogy has from the GA. Example, look at RT's audience ratings for the three films: 90%, 96%, 92%.
I think everybody wanted the same thing (fanboys and audience), and it just so happens that a good story is a good story, whether the words on a page with a picture, or spoken on film.

Hopefully the trend continues.

Llama_Shepherd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2013, 02:08 PM   #218
Shikamaru
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 7,743
Default Re: In hindsight what changes would you do - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises View Post
Thanks, I'm glad you appreciated where I was coming from with my post.

I will agree that the Dent Act was something of a Dues Ex Machina, but in my opinion it was a necessary dues ex machina. The problem for me is the that idea of Gotham having a dead heroic DA is a bit abstract. It's a hard pill to swallow that Gotham would automatically improve just because he was dead now. Did Gotham improve after their "first family", the Waynes' were murdered? Nope, it just slid further into corruption. So I think the idea of Dent's legacy actually affecting the law in Gotham to the point where it's approaching a police state was an interesting way of tipping the scales and taking an abstract idea/hope and giving it some definition. I was legitimately worried that about the Dent legacy being handled in a wishy washy way, so although the Dent Act is very on the nose and convenient, I still like it because for me it was a good way of continuing Dent's legacy in the story even after his death (since he couldn't be back in the third part to continue the "freaks" story as perhaps planned once upon a time prior to TDK).

But the thing is, regardless- we're only arguing about stuff that didn't happen on screen. Even if he had been Batman for the 8 years, quietly putting out fires and stopping freaks before they rise to power (I don't really know how he'd do that all completely unnoticed...he certainly can't go riding around on any of his vehicles anymore to do that), it's still just stuff that is backstory. And if Batman had been able to stop all freaks in Gotham completely unnoticed, without alerting the GCPD and the citizens of Gotham thinking that they're living in peace time...then I think that's just as convenient as the Dent Act. Then again, these larger than life characters like Batman and Joker are so extreme that they are almost walking D.E.Ms. Maybe that's exactly why I'm okay with the Dent Act. It's a D.E.M., but it only exists because of an extreme choice made by Batman. It's something he indadvertedly wills into existence, and I guess I like the idea of Batman's actions and decisions having so much power that they actually transform the fabric of the city. It's a different expression of his omnipotence I suppose. Sure they name the act after Dent, but Bruce still tells Gordon "We won", after all.

If we were gonna get a story about Batman doing his job while being hunted, there would've been drama there to exploit...how does Gordon deal with it, how does Gotham react etc. And therefore, saying "that happened", while skipping over it would make us feel like we missed out on a big chunk of the story. My point here is that, even if that all happened as part of the TDKR backstory, would that have even constituted TDKR following up on the rise of the freaks plot thread? To me it'd only be paying lip service to the idea while pushing the story in a new direction. So it's the same end result ultimately.

Every story has contrivances. I think this is more a matter of you and others having issues with the story they chose to tell than anything else problematic with the film. I know you disagree, but that is consistently what I've observed these discussions tending to come down to. If you had gotten more of the story you were hoping for or one that you were more pleased with, I bet you'd go a lot easier on all the contrivances that allowed it to exist.
When I said Batman would stop freaks without Gotham noticing, what I meant was that Batman would stop them without Gotham knowing that it was Batman who stopped them but Gordon because Gotham would think Batman is a bad guy. I also didn't mean that Gotham wouldn't be aware of the other freaks. By a freak not reaching Joker status, what I mean is that no freak would get the entire city evacuated again like Joker did. I'm also not saying this is the best way to do it. You asked me of alternatives and this was the best one that I could come up with (and I still think it's more believable than the Dent Act) but I also said that I trust Nolan would've found a way to make it work.

Funny thing you mention that about how TDKR would deal with the manhunt. Back in '08, Goyer said that the next Batman movie would've been about Gordon and the GCPD hunting down Batman and would show how Gordon has to deal with that. Yes, there is drama there to explore but no one says that we needed to skip over all that drama by having an 8 year time gap. You seem to be under the belief that there just had to be that time gap (which is fine if you are). You seem to be asking how you could've had most of the important aspects from TDKR like the 8 year time gap and Bruce quitting still be there while still having the important stuff set up from BB and TDK still in there. My answer to that would be to not worry about that and to just tell a story that naturally flows with the last film.

The problem with the Dent Act is that it does not fit the politics from BB and TDK. All 3 films have contrivances but the ones in BB & TDK were for the most part just standard movie contrivances that went against the science and logic of our world but that you had to give a pass to because they were small things every movie has. Examples off the top of my head are the microwave machine that is strong enough to vaporize the water in steel pipes but not the water in your body, Batman driving a vehicle of his own company on the streets of Gotham with no one suspecting anything, the cops losing a guy that is driving a tank on the road, no one getting killed during that chase scene in BB, the Joker robbing that bank in the opening scene in broad daylight with no problem, the Joker planting bombs on the boats without them being found, and the list goes on. The Dent Act is a different type of contrivance and one that does not work in this universe. One thing that was very realistic about BB and TDK (mostly about TDK) was their politics. Everything you saw in BB and TDK in terms of how Gotham's politics and policies worked were very accurate to how a real life's city's politics and policies would function minus them letting a vigilante operate in their city. When you establish such ultra-realistic politics in your universe, you destroy all chances of having an act like the Dent Act work in your universe.

Also, I don't believe I wouldn't criticize the Dent Act even if I enjoyed TDKR more. I found out about the Dent Act before the film even came out and just the concept and premise of it alone didn't sit well with me.

There have always been things Nolan did in his franchise that I did not like due to personal preferences. Examples off the top of my head are Scarecrow being underused, Scarecrow not being the main villain of BB & Ra's not being left for a sequel, lack of scenes showing Bruce getting detective training as well as not enough scenes of him doing detective work, killing off someone as important to the Batman mythos as Two-Face, having Rachel Dawes as opposed to a character like Vicki Vale or Julie Madison from the comics, hindering any chances of this Batman being part of a shared universe, etc. These are all things that I would've preferred to see but it doesn't take away from the movie because I know (or at least I think I know) the difference between personal preferences and actual flaws in the story. Now I do admit that there are some things in TDKR that I did personally did not like that they weren't there but I still counted as flaws the film has but all of them are examples of TDKR going against the status quo in the first 2 films for no excuse whatsoever. Examples are Gotham lacking a voice, the main villain(s) lacking a philosophy to counter Batman's, and dropping the theme of insanity (both BB and TDK were about the relationship between fear and insanity while TDKR is only about fear). These things have been consistent and the norm throughout the franchise until TDKR so while they don't take away from the movie if you look at it from a stand-alone point of view, they do from a franchise point of view.

__________________
How I rate movies:
http://forums.superherohype.com/show...5&postcount=14
Shikamaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2013, 06:26 PM   #219
Ryan
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,307
Default Re: In hindsight what changes would you do - Part 1

I guess in hindsight, I wish they would have had TDKR less "epic". The Joker said it best "someone blows up a truck of soldiers, no one panics, but you kill one lil ole mayor and everyone loses their minds". I just prefer parties being crashed and people being held at knife point to be more griping and intense then cities being held under military siege with a big nuclear bomb.

Ryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2013, 06:36 PM   #220
Anno_Domini
Banned User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,997
Default Re: In hindsight what changes would you do - Part 1

But that's the Joker's idea of how things work though. To go that route with another villain would just take away of how Nolan used Joker and his views of the world.

Anno_Domini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2013, 06:40 PM   #221
Ryan
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,307
Default Re: In hindsight what changes would you do - Part 1

Didn't say it had to be the same style as the joker, I'm saying I prefer stuff on a smaller scale.

Ryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2013, 06:51 PM   #222
Anno_Domini
Banned User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,997
Default Re: In hindsight what changes would you do - Part 1

Fair enough. Took your first post as you wanted it to feel like what Joker meant.

Anno_Domini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2013, 07:12 PM   #223
BatLobsterRises
Lobsterized
 
BatLobsterRises's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: NJ
Posts: 11,648
Default Re: In hindsight what changes would you do - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shikamaru View Post
Funny thing you mention that about how TDKR would deal with the manhunt. Back in '08, Goyer said that the next Batman movie would've been about Gordon and the GCPD hunting down Batman and would show how Gordon has to deal with that.
Shika, this is like the third time you've brought this up and each time I've asked you to provide a link to back up this claim, because I'm relatively certain that Goyer said no such thing. If you could prove this, it'd give your argument that TDKR as "Plan B" a lot more weight. But I really think you're mistaken or misinformed here. As someone who ravenously read every interview from all the members of the creative team, I feel at least 90% sure that Goyer did not spill any beans about what the third movie was gonna be post-TDK.

BatLobsterRises is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2013, 07:59 PM   #224
JackWhite
Third Man
 
JackWhite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,588
Default Re: In hindsight what changes would you do - Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
I guess in hindsight, I wish they would have had TDKR less "epic". The Joker said it best "someone blows up a truck of soldiers, no one panics, but you kill one lil ole mayor and everyone loses their minds". I just prefer parties being crashed and people being held at knife point to be more griping and intense then cities being held under military siege with a big nuclear bomb.
I know how you feel, but I think we'd both feel better about Bane's siege had they shown the actual revolution in Gotham.

JackWhite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2013, 09:44 PM   #225
batfreakforever
A real fan
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,048
Default Re: In hindsight what changes would you do - Part 1

I know alot of fans hate the Blake character but do you guys think you would still need Blake or a Blake type character to help finish Bruce's arc or not one at all? This is still if you would have Bruce not need Batman at the end of the film.

batfreakforever is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:05 AM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"



Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com is a property of Mandatory Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2018 All Rights Reserved.