Skyfall vs. TDKR

[MagnarTheGreat]

Originally Posted by Fudgie

Yep. It made him look weak. Bane was her lapdog willing to make himself toast just for her. Pale imitation of the hardcore Bane of the comic who comes to Gotham like a boss, takes it over, and breaks the Bat cos he wants it. Not for any woman.

Bane does a certain way around women, though.

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

That was written by Bane's co-creator.

No Man's Land, Bane works for Lex Luthor, for a price.

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

Bane of the Demon, Bane is brought into the League by Talia, who he become smitten with (in his own demented way) after their fight/encounter. Talia did come to loathe Bane pretty quickly in the comics because he had problems accurately following directions and lacked finesse. He took Ubu's place after bargaining his way back into Ra's good graces.

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

And then there's the more recent Bane/Scandal Savage stuff in Secret Six that shows another side to Bane.

It's totally fair to think these stories suck, 'cause there's a lot of Batman stories that aren't great, particularly the past 10 years. But it does reflect a pretty aggregate characterization of the guy. I guess there's Bane fans, and then there's another group of simply Knightfall fans.

Anyway, my next post will be Skyfall related.

[Fudgie]

Originally Posted by J.Howlett

It still is, from a different point of view. Why do you think Alfred kept pushing Bruce to find another way to help the city. The problems of the city need some one like Bruce Wayne, just as the city needed Thomas Wayne and what he did for the city back then.

He didn't crime fight. He built a cheap, public transportation system. That's a way to help the city, even if it's small.

Why do you think Wayne donates his home as a home for orphans? It's a call back to the philanthropic ways of his father.

Every city in the whole damn world needs charitable stuff like that. There's orphans, and homeless people, and need for good public transport services everywhere.

What ya don't have in every city is crime rates through the roof, rotten corrupt judges on the bench, rotten corrupt guys in the D.A. office, on the Police force, everywhere ya look like there was in Begins.

Big diff.

[Fudgie]

Originally Posted by MagnarTheGreat

Bane does a certain way around women, though.

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

That was written by Bane's co-creator.

No Man's Land, Bane works for Lex Luthor, for a price.

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

Bane of the Demon, Bane is brought into the League by Talia, who he become smitten with (in his own demented way) after their fight/encounter. Talia did come to loathe Bane pretty quickly in the comics because he had problems accurately following directions and lacked finesse. He took Ubu's place after bargaining his way back into Ra's good graces.

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

And then there's the more recent Bane/Scandal Savage stuff in Secret Six that shows another side to Bane.

It's totally fair to think these stories suck, 'cause there's a lot of Batman stories that aren't great, particularly the past 10 years. But it does reflect a pretty aggregate characterization of the guy. I guess there's Bane fans, and then there's another group of simply Knightfall fans.

Anyway, my next post will be Skyfall related.

Yup but all those stories came after Bane already made his big play for Gotham, took it over, broke the Bat, then got his ass whupped and was defeated.

Bane in Rises began and ended as an LOS boy working for Talia.

[MagnarTheGreat]

A lot of people complained about Silva in Skyfall. I heard on the Slashfilm podcast one say that his plans weren't big and broad enough and he was essentially too petty. Other complaints elsewhere were that they thought more of the film should have revolved around him. . I was generally fine with Silva too as I was with Bane. To me, a villain is a means to develop the protagonist and shouldn't overshadow them, which is why I don't get all that hung up on this stuff, I think.

[BatLobsterRises]

^ Very smooth topic save lol

[J.Howlett]

Originally Posted by Fudgie

Every city in the whole damn world needs charitable stuff like that. There's orphans, and homeless people, and need for good public transport services everywhere.

What ya don't have in every city is crime rates through the roof, rotten corrupt judges on the bench, rotten corrupt guys in the D.A. office, on the Police force, everywhere ya look like there was in Begins.

Big diff.

Does every city have the homeless going underground looking for work, then ultimately joining an army?

[Tony Stark]

I don't think think the two movies are really comparable, but I will say this....don't get me wrong because I think that TDKR is a very good movie, but it didn't live up to the hype, and I don't know that any movie could have lived up to that much hype, it wasn't the best Nolan batman film, and IMO, it's not as good as Batman '89.

I think that an argument could be made for Skyfall being the best Bond yet. Certainly it's a top 5 Bond, and in my mind Daniel Craig is the only Bond actor to have rose to the challenge of filling Sean Connery's shoes. Craig faced just as much criticism as George Lazenby did, the difference being that Lazenby is a terrible actor and Craig is one of the top actors in Hollywood.

Now having said that, I think it's somewhat silly to compare these two films. They are different in purpose and content. Yes Batman is somwhat James Bondish in that it's all about his gadgets. Nolan even created Bruce Wayne his own "Q" in the character of Fox. So there are some parallels, but I don't think you can really compare these two movies, other than to say both were very good films.

[Fudgie]

Originally Posted by J.Howlett

Does every city have the homeless going underground looking for work, then ultimately joining an army?

No cos every city doesn't have a freakin army under it. Ya get homeless doing worse to survive like stealing, mugging, and even killing just for a few miserable bucks. Desperation. It's everywhere. Joe Chill was a desperate man who killed the Waynes just for a few bucks. People like that everywhere.

[J.Howlett]

Originally Posted by Fudgie

No cos every city doesn't have a freakin army under it. Ya get homeless doing worse to survive like stealing, mugging, and even killing just for a few miserable bucks. Desperation. It's everywhere. Joe Chill was a desperate man who killed the Waynes just for a few bucks. People like that everywhere.

Gotta know, what's your real problem with this film?

[Fudgie]

Originally Posted by J.Howlett

Gotta know, what's your real problem with this film?

It's got loads of plot holes, ignores and contradicts themes and stuff from Begins and Knight, and it was a big disappointment for moi, who is a huge Batman fan and a Nolan fan.

Yup that's right I ain't no Nolan hater. Love the guy. TDK is like the greatest CBM movie ever and I worship it. Nolan dropped the ball with Rises.

Everyone is entitled to one dud flick in their career though. Even Spielberg has one or two.

[J.Howlett]

Originally Posted by Fudgie

It's got loads of plot holes, ignores and contradicts themes and stuff from Begins and Knight, and it was a big disappointment for moi, who is a huge Batman fan and a Nolan fan.

Yup that's right I ain't no Nolan hater. Love the guy. TDK is like the greatest CBM movie ever and I worship it. Nolan dropped the ball with Rises.

Everyone is entitled to one dud flick in their career though. Even Spielberg has one or two.

The contradiction of the themes I don't get because all three films, when you strip them down, are about responses to fear...

While Bruce is the anchor for the audience, Nolan's trilogy has always been about Gotham.

[Bruce Malone]

Originally Posted by Tony Stark

I don't think think the two movies are really comparable, but I will say this....don't get me wrong because I think that TDKR is a very good movie, but it didn't live up to the hype, and I don't know that any movie could have lived up to that much hype, it wasn't the best Nolan batman film, and IMO, it's not as good as Batman '89.

I think that an argument could be made for Skyfall being the best Bond yet. Certainly it's a top 5 Bond, and in my mind Daniel Craig is the only Bond actor to have rose to the challenge of filling Sean Connery's shoes. Craig faced just as much criticism as George Lazenby did, the difference being that Lazenby is a terrible actor and Craig is one of the top actors in Hollywood.

Now having said that, I think it's somewhat silly to compare these two films. They are different in purpose and content. Yes Batman is somwhat James Bondish in that it's all about his gadgets. Nolan even created Bruce Wayne his own "Q" in the character of Fox. So there are some parallels, but I don't think you can really compare these two movies, other than to say both were very good films.

As for your hype comment i have the oppostie view. I think skyfall was a good film, it was it though that didn't live up to the hype. "The Best bond ever!", 50th anniversary etc.

To me with all that it should have been better than CR but it wasn't at least to me. TDKR as a conclusion to a trilogy i felt did very well.

[rickfox]

Originally Posted by The Joker

Obviously he didn't HAVE to obey, the point is he did it because Talia sent him there. She says that in her monologue.

Hence why Bane owes his survival to Talia. She sent her father back to save him.

little girl has the will to do something(storm that pit and revenge...), not the power and skills or authority

Did Ra and LOS has no other option than save Bane from his doom?they just can't raid the pit ,kill those who responsible for his beloved wife's death / find her remains and walk away?

I found my father and brought him back to exact terrible vengeance

if Ra is indeed the one has the power and skills / authority to excute the" vengeance plan" (plus he can has the option not to obey his daughter's demand-- to exact terrible vengeance is not include saving life) ---and Bane does not feel gratitude to Ra and LOS?

if someone saved by a man/his organziation from inescapable misery life and death, killed those who assault him(unless someone can step out and claim LOS spare them all), treat his wounds ,and that man/his organziation also gave him a better device to put on his face other than blood soaked fabric,then train/teach him to become stronger(unless someone can step out and claim LOS's tough training is sort of two weeks short course)/feed him.---- while that man/his organziation have absolute right not to do those things in the first place.

so it is not possible for him to feel gratitude towards that man/his organziation ?

and it is not possible for him to has personal grudge (apart from his attachment to little girl's vendetta/his passion towards her) if that man killed by a traiter/his organziation beaten by a traiter?(plus their "home" got blown up)

[rickfox]

Originally Posted by Fudgie

Do ya really think Ra's would have gone near that pit or even saved Bane's bacon if his widdle girl went and told him about it and asked him to go and rescue the guy who saved her?

Yeah don't think so. Talia is the one who saved Bane's ass.

Do you really think Ra and LOS has no other option than save Bane from his doom?they just can't raid the pit ,kill those who responsible for his beloved wife's death / find her remains and walk away? they have to bend over before little girl's wish/demand? Ra has to do things determined by little girl's will?

I found my father and brought him back to exact terrible vengeance

Yeah don't think so.
---------------------
the League took us in(Ra has no right/power/will to do things against little girl's will?)---instance--how about the League just took her in ?

[Doctor Who]

*looks at thread*

Just promise me you won't get blood on the carpeting when you kill more critics, gang.

[rickfox]

Originally Posted by The Joker

Some nonsense about the rich being greedy?

for some people who live as lower class, you tell them "rich being greedy" is nonsense and they gonna believe you?



BB--- someplace looks like Lower Fifth ---This city is rotting.... talk about the depression as if its history....Things are worse than ever down here. Falcone ....with crime and drugs creating new Joe Chills everyday. ---depression---people choose work for organized crime---so people just love to work for organized crime/or work as a criminal even if there are plenty "normal"jobs available above Lower Fifth?

TDKR---Falcone is gone ,and according to that mayor --organized crime is gone

--Lots of guys been going down the tunnels when they age out,say you can live down there,says there is work down there--more than you can find here

a "great" city that youngster "love" to go down into the sewer(literally even lower than Lower Fifth)work for underground terrorists---becuase there is work down there--more than you can find here

youngster,need help? let's see

this is not government's duty to creat jobs/paths for its citizen(those youths)? no? perharps Mr Mayor is busy talking about---This city has seen a historic turnaround.
No city is without crime, but this city is without
organized crime because the Dent Act

Wayne foundation?oh wait--The foundation is funded by the profits of Wayne Enterprises. There have to be some

social charity? praise those great hearts,really helpful---Proceeds go to the big fat spread. It's not about charity, it's about feeding the ego of whichever society hag laid this on

a fine city for sure

[Robin91939]

Loved Skyfall. But The Dark Knight Rises was a more entertaining and engrossing film.

The argument could also be made that without The Dark Knight there is no Skyfall, or at least not the Skyfall that was released.

It is undeniable that Raoul Silva was influenced and almost all together inspired by Heath Ledger's Joker.

From his personality, to his mouth scarring, all the way down to purposely being imprisoned midway through the film in order to accomplish his goals.... Oh and then there was dressing as a cop...

I'm not knocking it. I LOVED Silva in Skyfall, and he was different enough that I could enjoy him as his own entity... But it's undeniable the affect Nolan's film had on Mendes and the writers...

Both were terrific films -- I prefer The Dark Knight Rises.

Just as I do when it comes to The Avengers and The Amazing Spider-man. But I honestly love all of these films and they are all perfect (or pretty damn close) in different ways -- they are hard to compare.

I'm just glad that in one year we got an amazing Batman film, an amazing Bond film, and amazing culmination to Marvel's plans and an amazing Spidey film.

Wow.

-R

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Fudgie

It's got loads of plot holes, ignores and contradicts themes and stuff from Begins and Knight, and it was a big disappointment for moi, who is a huge Batman fan and a Nolan fan.

Yup that's right I ain't no Nolan hater. Love the guy. TDK is like the greatest CBM movie ever and I worship it. Nolan dropped the ball with Rises.

Everyone is entitled to one dud flick in their career though. Even Spielberg has one or two.

Could I ask you what themes exactly contradicts the themes from BB and TDK?

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by rickfox

little girl has the will to do something(storm that pit and revenge...), not the power and skills or authority

I know that. You keep making remarks about things that I never said. Ra's only went back to the pit because his little girl went back to him and sent him there in the first place.

Obviously nobody was putting a gun to his head and forcing him to do it, but he did it because his daughter asked him to. Hence why Bane owes his rescue from the pit to Talia. If it wasn't for her going back to her father he'd still be there.

You honestly never heard of a father doing something simply because his child asked him to? Seriously?

if someone saved by a man/his organziation from inescapable misery life and death, killed those who assault him(unless someone can step out and claim LOS spare them all), treat his wounds ,and that man/his organziation also gave him a better device to put on his face other than blood soaked fabric,then train/teach him to become stronger(unless someone can step out and claim LOS's tough training is sort of two weeks short course)/feed him.---- while that man/his organziation have absolute right not to do those things in the first place.

so it is not possible for him to feel gratitude towards that man/his organziation ?

Why should he feel gratitude for something that was done at Talia's request? All of this was done out of the grace of Talia's charity to Bane for being her protector. "His only crime was that he loved me". But Ra's didn't see it that way. He could never accept Bane, he didn't want him there, and so he excommunicated him.

Bane had no allegiance to the LOS. His loyalty was to Talia.

and it is not possible for him to has personal grudge (apart from his attachment to little girl's vendetta/his passion towards her) if that man killed by a traiter/his organziation beaten by a traiter?(plus their "home" got blown up)

No, why should he? He wasn't part of the League of Shadows any more. He was kicked out already when Bruce came along. I absolutely think the only reason he was doing all of this was because of his emotional attachment to Talia. He sees her angry and upset and it makes him angry and upset.

Talia didn't even like her father at the time Bruce was in the LOS. She had fallen out with him because he kicked Bane out. It took her father being killed for her finally being able to forgive him for what he did to Bane.

But Bane has no personal reason to hate Bruce. On the contrary he should hate the LOS because they're the ones who rejected him, and for what? Because he protected the leader's little girl in the pit.

Originally Posted by rickfox

for some people who live as lower class, you tell them "rich being greedy" is nonsense and they gonna believe you?

No, I'm saying rich people being greedy is a nonsense reason to need to destroy the city. Every city in the world suffers from poor people. Lower class. Orphans. Desperation. It doesn't make them terrible hopeless cities.

I live in Dublin in Ireland. I see homeless people begging on the streets all the time when I go into the city center. We are currently in a recession. Unemployment rates have shot up in the last few years.

But nobody is calling Dublin a horrible terrible rotten city that is beyond help.

BB--- someplace looks like Lower Fifth ---This city is rotting.... talk about the depression as if its history....Things are worse than ever down here. Falcone ....with crime and drugs creating new Joe Chills everyday. ---depression---people choose work for organized crime---so people just love to work for organized crime/or work as a criminal even if there are plenty "normal"jobs available above Lower Fifth?

Yes, that was due to Carmine Falcone and organized crime. That was completely eradicated in TDKR. Nobody was turning into Joe Chills or other kinds of crime in huge droves. Crime was practically non existent.

TDKR---Falcone is gone ,and according to that mayor --organized crime is gone

--Lots of guys been going down the tunnels when they age out,say you can live down there,says there is work down there--more than you can find here

a "great" city that youths "love" to go down into the sewer(literally even lower than Lower Fifth)work for underground terrorists---becuase[COLOR=Blue] there is work down there--more than you can find [SIZE=5]here

[SIZE=5][COLOR=Black]young men,need help? let's see

Yeah so? Homeless people go down to sleep and live in the subway tunnels in London. Homeless people will go and live anywhere and go to nearly any length to make money if they can't find employment.

This is not the kind of thing that is unique to Gotham City. It's a common worldwide problem. If we had subway tunnels here in Dublin you can bet your eye tooth we'd have the same thing.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Could I ask you what themes exactly contradicts the themes from BB and TDK?

I'm copying and pasting this from another website which sums up why I personally think it does in some aspects;

With a movie like The Dark Knight Rises, many people debate the quality with which the story is executed, but few really question if the story being told really is the right story for the movie. The Dark Knight Rises follows the established continuity and there's no alternative presented so most people will never really question what other direction it could have taken. However, I believe it's an important thing to consider with a movie that not only serves as a continuation of a story told by 2 other movies, but is also the final chapter of that story. An ending has the power to taint or elevate a series based on whether or not it is able to really complement the earlier parts of the story. Take Toy Story 3 for example. The final scene of that movie is beautiful, emotional, and feels like exactly the right way for the story to end because it once again touches on the theme of change that is central to the entire trilogy. The Dark Knight Rises on the other hand, did not feel like as fitting an ending to Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy for multiple reasons.

If you watch the first two movies, there is a very natural flow to the way the story progresses from Batman Begins to The Dark Knight. The final scene of Batman Begins features a conversation between Batman and Jim Gordon about their mission to bring Gotham out of its current state. They discuss the work that still needs to be done and the progress they have made so far. Then Gordon brings up the probable issue of escalation, something Batman does not seem to have considered. If the police begin to improve their game in the war on crime, the mob will make the necessary advancements in order to hold on to their power. The city even seems to have its answer to Batman. Gordon presents to Batman a joker card, the calling card of a new criminal that shares Batman's taste for the theatrical. As we all know, this criminal is the Joker, the main villain of The Dark Knight. However, The Dark Knight does more than just use the villain hinted at by this scene. It is a complete realization of the theme of escalation presented by this conversation.

Bruce: "I knew the mob wouldn't go down without a fight, but this is different. They've crossed the line."

Alfred: "You crossed the line first, sir. You squeezed them, you hammered them to the point of desperation. And in their desperation they turned to a man they didn't fully understand."

With this exchange, The Dark Knight subtly revisits the final scene of Batman Begins. At that point, Batman was confident that he understood the war he was waging and the challenges that faced him. With the Joker, the rules of the game have been thrown out the window. Alfred's words drive home the fact that the Joker represents the escalation that has resulted from the mission Bruce began in the first movie. From there, The Dark Knight takes us through a story of Bruce being pushed to his limits in his struggle to deal with the Joker, who is the equal and opposite of Batman in a way that he never could have imagined.

The final scene of The Dark Knight is crucial to feeling out the direction and momentum of the story, but there are a few other key scenes throughout the movie that can't be ignored.

Before the press conference that Bruce was going to use to reveal his identity as Batman and turn himself in, he has a conversation with Rachel that brings up some points that are very important to his story over the course of the movie.

Bruce: " You once told me that if the day came when I was finished, we'd be together." (direct reference to their final scene together in Batman Begins)

Rachel: "Bruce, don't make me your one hope for a normal life."

That's exactly what he does though. Rachel was his light at the end of the tunnel and the happy ending he imagined once his work as Batman was done. With this in mind, when the Joker forces Batman to choose between saving Rachel or saving Harvey, it's not just that he's choosing between the lives of two people. He's making a decision about what is most important to him. Rachel represents his hope for happiness and a normal life beyond Batman. Harvey represents his best chance of winning the war on crime and completing Batman's mission. He chose to hold onto his hope for a normal life, but that was taken away from him, leaving only the mission. In the final scene, Two-Face asks Batman "Why was it me who was the only one who lost everything?!"" to which Batman responds "It wasn't." With this line, Bruce painfully reflects on how significant the loss of Rachel was for him. He no longer has anything to hope for in his personal life. However, he still has Batman. In fact, that's pretty much the only thing he has now.

Now we come to the conclusion, and we hear Jim Gordon explain to his son the role that Batman has to play.

"Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So, we'll hunt him, because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian. A watchful protector. A Dark Knight."

This final speech was just perfection. When you hear the final words, it's a revelation that the title of the movie isn't just Batman's nickname. It's a reflection on who the character is, and role that Batman is selfless enough to play. Note that this is all talking about what Batman is willing to do. They WILL hunt Batman because he CAN take being hunted. I've taken quite a while to come to this point, but I've done so in order to clearly map out Bruce's journey over the first two movies. Batman Begins shows Bruce channeling his anger into something positive to become Batman. The Dark Knight shows Bruce pushed to the limits as he fully comes into the role of being Batman. In no way does The Dark Knight feel like the story of Bruce being forced to give up being Batman. There was a point in the movie when this almost happened, but Alfred encouraged him to endure the hatred of the people to do what was necessary for Gotham. This is the decision he made when the Joker demanded that he turn himself in and this is the decision he continues to act out in the end. He knows that the people will completely turn against him now, but he chooses to take on that burden and press on.

The Dark Knight Rises disrupts the flow of the trilogy by not following the sensible trajectory of Bruce Wayne's story arc. His retirement from being Batman did not feel like a natural progression from where The Dark Knight left off. These first two movies showed a Bruce Wayne who was driven both by his love for Rachel and his dedication to the war on crime. With his hope for a life beyond Batman taken from him, it would seem much more natural for Bruce to completely throw himself into being Batman than to give it up. Batman was created partially as an outlet for Bruce's pain and anger. Thus, suffering such a major loss would probably drive him further into this part of his identity.

Aside from his depression, the only other justification given for why Bruce gave up being Batman was the Harvey Dent act. This particular plot element frustrated me for multiple reasons (one of which I detailed in my review of the movie).
The Harvey Dent act basically rid Gotham City of organized crime. Some of you may be thinking that this was the reason for Batman and Jim Gordon covering up Harvey Dent's crimes, but it really wasn't. At no point did The Dark Knight imply that they had completely gotten rid of organized crime. Here's the dialogue from the scene explaining the victory won by Harvey Dent that they were trying to protect.

Mayor Garcia: "549 criminals at once. How did you convince Surrillo to hear this farce?"

Harvey Dent: "She shares my conviction for justice. After all, she is a judge."

Mayor Garcia: "Well even if you blow enough smoke to get convictions out of Surrillo, you're gonna set a new record at appeals for quickest kick in the ass."

Harvey Dent: "It won't matter. The head guys make bail, sure, but the mid-level guys, they can't. They can't afford to be off the streets long enough for trial and appeal. They'll cut deals that include some jail time. Think of all you could do with 18 months of clean streets."

Along with the image of the hero Gotham needed to believe in, this is what Batman was looking to preserve when he took the blame for Dent's crimes. The powerful crime lords were still going to be around and the mid-level men of these organizations would be back on the streets in 18 months. To put it in Star Wars terms, in Batman Begins, Batman and Gordon started the Rebel Alliance. Then, in The Dark Knight, Harvey Dent helped them to blow up the Death Star. This was definitely a major victory for them, but they still had not defeated the Galactic Empire. Obviously, the fact that the Harvey Dent act was not a part of The Dark Knight's ending does not make it a continuity error. It's believable that this could have happened after The Dark Knight and I can overlook the fact that the ease of putting together a piece of legislature that completely got rid of organized crime begs the question of why the Gotham City government didn't do something like that a long time ago. My problem is the effect the Harvey Dent act has on the larger story.

One of the things that separates the first two Christopher Nolan Batman movies from other interpretations of Batman and other superhero movies is the fact that these movies give Batman a concrete mission. While most superhero movie franchises have random, unconnected threats when moving from one movie to the next, Batman's mission in this series enabled the conflict to really flow and expand throughout the first two parts. Rachel explains to Bruce that the man who killed his parents was the product of the environment created by men like Carmine Falcone. Once he understands this, Bruce doesn't set out to run around stopping purse snatchers. He wants to save Gotham by waging war on men like Falcone. "I'm gonna show the people of Gotham their city doesn't belong to the criminals and the corrupt," Bruce said. This war on organized crime is the reason Bruce becomes Batman and the force that drives the story of the first two movies. Everything is connected to it. Ra's al Ghul wants to destroy Gotham because he believes it is so crime-ridden and corrupt that it is beyond saving. The Joker comes into play as a result of the escalation that Batman triggered by starting this war. Just about every element of the story branches off from it in some form. Until the Harvey Dent act. With the Harvey Dent act, the war on crime that the entire story was built upon comes to an anticlimactic conclusion that we only get to hear about in the Mayor's speech. That's almost as if The Lord of The Rings: The Return of the King began with Frodo and Sam sitting in the Shire reflecting on how Gollum did them a favor and just took the ring the rest of the way for them. I admit that the comparison is extreme, but if you watch the first two movies of Nolan's trilogy and think about this point, I think you'll realize that it holds some ground. Just like in The Lord of the Rings trilogy, the characters of this story struggle to accomplish something over the course of two movies and this struggle is set up to continue in the third. Their mission isn't as tangible as that of the heroes in The Lord of the Rings, but it is definitely there and for The Dark Knight Rises to dispense with it so nonchalantly really held it back from feeling like a proper continuation of the story for me.

Another thing that really doesn't sit right with me is the way that The Dark Knight Rises undermines one of the main themes of The Dark Knight, the idea of the noble lie. At the end of The Dark Knight, Batman decides to take the blame for Two Face's crimes because he knew Gotham needed to believe in Harvey Dent. When Bruce set out to be Batman, it wasn't just about scaring the criminals. It was also about giving the people a symbol they could believe in. Something that was incorruptible and everlasting. However, being Batman has its inherent limitations. Because Batman works outside of the system, hides in the shadows, and breaks the law, he can't be an undeniable symbol of justice. The movie shows that after Bruce has spent a year serving Gotham as Batman, there are both those who are inspired by his example and those who question if he is really doing something positive. Then when Bruce meets Harvey Dent, he sees a person who understands his fight for justice and may be able to be the symbol Batman can't quite be. Harvey is a hero with a face who shows the people of Gotham what their city can be. His image is that of untainted, uncompromised good. Bruce believes Harvey Dent is a symbol that can be more powerful than Batman, so his decision to take the blame is a sacrifice for the greater good. Bruce isn't the only one who believes in this concept. When the Joker demanded that Batman turn himself in, Harvey Dent claims to be Batman and takes the fall because he believes in the battle Batman fights. Near the middle of the movie, Jim Gordon fakes his own death, even keeping his family in the dark about it to ensure their safety. Finally we have Alfred's deception. Alfred had every intention of giving Bruce the letter from Rachel revealing her intent to marry Harvey Dent. The moment when he reconsiders is when Bruce says "She was going to wait for me, Alfred. Dent can never know." The second sentence is the part that's crucial. Bruce wants to save Harvey from the pain of knowing that Rachel was going to leave him. He's trying to treat Harvey as he would want to be treated. Alfred understands this and ultimately handles the situation according to Bruce's own sense of kindness and decency.

"Sometimes the truth isn't good enough. Sometimes people deserve more. Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded."

With these noble lies, The Dark Knight challenges conventional, black and white morality. The lie that Batman is willing to be a part of is a noble sacrifice and you can hear the admiration in Gordon's voice as he speaks about Batman to his son in the movie's final moments. Given the placement of this theme at the very end of the movie and the fact that it is spoken directly, it's not unreasonable to argue that it is the movie's primary take away message. So why on Earth would the sequel practically spit on it?

The Dark Knight Rises treats Batman and Gordon's cover-up as a dirty, immoral lie that was indisputably wrong. For Gordon, it's a source of shame that has weighed heavily on his conscience. The movie further debases Batman's sacrifice through John Blake who is clearly disgusted with Gordon's actions when he finds out the truth. If I had never seen The Dark Knight before I watched The Dark Knight Rises, I would have gotten the impression that it ended with a very shameful, I Know What You Did Last Summer-type pact, but it's the complete opposite. Movies in a series are supposed to work together, not against each other. The way The Dark Knight Rises opposes a core theme of its superior predecessor hurts its functionality as a sequel.

My final criticism of The Dark Knight Rises is the most difficult to argue, but I'll try to explain it as clearly as possible. I don't like how the movie changes the overall story of Batman that the franchise seemed to be telling. Both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are set in the early years of Bruce's time as Batman, just like their comic book counterparts Batman: Year One and Batman: The Long Halloween. The Dark Knight shows Bruce as he continues to come into the role of Batman by learning his limitations. Meanwhile, the theme of escalation shows the Gotham of the movies becoming more like the Gotham of the comics through the emergence of the Joker. "You've changed things. Forever. There's no going back." The first two movies almost feel like part of the telling of an extended origin story, not just of Batman, but of the Gotham City fans know. At the end of The Dark Knight, Batman is nearly at that point of being the legendary Batman of the comics. As a crime fighter, he has pretty much developed his abilities to the highest level. Yet, the character has not quite become the kind of legend that Ra's al Ghul described because he sacrificed the symbol of what Batman stood for to protect the image of Harvey Dent. The Dark Knight Rises ends with Bruce giving up crime fighting and the image of Batman becoming the everlasting symbol that Bruce always wanted it to be. However, the Batman of the comics is both the legend and the crime fighter at the same time. Given the story that the first two movies work together to tell, I believe it would have been more sensible to end this trilogy with Bruce at the peak of his abilities, having reclaimed the honor of Batman to fully become the ultimate hero and the everlasting legend.

Look at the flow of Bruce's development as Batman over the course of the trilogy.

Batman Begins: The Beginning
The Dark Knight: 1 Year Later, A continuation of the Early Years
The Dark Knight Rises: 8 Years Later, The Later Years and the End.

If there was maybe about a four year gap between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, the 8 year gap would have given the series the feeling of showing the beginning, middle, and end. However, because The Dark Knight takes place so soon after Batman Begins and the story has this great momentum moving into the third movie, I really believe that showing the ending of the beginning would have felt like a more natural way to conclude this trilogy.

Continued....

[The Joker]

Part 2...

Together, the 8 year gap and the decision to show the ending of Bruce's time as Batman cause some notable issues with the series as an adaptation of the Batman legend. First, they kind of hurt the legacy of the Joker as a character and his conflict with Batman. Think about The Dark Knight's final scene between Batman and the Joker.

"You won't kill me out of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness and I won't kill you because you're just too much fun. I think you and I are destined to do this forever."

This statement was a perfect way to suggest that this was not the end of the Batman-Joker conflict, but the beginning of a never-ending battle between these two characters similar to the one found in the comics. Obviously, Heath Ledger's death meant that the character wasn't going to be making an appearance in The Dark Knight Rises, but that didn't necessarily mean that the character's role within the Nolan world had to end. If the story of The Dark Knight Rises took place about a year after The Dark Knight and ended with Bruce still being Batman, we would be able to imagine that Batman might come up against the Joker again at some point even if the movie did not reference the character directly. However, since The Dark Knight Rises makes it so that the Joker has not done anything in 8 years and that Bruce is no longer protecting Gotham by the end of the story, the character's role within the Christopher Nolan Batman world is definitively confined to The Dark Knight. By nullifying the eternal nature of Batman's conflict with the Joker, The Dark Knight Rises once again undermines The Dark Knight.

Also, think about the amount of time that Bruce was Batman within the span of his life. The time span of the series' present day events is difficult to estimate, but let's be generous and say that Batman Begins shows Bruce as Batman for about 3 months. Then we have an entire year with him as Batman between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. The Dark Knight shows him as Batman for maybe another 3 months. Then, according to The Dark Knight Rises, he quits for 8 years. He returns from retirement and is Batman for maybe about a month and later recovers from his back injury to be Batman again for less than a week. This brings the grand total for the amount of time that Bruce Wayne was Batman to... less than 2 years. To put that into perspective for you, Peter Parker had been Spider-man for longer than that at the beginning of Spider-man 2. This really just doesn't seem right to me. Now don't any of you come at me talking about the realism of Christopher Nolan's world and how that's a realistic amount of time that a man's body could hold up while being Batman. Nolan bends the rules of realism where he sees fit, so if he decided to end his trilogy with Bruce continuing to be Batman after about 3 years, no one really would have questioned if it was realistic. Batman isn't just something Bruce does. It's a part of who he is. The brevity of Bruce's time as Batman makes it feel like a less significant part of his life than it should be.

My problems with the duration of time aside, I also feel that depicting the end of Bruce being Batman just doesn't feel right for the character. There are characters like Frodo Baggins, Luke Skywalker, and Harry Potter whose stories benefit from a conclusive end, but superheroes belong to another type. When watching characters like Batman, Indiana Jones, James Bond, and Jack Sparrow, it just feels good to see the end and know that the character's adventures will continue. This kind of ending is actually quite common in various forms of storytelling. Both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight manage to use it well while providing satisfying conclusions to their stories. Many feel that the finality of The Dark Knight Rises makes it a satisfying ending to the trilogy, but I disagree. Sometimes, the happiest ending that is really suitable for a character is a continued life of purpose or adventure. I believe that kind of ending is much more true to the spirit of Bruce Wayne's story than running away to live happily ever after with some chick who stole from him and betrayed him.

Now to clarify I don't agree with every single aspect of this article, such as Bruce getting a happy ever after is not really suited to his character. I didn't mind that at all, and I loved that Bruce did end up with Selina because out of all the Batman love interests, I think Selina is the 'one' he would end up with.

[rickfox]

Originally Posted by The Joker

because his daughter asked him to

Why should he feel gratitude for something that was done at Talia's request?

so he did not has the motivation to revenge for his wife?he must need his daughter to make a demand ,only then him can revenge for his wife?

Did Ra and LOS has no other option than save Bane from his doom?they just can't raid the pit ,kill those who responsible for his beloved wife's death / find her remains and walk away?

Talia's request---I found my father and brought him back to exact terrible vengeance

who told you Talia's request include----saved Bane from inescapable misery life and death, killed those who assault him(unless someone can step out and claim LOS spare them all), treat his wounds ,and that man/his organziation also gave him a better device to put on his face other than blood soaked fabric,then train/teach him to become stronger(unless someone can step out and claim LOS's tough training is sort of two weeks short course)/feed him.

I live in Dublin in Ireland. I see homeless people begging on the streets all the time when I go into the city center. We are currently in a recession. Unemployment rates have shot up in the last few years.

But nobody is calling Dublin a horrible terrible rotten city that is beyond help. --- DC publish works are all about reality/real world? really?

[rickfox]

Originally Posted by The Joker

He was kicked out already when Bruce came along. I absolutely think the only reason he was doing all of this was because of his emotional attachment to Talia. He sees her angry and upset and it makes him angry and upset.


But Bane has no personal reason to hate Bruce. On the contrary he should hate the LOS because they're the ones who rejected him, and for what? Because he protected the leader's little girl in the pit.

who rejected him and for what? Because he protected the leader's little girl in the pit.---which lines in that movie's tells people Bane got rejected by LOS because he protected the leader's little girl in the pit?

[Brain Damage]

Fantastic article, really digs into the thematic problems with TDKR, and more importantly, how they could have been avoided.

[rickfox]

Originally Posted by The Joker

Yes, that was due to Carmine Falcone and organized crime. That was completely eradicated in TDKR. Nobody was turning into Joe Chills or other kinds of crime in huge droves. Crime was practically non existent.

That was completely eradicated in TDKR.---and there is new game in the town called "working for terrorist"

Crime was practically non existent.---so what Selina Kyle did is not crime?you are greater than that Mayor,even he was just talking about No city is without crime...