Why is everyone slamming TDKR?

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Ryan

The man does his research. As always. well done. Soon to be quoted.

Why thank you

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Indeed, it is obvious to bring up the nitpicks and complaints of fanboys, lol, but you can bring up some reviews that views such(and negative reviews by the way...just blinding the fact that there are positive reviews I guess ), but I also know some reviews that state otherwise.

Why are you trying to turn around what you said? You said, and I quote "Numerous complaints? Lol, hardly. A few posts on here doesn't equate to numerous. If there were as you would love to believe, I would have heard some outside of these forums, but I really don't."

Now unless you've been closing your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears when you venture outside SHH, you'd have to be blind to have missed the plethora of reviews and general comments outside of this forum that say the movie suffered from under developed characters and plots.

I just gave you a drop in the ocean sample of them. So you've just been proven wrong. It's not merely a case of a few complaints on a forum. Far from it. As if you didn't know that already.

Originally Posted by jmc

The film is trying to do so many things at once that plot elements begin to suffocate one and other due to lack of proper development. It's essentially two films worth of narrative stuffed into one movie. TDK was like that as well but the difference is the execution was spot on where Rises isn't. Rises is clearly a Bruce Wayne story, there's no doubting that, but it's a story that gets lost in an amongst everything else that is going on, as a result character arcs and plot elements aren't given the proper time the need to do the story justice and illogical issues arise. In the end all you get is essentially a highlights package of a much longer movie. I don't often say this but Rises is the type of movie that needs an extra 30-45 mins to do the story they're trying to do.

Originally Posted by jmc

See, the 6 months siege was a joke, the justification for it was flimsy at best. This series prided itself on being a step above other superhero type of films yet fell into the realm of using a really cliched approach to an otherwise unique concept. Militia taking over a US city - awesome idea, reasons for it - uncreative and bland. All those cops sent under ground - not just illogical, completely stupid, like genuinely stupid. Revenge plot - uninteresting and pointless.

I couldn't agree more

The siege just felt like filler to give Bruce a chance to get back on his feet and come back and save the day.

[BatLobsterRises]

I think we all just need to be secure in our opinions. I don't care if TDKR was 3% on Rotten and I was the only person on this forum who loved the film...I'd still love it to death. Thankfully that's not the case (I'd be a pretty lonely TDKR fan it it were ), but the point is for every negative thing one can find posted about the film elsewhere I could find something eloquently praising it to match it and vice versa. There's always going to be a review that mirrors ones own opinion, especially on a film that had such a variety of reactions like Rises.

At this point we've all have had enough time to re-watch, analyze, re-think, read, etc. and make up our minds about the film. I've accepted that there's a sizable chunk of the fanbase that has serious problems with the film but that in no way means I believe the film has "objective" issues that I am just forgiving/overlooking. I simply don't agree with most of the major criticisms surrounding the movie, most of them were not things that bothered me or even occurred to me until I read them online, which in turn means that the movie is way less flawed in my eyes than it is to others.

The debates surrounding Rises will probably go on for years, but I don't mind that at all. In my mind, if your work is still being discussed one way or another in the future that's a victory for the artist.

[jmc]

Originally Posted by JackWhite

The siege started off in an extremely haunting way. But kind of collapsed under it's own weight. I agree, Gordon sending all; if not the majority of the cops underground was bogus. But what's even more bothersome is the siege is about what, 5 months, IIRC? I know Bruce had to have a fair amount of time in the pit to regroup and rebuild himself, but why have Bane take over for 5 months and not blow up Gotham? I know he wanted Bruce to watch the city rip itself apart first, but that's too long of a time.

The thing about the siege of Gotham is that it would of been far better had there been some actual battles and attempts from the government to take the city back. The biggest issues is the nuke, it's such a lazy way to prevent the government from doing anything. There was a real opportunity to showcase just how tactically intelligent Bane was by having him being a step ahead of the government in terms of tacking back Gotham inspite of the ridiculous odds against him without having to resort to a doomsday weapon, having contingency plans and counter attack strategies to repel armed forces. I would have liked to have seen Bane have a genuine small army with heavy duty machinery that he accumulated over years of planning. At least then you could justify the 5 month times span better through urban warfare.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by jmc

See, the 6 months siege was a joke, the justification for it was flimsy at best. This series prided itself on being a step above other superhero type of films yet fell into the realm of using a really cliched approach to an otherwise unique concept. Militia taking over a US city - awesome idea, reasons for it - uncreative and bland. All those cops sent under ground - not just illogical, completely stupid, like genuinely stupid. Revenge plot - uninteresting and pointless.

The series still prides itself on being a step above other superhero films even if some feel the siege plot was uncreative. So was the microwave emitter, so there's that. The series always had its low moments, but I enjoyed both personally.

Originally Posted by The Joker

Why are you trying to turn around what you said? You said, and I quote "Numerous complaints? Lol, hardly. A few posts on here doesn't equate to numerous. If there were as you would love to believe, I would have heard some outside of these forums, but I really don't."

Now unless you've been closing your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears when you venture outside SHH, you'd have to be blind to have missed the plethora of reviews and general comments outside of this forum that say the movie suffered from under developed characters and plots.

I just gave you a drop in the ocean sample of them. So you've just been proven wrong. It's not merely a case of a few complaints on a forum. Far from it. As if you didn't know that already.

Proven wrong, eh?



Just can't think of the idea that I was referring to PEOPLE outside of the internet world? Lol.

Next time I'll remember to be as crystal clear as I can to some posters...

[TheBat812]

Originally Posted by JackWhite

Hmmm, I really don't think so. That would kind of disrupt Alfred coming back during the end at Bruce's funeral.

Ha, I didn't say I agreed with him.


Although I could see why arc-wise it would be something they'd want to explore. They never really resolved their fight, and it is a bit weird that such an important character doesn't show up again tip the end. The ending wouldn't be nullified by it, but I do think its stronger without it, conceptually. But that extra hour from the rumored original 4 hour cut did have to go somewhere and it would explain the awkward 'show up back at Gotham magically' bit.

But titansupes is right, not much evidence to actually back that up, haha.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by jmc

The thing about the siege of Gotham is that it would of been far better had there been some actual battles and attempts from the government to take the city back. The biggest issues is the nuke, it's such a lazy way to prevent the government from doing anything. There was a real opportunity to showcase just how tactically intelligent Bane was by having him being a step ahead of the government in terms of tacking back Gotham inspite of the ridiculous odds against him without having to resort to a doomsday weapon, having contingency plans and counter attack strategies to repel armed forces. I would have liked to have seen Bane have a genuine small army with heavy duty machinery that he accumulated over years of planning. At least then you could justify the 5 month times span better through urban warfare.

Have to agree. Going nuclear is about as cliche as they come. Soon to be quoted.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by jmc

The thing about the siege of Gotham is that it would of been far better had there been some actual battles and attempts from the government to take the city back. The biggest issues is the nuke, it's such a lazy way to prevent the government from doing anything. There was a real opportunity to showcase just how tactically intelligent Bane was by having him being a step ahead of the government in terms of tacking back Gotham inspite of the ridiculous odds against him without having to resort to a doomsday weapon, having contingency plans and counter attack strategies to repel armed forces. I would have liked to have seen Bane have a genuine small army with heavy duty machinery that he accumulated over years of planning. At least then you could justify the 5 month times span better through urban warfare.

That would have been brilliant actually.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Proven wrong, eh?

Just can't think of the idea that I was referring to PEOPLE outside of the internet world?

Now why would I think that when your response was you never heard anything outside of this FORUM, not outside of the internet. Saying you never heard anything outside this forum implies you mean here is the only place on the Net where it happens.

Not interested in your hearsay about what you claim you do and don't hear in your own personal life.

Next time I'll remember to be as crystal clear as I can to some posters...

You do that.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by The Joker

Now why would I think that when your response was you never heard anything outside of this FORUM, not outside of the internet. Saying you never heard anything outside this forum implies you mean here is the only place on the Net where it happens.

Not interested in your hearsay about what you claim you do and don't hear in your own personal life.

That implied no such thing. I don't go around reading reviews when I get the basis of the majority positive the film receives, so I don't care about going around looking for reviews that says otherwise. What I read about too much Blake, not enough Batman, the same ol', I only read it on here.

You do that.

I'll remember that my posts need to be clear for ya, sure.

[Tequilla]

Originally Posted by jmc

The thing about the siege of Gotham is that it would of been far better had there been some actual battles and attempts from the government to take the city back. The biggest issues is the nuke, it's such a lazy way to prevent the government from doing anything. There was a real opportunity to showcase just how tactically intelligent Bane was by having him being a step ahead of the government in terms of tacking back Gotham inspite of the ridiculous odds against him without having to resort to a doomsday weapon, having contingency plans and counter attack strategies to repel armed forces. I would have liked to have seen Bane have a genuine small army with heavy duty machinery that he accumulated over years of planning. At least then you could justify the 5 month times span better through urban warfare.

I think the idea of a government army force being held up by a bunch of mercenaries with a few weapons....it's even more far fetched than a nuclear bomb threat . Unless the country is Botswana or something.

Im not saying i dont like the idea of urban warfare. That sounds really cool. But for a 5 month siege , you need a threat that puts everyone in danger in a matter of seconds.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

That implied no such thing.

Oh really? Well lets ask for other opinions on this then.

To anyone else reading this, if someone said they never hear any particular opinions about something BEYOND THIS FORUM, would take that to mean they are talking about their personal life or elsewhere on the internet?

I don't go around reading reviews when I get the basis of the majority positive the film receives, so I don't care about going around looking for reviews that says otherwise. What I read about too much Blake, not enough Batman, the same ol', I only read it on here.

Oh silly me for not being psychic about your review reading habits!

I'll remember that my posts need to be clear for ya, sure.

Good.

[Anno_Domini]

You want to go as far as making a point, as you usually try to do, by now asking posters what they think about what I said.

But, you know...you could have well asked what I meant as well besides trying to prove your point and not try to "prove me wrong".

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

You want to go as far as making a point, as you usually try to do, by now asking posters what they think about what I said.

Yes, since you're so adamant your remark made no such implication.

But, you know...you could have well asked what I meant as well besides trying to prove your point and not try to "prove me wrong".

I didn't need to ask that because your remark was obvious. If you meant you never hear it outside the internet, then say so. Everyone else does when they're referring to people they talk to about the movie in person. Not on this forum. This forum is not the only place on the Net that discusses TDKR. So saying you don't hear these types of opinions beyond this forum clearly implies you don't hear it anywhere else on the Net since this forum is an internet based place.

[Anno_Domini]

I'm adamant because I'm the one who said it.

You can imply whatever you want when you say something too, lol.

And.."it was obvious" only because you wanted to prove some kind of point. That's why "it was obvious".

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

I'm adamant because I'm the one who said it.

Yeah because you got proven wrong with all the links I posted, so now you're trying to change the meaning of your post with some spiel that you meant your personal life (as if that's some kind of huge indicator of the what people think about TDKR lol)

You can imply whatever you want when you say something too, lol.

I don't color the meaning of what I say.

And.."it was obvious" only because you wanted to prove some kind of point. That's why "it was obvious".

Yes it was obvious, and I proved my point, too. All you've said is there is not numerous complaints simply because you personally don't hear these things outside of this forum. Now you have. I just showed you some. I can show you plenty more, too, if you want.

[Anno_Domini]

Ahh, yes, I flipped my story around because I was "proven wrong", correct you are

Just let it go man until someone wants to play apart of your "game" in proving your point. If not, it's only your sad little attempt at doing such.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Numerous complaints? Lol, hardly. A few posts on here doesn't equate to numerous. If there were as you would love to believe, I would have heard some outside of these forums, but I really don't.

To be honest, I'd interpret this as meaning you meant people on the internet as well, as you said "outside of THESE forums", which I would interpret as opposed to "other forums" existing on the internet. I'd also conclude you meant the internet as you said that the few posts on here don't equate to numbers BUT that what you have heard has mainly been positive. So is that to mean that your 'numbers'(that you heard) are based upon people you know or friends or? I'd like to understand what you meant as well.

[RustyCage]

Guys. I think it's time to just hug it out.

[Rockbottom]

This always happens, it happened to TDK too. Its just the nature of the internet to start claiming things are bad when they're popular to try and seem different. Give it time, once a new Batman film comes out and its not 'cool' to say its bad any more people will come to appreciate it again.

I love the film, I love all 3 of them but I do see the flaws in Bane's exit, Batman not having enough screen time and im really not a fan of the Blake character at all, but I cant let that ruin the whole film for me because there is so much about it that's fantastic.

[RustyCage]

Originally Posted by Rockbottom

This always happens, it happened to TDK too. Its just the nature of the internet to start claiming things are bad when they're popular to try and seem different. Give it time, once a new Batman film comes out and its not 'cool' to say its bad any more people will come to appreciate it again.

Oh no, it's more complex than that. There are lots of bandwagon mindsets, many avenues for rabid hate or rabid worship to explore.

One alternative to 'popular = bad': The new movie comes out, and it is automatically terrible/vastly superior compared to the last one.

In some cases, these sorts of opinions can be objectively true (or, you know, preference based), but be prepared for every possible irrational reaction all at once.

[jmc]

Originally Posted by Tequilla

I think the idea of a government army force being held up by a bunch of mercenaries with a few weapons....it's even more far fetched than a nuclear bomb threat . Unless the country is Botswana or something.

Im not saying i dont like the idea of urban warfare. That sounds really cool. But for a 5 month siege , you need a threat that puts everyone in danger in a matter of seconds.

Is it really though? Remember the main centre of Gotham City was on an island and the man packed the entire underground system with explosives to seal it off from the rest of the country, imagine if over the years Bane had smuggled into Gotham enough heavy artillery and man power to take the city over, I'm not talking a hand full of mercenaries, I'm talking a genuine small army that Bane has recruited. Imagine for every action the government took in taking back Gotham he had a counter offensive all the while trying to gain more troops from the prisoners and criminals of the city. Far fetched? I'd say audacious is a better word, at the very least it would be a hell of a lot more interesting.

[atomicbattery]

Just wanted to pipe in and thank Anno Domini and BatLobsterRises for their eloquence. Personally, I grew weary of defending TDKR long ago.

I do consider myself to be an individual of some intelligence, perceptive and discerning enough, with a degree of emotional maturity. I can't, intellectually, deny a physical response. I've seen films that have given me chills. I've seen films that have thrilled me so that I've had the exhaustive rush of actual physical experience. And I've seen films that made my eyes well up and chest heave with emotion. I'd never seen a film that made me do all three. Until I saw TDKR.

Is it beyond criticism?
Obviously not.
I like to compare it to another of my favorite films, The Godfather. I smile, and wince a bit, at Talia's death scene, as I do when Sonny's devastating hook during his beatdown of Carlo misses by a foot. I consider the absurd, baroque machinations of the assassination of Sonny, with a half dozen likely points of failure, and compare it to every other actual mob hit in mid-Twentieth Century America, where the target was simply gunned down in or just outside a well-frequented haunt, and compare it to the likelyhood of Gotham's entire police force being sent into the sewers. Do these fatal flaws diminish my enjoyment of the films? Not one bit.

If Citizen Kane had to stand up to the scrutiny of The Dark Knight Rises, it would be dismissed after the first scene. Charles Foster Kane whispers his last word, "Rosebud", in an empty room. A nurse enters, but only after hearing the crash of a snowglobe, which has fallen from the dead man's hand to the floor.
Rest of the movie?
Plot hole.

[Ryan]

I honestly have no beef with anyone that thinks that tdkr is the best thing to ever hit a movie screen. I do have a problem with people that don't allow for opposing views. I loved BB and TDK, but for me, TDKR fell far short of the mark with me. Am I bashing it because I hate Nolan, that its cool to be different, or because I simply missed something bigger than my mind can handle? Ridiculous. I simply have a discerning taste and just because I loved the first 2 Nolan outings, doesn't mean that TDKR would necessarily get a free ride (which I didn't give to BB or TDK when they first came out either). I do enjoy reading others' opinions on why the liked TDKR and rather then multi quote and attack their love of the film, I'd much rather just try to see a different perspective, even if I don't share it. Its too bad that others don't feel the same and feel that anyone having a different view on TDKR, feel an obligation, a 'duty" to protect and defend the film. Its almost as fans feel its a personal attack on them if someone attacks their film. Nonsense. BB is probably my favourite 'bat' film but its usually last place in most of the polls on this site, and I have zero need to have to defend it. Instead I let the film speak for itself.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by atomicbattery

Just wanted to pipe in and thank Anno Domini and BatLobsterRises for their eloquence. Personally, I grew weary of defending TDKR long ago.

It sure gets tiring, which is why I've done it less and less and less, haha.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Ryan

To be honest, I'd interpret this as meaning you meant people on the internet as well, as you said "outside of THESE forums", which I would interpret as opposed to "other forums" existing on the internet. I'd also conclude you meant the internet as you said that the few posts on here don't equate to numbers BUT that what you have heard has mainly been positive. So is that to mean that your 'numbers'(that you heard) are based upon people you know or friends or? I'd like to understand what you meant as well.

My apologies, I skipped right over your reply to me. Sorry about that!

I sincerely meant the internet as a whole. I notice all the positive on TDKR that, when I do read something negative, it's on these forums(I don't visit any other forums except for a forum to talk about Supernatural which I'm a regular on as well).

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by atomicbattery

Just wanted to pipe in and thank Anno Domini and BatLobsterRises for their eloquence. Personally, I grew weary of defending TDKR long ago.

I do consider myself to be an individual of some intelligence, perceptive and discerning enough, with a degree of emotional maturity. I can't, intellectually, deny a physical response. I've seen films that have given me chills. I've seen films that have thrilled me so that I've had the exhaustive rush of actual physical experience. And I've seen films that made my eyes well up and chest heave with emotion. I'd never seen a film that made me do all three. Until I saw TDKR.

Is it beyond criticism?
Obviously not.
I like to compare it to another of my favorite films, The Godfather. I smile, and wince a bit, at Talia's death scene, as I do when Sonny's devastating hook during his beatdown of Carlo misses by a foot. I consider the absurd, baroque machinations of the assassination of Sonny, with a half dozen likely points of failure, and compare it to every other actual mob hit in mid-Twentieth Century America, where the target was simply gunned down in or just outside a well-frequented haunt, and compare it to the likelyhood of Gotham's entire police force being sent into the sewers. Do these fatal flaws diminish my enjoyment of the films? Not one bit.

If Citizen Kane had to stand up to the scrutiny of The Dark Knight Rises, it would be dismissed after the first scene. Charles Foster Kane whispers his last word, "Rosebud", in an empty room. A nurse enters, but only after hearing the crash of a snowglobe, which has fallen from the dead man's hand to the floor.
Rest of the movie?
Plot hole.

I probably should've grown weary too, but I don't like to think of it as "defending" it, rather just using criticisms as talking points to launch into discussions about all the things I loved and found interesting about the film. Which surprisingly still hasn't gotten tiring

Thanks for your shoutout though. Superior post btw