The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 144

[BatLobsterRises]

And see, I think the great thing about Batman Begins is that by going into meticulous detail about the nuts and bolts of how Bruce is able to become Batman, it establishes a level of credibility that you can take with you moving forward. It doesn't have to get bogged down in the minutiae of explaining each and every thing that Batman does if you have a solid enough foundation about how he operates.

It was actually TDK that started the trend of Bruce being "ahead" of the audience (and other characters) when it came to certain things, by leaving everything involving the commissioning and development of the sonar machine off-screen.

[Brain Damage]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

And see, I think the great thing about Batman Begins is that by going into meticulous detail about the nuts and bolts of how Bruce is able to become Batman, it establishes a level of credibility that you can take with you moving forward. It doesn't have to get bogged down in the minutiae of explaining every little thing.

It was actually TDK that started the trend of Bruce being "ahead" of the audience (and other characters) when it came to certain things, by leaving everything involving the commissioning and development of the sonar machine off-screen.

"Did you reassign R&D?"

"Yeah."

"I wasn't aware we had any government contracts"

"Lucius, I'm playing this one pretty close to the chest."

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by Brain Damage

"Did you reassign R&D?"

"Yeah."

"I wasn't aware we had any government contracts"

"Lucius, I'm playing this one pretty close to the chest."

And that's all. Just a tad of lip-service to set it up. Nothing in depth. At that point in the movie, we have no idea what the machine is or what he's building it for. Hence, he's ahead of us. The point of view has shifted away from Bruce's into a territory where he can do things even behind our backs.

[Brain Damage]

Yes, but there is still a set up and pay off.

What is the set up and pay off for how Bruce gets back into Gotham? And please don't say the supply trucks, because that doesnt explain how he managed to get back to the States and there's nothing to set up that he even knows how the government are getting their agents inside.

And to be fair, the whole how did he get back thing never bothered me too much. I'm not one of those people who cried foul on the whole movie because of it. But it is a plot hole.

[Gotham's Knight]

Originally Posted by Brain Damage

Yes, but there is still a set up and pay off.

What is the set up and pay off for how Bruce gets back into Gotham? And please don't say the supply trucks, because that doesnt explain how he managed to get back to the States and there's nothing to set up that he even knows how the government are getting their agents inside.

And to be fair, the whole how did he get back thing never bothered me too much. I'm not one of those people who cried foul on the whole movie because of it. But it is a plot hole.

Personally, the set up is Batman Begins. We see him travel the world through sneaking onboard ships and infiltrating smuggling rings (which doubled as learning the criminal mind), I can believe that, in about 3 weeks, he can get back to Gotham sneaking onboard ships once again.

And how is it a plot hole when there's an explanation for it?

[BatLobsterRises]

There's no setup and payoff as such, but there are still hints. The supply truck is one, yes. How he got back to the States is easy, since we've already established Bruce as someone who was able to travel the world without a cent to his name in Begins. We also see that he can walk the ice no problem (another callback to Begins). But going back to the supply truck thing, if those were the only vehicles being allowed into the city (and they were from what we can tell), that's information Bruce would have gotten simply from watching the news in the prison. I mean some of this stuff would be cool to see now that I'm thinking of it but I truly don't believe it would've made the movie any better at all.

I think it's something that was simply omitted to keep the pace driving forward at more traditional Act 3 pace and to have that nice Batman moment where he reveals himself to Selina. Once the character obstacle of escaping the pit has been overcome, the logistical obstacles of someone as resourceful as Bruce getting back to his city become far less urgent. In that awesome wideshot outside the pit where he starts walking towards the village, I wasn't wondering, "How's he gonna get back to Gotham?". I was thinking, "Nothing is going to stop this man from getting back to Gotham". It was the setup and payoff all in one for me.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Brain Damage

I will say, the thing that makes The Joker being able to magically pull his plans together off screen work vs Bruce doing magical Batman things off screen not work is consistency.

From the very scene with Joker we see him set in motion an elaborate plan and have it go off without a hitch, and this carries throughout the entire film. So, by the time the hospital/ferries scenes roll around, you're used to him being able to pull off these amazing feats of planning.

Comparatively, not only do we see how Bruce does things in TDKR (how he tracks Selina) but we also spent an ENTIRE MOVIE dedicated to how Batman does what he does in detail. So for TDKR to play the "Well, he's Batman card" felt awful cheap. To me at least.

Originally Posted by Brain Damage

Yes, but there is still a set up and pay off.

What is the set up and pay off for how Bruce gets back into Gotham? And please don't say the supply trucks, because that doesnt explain how he managed to get back to the States and there's nothing to set up that he even knows how the government are getting their agents inside.

And to be fair, the whole how did he get back thing never bothered me too much. I'm not one of those people who cried foul on the whole movie because of it. But it is a plot hole.

Exactly

Btw milost I'm loving your posts.

[milost]

Originally Posted by Gotham's Knight

Personally, the set up is Batman Begins. We see him travel the world through sneaking onboard ships and infiltrating smuggling rings (which doubled as learning the criminal mind), I can believe that, in about 3 weeks, he can get back to Gotham sneaking onboard ships once again.

And how is it a plot hole when there's an explanation for it?

But he was leaving Gotham in Begins though, so that's a stretch.

And Gotham wasn't occupied by terrorists and closed off from the rest of the world in Begins. AND Bruce Wayne still had his faithful butler and all of his assets. AND he wasn't imprisoned in the middle of no where in a desert.


Pretty big difference. How did he get back to Gotham in Batman Begins? Why, he simply called up his butler and flew back to Gotham in HIS PRIVATE JET (which meets him just under the mountains, close to where he was left off last time).


In TDKR it's established that no one comes in or out (unless you're supplies), and if you somehow do manage to get in (special ops), they're on your tail almost immediately. There's also the fact that several key entrances back into the city are closed off, blown to bits and there's not only an entire city inside who is supposed to be vigilant to people that come in or out (out of fear of the "ordinary citizen") but also the government OUTSIDE that is keeping tabs on what goes in as to not upset the situation.


That was what they established and the rules they set. So it's a little jarring when we see Bruce escape, with no money or things to his name, with nothing more than a piece of wrap around cloth (with a little food I guess), in the middle of nowhere in an unnamed location WITH only days to go before the bomb goes off. Then to top it off, when we see him again, he's just strolling up to Selina (like he was in there all along) and coincidentally the bomb will go off with hours to go. I mean, they would have been the perfect opportunity to depict a "disguised Bruce", but nah, just let him stroll right down the walk way towards Selina.







It would be like, in The Dark Knight, if they just had Batman arrive in Hong Kong and abduct Lau without any mention of the skyhook or the "nice man from Arizona who takes cash and smugglers who fly below radar". But no, they do set it up and explain it brilliantly.


Not saying everything needs to be explained (certainly when Nolan will hit you in the head over and over again with the same ideas and themes), but the things that he chooses not to go into detail, when he has before, is just baffling and against what he did in the previous films. Sure, there's the Joker, but atleast we get some sense that he's capable of doing these things as the film and character evolves. They start out small with a bank robbery, seems simple enough. Then they build up to the hospital then the ferries. It's all built upon and with Joker's character being two steps ahead of everyone and in control of the city, it's not hard to imagine.


TDKR though? It has the most convoluted things in it that, for me, took me out of the picture. Magical USB that don't exist . . . until Batman has one. Your back is fixed after I punch it and you can fall hard as many times as you want and you'll never hurt it again. Magical knee brace that can kick down solid brick walls but not the big bad villain that's kicking your butt. Just happening to arrive in the city in the nick of time in a city that's surrounded and blocked off to the world, after you were just on the other side of the world somewhere in some unspecified location with nothing to get you out. Clean energy turned Nuclear bomb project that our hero conjured up that happened off screen and is now a huge threat (Bruce was so paranoid and controlling in the Dark Knight with the sonar project, wouldn't he have destroyed the clean energy orb as soon as he got even the slightest hint that it could be potentially dangerous? Seems out of character). Etc. etc.

[JDonaldD]

I agree that for pacing reasons, they cut Bruce getting back into Gotham but all they had to do was make a quick exchange between Luscious and Bruce about how he got back in.

[milost]

It would have been cool if they played up the "Wayne Manor/Palisides/Outside the city limits" angle (which is mentioned humorously in the Dark Knight). At least then I could buy how he got back into the city (passages, availability of gear besides the suit, etc.) Too bad they don't.

[BCDawg97]

Originally Posted by JDonaldD

I agree that for pacing reasons, they cut Bruce getting back into Gotham but all they had to do was make a quick exchange between Luscious and Bruce about how he got back in.

Originally Posted by milost

It would have been cool if they played up the "Wayne Manor/Palisides/Outside the city limits" angle (which is mentioned humorously in the Dark Knight). At least then I could buy how he got back into the city (passages, availability of gear besides the suit, etc.) Too bad they don't.

To me, you've got all sorts of reasons how Bruce would be able to get back into Gotham, yet not showing them makes it a plot hole... Would a quick scene have helped the transition? Sure. But was it necessary? Obviously to the eye of the beholder it depends. Bruce was rather dirty looking and in different clothes than he escaped in when he shows up with Selina. He is seen stealing food in Begins, we also know from Ra's in Begins that "You already know how to disappear, we can teach you to become truly invisible." So it seems possible we don't need an explanation and to me, that alone means the "Because he's Batman" card can be played. Obviously, your mileage may vary.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by milost

It would have been cool if they played up the "Wayne Manor/Palisides/Outside the city limits" angle (which is mentioned humorously in the Dark Knight). At least then I could buy how he got back into the city (passages, availability of gear besides the suit, etc.) Too bad they don't.

Wait a minute...so just because something isn't verbally mentioned, it's not in canon? Unlike TDK, we actually SEE Wayne Manor again in this movie and it's obviously on the countryside and not part of the Gotham City island.

And by that logic, just because Bruce's parents aren't mentioned at all in TDK, that makes their deaths not matter as much in the overall story?

The more you view the three films as a unified trio, the more you get out of them.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

Indeed. The majority of folks still love the film, it's just become a bit obscured and blurred as of late for a number of reasons. That's not to say there isn't some controversy and division, obviously there is. But there's no shortage of people who genuinely love the film and aren't just blind fanboys. It's important to remember that.

The funny thing for me is, I have a certain amount of "guilty pleasure" films that I enjoy even though most people hate them. Sometimes after reading all the venom that gets spewed in TDKR's direction I start to wonder if maybe it's just one of those movies that I'm able to enjoy in spite of its problems. But every time I watch it, by the time it's over I know I've just watched a great film and feel re-affirmed in my stance on it.

On the other hand, it's also a film that I find pretty exhausting because of how bleak a lot of it is. Of course, it's all worth it in the end because it ends up being amazingly triumphant, but it's like a roller-coaster that I have to psych myself up to go on each time. Gotta be in the right mood to watch that movie, which is how I feel about TDK as well. BB I can probably throw on at almost any given time and just kick back and relax. There was a period in '06 where I'd watch it almost every night in bed as something to fall asleep to (honestly I mean that as a compliment, lol).

There's no way TDKR could be presumed as a "guilty pleasure" kind of film when the only nitpicking of the film is mentioned by a few bad-mouthed reviewers and the over-"righteous" CB fans. The majority of the general audience loves it, numerous top ten lists mentions the threequel and Christopher Nolan is the only director to have two CBMs on AFI's top ten list. TDKR is very much loved, but that's the thing it should be. A director should try to please many instead of just a few. I feel that's why Watchmen didn't achieve so much because it was only trying to please the few.

Originally Posted by Brain Damage

I will say, the thing that makes The Joker being able to magically pull his plans together off screen work vs Bruce doing magical Batman things off screen not work is consistency.

From the very scene with Joker we see him set in motion an elaborate plan and have it go off without a hitch, and this carries throughout the entire film. So, by the time the hospital/ferries scenes roll around, you're used to him being able to pull off these amazing feats of planning.

Comparatively, not only do we see how Bruce does things in TDKR (how he tracks Selina) but we also spent an ENTIRE MOVIE dedicated to how Batman does what he does in detail. So for TDKR to play the "Well, he's Batman card" felt awful cheap. To me at least.

The "card" is thrown out after numerous mentions of why something happens. Batman walks on ice because he learned how to while sword-fighting Ra's al Ghul in BB. He's able to sneak into Gotham City because he's trained as a ninja as well as Nolan showing us already how even the Special Forces members got into Gotham(so it wasn't that hard to sneak in).

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

Wait a minute...so just because something isn't verbally mentioned, it's not in canon? Unlike TDK, we actually SEE Wayne Manor again in this movie and it's obviously on the countryside and not part of the Gotham City island.

And by that logic, just because Bruce's parents aren't mentioned at all in TDK, that makes their deaths not matter as much in the overall story?

The more you view the three films as a unified trio, the more you get out of them.

You're talking to someone who believes it's a retcon in TDKR since we never saw Alfred go to Italy in BB, lol.

[shauner111]

Originally Posted by milost

It would have been cool if they played up the "Wayne Manor/Palisides/Outside the city limits" angle (which is mentioned humorously in the Dark Knight). At least then I could buy how he got back into the city (passages, availability of gear besides the suit, etc.) Too bad they don't.

This makes me laugh. So you basically just answered ur own question of how he got back to Gotham, it seems like u pretty much know how. And you say it yourself that it's mentioned in the previous movie, yet you need it to be explained for you? This is why they didn't throw in a scene of dialogue to explain how he got back, because you, me and a lot of other people can think of an easy way for him to get back.

This goes back to the hilarious argument of "Nolan uses too much exposition!" then when he backs off it's "He should have explained it or shown us!!".

You can't please everybody so why bother.

The fact that they mentioned it in TDK should be good enough for an audience member to think "OK he's a ninja, he's sneaked around in disguise before, and he probably got in close to Wayne Manor, im sure there's secret passages and so forth".Not to be rude but it seems like people these days can't use their imagination anymore when watching a film. Their hand has to be held.

[Eggyman]

My problem is the exposition. Rather than Alfred's awful 'hung up your cape and your cowl' monologue, how about exposition for things we don't actually see in the film? We know he's hung up his cape and cowl, we see him using a cane, Bane says himself he's from the League but that reaveal's lost due to Alfred's motor mouth. If you have exposition, it should be used to let the viewer know things that they wouldn't otherwise, not sum things up for them in a forced monologue.

[milost]

Originally Posted by Eggyman

My problem is the exposition. Rather than Alfred's awful 'hung up your cape and your cowl' monologue, how about exposition for things we don't actually see in the film? We know he's hung up his cape and cowl, we see him using a cane, Bane says himself he's from the League but that reaveal's lost due to Alfred's motor mouth. If you have exposition, it should be used to let the viewer know things that they wouldn't otherwise, not sum things up for them in a forced monologue.

Exactly.


That's even what I stated in my post.

"Not saying everything needs to be explained (certainly when Nolan will hit you in the head over and over again with the same ideas and themes), but the things that he chooses not to go into detail, when he has before, is just baffling and against what he did in the previous films."

In TDKR it just feels so wrong.

[shauner111]

Actually I disagree, Alfreds exposition is done during emotional scenes and because it has to do with the theme of the entire trilogy. Something like not explaining how he got back to Gotham is just a waste of time when the person watching can use their imagination, especially when it's been hinted at throughout the trilogy that he's a damn ninja and he's been in and out of the city by sneaking around before. AND we know there's secret tunnels and Wayne Manor is on the outskirts of the city. Your brain is useful, God gave it to us for a reason, and we can use it when watching a film. Not every single thing is going to be explained only some of it.

I can't imagine any of you on here liking LOST (my fav tv series of all time) because they leave so much to the imagination.

[Eggyman]

Originally Posted by shauner111

Actually I disagree, Alfreds exposition is done during emotional scenes and because it has to do with the theme of the entire trilogy. Something like not explaining how he got back to Gotham is just a waste of time when the person watching can use their imagination, especially when it's been hinted at throughout the trilogy that he's a damn ninja and he's been in and out of the city by sneaking around before. AND we know there's secret tunnels and Wayne Manor is on the outskirts of the city. Your brain is useful, God gave it to us for a reason, and we can use it when watching a film. Not every single thing is going to be explained only some of it.

I can't imagine any of you on here liking LOST (my fav tv series of all time) because they leave so much to the imagination.

If you don't need exposition to explain things we don't know, then why do you need it for things we do know or will find out when watching events unfold?

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Eggyman

If you don't need exposition to explain things we don't know, then why do you need it for things we do know or will find out when watching events unfold?

Well played, Eggy

[Brain Damage]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

The "card" is thrown out after numerous mentions of why something happens. Batman walks on ice because he learned how to while sword-fighting Ra's al Ghul in BB. He's able to sneak into Gotham City because he's trained as a ninja as well as Nolan showing us already how even the Special Forces members got into Gotham(so it wasn't that hard to sneak in).

If this is really a good enough explanation for you then there is no point in arguing about it. Ignoring even getting back into the COUNTRY, did Bruce just walk across the ice without anybody noticing? Or maybe he snuck on one of the supply trucks and nobody was like "Oh, hey, it's Bruce Wayne". Those special ops guys were able to sneak in because they looked just like supply delivery men. Bruce sneaking in without anybody recognizing him would be like Bill Gates hoping on one of those trucks. Maybe, you'll say, he snuck INSIDE a truck (climbing in, hanging on the bottom, etc). Maybe. But that wasn't in the movie. So we can just speculate.

The point is, the filmmakers set up this incredible "No one gets in or out" scenario and Bruce gets to bypass it completely off-screen just because he's the protagonist? Well, that is lazy writing.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by shauner111

I can't imagine any of you on here liking LOST (my fav tv series of all time) because they leave so much to the imagination.

I liked LOST until season three...than it just became too much in season four and I quit it like a bad habit, lol. And everytime I think of LOST I think of what Joker brings up in Arkham City when you enter the Steel Mill, lol.

Also, Supernatural is a show that leaves quite a bit to the imagination, such as the order of creation(with all the little hints the show gives, it still leaves a lot of what and who is created first, second, third, et cetera).

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by Eggyman

If you don't need exposition to explain things we don't know, then why do you need it for things we do know or will find out when watching events unfold?

Because (just as a for instance) the writers wanted us to know that Bane was associated with the League of Shadows before Bruce encountered him. That was never meant to be a huge surprise or come out of left field when Batman encounters Bane. Instead they wanted Alfred to use that as a way to talk Bruce out of resuming his role as Batman (ala Rocky III). Alfred is basically trying to tell Bruce, "This guy is like you, except better."

Alfred's exposition is an emotional beat, but also establishes that Bane has a "legend" attached to him. It's almost better to hear it out of the mouths of other characters than Bane himself in that case.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Brain Damage

If this is really a good enough explanation for you then there is no point in arguing about it. Ignoring even getting back into the COUNTRY, did Bruce just walk across the ice without anybody noticing? Or maybe he snuck on one of the supply trucks and nobody was like "Oh, hey, it's Bruce Wayne". Those special ops guys were able to sneak in because they looked just like supply delivery men. Bruce sneaking in without anybody recognizing him would be like Bill Gates hoping on one of those trucks. Maybe, you'll say, he snuck INSIDE a truck (climbing in, hanging on the bottom, etc). Maybe. But that wasn't in the movie. So we can just speculate.

The point is, the filmmakers set up this incredible "No one gets in or out" scenario and Bruce gets to bypass it completely off-screen just because he's the protagonist? Well, that is lazy writing.

There isn't a point for me to "argue" about it, but there's no argument between us, lol; we're just sharing viewpoints.

And what exactly do you mean about reaching the country on ice?

Plus...in BB, no one notices Bruce Wayne in a hoodie, so how would it be so easy for Bruce to be noticeable if he hopped unto a supply truck?

It's not lazy writing by no means...just the kind of writing that doesn't explain everything and while that's what makes it odd for a Nolan film that has plenty of exposition dialogue, TDKR is, as a whole film, that carries more subtle moments than exposition. But, that's still not lazy writing, just different for a Nolan film.

[shauner111]

Originally Posted by Eggyman

If you don't need exposition to explain things we don't know, then why do you need it for things we do know or will find out when watching events unfold?

Because in that scene Alfred is trying to paint a picture to Bruce (and the audience) of what his life once was and what it could have been. I don't see the problem.

Back to plot-holes. Most of the legendary movies of all time have em'. Suspend ur disbelief, especially when it's an action movie about a superhero. This is not a super technical serious novel ur reading.

[shauner111]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

I liked LOST until season three...than it just became too much in season four and I quit it like a bad habit, lol. And everytime I think of LOST I think of what Joker brings up in Arkham City when you enter the Steel Mill, lol.

Also, Supernatural is a show that leaves quite a bit to the imagination, such as the order of creation(with all the little hints the show gives, it still leaves a lot of what and who is created first, second, third, et cetera).

Actually season 4 might be my favorite season next to the first.