The Dark Knight Rises Am I the only one that feels like TDKR prevents Nolan's trilogy from being perfect? - Part 1

[BatLobster]

Well, here's my bit about the Goyer thing...in the past he's been praised for his "big picture" ideas but criticized a lot for his one-liners and dialogue- either fairly or unfairly.

Yes, I know the buck stops with the director. I was just having a similar argument in the Star Wars thread about Star Trek Into Darkness...and I was saying that Abrams shouldn't be completely let off the hook because the script had to go through him to get to the screen.

It's just that in the case of TDKR...the things that people tend to be unhappy with about are big picture story elements, things that had to stem back to the original outline. That's why I'm a little surprised Goyer doesn't take a little more heat, considering he's supposed to be in there as the "guardian of the mythology". Not that I think he deserves it, it's just an observation. If people are implying the whole creative team when they say "Nolan", then good- I would hope so. But it still seems even more unlikely to me that all three of them would not have their hearts in it.

In terms of directing- it's a well executed film. Visually stunning. Emotionally potent. Great performances. Fantastic special effects. An engaging story that holds your attention from beginning to end. All the marks of good directing are there. And I think it's well written too, with some great, memorable and quotable dialogue throughout. The fact that people have to point to Talia's death scene (which honestly isn't that bad) as some sort of evidence that Nolan was phoning in on set is kind of odd to me. While we're at it, Irvin Kershner should probably go back and film another take of Luke screaming "No!" that isn't completely hilarious. This kind of thing happens. Maybe you think you had it in another take but the focus was off by a smidgen. Who knows? Maybe the take he used was exactly what he wanted for whatever cooky reason. I always found Thomas Wayne's death scene kind of awkward too, maybe those just aren't Nolan's bag. In any event, it's one minor oddball moment in a film full of fantastic performances.

Anyway, it's not like I only love TDKR only because it's bigger. A bigger bomb and bigger booms alone don't make a good movie. Just like TDK increased the scale and blew up a LOT more stuff while telling a great story, I felt this film continued in that tradition. To me the story has the most heart of the three, that's what keeps me invested. It feels very intimate to me despite the gargantuan scale. At the same time I appreciate the challenges that go into making a film of this size and doing so much of it practically and, I don't take Nolan for the type of guy who suddenly would decide to go style over substance and put all that work in if he didn't feel that all of that was in service of a story that he felt was worth telling. Maybe it feels like "kewl for the sake of kewl" to someone who didn't connect with the film, but I still don't think that's what the intentions were. But in the end, none of us are in Nolan's head and our reactions to this are merely extensions of how we feel about the film.

 

[shauner111]

People connected with the film and people didn't. Like with anything. In this case it really was mostly batman fans that were the ones who didnt. For a person like me who felt the connection, it came off like both the biggest and most emotional story of the three. And from my own experiences with people who i wouldnt call "batman comic book readers", they also felt it was the more emotional story. But for someone who cant get past certain elements...well...they're going to think that it lacked the heart that the first two had.

Fair enough. But i will always see Rises as the one with the most heart. Even though the first two had a tremendous amount of it.

 

[BH/HHH]

Yeah its all about opinion at the end of the day, I have big problems with Rises but thankfully beyond that it's still a decent movie. I wish I'd enjoyed it as much as some others but unfortunately I didn't as much and its problems become more evident to me every-time I watch it. I hope one day I can let the problems go but I'm bad for that sort of thing. Saying that I do find enjoyment in Superman III now that I didn't for years so anything can happen. So my biggest complaint about Rises is I don't think it touches the greatness of the previous two but its still a decent film and for a third superhero film that's pretty good going really.

 

[BatLobster]

Yeah, I think context can be a big factor. People thought the Burton films were the pinnacle of how dark and serious you could get with the character for a long time. Years from now when the Nolan trilogy is truly past tense and we're knee-deep in Batfleck I think we'll all be able to see it a little more clearly for what it is and what it means in the overall history of the character. Not just Rises but all three films.

I think a lot of fans who felt burned with Rises were looking at Nolan's films as THE version that all future Batman movies should be based off so it's understandable that they'd be upset at some major creative liberties taken with the length of Bruce's career, how he passes the mantle, etc.

However, people talk a lot about how they should just make one-off Batman films ala Bond (like we had in the 90s). The way I see it, Nolan and Co. made a one-off trilogy. They didn't overstay their welcome, and they ended the story the way felt was appropriate- which also happened to be a nice way of giving the next filmmaker (Affleck?) a clean slate to work from. Think of it this way- would an acclaimed director like Affleck even consider doing a Batman movie if he had to be locked into all the continuity of the Nolan series? I think anyone who thinks he would is kidding themselves. Like he said, what they're doing now isn't trying to compete with the Nolan movies. I think that's clearly very important to him and Snyder, since it's already come up a few times in interviews. Nobody wants to be the guy doing a cheap imitation of something great and well-loved. And personally, I love seeing the character reinvented...it's one of the reasons Batman is my favorite superhero. And it's how the character manages to attract all different types of talent- in comics, TV and film.

 

[BH/HHH]

Yeah, I think context can be a big factor. People thought the Burton films were the pinnacle of how dark and serious you could get with the character for a long time. Years from now when the Nolan trilogy is truly past tense and we're knee-deep in Batfleck I think we'll all be able to see it a little more clearly for what it is and what it means in the overall history of the character. Not just Rises but all three films.

I think a lot of fans who felt burned with Rises were looking at Nolan's films as THE version that all future Batman movies should be based off so it's understandable that they'd be upset at some major creative liberties taken with the length of Bruce's career, how he passes the mantle, etc.

However, people talk a lot about how they should just make one-off Batman films ala Bond (like we had in the 90s). The way I see it, Nolan and Co. made a one-off trilogy. They didn't overstay their welcome, and they ended the story the way felt was appropriate- which also happened to be a nice way of giving the next filmmaker (Affleck?) a clean slate to work from. Think of it this way- would an acclaimed director like Affleck even consider doing a Batman movie if he had to be locked into all the continuity of the Nolan series? I think anyone who thinks he would is kidding themselves. Like he said, what they're doing now isn't trying to compete with the Nolan movies. I think that's clearly very important to him and Snyder, since it's already come up a few times in interviews. Nobody wants to be the guy doing a cheap imitation of something great and well-loved. And personally, I love seeing the character reinvented...it's one of the reasons Batman is my favorite superhero. And it's how the character manages to attract all different types of talent- in comics, TV and film.

Yeah I was definitely in that camp.

 

[Shikamaru]

The only version I see as the Batman version all future versions (not counting comics) should take inspiration from is Bruce Timm's Batman.

 

[BatLobster]

I think every incarnation of Batman influences the next in some way, at least the good ones. Even BTAS took some cues from the Burton films. The art deco, quasi 1940s style being a big one. Yes, a lot of that has to due with it being a product of the 90s and them trying to semi-tie into the movie franchise of the time, but even so it's there. Then you have the Arkham series which kind of blends Burton, Nolan and BTAS/the comics into its own little stew. So to me Batman is a constantly evolving character where creators are always going to be cross-pollenating influences.

In other words, there really is no, one definitive version. I adore BTAS and I think it's one of the greatest animated shows of all time, but I don't really view it as an "A" canon above everything else. And the comics are way too convoluted as a whole (esp. with the new 52) to just consolidate into one canon. I just have different Batman versions for different moods, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[Shikamaru]

I get that. My point though was that I never saw Nolan's Batman as the end-all-be-all of Batman. Not that I saw Batman TAS as that, but I would have been fine with a reboot or sequel after TDK.

 

[BatLobster]

Yeah, I get you there Shika. Obviously I don't presume to speak for everyone when I say that. But I do know there was a sizable portion of the fanbase that used to fantasize about Fincher (for example) taking over after Nolan's third film and making his own trilogy set after Nolan's films, and so on.

To be honest, I'm not even sure what I wanted back in the pre-TDKR days. I can barely remember now. I guess I just kind of assumed they'd try to keep the franchise going for as long as possible, but it wasn't exactly something I was particularly excited for. To me, once you recast the lead actor and director you may as well reboot.

 

[Shikamaru]

I was fine either way. I think a common misconception people have with people like me that complain about the ending and the whole "end of the epic three-act trilogy" thing is that we're upset because we wanted to see Nolan's franchise continue. Not necessarily. I would have been fine with things ending at the third film, even with a closed ending. The issues that I take are 1) the closed ending we specifically got doesn't fit the franchise IMO and 2) the attitude - the whole "epic end of this three-act trilogy" thing. I would have been perfectly fine with the third film being the third film of the franchise that just happened to wrap things up at the end, which is essentially what it is IMO. It's the whole "In retrospect, this was always a three-act trilogy like BB/TDK like SW and LOTR" that felt shoved down my throat.

 

[BatLobster]

I think it would've been just as disingenuous if they just acted like it was a purely "accidental" trilogy. The first two films always felt very much like a beginning and middle and adhere to a lot of trilogy tropes in and of themselves.

If Nolan had come out and said, "Honestly it never even occurred to us once that this could be a trilogy over the past 7 years, but we just decided to end the story here cause 3 felt like a good number", I'd have called BS on him and I think a lot of people would've too. It's not like he's saying everything was planned all along either. He's openly said numerous times that it's a bit more complicated than "it was always planned" and "it was never planned".

Besides, we have plenty of superhero third movies that are kinda/sorta trilogy closers but not really. The foundation had been laid, I'm glad they went for it.

Also, the marketing billed it as the epic conclusion to the "Dark Knight Legend", not trilogy, which I think was fair. It's only become known as TDKT post-Rises, which again makes sense since the audience has had a chance to view it as a unified piece of work and can see how the three movies work together.

 

[shauner111]

I want the rebooted solo films to be more like B:TAS. And i love that show, but i honestly love the first season much more than what it became. Even the first half or 3/4 of the first season was much stronger than the rest. Of course what they all did to Freeze and Penguin in the Arkham games was pretty similar but an improvement of what Timm/Dini already did.

If the reboot can follow that then it would be a dream come true. And i know Shika doesn't care for the Kingdom Come direction for the new crossover movies, but i love it.

When it's all said and done, we'll see the Burton movies as fantastical, gothic Batman who kills. Where monsters roam around. Even Batman is portayed like a creature in the shadows. The Shumacher will be looked at as lesser quality version of Adam West. The light comedy, the colors, just a bigger budget. Nolan's will be seen as the more stripped down Bruce/Bat centric movies where there were no superheroes, sidekicks, aliens or gods. And the Snyderverse will be seen as the big shared universe where Batman interacts with super-powered heroes, has a more serious take on his sidekicks, a whole slew of rogues roaming around sometimes in robot suits. Drones, aliens, you name it. Pretty futuristic and sci-fi i must say.

That's the best part. Every era i mentioned gives a completely different take on Batman. A completely different world too.

I guess as long as they keep it moving forward then im happy.

As for Fincher taking over for Nolan. Or even Alfonso Cuaron. Hell, even Ben Affleck as a director (not as an actor). Those are all good ideas. I remember a lot of people wanting Darren Aronofsky as well. But im sure WB would have hijacked it for the Man Of Steel franchise.

It would have been cool seeing Nolan's Batman go on Bond style but still staying true to it NOT being a shared universe.

 

[bilbo baggins]

in my honest opinion it could have been but it wasnt. because the ending is where is at. if your going to kill off the main character and coolest hero in the world, then you just destroyed the trilogy. even though im pro-rises, i do understand to a degree peoples gripes bout plot-holes. this story was about a man trying to find a life worth living and to have him die and not fufill it is just wrong, and terrible. but he did, and although im still working out how he did it, i just think it was flawless. basically if you are a rises hater, you cant tell me the ending didnt make up for a lot of the gripes you guys had at the end of the movie. ( and i also realise haters hate blake) so rises haters take the end minus blake, and tell me you didnt love it.