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

[Lord]

Exactly all you have to do is look at the Comics or even a long standing series like the Bond films they've changed the tone and style so many times and it works.

Yeah, i think Nolan did the right set up for a long running franchise, but because of his decision to end if DC goes for a film series a la 007 then they won't be able to start from the origin. But i can see why Nolan did it, going for a forever going franchise like 007 also leads to some mediocre films.

I had hopes DC would try to make their character films go on forever and then team-up in a Justice League film if the time was right, but in least Marvel's doing that too.

 

[CrypticOne]

The only thing I didn't like about TDKR was Catwoman. I'm probably alone in that opinion, and I have only seen this film once, so maybe when the DVD comes out, that'll change.

 

[Brain Damage]

The only thing I didn't like about TDKR was Catwoman. I'm probably alone in that opinion, and I have only seen this film once, so maybe when the DVD comes out, that'll change.

Did you not like Anne's performance or the way the character was used in the film?

 

[CrypticOne]

Did you not like Anne's performance or the way the character was used in the film?

The way she was used in the film. I don't know why. Like I said, I'm gonna have to watch it again to see if it changes my opinion. Anne's performance was good, but I don't know. I just didn't like Catwoman there. I know this is a comic book film, but she seemed a little cartoony. If that makes any sense.

 

[the last son]

She was just OK. I don't agree with everyone who just says she blew the doors off the performance. I really didn't like the way she was written. As, I have said time and time again she is just not good looking enough, with no body. Catwoman has to have a little bit of curves. I would take a less of an actor with a hot body and better face. Give me Rachel McAdams. Or Rachel Weiss anyone but Anne.

 

[The Joker]

Selina is by far my favorite character in the movie. My only complaint is she wasn't used enough. I'd GLADLY erase Talia, Foley and Blake from the movie in favor of Selina getting more screen time. Anne was wonderful and had genuine chemistry with Christian, something he never had with Katie, Maggie and Marion.

 

[Brain Damage]

The way she was used in the film. I don't know why. Like I said, I'm gonna have to watch it again to see if it changes my opinion. Anne's performance was good, but I don't know. I just didn't like Catwoman there. I know this is a comic book film, but she seemed a little cartoony. If that makes any sense.

I can see where you're coming from. It was definitely a bit of a "shock" to see Batman walking around with another costumed person after BB and TDK, but it's something multiple viewings help out with, I promise you.

My gripe is that not nearly enough was done with the character and her relationship with Bruce felt rushed, but I thought Anne was terrific.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Selina is by far my favorite character in the movie. My only complaint is she wasn't used enough. I'd GLADLY erase Talia, Foley and Blake from the movie in favor of Selina getting more screen time. Anne was wonderful and had genuine chemistry with Christian, something he never had with Katie, Maggie and Marion.

Anne Hathaway had a very great performance as Selina indeed. She is probably the best love interest Nolan has ever written, and while I wouldn't erase Talia(I'd give her more scenes as well) or Blake(a character I actually liked), I'd definitely take out Foley to give Selina more scenes.

 

[MarvelKnight]

The Ending is what made this the not-so-perfect trilogy for me. For the rest of my days, I'll be convinced that he should have kept BW dead. And 'not just to the public' I mean dead-dead. What better way to drive home the 'anyone can be batman' than having the batman die saving the city then having the JRB rise into the batcave... meh, Oh well. Still a really great movie.

 

[Anno_Domini]

It makes more sense for Wayne to have faked his death and beforehand, think about how to pass the mantle down, imo.

 

[Lord]

I loved the ending, i think it was a perfect way to end the trilogy

 

[Tequilla]

The Ending is what made this the not-so-perfect trilogy for me. For the rest of my days, I'll be convinced that he should have kept BW dead. And 'not just to the public' I mean dead-dead. What better way to drive home the 'anyone can be batman' than having the batman die saving the city then having the JRB rise into the batcave... meh, Oh well. Still a really great movie.

It's his decision to move on and still live that makes it so powerful. The whole movie is built so that Bruce is able to choose to free himself from Batman , instead of dying to escape his sorrow . Yet you wanted him to fail

 

[BH/HHH]

Yeah, i think Nolan did the right set up for a long running franchise, but because of his decision to end if DC goes for a film series a la 007 then they won't be able to start from the origin. But i can see why Nolan did it, going for a forever going franchise like 007 also leads to some mediocre films.

I had hopes DC would try to make their character films go on forever and then team-up in a Justice League film if the time was right, but in least Marvel's doing that too.

It doesn't necessarily have to go one forever though, it could have lasted maybe 5-7 films like Harry Potter did (was there 8 of those?), that way we could have gotten an extensive look at Batman's rogues gallery.

 

[BatLobster]

It doesn't necessarily have to go one forever though, it could have lasted maybe 5-7 films like Harry Potter did (was there 8 of those?), that way we could have gotten an extensive look at Batman's rogues gallery.

But once you establish it as an ongoing franchise with different directors and actors and such, it's becomes the studio's baby and not any one director's. And as long as the films make money they'd have no reason to cut it short. It's not like Potter where there's a finite amount of books.

It's kind of like how the old Burton/Schumacher franchise probably would have gone on for a lot longer if B&R didn't destroy it.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Indeed. I prefer a project being a director's own "baby" rather than just the studio who could greatly change the tone and atmosphere down the road, such as when Schumacher took over. Granted, Burton still had some "awful" elements in Batman Returns, but not overly campy once BF reached theatres and then...the dreaded Batman & Robin.

It's his decision to move on and still live that makes it so powerful. The whole movie is built so that Bruce is able to choose to free himself from Batman , instead of dying to escape his sorrow . Yet you wanted him to fail

You think death results in Bruce failing?

Granted, I am fine with how Bruce moved on, but death doesn't equate to failure.

 

[BatLobster]

I think if Bruce didn't make enough of an effort to survive, it could be seen as a type of failure because that was the lesson he was supposed to have learned in the Pit.

If he had thought he fixed the autopilot, but then it crapped out on him at the last minute...then it wouldn't be a failure, just a very unfortunate and tragic ending to the trilogy.

 

[BlueLightning]

I think I'm the only one who actually liked the 8 year gap as for me this was never a Bruce that seemed devoted to doing this for his whole life. His parents were his motivation still but it always seemed that if there was a way out he'd take it. Just look at TDK as soon as Harvey stood up he was ready to step down.

Unless I'm remembering it wrong when Bruce is asked how long he wants to do this for he says "As long as I have to" (I think that is in the film) so that clearly isn't a man who wants to do this forever. You also have Dent in TDK saying "The Batman doesn't want to do this for the rest of his life how could he? He is looking for someone to take up his mantle." then in TDKR he found that in Blake and then Bruce moved on.

But really, who would really want to be Batman in a real sense? In a personal way, he made some tough sacrifices and endured a lot of physical and spiritual pain. It is a nice touch of humanity that he longed for happiness, and I loved about all of this is that at the end when Bruce had the chance for being happy, he took it.

 

[Tequilla]

You think death results in Bruce failing?

Granted, I am fine with how Bruce moved on, but death doesn't equate to failure.

No. Not always. Death per se doesnt mean failure. Im saying in this particular story , the progress that Nolan makes him (and us ) go through , him dying would definitely be some sort of failure . This is a theme that goes back to Begins , Rachel stating Bruce's real face was Batman (the notion he's starting to lose itself in the monstrous aspect that represent Batman) , TDk (the letter , when I told you that if Gotham no longer needed Batman we could be together, I meant it. But now I'm sure the day won't come when you no longer need Batman) , and this inability to release himself from his alter-ego will take him to a path of death that Alfred addresses in Rises (Yes, this city needs Bruce Wayne. Your resources, your knowledge... It doesn't need your body. Not your life. You see only one end to your journey )

So , the way things are built , if Bruce chose death to escape his pain , that would definitely be a failure.

Im not saying that if he died because he had no time to escape it would be a failure. Things progress so that's he able to make that choice. As Nolan said , the first thing he thought and outlined about Rises was the ending. The movie is a journey to get there.

 

[Tequilla]

I think I'm the only one who actually liked the 8 year gap as for me this was never a Bruce that seemed devoted to doing this for his whole life. His parents were his motivation still but it always seemed that if there was a way out he'd take it. Just look at TDK as soon as Harvey stood up he was ready to step down.

Unless I'm remembering it wrong when Bruce is asked how long he wants to do this for he says "As long as I have to" (I think that is in the film) so that clearly isn't a man who wants to do this forever. You also have Dent in TDK saying "The Batman doesn't want to do this for the rest of his life how could he? He is looking for someone to take up his mantle." then in TDKR he found that in Blake and then Bruce moved on.

The 8 year gap seemed logical to me yes it may seem like Bruce was barely Batman but he still made a mark on this Gotham. The actions of TDKR were exactly the same IMO and not out of characater. I've seen people say he takes an 8 year gap because of Rachel! He didn't. There was no need for him to be Batman. I've seen people say that Batman should still be fighting small crime. Nolan's Batman has never been shown doing that he has only attacked some sort of organised crime. And people have said Batman would never quit. Nolan's Bruce was never devoted to Batman it seemed more like a period of his life he wanted to get past.

Nolan isn't claiming to make thee definitive Batman. It was just another take on the character. I have issues with TDKR but Bruce was not one of them I thought his arc was perfect and entirely in line with the previous two films.

I agree with you. It was more than a logical progression not the actions , but Bruce's wish to escape . That's a crucial idea from Begins and TDK.

 

[BH/HHH]

But once you establish it as an ongoing franchise with different directors and actors and such, it's becomes the studio's baby and not any one director's. And as long as the films make money they'd have no reason to cut it short. It's not like Potter where there's a finite amount of books.

It's kind of like how the old Burton/Schumacher franchise probably would have gone on for a lot longer if B&R didn't destroy it.

But again Bond as a franchise has survived bad movies. I still think an ongoing series whether its 5-7 or more would be a great way to go instead of just doing trilogies all the time.

 

[BatLobster]

But again Bond as a franchise has survived bad movies. I still think an ongoing series whether its 5-7 or more would be a great way to go instead of just doing trilogies all the time.

The thing is though, with BB and TDK they didn't really set up the Bond template. The two movies had very different styles, but they were very closely tied together in terms of themes and character arcs, just like like Star Wars/Empire Strikes Back. To slowly water down all of that would have been disappointing in the long run, IMO.

Now in the future we might perhaps get a Bond-like more loose continuity for the Batman film franchise, but it can start with that idea in mind and be more of a comic book world from the start. Nolan's more realistic take can be left alone as its own piece of Bat-history. I feel like everyone wins this way.

 

[BlueLightning]

But Bond doesn't rely heavily on continuity, to my understanding is more like an anthology.

 

[Ant-LOX]

Batman can become Bond, because honestly, apart from the costume, and more personal cry baby elements that Bruce has, they are very similar characters.

I would love a new Bat film every few years, with a cool 5 year break in between (just enough to miss him) But that's what I have had all my life, so far.

What I am saying is, that I'll see whatever Batman film they throw at me, and I'll like it because the character is awesome.

 

[BH/HHH]

The thing is though, with BB and TDK they didn't really set up the Bond template. The two movies had very different styles, but they were very closely tied together in terms of themes and character arcs, just like like Star Wars/Empire Strikes Back. To slowly water down all of that would have been disappointing in the long run, IMO.

Now in the future we might perhaps get a Bond-like more loose continuity for the Batman film franchise, but it can start with that idea in mind and be more of a comic book world from the start. Nolan's more realistic take can be left alone as its own piece of Bat-history. I feel like everyone wins this way.

I disagree the first two films set up a Bond type continuity perfectly, the first film especually did its pretty much a perfect origin story. Like I said aswell you don't need to keep the same styles n themes for later sequels. You sort of ackowledge that they happened but you donr have to have it be exactly the same style. The Bond are a perfect example.

 

[BatLobster]

I disagree the first two films set up a Bond type continuity perfectly, the first film especually did its pretty much a perfect origin story. Like I said aswell you don't need to keep the same styles n themes for later sequels. You sort of ackowledge that they happened but you donr have to have it be exactly the same style. The Bond are a perfect example.

But Bond never really had a true origin movie until Casino Royale. That's what makes it different to me, once you do the origin it becomes more of the hero's journey and that was carried over into TDK, which is as far as I'm concerned The Empire Strikes Back of the superhero genre.

Agree to disagree though.