Discussion in 'The Dark Knight Rises' started by MAKAVELI25, Nov 6, 2012.
Not until Tuesday I think.
Exactly. I wish Stephens from TDK had just been brought back instead.
Daggett was good and served a purpose. The other two could have been removed I agree.
That was what I got from that, but it's still awkwardly edited. It's clear that they changed it for time and rating reasons. Foley as a character is necessary to the story, including his arrogant, *****ey demeanor. He was indicative of the Gotham police force as a whole, or rather what it had turned into the eight years of relative inactivity and complacency. He was poised to take Gordon's job as commissioner once he had resigned or was fired. Though it wasn't handled as eloquently as it could have been, Foley's arc from being a coward holed up in his house to leading the police to taking back the city was a redemptive arc that was also indicative of the GPD, in which they finally get their dang act together after three movies of corruption and inadequacy. It was the Batman effect at play.
I agree. I'd add that him hating Batman is what Gotham became after Dent's death. He's the Gotham POV that many here claim is lacking in TDKR.
But I liked Stephens. It can't picture him hunting the Dark Knight. I don't think I could hate him like Foley...
See, I heard some stuff about a Foley character being in No Man's Land but hadn't thought much of it.
What did Foley do in NML?
Foley, perhaps shouldn't have been in the film at all, but we did need to see someone who wanted to bring down Batman since Gordon would never have wanted, unless he was forced to by the Mayor.
Daggett served a purpose and so did Jen(wasn't named Holly in TDKR), but I feel that Jen should have either died or backstabbed Selina in a way so Selina would really have no ties left for when she left Gotham.
Stephens wouldn't have been someone who would seem like he'd want to chase after Batman, though. Another cop didn't even have to show up, just have the Mayor hammer down on Gordon with going after Batman even if Jim didn't want to.
Foley was arguably the most important of those three characters to the story of the film and trilogy. His execution was jarring first viewing, but it's actually grown on me, and is actually the hilariously inept head of the police that the symbol of batman truly changes that he was envisioned to be. This is paramount to his plan throughout the whole trilogy.
Who said I wanted him hunting Batman? Foley had ONE scene where he chases Batman. That could be given to anyone, and hopefully someone not so mind numbingly stupid that they'd let criminals with hostages go in favor of catching Batman.
I'd love to hear you try and argue that given how extremely unpopular he is, and is one of the top choices for changes to be made in the movie.
It's like you and I were watching two entirely different movies.
Actually it was the only one Batman chasing scene. Not defending Foley's actions, they were stupid. That's why it's so fun to see Blake and the Veteran cop making remarks about the whole thing. I agree it could be handled better, but it wasn't necessary. We don't need to feel something for Foley, he was a character whose only purpose was to hate the Batman, and then redeeming himself.
This, pretty much. Gotta say I didn't dislike Modine's actual performance, I just thought Foley was a rather lackluster character.
Quoted for truth. Foley was one of the worst characters Nolan has ever done.
What a waste of space.
Yes, did I say otherwise?
I think it's so mind numbingly stupid to see a Deputy Commissioner who would let criminals with hostages go free just to catch Batman. Blake's comments just highlight the idiocy. Foley alienates himself from the audience so much that's why his character evokes nothing from the audience.
Mission accomplished there. I felt more sympathy for Stryver on the ice.
Unfortunately guys like Foley have to take the fall. When I watched TDKR I'm wondering where's Batman, where's Gordon, where's Alfred and even where's Selina. Perhaps Gordon had as much screen time as he did in the previous movies, but man, it sure didn't feel like it. His scenes were for the most part less then memorable or impactful. Alfred had a couple good scenes but then was gone for the better part of the movie. Bruce had alot of scenes....great, but in my opinion...too much. I understand all this "this is the Bruce Wayne story" talk really started pouring out when this movie came out, as if to somehow justify the lack of Batman. I'm sorry, but Bruce's story serves as a nice backdrop, but its the creation of the Batman and its Legend that I came to see. As much as I go on about TDKR, to be honest, I actually kind ragged on TDK when I first saw it as I thought Batman could have had a bigger pressence in that movie as well. But I could at least forgive TDK for that shortcoming as it had a pretty amazing story.
I didn't say otherwise.
When was it stated that Foley was the official deputy commissioner? I know we got info on that before the film came out, but I don't remember when, or if it was actually presented in the film.
I totally agree with this!
I don't understand the nonsense of asking where certain characters are when you knew where they are and what they're doing/been doing in TDKR. Selina, okay, I can understand why you bring her up, but we know what's going on with guys like Bruce, Gordon and we know Alfred left already earlier in the film.
Wasn't it stated during the film that he was Deputy Commissioner?
I really don't remember when they stated it, lol.
If he isn't mentioned as Deputy Commissioner in film canon, then that really takes out my biggest complaint of there being a title of 'Deputy Commissioner', haha.
It was a HUGE mistake by Nolan to not mention or acknowledge the Joker at ALL in this movie. He played a huge role into why Bruce went into retirement. A simple throwaway line said by Gordon or some other police officer at the bringing of him the movie at Wayne Manor would have been great instead of not saying anything. It could have been a quick line like " The clown has been locked up in Arkham for eight years" or something simple like that. When I saw the movie in theaters, people were saying it was lame that the movie didn't update you on the whereabouts of Joker.
Nolan's decision to not use Joker because of Ledger's passing. Even if no one understands it, needless to say we should just respect his choice.
I think that says it all
I used to feel the way you do about the lack of a Joker reference, Shadowboxer. But given it wasn't done out of sloppy writing where the script just clean neglected to mention him, and it was a conscious decision by Nolan out of respect for Ledger's memory, I am fine with it.
If anything else the legacy of his actions ripple through the movie. We know who destroyed Harvey. We know who killed Rachel. We know why Batman had to take the blame for Harvey's crimes (The Joker cannot win). We know who's responsible for Bruce's depressive mental state.
Had the film took place just a year or two after TDK, then yeah, I would have excepted some mention of the Joker. But considering it was 8 years, the only previous character who really demanded mentioning was Dent, because of the whole lie.
I'm still surprised at how many people still cry a foul for Joker not being mentioned.
Yea I know Heath's death hit Nolan hard, but Joker is Bats arch enemy who DEFINES him , and given the events of DK it would have been nice to know what happened to him in the eight year gap. To me not mentioning joker was a slap in the face to Heath's performance as joker. As much as I like Heath and appreciate his performance, no actor is bigger than the character. But what's done is done, so I will let it go.