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

[BatmanBeyond]

I said....I believe that Bruce quit being Batman because of Rachel's death.

I said there were other reasons beyond that....that made me dislike the movie.

So.....saying that Ralf (or whoever, I have no idea who he is) is STUPID because he thinks that Bruce quit being Batman because of Rachel's death...is saying that ANYONE who has that opinion (which includes me) is stupid.

The whole point of my making my post was to put my opinion, that he and others call stupid, out there. Because others on here have that opinion also, but are afraid of being ganged up on by the rest of you guys.

Too many people on the Hype can not stand hearing someone say something contrary to the popular stand. They consider any deviation from the popular as trolling. You can have an opposite opinion without being a troll.

No offence, but I think you're being a bit oversensitive here. Here's the post that came just before AD's original post:

Yeah, it's a shame when some people (like Ralph Garman) base their dislike of the movie on that and it's completely false.

Now, granted, it doesn't contain the phrase 'exclusively base their dislike' as I had originally thought, but I think it's pretty clear that BatLobster was referring to people who make the false fact (The Joker had just provided some conclusive evidence in this sense a couple of posts before that, from the actual movie no less) that Bruce retired for 8 years because of Rachel the basis for their dislike of the entire movie. AD's post was a direct response to that.

And while you claim that you still think that Bruce's retirement was caused by Rachel's death, you've also gone on to say that you have other reasons as well, which in my view excludes you from the group they were referring to (the people who hate the movie exclusively for that particular aspect).

I think the people that you're referring to as not being accepting of 'deviations' from popular opinion (which is debatable anyway on SHH, because there are alot of people here who were disappointed by TDKR), extremists if you will, are present on both sides of the fence. Why just a few pages back we had a poster who jumped on another one, accusing him of something he had never directly said. Then again, there are good, sensible posters around here, who are TDKR supporters and with whom you can have a civilised debate (such as BatLobster...and there are many others as well), so I don't think the picture's as bleak as you paint it out to be.

 

[BatLobster]

I said....I believe that Bruce quit being Batman because of Rachel's death.

I said there were other reasons beyond that....that made me dislike the movie.

So.....saying that Ralf (or whoever, I have no idea who he is) is STUPID because he thinks that Bruce quit being Batman because of Rachel's death...is saying that ANYONE who has that opinion (which includes me) is stupid.

The whole point of my making my post was to put my opinion, that he and others call stupid, out there. Because others on here have that opinion also, but are afraid of being ganged up on by the rest of you guys.

Too many people on the Hype can not stand hearing someone say something contrary to the popular stand. They consider any deviation from the popular as trolling. You can have an opposite opinion without being a troll.

Okay, well, to me there is a difference between what Anno said and actually calling somebody another poster stupid for their opinion on here.

It's one thing to offer up an interpretation and opinion, or reasons for disliking a movie. Ralph Garman, while he was on Kevin Smith's podcast, offered no such interpretation as yours. He didn't do anything to back up his opinion, he just claimed that Batman would never quit over a dead girlfriend, and he proceeded to base the majority of his criticism of the movie on this point when the movie has tons of information pointing to the contrary. This, IMO, indeed made him look foolish and quick to jump to conclusions.

That's not to say anyone who has the viewpoint should put in the same category. I had never thought of the interpretation of Batman lying to himself that you mentioned. While I don't agree with it and I don't believe there was an intended double meaning with that scene, I can appreciate that viewpoint because at least some thought went into it and it's an interesting way of looking at it. The same cannot be said for all who attack that part of the movie. Some people's opinions on this are based on a willful ingnorance towards what is presented in the film. Ralph Garman being the prime example.

And also, I'd be really surprised if anybody is too scared to express a negative opinion on here. There's a healthy amount of people on the forum who make negative posts about the movie regularly. Plenty of them are posters I like and have had some fun, spirited debates with. Heck, some days I feel like loving TDKR is more the minority opinion on here. Even if that's not the case, I really think the days of this forum being a bunch of "Nolanites" who just jump all over anyone who says anything negative are over. There has been a healthy back and forth on this movie since its release.

Now, granted, it doesn't contain the phrase 'exclusively base their dislike' as I had originally thought, but I think it's pretty clear that BatLobster was referring to people who make the false fact (The Joker had just provided some conclusive evidence in this sense a couple of posts before that, from the actual movie no less) that Bruce retired for 8 years because of Rachel the basis for their dislike of the entire movie. AD's post was a direct response to that.

Correct. Even though I didn't say "exclusively", that's basically what I meant, because if you listen to that podcast it's clear that this is what upset Ralph the most. I just thought it was a shame because I feel like if someone presented him the facts as The Joker had laid them out, he might end up being able to appreciate the film more.

 

[MAKAVELI25]

I would argue that C. Lee's interpretation of why Bruce quit is just as baseless or legitimate (depending on how you see it) as those who argue as to whether Bane's sole reason for attacking Gotham was because of Talia. If some are arguing that he is using conjecture to draw his opinion, then I would say the same of those who opine their own motivations (other than Talia) for Bane

 

[ThreadPool]

Hmmm... I don't know . There are actual things that Bane says where you could say Talia isn't his sole motivation. It's never said that his main reason for attacking is Talia, but based on what the movie presents there is more than one big reason: His hatred for Bruce and his love for Talia. Those can be interchangeable.
Bruce's main reason for hanging it up is the 'Dent Act'.
That's it. He wants to be Batman because he can't move on from Rachel's death. If you feel differently then, to me, it seems that facts are being disregarded. He made what could be said is a halfhearted attempt to live regularly and just... gave up.
You can argue all day that it's lazy writing, and there are points to be made there. But we can't just disregard what was presented.

 

[Deserana]

Rachel's death is not the reason Bruce gave up being Batman. Contrary to what my sig says I am stating this as fact as I do believe it is, there is more than enough proof of this in the film and I really am shocked that some not only feel this way but hate the whole film because of it (Ralph Garman for example). TDKR may be the most furthest away from the comics in-terms of character but with Nolan's trilogy I think it is bang on.

 

[MAKAVELI25]

Hmmm... I don't know . There are actual things that Bane says where you could say Talia isn't his sole motivation. It's never said that his main reason for attacking is Talia, but based on what the movie presents there is more than one big reason: His hatred for Bruce and his love for Talia.

So why would Bane hate Bruce if not for Talia? The film mentions to us that Bane was excommunicated by Ra's and then randomly has him saying throughout the film that he wants to fulfil Ra's Al Ghul's destiny. And yet we are never even shown a reason why he would be so dedicated to fulfilling Ra's Al Ghul's destiny or why he would be so dedicated to the League of Shadows. Batman Begins managed to effectively show us why someone like Ra's or Bruce would be attracted to the League of Shadows philosophy, why not show the same for Bane? Also, if Bane is so dedicated to fulfilling the destiny of Ra's Al Ghul, why attack a city that isn't even corrupt at the time? There are so many inconsistencies with the Bane plot than the only unquestionable reason shown for why he attacked Gotham is because of Talia. I understand that everyone is going to have their interpretations, but they always seem to fall to conjecture

 

[BatLobster]

So why would Bane hate Bruce if not for Talia? The film mentions to us that Bane was excommunicated by Ra's and then randomly has him saying throughout the film that he wants to fulfil Ra's Al Ghul's destiny. And yet we are never even shown a reason why he would be so dedicated to fulfilling Ra's Al Ghul's destiny or why he would be so dedicated to the League of Shadows. Batman Begins managed to effectively show us why someone like Ra's or Bruce would be attracted to the League of Shadows philosophy, why not show the same for Bane? Also, if Bane is so dedicated to fulfilling the destiny of Ra's Al Ghul, why attack a city that isn't even corrupt at the time? There are so many inconsistencies with the Bane plot than the only unquestionable reason shown for why he attacked Gotham is because of Talia. I understand that everyone is going to have their interpretations, but they always seem to fall to conjecture

I think you just answered your own question. We've seen the League of Shadows and the types of people they attract. People who have suffered injustices and are basically mad at the world. Given Bane's circumstances, it's not hard to see why he fits the bill. The fact that it's Ra's who actually rescues Bane from the Pit pretty much makes Bane the ideal candidate for a LOS devotee.

Another thing is that sometimes there is intended ambiguity in films. Now, we can sit here and argue all day about Nolan's intentions I suppose, but I really don't believe he intended for there to be any ambiguity about why Bruce quit being Batman. He says why, point blank in the film. With Bane's character, Talia's reveal creates some ambiguity, and this just invites us to take a look at all his words and actions in the film and examine them more closely.

 

[C. Lee]

No offence, but I think you're being a bit oversensitive here.

You missed my point in my previous posts. I personally do not care if you don't like my opinion. I am not upset that people do not agree with or like my opinion. I stated my opinion...and then complained that posters on here are not respecting people with a differing opinion, but are in fact calling them names, belittlling them, and making them afraid to post on here.

And also, I'd be really surprised if anybody is too scared to express a negative opinion on here. There's a healthy amount of people on the forum who make negative posts about the movie regularly. Plenty of them are posters I like and have had some fun, spirited debates with. Heck, some days I feel like loving TDKR is more the minority opinion on here. Even if that's not the case, I really think the days of this forum being a bunch of "Nolanites" who just jump all over anyone who says anything negative are over. There has been a healthy back and forth on this movie since its release.

I have people PMing me about that.

 

[ThreadPool]

So why would Bane hate Bruce if not for Talia? The film mentions to us that Bane was excommunicated by Ra's and then randomly has him saying throughout the film that he wants to fulfil Ra's Al Ghul's destiny. And yet we are never even shown a reason why he would be so dedicated to fulfilling Ra's Al Ghul's destiny or why he would be so dedicated to the League of Shadows. Batman Begins managed to effectively show us why someone like Ra's or Bruce would be attracted to the League of Shadows philosophy, why not show the same for Bane? Also, if Bane is so dedicated to fulfilling the destiny of Ra's Al Ghul, why attack a city that isn't even corrupt at the time? There are so many inconsistencies with the Bane plot than the only unquestionable reason shown for why he attacked Gotham is because of Talia. I understand that everyone is going to have their interpretations, but they always seem to fall to conjecture

Ah, yes. I see, I see. Yeah you could even argue that his anger towards Bruce is manufactured or manipulated by Talia. Right there is a really good point for cutting some other things and giving that some room to breathe.
With that said I guess you already said that the "Rachel Motivation" is conjecture.
So we must now stop being reasonable and resort to name calling:
You, my good man, are a dum dum poopypants!

That's how the internet works right?

 

[MAKAVELI25]

I think you just answered your own question. We've seen the League of Shadows and the types of people they attract. People who have suffered injustices and are basically mad at the world. Given Bane's circumstances, it's not hard to see why he fits the bill. The fact that it's Ra's who actually rescues Bane from the Pit pretty much makes Bane the ideal candidate for a LOS devotee.

Another thing is that sometimes there is intended ambiguity in films. Now, we can sit here and argue all day about Nolan's intentions I suppose, but I really don't believe he intended for there to be any ambiguity about why Bruce quit being Batman. He says why, point blank in the film. With Bane's character, Talia's reveal creates some ambiguity, and this just invites us to take a look at all his words and actions in the film and examine them more closely.

But to me it doesn't ring true for a main Nolan villain. We were even given a solid reason why Scarecrow (a minor villain by anyone's standard) does what he does, He looks to see the reversal of power/fear. Nolan managed to show us what motivates the Joker to do what he does without even showing us any backstory. Why so much ambiguity with Bane? Even in the last few minutes of Tate's life when she is revealed to be Talia, her reasoning is shown more effectively than Bane's throughout the whole movie. I've said before that it is because Bane is just a poorly written character and I stand by it. It doesn't make sense for Nolan to have clearly stated a motivation for every single villain in the trilogy and all of a sudden NOT do it for Bane.

 

[BatmanBeyond]

You missed my point in my previous posts. I personally do not care if you don't like my opinion. I am not upset that people do not agree with or like my opinion. I stated my opinion...and then complained that posters on here are not respecting people with a differing opinion, but are in fact calling them names, belittlling them, and making them afraid to post on here.

I understand that. I just don't think Anno's original post was referring to you, is all. Also, I respect your opinion, hopefully my reactions haven't come off as otherwise.

I have people PMing me about that.

That's kind of surprising. I'm sure that, as a moderator, you've noticed that there are lots of users who have no trouble in making their dissatisfactions with the movie known, sometimes in more than one thread.

 

[JDonaldD]

I have the feeling that Bane's revolution was originally meant to be genuine but they also wanted to do all these other things like the bomb which made his motives a little more unclear. I love the movie but I think Bane having his own agenda that got him kicked out of the League and brought him to rule the corrupt Gotham with brute force would have been really interesting. Even have the bomb to keep the rest of the U.S. from interfering.

I took Bane's motive to be what he said to Bruce in the fight, fulfilling Ra's goal. There's nothing to contradict that motive, only complicate it. He seems to have affection for Talia, my guess is they reunited after Ra's died. I would assume she offered him a role in the new League where he could prove himself worthy to Ra's in his own way.

 

[BatLobster]

But to me it doesn't ring true for a main Nolan villain. We were even given a solid reason why Scarecrow (a minor villain by anyone's standard) does what he does, He looks to see the reversal of power/fear. Nolan managed to show us what motivates the Joker to do what he does without even showing us any backstory. Why so much ambiguity with Bane? Even in the last few minutes of Tate's life when she is revealed to be Talia, her reasoning is shown more effectively than Bane's throughout the whole movie. I've said before that it is because Bane is just a poorly written character and I stand by it. It doesn't make sense for Nolan to have clearly stated a motivation for every single villain in the trilogy and all of a sudden NOT do it for Bane.

I think it does make sense, when this villain is specifically meant to be a dark mirror of what Bruce Wayne could have become. None of the other villains represent that evil doppleganger archetype. It even draws upon them having a common father figure. This paves the way for a lot more implication and subtlety.

What's funny is, while we're not spoonfed Bane's philosophy the way the are with the other villains, we actually get a large chunk of his life story. So in a way I feel like I know and understand Bane better than the other villains.

That's kind of surprising. I'm sure that, as a moderator, you've noticed that there are lots of users who have no trouble in making their dissatisfactions with the movie known, sometimes in more than one thread.

My thoughts exactly, haha.

 

[C. Lee]

I understand that. I just don't think Anno's original post was referring to you, is all. Also, I respect your opinion, hopefully my reactions haven't come off as otherwise.

It wasn't...because I had not yet posted my opinion.

I received complaints that people were not being allowed to express a negative opinion of the movie in this thread.

I came in and read the last page of the thread at that time.

I saw Anno say that guy's opinion was stupid, and others saying such opinions were silly, embarrassing, etc. Seeing a bunch of the old timers of the Batboard saying certain opinions are stupid, embarrassing, and silly....tends to make people not want to express their opinion if it is the one being ridiculed.

I, who had the same opinion that was being called stupid, decided to post that I held that opinion....and was promptly told I was wrong.

I then made a post about how bad it is that people who have a different opinion than the majority are being called stupid.

Several posters then said that no one had said that.

I posted the post that said that.

Then I was told I was being overly sensitive.

Sooooo.......the wheels on the bus go round and round.....

That's kind of surprising. I'm sure that, as a moderator, you've noticed that there are lots of users who have no trouble in making their dissatisfactions with the movie known, sometimes in more than one thread.

That was the point of one of my other posts. There is negative criticism, and there is trolling.....and they are not the same thing. Some of the posters in here, take ANY criticism of the movie as trolling. They do not want to discuss new ideas....they simply say it is stupid, silly, embarrassing.....

 

[BatmanBeyond]

I have the feeling that Bane's revolution was originally meant to be genuine but they also wanted to do all these other things like the bomb which made his motives a little more unclear. I love the movie but I think Bane having his own agenda that got him kicked out of the League and brought him to rule the corrupt Gotham with brute force would have been really interesting. Even have the bomb to keep the rest of the U.S. from interfering.

I took Bane's motive to be what he said to Bruce in the fight, fulfilling Ra's goal. There's nothing to contradict that motive, only complicate it. He seems to have affection for Talia, my guess is they reunited after Ra's died. I would assume she offered him a role in the new League where he could prove himself worthy to Ra's in his own way.

I was initially hoping for something along those lines for Bane as well. Then again, the take on the character that we eventually got in the movie has grown on me. I'm not sure whether or not what you mentioned would've actually been more interesting, as I think the Talia background gives Bane more depth as a character, as long as you don't see it as romantic. Another thing worth mentioning IMO is that upon my first viewing of the movie, I was really disappointed with the fact that his revolution seemed to be nothing more than a ruse. Upon further viewings, small details such as that line from the Stock Exchange ('Really? Then why are you people here?'), the disgust he shows towards Daggett, as well as his background in the pit makes me think he did indeed believe in his revolution. It was his own way of fulfilling Ra's' destiny (both proving himself to be the better man and worthy of the LoS despite his excommunication) and it's sufficiently distinct for me that I can accept some of the similiraties to the plot in BB.

Sooooo.......the wheels on the bus go round and round.....

Time to put a stop to them. Let's move on.

 

[ThreadPool]

C. Lee, why you hate responding to me?

 

[C. Lee]

C. Lee, why you hate responding to me?

What are you talking about? I answered a couple of your posts.

 

[ThreadPool]

Not the good ones.
Anyways, what do you want to see in the next one? One thing I really want them to carry over is IMAX.
I know it's been said how difficult it is to film with, but it's so dang nice looking!

 

[C. Lee]

Not the good ones.
Anyways, what do you want to see in the next one? One thing I really want them to carry over is IMAX.
I know it's been said how difficult it is to film with, but it's so dang nice looking!

Then ask them again, because I must not have completely understood your questions before.

 

[ThreadPool]

Ugh. It'll be way too ridiculous to be thorough responding on my phone. Maybe tomorrow?

 

[Alex Logan]

After careful thought, I need to revise this statement:

Right. He quit being Batman because Gotham didn't need Batman anymore. He quit being Bruce Wayne because of Rachel and the engery project.

Bruce quit being Batman because Gotham didn't him anymore. They had won.

Bruce quit being Philanthropist Bruce beause of the risks with the clean engery project. The core could have been turning into a bomb.

Bruce quit being the Real Bruce because of Rachel's death. He never moved on, he never found a life.

 

[BatLobster]

After careful thought, I need to revise this statement:



Bruce quit being Batman because Gotham didn't him anymore. They had won.

Bruce quit being Philanthropist Bruce beause of the risks with the clean engery project. The core could have been turning into a bomb.

Bruce quit being the Real Bruce because of Rachel's death. He never moved on, he never found a life.

I think that's spot on.

The idea is, once both of his personas have been rendered irrelevant and he has no way to feel productive in Gotham, all that's left is this shell of a man who has been burying all this pain. He has no outlets left, so he just kind of shuts down and becomes numb to everything.

 

[KalMart]

When the movie came out in theaters, I gave it a 7.5/10. Now that I've seen it on BluRay, with a more normal and less blaring soundmix, I actually rate it at a 7/10. Even removing the unfair comparisons to TDK, it's still the weakest of the three and a rather disappointing piece altogether.

But the franchise as a whole should still be lauded for being a genuine standout in its era.

 

[BatLobster]

I could never get behind calling it a disappointing piece altogether. There were too many aspects of the movie that entertained, impressed, enthralled, moved and inspired me to ever label this movie some kind of failure. I mean there are several moments in the film that downright give me chills every single time and the ending really hits home and gets me choked up, so it's a very gut-level thing for me. The fact that the film features easily the most most outstanding cinematography and score of the trilogy, along with Bale's best performance (all IMO) certainly doesn't hurt when it comes to keeping me immersed in its world.

But, to each their own. Disappointment can only be derived from expectation, and I think because these movies are so many things at once, there were so many different types of expectations, which in turn led to wildly different reactions. It's only natural.

As of now I'm leaning towards this being my personal favorite of the trilogy, even though I see TDK as being the leaner, meaner piece of filmmaking.

I would certainly agree that however one is to rank the movies, the trilogy as a whole body of work deserves recognition for what it accomplished. If you're a Batman fan (one who appreciated Nolan's overall vision anyway...), I think you just have to stop and appreciate for a moment how lucky you are. There are so many fans of other characters and franchises that would love nothing more than to see the object of their fandom get the same kind of treatment and respect, and have the same kind of impact. And no doubt, it's set a benchmark that other franchise filmmakers are aspiring for now, Skyfall just being the latest example.

 

[The Joker]

When the movie came out in theaters, I gave it a 7.5/10. Now that I've seen it on BluRay, with a more normal and less blaring soundmix, I actually rate it at a 7/10. Even removing the unfair comparisons to TDK, it's still the weakest of the three and a rather disappointing piece altogether.

But the franchise as a whole should still be lauded for being a genuine standout in its era.

I feel the same way. Although my rating didn't lower once I saw it again on blu-ray. Which is a good thing. I was hoping to appreciate it more than I did when I saw it in theaters. But the flaws were still the same for me, and stood out even more so. But I also appreciated the stuff I liked even more, too.