The Dark Knight Rises Do you see TDKR's reputation growing in future years?

[BatLobster]

Yeah, but rather than one "moment" we get tons of parallels between Bruce and Bane throughout the whole movie, effectively establishing Bane as Bruce's "evil twin" so to speak, what he might have become if he was born with nothing and if he didn't have people like Alfred and Rachel to help shape his worldview.

The funny thing is people hammer on the Nolan films for being to expository and on the nose, but IMO TDKR doesn't get nearly enough credit for how much pathos it's able to pack in via subtext and symbolism.

Batman and Bane are primarily physical adversaries. Their ideological differences are readily apparent, but the extremely different paths they ended up taking highlight the razor's edge that Batman himself walks. As Ra's put it, "You fear your anger, the drive to do great or terrible things." If Bruce had executed that guy, he could have ended up being Bane. But his life experiences up to that point shaped him to have a moral opposition to that. Bane wasn't so lucky.

 

[shauner111]

^Bingo was his goddamn name-oh!

 

[milost]

What are the parallels between Batman and Bane besides, "oh, hey bro, we were both trained by Ra's Al Ghul and we're masked ninjas that fight with our elbows"?

The well/pit? Too bad Bruce was simply a boy that fell into a well and was pulled out by his dad. Bane was a man, a prisoner that got the snot kicked out of him down there. Ra's pulled him out of there, and trained him but banished Bane later on. Okay?

Bruce would be Bane if he had executed the prisoner? Uhhh, how so? Supposedly Bane was "soooo extreme" and "not to be trifled with". Ra's didn't even like him. How would Bruce be Bane? He didn't grow up in a prison. He didn't save a little girl from dying and devoted his life to being "her protectah". He wasn't horrifically injured. If Bruce had slammed that blade down on that farmer's neck, you know who he would have become? Ra's Al Ghul.

Bane and Batman's lives are totally separate. Bane is not an antithesis of Batman, that's the Joker. Bane isn't the figure Bruce sees that could legally and nobly fight crime, that's Dent. Bane is a brute, a disgrace. He lived in a prison, then when he was "saved" turned bad. He wears a mask for health purposes, not symbolic ones. He was a pawn that stole Batman's arsenal and somehow ruled the city by circumstance. His followers (more like Talia's) are a far cry between a bunch of little kids who have never even seen Batman, putting chalk bats all over the damn place. The fire rises - Batman setting a bridge on fire with the perfect trilogy bat symbol? Hmmm.

What is deep about this? This isn't Batman The Animated Series where some villains, from Dent to Baby doll have tragic circumstances that can mirror Batman's. It doesn't end with Batman understanding Bane like he did with Baby Doll in the fun house or identifying Mr. Freeze's loss. I seem to remember Batman PUNCHING Bane in THE FACE screaming "whereizdatriigerz". Bane isn't a antithesis like Joker. I don't see them having similar lines like "nice place", or both spilling their wine glasses. It isn't even as good as Clubber Lang vs. Rocky Balboa. Seriously, the common connection here is Ra's Al Ghul. So what? It wasn't even Bane who escaped that pit like Bruce did, it was Talia. So Bane was "symbolically" stuck in the pit? Okay Batman figuratively and literally escaped. Should I compare and find resonance between Clooney Batman and Arnold Freeze? Both have experienced loss. Both of their families are in danger. Both have loved ones dying of a rare disease? Is this brilliance I'm missing out on?


That sort of overanalyzation of trying to find good in a dull character reminds me of this,

Which was complete BS. "BATMAN TELLS THE TRUTH", yeah right. "I murdered those people", "no auto pilot", give me a break.

 

[Shikamaru]

@milost When I said "philosophy", I included motivations in that. I guess I should have been more specific.

@BLR Sorry but I don't see the "evil twin" thing past a few general aspects here and there (milost when more in-depth into this than I did). Plus, Bane can't technically be the evil twin since we find out by the end he was all just a coward with an ego. If anything, Talia was much closer to that ("But I never escaped"..."But I did".) And even she wasn't exactly just that.

 

[milost]

And what contrasting philosophical argument/moment do we get between Bane/Talia and Batman in TDKR?

"So you've come to die with your precious "cit-eh"?"
"No. I came to stop you."

Yep, that was the closest thing we got.

Brilliant, Anderson.

Exactly.

Don't forget beating and yelling at Bane or blankly staring at Talia (twice). It's hilarious when Talia spews that nonsense right before she croaks and Batman, Catwoman and Gordon just stare blankly at her. That was me, that was my reaction, "uhhhhh?"

 

[milost]

@milost When I said "philosophy", I included motivations in that. I guess I should have been more specific.

Sorry Shika, that post was towards Lobster. When I submitted the post, yours was right above me so it looked like that was my response to you. I'm in full agreement with you on this one. Philosophies, motivations, etc.

The only evil twin thing that I'd acknowledge is the Sky Hook in Dark Knight with Lau and Batman vs. the plane rig (which wasn't sky hook) with Pavel and Bane in TDKR. That's pretty blatant though, especially the lingering shot of Bane and Pavel floating in the sky.

 

[BatmanBeyond]

People are hating on the Blackgate prison speech now?

I thought that was one of the best scenes in TDKR and also one of Bane's highlights. But yeah, if you really hate the movie and are ******** about it not being TDK 2.0, then I could see why you'd be disappointed.

To me, that scene is just great, especially with the music building up in the background, along with Bane getting more and more passionate about what he's saying. Of course, haters will just make fun of the voice in that sequence, but I just really found that scene to be representative of him as the supremely charismatic politician who 100% convincingly lies his butt off to get people on his side.

 

[BatLobster]

I've made detailed, point by point posts elaborating on the parallels between Bruce and Bane in the past here. Suffice it to say there's a TON of them, and I didn't have to look too hard to find them. There was no overanalyzing, it's just analyzing what's presented in the film. There's a difference between analysis and over-analysis. And the stupid picture milost posted counts as the latter, even though I do think it's interesting that their masks are inverses of each other.

But if the posts didn't convince you then, they won't convince you now, so I'll spare you guys.

The point is you don't need a philosophical argument to prove that there's some substance there. Like you say milost, you don't care to look at the substance if you don't like/appreciate something on the surface. That's fine. I enjoy Bane/Talia on the surface and they compel me to think about it.

I mean do you guys honestly think they have no substance whatsoever and Nolan and co. didn't give any of it any thought? It's okay to just not like something even if it does have substance. Requiem for a Dream has substance but I absolutely hate that movie and never want to see it again. At least milost has admitted that he straight up just hates everything about Bane. It's when people try to take their subjective opinion and attempt to pass that off as objective truth that things get a little tricky.

 

[milost]

******** about it not being TDK 2.0, then I could see why you'd be disappointed.

The more I think about it, I think my problem with the movie (other than the story and crappy villains) isn't the tired "Dark Knight 2.0" argument but the fact that it felt like the filmmakers were ripping themselves off with a "BB 0.5" and a "Dark Knight 0.5" mashed together. TDKR wishes it was Dark Knight 2.0

- having "Dark Knight" as the title in 2007/2008 was genius. For 2012? It was cliched and reeked of capitalizing off of The Dark Knight. This is a "Dark Knight Trilogy"? Why is Batman Begins called Batman Begins?
- I saw a villain prologue before
- the new villain of the week reveal/unmasking was better with the Joker

- the panning shot of the city with the Mayor speaking over it with exposition had been done before and was more exciting in DarK Knight "nah man, not tonight".

- mad bomber villain blowing buildings and the city to hell (atleast Joker had a philosophic point)
- Bruce underestimating the villain . . . again
- Batman not appearing for about an hour into the film. It was fine with the origin story in 2005, but again?
- LoS, been there, done that
- "Ra's Al Ghul", seen it
- a twist where an Al Ghul was really someone else all along? Mindblowing!
- Fox gives Bruce a new Batman toy gag? It comes in black *wink* *wink*? Ok.
- blatant flashbacks of Two-Face, just in case you didn't know who he was
- blatant flashbacks to Ra's camp fire speech
- blatant symbolism to the well and pit with Thomas Wayne, just in case you didn't catch why Bruce is here
- Batman gives an ally a Bat vehicle, they team up to stop the LoS from messing up the city
- flash forward montage ending with same "a Dark Knight" theme and feels (except the characterizations for both are complete opposites)
- Batman lying to be a martyr again


So that's why I chuckle at "Dark Knight 2.0". It's clear to me that the writers wrote themselves into a corner with Dent, Dark Knight and the Joker and didn't know how to get themselves out. So they tried to rekindle that flame from 2008 and failed miserably. They lnew they couldn't top that story with the fantastic Joker villain or the essence of Batman and his world. TDKR is like a greatest hits of the two before it, except the "hits" are poor man scenes of Begins and Dark Knight. So people wanted a follow up to Dark Knight like we did with Begins? Sue us.

 

[Shikamaru]

Interesting you brought that up, milost. This will sound extremely weird given that it's the same production crew, but TDKR almost felt like a knockoff of TDK to me. Basically, you know how when Donner's Superman came out and it was successful and Steel/Supergirl tried to copy it? And then Burton's Batman came out and things like the early Flash TV show tried copying that style? Then X-Men/Spider-Man came out and you had things like the FF films copying Raimi's style? That's kinda what TDKR felt like to me. I thought it tried to hard lf copying TDK's "style". I can't really explain it, but there is just something about the way it felt. The way it tried to be intelligent/philosophical in the same way TDK was, only to not succeed IMO. At the same time though, I also felt it didn't want to reference TDK (other than Rachel's death and the whole thing with Harvey at the end) or continue anything established in TDK. However, that is territory I talked about over and over again and don't wanna get into it again.

 

[The Joker]

The more I think about it, I think my problem with the movie (other than the story and crappy villains) isn't the tired "Dark Knight 2.0" argument but the fact that it felt like the filmmakers were ripping themselves off with a "BB 0.5" and a "Dark Knight 0.5" mashed together. TDKR wishes it was Dark Knight 2.0

- having "Dark Knight" as the title in 2007/2008 was genius. For 2012? It was cliched and reeked of capitalizing off of The Dark Knight. This is a "Dark Knight Trilogy"? Why is Batman Begins called Batman Begins?
- I saw a villain prologue before
- the new villain of the week reveal/unmasking was better with the Joker

- the panning shot of the city with the Mayor speaking over it with exposition had been done before and was more exciting in DarK Knight "nah man, not tonight".

- mad bomber villain blowing buildings and the city to hell (atleast Joker had a philosophic point)
- Bruce underestimating the villain . . . again
- Batman not appearing for about an hour into the film. It was fine with the origin story in 2005, but again?
- LoS, been there, done that
- "Ra's Al Ghul", seen it
- a twist where an Al Ghul was really someone else all along? Mindblowing!
- Fox gives Bruce a new Batman toy gag? It comes in black *wink* *wink*? Ok.
- blatant flashbacks of Two-Face, just in case you didn't know who he was
- blatant flashbacks to Ra's camp fire speech
- blatant symbolism to the well and pit with Thomas Wayne, just in case you didn't catch why Bruce is here
- Batman gives an ally a Bat vehicle, they team up to stop the LoS from messing up the city
- flash forward montage ending with same "a Dark Knight" theme and feels (except the characterizations for both are complete opposites)
- Batman lying to be a martyr again


So that's why I chuckle at "Dark Knight 2.0". It's clear to me that the writers wrote themselves into a corner with Dent, Dark Knight and the Joker and didn't know how to get themselves out. So they tried to rekindle that flame from 2008 and failed miserably. They lnew they couldn't top that story with the fantastic Joker villain or the essence of Batman and his world. TDKR is like a greatest hits of the two before it, except the "hits" are poor man scenes of Begins and Dark Knight. So people wanted a follow up to Dark Knight like we did with Begins? Sue us.

 

[BatmanBeyond]

You know, I'll openly admit that some parts of TDKR's writing don't really hold up to the previous two, especially TDK. But then again, were any of us really expecting them to make something better than TDK? I know that's what some of us hoped, but when you actually think about it, it wasn't really bound to happen.

In the end, and this is IMO of course, we got a satisfying conclusion to the main character of the trilogy's arc, while also getting quite a few moments where the movie held up to the other two. To me, it seems like and Nolan and Co. prioritized giving Bruce a satisfying end to his arc over anything else they had done previously, which admittedly was not what I'd have expected beforehand, but they decided to give their Bruce/Batman a definitive ending and in that context, the ending and type of movie they made works very well. Besides, they did tackle a lot of other stuff as well, it's just not given as much focus as in TDK, due to their aforementioned decision to focus the most on ending Bruce's character arc.

So for me, while the writing might not be as tight or as good as in their previous efforts, TDKR still delivers at the end of the day. Perhaps not as emphatically as its predecessors, especially TDK, but then again, would there really have been a sequel that could've done so? I don't really think so.

 

[BatLobster]

So people wanted a follow up to Dark Knight like we did with Begins? Sue us.

And so people wanted something that fused elements of the first two radically different films into something that unified all three? Sue us.

And yeah, I agree BatmanBeyond, I still think the third film was bound to disappoint some people literally no matter what. That's why (to get back on topic), I think the film will ultimately benefit from time because all the hype and baggage it had attached to it will fade away.

At the very least, I think even the most hardened TDKR hater would have to admit that it was at the very least an honorable attempt by everyone involved. It was a monumental task to follow TDK, everyone knew that back in 2008. Which is why the constant anger and bitterness towards this film seems a bit overblown.

 

[Travesty]

I'm loving this thread.

 

[BatLobster]

^^

 

[Travesty]

 

[The Batman]

Regarding Milost's post...the hilarious thing is, Nolan chose Bane because, in his view most Batman villains were watered down Joker's, yet Bane is just following the Ra's playbook while using Joker's tactics of terror and mass destruction.

 

[Bruce Malone]

Regarding Milost's post...the hilarious thing is, Nolan chose Bane because, in his view most Batman villains were watered down Joker's, yet Bane is just following the Ra's playbook while using Joker's tactics of terror and mass destruction.

The same gun can be used by many different people for many different things. Bane's intentions were quite different from what Jokers were despite the similarity of "terror".

For Bane terror was a means to an ends, for the Joker the entire means was simply causing the terror. One was a nihilist the other a fundamentalist, quite different breeds.

 

[Shikamaru]

I know he said that about Riddler, which has been true at one point but he hasn't been that way in at least 20 years.

I didn't expect TDKR to be as good as TDK, but I didn't expect for it to be (at least in my opinion) such a huge step down from TDK and BB. I also would have expected a conclusion that fits (which, again, in my opinion doesn't but I'm beating a dead horse by going that route again).

However, can you really blame those who did expect it to be as good or better than TDK? Since the summer of 2011, all the hype leading up to the film insisted that it would be just that. You had writers who read the script saying Nolan's "already topped [TDK]", you had the critics that saw the early release saying "it blows TDK out of the water", you had the "epic conclusion to this epic trilogy" thing, Nolan saying it was his biggest film yet, etc. Personally, none of those things ever convinced that it would be as good as/better than TDK (I took issues with things I saw in the trailers), but I can't say I blame the people who do. Or at least I don't fully blame them.

 

[Travesty]

Heh, I loved Oldman's "epic" comments. I made so many stupid epic memes.

 

[BatLobster]

The important thing though is that Bane felt different than both Ra's and The Joker, while also merging different aspects of them (the same could be said of TDKR itself too).

The whole militaristic feel of the character went hand in hand with the "war film" influence Nolan was going for with TDKR. That's just something that could not have been accomplished with a character like The Riddler. I think it's fair to say that Nolan absolutely settled on the right villain for the type of film he was looking to make, and certainly the right villain for a story that calls for Bruce to be defeated midway through.

In Nolan's own words:

If you look at the three of them, Ra’s Al Ghul is almost a religious figure, The Joker is the anti-religious figure, the anti-structure anarchist. And then Bane comes in as a military dictator. And military dictators can be ideologically based, they can be religiously based, or a combination thereof.

 

[milost]

Still a watered down version of Ra's and The Joker.

Ra's was a religious figure? Hmm, never heard that before. Ra's was pretty militaristic in Begins, or "Ducard" anyway. He trained Bruce, he had those camo pants, he led a "police" force. Speaking of which, TDKR also ruins the mystique of Ra's. At the end of Begins, There were several possibilities. Was he immortal? Was his background true? Did he die? How did Ra's as a character work. There was a nice ambiguity there that made everyone happy.

Then TDKR comes in and is like, "nope, he was just a random mercenary. He hooked up with this warlord's daughter which pissed the warlord off". Then we get this weird, contrived background which basically says that Ducard was merely Ducard. He somehow found the League of Shadows and became their leader (I don't see how if the organization was as old as Rome). It just really crapped on the character. That Qui-Gon "force ghost" that Bruce sees makes the situation even weirder. When you think about it, that's just Bruce's mind telling him that Bane is his son and . . . he pictures him older. It was just jarring. This is what the series and ending came to? Visions and flashbacks from previous films? Dark Knight never had to rely on that with Begins.

They should have left the League contained in Begins, especially when Dark Knight didn't even reference them and moved on. They could have had Bane as a standalone like the Joker, maybe even make him an actual, dictaing warlord without the suicide bomber characterization or Talia and LoS background. Concepts like the pit, class wars, etc. could have been retained. But nah, in typical threequel fashion, they take it back "full circle". It was the most predictable direction too. Everyone called Bane being part of "da league". Talia? Was there anyone who doubted Cotillard's involvement that Pittsburgh afternoon where she was walking down Carnegie's steps in that garb?

 

[I Am The Knight]

Amusing. I love how the same people move from one thread to another to discuss TDKR (I include myself there, even if I don't post as often).

 

[Shikamaru]

The important thing though is that Bane felt different than both Ra's and The Joker, while also merging different aspects of them (the same could be said of TDKR itself too).

The whole militaristic feel of the character went hand in hand with the "war film" influence Nolan was going for with TDKR. That's just something that could not have been accomplished with a character like The Riddler. I think it's fair to say that Nolan absolutely settled on the right villain for the type of film he was looking to make, and certainly the right villain for a story that calls for Bruce to be defeated midway through.

In Nolan's own words:

Execution and context are everything. I love the idea on paper, but it just didn't work for me.

I think what both sides disagree on here the most is the execution and context. I keep seeing people bring up ideas used in TDKR and essentially asking "Isn't this a great idea? How can you not like it?" Yes, they are. Yes, using Bane as the next villain was a great idea. Yes, having a villain that feels different from Ra's and Joker is a great idea. Yes, wrapping up the trilogy somehow can be a good idea. Yes, having Talia in a Nolan film is a great idea. That doesn't mean we think these things were executed properly or that they even worked in the context of the film/trilogy as a whole.

Speaking of which, TDKR also ruins the mystique of Ra's. At the end of Begins, There were several possibilities. Was he immortal? Was his background true? Did he die? How did Ra's as a character work. There was a nice ambiguity there that made everyone happy.

This was another issue I had. I loved the ambiguity with Ra's done in Begins. It was a great nod to Ras' immortal comic book roots while still keeping the realism intact. Then TDKR comes along and kinda undoes that.

 

[BatLobster]

A few things milost:

1. Whether people want to acknowledge it or not, Ra's in these films is very much analogous to an Osama bin Laden-type. So that's sort of where the vaguely religious idea comes in. You really can't say that these movies are any sort of exploration of post 9/11 American and not acknowledge that. The films just have to be a bit more PC than that about it and not get too specific. And Nolan even said "almost" religious...cult is probably a bit more accurate in the context of the actual movie. But that can still symbolize religion.

2. TDK didn't have to rely on the previous film, sure, but it also wasn't tasked with bringing a 3 movie run to a conclusion. TDK is great for being so stand alone, but that's also why it doesn't quite work as THE conclusion to me, it feels divorced from Begins in certain ways. Even my buddies and I, literally the night we walked out of seeing TDK for the first time were talking about how we wanted to see Ra's and his associated themes play a role in the third film.

3. The dream thing is really an issue to you? First of all, I get ideas in my dreams all the time. I've woken up in the middle of the night with ideas for scripts or songs on half a dozen occasions. Heck, I once dreamt lotto numbers and was able to write them down so I could play them lol.

On top of that, we've seen this plot device before in Batman stories. One of my favorite BTAS episodes, Over the Edge utilizes it. Through the experiences of her nightmare/hallucination, Barbara decides she needs to have a talk with daddy. Coincidentally this is basically the same premise of Inception. So sure, Bruce put a few pieces together subconsciously and it manifests in a dream/hallucination. Therefore he wakes up with a realization. A not entirely accurate realization I might add. Clever way to get a Neeson cameo in, I thought. And it still added to Ra's' mysticism in a sense, as this overarching, ever-present figure in the mythology.

Execution and context are everything. I love the idea on paper, but it just didn't work for me.

I think what both sides disagree on here the most is the execution and context. I keep seeing people bring up ideas used in TDKR and essentially asking "Isn't this a great idea? How can you not like it?" Yes, they are. Yes, using Bane as the next villain was a great idea. Yes, having a villain that feels different from Ra's and Joker is a great idea. Yes, wrapping up the trilogy somehow can be a good idea. Yes, having Talia in a Nolan film is a great idea. That doesn't mean we think these things were executed properly or that they even worked in the context of the film/trilogy as a whole.

That's refreshing to hear. It can be hard to tell, because sometimes it does feel like I'm having to debate the merit of the ideas they were going for, especially with people like milost who just seem vehemently opposed to everything the movie was TRYING to do. But sure, execution matters of course, and that's even more subjective.