The Dark Knight Rises How does TDKR make you feel? How do you feel about TDKR? Hate it?

[Victarion]

Angry. Angry about elves.

 

[Morbius]

The Dark Knight Rises makes me feel ****ing excellent. I too have a couple of nitpicks with it, but it's still in contention for my favourite movie.

I wouldn't put it up that high, but the ending put the biggest smile on my face that I can recall in years of watching CBMs

 

[jolldan]

I thought it was the best Batman movie id ever seen but saying that I think the new Batman (Affleck don't make me regret this) could be even better.

I love Nolan's films but there will always be a limited use of material for those films with Nolan wanting to make everything realistic there is a lot of rogues that would have never had a chance eg. Killer Croc, Clayface and Solomon Grundy. Also would love to see a new badass Ra's using the Lazarus pits.

I look forward to the new films because they do have a chance to reinvent Batman.

 

[gugumugats]

I'll say that TDK is the superior film but TDKR is actually my favorite.

I dunno what it is. The epic action scenes maybe? The ironic camp of such a serious and dark film? Maybe it's the Catwoman booty.

I'll also say that I LOVED how it all concluded. I'm one of those who thinks that Bruce deserves a happy ending and it's still within character (at least in the TDK trilogy) that he would seek that. However, the only change I would've made is to not show what Alfred was smiling at (just to give it that Nolanesque ambiguity).

I also didn't mind too much that John 'Robin' Blake ended up inheriting the Batcave.

 

[Green Ghoul]

Liked it. It was good. It did have some minor problems. My feelings for the TDKT is very similar to the Star Wars OT. The third film was the weakest, but it was good enough to consider all 3 films one of the best trilogies ever made.

 

[EssayM]

I honestly can't get excited about this movie. It's just kind of lame. I mean, I didn't really love any of TDKT (just not my cup of tea, I prefer a more colorful and stylized Batman universe, whatever), but at least BB and TDK were entertaining: they had big action setpieces, witty banter, interesting characters, compelling philosophy. TDKR kind of had that, but it was a lot more downplayed. Bruce is crippled and moping for most of the movie, and during that time we're left with Bane, who doesn't have any of the elements that made him awesome in Knightfall and has a really convoluted plan, and Catwoman, who just has nothing to do. It's just not enjoyable, or even particularly interesting.

 

[Oscorp]

It's a great Movie, one of the best CMBs, but slightly overrated. It's got some weird, almost lazy stuff in it. Like Bruce suddenly appearing in Gotham with no explanation of how. Or Dr. Pavel's "Yup, now it's a nuclear bomb". Or bombs exploding just in rythm of Blake's car driving. Or Bane giving the city half a year or something...JUST enough time for Bruce to get physically fit for revenge. Etc.

But other than that I love the film.

 

[SilentWarriorZ]

Besides some ignorable plot holes it was wholesome Excellent movie Indeed
It got some unique feel for a CBM of its kind which not many movie makers have explored over the years and the ending of course was grand in all means .

 

[BH/HHH]

Decent movie but all in all lets me down by the following factors:

- Bane's voice
- the way they tied it into the first one (I hate this in movies at times SM3 did it with Uncle Ben's real killer (yawn!))
- Batman retiring after Rachel died (I just think it took away why he became Batman in the first place. Losing Rachel should have driven him further into been the Batman).
- The way they did it so it was the end of the series. The first two films are the perfect set up for an ongoing series (also makes the Joker's we're gonna be doing this for a long time line pointless aswell)
- John Blake been "Robin", pointless.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

I like it. It was good. But there were definitely problems with it.

no good poll

 

[I Am The Knight]

Gee, I wonder why this thread got bumped...

 

[BH/HHH]

Gee, I wonder why this thread got bumped...

maybe because I posted the same thing in the wrong forum thinking it was for pet peeves with specific films. You obviously can't stand me criticising this film and you obviously have no counter to my feelings towards it (that I am entitled to). Get over it!

 

[The Joker]

- Batman retiring after Rachel died (I just think it took away why he became Batman in the first place. Losing Rachel should have driven him further into been the Batman).

To this day I will NEVER understand why so many people interpret that Batman's retirement is because of Rachel's death. Can anyone quote me the line in the movie that specifies her death is the reason he quit, because I must have missed it the multitude of times I've watched it. But I can sure quote the lines that specify he quit because Gotham didn't need Batman anymore because the cover up that kept Harvey Dent's hero image and legacy intact sorted Gotham's crime problem out.

Gordon: "We were in this together and then you were gone"
Bruce: "The Batman wasn't needed anymore. We won"
Gordon: "Based on a lie"

He didn't even retire right after Rachel died. If he did the Joker and Two Face would still be running around. He kept on going after Rachel was killed and took down the Joker, and shouldered the blame for Dent's crimes as Two Face.

 

[BH/HHH]

To this day I will NEVER understand why so many people interpret that Batman's retirement is because of Rachel's death. Can anyone quote me the line in the movie that specifies her death is the reason he quit, because I must have missed it the multitude of times I've watched it. But I can sure quote the lines that specify he quit because Gotham didn't need Batman anymore because the cover up that kept Harvey Dent's hero image and legacy intact sorted Gotham's crime problem out.

Gordon: "We were in this together and then you were gone"
Bruce: "The Batman wasn't needed anymore. We won"
Gordon: "Based on a lie"

He didn't even retire right after Rachel died. If he did the Joker and Two Face would still be running around. He kept on going after Rachel was killed and took down the Joker, and shouldered the blame for Dent's crimes as Two Face.

It's been a while since I watched it but him and alfred are discussing his seclusion and he specially uses the the words "Rachel died Alfred" and the Batman hasn't been seen for 8 years, the night Dent died. It would make sense that he would stop the Joker and Two Face before quitting the Cape & Cowel which was a consequence of Rachel's death. It's how I interpret it and it bugs me.

 

[The Joker]

It's been a while since I watched it but him and alfred are discussing his seclusion and he specially uses the the words "Rachel died Alfred" and the Batman hasn't been seen for 8 years, the night Dent died. It would make sense that he would stop the Joker and Two Face before quitting the Cape & Cowel which was a consequence of Rachel's death. It's how I interpret it and it bugs me.

That scene you're thinking of is where Alfred reveals the truth about burning Rachel's letter where she revealed she was moving on and choosing to be with Harvey Dent over Bruce. Alfred is trying to convince him that he can't be Batman any more. And that he should move on and find a life for himself.

Alfred: "You used to talk about finishing. About a life beyond that awful cave"
Bruce: "Alfred, Rachel died knowing that we had decided to be together. That was my life beyond the cave. I can't just move on. She didn't. She couldn't"
Alfred: "What if she had?"
Bruce: "She didn't...I mean I can't change that"
Alfred: "What if before she died she wrote a letter saying she chose Harvey Dent over you. And what if...to spare you pain...I burnt that letter"

It had nothing to do with him retiring from being Batman after TDK.

 

[Travesty]

He retired, because the magical Dent Act somehow turned Gotham City into a utopia. He wasn't needed, even though Selina has a stack of crimes against her.

Also, Rachel and stuff.

 

[shauner111]

Decent movie but all in all lets me down by the following factors:

- Bane's voice
- the way they tied it into the first one (I hate this in movies at times SM3 did it with Uncle Ben's real killer (yawn!))
- Batman retiring after Rachel died (I just think it took away why he became Batman in the first place. Losing Rachel should have driven him further into been the Batman).
- The way they did it so it was the end of the series. The first two films are the perfect set up for an ongoing series (also makes the Joker's we're gonna be doing this for a long time line pointless aswell)
- John Blake been "Robin", pointless.

They didnt do that though. They didn't change anything from Begins.

He kept going as Batman after Rachel died. He was more determined to capture the Joker. He didn't retire because of her.

It's been a while since I watched it but him and alfred are discussing his seclusion and he specially uses the the words "Rachel died Alfred" and the Batman hasn't been seen for 8 years, the night Dent died. It would make sense that he would stop the Joker and Two Face before quitting the Cape & Cowel which was a consequence of Rachel's death. It's how I interpret it and it bugs me.

Well, you're wrong. Pay attention. It had nothing to do with Rachel's death. He retired because of the Dent Act. When he tells Alfred that Rachel died, they're not talking about why he retired. They're talking about Bruce moving on with his life, to find happiness once he was already retired. He didn't move on with relationships because he was depressed about Rachel. But she had ZERO to do with his retirement. Not even 1 percent to do with it.

It is explained throughout the movie that he retired because he wanted to be seen as a murderer, and Gordon/Dent cleaned up the mob, so he put his focus on the Clean Energy Project instead of being Batman.

How are people still not understanding this when it is practically spelled out for the audience, over and over?

 

[BH/HHH]

They didnt do that though. They didn't change anything from Begins.

He kept going as Batman after Rachel died. He was more determined to capture the Joker. He didn't retire because of her.

I never said they did change anything I just hate how it ties into the first one as I said

Well, you're wrong. Pay attention. It had nothing to do with Rachel's death. He retired because of the Dent Act. When he tells Alfred that Rachel died, they're not talking about why he retired. They're talking about Bruce moving on with his life, to find happiness once he always retired. He didn't move on with relationships because he was depressed about Rachel. But she had ZERO to do with his retirement. Not even 1 percent to do with it.

It is explained throughout the movie that he retired because he wanted to be seen as a murderer, and Gordon/Dent cleaned up the mob, so he put his focus on the Clean Energy Project instead of being Batman.

How are people still not understanding this when it is practically spelled out for the audience, over and over?

Maybe I am wrong about that as a whole but I still feel the film made it out to be a factor. Part of a film a experience is to interpret things a certain way and I think from watching it Rachel dying clearly broke him and was a part of why he quit been Batman. That whole he'd quit for her was bad enough tbh.

 

[shauner111]

He retired, because the magical Dent Act somehow turned Gotham City into a utopia. He wasn't needed, even though Selina has a stack of crimes against her.

Also, Rachel and stuff.

It helped them get organized crime off the streets and into the prisons. "But no city is without crime". The emphasis in this universe was never about catching a purse snatcher. It was about the mob. And even though i still believe the "purse snatchers" was a part of the reason Batman did what he did (just not the main reason), it would not have been wise for him to be taking care of that stuff since he was supposed to be seen as a "murderer". Not a helping hand to the police. Of course he could have been out there during the 8 year absence doing some low-key business before the Dent-Act, just scaring the crap out of the odd criminal, letting them think he's gonna kill them. Sure. But it doesn't matter.

Which relates to Selina's crimes of stealing. How many of those crimes were in Gotham?

 

[shauner111]

I never said they did change anything I just hate how it ties into the first one as I said



Maybe I am wrong about that as a whole but I still feel the film made it out to be a factor. Part of a film a experience is to interpret things a certain way and I think from watching it Rachel dying clearly broke him and was a part of why he quit been Batman. That whole he'd quit for her was bad enough tbh.

Not "maybe".

You can interpret it that way, but it is wrong. When something is ambiguous for instance, like if Batman lurked around a bit post-TDK or not...that's open for interpretation. But it is spelled out for the audience that he didn't retire because of Rachel, but because of no organized crime in Gotham City. And that he only became a recluse 5 years after he hung up his cape and cowl. That leaves no room for interpretation for that aspect of the film/s.

It did break Bruce emotionally, but it was NOT a part of why he quit. Had nothing to do with it.

"That whole he'd quit for her was bad enough" - are you referring to TDK? Because again, he never wanted to quit for her. He wanted to quit, only because he saw Harvey Dent taking his place in the public eye. Then once he could have been retired, he saw it as an opportunity for him and Rachel to be together. I think you need to see the movies again because they're quite clear.

 

[Travesty]

Which relates to Selina's crimes of stealing. How many of those crimes were in Gotham?

I would imagine most, since she lives there, and the movie shows us the Gotham Times where Selina was in a jewel "hiest".

But none of that matters to Bruce, until she steals his pearls. That's when it gets personal, and now The Batman is truly needed. Forget all those other "hiests", he's gotta get his mother's pearls back.

 

[BH/HHH]

Not "maybe".

You can interpret it that way, but it is wrong. When something is ambiguous for instance, like if Batman lurked around a bit post-TDK or not...that's open for interpretation. But it is spelled out for the audience that he didn't retire because of Rachel, but because of no organized crime in Gotham City. And that he only became a recluse 5 years after he hung up his cape and cowl. That leaves no room for interpretation for that aspect of the film/s.

It did break Bruce emotionally, but it was NOT a part of why he quit. Had nothing to do with it.

"That whole he'd quit for her was bad enough" - are you referring to TDK? Because again, he never wanted to quit for her. He wanted to quit, only because he saw Harvey Dent taking his place in the public eye. Then once he could have been retired, he saw it as an opportunity for him and Rachel to be together. I think you need to see the movies again because they're quite clear.

He didn't exactly the way that though did he. And He's clearly a recluse because she died therefore it's part of the reason.

I like my Batman to not talk of quitting repeatedly like he does saying that Harvey Dent can take over and then he can be with Rachel yaya yada, it's just a preference of mine.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Bruce didn't quit being Batman due to Rachel in TDKR. However, he did spiral into an absurd depression that is contrary to the character. Tragedy spurns Batman to action, not moping. Bruce should have been doing something, not sulking reclusively in Wayne Manor and growing a gnarly beard.

 

[shauner111]

I would imagine most, since she lives there, and the movie shows us the Gotham Times where Selina was in a jewel "hiest".

But none of that matters to Bruce, until she steals his pearls. That's when it gets personal, and now The Batman is truly needed. Forget all those other "hiests", he's gotta get his mother's pearls back.

It doesn't matter to Bruce because at that point he has shut himself off from the world. He's not Batman anymore. He finds out about this stuff, after she steals from him, then he does something about it.

Stop trying to be snarky. What happened to Frank Millers Bruce Wayne when he was retired for 10 years? Murders, crazy **** was happening the entire time. Gotham was as bad as it was during Nolans pre-Begins era of Batman. But people don't bark about that do they? Some heists that he literally knew nothing about, during a time when Gotham had no organized crime, and Bruce wasn't Batman anymore. And you give him s**t? Interesting.

And He's clearly a recluse because she died therefore it's part of the reason.

He's a recluse because the clean energy project failed. So he had nothing to do, that's when the depression kicked in regarding Rachel. So once again, she had nothing to do with his retirement, didn't trigger his reclusive ways, she was just a part of the reason as to why he didn't go outside of his mansion to be social.

The only thing she has anything to do with, is why Bruce didn't go outside of Wayne Manor to try to find a new woman and set up a family for himself. That's all that Alfred is talking about.

Bruce didn't quit being Batman due to Rachel in TDKR. However, he did spiral into an absurd depression that is contrary to the character. Tragedy spurns Batman to action, not moping. Bruce should have been doing something, not sulking reclusively in Wayne Manor and growing a gnarly beard.

Depression, brooding is contrary to the character?

Bruce did do something. He was still a public figure for 5 years after TDK, creating a machine for the people.

 

[BH/HHH]

Bruce didn't quit being Batman due to Rachel in TDKR. However, he did spiral into an absurd depression that is contrary to the character. Tragedy spurns Batman to action, not moping. Bruce should have been doing something, not sulking reclusively in Wayne Manor and growing a gnarly beard.

After the Joker killed Rachel he should be thrown himself into Batman, his parents death inspired him to become Batman. Rachel's death should have solidified that stance.