The Dark Knight Rises Is "The Dark Knight Rises" as grounded in reality as its predecessors?

[The Joker]

Deserna pwned those points;

Bane wanted Gotham to tear itself apart in his big revolution right. He said he wants Bruce "watch them clambering over eachother" so that he can understand the depths of his failure. But we never see that. Gotham looks pretty fine to me. Deserted quiet streets look more tranquil and serene than terrifying. Especially in the snow.

There was two films worth of material here and Nolan done the best possible job when condensing them in to two. Gotham should have been a massive part of the story no it didn't needs heaps of social/class split but just enough to know how Gotham was. After five months Gotham should have been hanging on by a thread but at the end all we see are people walking out of their houses? As if they have been sitting in the whole time waiting for this all to blow over. It never felt like anyone wanted Batman to return.

The part where we see the flaming bat-signal to me should have been THE moment of the film. That should be the part where the whole of Gotham take a stand but all we see is one character.

A two-parter could easily have been done. It could have focused on Bruce and his current life and him preparing to take the streets once again. We could have had more of Bane and him slowly building an army underground and throughout Gotham. Gotham's current state and more in depth with the Harvey Dent act. Much much more of Selina. The Wayne Legacy and how Bruce Wayne is affecting it. Then Bane's Stock Exchange and Bruce decides it is time to return. Then Batman planning to infiltrate Bane's lair. More Miranda Tate and the energy stuff. Could also have Bane's plan a lot more fleshed out than it was and show that Gotham is still very corrupt and that the Dent act has really only papered over the cracks, this would also give more sense to Talia/Bane's reason to want to destroy Gotham. Gotham Citizens/Police reaction/Gordon reaction to Batman returning. Batman confronting Bane then Bruce thrown in prison. Bane takes over Gotham - End of Part 1. Loads to go with there may not sound interesting but I'm sure Nolan would have found a way.

Part two would be all about Bruce and him training in prison. Much more about how Gotham is coping under Bane and also Selina turning away from her crime lifestyle because of it. Groups of Gothamite rebels trying to fight Bane's men. Gotham simply turning against itself. People living in poverty. The people turning to Batman for their only hope. Some people turning/accepting Bane as their new saviour. Bruce watching his city tortured. We actually feel the 5 months pass this way and it isn't done in one cut. Much more of Bane's backstory. Then Bruce gets free gets back to Gotham and does the whole bridge stuff. Then the final battle which can also be a lot more fleshed out and feel like a city fighting for its life.

A lot of the marketing was built on Batman vs Bane/RISE/Army vs Police where in reality the fight wasn't really focused on I think 30 seconds after we see that brawl its Batman/Bane and the rest is never focused on.

Instead we got a rush job story with no Gotham people being part of it. For shame.

Well that answers it better than I could

Bane and the LOS would of came to gotham no matter what condition it was in. The dent act doesnt mean anything to the LOS. Bane just got lucky when he found gordons letter. The LOS already had reasons/excuses to destroy gotham before bruce was born. If bruce never became batman the LOS still would of attacked gotham. The LOS will continue to attack gotham until gotham is no more. Even after bruce is dead and gone. This is another reason why gotham will always need a batman. Bruce doesnt need batman anymore but gotham always will. Its said in the movie that robin will become another batman not another persona. People have said that robin needs training, but like the movie you just have to believe he is the right man for the job. As long as gotham has a batman with bruce waynes weapons and equipment gotham will be protected. The people will rally with the batman persona and he will have the equipment.

You are a very familiar poster. I wonder are you someone on the Hype already.

 

[The Guard]

The reason to care about Gotham is because of how much it has meant to Bruce throughout the course of the films. I don't need them to make me feel for Gotham anymore, this is one of the advantages of being the last in a trilogy - because I've already been with them through tremendous terrors, I can already picture how they're feeling just through the shots of the empty streets. Maybe Nolan expected too much out of the audience, and maybe when you see that shot you just see an empty clean street, but I feel the fear of Gotham's citizens, trapping them in their homes with no hope. NOT seeing them is a powerful tool in this case, cinematically.

A couple minutes of clear streets, sure. Absolutely. Stark difference in the way Gotham was running. The absolute order is terrifying. For about 30 seconds.

After that, the filmmakers really needed some new imagery, or needed to develop what they were doing a bit more. 15-20 minutes of the cops, JGL and so forth running around empty streets...it just felt like they were filling time.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Flass doesn't agree with ya;

Flass: I never went to the drop-off point. It was in the Narrows. Cops only go there in force.

They were not in the Narrows. lol at the weather comment. As if rain only happens in the Narrows part of the city.

Sadly you shouldn't 'lol' at the comment as there was rain within the Narrows for a reason. Nolan had wanted to give the Narrows its own identity. Shame you can't acknowledge this either.

And it could very well at least be close to the Narrows, but I find it hard to believe it was close to City Hall or anything. Had to be somewhere close to the Narrows.

Taaa daaa;

Joe Chill, an example of the desperate who took the lives of Bruce's parents. Shows how bad in Gotham things got. An example of the kind of person who kills when they're hungry as Ra's put it.

The homeless man, a flavor of the lowest in Gotham who are not bad guys, haven't given into the desperation and accept the poverty situation of Gotham. He could have mugged Bruce or tried to steal from him, but he didn't.

D.A. Finch and his reluctance to prosecute because Falcone has half the city bought and paid for. An example of the "Good people scared" that Rachel spoke about.

Flass, the corrupt Cop. An obvious one. The rotten apples good people like Gordon has to work with and can't do anything about it.

Judge Faden, the corrupt judge. This man can set people free to line up for assassination for Falcone. An example of how Falcone's corruption has spread into the legal system.

The upper class people at the hotel scene. People who are not desperate, not affected by crime, and therefore have a divided opinion on Batman tackling crime in Gotham. Some think he's great, others think he is crazy, shouldn't take the law into his own hands etc.

Earle, more upper class. A man in power who abuses his power by covering up thefts in his company. He's not corrupt. He's just a bad egg.

The Felafel guy, the lower class. Struggles to earn a living and is abused by the corrupt like Flass by taking his money.

The Narrows kid, more lower class. The kind of good people who populate the Narrows. The "dirty" section of Gotham.

Ahh, Joker on here. It got me confused with The Joker since we're talking about BB, TDK and TDKR.

But still, you have a mixture of higher ups that weren't even given time to tell their stories really. They were mostly as simple as the orphanage's time in TDKR.

What stories? D.A. Finch was the D.A. too frightened to prosecute or go chasing anyone on Falcone's pay until Batman gave them the dirt on 'em. Faden was the judge on the take and the one who set up Chill to get wasted. Snobs at the hotel were the rich class like Bruce who were telling what they think of Batman. Loeb, the Police Commissioner against vigilantism in Gotham even if he did bring in Falcone.

So you're saying we had enough of just knowing who was afraid of the mob and who was on the salary for the mobs? That's not giving Gotham any identity. That's giving the solo characters identity. Once again, imo, far different than TDK who had nameless characters showing their different emotions.

Flass was a Cop on the take. Gordon's partner.

True, but it's justifiable to show Flass since he was like a villain and criminal and he was just at least more developed than Dr. Crane.

 

[TheBat812]

A couple minutes of clear streets, sure. Absolutely. Stark difference in the way Gotham was running. The absolute order is terrifying. For about 30 seconds.

After that, the filmmakers really needed some new imagery, or needed to develop what they were doing a bit more. 15-20 minutes of the cops, JGL and so forth running around empty streets...it just felt like they were filling time.

Pretty subjective, for me the tension was palpable throughout the film. I didn't need to constantly be reminded of what was at stake.

Those calling for a two-parter, I just don't think the film would be stronger for it. It would be like Reloaded, completely deflating all the tension you had built up. Instead of having one part that flows pretty well and builds up to its resolution, we would have two overbloated films. I still disagree about needing more view from the people. That is simply not one of the things that was problematic for me. We'll just have to agree to disagree. For me, the film covers all its needed bases as they pertain to the citizens, and adding more from the regular people is just overbloating. I guarantee you the Nolans had these discussions, and when it came down to it, this is how they felt was most efficient for the Bruce's story. I happen to agree with and trust the Nolan's and their incredible track record over a minority of posters and bloggers. Not that there's no room for criticism or opinions, but solely that these are not gamechangers as far as whether it's a great and effective film. Whether you disagree or not is completely up to you, but to act like most people are just 'missing' it is a bit egotistical imo.

Bane wanted Gotham to tear itself apart in his big revolution right. He said he wants Bruce "watch them clambering over eachother" so that he can understand the depths of his failure. But we never see that. Gotham looks pretty fine to me. Deserted quiet streets look more tranquil and serene than terrifying. Especially in the snow.

First off, that's a very very literal depiction, when what he's saying and why it's important is the figurative meaning to what he's saying. The plan is to make Bruce fear this, but practically, they are clearly not looking for pure anarchy. Like many have said about why Bane and Joker could not coexist. Bane is trying to destroy Gotham first and foremost, trying to restore balance (as evidenced by what the way he acts with Daggett and by his motive to destroy the value of wealth at the stock market) to the class system of Gotham. The revenge aspect is what he's doing for Talia. Which is why he decides to kill Bruce immediately right before he's killed - he doesn't want to risk Batman ****ing his plan up again, he just wants to get it done. As for the streets, it's pretty damn subjective. Although if you're missing some key character stuff because you're missing the context, I'm not exactly surprised that you don't feel what the filmmaker's intended there.

 

[The Joker]

A couple minutes of clear streets, sure. Absolutely. Stark difference in the way Gotham was running. The absolute order is terrifying. For about 30 seconds.

After that, the filmmakers really needed some new imagery, or needed to develop what they were doing a bit more. 15-20 minutes of the cops, JGL and so forth running around empty streets...it just felt like they were filling time.

Exactly.

Bane puts Gotham to its most extreme trial yet: a city-wide exercise in Lord of the Flies sociology, enforced by an army backed with powerful hardware. Bane presents himself as a sort of radical liberator and urges the citizens of Gotham to take back their city, even though he’s obviously a terrorist and openly threatens to destroy the city.

If there is any good in Gotham, now’s the time for it. With the police sidelined and trapped, convicts running loose and Bane’s army making the rules, we expect chaos and lawlessness. But where is it? Is that all there is? The title tells us that the Dark Knight rises, but what about his city? Can Gotham rise to the occasion, rise up against its oppressor? Are ordinary Gothamites capable of heroism? Or are uniformed heroes (bearing bat symbols or police shields) with weapons on their belts the only hope?

Remember when the people on the ferries re-enforced Bruce's faith in their good by not blowing each other up. Joker thought they would kill each other. Gordon did. But Bruce was the only one with faith in Gotham's people to not do it and his faith was rewarded.

The shadow of 9/11 has always lain over this franchise. The finale needed a United 93 moment: civilians banding together to spit in the eye of terror and say, “Hell no. Not this time.” At least it needed to show ordinary Gothamites heroically rising to the occasion in other ways; caring for and protecting one another, sheltering strangers from the hordes; that sort of thing. (We do see a good priest in street clothes who runs a boys’ home and does his best to care for his charges. But this isn’t a Good Samaritan moment; he’s only living up to his existing responsibilities.)

In the end, alas, the only active civilians (other than those in Batman’s own circle, such as Lucius Fox) are Bane’s hordes.

 

[Tequilla]

People rising heroically against armed terrorists , in western civilzatrions ? Man i would love to see that , especially ones with Nukes.

I live in a country where we lived under an authoritarian fascist regime for over 40 years. It fell when it was completely rotten , so much the revolution was ..peaceful. People went to the streets only after the military started the coup.

I would have loved the john rambos of the internet lived in my country.

Although there was always protestants , you know why people didnt go to streets and fight for their country ? Fear.

 

[The Joker]

People rising heroically against armed terrorists , in western civilzatrions ? Man i would love to see that , especially ones with Nukes.

It would be no more fool hardy than a bunch of unarmed Police officers charging armed terrorists with Tumblers and Nukes in broad daylight.

]I live in a country where we lived under an authoritarian fascist regime for over 40 years. It fell when it was completely rotten , so much the revolution was ..peaceful. People went to the streets only after the military started the coup.

I would have loved the john rambos of the internet lived in my country.

You're talking about a whole country. Very different to a self contained city sealed off and living under the regime of a terrorist.

I won't even point out the logistics of it being a comic book movie, too, where the savior is a man in a bat suit, and where the so called authoritarian fascist is defeated by a cat burglar on an armed motorcycle

 

[TheBat812]

I think alot of the reason they chose to use police is because it's about Batman bringing hope and moral standing back into those with a position of authority, something they'd alluded to being lacking in Gotham. When he talks about Batman being anyone he's saying anyone can be an instrument of hope in the system, not that anyone can fight crime. It made more sense for the people of the city who are trained to fight to do the fighting. Seeing a bunch of citizens go out and try to fight a bunch of convicts and mercenaries is laughable unless you wanna see Gotham's citizens getting demolished. Not a really hopeful thing to put in there at that point of the movie. It also doesn't fit the tone of the films, this isn't Spiderman where the people can start throwing **** at the enemy and it feels nice and hopeful. It would be brutal murder of the citizens of Gotham.

And which citizens exactly are you thinking of? The women and children would obviously still be home (soon to be fatherless homes in this scenario), so are we just talking the men of Gotham? We already have Foley who represents the man who at one point was too afraid to go out, but finally has the belief and hope that it's the what needs to be done, so that is already accounted for. I'm just not sure what you guys think any of this actually adds to the film.

 

[Fudgie]

Sadly you shouldn't 'lol' at the comment as there was rain within the Narrows for a reason. Nolan had wanted to give the Narrows its own identity. Shame you can't acknowledge this either.

Rain doesn't give the Narrows it's identity. It wasn't raining when we first saw the Narrows. It just looked like a filthy part of the city. Flass didn't get interrogated in the Narrows cos he said he would never go there except in force.

And it could very well at least be close to the Narrows, but I find it hard to believe it was close to City Hall or anything. Had to be somewhere close to the Narrows.

Ehhh ya do know Gotham is a lot bigger than just city hall and the Narrows.

But still, you have a mixture of higher ups that weren't even given time to tell their stories really. They were mostly as simple as the orphanage's time in TDKR.

They didn't need to tell a story. What did ya want to hear from them, their favorite holiday and what they like to watch on TV? Ya look at a judge on the take or a bunch of richie riches in a posh hotel, or some poor schmuck selling falefael out in the rain saying he has kids to feed and ya get all ya need to know about what kind of people they are and what their story is and ya know when ya see a fat bent Cop take their money, or hang out in Falcone's club, or look down their noses at Batman what kind of Gotham persona they are.

So you're saying we had enough of just knowing who was afraid of the mob and who was on the salary for the mobs? That's not giving Gotham any identity.

Yup it is cos they all were made up of different classes of people. Poor, rich, homeless, Cops, lawyers, kids, judges.

That's giving the solo characters identity. Once again, imo, far different than TDK who had nameless characters showing their different emotions.

What was so different. Tell me all the details ya can about the personal lives of the folk on the ferries.

True, but it's justifiable to show Flass since he was like a villain and criminal and he was just at least more developed than Dr. Crane.

Ehhh Flass wasn't like a villain. He was a fat bent slob of a Cop who was made look like a coward by Batman. Earle was more a villain than Flass.

People rising heroically against armed terrorists , in western civilzatrions ? Man i would love to see that , especially ones with Nukes.

I live in a country where we lived under an authoritarian fascist regime for over 40 years. It fell when it was completely rotten , so much the revolution was ..peaceful. People went to the streets only after the military started the coup.

I would have loved the john rambos of the internet lived in my country.

Although there was always protestants , you know why people didnt go to streets and fight for their country ? Fear.

Heh you want to talk realism. Mmmmkay so ya didn't want to see any people fight back for their city but ya were all for buying into the prison pit of doom. Everyone just believing gas mask terrorist that Harvey Dent was a fraud just cos he said he was reading it from a letter Gordon wrote. The city getting saved by a cat burglar with a heart of gold, and the cripple who came back in his bat suit with his fancy toys after getting his vertebrae slapped in and training himself in the pit of doom.

Gee it almost sounds like a comic book flick. All that schlock is dandy but citizens fighting back for their families, for their city? NEVAH!!!!!

 

[Anita18]

I think alot of the reason they chose to use police is because it's about Batman bringing hope and moral standing back into those with a position of authority, something they'd alluded to being lacking in Gotham. When he talks about Batman being anyone he's saying anyone can be an instrument of hope in the system, not that anyone can fight crime. It made more sense for the people of the city who are trained to fight to do the fighting. Seeing a bunch of citizens go out and try to fight a bunch of convicts and mercenaries is laughable unless you wanna see Gotham's citizens getting demolished.

That's something I did find interesting in TDKR. They did seem to focus a lot on uniforms and all of their implications - in fact, all we see of the people outside of Gotham are their uniforms. The 3-(or whatever) star general is the first glance at the folks in the Pentagon. And because they're wearing such uniforms, there are certain things expected of them, as we saw with the Gotham State policeman at the end who ordered that the bridge be blown up.

The cops in Gotham still see themselves as cops even when they escape the tunnels. (Blake believes in their tenacity when it's doubted by the Special Forces guy.) Their job is the serve and protect the citizens, and they will do that until their dying breath. In putting on the uniform of a police officer, they endow themselves with that mission. (Obviously, this is how Bruce sees himself when he puts on the batsuit as well.) Now, since they are essentially leaderless (with Gordon trying to stop the bomb), they have to follow someone outside the system, but who has proven his worthiness to protect the city publicly, even when he has no formal authority to give orders to cops.

That's another thing that I found particularly moving about the assault on Bane. The police are giving their lives, for only a distraction so the regular folks can get out. And it's self-affirmed creatures of the night like Batman and Catwoman (given their uniforms), who are coming out into the daylight to save the lives of those regular folks too. Those from inside and outside the law, coming together for one noble purpose.

 

[Fudgie]

That's what Cops do. They put their lives on the line to protect the innocent. That is their creedo. To protect and serve. It ain't like they didn't have a battle plan planned with Batman either. They were his 'army'. They knew he was gonna come in guns blazing and start breaking his one rule. It was all set up.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Rain doesn't give the Narrows it's identity. It wasn't raining when we first saw the Narrows. It just looked like a filthy part of the city. Flass didn't get interrogated in the Narrows cos he said he would never go there except in force.

The rain was a growing factor in identifying the Narrows though. And as I said, it could've been at least CLOSE to the Narrows where Batman interrogated Flass.

Ehhh ya do know Gotham is a lot bigger than just city hall and the Narrows.

Of course Gotham City is bigger. Hence why each film dealt with a specific area within Gotham, but BB focused mostly on the Narrows and around it. Heck, the first Wayne Tower was even pretty damn close to the Narrows where the other building is not shown in TDK and TDKR.

They didn't need to tell a story. What did ya want to hear from them, their favorite holiday and what they like to watch on TV? Ya look at a judge on the take or a bunch of richie riches in a posh hotel, or some poor schmuck selling falefael out in the rain saying he has kids to feed and ya get all ya need to know about what kind of people they are and what their story is and ya know when ya see a fat bent Cop take their money, or hang out in Falcone's club, or look down their noses at Batman what kind of Gotham persona they are.

We had named characters giving their side to further the plot as opposed to TDK where we had strangers showing their emotions like they were hanging off their sleeves. That's my point. Only characters to further the story, but they weren't as important and that's why BB felt mostly like a film around the poor.

Yup it is cos they all were made up of different classes of people. Poor, rich, homeless, Cops, lawyers, kids, judges.

Again, as a story point, that's it. Nothing to really show an identity for Gotham except for furthering a story.

What was so different. Tell me all the details ya can about the personal lives of the folk on the ferries.

Complete strangers suggesting their fear of what's happening. THAT'S what made TDK the only film that really gave Gotham an identity because they weren't even minor characters to further along the plot as is with BB and TDKR.

Ehhh Flass wasn't like a villain. He was a fat bent slob of a Cop who was made look like a coward by Batman. Earle was more a villain than Flass.

Flass definitely felt like a small time villain because he was working along with the thugs and one of the cogs that kept the crimes going untouched.

That's what Cops do. They put their lives on the line to protect the innocent. That is their creedo. To protect and serve. It ain't like they didn't have a battle plan planned with Batman either. They were his 'army'. They knew he was gonna come in guns blazing and start breaking his one rule. It was all set up.

That is the biggest reason why I didn't mind any other Gothamite being within Batman's "army" because it was much better in having the police rallying behind Batman going up against Bane's army of League of Shadows and criminals. Police are there to protect and serve and are better trained and equipped than a regular guy who would not stand a chance against a criminal, let alone someone from the LoS, imo.

 

[Deserana]

I live in a country where we lived under an authoritarian fascist regime for over 40 years. It fell when it was completely rotten , so much the revolution was ..peaceful. People went to the streets only after the military started the coup.

I would have loved the john rambos of the internet lived in my country.

Although there was always protestants , you know why people didnt go to streets and fight for their country ? Fear.

But you aren't living in a fictional city with a costumed hero whose one and main goal is to inspire the people to stand up and do something.

The last act of TDKR was time for Nolan to put that point into action.

Batman standing with an of cops. Yeah fine it LOOKS good. Batman standing with an army of cops and citizens fighting for their city MEANS a lot.

Exactly.

Bane puts Gotham to its most extreme trial yet: a city-wide exercise in Lord of the Flies sociology, enforced by an army backed with powerful hardware. Bane presents himself as a sort of radical liberator and urges the citizens of Gotham to take back their city, even though he’s obviously a terrorist and openly threatens to destroy the city.

If there is any good in Gotham, now’s the time for it. With the police sidelined and trapped, convicts running loose and Bane’s army making the rules, we expect chaos and lawlessness. But where is it? Is that all there is? The title tells us that the Dark Knight rises, but what about his city? Can Gotham rise to the occasion, rise up against its oppressor? Are ordinary Gothamites capable of heroism? Or are uniformed heroes (bearing bat symbols or police shields) with weapons on their belts the only hope?

Remember when the people on the ferries re-enforced Bruce's faith in their good by not blowing each other up. Joker thought they would kill each other. Gordon did. But Bruce was the only one with faith in Gotham's people to not do it and his faith was rewarded.

The shadow of 9/11 has always lain over this franchise. The finale needed a United 93 moment: civilians banding together to spit in the eye of terror and say, “Hell no. Not this time.” At least it needed to show ordinary Gothamites heroically rising to the occasion in other ways; caring for and protecting one another, sheltering strangers from the hordes; that sort of thing. (We do see a good priest in street clothes who runs a boys’ home and does his best to care for his charges. But this isn’t a Good Samaritan moment; he’s only living up to his existing responsibilities.)

In the end, alas, the only active civilians (other than those in Batman’s own circle, such as Lucius Fox) are Bane’s hordes.

Nail on head.

Maybe watching all 3 films in a row would elminate some of these concerns but for me this my main (and only) issue with the film.

 

[JackWhite]

Even though I love Bane's speech at Blackgate, I think if Bane's reign over Gotham had not been montaged that would have cleared up the problem for people who felt Gotham didn't have such a strong voice like in TDK.

 

[BatLobster]

That montage was one of my favorite parts of the film. Everything about it was perfect. Granted, I'm a sucker for montages in movies where a character is explaining what is going to happen and we peak into the future with a montage to see it all unfolding. And DAT SCORE.

Granted, I would have taken a 3+ hour TDKR in a heartbeat. Hell, I'd have taken a 3+ hour TDK too with more Two-Face.

 

[JackWhite]

That montage was one of my favorite parts of the film. Everything about it was perfect. Granted, I'm a sucker for montages in movies where a character is explaining what is going to happen and we peak into the future with a montage to see it all unfolding. And DAT SCORE.

Granted, I would have taken a 3+ hour TDKR in a heartbeat. Hell, I'd have taken a 3+ hour TDK too with more Two-Face.

I agree, the montage was solid. I honestly think TDKR should have or could have been a little over 3 hours, and it would have been absolutely perfect.

TDK and BB was on last night on the action channel. Oh boy did I love Eckhart as Two-Face in the third act of TDK. Criminally underrated performance from that man.

 

[Micromind]

A couple minutes of clear streets, sure. Absolutely. Stark difference in the way Gotham was running. The absolute order is terrifying. For about 30 seconds.

After that, the filmmakers really needed some new imagery, or needed to develop what they were doing a bit more. 15-20 minutes of the cops, JGL and so forth running around empty streets...it just felt like they were filling time.

What would you expect ? After five years of siege by Bane who runs the city by imposing his own martial law ?

They couldn't have shown Gotham as some ordinary bustling city full of people with happy, smiley faces.

But you aren't living in a fictional city with a costumed hero whose one and main goal is to inspire the people to stand up and do something.

The last act of TDKR was time for Nolan to put that point into action.

Batman standing with an of cops. Yeah fine it LOOKS good. Batman standing with an army of cops and citizens fighting for their city MEANS a lot.

I think Nolan made the right decision by not including ordinary citizens of Gotham in the final fight against Bane's Army.

It would have turned the moment into cheesy camp watching some regular Dudes in the Army who have no training going up against trained mercenaries, criminals etc.

How can ordinary citizens suddenly develop the will power to face Bane's goons if they had been afraid of him for the past five years, where will they get the arms training ? Just getting inspiration by watching the burning Bat symbol will not prepare them or equip them for the war with Bane's Army.

The burning Bat symbol was to inspire hope in ordinary citizens and fear in Bane's men, a declaration of war, nothing more than that.

 

[Tequilla]

It would be no more fool hardy than a bunch of unarmed Police officers charging armed terrorists with Tumblers and Nukes in broad daylight.



You're talking about a whole country. Very different to a self contained city sealed off and living under the regime of a terrorist.

I won't even point out the logistics of it being a comic book movie, too, where the savior is a man in a bat suit, and where the so called authoritarian fascist is defeated by a cat burglar on an armed motorcycle

I dont know if you're mocking me , or completely distorting everything so it fits what you want to argue against. Have you read the title of the topic ? "Is "The Dark Knight Rises" as grounded in reality as its predecessors?" (it was even you who brought real events with 9/11)

People have been making some crazy assumptions about the citizens uprising , their reaction , blablabla , when in reality the apathy and complete fear of what they expect is what dominates a civilization. I give you an example. You respond saying that this movie is fiction....hmmm right ! So why should it be the way you're saying , and not how it happened ? To me the choice follows more closey the human behavior. I liked they went that way. You didn't . Alright. The point of the topic was not that.

The reality of these movies have always been the same. How does a man deal being a hero , and how does everyone around him react to it . That's the only establishment of reality in these movies. Rises , in my opinion , follows the same logic.

But you aren't living in a fictional city with a costumed hero whose one and main goal is to inspire the people to stand up and do something.

The last act of TDKR was time for Nolan to put that point into action.

Batman standing with an of cops. Yeah fine it LOOKS good. Batman standing with an army of cops and citizens fighting for their city MEANS a lot.

A hero can be anyone. Even a man doing something as simple and reassuring as putting a coat around a little boy's shoulders to let him know that the world hadn't ended.

This is the hero Batman tries to inspire to the city. A hero can be anyone. Not necessarily as civilians grabbing their guns and getting killed. Even the smallest actions can achieve a greater good. That's Batman mission. To inspire good in Gotham.

 

[The Joker]

But you aren't living in a fictional city with a costumed hero whose one and main goal is to inspire the people to stand up and do something.

The last act of TDKR was time for Nolan to put that point into action.

Batman standing with an of cops. Yeah fine it LOOKS good. Batman standing with an army of cops and citizens fighting for their city MEANS a lot.

Exactly

Time and again we're reminded in this movie this is about the people of Gotham City and they are completely omitted from this.

I dont know if you're mocking me , or completely distorting everything so it fits what you want to argue against.

Neither. You're trying to apply a real life situation in a whole country to the fantastical situation in a fictional city in a comic book movie. I don't need to distort anything for that.

Have you read the title of the topic ? "Is "The Dark Knight Rises" as grounded in reality as its predecessors?" (it was even you who brought real events with 9/11)

Yes, that's a theme. Terrorism. It doesn't mean all the real world aspects of it are followed to the letter. We're watching a comic book movie where a city gets saved by a millionaire in a bat suit.

People have been making some crazy assumptions about the citizens uprising , their reaction , blablabla , when in reality the apathy and complete fear of what they expect is what dominates a civilization. I give you an example. You respond saying that this movie is fiction....hmmm right ! So why should it be the way you're saying , and not how it happened ?

Because how it happened was FAR less interesting and powerful than what we could have gotten. What Deserena said is a perfect example of what would have been a better alternative. Batman standing with an army of cops and citizens fighting for their city MEANS a lot.

We're already being asked to buy nonsense like that Gotham City just bought Bane's revelation about Harvey Dent on face value. We're already being asked to buy the city is saved by a man in a bat suit and a cat burglar. Does all this sound like real word terrorism to you?

We've been following a world where ninjas in the Himalayas construct schemes to destroy a city with fear gas and a microwave emitter. Where a psychopath dressed as a clown has such omnipotence that he can dominate an entire city "with a few drums of gas and a couple of bullets". Where the hope of a whole city hinges on a district attorney. Now you're trying to sell the idea that citizens of Gotham uprising against a fascist dictator is too unreal?

Sorry, not buying that for a second.

 

[TheBat812]

Batman standing with the citizens and cops means nothing since the point was to distract Bane and his army to allow citizens to try to escape. It also just means he's about to let a bunch of citizens get massacred. Some great hero he is. The figurative idea of those who'd let their people down by caring more about accolades than stopping actual threats (Foley and chasing Batman instead of Bane) finally taking the responsibility of putting their lives in direct danger for their people is the hope that Batman had hoped to instill.

Once again, the idea that Batman could be anyone is that anybody can bring hope and can stand for good even in the face of injustice, not that anybody/everybody should physically fight. That would be a stupid and irresponsible message. Once again, this is not Spiderman where the tone allows for some feel good nonsense where the people rise up against though who will pummel them with no second thought. The tone in this film just does not call for it, and if it were there, I'm sure there would be more detractors than there currently are about this film not being realistic. Batman does not allow the death of the innocent for the sake of martyrdom in any stories I know of... IMO, if you really think the people should've been fighting the mercenaries, I think you might have missed a core part of the Bruce that Nolan has shown us throughout the series.

 

[Tequilla]

@TheJoker

Well now I understand your point...but I completely disagree. The actions of the whole trilogy are pure fantasy , but to me the point was always the reaction to those actions. And i think Rises is exactly the same , being the apathy of the city one of those aspects. You find that less interesting , i find it fascinating and also coherent to the other two movies.

 

[Micromind]

Now you're trying to sell the idea that citizens of Gotham uprising against a fascist dictator is too unreal?

Sorry, not buying that for a second.

There is no rule book that can predict the behavior of ordinary citizens reactions under extra-ordinary conditions, but if you go by what usually happens in real world under such conditions (siege of a city, imposition of Martial law, Kangaroo Courts) People go into hiding, not turn up on streets and shout slogans and hold placards.

 

[The Joker]

Batman standing with the citizens and cops means nothing since the point was to distract Bane and his army to allow citizens to try to escape.

What citizens? The only citizens they attempted to get to safety was the orphans. With minutes left on the bomb timer. Do you think several million people were getting out of the city in that space of time? They were just trying to get the kids out. The rest of Gotham had not budged.

It also just means he's about to let a bunch of citizens get massacred. Some great hero he is.

Citizens were being massacred anyway in this five month siege. The body count was already high, and the city was minutes away from being blown up. So what alternatives has he got? Increase the chances of survival of the city by having as much support as possible by out numbering Bane's men, or just use the bare minimum available?

The idea is the city rising up with Batman. Not hiding like frightened sheep. Isn't that what Batman is about? To inspire.

Once again, the idea that Batman could be anyone is that anybody can bring hope and can stand for good even in the face of injustice, not that anybody/everybody should physically fight. That would be a stupid and irresponsible message.

Nobody was asking the people of Gotham to put on Batman costumes and start hopping around the rooftops.

Once again, this is not Spiderman where the tone allows for some feel good nonsense where the people rise up against though who will pummel them with no second thought.

There's a difference between a few hapless citizens facing a super powered super villain as opposed to an army of citizens fighting along side an army of Cops.

Although funny you mention Spider-Man. In Spider-Man 1 the citizens saved Spidey's life from the Green Goblin, and they aided him in The Amazing Spider-Man with the cranes. They also saved his bacon on the train when he nearly fell to his death from passing out.

The tone in this film just does not call for it, and if it were there, I'm sure there would be more detractors than there currently are about this film not being realistic.

This movie has far worse laps of logic and realism than that.

Batman does not allow the death of the innocent for the sake of martyrdom in any stories I know of

You've obviously never read No Man's Land.

@TheJoker

Well now I understand your point...but I completely disagree. The actions of the whole trilogy are pure fantasy , but to me the point was always the reaction to those actions. And i think Rises is exactly the same

I don't. Particularly in Rises, starting with the whole city just taking the word of a masked terrorist telling them their beloved Harvey Dent was a fraud.

 

[The Joker]

There is no rule book that can predict the behavior of ordinary citizens reactions under extra-ordinary conditions

That's why it's a fantasy world. A comic book movie. I've never heard of a city placing all it's hope for the future on a district attorney have you?

but if you go by what usually happens in real world under such conditions (siege of a city, imposition of Martial law, Kangaroo Courts) People go into hiding, not turn up on streets and shout slogans and hold placards.

In the real world a masked vigilante like Batman would be arrested after his first night in Gotham City. He would not have a batsignal on Police HQ, he would not be sitting in the interrogation room of Police HQ interrogating a psychopathic terrorist, and he certainly wouldn't be working with the D.A. and the Police Commissioner. He would not be able to kidnap a prominent business man from a foreign country and haul him back to Gotham to use in a RICO case etc.

Stop trying to apply realism of people's behavior to unrealistic situations. Your logic can be stamped out every time in these movies.

 

[BatLobster]

All three films definitely asserted themselves as being based in reality, even if they weren't in actuality. But I do think given a series of "what ifs", a lot of the peoples' behavior in the three films comes off as plausible.