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

[Fudgie]

True, they came from poor reviewers that would probably nitpick the crap out of 2001.

Conjecture.

No, the word you're looking for is clarity.

So are you nicely clarified now that the hate for this movie is not just on the message boards? Yes? Goodie.

 

[The Joker]

Are you serious?

I never said they were coming from "here" as in SHH. I said they were coming from message boards in general.

I know. By here I mean message boards like the one we're posting on. That's why I found it so incredible that you had somehow conned yourself into believing the only negativity you'd seen regarding this movie had come from message boards.

You'd have to be living under a rock to have missed it. It's everywhere.

I saw this barely even having seen the preview more than once, or reading a review, in fact I still haven't read one. I agree with those that point out this movie was and is a jumbled, but fun, mess. The plot holes were apparent to me when I saw the movie the first time.

The only time I've seen it actually.

I think most people saw the plot holes first time around. Most of them are very difficult to miss.

 

[TheBat812]

Thanks for sharing your theory with me. The ending of the movie doesn't make your theory look plausible.

It never negates the idea. Just because gordon still appears to have his job doesn't mean a case isn't impending. However, gordon's resolution comes in being willing to act and not hide behind a facade as he'd done regarding the Dent act, so yes, it IS irrelevant what happens after that. Both Bruce and Gordon learn their lessons throughout the film.

Exactly. This revelation about how the city's hope has been built on a lie should have shown how the people of Gotham reacted to their hero Harvey being a fraud.

Not necessarily, this is Bruce's and Gordon's story. Blake is a reflection of the people of Gotham, and so his response is representative in that sense. However, I'm pretty sure people themselves are a bit more preoccupied with being barricaded in their homes because a terrorist has taken their city. Whether they should've had a bigger role is completely subjective, and was a necessary sacrifice to tell Bruce's story.

How did it affect Bruce and Gordon when it was revealed? Explain to me what changed for them after it was revealed. Explain to me how it changed Gotham other than releasing a bunch of convicted criminals.

Everything that happens in terms of the characters realizing they need to face the truth head on happens after this moment. Sure, Gordon already regretted it, but he didn't actually have to face himself for it, he was hiding in the shadows like Bruce. The revealing of the letter is what for them is the unburdening of a secret that froze them from instilling true change, something they now could no longer stay hidden behind. They had to face the truth that what they'd done was just a temporary fix that wasn't truly what bruce had wanted. He had wanted a Gotham strong enough to keep itself safe. So yes, it matters to them, whether it mattered to the people or not, making it irrelevant to see more of the people's reactions.

 

[The Joker]

It never negates the idea.

It never negates the idea that Gordon becomes the next Mayor either. You don't really have anything to support your theory any more than my Mayor idea. The movie does show Gordon soldering on in his job as normal. The final shot of him on the roof of Police HQ, looking through files, and then seeing the new Batsignal really paints the image that he is there for the long haul.

However, gordon's resolution comes in being willing to act and not hide behind a facade as he'd done regarding the Dent act, so yes, it IS irrelevant what happens after that. Both Bruce and Gordon learn their lessons throughout the film.

I don't understand this at all. What do you mean he becomes willing to act? When was he ever unwilling to act against any threats to the city?

What lessons did they learn from the Dent lie being exposed? You still haven't clarified this.

Not necessarily, this is Bruce's and Gordon's story.

In what way is this movie Gordon's story as much as Bruce's? Gordon's smallest role was in this one.

Blake is a reflection of the people of Gotham, and so his response is representative in that sense.

Blake is not a reflection of the people of Gotham. Blake is the conscience voice who is urging Bruce into action as Batman, and telling off Gordon for what he did wrong.

A reaction shot from the crowd, even two regular citizens just to give a flavor of what Gotham felt about their white knight hero being a fraud would have sufficed. The revelation of the Dent lie didn't alter anything.

However, I'm pretty sure people themselves are a bit more preoccupied with being barricaded in their homes because a terrorist has taken their city.

Which again made the revelation of the Dent lie pointless because it didn't change anything or show any reactions to Gotham's people, and had no effect on Bruce or Gordon except Gordon getting a verbal thrashing from Blake.

Everything that happens in terms of the characters realizing they need to face the truth head on happens after this moment.

Really? So list me all the instances where these truth revealing moments happen for all the characters after the Dent lie comes out, please. To me there is clearly only two big truths that come out in this movie:

1. Rachel's letter, and how she chose Harvey Dent over Bruce. That was great because it helped Bruce realize he did not miss out on his only chance at a normal life because he realized Rachel could and did move on and so he could. He could move on with Selina.

2. The Harvey Dent lie which had no repercussions except the Blackgate inmates getting released. Although Batman getting a statue at the end would also be a factor because if they still believed he murdered Dent, their White Knight who gave them 8 years of peace time, and all of those people, too, they would not be raising a statue to him, whether he saved the city or not.

Sure, Gordon already regretted it, but he didn't actually have to face himself for it, he was hiding in the shadows like Bruce.

Gordon was not hiding in the shadows at all. He was out there in public doing his job as always, singing Dent's praises to the public etc. The only thing he was hiding was the truth about Dent.

The revealing of the letter is what for them is the unburdening of a secret that froze them from instilling true change, something they now could no longer stay hidden behind. They had to face the truth that what they'd done was just a temporary fix that wasn't truly what bruce had wanted. He had wanted a Gotham strong enough to keep itself safe. So yes, it matters to them, whether it mattered to the people or not, making it irrelevant to see more of the people's reactions.

The revealing of the letter did not change a thing except unleash a bunch of criminals onto the streets. I've asked you twice already where was Gordon's attitude change towards things once the truth about Dent came out? Before it came out was he against the idea of stopping Bane? No. Was he against the idea of Batman coming back? No. So where is this character change?

Or Bruce's for that matter.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

It never made sense to me why people believed Bane. He hardly provided any evidence of anything. This kind of goes back to the whole Occupation feeling like a typical day in Gotham. After that shot of rich people being dragged from their homes the occupation, and it's consequences are barely referenced.

What, because occasionally one measily Tumbler patrols the street...that's an "occupation?". Give me a break. You can't occupy a city with half a dozen vehicles.

 

[The Joker]

It never made sense to me why people believed Bane. He hardly provided any evidence of anything.

The whole thing was handled poorly. The city had been idolizing Harvey as their savior for 8 years. His legacy got rid of all the crime in Gotham. He had a law and an annual holiday made in his honor. Batman was turned into the villain who killed him and several other people, too.

This masked terrorist sweeps into Gotham, blows things up, murders lots of people, takes the city hostage with a bomb. Then he pulls out a piece of paper, says it's from Gordon, and tells Gotham that Dent was a fraud who tried to kill a child and Batman took the blame for all the crimes Harvey did.

Who would believe that let alone just take Bane's word on good faith? It's this kind of shoddy writing that plagues this movie's script.

 

[Anno_Domini]

I saw this barely even having seen the preview more than once, or reading a review, in fact I still haven't read one. I agree with those that point out this movie was and is a jumbled, but fun, mess. The plot holes were apparent to me when I saw the movie the first time.

The only time I've seen it actually.

When there were plot holes during all three films, they were easy to notice, but that doesn't take away from the entire aspect of any film, imo.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

When there were plot holes during all three films, they were easy to notice, but that doesn't take away from the entire aspect of any film, imo.

When I have to tell myself not too think too hard about this or that just so I can enjoy what is there and what is good, it takes away from the entire film. That's what prevents something like, for example, Thor from ever really being anything more than an action movie.

So yes, it does take away from it. It takes it from being something truly well made, to something that services the film mainly for entertainment purposes or just to get you to the next explosion.

That's often common to most action movies, but it does take away from them.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

The whole thing was handled poorly. The city had been idolizing Harvey as their savior for 8 years. His legacy got rid of all the crime in Gotham. He had a law and an annual holiday made in his honor. Batman was turned into the villain who killed him and several other people, too.

This masked terrorist sweeps into Gotham, blows things up, murders lots of people, takes the city hostage with a bomb. Then he pulls out a piece of paper, says it's from Gordon, and tells Gotham that Dent was a fraud who tried to kill a child and Batman took the blame for all the crimes Harvey did.

Who would believe that let alone just take Bane's word on good faith? It's this kind of shoddy writing that plagues this movie's script.

Also, when I'm keeping a secret that could ruin my career, I write that secret down on a piece of paper and keep it forever, in a place, apparently, where Bane can find it despite the fact that he wouldn't know I'd written it down in the first place...


...Yeah.

Also, really, Bane stealing from the stock market made me roll my eyes. The stock market isn't a f***ing bank. You can't rob it like that. Doesn't even make sense.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

What Bane did to reveal Harvey Dent was about as believable as killing someone and then reading their "suicide note" to the cops as evidence I didn't do it.

"Yeah, he left this note -- Ummm, Dear Police, I don't want to live. That's why I chopped myself up and placed myself in the garbage. The guy reading this note didn't do it. You can leave now".

 

[Anno_Domini]

When I have to tell myself not too think too hard about this or that just so I can enjoy what is there and what is good, it takes away from the entire film. That's what prevents something like, for example, Thor from ever really being anything more than an action movie.

So yes, it does take away from it. It takes it from being something truly well made, to something that services the film mainly for entertainment purposes or just to get you to the next explosion.

That's often common to most action movies, but it does take away from them.

I agree and disagree. I agree that when there are plot holes that could destroy the entire structure of the film, say any of the Transformers films, for example, but I disagree that The Dark Knight Trilogy had any plot holes that did the same. From BB to TDKR, I can't pinpoint something that destructs the entire structure of the respective films, even if the nuclear explosion didn't radiate the water, or were at least mentioned or even if the Bat got to the ocean pretty quickly within a few seconds...it didn't take me away from witnessing a magnificent film, imo.

 

[BatLobster]

Also, when I'm keeping a secret that could ruin my career, I write that secret down on a piece of paper and keep it forever, in a place, apparently, where Bane can find it despite the fact that he wouldn't know I'd written it down in the first place...


...Yeah.

Also, really, Bane stealing from the stock market made me roll my eyes. The stock market isn't a f***ing bank. You can't rob it like that. Doesn't even make sense.

1. Gordon was about to intentionally ruin his own career just so he could get the truth off his chest. He only backed down at the last second. Bane just had his men search Gordon. Perfectly reasonable

2. There's a line in the movie addressing that.

"This is a stock exchange. There's no money here to steal!"
"Really? Then why are you people here?"

Bane's not stealing money, they were using Bruce's fingerprints to execute bad trades.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Also, really, Bane stealing from the stock market made me roll my eyes. The stock market isn't a f***ing bank. You can't rob it like that. Doesn't even make sense.

If he was "robbing" it, Bane would have had all of that money. Nowhere is it mentioned, hinted, alluded to or whatever that Bane "robbed" the stock market. He only gave away all of Bruce's earnings.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

1. Gordon was about to intentionally ruin his own career just so he could get the truth off his chest. He only backed down at the last second.

That still doesn't address why he kept it or how the hell Bane got it.

2. There's a line in the movie addressing that.

"This is a stock exchange. There's no money here to steal!"
"Really? Then why are you people here?"

Bane's not stealing money, they were using Bruce's fingerprints to execute bad trades.

Yeah, that's great, that's still not how the stock's work.

Also, given how the event transpired, the SEC would simply halt trading for the day. You can't broadcast that your f***ing with the stock market.

 

[Anno_Domini]

That still doesn't address why he kept it or how the hell Bane got it.

It's in the same jacket as he wore in the event the night earlier. What other explanation does one need?

Also, given how the event transpired, the SEC would simply halt trading for the day. You can't broadcast that your f***ing with the stock market.

Whatever they used on the market could have very well been a virus to keep anyone else from messing with it.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Whatever they used on the market could have very well been a virus to keep anyone else from messing with it.

It wouldn't matter. Halting trading would simply halt trading.

The fact that you have to invent a justification the movie didn't give is exactly what's wrong with it.

 

[Doc Samson]

He wore a purple suit to look like a clown. Clowns wear brightly colored clothing. You can't look like the Joker or any clowny character without a colored costume.

Once again (and I'm talking specifically Nolan's version even though most iterations follow "suit" as well, no pun intended), just because the suit is purple, garish & tacky (which I already conceded it was anyway) that still doesn't make it a "costume" like the stuff Bane, Catwoman & Batman wear. There's no functionality to it, and while you can say it's symbolic for him, it's also not necessarily symbolic or representative of clowns.

Circus clowns wear all kinds of bright colors, purple isn't a prerequisite or automatic identifier. It's primarily an overcoat, vest, slacks and a shirt. It's flamboyant in the hasty way it's put together, and it's an expression of his personality, but it's not a costume IMO.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Yeah Joker and Two-Face don't have costumes. You could even say they don't really have secret identities. How they dress is basically what is their plain clothes. It's what they where to kill, but it's also what they wear to nice, fancy dinner dates.

 

[BatLobster]

That still doesn't address why he kept it or how the hell Bane got it.

What's outlandish about Bane to telling his men to search Gordon once he's captured? It's not like they were specifically looking for a note they couldn't possibly know existed when they were obviously looking to see if he had any more weapons on him. Gordon could have simply forgotten about the note, as his focus turned to the kidnapped Senator and actually having some police work to do. Him keeping the note in his jacket is the equivalent of forgetting to clear your internet history before your girlfriend uses the computer or something...people forget, stuff happens. In the film, I found it to be symbolize him always carrying the burden of the truth with him. Maybe he wanted to be found out so he'd be relieved of the lie. But otherwise, he just wore the same jacket two nights in a row. Not a huge deal.

As far as the Stock Exchange stuff goes, that goes into the suspension of disbelief category for me. Not just according to this series' rules, but any action movie. I wouldn't object if the same happened in a Die Hard movie. The NYSE has never been attacked in real life as it was in the film, so I wasn't distracted by the potential real world ramifications, it just was something scary and different. The film even mentions that eventually Wayne would be able to prove fraud.

 

[Doc Samson]

Yeah Joker and Two-Face don't have costumes. You could even say they don't really have secret identities. How they dress is basically what is their plain clothes. It's what they where to kill, but it's also what they wear to nice, fancy dinner dates.

Right. If Bruce takes off his gear, he can still fight, but he's less without his suit than he is with it. That's a costume to me. Selina can't be at her best without her gadgets, that's a costume. Bane wouldn't even be alive, that's a definite costume.

On the other hand, Ras Al Ghul was just who he was, no matter the outfit, period. Crane, outside of his mask, obviously was just a suit and tie villain. Dent wore nothing special & like I said, the Joker wears his stuff as symbolic expression, but it's still just regular clothing. His only real accessory is his paint. So going from that in the previous two films to three costumed characters in TDKR, at least for me, was kind of jarring.

 

[Anno_Domini]

It wouldn't matter. Halting trading would simply halt trading.

The fact that you have to invent a justification the movie didn't give is exactly what's wrong with it.

So no one can give any justification on Batman finding Two-Face at the end of TDK either?

 

[Brother Jack]

On the other hand, Ras Al Ghul was just who he was, no matter the outfit, period. Crane, outside of his mask, obviously was just a suit and tie villain. Dent wore nothing special & like I said, the Joker wears his stuff as symbolic expression, but it's still just regular clothing. His only real accessory is his paint. So going from that in the previous two films to three costumed characters in TDKR, at least for me, was kind of jarring.

I would argue Ra's was the only one in the trilogy with a secret identity, with the possibly exception of Selina Kyle (the "cat burglar"). He disguises himself as Henri Ducard in a way. But other than that all of the antagonists have no duel identities, except Talia of course. In the case of Joker and Bane, they have no identities other than their aliases.

 

[Human Torch]

I'd say Joker was wearing a costume,since he was trying to put across a persona.Two-Face on the other hand,was wearing the clothes he had the accident in,so it wasn't exactly a case of him designing (aka damaging) his clothes for the sake of making a costume to his new persona.

That's the way I see it anyway.....

 

[The Guard]

Gordon's letter was just melodrama. I don't really have an issue with the fact that he carried it with him and they found it while searching him. You can forget stuff you're carrying with you sometimes, even if its important. There's also the idea that he feels so guilty that he "carries" it with him, so it kind of works metaphorically.

The problem is that its just melodrama. Other than inciting a bunch of melodrama and giving Gordon a plot excuse to tell Blake that sometimes you have to go outside the law in melodramatic fashion, it doesn't lead to anything. Blake *****es him out, and its an excuse for Gordon to say a bunch of flowery stuff about Batman doing what needed to be done. The morality of what Gordon did is never really explored, the people of Gotham don't really react to what he did, and the criminals would want released from prison regardless. There's no resolution to it or to the idea that the Mayor was going to dump him in the Spring, it all just seems to be business as usual.

 

[Doc Samson]

Gordon's letter was just melodrama. I don't really have an issue with the fact that he carried it with him and they found it while searching him. You can forget stuff you're carrying with you sometimes, even if its important. There's also the idea that he feels so guilty that he "carries" it with him, so it kind of works metaphorically.

The problem is that its just melodrama. Other than inciting a bunch of melodrama and giving Gordon a plot excuse to tell Blake that sometimes you have to go outside the law in melodramatic fashion, it doesn't lead to anything. Blake *****es him out, and its an excuse for Gordon to say a bunch of flowery stuff about Batman doing what needed to be done. The morality of what Gordon did is never really explored, the people of Gotham don't really react to what he did, and the criminals would want released from prison regardless. There's no resolution to it or to the idea that the Mayor was going to dump him in the Spring, it all just seems to be business as usual.

And all of this goes back to another one of the primary issues I, and others, had with TDKR. And that's the absence of the regular citizens point of view. That all would have been dealt with if we were shown how the public reacts not only to Bane's revelation of Gordon (and if they even believe it) but also the whole takeover of Gotham.

We needed to see and feel that from the ground level. And because of everything else going on, I presume, there wasn't sufficient time for that. But it definitely affects the whole plot in a negative way IMO.