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

[Fudgie]

1. He didn't. I'm agreeing with you that he didn't show the reactions viually.

At least you can admit that

 

[TheDarkKnight08]

Content is the quality. How do you measure the quality except by what the content is? Ya could have gotten plenty of Batman's journey and seen how his journey and the crap Bane was doing was affecting the precious people he was there to look after.

Prove me wrong on that one. Double dare ya.



Did TDK's trailers promise anything except Batman vs Joker action? Nope.

Check and mate.



When you compare it to Burton and Schumacher, a trained monkey could have given more respect. They weren't hard to top.



Bruce is Batman when he puts the costume on. You don't call the Bruce Wayne scenes Batman screen time.



Who said it did.



Says you. Ever ask why so many complain about lack of Batman in this?

Yeah because there was. Fact.



I ain't just talking about the ferries. I'm talking Dent's press conference. I'm talking people in the bar and at the hospital and all those scared crazy people going after Reese. I'm talking the copycats being inspired by Batman. I'm talking the press calling Dent a hero.

Yeah I'm talking about seeing the people be the people by showing how they feel about the people around them and what they do.



Yup. Nolan broke his great quality trend with the Gotham people. For shame.



I trust that you are annoyed by the hate. That's what I trust.



Can't help it if this movie has lots of haters. It's the way of life. It's just a movie.

1. You said you wanted more of the same as TDK. You wanted a direct copy of all that was happening in TDK, but with Bane. The quality of the content in TDK belongs to TDK. Waiting to find more of the same, as far as Gotham and its reactions to Bane, in this one is just asking for disappointment. I wanted TDKR to be as good as TDK, but not by retreading what TDK had already done.

2. No, they didn't. We were told to expect Batman vs. Joker action, with the political and personal affects of there actions there as an underlying theme that we didn't see coming. Again, you were waiting for more of the same, and you didn't get it, so the film automatically fails. You thought that just because TDK didn't tell us what else we were going to get that TDKR was going to do the same thing, right down to the same actions by Gotham's citizens.

And stop with the check and mate thing. It's not helping.

3. Your hyperboles don't help either. Nolan brought the character back from the dead, practically. He gave the Batman legacy a trilogy that's respected by far more respectable people than you and I.

4. Well, that's my opinion.

5. You contradicted yourself as well. First you say that Bruce is Batman only when he wears the suit, now the costume doesn't matter either. Keep your thoughts straight.

6. I really haven't heard that complain from many. Yes, it's an acknowledged fact he "literally" doesn't wear the suit as long as he did in the other films, but it is also the opinion of many that his presence definitely makes up for that. Hence, presence > time. Again, nothing here is fact, it's a matter on consensus and opinion.

7. I was only using an example as far as the ferries, and even then: everything you just mentioned is nothing compared to what Bane was going to do.

Again, what did you really want to see them do?

8. I don't get what you're saying with "Yup. Nolan broke his great quality trend with the Gotham people. For shame". Please, restate this, because you're really making no sense.

9. I'm not annoyed by the hate. As I've said before, every criticism is valid. It's that, when those who say anything good about the film get talked down to and analyzed to the utmost, it's trollish and disrespectful to overall discussion of film.

Someone liked something? Big deal, who cares. Let them. Don't belittle them and make them feel like crap because they don't agree with you.

 

[MAKAVELI25]

In the end, The Dark Knight Rises finale has the same flaw as the Avengers finale. I'm excited to watch the heroes, the battle is cool (much moreso for the Avengers), but I don't care what the heroes are fighting for. I didn't care that New York might get destroyed just like I didn't care Gotham might get destroyed. How is it that I feared more for Gotham when the Joker was trying to tear the citizens down psychologically than when Bane was going to DESTROY THE CITY WITH A NUCLEAR BOMB? I don't understand how people are trying to rationalize this, as someone who loves Batman Begins and The Dark Knight I sometimes think people saw a different movie when they say TDKR is on that same level. TDKR isn't much better (if it is at all) than the Avengers, BB and TDK shouldn't even be compared to any other films in the genre (And yes that includes Iron Man).

- People act like critics are just randomly asking to see more of Gotham's citizenry. BB only showed a few of Gotham's citizens and nobody complained because IT FIT THE PLOT. How can anyone justify not showing more of Gotham's citizenry in a movie where the city was supposed to be occupied for months?

 

[BatLobster]

Harvey Dent is the protagonist of TDK, in the traditional sense of the word. It's his arc. Bruce's arc is much more muted and subtle. But the subject of course is still Batman, and in the end it all comes back around to him. However, Bruce Wayne is absolutely the protagonist of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises.

 

[The Joker]

Okay then, let's count them off in TDKR:
-The Congressman, political/upper class
-Mayor Garcia, political/upper class
-Daggett, white collar criminal/upper class, representative of the decadence and greed that exists in Gotham/the world
-Stryver- ditto
-The yuppies at the stock exchange, more white collar (I wouldn't have counted that but Falafel guy has just as little screen time)
-Foley- middle class, with desires to move up the political/social ladder
-Jen- lower class, thief, representative of the poor wanting a piece of the pie
-Mark & the orphans- the lowest of the low, society's rejects. Representative of a desire for Batman to return as they don't have much else to hope for.
-Fr. Reilly- Guardian of the orphans. A guy living cautiously and in fear during Bane's occupation, like a lot of people obviously are.

Ok, take out the Mayor. He is a carry over character from TDK. Daggett and Stryver are the greedy CEO's working with the LOS. The yuppies at the stock exchange, what do they bring to the table except show people in Gotham go to the stock exchange? Jen was just a Selina clone minus the costume and fighting moves. The orphans, apart from the one Blake talked to, brought nothing to the movie.

I think you missed the point of my list. Let me clarify;

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.

There's a whole bunch of different types and classes of Gothamites and all used effectively in the story to paint a personality and reaction to all things in Gotham.

I thought the complaints were that people wanted more people like "no more dead cops!" guy in TDK, just random Gothamites.

We are. Well I am. I'm pretty sure the others are, too.

I've said that I wouldn't have opposed to more of Gotham's reaction. The movie would have just had to have been longer in my opinion to accomplish that. I'm in favor of a 3 hour cut of this movie (even though we'll never get it).

I don't even think a 3 hour cut is necessary. There's stuff in TDKR that could be trimmed down or excised altogether and the movie would be better for it. There's also characters in it who could do with more screen time. My number one choice being Selina.

I get where you are coming from.

I know you do. That's why you're always a pleasure to reply to.

 

[The Joker]

In the end, The Dark Knight Rises finale has the same flaw as the Avengers finale. I'm excited to watch the heroes, the battle is cool (much moreso for the Avengers), but I don't care what the heroes are fighting for. I didn't care that New York might get destroyed just like I didn't care Gotham might get destroyed. How is it that I feared more for Gotham when the Joker was trying to tear the citizens down psychologically than when Bane was going to DESTROY THE CITY WITH A NUCLEAR BOMB? I don't understand how people are trying to rationalize this, as someone who loves Batman Begins and The Dark Knight I sometimes think people saw a different movie when they say TDKR is on that same level. TDKR isn't much better (if it is at all) than the Avengers, BB and TDK shouldn't even be compared to any other films in the genre (And yes that includes Iron Man).

- People act like critics are just randomly asking to see more of Gotham's citizenry. BB only showed a few of Gotham's citizens and nobody complained because IT FIT THE PLOT. How can anyone justify not showing more of Gotham's citizenry in a movie where the city was supposed to be occupied for months?

Exactly. It's not an invalid complaint and it's very easy to see how it would affect the quality of a movie that makes such a big production about Gotham City and it's people in the first place, but somehow does not tap into these very people like the previous two movies did when they were faced with the unique situations in BB and TDK.

 

[CapedCrusader14]

The Gotham under Siege portion of the film could have easily been extended and incorporated Gotham citizens. We'd have a better film if that happened.

 

[Anno_Domini]

"Gotham, take control. Take control of your city"

Now by "Gotham" does he mean criminals? Was Bane expecting to find many criminals at a football stadium? If it was about the criminals he would have made a direct bee line to Blackgate. The criminals were released because of the Dent lie, which Bane never even knew about until he read Gordon's letter, and his plan was well in motion by then.

If he meant Gotham as a whole, he wouldn't have wanted the poor to take out the rich nor the League controlling who dies and who lives as much as Crane did. If you think Bane REALLY wanted all of Gotham to take control of their own lives, you did not get what really was happening.

Months of a siege was very fast?

I'm speaking on the media when I said TDKR went by fast. And even with not speaking of Batman's return the one night he did return, how could the media have even bothered to speak on Bane and his revolution when Bane's revolution started too quickly for any medium of media to speak their minds?

So? One night, one hour, or one minute he was back and it was all over the news. What was Gotham's reaction to this?

So you wanted moments of Gothamites viewing the news and speaking their minds or what? It's just nitpicking now to want to know what people thought during that night where there were more important things to deal with in that night such as Batman rescuing Catwoman for the audience to see.

According to whom? You? That's not how the movie shows it. The movie made such a big deal of Harvey Dent and his legacy on Gotham City.

The film made the lie important until Bane destroyed Blackgate prison; then the lie became something of the past while moving forward with TDKR.

You think the revelation of the big cover up from TDK that had such dramatic repercussions like Gotham being sent into 8 years of peace time and turned Bruce into a recluse and Batman into a hated, hunted, retired, redundant wreck should be swept under the rug?

That's good writing to you?

"Swept under the rug"? No, everything was shown in the light, but things had to move forward. Even if not spread out a bit more, at least Nolan didn't just look past the whole Harvey Dent conspiracy. What we got, yes, I would call that good writing.

How insightful. That's like saying Gotham's state of mind regarding the Joker's antics was fear. Gladly Nolan elaborated a lot more on that in TDK, and therefore made Gotham's safety, and the Joker's chaos, a lot more dramatic and real because you saw how it was affecting Gotham's people.

Hey, it's great that you felt TDK to be superior in that level. I feel TDKR was just fine in that area though, but with different mediums within Gotham City. We didn't need to see the story about Gothamites showing their fear of Bane's tyranny when it had to shift its focus back unto Bruce Wayne for the most part in TDKR, so seeing it through Blake, Foley, etc. was enough for me.

The bridges were blown. The army was on guard to stop anyone leaving the city. Who's afraid of being caught except the Cops? "They're hunting Cops down like dogs".

So just because it's only mentioned that they're hunting cops you think they're not hunting everyone else? Explain why City Hall was full of many people that aren't cops awaiting trial.

Did you miss the rich people being turfed out of their homes onto the streets? Even Selina's friend said to her "A storm's coming remember. This is what you wanted right?".

Hence why I said they were all afraid

 

[The Joker]

If he meant Gotham as a whole, he wouldn't have wanted the poor to take out the rich nor the League controlling who dies and who lives as much as Crane did.

If it was as simple as that, then why didn't he simply say "The poor and the criminals of Gotham, take control of your city"?

Yes, sounds ludicrous when you say it out loud doesn't it? Tell you what, if you really want to push this point, shall we make a thread with a poll and see what the general consensus is on this?

No offense but I feel this portion of the movie has completely flown over your head and some statistics and opinions are needed to show you this.

If you think Bane REALLY wanted all of Gotham to take control of their own lives, you did not get what really was happening.

What was really happening was Bane was feeding Gotham false hope to poison their souls as he put it. Now can you explain in as much detail as you can how he could manage that if he was only addressing poor people and criminals?

I'm speaking on the media when I said TDKR went by fast.

What do you mean you're speaking on the media? What has the media got to do with anything?

And even with not speaking of Batman's return the one night he did return, how could the media have even bothered to speak on Bane and his revolution when Bane's revolution started too quickly for any medium of media to speak their minds?

Well now you must not know how easily and quickly the media can spread the word of a sensationalist story. If they are quick to spread the word of something like Bruce Wayne going bankrupt over night, then take a wild guess how they could spread an even bigger story like the multiple murderer Batman coming back after 8 years. Especially when it was on the news lol.

So you wanted moments of Gothamites viewing the news and speaking their minds or what?

Yes. Anything along those lines.

It's just nitpicking now to want to know what people thought during that night where there were more important things to deal with in that night such as Batman rescuing Catwoman for the audience to see.

How would a couple of 30 second reactions have stopped that?

The film made the lie important until Bane destroyed Blackgate prison; then the lie became something of the past while moving forward with TDKR.

So let me see if I understand you correctly; the consequences of Batman and Gordon busting their humps to keep Dent's turn to villainy a secret for 8 years is nothing more than releasing the Blackgate inmates?

That's the grand fall out of it?

"Swept under the rug"? No, everything was shown in the light, but things had to move forward.

"Everything" was shown. List me all the things that fall under this everything heading, please.

Even if not spread out a bit more, at least Nolan didn't just look past the whole Harvey Dent conspiracy.

He might as well have. The Guard's post summed it up best;

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.

So just because it's only mentioned that they're hunting cops you think they're not hunting everyone else?

Hunting everyone else for what?

Explain why City Hall was full of many people that aren't cops awaiting trial.

What are you talking about? The place was full of Gotham's people and LOS. Exactly which ones were the ones lined up for a trial? Did they have a red x painted on them or something? The only people you saw taken to trial were Stryver and Gordon and his Cops.

They were not hanging around City Hall. They were dragged there. This siege went on for months. You saw how long Gordon's trial lasted. Less than a minute. Do you think it would take them months to kill all the guilty lol? The city hall would be empty if all of those people were lined up for trial. It would not take months.

Hence why I said they were all afraid

Correction; Afraid of being caught you said.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Goodness you make the replies only longer, but I shall reply to you in the morning before I go off to work. I'll keep this page number in mind, haha.

 

[Fudgie]

1. You said you wanted more of the same as TDK.

I meant more of seeing Gotham people like TDK did it. Not the exact same story line as TDK.

2. No, they didn't. We were told to expect Batman vs. Joker action, with the political and personal affects of there actions there as an underlying theme that we didn't see coming.

Alright cough up the goods. I wanna see where these trailers promised that. Lets see it.

3. Your hyperboles don't help either. Nolan brought the character back from the dead, practically. He gave the Batman legacy a trilogy that's respected by far more respectable people than you and I.

I know. I am TDK's biggest booster. I'm 50/50 on Begins but I get why it's popular. TDKR no way hosay. A messy messy inferior movie.

4. Well, that's my opinion.

Yup I know that.

5. You contradicted yourself as well. First you say that Bruce is Batman only when he wears the suit, now the costume doesn't matter either. Keep your thoughts straight.

I contradicted nothing. I said Bruce scenes are not Batman scenes. I also didn't say the Bruce scenes were not important or less important than the costume ones. This is a Batman movie. People pay to see Batman, yes Batman as in the guy wearing the cape and cowl.

First and foremost this is a comic book flick. So seeing Batman is a big part of audience expectation. Especially by the third flick it should be choc full of Batman. We got the least Batman of all.

6. I really haven't heard that complain from many.

You must have been hiding under a rock.

7. I was only using an example as far as the ferries, and even then: everything you just mentioned is nothing compared to what Bane was going to do.

As far as Gotham was concerned Bane was starting a revolution. What Joker was trying to do was worse because he didn't hide his true intentions. He told them they better play his sick games or he'll blow them all up.

Again, what did you really want to see them do?

oooh how's about some stuff like what Gotham think of the Bat being back?

Do they still think he killed Dent?

Do they think Dent was a lily white as he was made out?

What do they think of the peace time?

What do they think of Bane's revolution?

Are they angry about the Dent lie?

Are they pissed at Gordon?

Why the hell do they just believe Bane was reading Gordon's letter?

Do they think an ordinary citizen really has the trigger to the bomb or is Bane full of it?

8. I don't get what you're saying with "Yup. Nolan broke his great quality trend with the Gotham people. For shame". Please, restate this, because you're really making no sense.

Nolan started a quality trend in his first two flicks with the Gotham people being the biz that make it all real and make ya care. He stuffed that up in Rises.

9. I'm not annoyed by the hate. As I've said before, every criticism is valid. It's that, when those who say anything good about the film get talked down to and analyzed to the utmost, it's trollish and disrespectful to overall discussion of film.

God's sake why can nobody disagree and not get accused of trolling. Geez Louise take a chill pill.

 

[BatLobster]

How is it that I feared more for Gotham when the Joker was trying to tear the citizens down psychologically than when Bane was going to DESTROY THE CITY WITH A NUCLEAR BOMB?

You're right. I did fear more for Gotham at the end of TDK. Joker was a psychological terrorist and the film was trying to make us ask "what would I do in that situation?" with the ferries. Brilliant.

With TDKR, for me, the whole third act was about the tension of "will Batman die to save his city?" It's a completely different thing and it comes back to Bruce being more of the center of the movie as opposed to TDK.

And The Joker, I'll give you- BB's Gotham had a bit more dimension. I still think given how decidedly layered and detailed Gotham was in TDK... BB and TDKR end up looking more comparable in that regard. I also feel world-building is a big part of what an origin film is tasked with and that's a factor as well. I thought TDKR peppered in just enough bit players to reinforce the themes it was setting up, but that's gonna have to be an "agree to disagree".

I know you do. That's why you're always a pleasure to reply to.

Why thank you. t: Yourself too. What's funny is I haven't seen the film in months, no bootlegs or anything, so I don't know about you but everything I talk about on here is just from memory. I'm looking forward to watching the film again with all these debates in mind and seeing how I feel about it all.

 

[Anno_Domini]

If it was as simple as that, then why didn't he simply say "The poor and the criminals of Gotham, take control of your city"?

Yes, sounds ludicrous when you say it out loud doesn't it? Tell you what, if you really want to push this point, shall we make a thread with a poll and see what the general consensus is on this?

No offense but I feel this portion of the movie has completely flown over your head and some statistics and opinions are needed to show you this.

No offense taken because I simply don't feel the same way you do. We see the criminals and the poor taking over the city more than any rich men or women because they are thrown out of their buildings and are being targeted for the kangaroo court and in hiding even at an orphanage building.

What was really happening was Bane was feeding Gotham false hope to poison their souls as he put it. Now can you explain in as much detail as you can how he could manage that if he was only addressing poor people and criminals?

Did we see anyone with power, as in someone who's rich, that took control of their lives? No, the rich became the poor and the poor bullied the men and women that were once rich. Taking their personal items, tossing them into the street, destroying homes, etc.

What do you mean you're speaking on the media? What has the media got to do with anything?

On the fact that they didn't bother to speak on Batman's return as it only happened for 24 hours, or even less than that. TDK had more time with showing the opinions of media such as that one news reporter who Joker kidnapped(blanking on his name right now). There wasn't a way the media could've been shown in TDKR when the events were moving too fast and more important things had to be shown for the audience to see.

Well now you must not know how easily and quickly the media can spread the word of a sensationalist story. If they are quick to spread the word of something like Bruce Wayne going bankrupt over night, then take a wild guess how they could spread an even bigger story like the multiple murderer Batman coming back after 8 years. Especially when it was on the news lol.

So Batman's return was in the newspaper as how Wayne going bankrupt was...okay, I never argued that that probably happened.

Yes. Anything along those lines.

How would a couple of 30 second reactions have stopped that?

We got reactions from Selina Kyle, Daggett and Gordon while we got reactions from those two patrol officers, and then Blake and Foley. Imo, that was enough because they made sense to what was going on besides showing clips of people at home watching their TV screen.

So let me see if I understand you correctly; the consequences of Batman and Gordon busting their humps to keep Dent's turn to villainy a secret for 8 years is nothing more than releasing the Blackgate inmates?

That's the grand fall out of it?

1,000 inmates in Blackgate that are there without parole thanks to Dent Act. Destroying everything that the lie created. Yes, I think that was enough.

"Everything" was shown. List me all the things that fall under this everything heading, please.

Destroying everything the Dent Act created, mentioning how Gordon's wife and kids left him, seeing how run down Gordon has become in the last eight years, showing how a recluse Bruce Wayne has been.

He might as well have. The Guard's post summed it up best;

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.

How could the Mayor dump him when he died though? Sure, there wasn't a resolution to that, but the Mayor died and that was all on him, he was the one who wanted to dump him in the spring. And as for seeing how people felt about Gordon's lie...we saw how the officers that were left were still 100% behind him when dealing with the crisis with Bane, and how would it make it any better for them to leave Gordon all alone during that time? Blake had his words, yes, but there were bigger things to deal with.

Hunting everyone else for what?

The kangaroo court.

What are you talking about? The place was full of Gotham's people and LOS. Exactly which ones were the ones lined up for a trial? Did they have a red x painted on them or something? The only people you saw taken to trial were Stryver and Gordon and his Cops.

They were not hanging around City Hall. They were dragged there. This siege went on for months. You saw how long Gordon's trial lasted. Less than a minute. Do you think it would take them months to kill all the guilty lol? The city hall would be empty if all of those people were lined up for trial. It would not take months.

I believe there were all set to appear in "court" infront of Crane. Which is what I said, everyone inside City Hall was going to have their "due" in "court" sooner or later and choose death or exile.

Correction; Afraid of being caught you said.

Yah, and? Afraid of being caught and taken to City Hall.

 

[The Guard]

Here's the thing. The issue in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES isn't that no point of views of Gotham citizens are shown.

The issue is that (And I can't believe I'm saying this) they aren't as well executed as in previous films. Instead of using these "point of view" moments to show Gothamites emotional state and to explore points of view in relation to Batman and the events of the city, they're largely used as plot exposition moments, and they're also largely confined to the first half hour or so of the film.

And then they're effectively forgotten about or underwhelmingly resolved.

The main problem with this element, is that because of the way the film is structured, the voice of the people of Gotham, for all intents and purposes, effectively VANISHES about halfway through the film. What we do see of their plight is only really seen in montage form with Bane's voiceovers, and is not given any time to breathe. Any interesting "commentary" as seen in THE DARK KNIGHT, is more or less gone in favor of melodrama or action.

As has been pointed out, TDKR becomes a very personal journey for Bruce. This becomes an issue in that what Bruce is fighting for in the first place basically gets pushed to the side. Because the writers more or less ignore anyone else's journey or conflicts.

Because Gotham's people don't even know they're about to be blown up, there's no reaction to the threat by anyone but the main cast and the few cops in the scenes with them, and so there's relatively little tension to the proceedings. Because there's relatively little story tension, the stakes they want the nuke to have just aren't there. Because the stakes aren't there, Batman's sacrifice, which the entire climax of the film hinges on, feels a bit perfunctory and shoehorned in. It just lacks impact in a sense.

 

[BatLobster]

I actually agree Guard. I was going to point out myself that the POV of Gotham diminishes as the film wears on. It opts for a more cold and desolate feel once Bane takes over- which ironically, left some people cold.

The only thing I disagree on is that Bruce's arc suffers because less time is spent on the average Gothamite's plight. After two films, we know exactly what he's fighting for. We know there are plenty of essentially good people in Gotham, because BB and TDK established that. TDKR goes a step further and validates Batman's original goal to inspire with characters like John Blake. Maybe some thought it was corny, but I actually found the scene on the bridge with Blake and the kids on the bus to be very powerful. And I felt it did add a lot of tension and stakes to the climax. Just my opinion though.

 

[TheBat812]

IMO the 'average' gothamite is substantially covered by small snippets of how they're living - the desolate streets are a huge part of that, they're all hiding in their homes, in libraries, etc. Also through Blake, Foley and the orphans. They were able to make it more specific while still giving the overall feeling. I kind of agree with your criticism but I just don't know when or how they would have squeezed that in, or if it's really all that necessary to the protagonists' journeys.

Like BatLobster said earlier, the stakes were with Bruce and the potential failing of his mission, not with the citizens themselves. Using other characters to reflect the views of the common people Bruce is trying to affect was definitely the right call imo, and at the very least lets you know Nolan had thought about it. Foley was still pretty poorly pulled off though, haha.

 

[BatLobster]

IMO the 'average' gothamite is substantially covered by small snippets of how they're living - the desolate streets are a huge part of that, they're all hiding in their homes, in libraries, etc. Also through Blake, Foley and the orphans. They were able to make it more specific while still giving the overall feeling. I kind of agree with your criticism but I just don't know when or how they would have squeezed that in, or if it's really all that necessary to the protagonists' journeys.

Like BatLobster said earlier, the stakes were with Bruce and the potential failing of his mission, not with the citizens themselves. Using other characters to reflect the views of the common people Bruce is trying to affect was definitely the right call imo, and at the very least lets you know Nolan had thought about it. Foley was still pretty poorly pulled off though, haha.

Agreed.

 

[Fudgie]

Here's the thing. The issue in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES isn't that no point of views of Gotham citizens are shown.

The issue is that (And I can't believe I'm saying this) they aren't as well executed as in previous films. Instead of using these "point of view" moments to show Gothamites emotional state and to explore points of view in relation to Batman and the events of the city, they're largely used as plot exposition moments, and they're also largely confined to the first half hour or so of the film.

And then they're effectively forgotten about or underwhelmingly resolved.

The main problem with this element, is that because of the way the film is structured, the voice of the people of Gotham, for all intents and purposes, effectively VANISHES about halfway through the film. What we do see of their plight is only really seen in montage form with Bane's voiceovers, and is not given any time to breathe. Any interesting "commentary" as seen in THE DARK KNIGHT, is more or less gone in favor of melodrama or action.

As has been pointed out, TDKR becomes a very personal journey for Bruce. This becomes an issue in that what Bruce is fighting for in the first place basically gets pushed to the side. Because the writers more or less ignore anyone else's journey or conflicts.

Because Gotham's people don't even know they're about to be blown up, there's no reaction to the threat by anyone but the main cast and the few cops in the scenes with them, and so there's relatively little tension to the proceedings. Because there's relatively little story tension, the stakes they want the nuke to have just aren't there. Because the stakes aren't there, Batman's sacrifice, which the entire climax of the film hinges on, feels a bit perfunctory and shoehorned in. It just lacks impact in a sense.

Quoted for truth. That's why you don't give a damn about Gotham in this.

 

[Brother Jack]

Harvey Dent is the protagonist of TDK, in the traditional sense of the word. It's his arc. Bruce's arc is much more muted and subtle. But the subject of course is still Batman, and in the end it all comes back around to him. However, Bruce Wayne is absolutely the protagonist of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises.

Harvey is one protagonist among several in TDK. He certainly has the most dynamic arc in the film but he is not the main character; that was always Bruce/Batman. Dent was simply a fully fleshed out narrative tool used to further explore and define Bruce. This same kind of technique was utilized in a smaller way in Rises with Blake only he didn't fall as Dent did. He... well, you know.

 

[BlueLightning]

Just throwing my two cents again. While I think Gotham as people didn't get as much as screen time, I think it was OK. It was enough from the point of view of the orphans and the priest who take care of them, because it all goes back to Bruce's character. This is his story. Even Blake act as an extension of his character. At the end, we know for sure that he is going to take that bomb away from harming the city. He's Batman! The interesting thing is, will Bruce decide to "have a good death", or would he give himself a chance for happiness? That's the most important point in the film, overcoming pain. We had an external exploration of Bruce's character in The Dark Knight, the ferries scene is one of the most captivating things of this film, it shows us the stakes that these people could die, if not at the Joker hands, at their own. In TDKR is Batman himself who is in danger, and it's the final choice he does that makes it all gratifying. It's a different kind of exploration.

 

[BatLobster]

Harvey is one protagonist among several in TDK. He certainly has the most dynamic arc in the film but he is not the main character; that was always Bruce/Batman. Dent was simply a fully fleshed out narrative tool used to further explore and define Bruce. This same kind of technique was utilized in a smaller way in Rises with Blake only he didn't fall as Dent did. He... well, you know.

I can agree to that. The triumvirate of Batman, Gordon and Dent are all the protagonists, where Harvey has the most pronounced arc, which is often associated with the "main" protagonist of a film. It's almost like the film intentionally sets Dent up as a false main protagonist, if that makes sense.

And I agree with the Blake parallel.

Just throwing my two cents again. While I think Gotham as people didn't get as much as screen time, I think it was OK. It was enough from the point of view of the orphans and the priest who take care of them, because it all goes back to Bruce's character. This is his story. Even Blake act as an extension of his character. At the end, we know for sure that he is going to take that bomb away from harming the city. He's Batman! The interesting thing is, will Bruce decide to "have a good death", or would he give himself a chance for happiness? That's the most important point in the film, overcoming pain. We had an external exploration of Bruce's character in The Dark Knight, the ferries scene is one of the most captivating things of this film, it shows us the stakes that these people could die, if not at the Joker hands, at their own. In TDKR is Batman himself who is in danger, and it's the final choice he does that makes it all gratifying. It's a different kind of exploration.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[The Joker]

No offense taken because I simply don't feel the same way you do. We see the criminals and the poor taking over the city more than any rich men or women because they are thrown out of their buildings and are being targeted for the kangaroo court and in hiding even at an orphanage building.

You see the rich being thrown out into the street, you don't see trials being held for them. You don't even hear Bane say they are all going to be tried. He says "Trials will be heard". Not for whom specifically.

For instance the Cops got trials. They're not rich. It's all done so vaguely. It's a problem that has not go unnoticed across the Net:

Virtually no screen-time is dedicated to Gotham’s social dynamics or violence by the people against elites. It’s not clear if regular Gotham citizens, or just Bane’s mercenaries and hangers-on, are participating in mass looting depicted on screen. There’s no evidence of downtrodden masses cheering Bane’s arrival

http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2012/07/26/581591/dark-knight-christopher-nolan/

See what I mean?

Did we see anyone with power, as in someone who's rich, that took control of their lives? No, the rich became the poor and the poor bullied the men and women that were once rich. Taking their personal items, tossing them into the street, destroying homes, etc.

How many rich and powerful characters was there in this movie? Bruce, Daggett, Stryver. That's it. The only time you see any "revolution" in the city is in Bane's speech montage at Blackgate when the rich, and only the rich, are tossed out of their homes. The middle class are not touch, and they'd make up a larger bulk of Gotham's population than the rich would. What % of Gotham's people do you think are made up of rich people?

You still did not answer my question either. How is Bane giving Gotham City false hope if his revolution is only targeted at poor people and criminals?

You see how your whole theory falls apart here. When Bane is addressing Gotham, he means Gotham as a whole. Again we take this issue to a thread with a poll if you like.

On the fact that they didn't bother to speak on Batman's return as it only happened for 24 hours, or even less than that.

That's the flaw of the script. Batman's return should have caused a sensation. You saying it only happened 24 hours ago shouldn't matter a speck. Joker caused a city wide evacuation in one evening from one news report on TV. You're trying to sell the idea it was unreasonable for Batman's return to cause a hysteria in a whole day lol.

There wasn't a way the media could've been shown in TDKR when the events were moving too fast and more important things had to be shown for the audience to see.

Explain to me in the greatest of detail how such a scene could not have been incorporated into the movie. Tell me how it wouldn't have fit in, how it would have disrupted the movie, and how it wouldn't have enhanced the return of Batman.

Spare no expense in your explanation.

Paraphrasing the great article below here, but Gotham spends months under Bane's rule, months that you'd expect to have a profound impact on the social, psychological, and cultural life of the city, but upon his defeat all we see are its citizens stepping out of their homes (as if they'd spent all that time indoors), ready to resume their lives as if the very fabric of their society hadn't been ripped to shreds. What's interesting is that the Nolans had an opportunity here to reinforce their authoritarian message and show why Batman is necessary--because when stripped of both their white knight, the lie of Harvey Dent, and their dark knight, the citizens of Gotham turn to Bane, a false savior. The film could have shown us Gothamites turning on one another, informing on their neighbors and signing up to do Bane's bidding, the nightmare scenario that justified Batman's choice to take responsibility for Harvey Dent's crimes. Instead, the Nolans prefer to serve up a fantasy of docile, patient goodness, of a populace content to wait for Batman to save it without doing anything, good or evil,on its own behalf.

So Batman's return was in the newspaper

No it wasn't. Bruce being bankrupt was.

as how Wayne going bankrupt was...okay, I never argued that that probably happened.

You're arguing that a big reaction could not have happened in 24 hours. A big reaction to a sensationalist story covered on TV can happen in an hour, let alone 24 hours.

As if you did not know this. You live in the real world. You know how easy the media works. It's one of the most powerful tools in the world.

We got reactions from Selina Kyle, Daggett and Gordon and then Blake and Foley.

They're main characters.

Imo, that was enough because they made sense to what was going on besides showing clips of people at home watching their TV screen.

I don't. No more than I would have found reactions from Alfred, Gordon, Dent, Rachel, the Mayor, and the mob enough to feel Gotham's panic over the Joker.

1,000 inmates in Blackgate that are there without parole thanks to Dent Act. Destroying everything that the lie created. Yes, I think that was enough.

Bane destroyed everything the Dent Act created the moment he bomb half the city, cut off the bridges, and took them all hostage with a bomb.

What big difference is releasing the Blackgate inmates going to make when the city was already under siege from a terrorist with a nuclear bomb lol? All they did was just join in the revolution.

Bane was planning this siege on Gotham long before he accidentally learned the truth about Dent. His plan never hinged on learning the truth about Harvey Dent because he was completely ignorant of it when he mad plans to lay siege to Gotham.

Destroying everything the Dent Act created

Bane's siege did that already. Even if the Blackgate inmates were not released, would you really see Gotham as being in a peaceful crime free time when it's been taken over by a terrorist and his army who have tumblers, weapons, and nuclear bomb?

mentioning how Gordon's wife and kids left him, seeing how run down Gordon has become in the last eight years, showing how a recluse Bruce Wayne has been.

None of that is a consequence of the Dent lie being uncovered.

How could the Mayor dump him when he died though? And as for seeing how people felt about Gordon's lie...we saw how the officers that were left were still 100% behind him when dealing with the crisis with Bane, and how would it make it any better for them to leave Gordon all alone during that time? Blake had his words, yes, but there were bigger things to deal with.

When you're living with a threat of nuclear annihilation, you band together no matter what. That's once again is the not the point. The point is the morality of what Gordon did, not to mention the repercussions on him after Gotham has been returned to safety, is never explored or followed through. It's all just glossed over.

The kangaroo court.

Again why?

I believe there were all set to appear in "court" infront of Crane. Which is what I said, everyone inside City Hall was going to have their "due" in "court" sooner or later and choose death or exile.

And again, of the two trials we saw, Gordon and his men, and Stryver, their "trial" lasted a minute or so. So I say again, it would not take months to get through a one minute trial of each of those people. They'd be done in less than a week.

So what is the premise of your theory that everyone hanging around in city hall was there for trial? In fact most of them were bystanders there to cheer on the trials. The lower class people.

Yah, and? Afraid of being caught and taken to City Hall.

Which goes back again to the why. Why are they all being taken to city hall? If they were all to be taken to city hall they would have been when they were taken out of their homes.

Here's the thing. The issue in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES isn't that no point of views of Gotham citizens are shown.

The issue is that (And I can't believe I'm saying this) they aren't as well executed as in previous films. Instead of using these "point of view" moments to show Gothamites emotional state and to explore points of view in relation to Batman and the events of the city, they're largely used as plot exposition moments, and they're also largely confined to the first half hour or so of the film.

And then they're effectively forgotten about or underwhelmingly resolved.

The main problem with this element, is that because of the way the film is structured, the voice of the people of Gotham, for all intents and purposes, effectively VANISHES about halfway through the film. What we do see of their plight is only really seen in montage form with Bane's voiceovers, and is not given any time to breathe. Any interesting "commentary" as seen in THE DARK KNIGHT, is more or less gone in favor of melodrama or action.

As has been pointed out, TDKR becomes a very personal journey for Bruce. This becomes an issue in that what Bruce is fighting for in the first place basically gets pushed to the side. Because the writers more or less ignore anyone else's journey or conflicts.

Because Gotham's people don't even know they're about to be blown up, there's no reaction to the threat by anyone but the main cast and the few cops in the scenes with them, and so there's relatively little tension to the proceedings. Because there's relatively little story tension, the stakes they want the nuke to have just aren't there. Because the stakes aren't there, Batman's sacrifice, which the entire climax of the film hinges on, feels a bit perfunctory and shoehorned in. It just lacks impact in a sense.

Very well said

Impact and tension being the key words you used there. How can there be any impact and tension in the story when we don't see the impact and tension on Gotham's people via using Gotham's people as the sounding board for Bane's revolution?

Why thank you. t: Yourself too. What's funny is I haven't seen the film in months, no bootlegs or anything, so I don't know about you but everything I talk about on here is just from memory. I'm looking forward to watching the film again with all these debates in mind and seeing how I feel about it all.

I'm in the same boat. I'm trying to remember how specific scenes and dialogue went in detail from memory. Screencaps would really help, too, but unfortunately there's none available yet.

The Gotham under Siege portion of the film could have easily been extended and incorporated Gotham citizens. We'd have a better film if that happened.

It definitely would. And it wouldn't have taken such a big bite out of the screen time, or disrupted the flow of the movie. On the contrary it would have enhanced it.

When your villain's plan is all about the people of Gotham, and making them join in his revolution, then it is imperative you give those people a personality and a voice.

It's just good film making. I love how this article phrased it:

A silly premise might have been forgivable if the film had developed its implications in interesting ways, but, much like The Legend of Korra last month, The Dark Knight Rises uses its villain as a means of avoiding those implications. Both stories are ostensibly about the cities they are set in and the battle for their soul, and yet those cities--their culture, their norms, and most of all their people--are curiously absent. Like Korra's Amon, Bane claims to be acting on behalf of the city's underclass, and establishes a policy of violent persecution against the upper classes. And as we were in Korra, we are kept entirely in the dark on the question of how the people of Gotham feel about this. Do they support Bane? Do they oppose him? Do they think he has the right idea but the wrong methods? Are they, as seems most likely, divided between these options according to their social status in the pre-occupation world? The Dark Knight Rises ignores all these questions. The people responsible for Gotham's suffering are only Bane and his followers (whose ranks are not, as far as we can tell, swelled by Gotham's have-nots), and the people responsible for stopping him are only the few policemen who managed to evade Bane's trap, the authority figures whom he has deposed--no civilians join the resistance. Anyone who does not fall into either of these groups is completely ignored.

Gotham spends months under Bane's rule--months that you'd expect to have a profound impact on the social, psychological, and cultural life of the city--but upon his defeat all we see are its citizens stepping out of their homes (as if they'd spent all that time indoors), ready to resume their lives as if the very fabric of their society hadn't been ripped to shreds. What's interesting is that the Nolans had an opportunity here to reinforce their authoritarian message and show why Batman is necessary--because when stripped of both their white knight, the lie of Harvey Dent, and their dark knight, the citizens of Gotham turn to Bane, a false savior. The film could have shown us Gothamites turning on one another, informing on their neighbors and signing up to do Bane's bidding--the nightmare scenario that justified Batman's choice to take responsibility for Harvey Dent's crimes. Instead, the Nolans prefer to serve up a fantasy of docile, patient goodness, of a populace content to wait for Batman to save it without doing anything--good or evil--on its own behalf.

http://wrongquestions.blogspot.ie/2012/07/the-dark-knight-rises.html

It's very gratifying to know this is a common complaint.

 

[Anno_Domini]

You see the rich being thrown out into the street, you don't see trials being held for them. You don't even hear Bane say they are all going to be tried. He says "Trials will be heard". Not for whom specifically.

For instance the Cops got trials. They're not rich. It's all done so vaguely. It's a problem that has not go unnoticed across the Net:

http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2012/07/26/581591/dark-knight-christopher-nolan/

See what I mean?

But it's not just cops. Daggett's bodyguard/right-hand man was tried as well. And we saw people with Daggett's bodyguard/right-hand man walking over the ice.

How many rich and powerful characters was there in this movie? Bruce, Daggett, Stryver. That's it. The only time you see any "revolution" in the city is in Bane's speech montage at Blackgate when the rich, and only the rich, are tossed out of their homes. The middle class are not touch, and they'd make up a larger bulk of Gotham's population than the rich would. What % of Gotham's people do you think are made up of rich people?

And two out of those three died by Bane, either by his own hands, or by his machinations such as creating the kangaroo court. And while the middle class was obviously not touched(look at Foley's family still living in their house), we do get some insight on other "rich snobs" as other people being exiled along with Stryver(that's his name...I forgot that name too, haha).

You still did not answer my question either. How is Bane giving Gotham City false hope if his revolution is only targeted at poor people and criminals?

You see how your whole theory falls apart here. When Bane is addressing Gotham, he means Gotham as a whole. Again we take this issue to a thread with a poll if you like.

Giving the poor and criminals false hope and running Gotham City as their own. Even having a criminal(Crane) being the judge and giving the people two choices: death or exile.

That's the flaw of the script. Batman's return should have caused a sensation. You saying it only happened 24 hours ago shouldn't matter a speck. Joker caused a city wide evacuation in one evening from one news report on TV. You're trying to sell the idea it was unreasonable for Batman's return to cause a hysteria in a whole day lol.

No, I didn't say it wouldn't cause hysteria. Please don't put words into my mouth, because I didn't say that. I said there were more important things to focus than showing any celebration or what have you from Batman's return as things other than Batman's return had to be the main focus.

Explain to me in the greatest of detail how such a scene could not have been incorporated into the movie. Tell me how it wouldn't have fit in, how it would have disrupted the movie, and how it wouldn't have enhanced the return of Batman.

Spare no expense in your explanation.

Paraphrasing the great article below here, but Gotham spends months under Bane's rule, months that you'd expect to have a profound impact on the social, psychological, and cultural life of the city, but upon his defeat all we see are its citizens stepping out of their homes (as if they'd spent all that time indoors), ready to resume their lives as if the very fabric of their society hadn't been ripped to shreds. What's interesting is that the Nolans had an opportunity here to reinforce their authoritarian message and show why Batman is necessary--because when stripped of both their white knight, the lie of Harvey Dent, and their dark knight, the citizens of Gotham turn to Bane, a false savior. The film could have shown us Gothamites turning on one another, informing on their neighbors and signing up to do Bane's bidding, the nightmare scenario that justified Batman's choice to take responsibility for Harvey Dent's crimes. Instead, the Nolans prefer to serve up a fantasy of docile, patient goodness, of a populace content to wait for Batman to save it without doing anything, good or evil,on its own behalf.

It could have very well been mentioned, but I was someone that was totally fine that it wasn't. Nolan could have very well took out a few seconds from other scenes and have done this to stay under the IMAX time limit, but I was fine that there was more importance on Bruce losing his money the next day than Batman's return. Both were in exile, so both were very important, imo.

No it wasn't. Bruce being bankrupt was.

It wasn't? So the entirety of the newspaper was all about Bruce going bankrupt? Not even the funnies were in the newspaper? Lol.

You're arguing that a big reaction could not have happened in 24 hours. A big reaction to a sensationalist story covered on TV can happen in an hour, let alone 24 hours.

As if you did not know this. You live in the real world. You know how easy the media works. It's one of the most powerful tools in the world.

I'm not arguing this. I'm saying there was no time with the film to actually pursue something such as a large reaction. We at least got certain reactions for the characters tied to the film than Gotham City as a whole.

They're main characters.

And those are the reactions that mattered, to me, than seeing regular joe hopping off his chair to tell his wife that Batman returned.

I don't. No more than I would have found reactions from Alfred, Gordon, Dent, Rachel, the Mayor, and the mob enough to feel Gotham's panic over the Joker.

I'm sorry you and I disagree with this, but I felt the reactions were enough and you didn't.

Bane destroyed everything the Dent Act created the moment he bomb half the city, cut off the bridges, and took them all hostage with a bomb.

What big difference is releasing the Blackgate inmates going to make when the city was already under siege from a terrorist with a nuclear bomb lol? All they did was just join in the revolution.

Bane was planning this siege on Gotham long before he accidentally learned the truth about Dent. His plan never hinged on learning the truth about Harvey Dent because he was completely ignorant of it when he mad plans to lay siege to Gotham.

It's a matter of Bane taking away what the Dent Act created, period.

Bane's siege did that already. Even if the Blackgate inmates were not released, would you really see Gotham as being in a peaceful crime free time when it's been taken over by a terrorist and his army who have tumblers, weapons, and nuclear bomb?

I would see the Dent Act having done what it's done and is still working if not been revealed as the prisoners would have stayed inside Blackgate.

None of that is a consequence of the Dent lie being uncovered.

Everything regarding the conspiracy itself. There had to be more than just the lie being uncovered such as what this lie has done to the two men responsible for it from the beginning.

When you're living with a threat of nuclear annihilation, you band together no matter what. That's once again is the not the point. The point is the morality of what Gordon did, not to mention the repercussions on him after Gotham has been returned to safety, is never explored or followed through. It's all just glossed over.

Exactly. More important things to deal with without going back at what Gordon has done as Blake already said his words to him. And afterwards? Yes, maybe it should have been followed through, but the subtle look with Gordon during the reveal of the Batman statue was enough to see how even after the lie was revealed, it's killing Gordon. We didn't need to see the repercussions when we could clearly see how it still kills Gordon to the day. That itself is far worse than knowing what Gothamites feel about Gordon since Gordon feels awful already.

Again why?

It's because I believe the poor and the criminals were running Gotham, or believing to be, and the court was for everyone else.

And again, of the two trials we saw, Gordon and his men, and Stryver, their "trial" lasted a minute or so. So I say again, it would not take months to get through a one minute trial of each of those people. They'd be done in less than a week.

So what is the premise of your theory that everyone hanging around in city hall was there for trial? In fact most of them were bystanders there to cheer on the trials. The lower class people.

If there were lower class on the sidelines, then maybe there were cheering on the trials, but that doesn't take away my theory that it was the rich and the cops going on trial while the poor weren't.

Which goes back again to the why. Why are they all being taken to city hall? If they were all to be taken to city hall they would have been when they were taken out of their homes.

To await their trials? It seems that most of the rich are taken to City Hall.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Just throwing my two cents again. While I think Gotham as people didn't get as much as screen time, I think it was OK. It was enough from the point of view of the orphans and the priest who take care of them, because it all goes back to Bruce's character. This is his story. Even Blake act as an extension of his character. At the end, we know for sure that he is going to take that bomb away from harming the city. He's Batman! The interesting thing is, will Bruce decide to "have a good death", or would he give himself a chance for happiness? That's the most important point in the film, overcoming pain. We had an external exploration of Bruce's character in The Dark Knight, the ferries scene is one of the most captivating things of this film, it shows us the stakes that these people could die, if not at the Joker hands, at their own. In TDKR is Batman himself who is in danger, and it's the final choice he does that makes it all gratifying. It's a different kind of exploration.

Quote for truth.

 

[The Joker]

But it's not just cops. Daggett's bodyguard/right-hand man was tried as well.

Yeah one of the rich. Your claim is only the rich were taken to trial and Gotham is strictly for poor people and criminals. You're wrong. The Cops were hunted. The middle class were not touched at all.

I ask again, what % of Gotham do you think is made up of rich people in comparison to the rest? You see what a minority you're talking about. When Bane is addressing Gotham, he is addressing Gotham. Not just the poor.

Again I ask you do you want to poll this in a separate thread to see some stats on this?

And two out of those three died by Bane, either by his own hands, or by his machinations such as creating the kangaroo court.

Exactly. So what are you basing your claim on when they are the only rich characters in the movie?

And while the middle class was obviously not touched(look at Foley's family still living in their house), we do get some insight on other "rich snobs" as other people being exiled along with Stryver(that's his name...I forgot that name too, haha).

Again how do you know they are rich people?

Giving the poor and criminals false hope and running Gotham City as their own. Even having a criminal(Crane) being the judge and giving the people two choices: death or exile.

Two things:

1. How does just giving the poor false hope give Gotham City as a whole false hope when he's excluding everyone else?

2. Crane was a former collaborator of the LOS.

No, I didn't say it wouldn't cause hysteria. Please don't put words into my mouth, because I didn't say that.

Yes, you did. Then you said 24 hours would not be sufficient time to show any kind of hysteria. I proved you wrong there with the Joker example of causing a city wide evacuation in one evening.

I said there were more important things to focus than showing any celebration or what have you from Batman's return as things other than Batman's return had to be the main focus.

Gotham's perception of Batman has always been important. The whole reason he took the fall for Dent's crimes was because he could be what ever Gotham needs him to be. Since when has Gotham's people's opinion not been an important factor in these movies?

It could have very well been mentioned, but I was someone that was totally fine that it wasn't.

I know that. You've said that twice now. Your justification of it is something that I don't get.

Nolan could have very well took out a few seconds from other scenes and have done this to stay under the IMAX time limit

Yes, or he could have excised or trimmed down scenes that were surplus to requirements. Several of the Blake and Foley scenes spring to mind.

It wasn't? So the entirety of the newspaper was all about Bruce going bankrupt? Not even the funnies were in the newspaper?

Show me some proof that it was and I'll concede to your point. The front page news was Bruce Wayne losing his money.

Shockingly the movie didn't have Bruce flick through the paper to the funny pages. So you''ll have to file that theory under conjecture.

I'm not arguing this. I'm saying there was no time with the film to actually pursue something such as a large reaction.

Unless you provide a valid reason why they couldn't have inserted some reactionary scenes you'll never provide a convincing reason for that.

We at least got certain reactions for the characters tied to the film than Gotham City as a whole.

The main characters. Name a movie that doesn't show the main characters reacting to the events of the story.

And those are the reactions that mattered, to me, than seeing regular joe hopping off his chair to tell his wife that Batman returned.

That's where we differ. Nolan made me care about Gotham City by doing what you're saying was unnecessary by giving Gotham City a life and personality through it's various people, both good and bad, in the previous two movies.

Then he present his third movie in which the plot is more focused on the people of Gotham than ever before, and the people are all but ignored.

It's a matter of Bane taking away what the Dent Act created, period.

It would have been taken away whether the Dent lie was because or not thanks to the siege. So it's all pointless anyway.

Can you see the Dent Act having any relevancy or impact after Bane laid siege Gotham, cut it off, and took it hostage with a nuclear bomb, with his men crawling all over Gotham in Tumblers if the truth about Dent never came out? No of course not.

I would see the Dent Act having done what it's done and is still working if not been revealed as the prisoners would have stayed inside Blackgate.

Explain to me in great detail how the Dent Act would still be effective once Bane laid siege to Gotham. Go ahead tell me how it would matter and be helpful once the city has been taken over by a terrorist with a nuclear bomb.

Spare no expense on the details of how the Dent Act was a saving grace here in a situation like that with the Cops trapped underground and Bane having free reign to do what he likes.

Everything regarding the conspiracy itself. There had to be more than just the lie being uncovered such as what this lie has done to the two men responsible for it from the beginning.

I'm not talking about the conspiracy itself. We're talking about the fall out of it being revealed. The impact of the cover up from TDK is evident with the 8 years of peace time, Gordon's guilt, and Batman being retired.

Not talking about that and never was. You're trying to veer the topic into something else. I asked you what was the consequences of the Dent lie being uncovered. So far all you've give in the Blackgate prisoners being released and just joining in with an already nasty situation.

Exactly. More important things to deal with without going back at what Gordon has done as Blake already said his words to him.

Blake's words were nothing. Telling Gordon the Dent cover up was wrong was like saying the sky is blue. Blake said his few words to Gordon then that was it. Nothing else. The morality of Gordon's actions is ignored, as are the consequences of it.

And afterwards? Yes, maybe it should have been followed through, but the subtle look with Gordon during the reveal of the Batman statue was enough to see how even after the lie was revealed, it's killing Gordon.

Let me get this straight; you perceived Gordon's look when the statue of what he thinks is his dead friend is revealed is Gordon feeling bad about Dent rather than the Gordon is feeling sad because he thinks his friend is dead?

We didn't need to see the repercussions when we could clearly see how it still kills Gordon to the day. That itself is far worse than knowing what Gothamites feel about Gordon since Gordon feels awful already.

Except the look of grief on Gordon's face is because he thinks Batman is dead. Just like Alfred's tears, Fox looking miserable etc until they all find out Bruce is still alive.

Nothing to do with Dent. That couldn't have been more obvious if Nolan spelled it all out in exposition.

It's because I believe the poor and the criminals were running Gotham, or believing to be, and the court was for everyone else.

Except it wasn't. The middle class, which would have made up a much larger portion of Gotham's people than the rich, were not targeted. The rich were the only ones obvious scorned by Bane.

This goes back to what sparked this whole point about the trials and Bane's siege. You are completely 100% wrong when you say Bane was specifically addressing just the poor and the criminals.

I'm still willing to take this to a thread with a poll.

But as this great article said, like Korra's Amon, Bane claims to be acting on behalf of the city's underclass, and establishes a policy of violent persecution against the upper classes. And as we were in Korra, we are kept entirely in the dark on the question of how the people of Gotham feel about this. Do they support Bane? Do they oppose him? Do they think he has the right idea but the wrong methods? Are they, as seems most likely, divided between these options according to their social status in the pre-occupation world? The Dark Knight Rises ignores all these questions. The people responsible for Gotham's suffering are only Bane and his followers (whose ranks are not, as far as we can tell, swelled by Gotham's have-nots), and the people responsible for stopping him are only the few policemen who managed to evade Bane's trap, the authority figures whom he has deposed--no civilians join the resistance. Anyone who does not fall into either of these groups is completely ignored.

If there were lower class on the sidelines, then maybe there were cheering on the trials, but that doesn't take away my theory that it was the rich and the cops going on trial while the poor weren't.

I never said the poor went on trial. I said your notion that the packed city hall inhabitants were all people awaiting trial is false.

To await their trials? It seems that most of the rich are taken to City Hall.

The "trials" took a minute to do. This siege went on for months. How long do you think it would take to do a few dozen of these minute long trials? I'm no math whizz but even I can do some simple arithmetic.