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

[TheDarkKnight08]

While I do agree that we should've seen Gotham's reaction to the occupation a bit more (one of my very limited minor gripes with the film), it's not like we didn't get anything at all. We see citizens huddling around garbage cans, trying to keep warm, as well as the montage showing the convicts and poor alike overtake the city. We see these things happening, but to show it too much would take away from Bruce's story and struggle. They didn't waste any time on anything else, as everything is even thrown at us in the 2nd act. I understand people wanting to see more of this, but it really isn't something that affects the overall quality of the film for me, as what caught my attention most was Bruce. Showing the citizens protest a man who was on the verge of blowing their city up wouldn't have been a smart move: if they protest or rebel against him, Bane will just blow them up. So what could we have been shown? The only reason Bane and Talia didn't pull the trigger in the end was to spite Bruce and show him that he failed, as melodramatic as that sounds.

The city's economic state was covered as much as it needed to be. We saw enough of Gotham over the course of the first two films to understand that it really is a broken city, ruled by fear. So to really nitpick a point that the films were trying to make anyway really just seems like that: a nitpick. The point of Batman was that he was the one that would bring them hope. Without him, they'd be lost, just as they were lost when he was gone. When he returned, he brought it on. That, to me, was the point Nolan was trying to make. Again, maybe there will be those who'll disagree, but really, who cares?

 

[Fudgie]

I kind of agree with that. I still feel that the overall plot and how it's handled however, requires more of a suspension of disbelief primarily because of the things they didn't show, as opposed to the merits of reality. In the previous two films, but especially BB, Nolan tried to explain everything, almost to a fault. In TDKR, he basically shuns that, and now leaves subtle indications of things, if he leaves anything at all.

How does Bruce get to Gotham exactly? Who knows, he's Batman. Well, where was the prison at anyway? Who knows, it was far. How do the people feel about Bane's takeover? Don't know, but we have to focus on Blake so the ending is more credible. Well, how do they feel about Gordon's letter? Do they even believe it? Who knows, but we're too far into the movie to do a 180 now and show the regular citizens and their reactions, lol. Things like that hurt the film more than any plausibility or reality issues.

Exactly. Bane occupied an American city for several months, why is this barely glossed over in the movie? There are a lot of things about the Dark Knight Rises I dislike, from the 8 year absence to John Blake, but those are minor details. The takeover of Gotham was much more extreme than any of the Joker's schemes, why did I never care about the people of Gotham in the movie when they were in the most danger? BB and TDK succeeded in making us feel for not only Bruce but also Gotham, I feared for those people on the ferries and the state of the city in TDK. I wouldn't have gave a **** if the nuclear bomb went off and killed everyone in TDKR

Let us count the ways of how we saw the people of Gotham City in this:

- Joe Chill, an example of the desperate
- The homeless man
- D.A. Finch and his reluctance to prosecute because Falcone has half the city bought and paid for
- Flass, the corrupt Cop
- Judge Faden, the corrupt judge
- The upper class people at the hotel scene
- Earle, more upper class
- The Felafel guy, the lower class
- The Narrows kid, more lower class

All samplings of various kinds of Gothamites in Gotham, and the kind of people Batman is fighting for. In fact I'll go far as to say the reaction from the upper class snobs to Batman in the hotel scene alone was more citizen insight than TDKR gave.



TDK was about the battle of Gotham's soul. Batman was trying to present the city with a better hero than he could be with Harvey, and Joker was trying to tear all of that down.

When a villain's plot directly affects the people of Gotham in a personal way, like Joker's and Bane's did, the city's people are very important to that to make the plans seem more real and genuine. When Joker inflicted chaos, you saw the Gotham people be scared, panic, turn on Batman, turn on each other, even turn to chaos themselves out of fear of him and his threats.

Bane reveals major truths to Gotham, offers them their city back, their White Knight hero is revealed as a fraud, and the supposed murderer of their savior comes back. Not even the most die hard apologist could deny reactions from Gotham's people was necessary.



Can you explain how showing some of Gotham's reactions to their dilemmas and the startling revelations would have taken such a huge bite out of Bruce's story?

Shave 5 minutes off Blake's screen time and you could have had plenty.



This is the mentality that perplexes me. Look at this:

- The Russian Ballerina giving her opinion of Gotham and Batman and Dent at the dinner scene
- The people at Dent's press conference
- The people on the ferries

Now that's just a sampling of some of the major scenes that incorporated Gotham's people as individual personalities. With all the siege stuff in TDKR, are you REALLY saying inserting some Gotham centric citizens like that would have been such a dramatic change to the script?

The most laughable thing of all is that out of all the villains, Bane's plan was the one that was about the people more than ever, because he spent MONTHS with them under his rule, and we got no insight at all from how any of the Gotham people felt about this.

It completely robbed Gotham of a personality and an identity. That's why so many didn't give a hoot about Gotham's plight.

Quoted for truth, gents.

Bravo.

Very much agree.

When Batman returns, we get reactionary shots from the main cast, Selina, Gordon, Blake - and Daggett and Stryver as the minor cast.

They're all main cast. They don't count. We're talking about the little people. The minors. The voices of good 'ol Gotham. The thing Nolan nailed in the first two but screwed the pooch on in Rises.

I for one liked the Orphans being a voice for Gotham. They really tied into the angle of Bruce and Blake being cut from the same mold.

Yeah except one orphan wasn't the voice of Gotham any more than if I pulled in a little kid off the street off NY he wouldn't be the voice of NY's people.

 

[Fudgie]

My whole thing on the "Gotham's POV" angle is this...

BB was completely focused on Bruce. I mean really, besides that one scene at the restaurant (which is a light scene), what other random Gothamite perspectives do we get? The "nice coat" guy? kid from Game of Thrones?

In TDK Bruce wasn't even really the true protagonist of the story. We got to see how Gotham reacted to Batman, Joker and everything that was going on. There was more of an omnipresent narrative at work and we got to explore the inner workings of Gotham city more. Everything in the movie reflected back to Batman and in the end he was the title character for a reason, but it was a definite genre shift to the crime saga.

TDKR, while the plot put Gotham's citizens in more peril than ever, shifted its focus back to Bruce's journey again. What I connected with is how TDKR really put you down in that pit with Bruce. While Gotham burned, you got to go on this journey with Bruce, rooting for him to find the strength to get out and reclaim his city. I've heard a lot of people say that the stuff in the pit dragged the movie, but it's my favorite section of the whole thing.

The way I see it, Bane could have thrown Bruce in Blackgate and had him guarded 24/7, and we might have gotten a more Gotham-centric film that never left the city and was more focused on the blow by blow of what was going on there. I just think taking it global and spending time away from Gotham with Bruce helped the film tap into that more personal (I'd even say spiritual) Batman Begins vibe which I really appreciated. Of course, I wouldn't have minded seeing more of the average Gothamite's perspective. I wouldn't have objected to another 15 minutes or so of runtime to allow for that. But I think ultimately that would just appease my curiosity, not necessarily make it a tighter or better movie.

BB showed the people of Gotham. Poor people were characters. Rich people were characters. Narrows all by it's lonesome felt like a little Gotham personality.

TDK was brimming with Gotham's people. Nolan out did himself. The mob in Begins and Knight were personalities, too, for the underworld.

Apart from Orphan boy, what average joes did we hear from in Gotham? Yup that's right nobody. Boring. Gotham was dullsville in Rises.

 

[Fudgie]

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.

Missed this one. Another winner.

 

[Micromind]

Would I have liked to see more of how ordinary Gotham citizens suffered during Bane's control of the Gotham ? Sure.

Would I have Liked to see how Bruce makes his journey from the pit back to US and back to Gotham ? Sure.

But, there is a thing called as the run-time which is forced by Studios, medium restrictions (IMAX) and such factors.

I am sure that there are many scenes left at the editing table, in the end it comes down to making a compromise between run-time restrictions and the story that needs to be told, in this case Nolan relied on subtleties and viewers ability to extrapolate from some key characters experiences during the seize of Gotham by Bane and left it to imagination of viewers. He did some thing similar in Inception where some parts were left to viewers to understand.

Not everything needs to be spoon fed.

 

[Fudgie]

Would I have liked to see more of how ordinary Gotham citizens suffered during Bane's control of the Gotham ? Sure.

Would I have Liked to see how Bruce makes his journey from the pit back to US and back to Gotham ? Sure.

But, there is a thing called as the run-time which is forced by Studios, medium restrictions (IMAX) and such factors.

I am sure that there are many scenes left at the editing table, in the end it comes down to making a compromise between run-time restrictions and the story that needs to be told, in this case Nolan relied on subtleties and viewers ability to extrapolate from some key characters experiences during the seize of Gotham by Bane and left it to imagination of viewers. He did some thing similar in Inception where some parts were left to viewers to understand.

Yup lets not show how Bruce got back to Gotham from a foreign country after the whole freakin city got sealed off by the army, and what Gotham thinks about Batman and Harvey Dent's lies. Not important. I'd much rather watch scenes like Blake chat with orphans and Gordon sat on his ass in a hospital bed being useless. Now there's the A class material we must keep in.

 

[TheDarkKnight08]

Would I have liked to see more of how ordinary Gotham citizens suffered during Bane's control of the Gotham ? Sure.

Would I have Liked to see how Bruce makes his journey from the pit back to US and back to Gotham ? Sure.
But, there is a thing called as the run-time which is forced by Studios, medium restriction (IMAX) and such factors.

I am sure that there are many scenes left at the editing table, in the end it comes down to making a compromise between run-time restrictions and the story that needs to be told, in this case Nolan relied on subtleties viewers ability to extrapolate from some key characters experiences during the seize of Gotham by Bane and left it to imagination of viewers. He did some thing similar in Inception where some parts were left to viewers to understand.

Exactly. Spoon-feeding viewers with certain aspects that aren't all that necessary isn't the tell of a great director. Especially when small problems like this don't really affect the quality of the film, as that wasn't the central conflict being developed. I'm not saying that no one gave a crap about Gotham, but I was there for Bruce and his journey. To say that just because we didn't get reaction shot from citizens the movie is automatically bad for it, is just ridiculous.

I mean, is it really that important to see that? Does it really make the film better if you saw Joe Average scream at his TV when Bane gives his speeches or cheer when Batman lights bridge up? Not to me. To trade up any of the scenes we got for any of this is weird. Were audience member seriously sitting there, going "I wonder what everyone else in Gotham is up to?"

Every criticism of this film is valid, but to the extent that it goes, using small nudges like these to proclaim it terrible or disappointing isn't criticism, it's nitpicking, all due respect.

 

[The Joker]

Yup lets not show how Bruce got back to Gotham from a foreign country after the whole freakin city got sealed off by the army, and what Gotham thinks about Batman and Harvey Dent's lies. Not important. I'd much rather watch scenes like Blake chat with orphans and Gordon sat on his ass in a hospital bed being useless. Now there's the A class material we must keep in.

I'd have traded in half of Blake's screen time alone for some of that, and more screen time for Selina.

Exactly. Spoon-feeding viewers with certain aspects that aren't all that necessary isn't the tell of a great director.

You must not hold Nolan's Batman movies in high regard at all then. He is ALWAYS having his characters exposition the details of the story.

Especially when small problems like this don't really affect the quality of the film, as that wasn't the central conflict being developed.

Oh yes they do. If you took out the reactions of Gotham's people in TDK, the quality would really suffer. Joker's chaos and Harvey's heroism lights up in the faces of Gotham's people in TDK.

 

[Micromind]

Yup lets not show how Bruce got back to Gotham from a foreign country after the whole freakin city got sealed off by the army, and what Gotham thinks about Batman and Harvey Dent's lies. Not important. I'd much rather watch scenes like Blake chat with orphans and Gordon sat on his ass in a hospital bed being useless. Now there's the A class material we must keep in.

That scene with orphan was meant to show that people of Gotham wanted Batman to return, but it is done in a subtle way.

Gordon was needed to be shown as many would have wondered why he was not back to resume his duty.

 

[Fudgie]

That scene with orphan was meant to show how people of Gotham wanted Batman to return, but it is done in a subtle way.

So a kid who would have been like 1 year old when Batman was around is the sign of all of Gotham wanting Batman back even when there's no crime around?

Makes perfect sense.

Gordon was needed to be shown as many would have wondered why he was not back to resume his duty.

Yeah looking at him sending all his Cops under ground and leaving the whole city above vulnerable was just aces. So glad we were treated to that kind of great Gordon stuff.

 

[TheDarkKnight08]

You must not hold Nolan's Batman movies in high regard at all then. He is ALWAYS having his characters exposition the details of the story.



Oh yes they do. If you took out the reactions of Gotham's people in TDK, the quality would really suffer. Joker's chaos and Harvey's heroism lights up in the faces of Gotham's people in TDK.

1. I know that he does, but we're not talking about dialogue. We're talking about visually displaying Gotham's reactions. Trust me, I hated Alfred's exposition about Bane, as well as Daggit's lines about the clean slate. However, the subjects at hand are showing us, not telling us, certain things.

2. That's because TDK, in particular was about Gotham. TDK wasn't a Batman movie, not like TDKR and BB. The point of TDK was showing us how a real world city, one like Gotham, would react to the chaos incited by someone like the Joker. If he brought that all back, he'd pretty much just be telling the exact same story, but with Bane instead of the Joker. The central theme of TDK was Gotham and its reaction to the Joker's chaos. TDKR's, to me, was Bruce and his rise to personal freedom.

 

[Fudgie]

Exactly. Spoon-feeding viewers with certain aspects that aren't all that necessary isn't the tell of a great director.

TheDarkKnight08 meet Christopher Nolan. The man practically invented that concept.

Especially when small problems like this don't really affect the quality of the film, as that wasn't the central conflict being developed.

Hell yeah it affects the quality. You make a story about a siege on a city full of people you want the people to be characters.

I'm not saying that no one gave a crap about Gotham, but I was there for Bruce and his journey.

Good for you. I was there for that and Gotham's situation. I got shafted on one.

I mean, is it really that important to see that? Does it really make the film better if you saw Joe Average scream at his TV when Bane gives his speeches or cheer when Batman lights bridge up?

Hell yeah it is. TDKR was a war movie. Who gets involved in war? People. What got taken over? Gotham. TDKR was more of a Gotham movie than a Batman one. Nolan just gave the people of Gotham the shaft.

 

[The Joker]

1. I know that he does, but we're not talking about dialogue. We're talking about visually displaying Gotham's reactions.

Ok can I see some screencaps to the Gotham reaction to Batman's return and the Harvey Dent lie, please?

2. That's because TDK, in particular was about Gotham. TDK wasn't a Batman movie, not like TDKR and BB.

TDKR was more of a Gotham movie than ever before. Take a look at the story:

- Gotham in peace time
- Gotham laid to siege
- Gotham's savior revealed as a fraud
- War declared to reclaim Gotham
- The classes within Gotham at war; upper vs lower classes
- Trials for people of Gotham being held

On what planet was TDK more about Gotham than TDKR? That's why the lack of a Gotham personality stands out even more and really hurts the movie.

 

[TheDarkKnight08]

TheDarkKnight08 meet Christopher Nolan. The man practically invented that concept.



Hell yeah it affects the quality. You make a story about a siege on a city full of people you want the people to be characters.



Good for you. I was there for that and Gotham's situation. I got shafted on one.



Hell yeah it is. TDKR was a war movie. Who gets involved in war? People. What got taken over? Gotham. TDKR was more of a Gotham movie than a Batman one. Nolan just gave the people of Gotham the shaft.

So you're pretty much saying you wanted to see TDK all over again, but with Bane's siege?

And I'm sorry that I went to see a Batman movie to see Batman struggle, not to see background characters struggle. Sucks for you, though, trying to watch a Batman that actually focused on Batman.

He didn't give anyone "the shaft", considering you're talking about a fictional backdrop for a much more personal story. Bane's siege on Gotham was Bruce's incentive to come back and fight. Like I said, I wouldn't have minded seeing more of Gotham, but its lack of Gotham's citizens don't bring down the film's quality to me. God forbid someone actually see the film in a positive light here.

 

[TheDarkKnight08]

Ok can I see some screencaps to the Gotham reaction to Batman's return and the Harvey Dent lie, please?



TDKR was more of a Gotham movie than ever before. Take a look at the story:

- Gotham in peace time
- Gotham laid to siege
- Gotham's savior revealed as a fraud
- War declared to reclaim Gotham
- The classes within Gotham at war; upper vs lower classes
- Trials for people of Gotham being held

On what planet was TDK more about Gotham than TDKR?

1. Okay, I was talking about us NOT needing to see these things.

2. The moment we got to see more of Gotham's reactions to Joker's actions. That was Nolan's intention. If he intended for TDKR to be more of Gotham's story, then we would've seen more of it. It was obvious from the get-go that this was going to be more about Bruce than Gotham as a whole. I mean, first there are criticisms thrown at TDK for not being about Batman as much as Gotham. Now, it's "TDKR should've been more about Gotham than Batman."

 

[Fudgie]

So you're pretty much saying you wanted to see TDK all over again, but with Bane's siege?

Uhhh yeah I want to see something on TDK's quality level if that's what you mean.

And I'm sorry that I went to see a Batman movie to see Batman struggle, not to see background characters struggle.

Yup cuz it would have been soooooo impossible to have both.

Sucks for you, though, trying to watch a Batman that actually focused on Batman.

Sucks for you trying to watch a Batman movie that had less Batman screen time than the last two movies, had more Blake scenes than Batman scenes, and more Bruce Wayne being crippled with a cane or in a pit.

Yeah what great Batman movie. You're so lucky.

He didn't give anyone "the shaft", considering you're talking about a fictional backdrop for a much more personal story. Bane's siege on Gotham was Bruce's incentive to come back and fight.

Joker's evil was incentive to fight back. Still got to see Gotham's people.

See how it's so easy to work? Put a siege on a city and you've got it on a silver plate to do it even easier than TDK did.

Like I said, I wouldn't have minded seeing more of Gotham, but its lack of Gotham's citizens don't bring down the film's quality to me.

It did for me.

God forbid someone actually see the film in a positive light here.

Be as positive as ya like. I won't be agreeing with ya though.

 

[Micromind]

TheDarkKnight08 meet Christopher Nolan. The man practically invented that concept.

Directors can change their style from movie to movie.

Hell yeah it affects the quality. You make a story about a siege on a city full of people you want the people to be characters.

And yet, some people complain that Batman got very little screen time, remember it is a movie about Bruce Wayne / Batman not Gothan's citizens.

Good for you. I was there for that and Gotham's situation. I got shafted on one.

If he could have managed to include such scenes, I would have been happy, but then movie would have become bloated, with run-time of more than three hours. and they have to follow IMAX restrictions, studio mandates.

Hell yeah it is. TDKR was a war movie. Who gets involved in war? People. What got taken over? Gotham. TDKR was more of a Gotham movie than a Batman one. Nolan just gave the people of Gotham the shaft.

The movie title says "The Dark Knight Rises" looks to me that it is a movie about Batman, not Gotham's citizens.

 

[Fudgie]

Directors can change their style from movie to movie.

Nolan didn't. He was still expositioning like hell. He just ignored something very important with Gotham's people in a siege of their city.

And yet, some people complain that Batman got very little screen time, remember it is a movie about Bruce Wayne / Batman not Gothan's citizens.

Yeah cos we're asking for the whole 2 hours and 45 minutes be about Gotham reactions

If he could have managed to include such scenes, I would have been happy, but then movie would have become bloated, with run-time of more than three hours. and they have to follow IMAX restrictions, studio mandates.

The movie was already bloated with crap that cut have been cut out and replaced with better things.

The movie title says "The Dark Knight Rises" looks to me that it is a movie about Batman, not Gotham's citizens.

The Dark Knight sounds like a Batman movie but Nolan said Dent's story is the backbone.

Check and mate.

 

[The Joker]

1. Okay, I was talking about us NOT needing to see these things.

Ok, I'm slightly confused then. I might have mis-read you. Are you conceding he didn't show any reactions to this at all, either visually or verbally?

2. The moment we got to see more of Gotham's reactions to Joker's actions.

Do I actually have to get out a timer and time how little the few minutes of screen time in TDK it took to show Gotham's people in TDK?

If he intended for TDKR to be more of Gotham's story, then we would've seen more of it.

We did see more of it. I just listed above how the whole narrative heavily focused on Gotham. The problem was he left out one vital ingredient; the people in the city.

 

[TheDarkKnight08]

Uhhh yeah I want to see something on TDK's quality level if that's what you mean.

Yup cuz it would have been soooooo impossible to have both.

Sucks for you trying to watch a Batman movie that had less Batman screen time than the last two movies, had more Blake scenes than Batman scenes, and more Bruce Wayne being crippled with a cane or in a pit.

Yeah what great Batman movie. You're so lucky.

Joker's evil was incentive to fight back. Still got to see Gotham's people.

See how it's so easy to work? Put a siege on a city and you've got it on a silver plate to do it even easier than TDK did.

It did for me.

Be as positive as ya like. I won't be agreeing with ya though.

1. I'm not talking about quality, I'm talking about content. I, for one, didn't feel this urgent desire to see Gotham rebel against Gotham as I cared more about Batman and his journey.

2. No, not impossible, but those trailers didn't promise anything but the breaking and rise of Batman. Gotham's destruction was a backdrop to this story.

3. Yeah, sucks for me that I enjoyed a film that treated its main character with more respect than most of the people that adapted him in the past. Bruce Wayne IS Batman. The costume isn't the only thing that matters, and screen-time isn't as important as screen presence. Time it all you want, but this felt more like Bruce and Batman's film than TDK and even BB.

4. You're right. That was in TDK and we saw them do that. But we're not talking about a couple of ferries in the middle of the ocean. We're talking about the nuclear destruction of an entire city. With that, what did you really want to see Gotham do to a guy who was always this close to blowing them all to hell?

5. It did for you? Well, that sucks that you walked into a Batman film waiting more for scenes about Gothamites yelling at Bane for being a jerk than Batman doing his thing.

6. Trust me when I say, I don't want you to agree with me. You don't like it? Alright, great. But there's almost imminent attack on those who like the film on here. I'm not victimizing myself, but that is the general feeling these forums give off sometimes.

 

[Micromind]

Nolan didn't. He was still expositioning like hell. He just ignored something very important with Gotham's people in a siege of their city.

His style did change a bit from BB to TDK to TDKR.

Yeah cos we're asking for the whole 2 hours and 45 minutes be about Gotham reactions

You are always exaggerating and making hyperbolic statements like this, doesn't make your point any more valid.

The movie was already bloated with crap that cut have been cut out and replaced with better things.

In Your opinion.

The Dark Knight sounds like a Batman movie but Nolan said Dent's story is the backbone.

It is still a movie about Batman Not Dent.

Check and mate.

You need to relax.

 

[TheDarkKnight08]

Ok, I'm slightly confused then. I might have mis-read you. Are you conceding he didn't show any reactions to this at all, either visually or verbally?



Do I actually have to get out a timer and time how little the few minutes of screen time in TDK it took to show Gotham's people in TDK?



We did see more of it. I just listed above how the whole narrative heavily focused on Gotham. The problem was he left out one vital ingredient; the people in the city.

1. He didn't. I'm agreeing with you that he didn't show the reactions viually, but what I'm saying is that I felt he didn't have to.

2. ... No. I'm not going any further into this one, as it's almost trollish. (Sorry)

3. And I understand that, but, again, I felt it wasn't vital to the film. We're dealing with an extended cast of supporting characters, as well as an arc that the main character hasn't faced before. Had Bruce's situation in TDKR been identical to the one in TDK, then I would agree with you. But the stakes changed for Bruce and Nolan decided to focus more on what was going on over there. I'm not trying to make you agree with me or like the film, but at least try to see what I'm saying when I say that I feel the film was just fine without Gothamites' reactions to the siege.

 

[Fudgie]

1. I'm not talking about quality, I'm talking about content. I, for one, didn't feel this urgent desire to see Gotham rebel against Gotham as I cared more about Batman and his journey.

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.

2. No, not impossible, but those trailers didn't promise anything but the breaking and rise of Batman. Gotham's destruction was a backdrop to this story.

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

Check and mate.

3. Yeah, sucks for me that I enjoyed a film that treated its main character with more respect than most of the people that adapted him in the past.

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

Bruce Wayne IS Batman.

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

The costume isn't the only thing that matter

Who said it did.

and screen-time isn't as important as screen presence. Time it all you want, but this felt more like Bruce and Batman's film than TDK and even BB.

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

Yeah because there was. Fact.

4. You're right. That was in TDK and we saw them do that. But we're not talking about a couple of ferries in the middle of the ocean. We're talking about the nuclear destruction of an entire city. With that, what did you really want to see Gotham do to a guy who was always this close to blowing them all to hell?

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.

5. It did for you? Well, that sucks that you walked into a Batman film waiting more for scenes about Gothamites yelling at Bane for being a jerk than Batman doing his thing.

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

6. Trust me when I say, I don't want you to agree with me.

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

You don't like it? Alright, great. But there's almost imminent attack on those who like the film on here. I'm not victimizing myself, but that is the general feeling these forums give off sometimes.

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

 

[BatLobster]

Let us count the ways of how we saw the people of Gotham City in this:

- Joe Chill, an example of the desperate
- The homeless man
- D.A. Finch and his reluctance to prosecute because Falcone has half the city bought and paid for
- Flass, the corrupt Cop
- Judge Faden, the corrupt judge
- The upper class people at the hotel scene
- Earle, more upper class
- The Felafel guy, the lower class
- The Narrows kid, more lower class

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.

So there, that's an even 9 to 9 match. I thought the complaints were that people wanted more people like "no more dead cops!" guy in TDK, just random Gothamites. TDKR definitely has less of those. But in terms of minor roles and bit players that represent aspects of Gotham I thought BB and TDKR were on par with each other.

Can you explain how showing some of Gotham's reactions to their dilemmas and the startling revelations would have taken such a huge bite out of Bruce's story?

Shave 5 minutes off Blake's screen time and you could have had plenty.

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). But given a choice, I'm not in favor of cutting out 5 minutes of Blake, because honestly to me, he was the first "regular Gothamite" to have a major role in the story in this trilogy. And I think that's a big reason why we stayed with him a lot during the occupation instead of developing subplots with less important characters.

This is the mentality that perplexes me. Look at this:

- The Russian Ballerina giving her opinion of Gotham and Batman and Dent at the dinner scene
- The people at Dent's press conference
- The people on the ferries

Now that's just a sampling of some of the major scenes that incorporated Gotham's people as individual personalities. With all the siege stuff in TDKR, are you REALLY saying inserting some Gotham centric citizens like that would have been such a dramatic change to the script?

The most laughable thing of all is that out of all the villains, Bane's plan was the one that was about the people more than ever, because he spent MONTHS with them under his rule, and we got no insight at all from how any of the Gotham people felt about this.

It completely robbed Gotham of a personality and an identity. That's why so many didn't give a hoot about Gotham's plight.

I get where you are coming from. I guess I just feel that the safe assumption was most of Gotham was scared out of their wits and that's why the streets were empty. TDKR was going for a desolate, apocalyptic type of tone and I dug that. But I do understand what you're saying. I would have liked to see Gotham's reaction to the truth about Dent explored a bit more (from the regular folks who didn't join Bane's revolution). Even if the reaction was simply fear and confusion, which I would imagine it was.

In the end though, I did give a damn about Gotham's plight because of how engrossing Bruce's journey was, and the fact that his internal state is always tied externally to the state Gotham is in (true for just about any Batman story). It's the first time in the series he calls Gotham "My city". When you you see him in his cell, lying there helplessly watching the newscast with tears in his eyes, it just says so much. That stuff is the heart and soul of the movie.

 

[Fudgie]

His style did change a bit from BB to TDK to TDKR.

Not his directing style. Visuals yeah. Story tones and themes yeah.

You are always exaggerating and making hyperbolic statements like this, doesn't make your point any more valid.

Use hyperbole to combat hyperbole.

In Your opinion.

http://www.seattleweekly.com/2012-07-18/film/the-dark-knight-rises-too-dark-too-much-too-long/

Got lots more like that on the 'ol net.

It is still a movie about Batman Not Dent.

“Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) is a tragic figure, and his story is the backbone of this film.”

http://filmonic.com/harvey-dent-is-dark-knights-backbone

Nolan doesn't agree with you.

You need to relax.

If I was any more relaxed I'd fall asleep.