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

[BatLobster]

I think the look on Gordon's face was not only that he thought his friend was dead, to me it was also that gut-wrenching, deja vu feeling of being put in another situation where he has to keep the truth from Gotham...covering up the fact that Bruce Wayne was the Batman. The true hero the city needed and deserved all along.

"Shouldn't people know the hero that saved them?" This is his way of wanting to make up for the Dent lie. He wants Gotham to know who the true hero is.

But Batman shoots him down by giving him the "a hero can be anybody" speech. It's his mission statement- the whole point of Batman is the anonymity. So Gordon feels obligated to honor that.

I think, while Gordon doesn't get what he wants in the end, he's still able to find peace in knowing that Bruce made it after all. It's a bittersweet moment on the GPD rooftop at the end.

 

[Fudgie]

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.

Wowzers I actually agree with you for once.

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.

That article is aces. Talk about nailing the truth.

I think the look on Gordon's face was not only that he thought his friend was dead, to me it was also that gut-wrenching, deja vu feeling of being put in another situation where he has to keep the truth from Gotham...covering up the fact that Bruce Wayne was the Batman. The true hero the city needed and deserved all along.

"Shouldn't people know the hero that saved them?" This is his way of wanting to make up for the Dent lie. He wants Gotham to know who the true hero is.

But Batman shoots him down by giving him the "a hero can be anybody" speech. It's his mission statement- the whole point of Batman is the anonymity. So Gordon feels obligated to honor that.

I think, while Gordon doesn't get what he wants in the end, he's still able to find peace in knowing that Bruce made it after all. It's a bittersweet moment on the GPD rooftop at the end.

Gordon says to Blake "They know who saved them. It was the Batman". It's not the same as the Dent thing where the hero was being blamed for something they didn't do and the bad guy was getting the credit for being the hero.

Batman got the credit for saving the city. Doesn't matter if they know who he really was or not. Gordon said he never cared who Batman really was under the mask. Why should Gotham. All they need to know is he saved them.

 

[BatLobster]

Gordon said he never cared who Batman really was under the mask.

But then immediately after that he said "...but shouldn't the people know the hero who saved them?". He never cared... until it looked like Batman was about to die for the city. Then his conscience kicked in.

It had to matter on some level to Gordon that the city would never know the truth. But he has to also realize on some level that he made due with a faceless hero for all these years, and now Gotham would too. And that's how Batman wanted it. He tries to comfort Blake by saying "they know who saved them", but that doesn't mean his feelings on the matter aren't more complex.

And high give on our first agreement lol

 

[TheDarkKnight08]

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



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



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.



Yup I know that.



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.



You must have been hiding under a rock.



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.



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?



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.



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

1. Yes, and again you just want to see what we saw covered in TDK all over again.

2. If you actually paid attention, I said we didn't see it coming. Again, pay attention.

3. Alright, according to you and a certain amount of people, but very far from the consensus as far as the film is concerned.

4. I'm not debating the amount of screen time. I'm saying what we did see more than made up for that. None of the Batman scenes were wasted, with each and every one of them true to the character.

5. I haven't. I've been here almost everyday, and while there have been those that have taken issue with it, there wasn't a consensus that it hurt the film's quality.

6. How? Not to take away from Joker in TDK, but it's the exact opposite with me. What Bane was trying to was much worse: he was going to blow up an entire city, using the truth as a lie, twisting it, allowing him to put the city under siege.

7. Again, none of these questions are some that the average movie-goer would've been asking themselves. If you honestly think having a reaction shot to each and every one of these (some I do agree on, others I don't) would've made the film better, then I really don't know what else to say. From the very beginning, the focus of the film was Bruce and his struggle to save his city. It wasn't about Gotham. It was about Bruce Wayne and ending the journey he started in BB. To tread the same water as TDK, with the averages Joes reacting to everything on the TV would've been redundant.

8. Not in BB. TDK was Gotham's movie, which is why Batman wasn't the only focal point in that film. BB was, again, about Bruce and his journey to become Batman. Gotham's corruption was a backdrop to his story. We got glimpses to the desperation in the city through Joe Chill and such with the mob, but they were minor, and would be resolved with TDK. Nolan started and ended this "trend" in TDK.

9. I'm not saying that. You have, in all of your responses said I was wrong for liking that he didn't include this aspect of the film, as well as focusing on Bruce. I disagree with you, but I never said you were wrong in your opinion. I just can't agree with you.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

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.

Agreed. It hurt the movie's story a lot.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Pardon my shorter replies.

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?

My claim was never that the cops weren't hunted and trialed. My claim was that the rich were being targeted for trial, period, but of course the cops would be as well since Bane had to wipe the city of the rest of the cops that weren't trapped in the tunnels.

And there doesn't need to be a poll or stat. I believe the rich are being targeted and we only see the rich and cops being targeted, so what's the point when we simply DON'T see the poor or the criminals being targeted? You only have to assume the poor and the criminals are being targeted since we never saw it.

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

What are you basing your claim on the court going after Gotham as a whole when we've only seen the rich and the cops being on trial during TDKR?

Again how do you know they are rich people?

How do you know they're not?

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.

1.) To turn the city upside down with giving the poor the power that the rich had. Bane told the audience in the football stadium to wait until tomorrow but during then, go home to be with their families because Bane knew what was going to happen.

2.) And he was most likely going to die by the LoS as well. Crane is still only a pawn if Bane and/or Talia had their way in the end. A pawn more than a collaborator.

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.

Lol, "you proved me wrong". No, no you didn't. I said there were too many things to SHOW hysteria to move the film along.

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?

Gotham's people includes Gordon, Blake, Foley, patrol officers, Selina Kyle, Daggett. And we saw those reactions and how they reflect on their own arcs with the film.

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

Not getting it is the same reason why one person doesn't like AC/DC and another does. Simply different tastes. We've had Gotham's take throughout the trilogy, but TDKR focused on Bruce Wayne and even more so than Batman Begins. Some liberties had to be taken and some things had to be decreased. But we still received reactions from at least the characters important to the film itself.

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.

Agreed, but it didn't happen and I was fine with the final product.

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.

So since the front page was about Wayne losing his money...the entire newspaper was about Wayne losing his money? Your point is that the entire newspaper was about Wayne going bankrupt, lol.

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

Never provide a convincing reason for you. Which is fine, I'm not here to convince but state how I feel about the film which is the same for you, isn't it? You're stating how you feel or are you actually thinking you're convincing others the way you believe?

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

Which is fine as I said as their reactions reflect their own arcs and that's more important than showing regular joe right now.

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 unnecessary for the third film because of what we've seen the last two films and how Gotham reacted to their own danger when TDKR focused on Bruce's own danger of actually surviving which was something that wasn't questioned beforehand.

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.

No it wouldn't have. Bane wouldn't have even touched Blackgate beforehand, imo.

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.

How? Because the Dent Act didn't call for terrorist organizations to be caught. It called for the MOB to be arrested and we have the mobs and the criminals still in the prison.

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.

Not trying to veer off any topic.

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.

Blake's words were words that the audience wanted to hear in why Gordon would even let Batman do such as a thing as taking the blame for so many deaths.

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?

You got it

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.

Afraid not. Gordon has many things going on besides the death of Bruce. He kept it all in even during the funeral; no way he'd finally show emotion during the statue reveal.

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

Apparently to you Nolan had to spell out much, much more in this film, lol.

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.

Lol, do you really think it's so important to prove a point on a thread that you want to create another thread? NOTHING really shows Bane targeting anyone but the rich and the cops.

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.

So you agree the poor weren't awaiting trial then? Good, we agree on something.

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.

So you assume there were many trials in one day then?

 

[Fudgie]

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.

Yeah so you're admitting you saw lots of different folk on the ice. Not just the rich heads. So you're wrong about it just being crooks and poor being the people Bane is liberating.

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.

So where did ya see the crooks and the poor running anything in Gotham? All I saw was Tumbler patrols and Bane's mercs going around.

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.

Murderer of Harvey Dent coming back would cause a poop storm in the city. It would be like San Francisco catching the Zodiac killer.

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.

Ehhhh yeah I didn't need to see the Gothamite scenes filmed in IMAX. Nice thought thought though.

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

Hyperbole and conjecture. There was plenty of time. It doesn't take hours to film a few reaction shots.

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

So ya don't care about Gotham City. Cool. I felt the same watching this one.

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

Bane pooped on the Dent Act the moment he set off his bombs.

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.

Ehhh no that was all stuff that happened because they were hiding it not because it came out thanks to the stupid letter reading that everyone just believed.

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.

Ehhh no we did need to see how Gordon had to answer for a plot they made such a big deal of. Ya don't just out Gordon's deception and leave it at that. He wasn't feeling awful. He was all mopey because he thought the Bat was in the great Batcave in the sky.

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

Funny you don't see any of that in the movie.

But then immediately after that he said "...but shouldn't the people know the hero who saved them?". He never cared... until it looked like Batman was about to die for the city. Then his conscience kicked in.

It had to matter on some level to Gordon that the city would never know the truth. But he has to also realize on some level that he made due with a faceless hero for all these years, and now Gotham would too. And that's how Batman wanted it. He tries to comfort Blake by saying "they know who saved them", but that doesn't mean his feelings on the matter aren't more complex.

Yeah he was asking Batman if he wants everyone to know who he really was. After 8 years of unfair shame to Gotham it was a fair thing to ask since he was about to give his life for them.

What difference is it gonna make if they know who Batman really was or not? They know who ever he was he saved their lives and wasn't the bad the guy they thought he was.

All this flowery stuff about needing to know the man behind the mask is codswallop. Batman was always about inspiration. Not knowing secret identities. Nolan didn't do a 180 on that.

And high give on our first agreement lol

Drinks on me.

1. Yes, and again you just want to see what we saw covered in TDK all over again.

Ehhh no because caring about Gotham City is not showing TDK all over again. It's making you care about the story about the city. Gotham City = it's people. To care about the people show the people. Begins did it. TDK did it. TDKR did not. There's your fail.

2. If you actually paid attention, I said we didn't see it coming. Again, pay attention.

So what the hell are you arguing about then if TDK's trailer didn't show it then why are you going on about TDKR's?

3. Alright, according to you and a certain amount of people, but very far from the consensus as far as the film is concerned.

Yeah? I can post a truck load of reviews that bring it up.

4. I'm not debating the amount of screen time. I'm saying what we did see more than made up for that.

Third Batman movie, less Batman screen time of the three.

Nope, not buying that one.

None of the Batman scenes were wasted, with each and every one of them true to the character.

'No guns, no killing'

Hour and a half later he blows away Talia's truck driver.

Giggle.

5. I haven't. I've been here almost everyday, and while there have been those that have taken issue with it, there wasn't a consensus that it hurt the film's quality.

Then ya must be doing selective reading.

6. How? Not to take away from Joker in TDK, but it's the exact opposite with me. What Bane was trying to was much worse: he was going to blow up an entire city, using the truth as a lie, twisting it, allowing him to put the city under siege.

It's worse because the people of Gotham were living in the fear of not only having to blow up a bunch of their people, but also facing the fear of being blown up themselves. That's worse fear and psychological torture than what Bane did giving them that BS that Bane was there to liberate them, and even worse Nolan expecting us to buy that everyone fell for this crap just like they just believed Bane was reading a letter from Gordon about Dent.

7. Again, none of these questions are some that the average movie-goer would've been asking themselves.

Says you.

If you honestly think having a reaction shot to each and every one of these (some I do agree on, others I don't) would've made the film better, then I really don't know what else to say.

Don' say anything. If ya don't get that a movie that makes the story about the people of Gotham wouldn't benefit from ya know seeing the feelings and reactions of Gotham then this one is a dead end.

8. Not in BB.

Yes in BB. Joker man, I'm copying your post here:

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.

Sod all personalities like that sort of variety in Rises.

TDK was Gotham's movie, which is why Batman wasn't the only focal point in that film.

Nope, him, Dent and Gordon were. Rises was all about the Gotham liberation bull.

9. I'm not saying that. You have, in all of your responses said I was wrong for liking that he didn't include this aspect of the film, as well as focusing on Bruce. I disagree with you, but I never said you were wrong in your opinion. I just can't agree with you.

I ain't saying you're wrong for liking a thing. You can even think Cottiard's crappy death was the best acting you've ever seen. I ain't going to agree with ya but I'm not saying you're wrong for liking it.

Agreed. It hurt the movie's story a lot.

Quoted for truth.

 

[TheBat812]

In a movie where fans have complained about not enough Batman, it's surprising to me that people wanted to see more nameless individuals. IMO if this had actually happened, there would be more complaining about there being emotionless bits with the general populace. This is why the filmmaking is left up to the filmmakers and imo they definitely made the right call in not bloating the film with what would ultimately be just a worse version of Foley - not really emotionally successful, but understandable intellectually. I mean that's the whole point of Foley's character, is to get a more personalized account of what the average Gothamite is going through in this crisis, and their struggle to do what's right in the face of impossible odds.

 

[Fudgie]

In a movie where fans have complained about not enough Batman, it's surprising to me that people wanted to see more nameless individuals. IMO if this had actually happened, there would be more complaining about there being emotionless bits with the general populace.

Did you ever hear anyone complain about the Gotham people scenes being emotionless in the other two movies? Nope. Do you hear people complaining about wasted scenes on dullards like Foley? Yup.

 

[The Joker]

Pardon my shorter replies.

It's fine.

My claim was never that the cops weren't hunted and trialed. My claim was that the rich were being targeted for trial, period, but of course the cops would be as well since Bane had to wipe the city of the rest of the cops that weren't trapped in the tunnels.

Ok, you're going in circles here now. Let me simplify this down for you; Here was your original point:

The city is laid siege so the criminals can take it back.

Now whether the rich people were getting tried or not, where is your evidence that this is the case? Bane did not even know about the Harvey Dent cover up when he came to Gotham and began his plan.

So how can his plan have been to let the criminals run the city? Second this brings us back to the other original point; your false claim that when Bane was addressing Gotham at the stadium he was just addressing poor people and criminals. Was there many poor people and criminals at a football game lol?

And there doesn't need to be a poll or stat. I believe the rich are being targeted and we only see the rich and cops being targeted, so what's the point when we simply DON'T see the poor or the criminals being targeted?

So your stance now is that if you don't see it then it didn't happen? I'll remember that when I get down to your point about the headlines

What are you basing your claim on the court going after Gotham as a whole when we've only seen the rich and the cops being on trial during TDKR?

I never said it was after Gotham as a whole. Total opposite. I said Bane was giving Gotham back to the people. As in all of Gotham. You're the one who's singling out the classes, namely just the poor and the criminals.

That's why I want to do a poll to show you Bane's plan was not just for the poor. Certainly not for the criminals since he found out the Dent lie by complete random accident.

How do you know they're not?

I don't. They could be the Cops the priest guy said they were rounding up like dogs.

1.) To turn the city upside down with giving the poor the power that the rich had.

Yes, giving the poor of Gotham power. That would certainly instill the whole city with hope.

Where did you see Gotham's poor having power?

Bane told the audience in the football stadium to wait until tomorrow but during then, go home to be with their families because Bane knew what was going to happen.

Of course Bane knew what was going to happen. It was his plan. What's your point?

2.) And he was most likely going to die by the LoS as well. Crane is still only a pawn if Bane and/or Talia had their way in the end. A pawn more than a collaborator.

Anno, I almost feel guilty pointing out the obvious here to you, but Bane and Talia and all the LOS men were going to die, too. This whole plan was a suicide mission. Why should Crane be exempt for it any more than anyone else sitting in Gotham?

So I must ask what your point is?

Lol, "you proved me wrong". No, no you didn't.

Yes, I did. Showing the reactions shots to Joker's threats didn't hinder the the cut throat pace of TDK's climax.

I said there were too many things to SHOW hysteria to move the film along.

What too many things? Name the too many things was going on here that vastly out numbered TDK's?

Gotham's people includes Gordon, Blake, Foley, patrol officers, Selina Kyle, Daggett.

All main characters, save for the patrol officer. Name a movie that excludes it's main characters from reacting to the main story lol.

Not getting it is the same reason why one person doesn't like AC/DC and another does. Simply different tastes.

That's a matter of taste in music. This is a movie made by the same man who made the previous two movies, and always invested his movies in Gotham City as much as he did the main characters whom the story was all about.

Nolan makes a big production of how important Gotham is, how the people need inspiration whether it's via him or Harvey Dent, and in order to make all of this work he took the time to show us the kind of people that populate Gotham, what they think of these characters and events that shake up their city.

Didn't you feel the despair of Gotham when you watched Begins thanks to seeing characters like Chill, the Narrows kid, the homeless man, D.A. Finch, Flass, Judge Faden etc? All characters that showed the state of Gotham City and it's horrid situation ranging from the corrupt to the desperate.

TDK's Gotham is self explanatory. It was rife with personality. Then you come to TDKR, where Gotham is presented with a situation that they've never faced before. Did Ra's or Joker take over their city? Expose their White Knight as a fraud? Their Commissioner as a liar? Free inmates on their streets? etc. Was the murderous Batman back from an 8 year hiatus?

No. These were all new elements and situations for Gotham's people. Why you think it was unnecessary to see some kind of insight into how they felt about this is beyond me.

Furthermore the tension of the situation they were would have been amped up considerably if you SAW the tension and desperation the people were under in this siege. Showing them huddled up in buildings doesn't cut it. They were totally oblivious to the bomb threat. Another mistake.

I can't imagine a movie being made where the city was taken over by a terrorist, and they did not make the people a big part of the personality of the city.

So since the front page was about Wayne losing his money...the entire newspaper was about Wayne losing his money? Your point is that the entire newspaper was about Wayne going bankrupt, lol.

Yes, that's my point. Well done.

You know full well my point is that the front page is about a recluse millionaire losing his fortune over the masked fugitive wanted for 8 years who killed the city's savior Harvey Dent.

In other words Batman's big return was never felt by Gotham.

Never provide a convincing reason for you. Which is fine, I'm not here to convince but state how I feel about the film which is the same for you, isn't it? You're stating how you feel or are you actually thinking you're convincing others the way you believe?

You're absolutely right, that's why we're here. What I mean by a convincing reason is one that sounds plausible. Where is the plausibility factor in saying Nolan couldn't possibly have included this into his movie?

Which is fine as I said as their reactions reflect their own arcs and that's more important than showing regular joe right now.

Right now? So you concede that later reactions would have been fine?

It's unnecessary for the third film because of what we've seen the last two films and how Gotham reacted to their own danger

Gotham was facing a whole new kind of danger and situation here. That's like saying we saw how Batman faces a threat to Gotham City, we don't need to see it again in this movie.

when TDKR focused on Bruce's own danger of actually surviving which was something that wasn't questioned beforehand.

Neither was the Gotham situation in TDKR.

No it wouldn't have. Bane wouldn't have even touched Blackgate beforehand, imo.

Tell me, Anno, after the Blackgate inmates were released, when were they ever seen or mentioned again? How big of a difference to Bane's overall siege do you think they made in terms of narrative?

How? Because the Dent Act didn't call for terrorist organizations to be caught. It called for the MOB to be arrested and we have the mobs and the criminals still in the prison.

Right, so why are you going on about the importance of Bane revealing the Dent lie in his siege when the Dent Act, by your own admission here, wouldn't make a bit of difference in Bane's siege.

That's why Bane's plan never hindered on the Harvey Dent lie in the first place. He found it out by accident.

Blake's words were words that the audience wanted to hear in why Gordon would even let Batman do such as a thing as taking the blame for so many deaths.

But we already knew why. That was said in the ending to TDK. If the truth about Dent came out Harvey's work would all be undone and Gotham would lose hope. Joker would have won.

What difference did Blake's words make to Gordon or the movie?

You got it

That's your most unconvincing argument yet then. I can't imagine one person looking at that scene and thinking Gordon was looking sad because of the Dent lie and not because Batman was dead lol.

No offense, Anno, but I don't think even you believe that.

Afraid not. Gordon has many things going on besides the death of Bruce. He kept it all in even during the funeral; no way he'd finally show emotion during the statue reveal.

What many things did he have going on? List them, please.

Apparently to you Nolan had to spell out much, much more in this film, lol.

Silly me for thinking Gordon looking sad while sitting at a statue unveiling of Batman when everyone thinks he's dead was because he thinks Batman is dead and not because of the Harvey Dent cover up.

How obvious.

Lol, do you really think it's so important to prove a point on a thread that you want to create another thread?

Yes, why not? It's just a thread. I'm not offering to buy an expensive car to prove a point.

NOTHING really shows Bane targeting anyone but the rich and the cops.

Remember you just said that. Which brings me to this question; what % of Gotham do you think is made up of rich people and Cops? Is it more than the rest of the classes of Gotham?

Hardly. They would be a small majority. So going back to the original point yet again, when Bane is addressing Gotham, he is addressing Gotham. Not just the poor, and certainly not the criminals. The criminals were not even a factor in the plan because as I've said several times now, the Dent lie was discovered by accident.

So you agree the poor weren't awaiting trial then? Good, we agree on something.

Not once did I ever say he was after the poor. Don't know where you go that from...

So you assume there were many trials in one day then?

Considering they last about a minute each, absolutely lol.

 

[The Joker]

Did you ever hear anyone complain about the Gotham people scenes being emotionless in the other two movies? Nope. Do you hear people complaining about wasted scenes on dullards like Foley? Yup.

Exactly. I'd gladly have sacrificed Foley as a character, and several of Blake's fluff scenes for more Batman, more Selina, more Gothamites, more Gordon etc. Characters that would enhance the movie. Not drag it down.

 

[BatLobster]

Yeah he was asking Batman if he wants everyone to know who he really was. After 8 years of unfair shame to Gotham it was a fair thing to ask since he was about to give his life for them.

What difference is it gonna make if they know who Batman really was or not? They know who ever he was he saved their lives and wasn't the bad the guy they thought he was.

All this flowery stuff about needing to know the man behind the mask is codswallop. Batman was always about inspiration. Not knowing secret identities. Nolan didn't do a 180 on that.

Shockingly, again I don't think we really disagree too much here. Sounds like you're saying Gordon was in his own small way hoping to right the wrongs of the past 8 years and give Batman his well-deserved moment of glory, that's pretty much what I was saying. Give Gotham a face that was truly worth believing in this time. But then Batman sets him straight and reinforces the whole point of his mission, all while finally giving up his identity to his friend and ally.

Drinks on me.

Scotch on the rocks over here

 

[The Joker]

Shockingly, again I don't think we really disagree too much here. Sounds like you're saying Gordon was in his own small way hoping to right the wrongs of the past 8 years and give Batman his well-deserved moment of glory, that's pretty much what I was saying. Give Gotham a face that was truly worth believing in this time. But then Batman sets him straight and reinforces the whole point of his mission, all while finally giving up his identity to his friend and ally.

Nice analysis. That's how I interpreted it. I also think his sad look on his face at the Batman statue unveiling was, aside from his grief over losing his ally and friend, was that Batman was not here to see the adulation he was finally deservedly getting from the people he protected.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Considering they last about a minute each, absolutely lol.

I know I've not contributed to this before, but the weren't even trials, guilt had already been determined. They were sentencing hearings, to which there were only two sentences: Death or exile. With most people choosing exile pretty darn quickly.

 

[Anno_Domini]

My last reply on this as I've said my views over and over. You can reply if you want yourself, but I'll be ending my half with this. It was nice talking to you about this Joker, but these replies are only getting longer and it's tougher for me to concentrate while working on other things every time I'm on this forum. I hope to discuss other topics with you later on, but on smaller terms, lol.

Ok, you're going in circles here now. Let me simplify this down for you; Here was your original point:

Now whether the rich people were getting tried or not, where is your evidence that this is the case? Bane did not even know about the Harvey Dent cover up when he came to Gotham and began his plan.

So how can his plan have been to let the criminals run the city? Second this brings us back to the other original point; your false claim that when Bane was addressing Gotham at the stadium he was just addressing poor people and criminals. Was there many poor people and criminals at a football game lol?

Not going around in circles at all. My point had always been the same.

I do believe Bane wanted the criminals to take over the city and I believe Bane's plans changed once he found those papers in Gordon's coat to where Bane decided to destroy Blackgate for the prisoners to escape. If Bane had a plan from the get go, I'd say he would've done something that very same day when destroying the stadium, but he waited the next day to go after Blackgate.

So your stance now is that if you don't see it then it didn't happen? I'll remember that when I get down to your point about the headlines

I'm just taking your own ideology that since something like Batman's return wasn't mentioned on the front page of a newspaper, it didn't happen

I never said it was after Gotham as a whole. Total opposite. I said Bane was giving Gotham back to the people. As in all of Gotham. You're the one who's singling out the classes, namely just the poor and the criminals.

That's why I want to do a poll to show you Bane's plan was not just for the poor. Certainly not for the criminals since he found out the Dent lie by complete random accident.

There is no way Bane wanted to give the city back to the rich because he wanted the rich to start living on the streets. That is why I single out classes with my theory.

I don't. They could be the Cops the priest guy said they were rounding up like dogs.

And yet most of the cops are still around helping out Gordon. I don't think there were stragglers that Bane's men found before Gordon rounded them up. The priest said there were hunting the cops, but nothing to point out that they have captured any.

Yes, giving the poor of Gotham power. That would certainly instill the whole city with hope.

Where did you see Gotham's poor having power?

It would instill the city with hope when you said yourself that only a small percentile are most likely rich in Gotham. Singling out the small percentile and giving the city to the poor.

Of course Bane knew what was going to happen. It was his plan. What's your point?

Bane knew what he was going to do with unleashing the criminals and cause havoc for Gotham City. I have to explain the entire movie for you?

Anno, I almost feel guilty pointing out the obvious here to you, but Bane and Talia and all the LOS men were going to die, too. This whole plan was a suicide mission. Why should Crane be exempt for it any more than anyone else sitting in Gotham?

So I must ask what your point is?

I feel ashamed that a fellow poster would actually think I'm that ignorant. Oh well, it's common on these forums.

I am aware it was a suicide mansion, but there is a difference between collaborator and a pawn. Crane was by no means a collaborator and he was never a collaborator with the League. Now I feel guilty with telling you the difference to that.

Yes, I did. Showing the reactions shots to Joker's threats didn't hinder the the cut throat pace of TDK's climax.

No, you really didn't. I agree the reaction shots were fine, but I was fine that Nolan decided not to do the same. And by the way, TDK was really the only film of the trilogy to do this. Batman Begins didn't really tell Gotham's emotions either. Not as much as TDK.

What too many things? Name the too many things was going on here that vastly out numbered TDK's?

Vastly outnumber TDK? Didn't say anything about being vastly outnumbered, but that the audience had to see the more important characters dealing with their own situations.

All main characters, save for the patrol officer. Name a movie that excludes it's main characters from reacting to the main story lol.

All main characters that are more important than a regular joe, lol.

That's a matter of taste in music. This is a movie made by the same man who made the previous two movies, and always invested his movies in Gotham City as much as he did the main characters whom the story was all about.

Nolan makes a big production of how important Gotham is, how the people need inspiration whether it's via him or Harvey Dent, and in order to make all of this work he took the time to show us the kind of people that populate Gotham, what they think of these characters and events that shake up their city.

Didn't you feel the despair of Gotham when you watched Begins thanks to seeing characters like Chill, the Narrows kid, the homeless man, D.A. Finch, Flass, Judge Faden etc? All characters that showed the state of Gotham City and it's horrid situation ranging from the corrupt to the desperate.

TDK's Gotham is self explanatory. It was rife with personality. Then you come to TDKR, where Gotham is presented with a situation that they've never faced before. Did Ra's or Joker take over their city? Expose their White Knight as a fraud? Their Commissioner as a liar? Free inmates on their streets? etc. Was the murderous Batman back from an 8 year hiatus?

No. These were all new elements and situations for Gotham's people. Why you think it was unnecessary to see some kind of insight into how they felt about this is beyond me.

Furthermore the tension of the situation they were would have been amped up considerably if you SAW the tension and desperation the people were under in this siege. Showing them huddled up in buildings doesn't cut it. They were totally oblivious to the bomb threat. Another mistake.

I can't imagine a movie being made where the city was taken over by a terrorist, and they did not make the people a big part of the personality of the city.

I didn't feel the despair you speak of in Batman Begins. The Dark Knight greatly expressed Gotham's feelings, yes, but I did not feel the way you did with BB.

Yes, that's my point. Well done.

Not a great point when you say one story indeed covers an entire newspaper. Please check out your newspaper tomorrow to see if it covers just one story, lol.

You know full well my point is that the front page is about a recluse millionaire losing his fortune over the masked fugitive wanted for 8 years who killed the city's savior Harvey Dent.

In other words Batman's big return was never felt by Gotham.

A millionaire who lost his company's money that helped and flourished Gotham City for decades. So a hero who has only been around for 9-10 years and been in recluse for eight of those is rather more important?

You're absolutely right, that's why we're here. What I mean by a convincing reason is one that sounds plausible. Where is the plausibility factor in saying Nolan couldn't possibly have included this into his movie?

He could have included this, but I am fine that it simply didn't though. And I felt enough of Gotham's voice in TDKR, but I have already stated this in rather feeling fine with the cops and the orphanage being the voice in TDKR.

Right now? So you concede that later reactions would have been fine?

Never said it wouldn't have been fine later on. But that's it, it would've been fine, but it's also fine with what we got, imo.

Gotham was facing a whole new kind of danger and situation here. That's like saying we saw how Batman faces a threat to Gotham City, we don't need to see it again in this movie.

TDKR was a film that focused more on Bruce Wayne and had to have liberties taken where Nolan spent less time on Gotham's voice.

Neither was the Gotham situation in TDKR.

Dealing with a terrorist? Joker was a terrorist, albeit not the traditional one; Ra's al Ghul was a terrorist.

Tell me, Anno, after the Blackgate inmates were released, when were they ever seen or mentioned again? How big of a difference to Bane's overall siege do you think they made in terms of narrative?

The criminals had a huge helping hand with the kangaroo court as you can see it was the criminals escorting the people to the ice as they didn't have those red scarves as shown with the League.

Right, so why are you going on about the importance of Bane revealing the Dent lie in his siege when the Dent Act, by your own admission here, wouldn't make a bit of difference in Bane's siege.

The importance was destroying the biggest creation from the Dent Act, Blackgate prison, and the prisoners that were sent there from the Dent Act.

That's why Bane's plan never hindered on the Harvey Dent lie in the first place. He found it out by accident.

Of course he found it by accident, but it also re-fueled Bane's plan in getting the criminals on his side.

But we already knew why. That was said in the ending to TDK. If the truth about Dent came out Harvey's work would all be undone and Gotham would lose hope. Joker would have won.

What difference did Blake's words make to Gordon or the movie?

Blake's words on how it damaged the system by giving the blame to someone else and how it got Gordon's hands only dirtier. Someone had to tell this to Gordon.

That's your most unconvincing argument yet then. I can't imagine one person looking at that scene and thinking Gordon was looking sad because of the Dent lie and not because Batman was dead lol.

No offense, Anno, but I don't think even you believe that.

Once again, no offense taken. I don't know why you continue to say this, or try to act condescending, lol.

When I first saw that scene, I felt that Gordon was even more run down, realizing that the Dent lie destroyed both his and Batman's life but realizing that the real hero of Gotham City died too early into the career.

What many things did he have going on? List them, please.

Already said it the reply above.

Silly me for thinking Gordon looking sad while sitting at a statue unveiling of Batman when everyone thinks he's dead was because he thinks Batman is dead and not because of the Harvey Dent cover up.

How obvious.

Silly you for thinking that's the only reason he was sad while sitting there.

Yes, why not? It's just a thread. I'm not offering to buy an expensive car to prove a point.

Lol, it just seems all silly. It's like forums have their own politics as of late.

Remember you just said that. Which brings me to this question; what % of Gotham do you think is made up of rich people and Cops? Is it more than the rest of the classes of Gotham?

Hardly. They would be a small majority. So going back to the original point yet again, when Bane is addressing Gotham, he is addressing Gotham. Not just the poor, and certainly not the criminals. The criminals were not even a factor in the plan because as I've said several times now, the Dent lie was discovered by accident.

Again, I don't believe this. The TDKR I viewed was Bane having a plan that changed when he found out about the conspiracy around Harvey Dent.

Not once did I ever say he was after the poor. Don't know where you go that from...

You don't believe a chance that a class was singled out; Any class had to be singled out when Bane isn't going after the poor.

Considering they last about a minute each, absolutely lol.

I don't think so. I believe a trial a day was hailed as an event during this revolution of sorts.

Ahh, the end. Lol. Just so you know this took a hour to do while paying some bills tonight, haha.

 

[The Joker]

I know I've not contributed to this before, but the weren't even trials, guilt had already been determined. They were sentencing hearings, to which there were only two sentences: Death or exile. With most people choosing exile pretty darn quickly.

That's true. I had forgotten about that. Well there you go then. The so called sentencing was very quick and straight forward.

My last reply on this as I've said my views over and over. You can reply if you want yourself, but I'll be ending my half with this. It was nice talking to you about this Joker, but these replies are only getting longer and it's tougher for me to concentrate while working on other things every time I'm on this forum. I hope to discuss other topics with you later on, but on smaller terms, lol

You know what, you're dead right. I was about to start replying to you when I realized I'd just be doing what you said there; I'd be repeating what I have already said to you several times already. A sure sign a discussion has reached a stalemate or a climax.

Nice talking to you, too, Anno. You kept it nice. See you in the Spidey forums.

 

[Deserana]

TDKR IMO is not a messy inferior film, to me it is just confused. Seemed like Nolan couldn't quite find enough space for both strong big story and spectacle.

If the story revolves around a city being taken over you need to know how the city is reacting. Gotham IMO felt more like a city in TDK than TDKR. Gotham looks in good shape to me. The "Ghost town" thing is just a cheap excuse to me. We've seen Gotham reactions in BB and TDK a few examples being the BB dinner table scene (swimming pool), Police discussion in BB, Rachel and her lawyer friend, things working differently after Falcone's take down, Dinner table scene in TDK, Chaos in hospitals, Ferry scene, Chaos outside TV station, Pub with Engel's Joker speech, Army around with heaps of traffic and others. All these things no matter how big or small or whether you like them or dislike them build a city outside of Batman/Gordon/Dent/Alfred etc... yet in TDKR the city felt contained. I've said before that there were only about 3/4 reaction shots with people we don't know. And at NO POINT does anyone other than Blake/Gordon really get across that the city needs/wants Batman. It is as if the city doesn't care.

It is such a shame. I love the film, love the story/acting/ending almost everything but Nolan missed out on possibly the main thing that would have made the story exceptional. It is a strange choice to me as I can't help but think they must have watched the previous films before making this one so to miss out the citizens of Gotham just seems bizarre to me.

 

[jmc]

I've said this before but it's almost 2 films worth of story crammed into one movie. It's too big for it's own good. I have no doubt that this particular story could be done fantastically if time were permitted, but it's a story that needs longer than 2 hours 45mins to really hit the mark, 30 mins minimum. It saddens me that I can actually picture a better movie mentally in my head.

 

[Anita18]

I think Nolan spent enough time with actual story. The entire movie is pretty much narrative. They even went a little hog wild on the "hearing the first line in the next scene while the previous scene is still playing" trick to save time. We all got what the story was, nobody really has questions about the story.

What a lot of people wanted was more ambiance. Like sure, it would have been nice to see some ordinary people's feelings about Batman instead of just Blake and Mark the orphan. But it wasn't necessary to the story, so it had to go. What about the differing beliefs about the bomb and its trigger? Well, only Gordon and Foley's opinions were shown.

As for the class warfare thing, I think Nolan really spoiled us with TDK. We totally expect him to touch upon real world social implications with TDKR's themes, but it was actually BB's personal revenge scheme just taken up a notch. Bane tells us right out that's what he's doing, and people are still about the lack of real world social implications. Hey, the big baddie actually told us why exactly he was doing it! If it was any other movie, I think we would have accepted it and moved on, but because of TDK, most people here can't.

For me, the main point of TDKR was the catharsis of Bruce's journey, and judging by the i got the last time I saw it (today! Thank you $2 second run theater!), it did exactly what it was supposed to. The more times I watch it, the more I'm able to accept it for what it is, instead of being unfairly compared to TDK. They had completely different goals.

 

[Anno_Domini]

I don't understand the reasoning of saying it needed 30 extra minutes. That would defeat the purpose of the IMAX time limit. If you think it deserved two parts, say it should've been a hour longer or something for it make sense in having two parts.

 

[BlueLightning]

I think Nolan spent enough time with actual story. The entire movie is pretty much narrative. They even went a little hog wild on the "hearing the first line in the next scene while the previous scene is still playing" trick to save time. We all got what the story was, nobody really has questions about the story.

What a lot of people wanted was more ambiance. Like sure, it would have been nice to see some ordinary people's feelings about Batman instead of just Blake and Mark the orphan. But it wasn't necessary to the story, so it had to go. What about the differing beliefs about the bomb and its trigger? Well, only Gordon and Foley's opinions were shown.

As for the class warfare thing, I think Nolan really spoiled us with TDK. We totally expect him to touch upon real world social implications with TDKR's themes, but it was actually BB's personal revenge scheme just taken up a notch. Bane tells us right out that's what he's doing, and people are still about the lack of real world social implications. Hey, the big baddie actually told us why exactly he was doing it! If it was any other movie, I think we would have accepted it and moved on, but because of TDK, most people here can't.

For me, the main point of TDKR was the catharsis of Bruce's journey, and judging by the i got the last time I saw it (today! Thank you $2 second run theater!), it did exactly what it was supposed to. The more times I watch it, the more I'm able to accept it for what it is, instead of being unfairly compared to TDK. They had completely different goals.

Quoted for truth!

 

[Tequilla]

I think Nolan spent enough time with actual story. The entire movie is pretty much narrative. They even went a little hog wild on the "hearing the first line in the next scene while the previous scene is still playing" trick to save time. We all got what the story was, nobody really has questions about the story.

What a lot of people wanted was more ambiance. Like sure, it would have been nice to see some ordinary people's feelings about Batman instead of just Blake and Mark the orphan. But it wasn't necessary to the story, so it had to go. What about the differing beliefs about the bomb and its trigger? Well, only Gordon and Foley's opinions were shown.

As for the class warfare thing, I think Nolan really spoiled us with TDK. We totally expect him to touch upon real world social implications with TDKR's themes, but it was actually BB's personal revenge scheme just taken up a notch. Bane tells us right out that's what he's doing, and people are still about the lack of real world social implications. Hey, the big baddie actually told us why exactly he was doing it! If it was any other movie, I think we would have accepted it and moved on, but because of TDK, most people here can't.

For me, the main point of TDKR was the catharsis of Bruce's journey, and judging by the i got the last time I saw it (today! Thank you $2 second run theater!), it did exactly what it was supposed to. The more times I watch it, the more I'm able to accept it for what it is, instead of being unfairly compared to TDK. They had completely different goals.

Totally agreed. Everything in the movie is about Bruce's journey and his catharsis.

But the thing is Nolan brilliantly develops everything tangent to Bruce and his actions. Even the city reflects upon Bruce's state (and develops through the emotional stages. From the peaceful but rotten , to a city broken apart and in complete apathy (frozen ) ending in a much brighter environment when he Rises). Nolan gives us everything we need to know about Gotham , with different visual cues . Its much more brilliant than using random reaction shots in bars or creating typical fodder characters , spending unnecessary time. The movie brushes irrelevancy , like developing the fake propaganda by Bane (the importance is the social context of his action , not the ideology and how it collides with random characters in Gotham)

This is masterful filmmaking. Not only visually , but the writing is nothing but tremendous. Comick book movies are not supposed to be this good. This is a whole new level of comic book adaption (and he had already put the bar so high)

 

[Fudgie]

Seemed like Nolan couldn't quite find enough space for both strong big story and spectacle.

If the story revolves around a city being taken over you need to know how the city is reacting. Gotham IMO felt more like a city in TDK than TDKR. Gotham looks in good shape to me. The "Ghost town" thing is just a cheap excuse to me. We've seen Gotham reactions in BB and TDK a few examples being the BB dinner table scene (swimming pool), Police discussion in BB, Rachel and her lawyer friend, things working differently after Falcone's take down, Dinner table scene in TDK, Chaos in hospitals, Ferry scene, Chaos outside TV station, Pub with Engel's Joker speech, Army around with heaps of traffic and others. All these things no matter how big or small or whether you like them or dislike them build a city outside of Batman/Gordon/Dent/Alfred etc... yet in TDKR the city felt contained. I've said before that there were only about 3/4 reaction shots with people we don't know. And at NO POINT does anyone other than Blake/Gordon really get across that the city needs/wants Batman. It is as if the city doesn't care.

Nolan missed out on possibly the main thing that would have made the story exceptional. It is a strange choice to me as I can't help but think they must have watched the previous films before making this one so to miss out the citizens of Gotham just seems bizarre to me.

I've said this before but it's almost 2 films worth of story crammed into one movie. It's too big for it's own good. I have no doubt that this particular story could be done fantastically if time were permitted, but it's a story that needs longer than 2 hours 45mins to really hit the mark, 30 mins minimum. It saddens me that I can actually picture a better movie mentally in my head.

Quoted for truth. Awesome posts.

I think Nolan spent enough time with actual story. The entire movie is pretty much narrative.

So was Begins and TDK. He still got to make the people of Gotham part of his story. He failed to do that in Rises. Gotham was dullsville. The siege was rushed.

 

[Anita18]

So was Begins and TDK. He still got to make the people of Gotham part of his story. He failed to do that in Rises. Gotham was dullsville. The siege was rushed.

Only TDK managed to do that. BB was pretty self-contained, like TDKR was.

I like to think of TDKR as BB shot like TDK.

 

[Deserana]

But BB still had moments where Gotham reacted to Batman. Only in a few scenes but it was still there.