Rate THE DARK KNIGHT RISES

[BH/HHH]

It's been nearly four years since the film came out, and I wanted to see what a hindisght consensus looked like. Plus, I wanted to see what some of the newer hype members had to say.

Also, I was tired of the "Rate Man of Steel" thread.

It's a good topic mate

And even though our opinions on MOS differ I agree as everything's been said that needs to be said in that thread lol

 

[Batmannerism]

It's been nearly four years since the film came out, and I wanted to see what a hindisght consensus looked like. Plus, I wanted to see what some of the newer hype members had to say, or hear opinions from people that don't really requent the Batboards.

Also, I was tired of the "Rate Man of Steel" thread.

Nothing wrong with that ! Given that Batman is about to appear onscreen again it's relevant to revisit his previous movies.

Sometimes a film, which was poorly received during its cinematic run can develop a new following when it's out on DVD. Alternatively, sometimes films which get good reviews when in the cinema virtually disappear after they leave the theatres.

TDKR was well received (87% on RT) and made a ****-load of money. It certainly hasn't disappeared for fans, as the discussion about it still continues.

As such, I think your interest in a hindsight consensus is a very reasonable one.

As for RTMOS well, it looks like it's kind of gotten locked into argument that go round and round and can never be resolved.

 

[Shikamaru]

It's been nearly four years since the film came out, and I wanted to see what a hindisght consensus looked like. Plus, I wanted to see what some of the newer hype members had to say, or hear opinions from people that don't really requent the Batboards.

Also, I was tired of the "Rate Man of Steel" thread.

That's a fair point, though personally I would have waited till BvS was out.

For me my opinion still hasn't changed, but I also haven't had it on my mind for about two years now.

 

[Batsfan1]

Before I respond I would like to apologize if the tone of the following sounds at all patronizing or condescending - I don't appreciate that kind of tone from other people, and try hard to avoid it myself. While I utterly disagree with you ( particularly given that a big part of Nolan's approach to Batman was to try and ground the films in reality) I still respect your opinion.


First, notice my use of the word "similar." i.e. a world similar to ours, but not the same, that appears to have many of the same rules - particularly with respect to physical injuries (at least at first).

Second, and more importantly, Nolan took great pains to make Batman believable, which is why there are so many scenes of Bruce putting the gear together, constructing the Batcave and all of Fox's explanations of how the tech works. If you get a chance you might check out interviews with Nolan he states that his goal was to make Batman realistic - not literal reality, but cinematic reality.

"The world of Batman is that of grounded reality. Ours will be a recognisable, contemporary reality against which an extraordinary heroic figure arises."

- Christopher Nolan.

read these:

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Why-Christopher-Nolan-Movies-Never-Like-Marvel-Movies-68542.html

http://www.ageekyworld.com/christopher-nolan-says/

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/batman-begins-films-christopher-nolan-1468058

I'm sorry, but I think Christopher is wrong. TDKT does have a grounded reality vibe, but if he really means that it's really grounded in reality, it's not.

BTW If you don't think flowers can make you hallucinate, well folks have been getting very trippy from poppy seeds for thousands of years, so that's hardly something that's much of a stretch on reality.

I was talking more about the flower making people specifically hallucinate their fears.

One of the better parts of TDKR was that it showed the accumulated injuries that Bruce had sustained - Nolan included that to make Batman (and the consequences of nighttime crime fighting) more believable. That those injuries could be overcome by a special knee brace...well okay maybe. That a damaged vertebrae can be punched back into place by some guy in a prison cell without causing serious harm to the spinal nerve column well that's a step too far.

Going back to TDK for a moment and Harvey Dent's injuries, 3rd degree burns don't hurt, because the nerve endings are dead. Could he run around doing all that psychotic stuff - possibly, although what's more unrealistic about that is that he does a pretty much 180 degree personality change after Rachel's death, he skips over mourning and goes straight on to full on psychosis. True Dent had a dark side, but even then he wasn't a killer - it's a bit much really - still somehow Nolan makes it work.

The movie specifically says that Harvey is in agonizing pain and not every part of his face has burnt away nerve endings. I'm sorry, but Harvey and Bruce's vertebrae are both ridiculous. It doesn't matter at the end of the day to what degree.

You put "the Joker" at the end of a sentence there, and I'm not quite sure what you were saying there. If you don't think terrorists or murderous clowns are realistic I wish I could say you were right - sadly, the truth (as in real world serial killers and terrorists) are much scarier than the Joker.

I remember when Silence of the Lambs came out, and it really creeped me out. Anyway, I told myself that nothing as horrific as that could happen in reality - and believed that until the stories surrounding Jeffrey Dahmer came out. It was then I realised that criminals in films (even in psychological thrillers) aren't nearly as horrific as real ones - real life is a lot scarier.

Is the Joker possible, hmmm..... could someone be that crazy. Well, I'm going to say yes, given the craziness I see when I turn on the news.

I was talking about what the Joker does and how he does it. There's a scene where the Joker blows up a bomb in one building and it knocks everyone out for some reason except for him as an example.

So, then we get to the bits of TDKR that are really unrealistic, so much so that they kind of bug me. First, Batman's escape from the blast - watch this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acX0DbBqXNI

we see him in the Bat roughly 10 seconds before the bomb goes off. Now given that the blast radius was 6 miles, even if he bales out with 10 seconds to go and glides using his cape how far could he get ? We see the detonation, which is clearly above the sea. Given the speed the blast wave and the radiation would travel, it's just not possible for him to get clear.

Even if he could glide at 360mph (which is the speed the bat would have been travelling to clear the city in the time it had) which is impossible for gliders, he still wouldn't reach safe distance.

As for swapping over to a different Bat, well when did that happen ? At 1:33 of the video we see him in the Bat (with bomb attached) press the trigger on his controls, at 1:34 we see an explosion (which is Batman blasting his way through the skyscraper). At 1:38 the Bat emerges from the flames. So unless Batman could swap to a different Bat in 5 seconds well........

It's an assumption that he glides. Same with the bat change. We have no idea how he escaped. He could have had an underwater batpod for all we know.

Anyway, despite all that I'm still glad he gets a happy ending.

As for your final question, I can only assume that you are asking why it doesn't work for a film to attempt to portray itself as realistic and then suddenly, jarringly drop that pretense.

I was asking why him ejecting from the bat doesn't work.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

 

[Batmannerism]

I'm sorry, but I think Christopher is wrong. TDKT does have a grounded reality vibe, but if he really means that it's really grounded in reality, it's not.

Yeah, what would Christopher Nolan know? I mean, he's only the guy who wrote, directed and produced the Dark Knight trilogy.

Normally, I would apologize for using sarcasm, but this time I think it's warranted.

Of course he doesn't mean it's real - although it's probably as realistic as Batman could get, while still remaining entertaining. What he's going for is realistic, rather than making it actually real.

I've already said this but here goes.....

The genius of Nolan is that so many other things in the trilogy are probably not possible, but he frames them in such a way that we suspend disbelief - and he does this by convincing us, as an audience that they may not be actually possible (like the memory cloth glider) but are at least theoretically possible - and that' s enough. But the suspension of disbelief remains a fragile thing, and he plays a bit too fast and loose with it in TDKR for my taste.

Now, plenty of things in TDK aren't real - you're correct, it's weird that the Joker is not incapacitated by a bomb blast that KO's everyone else at the MCU - although he did know it was coming.

It's an assumption that he glides. Same with the bat change. We have no idea how he escaped. He could have had an underwater batpod for all we know

Yeah, kind of my point he could glide all he liked but he wasn't going to cover 6 miles in 5 seconds. Unless he had a teleportation device or a supersonic jetpack he wasn't going clear the blast radius in the time allowed. Even if he ditched the Bat in the sea, it wasn't going to happen. Batman can do some amazing things, and his gadgets can do the near impossible but Nolan has the sense (usually) to not utterly have Batman wipe his ass with the laws of physics, and the boundaries of space and time.

For example, a number of people have spent time on the realism of Batman's gliding cape, apparently it's not the gliding that's the problem, but more the landing and not dying part that's tricky.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...tmans-famous-glide-result-fatal-injuries.html


http://mad-science.wonderhowto.com/...re-batmans-gadgets-dark-knight-rises-0138210/

http://theweek.com/articles/473883/dark-knight-rises-could-batman-really-survive-leap-skyscraper

So, while the gliding isn't utterly impossible, it's got some big problems, and that goes back to Nolan's genius - he takes something that's theoretically possible and sells it to us.

The movie specifically says that Harvey is in agonizing pain and not every part of his face has burnt away nerve endings. I'm sorry, but Harvey and Bruce's vertebrae are both ridiculous. It doesn't matter at the end of the day to what degree.

Actually degree is everything. If Harvey had a 1st degree sunburn it would be a very different issue. If Bruce just had a slipped disc, well that too would be different. It's the degree of injury that's precisely the problem.

In an earlier post, about my reaction to TDKR I mention the vertebrae issue. Now Harvey running around with half a face, I can live with - I can suspend disbelief, because it's possible that he could, for a short time, operate like that - different people can tolerate pain differently.
Bruce's back is a different story, interestingly the way Bane hurt him was different then the comics (which severed his spine). What Bane did in TDKR would have damaged his back and been incredibly painful (as someone who's had a minor back injury, I can attest to that). However, the method of repair is indeed ridiculous, I agree with you there.

IMO Nolan doesn't push believability as far in TDK (with the burnt face) but the spinal injury in TDKT (and some other stuff in that film) is a push too far for me, which is why I think TDK is a better film.

this is an interesting article on the issue:

http://www.thegeektwins.com/2012/08/is-dark-knight-rises-broken-back.html#.VpHwoLZ95dh


Sadly, I don't think our conversation can advance any further from this point. We will have to agree to disagree and move on. Regards.

 

[spiderman2]

Best CBM off all time and my favorite movie of all time!

 

[spiderman2]

I liked it all right, so I voted good. I liked John Blake, I thought Bane was pretty goofy, and Selina was decent overall but not what I would want from Catwoman (not that she really was Catwoman). I liked her better when she was pretending to be a maid or a bystander or when she was being normal than when she was putting on her "Catwoman" act, which isn't surprising because I never thought Hathaway was the right choice for the role. Bruce Wayne came off as ordinary through most of the film, far removed from the mystique of the Burton films and without the sort of development he got in Batman Begins. It was just guy fights badguy, guy gets beat up and tossed in a hole, guy gets better and climbs out of hole, guy fights badguy again. The Batwing was cool.

It was an enjoyable enough movie. It wasn't as big of a drop from The Dark Knight as that might make it sound, because at this point TDK isn't in my top 20 comic book movies. Batman Begins is near the top of the list, though, so each movie was a successive drop from the last.

Wow not having TDK in top 20 and not having TDKR is your top 20 either that is just . That has got to be a very unpopular opinion.

Its interesting to hear what others think outside of the dark knight rises thread. Also interesting to see how much love Batman Begins receives in here. I still think that might be the best Batman movie ever made. TDKR had some good moments. I thought Hathaway was ok. I thought Hardy was great as Bane (a character I never really liked) and never quite understood the voice issues others reported. Overall though, I felt the movie felt like a lot of left over ideas with rarely anything original

Hathaway's catwoman out side of joker I thought was the best acting in the trilogy. The movie also has the best soundtrack and action to. All 3 I love but I find TDK to be overrated and find TDKR to be better. The way I fell about TDKR is the way most people fell about TDK. I also find begins to be better then TDK has while. So I find TDK to be the worst of the 3 movies.

Dark knight rises 10
Batman begins 9.5
TDK 9

Something like that.

 

[Batsfan1]

Yeah, what would Christopher Nolan know? I mean, he's only the guy who wrote, directed and produced the Dark Knight trilogy.

Normally, I would apologize for using sarcasm, but this time I think it's warranted.

Of course he doesn't mean it's real - although it's probably as realistic as Batman could get, while still remaining entertaining. What he's going for is realistic, rather than making it actually real.

I've already said this but here goes.....

The genius of Nolan is that so many other things in the trilogy are probably not possible, but he frames them in such a way that we suspend disbelief - and he does this by convincing us, as an audience that they may not be actually possible (like the memory cloth glider) but are at least theoretically possible - and that' s enough. But the suspension of disbelief remains a fragile thing, and he plays a bit too fast and loose with it in TDKR for my taste.

Yeah and theoretically maybe Bruce's back injury wasn't bad enough for permanent damage. People get graced by God with that sort of thing sometimes.

You keep saying that he frames it in a way where we're able to suspend our disbelief. But apparently that's not true. I've looked at these things, thought they were ridiculous and not cared.

Now, plenty of things in TDK aren't real - you're correct, it's weird that the Joker is not incapacitated by a bomb blast that KO's everyone else at the MCU - although he did know it was coming.

Yeah, kind of my point he could glide all he liked but he wasn't going to cover 6 miles in 5 seconds. Unless he had a teleportation device or a supersonic jetpack he wasn't going clear the blast radius in the time allowed. Even if he ditched the Bat in the sea, it wasn't going to happen. Batman can do some amazing things, and his gadgets can do the near impossible but Nolan has the sense (usually) to not utterly have Batman wipe his ass with the laws of physics, and the boundaries of space and time.

How do we know his bat escape pod didn't have jets to cruise under water with?

For example, a number of people have spent time on the realism of Batman's gliding cape, apparently it's not the gliding that's the problem, but more the landing and not dying part that's tricky.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...tmans-famous-glide-result-fatal-injuries.html

http://mad-science.wonderhowto.com/...re-batmans-gadgets-dark-knight-rises-0138210/

http://theweek.com/articles/473883/dark-knight-rises-could-batman-really-survive-leap-skyscraper

So, while the gliding isn't utterly impossible, it's got some big problems, and that goes back to Nolan's genius - he takes something that's theoretically possible and sells it to us.

Actually degree is everything. If Harvey had a 1st degree sunburn it would be a very different issue. If Bruce just had a slipped disc, well that too would be different. It's the degree of injury that's precisely the problem.

I was actually talking about the degree of ridiculousness between the two things.

In an earlier post, about my reaction to TDKR I mention the vertebrae issue. Now Harvey running around with half a face, I can live with - I can suspend disbelief, because it's possible that he could, for a short time, operate like that - different people can tolerate pain differently.
Bruce's back is a different story, interestingly the way Bane hurt him was different then the comics (which severed his spine). What Bane did in TDKR would have damaged his back and been incredibly painful (as someone who's had a minor back injury, I can attest to that). However, the method of repair is indeed ridiculous, I agree with you there.

IMO Nolan doesn't push believability as far in TDK (with the burnt face) but the spinal injury in TDKT (and some other stuff in that film) is a push too far for me, which is why I think TDK is a better film.

this is an interesting article on the issue:

http://www.thegeektwins.com/2012/08/is-dark-knight-rises-broken-back.html#.VpHwoLZ95dh

Sadly, I don't think our conversation can advance any further from this point. We will have to agree to disagree and move on. Regards.

The entire issue appears to be one of opinion and taste. I don't look at this movie in a realistic way regarding anything other than there being reasons for why certain characters have certain things. So anyone looking at it in any other way is their prerogative because I never looked at many of those things as important.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

 

[stebbinsd]

I'm voting "bad," because I don't like Batman.

 

[Steamteck]

Wow! You thought the Dark Knight was abysmal? Would love to hear your thoughts on it?

I preosnally think TDK touches greatness myself, although it's still a flawed movie and one I think dragged towards the end.

Actually I also thought it was pretty awful but have also kind of burned out on debating it, so he's not alone

As the guy who loved MOS and hated TDK, I'm on the "wrong side" of the fence in lots of people's opinions. I thought Batman begins was pretty good though.

 

[BH/HHH]

Actually I also thought it was pretty awful but have also kind of burned out on debating it, so he's not alone

As the guy who loved MOS and hated TDK, I'm on the "wrong side" of the fence in lots of people's opinions. I thought Batman begins was pretty good though.

Hey it's your opinion buddy, MOS is my fave modern Supehero movie.

 

[BatLobster]

Hmm...78% of the vote is either Excellent or Good. That's not so bad for a movie that by most accounts is considered pretty divisive with fanboys. I think it just goes to show there are still plenty of people who are fans of this movie but haven't been as vocal about it as the detractors.

 

[AnneFan]

Hmm...78% of the vote is either Excellent or Good. That's not so bad for a movie that by most accounts is considered pretty divisive with fanboys. I think it just goes to show there are still plenty of people who are fans of this movie but haven't been as vocal about it as the detractors.

Yes. I'm a fan of the movie and think it has a lot more good going for it than bad. It's not all smooth sailing, but issues I may have had have since been reconciled, too. All in all, Nolan made a solid trilogy and that's a lot more than some people can claim.

 

[The Shape]

I love TDKR, despite its oft-stated flaws. I voted "Excellent" in the poll.

The film honestly sits somewhere between "Good" and "Excellent" for me now, but since there were no other options, I rounded up.

 

[Elevator Man]

I still believe TDKR is a good movie. It has it’s faults. I didn’t agree with some of the decisions and directions the Nolan bros. took with the story (The Dent Act nearly eradicating all crime in Gotham City and therefore forcing Batman into early retirement for 8 years, combining Bane and Talia’s origins, etc.), but I understand his reasoning behind those choices. I actually prefer this installment over Batman Begins, which is my least favorite of the trilogy. Though I‘ve come to respect Batman Begins more overtime especially looking at the trilogy as a whole. But overall the pros outweighs the cons I had with TDKR. Honestly overtime some of the issues I had with it doesn’t bother as much now as it did when it came out. I think it’s a good movie that will get better with age.

 

[BatLobster]

The thing with TDKR is I think Nolan is competing with himself, as in he was coming hot off the heels of TDK and Inception which are arguably the two most popular movies in his filmography even today.

For me though, TDKR, even if you want to call it the weakest of the trilogy (it's not for me), it still blows away most other modern big budget blockbuster movies including most other CBMs imo. And I mean blows them the hell away.

I think unfortunately, due to a perfect storm of factors- being not quite as impossibly great as its predecessor, not having Heath, the rise of Marvel's brighter tone in popularity/the beginning of Nolan backlash, the increased propagation of clickbait articles that list "plot holes" and explain why you're objectively wrong for liking a piece of art, and just general storytelling decisions that rubbed fanboys the wrong way, it's movie that fell into that dreaded vortex of being something that a lot of fanboys like to rag on. It became an easy target, whether you're a Marvel fanboy looking to bash something to prop up Marvel, or a DC Films fanboy looking to bash something to prop up the future films. It's a nice go-to thing to take shots a if you're looking to write off or downplay what the trilogy accomplished.

But honestly, what Nolan did- tell a complete story and end it on his own terms, it's something we've never truly seen in the genre and I'm not sure when we'll see it again. Leaving the obvious quality with which the story was told aside, you have to admire the integrity of wrapping up the trilogy and moving on, when WB would have happily signed big fat checks for him to make Batman 4-6.

 

[ThePhantasm]

I voted mediocre. TDKR's worst sin... its simply boring. I could overlook all its plot holes, as I tend to give comic book movies a lot of leeway in that area. But in terms of pacing, the plot just drags. It also bothered me that more interesting and dynamic characters like Gordon got limited screentime so that we could follow the adventures of - *yawn* - empty suit 2-dimensional John Blake. I found Hathaway's Catwoman rather meh... not awful by any stretch but just not a gravitational presence on the screen. She was just kinda there, a problem worsened by the fact that you could remove her from the film and have virtually no impact on the plot.

That being said, I enjoyed the heck out of Tom Hardy's Bane, definitely the highlight of the film for me. As for the rest, I'll just say this... TDKR is the only Batman film ever to make me fall asleep on the sofa.

 

[Slade W]

I think it is excellent for a superhero movie (it is my third favourite after Batman Begins and The Dark Knight), but only a good (or perhaps very good) movie.

 

[Quasimod0]

For me it is the weakest of the three. There are so many little things (and a few big ones) to nitpick that they all add up to too much for me.
I really had a great time watching it in the theater, but the more I thought about it the less I liked it. Still it is a good film overall, but not great.

 

[Dr.]

...But honestly, what Nolan did- tell a complete story and end it on his own terms, it's something we've never truly seen in the genre and I'm not sure when we'll see it again. Leaving the obvious quality with which the story was told aside, you have to admire the integrity of wrapping up the trilogy and moving on, when WB would have happily signed big fat checks for him to make Batman 4-6.

It’s been said (and I think there’s some truth to it) that if you like a movie, you pardon its flaws; and if you don’t like a movie, you complain about the flaws. But this bypasses the main question: what was it that caused you to like (or dislike) the movie in the first place - such that you’re inclined to pardon (or complain)?

Now IMO, your point about Nolan ending a Batman story might be one of those causes, an area of friction. Conventionally, superheroes exist in a perpetual present: they don’t age and their adventures are ongoing. So even if a movie doesn’t actually spawn a sequel, as long as it’s sufficiently open-ended, audiences assume that the hero continues in some hypothetical narrative space - continues to fight the good fight. TDKR, however, said the story (at least as it relates to Bruce Wayne’s arc) is over.

And it seems to be the case that a number of fans (though obviously not all) were disturbed by this closure. One fellow I discussed this with felt that a Batman who would quit or retire was a major violation against the mythos. Moreover, the notion that this was simply one author’s interpretation (an “elseworld” tale) or that the character would surely be rebooted soon enough (as he has - in BvS) was deemed irrelevant. TDKR had committed an unforgivable sin. And this attitude (arguably) is what inspires negativity towards other issues (which, in a different context, wouldn’t be considered significant).

 

[BH/HHH]

For me it is the weakest of the three. There are so many little things (and a few big ones) to nitpick that they all add up to too much for me.
I really had a great time watching it in the theater, but the more I thought about it the less I liked it. Still it is a good film overall, but not great.

Pretty much exactly how I feel

 

[JackWhite]

I still love the film, with all it's flaws and ludicrous 8 year gap, which still makes me shake my head at Nolan. The movie simply has too many good things going for it and IMO the good certainly outweigh the bad, even if the bad can be a head scratcher at times. It still has some of my favorite moments of the entire trilogy:

- Bruce making the climb
- Batman vs Bane round 1
- Alfred leaving Bruce
- Batman's return scene
- All the Bruce and Selina scenes
- The final 15-20 minutes

 

[JackWhite]

It’s been said (and I think there’s some truth to it) that if you like a movie, you pardon its flaws; and if you don’t like a movie, you complain about the flaws. But this bypasses the main question: what was it that caused you to like (or dislike) the movie in the first place - such that you’re inclined to pardon (or complain)?

Now IMO, your point about Nolan ending a Batman story might be one of those causes, an area of friction. Conventionally, superheroes exist in a perpetual present: they don’t age and their adventures are ongoing. So even if a movie doesn’t actually spawn a sequel, as long as it’s sufficiently open-ended, audiences assume that the hero continues in some hypothetical narrative space - continues to fight the good fight. TDKR, however, said the story (at least as it relates to Bruce Wayne’s arc) is over.

And it seems to be the case that a number of fans (though obviously not all) were disturbed by this closure. One fellow I discussed this with felt that a Batman who would quit or retire was a major violation against the mythos. Moreover, the notion that this was simply one author’s interpretation (an “elseworld” tale) or that the character would surely be rebooted soon enough (as he has - in BvS) was deemed irrelevant. TDKR had committed an unforgivable sin. And this attitude (arguably) is what inspires negativity towards other issues (which, in a different context, wouldn’t be considered significant).

I think most people had a beef with the 8 year gap and how Bruce just stopped being Batman immediately after TDK. I don't think most had an issue with Bruce finally finding peace at the end of TDKR. Bruce hanging out with Selina in Italy notwithstanding.

 

[batfreakforever]

I still think a lot of fans never got this film. Never understood it. I do. It fits perfect with other two.

 

[BH/HHH]

I still think a lot of fans never got this film. Never understood it. I do. It fits perfect with other two.

Yeah because it's about not getting it why people have problems with it. Pfft please