Did you even read what I just wrote or quoted it simply to make some kind of pointless comment to show your support for the film?
It's the latter. He says it to everyone who posts an opposing opinion against TDKR, but you'll never catch him telling the defenders that they are just posting opinions, too.
I've never said I hate The Dark Knight Rises just that I felt like it was grossly inferior, and just kind of a messy film. Like many point out: just too much going on. Too many characters I'm not sure I cared about, too many characters I did care about getting shafted for screen time, too much character development that got rushed into one or two knee jerk scenes, which is all fine from an entertainment perspective. It's a bit like being taken on a really dangerous cab ride through NYC. However I just can't watch that, and the previous two and say "oh, well that's better then the other two".
I couldn't have put it better myself. That was a huge problem with TDKR. Great characters we did care about did not get enough screen time (Selina, Alfred) or interesting things to do (Gordon). Then we had to suffer dull characters like Foley taking up precious screen time.
I would argue that TDKR isn't on the same level as the other two. BB and TDK are head and above all other movies in the genre
BB- Did a great job of showing why someone would want/need to become a masked hero in the first place. People who don't even like movies in the superhero genre love this movie for a reason. It's definitely not a perfect movie, but it is by far the best superhero origin movie of all time
TDK- Best superhero movie ever. Manages to show the real life consequences of being a superhero, never has their world felt so real. Great villain, great performances, good writing, BB made me a Nolan fan, TDK made me a Nolan stan.
TDKR- Certain decisions like the 8 year absence can be excused, not showing the populace cannot. TDKR fails at the very thing its predecessors succeeded so marvelously at, making us care about the thing the hero is fighting for (the city of Gotham). I would not have gave a damn if the bomb had gone off in TDKR, yet I was tense as hell when watching that ferry scene in TDK. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it is a failure on Nolan's part that there is more tension/intrigue in a finale where only a few hundred people might die than where an entire city might be annihilated. The villain's motivations are cliche and boring, their plan is stupid and contrived.
What most of the people who think the hate for the movie is excessive don't get is that the criticism is coming from fans of the trilogy. Neither BB nor TDK were perfect movies, and they were completely different type of movies so people who say we were were expecting TDK part 2 are incorrect. I loved BB and TDK and will continue to think they are the best superhero movies ever, I am thankful to Nolan for the first two. But I was very dissappointed by the last entry
Very well said. BB was rife with Gotham persona who were NOT main characters;
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.
To paraphrase what someone else said; 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 to convey Gotham's state. 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 taken 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. At NO POINT does anyone other than Blake/Gordon and that orphan really get across that the city needs/wants Batman. It is as if the city doesn't care.