The Dark Knight Rises The Official Rate/Review Thread for TDKR (TAG SPOILERS!!!) - Part 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Or he could've easily changed his history a little bit to make it fit the movie and the comics, finding a middle term. Make him an orphan, parents also died because of crime...It could be implied he was part of the Circus in his childhood...There's so many ways to deal with it that's better than what we got. What we got was RISO. Robin in spirit only. Had Nolan butchered Bruce's origins, renamed him too, would you feel ok? Same concept applies to any character in Batman's universe.

He did that with all the characters in this franchise expect Robin. They all in a way followed the comics...
 
Last edited:
But if the goals are now twisted that demands it be brought to attention otherwise it smacks of contradiction. It's not even implied her interpretation of her fathers goals are corrupt, it comes across as the exact opposite of those goals.

Talia is a psychotic terrorist whose father was killed while on a mission. She wants to complete the mission and seek revenge plain and simple. She's merely using the LOS mission statement as an excuse, as a way to try and justify her actions. Bane is a psychotic mercenary who was kicked out of the LOS for being evil and too ruthless (something they stated many times). Talia and Bane's league of shadows was not the same as Ras'. One was lead by a man who wanted to do good, but was misguided. The other was lead by a mad man and a woman obsessed with finishing her fathers work/avenge his death. It IS a contradiction, but an intentional one.

2. The way Bane’s back-story was handled. Instead of having Alfred tell Batman about Bane right away there should have been more mystery around the character. Bane should have revealed his back-story to Batman as they were fighting and when he dropped him off in the pit.

No, I think we needed to know how messed up Bane was prior to their fight. There was already enough exposition during their fight, and we still learned stuff about Bane when Bruce was in the pit. I do think Alfred's revelations about Bane was a little rushed, almost a blink and you miss it moment, but aside from tat, I think they handled it well.

3. On a somewhat related note: Batman should have been forced out of retirement by the actions of Bane. It was strange to me that Batman was on the scene right way Bane made his first attack on Gotham because Alfred told Bruce about Bane. It would have been more powerful if Bruce had to choose between standing on the sidelines or coming back as Batman even though he was not prepared as Gotham was being slowly taken over.

But that's what Bruce did...there was even a big fight with Alfred about whether to sit on the sidelines or go back out as batman, all because of Bane. Learning that a mad man with an army is out there about to do some damage is something I would consider as Bane "forcing" Bruce to don the cowl again.

4. The Miranda Tate one night stand scene didn’t really fit in. Perhaps they could have tried to build a back-story between them, that they had been working on the clean energy project for the last couple of years and grew close – this would have made it even more powerful when she turned on him.

I think this was stated in the movie a few times.

Selina Kyle somehow knowing about Bane and where he was located.
Selina worked for Daggart. Daggart worked for Bane. They established that Selina was resourceful and not an idiot, if she hadn't heard of Bane directly from Daggart in one way or another (if memory serves me, I think it was insinuated that she did, it was atleast made clear that she had contact with bane prior to the sewer fight based on how they looked at each other when she "delivered" Batman), she could have done some sleuthing to learn more about her "client" Daggart, or even heard whispers or rumors of Bane from the Narrows as people where joining his army in the sewers.
 
Last edited:
Or he could've easily changed his history a little bit to make it fit the movie and the comics, finding a middle term. Make him an orphan, parents also died because of crime...It could be implied he was part of the Circus in his childhood...There's so many ways to deal with it that's better than what we got.

He did that with all the characters in this franchise expect Robin. They all in a way followed the comics...
So did he. He had a bit of every Robin in him.
 
No. He would be "butchering" if he named the character after a Robin from the comics, because then he would be putting a name to a character that is nothing like a comic counter part. Just think of John Blake as a fifth Robin.

No, what did Blake do to earn the Robin title? He supposedly cracked Wayne's secret - not sure if they considered how incompetent this made Gordon and the entire police force look if a kid did it and they couldn't - and he drove Wayne home. Aside from that he shared no screen time with Wayne other than the very end, which is way too late for Bruce to amend his will to include Blake in it.
If you want to see Robin done right, read the Tim Drake origin - What on earth was the point making a 30yr old Robin? They really didn't need him to be a cop, he could have just bee one of those 16yr old kids who no longer had a home in the orphanage, this was ridiculous.
 
I didn't like it. I guess its better to leave it be and end this discussion because it wont go anywhere.
 
No. He would be "butchering" if he named the character after a Robin from the comics, because then he would be putting a name to a character that is nothing like a comic counter part. Just think of John Blake as a fifth Robin.
I like this theory and it makes sense too, hearing people gripe over minor quibbles is just redundant, this is Nolan's version of his take on Batman which has been successful to the point that WB were brave enough to let a Hollywood director to make such changes on a 70+ year old icon.
 
No, what did Blake do to earn the Robin title? He supposedly cracked Wayne's secret - not sure if they considered how incompetent this made Gordon and the entire police force look if a kid did it and they couldn't - and he drove Wayne home. Aside from that he shared no screen time with Wayne other than the very end, which is way too late for Bruce to amend his will to include Blake in it.
If you want to see Robin done right, read the Tim Drake origin - What on earth was the point making a 30yr old Robin? They really didn't need him to be a cop, he could have just bee one of those 16yr old kids who no longer had a home in the orphanage, this was ridiculous.
Exactly. If he was supposed to have a successor and have a character that acted exactly like Robin, why not give us the full character then?!? This made no sense. It was ridiculous.

Robin in spirit only is the same as Robin in name only. Both are extremes that don't work, imo.
 
No, what did Blake do to earn the Robin title? He supposedly cracked Wayne's secret - not sure if they considered how incompetent this made Gordon and the entire police force look if a kid did it and they couldn't - and he drove Wayne home. Aside from that he shared no screen time with Wayne other than the very end, which is way too late for Bruce to amend his will to include Blake in it.
If you want to see Robin done right, read the Tim Drake origin - What on earth was the point making a 30yr old Robin? They really didn't need him to be a cop, he could have just bee one of those 16yr old kids who no longer had a home in the orphanage, this was ridiculous.
I've read the Tim Drake origin thank you very much. And what does age have to do with this? The character is shown to share the same will to act as Bruce. That's all he needs in this universe.

I didn't like it. I guess its better to leave it be and end this discussion because it wont go anywhere.
Fair enough. Good debating with you though.
 
Had Nolan butchered Bruce's origins(Which he did to some extent), renamed him too, would you feel ok? After all, what matters is the spirit right? Names don't matter. Same concept applies to any character in Batman's universe.

I think there's a limit with the liberties you can take with a character.
 
How so?? Which Robin did he have in him and how? And I'm not counting about all of their ages added up... :huh:
This is a quote from a big Robin fan btw:

I feel like there were pieces of all of them.

Dick Grayson: Cop. Orphan. Idealistic and a touch naive.

Jason Todd: A bit of an angry streak (especially in his youth), and a bit of a hot head. Orphan.

Tim Drake: Deduced Bruce Wayne was Batman. Inspires Batman to keep going, proves to Bruce that the city "needs" Batman ("I still believe in Batman"). Blake/Drake.

Damian Wayne: Use of deadly force (despite him later despising himself for it).

But there is definitely a connection to each of the Robin's in his character and I have to say -- I liked it much more than I originally thought I would. I love that they were able to honor Robin in this trilogy -- even if he didn't suit up (that we see).

-R
 
So? He could've easily made Grayson fit his universe. He just chose not to. Why? Because he could and not because of flaws in the character in the comics. A simple update would've been enough just like he did with all the characters in the franchise.
 
Had Nolan butchered Bruce's origins(Which he did to some extent), renamed him too, would you feel ok? After all, what matters is the spirit right? Names don't matter. Same concept applies to any character in Batman's universe.

I think there's a limit with the liberties you can take with a character.
Completely different circumstances. For the most part, this character was John Blake. It just so happened he was this universes version of Robin. The character was original so no liberties needed to be taken.
 
That's the point though. The character John Blake IS NOT original. It already exists in the comics and serves the same purpose: Of being a worthy successor and having the will to act against injustice.

Nolan made it look like he was original but he wasn't. Why? He just wanted a stupid twist in the end to make everyone feel like...oh....cool...but it made no sense of why he didn't use Robin as we know in the first place. Its like done to make him feel smart or that he is playing with you when in the end, it is plain ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
This is a quote from a big Robin fan btw:

You do realize this is really clutching at straws don't you??
Everyone would have dismissed this as nonsense had another director done this, but because its Nolan, most people are fine with it because there's obviously a valid reason for this... well each to his own, you like a 30yr old Robin, I don't - thank you very much.
 
You do realize this is really clutching at straws don't you??
Everyone would have dismissed this as nonsense had another director done this, but because its Nolan, most people are fine with it because there's obviously a valid reason for this... well each to his own, you like a 30yr old Robin, I don't - thank you very much.
Well, you were the one clutching at straws, but fair enough.
 
Nolan said that there'd never be a Robin in this franchise. But in the end, Nolan needed a way to show that Bruce had done his job, that Batman had truly become everlasting as a symbol and more than any one man, that it was a mantle that could be passed, much like the antithesis of Ras and the League of Shadows. Blake was his way of showing that. Having his name be revealed as "Robin" was nothing more than a nod to the character for the fans, not an attempt to rewrite or ruin Robin.
 
You know what? I'm sick of seeing posts from maniacs who accuse people of nitpicking or being haters because they didn't give Rises a 10 out of 10. Why can't those people just accept other people's opinions without ******** accusations on why some didn't like the movie or liked it but thought that it had a ****load of flaws? Why must I and other posters go through the same ******** everytime one of these films come out? Criticize one or many things and you are called a hater? I especially hate it when it's directed towards me when it comes to these films because I never thought that these films were perfect and I've always criticized them, especially Batman Begins. You know what you crybabies who criticize us non Nolan Zombies, I will always honestly review a movie and that means talking about the warts, if you don't like it don't read my goddamn post.

PS
This is why people hate Batman fans. I forgot why I stopped visiting this place. I need to go back to the Superman Boards, there is less venom there.
 
Nolan said that there'd never be a Robin in this franchise. But in the end, Nolan needed a way to show that Bruce had done his job, that Batman had truly become everlasting as a symbol and more than any one man, that it was a mantle that could be passed, much like the antithesis of Ras and the League of Shadows. Blake was his way of showing that. Having his name be revealed as "Robin" was nothing more than a nod to the character for the fans, not an attempt to rewrite or ruin Robin.
Why not? It definitely ruined for me. I totally don't understand how Robin as we know couldn't fit that purpose if it he serves exactly the same goddamn purpose in the comics. And also add a bit of much more needed humor and innocence to Batman's story.
 
Last edited:
This isn't the comics. I never want the films to be the comics. No superhero film will ever be the comics.
 
...It's still a comic book film no matter how you slice it.
 
Why not? It definitely ruined for me. I totally don't understand how Robin as we know couldn't fit that purpose if it he serves exactly the same goddamn purpose in the comics. And also add a bit of much more needed humor and innocence to Batman's story.
Because in the comics, robin is a 15 year old (give or take) kid. Are you really saying that you think seeing a kid running around kicking ass would fit in Nolan's take on Batman? Batmans story, especially Nolan's take isn't about innocence and "golly gee, Batman!" humor.

To each his own, but even when you consider the comics, I think Batman running around at night fighting the worlds worst, most sadistic and dangerous villans with a revolving cast of kids at his side is freaking stupid.
 
So just because it's a movie it can't be a more faithful representation? Am I supposed to accept a character and name change to a very important character in Batman's mythology just because a successful director says so? I really don't understand the concept.
 
So just because it's a movie it can't be a more faithful representation? Am I supposed to accept a character and name change to a very important character in Batman's mythology just because a successful director says so? I really don't understand the concept.
I think it's faithful enough and gave proper justice to the character. You obviously don't and I respect you opinion of that. I'm just trying to say that it doesn't make me any less of a batfan, like you said a couple of posts ago. I've given my reasons why I think it makes sense in the universe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"