It's not so much that I need an explanation. It's the fact that Bruce was stripped of everything but somehow without Alfred or anyone else he gets back home safe and sound. After everything he went through in this movie with Bane breaking him and eight years on a cane I'm really supposed to believer he made it back without a struggle? It took some of the lust off of Bruce's journey at that moment. BB showed Alfred picking him up to take him back to Gotham, a small scene like that here would not have slowed the story down at all.
As a matter of fact, it would've been a nice callback if Alfred was somehow able to pick him up again. Then they have a scene on the plane, and Bruce suits up, jumps out of the plane, and glides into Gotham.
What I mean by manufactured drama is drama that doesn't add anything to the overall narrative other than brief "Oh no!" moments that fall apart on subsequent viewings. Foley is totally not as great an example as the Gordon death thing from TDK, I'll give you that.
What of Blake? I felt he coopted the narrative in a way that detracted from Bruce's journey.
I failed to see the purpose in following him so much.
I've discussed and analyzed Blake with so much in the Blake thread, so you can head there if you want to discuss it.
If there's no Foley and marginal Blake, I think it gives you breathing room for more Bruce and Gordon. If this is the end, then that's what makes sense to me.
How about my opinions on the Alfred infodump on Bane? I think withholding his LoS connection until the sewer fight would've been much more dramatically effective. It also undermines the LoS in my mind if everyone seems to be able to so quickly find out who they are.
Sometimes too much of something isn't a good thing, IMO. Bruce was definitely the focus of the film (with Blake the biggest subplot), but the sporadic nature of scenes showing Bruce and Batman made them have a greater impact, at least to me. The fact that he wasn't around for the whole film was cool because it makes you WANT him to return, you WANT him to succeed and overcome his pain. When he does return, he hardly leaves the screen until the final montage.
And yeah, Alfred explain the LOS connection to Bruce. I like that whole part of it because it showed that Bruce was nowhere near the state of mind he needed to be in and Alfred knows this, pleading with him not to go out there. He was too eager to get out there, too overconfident. He was immersing himself in a new "mission" but wasn't prepared for it in the way that he should have been. The thought of Bane defeating him never crossed his mind, and he thought little of an "excommunicated" member of the LOS. He was clearly wrong. I don't think Bane verbally telling Batman about the LOS for the first time would have been much better than what we got.
That's why the middle portion of the film is about Bruce regaining his focus, clearing his mind and falling back into the right mindset. He must essentially learn to be the Batman again, which he does.
It would have worked a lot better if Bane had been the one to reveal the League of Shadows connection during their battle and his great line about "Initiation". Would have felt more like a mystery and a surprise.
Alfred could still have known that Bane was a mercenary, and had some ties to shady dealings, but it wouldn't have felt so forced, and would have allowed Bane's mystery some time to breathe and develop.
And yeah, Alfred explain the LOS connection to Bruce. I like that whole part of it because it showed that Bruce was nowhere near the state of mind he needed to be in and Alfred knows this, pleading with him not to go out there. He was too eager to get out there, too overconfident. He was immersing himself in a new "mission" but wasn't prepared for it in the way that he should have been. The thought of Bane defeating him never crossed his mind, and he thought little of an "excommunicated" member of the LOS. He was clearly wrong. I don't think Bane verbally telling Batman about the LOS for the first time would have been much better than what we got.
That's why the middle portion of the film is about Bruce regaining his focus, clearing his mind and falling back into the right mindset. He must essentially learn to be the Batman again, which he does.
I think you can still have Alfred imploring Bruce without the LoS stuff told. They're watching him on the stock exchange footage. Alfred sees the threat.
To me, it would've been great (and required no plausibility issues with Alfred seemingly knowing too much) to have Bruce be like. "It's a mission, yay!" like you mention, then when he starts to get his ass kicked, you get Bane laughing and saying "You think I'm just a man? I am the League of Shadows!"
Prime example of a dismissive post. I'm getting really tired of stuff like this.
Not once have I told someone they were being compliant or blind to the movies problems because I realize that would be a foolish thing for me to do. Not everyone is seeing this the same way and that's perfectly fine.
When people relegate legitimate complaints about flaws others had with the film to "nitpicking" it's not better than what I mentioned in the former.
To me, it would've been great (and required no plausibility issues with Alfred seemingly knowing too much) to have Bruce be like. "It's a mission, yay!" like you mention, then when he starts to get his ass kicked, you get Bane laughing and saying "You think I'm just a man? I am the League of Shadows!"
As a matter of fact, it would've been a nice callback if Alfred was somehow able to pick him up again. Then they have a scene on the plane, and Bruce suits up, jumps out of the plane, and glides into Gotham.
Exactly! This is Bruce's journey and this was the pivotal moment of the movie. Gotham's hero returns to save his city after being broken mentally and physically and thrown in a jail cell. It deserved all the screen time and buildup to make it all the more epic.
Instead he escapes and just shows up back in Gotham. sorry but it had a very "meh" feeling for me.
Then what was the point of[BLACKOUT] introducing that limp in the first place?[/BLACKOUT]
I'm with you on this one. I liked the film but wow, there are some narrative decisions that are questionable and some that almost betrays the first two movies. [BLACKOUT](Alfred's absence, Gordon's family leaving him? What? He looks pathetic here.)[/BLACKOUT]
On the subject of Gordon, I was once thinking about the consequences for him and his family after TDK, and I always thought that Barbara will leave with the kids after the Harvey Dent ****.
Your explanation wasn't what I took issue with. It was you calling my feelings on the [BLACKOUT]leg brace[/BLACKOUT] "nitpicking".
But let me actually respond to your reasoning...
...of the leg brace. If their intention was to just show that it was made so he could just walk again without the cane then they would have just shown us the scene where we see him walking again normally.
Instead they decided to add that super powered kick that was able to break through a brick wall. In that moment they established that the piece of machinery gave him strength akin to that of his arm brace he had in the beginning of TDK to bend one of the Bat imposters gun.
That's a good instance of showing a tool at work. In the case of TDKR it served no purpose to show that this contraption gave him the ability to break through concrete if it wasn't going to be applied later in the film.
Regardless of whether or not Bane let him keep it doesn't atone for the fact that he didn't somehow use this leg brace to help him one up Bane in the final battle.
Now THATS an interesting thought. Joker creating chaos within Gotham's chaotic state to ruin Bane/Talia's plans. He Would have kinda been Batman's ally.
On the subject of Gordon, I was once thinking about the consequences for him and his family after TDK, and I always thought that Barbara will leave with the kids after the Harvey Dent ****.
Yea. This is how I feel. It's like you really had to see Batman Begins and The Dark Knight back to back to really get the full effect of what the film is striving to say.
I agree it's a Batman Begins Sequel with The Dark Knight as it's catalyst.
IMO
Can someone please explain something about the leg brace to me - when did he kick through a brick wall with the leg brace? I don't seem to recall that part... Did they ever mention it adds more strength as well?
Can someone please explain something about the leg brace to me - when did he kick through a brick wall with the leg brace? I don't seem to recall that part... Did they ever mention it adds more strength as well?
It happened literally seconds within it was first introduced to us. We first see him able to walk normally with. He then has quick back and forth with Alfred and then kicks one of the rocks or brick walls within the Batcave and completely demolishes it.
That to me definitely shows it amplified his strength as both of the past movies never showed Batman having super human abilities of being able to break through solid rock/concrete objects. The one time we do see him bending the barrel of a shotgun rifle is in TDK and it actually shows the arm brace contraption in effect.
Can someone please explain something about the leg brace to me - when did he kick through a brick wall with the leg brace? I don't seem to recall that part... Did they ever mention it adds more strength as well?
Your explanation wasn't what I took issue with. It was you calling my feelings on the [BLACKOUT]leg brace[/BLACKOUT] "nitpicking".
But let me actually respond to your reasoning...
...of the leg brace. If their intention was to just show that it was made so he could just walk again without the cane then they would have just shown us the scene where we see him walking again normally.
Instead they decided to add that super powered kick that was able to break through a brick wall. In that moment they established that the piece of machinery gave him strength akin to that of his arm brace he had in the beginning of TDK to bend one of the Bat imposters gun.
That's a good instance of showing a tool at work. In the case of TDKR it served no purpose to show that this contraption gave him the ability to break through concrete if it wasn't going to be applied later in the film.
Regardless of whether or not Bane let him keep it doesn't atone for the fact that he didn't somehow use this leg brace to help him one up Bane in the final battle.
It happened literally seconds within it was first introduced to us. We first see him able to walk normally with. He then has quick back and forth with Alfred and then kicks one of the rocks or brick walls within the Batcave and completely demolishes it.
Haha, it wasn't meant to be actual dialogue, more like that is how you would feel. Which is pretty much how it goes down already. I'm just saying having it also be the reveal would be nice.
Already knowing he's LoS is less dramatically effective.
Honestly, dude... I know you like this silly film, and God bless you. But you're reaching now.
You asked me if I criticize the film's sense of realism by "...complaining about the lack or realism."
No. That's not it at all. What I point to is the film's complete lack of consistency in the "realism" that it does present. Mixing exaggerated comic book characters with hyper-realism makes them both seem contradictory to each other and out of place relative to each other.
You ask if i have not read a Batman comic book in the last 15 years... Yet you point to "Knightfall" (which is a story line from 2003) an an ideal basis for Nolan's latest cinematic mess.
The truth is I have read these Batman tales... even some of the most recent ones... for all my life. I've read them all. And probably like YOU, i like some of them, and others not so much.
For the most part, I find the stories of contemporary Batman continuity have been hit and miss. I do not just automatically accept a contemporary Batman story as "good" simply because it's recent. Hell, I didn't even do that when i was a regular monthly reader of Batman back in the 1990's. I'm a little more discerning than that. And I admittedly do NOT prefer some of the changes that have been inflicted upon this character over the last 15 years or so.
I don't have an "outdated" perception of the Batman mythos (as you suggested). But perhaps YOU have a ridiculously limited one that only accepts the recent portrayals of the character as relevant.
And no, I did NOT think The Dark Knight Returns was a dumb read. But i also do not consider it to be some kind of a Batman bible that everything should be based on either.
And again, i find it mildly amusing that you attack me for not having read a Batman story in the last 15 years (which is completely un-true) and yet you keep citing classic Batman tales from BEFORE that time period (Re:"The Dark Knight Returns" (1986)).
Perhaps YOU are the one who should "try and keep up".
When i refer to the level of "fun" that is missing from these Nolan films, I am NOT talking about the neon-lit color of a Joel Schumacher film NOR the idiotic campiness of "Pow" and "Bam" from the 1960's.
I have absolutely NO INTEREST in that.
The thing I always find so annoying about this debate is the belief that somehow those are the only two interpretations that exist in Batman mythos.
That somehow they are mutually-exclusive.
The truth is I couldn't care less for 1960s campiness in The Batman mythology. For me, that stuff stopped being relevant somewhere around the late 1970's when I turned about 12.
But I also cannot stand the other extreme where the comic book fantasy element is so completely drained out of what should be a slightly warped comic book world.
"No Man's Land" and "Knightfall" depict that slightly warped comic book world I'm talking about. Maybe YOU should read them again. They were NOT at all hyper-real as Nolan's Bat-universe depicts. "The Dark Knight Rises" feels NOTHING like those classic tales. And I suspect that Chuck Dixon, Doug Mench, Denny O'Neil, Alan Grant, Greg Rucka, Scott Beatty, Paul Dini, Bob Gale, Devin Grayson, Kelly Pucket, (and the host of other writers who's names escape me) would be insulted at your inference that this film bears any resemblance to their seminal works in terms of tone.
Surely some depiction of The Batman exists in the middle between ridiculous "Pow"and "Bam" and a Batman who speaks like he has a piece of sandpaper stuck in his throat while he yells "Where is he!!!!!!!!" like a moron.
I grew up enjoying tales like "The Killing Joke", "Batman Year One", "Batman Full Circle", "Batman Son Of The Demon"... to me these are the types of tales that have the sense of classic gothic menace and dread that work for me in a Batman story, and yet are not so heavy-handed that all of the fantasy is drained out of them.
The "fun" I refer to is NOT 1960's camp. It is the sense of heightened adventure and pathos that could ONLY exist in a comic book.
BUT
... if you must DO AWAY with that exaggerated comic book approach... if you are only going to embrace a "hyper-realistic" world (based on our own) where ONLY the known rules of physics, common sense, and logic apply, then you cannot reasonably have your hero survive a friggin' NUCLEAR BLAST that he was flying underneath of and not even bother to explain how he managed this!
You cannot have an entire police force of THOUSANDS of Gotham City police officers living in the sewers of the city for friggin' 5 months!!!
These types of things DO NOT mix well with "hyper-reality" in my view.
I'm glad that your audience clapped, and cheered, and generally seemed to enjoy your screening. That's great.
My audience, however, seemed VERY split right down the middle. They either loved or hated it... and there was NONE of the accolades that you refer to from YOUR audience. Just so you know, I do not live in some small town somewhere where audiences don't react to movies. I live in New York City, and I saw this film last night with a nearly sold-out audience at the 6:45 PM showing of the city's finest auditorium The Ziegfeld Theater... which seats 1,300.
By the way, you don't know me NOR any of the people I was with when i saw this film. I don't appreciate being called "uninteresting" just because I don't get all fan-boy gaga-giddy over the same mindless explosions and car chases that you do.
I find this film to be a COLLOSSAL BORE for what I think are very valid reasons. Those reasons are mine. If you don't agree with them, this is fine. But they are my opinions. And being disrespectful of me for expressing my opinion is NOT going to get me to consider your viewpoint any more seriously.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
