Discussion in 'The Dark Knight Rises' started by Thread Manager, Jan 7, 2013.
Cringe away... Many other people feel differently.
I certainly would have loved a little more Selina, but I honestly was pretty content with the screen time for all the other main characters. Everyone had their moment to shine.
Foley's role would have been more effective he had a moment with Bats, inspiring him to lead the charge and then actually show him die. His revealed death was one of the unintentional comical moments along with Talia's death.
You'd think Foley was atrocious with what you can read in the last two pages, but he really wasn't. I think people wouldn't have minded the character much either if he had more screen time to actually develop his arc from someone trying to one-up someone else to be scared of some tyrant to being hopeful of the guy he tried to take down earlier, but the character of Foley had the short end of the straw as there were many other characters that needed most of the time for TDKR. Once again, since Nolan didn't want to give the film two parts, imagine what the film would've been without IMAX; even guys like Foley would probably not even be an issue.
Bunch of hotheads in here.
Exactly. I'd gladly have cut him out of the movie entirely.
That's the Foley in No Man's Land right?
I'd rather have more Selina time in place of Foley's.
He was. One of the worst characters in the trilogy. A complete idiot at his job, too.
Did you not see where I said exactly that
Eh, Foley was bad but if anyone was going to lose screen time it should have been blake. I mean foley was in for what 4 minutes? Why is he even being talked about?
A character's incompetence is not a flaw of the writing if that is part of the point of the character. The police force had become bloated, complacent, cocky. Foley was there to give a face to that. He was an opportunistic d-bag, who is able to achieve some small measure of redemption due to the restored power of Batman's symbol. To have the same character who was hunting Batman be the same guy who is later inspired by him was a good way to show how radically things have changed in Gotham from the end of TDK to the climax of TDKR. The relationship between Batman and the law/Gotham has been in constant evolution throughout the trilogy, and this is a pretty important part of the last stage of the transformation.
We can take shots at the execution all day, but if you simply removed Foley from the film, it has a domino effect on themes that IMO would hurt more than it would help. Once a screenplay is written you can't just pluck things out willy nilly without having to make much deeper changes. That is why I consistently find most of the criticisms leveled at this film are a result of wanting a different movie altogether. And some people openly concede that- which is a totally valid and fair position to have, as long as it is acknowledged. Removing Foley would have this effect to a lesser degree, but things like removing the LOS and Talia or losing the 8 year gap/Dent Act would completely change the entire fabric of the film to the point where in my view, it would be a different film...not "TDKR with tweaks".
Agreed. I don't really like to go down the road of pretending my ideas based on the actual movie are better but part of me can't help but wish that in the 8 years, we got a montage through time of Bruce as Bats on the run from the cops fighting the rogues gallery leading up the eventual clearing of the streets and the Dent Act. It would clear up so many issues with the plot for me, it would have made more sense from a narrative point of view.
It would further illustrate Bruce's death wish that Alfred hints at. He has been waiting for someone like Bane to come and finally stop him.
It would have explained why Bruce is so worn down at the beginning. The movie could still start out with a recently retired Batman, maybe a year into retirement who won't move passed it. One year is fine for Alfred to let Bruce mope around but 8?
There was that comical TV clip of Bruce at the doctor inter cut with his fights. Would have been a great place to show how he got specific wounds in the the 8 year gap. Hit in the head by Riddler's cane. Shot by Black Mask...etc. Some might not like the idea of cameos like that but I think it's enough to allow Gotham to seem much bigger and fully realized than it feels by the end of TDKR. It leaves more room than the "confirmed sightings" line as far as room to imagine Bat's adventures we didn't see.
It would explain why all these kids know who Batman is even though he hasn't been active in their lifetime.
It would have made good on the promise of TDK which involved Bruce being lost in Batman and "taking it" as Gordon implies.
It would have fixed my only real flaw with the trilogy: he was Batman for too short of time. It's nitpicking, I know but Batman and his awesome rogues gallery is a huge part of his appeal for me.
A little blog I made showing some of the things that have been taken from Nolan's Batman movies and used in the comics, or in Two Face's case in Arkham City.
TDKR is not featured because as of yet I haven't seen anything taken from it and put in the comics or anything else Batman related. But it's early days.
I hear where you are coming from JDonalD. I kind of wish they'd just do another "Gotham Knight" type of animated movie, or even a prequel comic that fills in the gap a bit. Have it set during the first few months after the events of TDK. We'd see Gotham dealing with the aftermath of everything that happened, the political dealings that lead to the creation of the Dent Act and some rogues popping up and trying to fill the power vacuum (Black Mask/Penguin) Batman would be working from the shadows, trying to prevent organized crime from rearing its ugly head and becoming uglier. Batman and Gordon are still working together secretly.
Then once the Dent Act is created, maybe they're able to put away whichever rogue Batman had been pursuing and Bruce slowly starts to realize he's not needed.
I really wish something like that would come along, but I doubt it. I've never written fan fiction but I'm seriously considering trying something. I have some rough ideas for a Bane/Ra's/Talia one too.
There's just such perfect story in between TDK and TDKR which would show the evolution of crime after the Joker, the rise of the "freaks" trying to fill in gap the mob left behind. Batman having to work to take them down without the help of Gordon and really milking the strained relationship between the two of them now. I imagine the Dent Act could have been created to really stamp out the freaks, thus making Batman obsolete.
The editing of Foley's death makes him just another casualty of the war. We can only assume thousands died under Bane's rule and the way they edited to his death makes us feel indifferent. They could have should shown every cop dying, but why? He's just a commoner. Nothing else.
Modine/Foley was fine and speaking of Loeb, I've always enjoyed 'the goddamn Salvation Army' line in BB for some reason. t:
I confess I'd also like to see an adaptation similar to Gotham Knight, but more in tune with the canon of this trilogy.
Also, the bold part sounds interesting. I'd definitely be curious to read what you have in mind.
No, but bland, uninteresting, borderline silly writing and a portrayal of a character certainly is.
I can see how they could have become those things, but where in the film does it ever actually imply this, or pose this as an issue? The police force seemed fairly on top of things, especially given the 30 seconds it took them to track down the missing congressman once his phone was used.
Yes, but I fail to see how stating the obvious about butchering an existing script means anything with regard to the quality of the character itself.
Batman could easily have been chased by Random Cop Number 1, any of Foley’s roles and plot point moments could have been filled by Random Cop Number Anything. He wasn’t a compelling enough character for his “choice” to really matter in the end. Remove him and the same themes would likely apply. The only theme relevant to Foley was the political angle, and any political angle introduced with Foley was quickly abandoned, as well as underexplored.
Wow, great points and it's refreshing to see someone demonstrate such a level-headed, well-informed view of the character rather than "Foley sucks!!!" or "More Selina instead of Foley!!". It's almost like people are acting as if Foley had moments dedicated soley to him on-screen. Let's not forget that in pretty much every one of his scenes, he is alongside a main character or other people.
I will say that as a character, Foley was not particularly well-developed, but it wasn't his purpose to be. We were not meant to learn all about Foley's innermost thoughts. We didn't need to see him interact with Batman. He serves his purpose within the context of the story.
At first, he represents the way most of Gotham would have felt about Batman, otherwise known as "the guy who murdered Harvey Dent (our hero) and a bunch of cops in cold blood". However, after the city learns the truth about Dent's murder...and after months of living in terror, Batman returns to Gotham with his symbol publicly emblazoned for Bane and his army to see. Batman was showing that the city wasn't going to go down in flames without a fight. Batman was not afraid of Bane and his army. This is enough to inspire Foley to come out of hiding and fight for his city, as I'm sure Batman inspired others.
I think the biggest misfire with Foley was his casting. Not the right actor for the role, IMO.
That's something that I have noted too. The expectations for this film were a lot different for many people.
I couldn't agree more. This very subject has been talked about by many people I know and EVERY single time the conclusion is same. Some people wanted a different movie and when they didn't get it they are unhappy.
We'll see if I ever get around to it. I've had a handful of ideas for Batman stories of the years but they always fizzled out for one reason or another. But lately I've been pretty keen to immerse myself in something like that because I'm feeling the post-Nolan trilogy blues and want to go back to that world.
Thanks, and that's another good point. It's not like he had an elaborate subplot of his own. His scenes tended to advance the plot, not slow it down.
Alfred is the one to refer the police as "bloated" in the film. It's hinted at in all sorts of ways. Gordon is made fun of by the congressman for being so vigilant ("Hasn't he seen the numbers?"). The way Foley turns a blind eye to the explosion in the sewer and doesn't send anyone down to rescue Gordon. I think the fact that they responded so quickly for the congressman speaks to the fact that it was Gordon still calling the shots and it was a case he had his eye on.
I should rephrase though. Obviously not every cop on the force had become the caricature that Foley was. But things were certainly slower than usual in Gotham, and they weren't at their sharpest as a result.
I just don't think the point of his "choice" was to get us to care about him so much as it was to allow us to witness the power of Batman's symbol over someone so seemingly unlikable and cowardly. So yeah, the ideas behind his character could have been spread across random cops throughout the movie, but by consolidating it into one character I think there is more gained than lost. The way the story is structured, with Gordon being hospitalized and the scale of the things that happen, we had to see who was out in the field calling the shots in his absence. Again, I don't object to criticism of the execution, I just don't think it's fair to say the character should not have existed in the first place. The character was a functional cog in the wheel of the story. Perfunctory? Maybe. That doesn't make it "atrocious", "terrible", "awful" or any of the other harsh words that have been thrown around.
The worst character of the trilogy was Jen. Anyone else, including Foley, may have needed more time, but he definitely wasn't so bad as others have said. I still stand by that.
If I did...would I have said that about Bullock?
Giving Blake any less time would take away the importance the character was supposed to have.
What was so terrible about her in her 2 minutes of screen time?
Rachel Dawes in BB.
^ Rachel Dawes in BB...or just Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes in BB? Lol.
You kinda answered it for you. A meaningless two minutes with no rhyme or reason to even be in the film nor even closure to her character. Never actually seemed like Selina's friend as Holly is and she just disappears during Selina's turning point while Bane's siege was going on. Just a horrible minor character to even bother to use. At least Foley made sense to be in TDKR and had closure. Something as closure is something is a must, imo.
That doesn't make her a terrible character. Just under developed. She didn't irritate or do extremely stupid things like Foley did.