The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - - - - - - - Part 143

[BatLobster]

Tom's performance is what made Bane come to life. You could believe in a whole history there, and felt like you understood how his mind worked...just from his manner of speaking and body language. The second best villain performance in the trilogy IMO.

 

[Victarion]

While Bane and Talia did not engage Bruce on the level that the Joker did, I feel they had far more in common with Bruce. Bane was rescued from the same place as Bruce. Ra's didn't favor Bane like he did Bruce. We're first told he was too extreme for Ra's. Then Talia says Bane's only crime was the he loved her, but reminded Ra's of where his wife died. It sounds as if Bane was too extreme for Ra's in that he brought his pit fighter methods to the League's training. As I have said before, Bane wanted revenge against Bruce for throwing away the chance to become heir to the League.

Talia, like Bruce, never moved on from her father's death. Much like Bruce, Talia had her deathwish. In the end, Bruce rose above that while Talia didn't.

 

[BatLobster]

^ That's a good point. During Talia's death scene you can she that she's obviously taking glee in the fact that she is dying a "hero's" death by completing her father's work. I really love that Bruce's ultimate victory in the film is in choosing life over "a good death". Powerful stuff.

 

[JackWhite]

Whether or not we ever get a director's cut of TDKR, I at least hope Bane's origin scene sees the light of day eventually.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Whether or not we ever get a director's cut of TDKR, I at least hope Bane's origin scene sees the light of day eventually.

Was it even shot?

 

[BatLobster]

^ According to Lindy Hemming, there was stuff shot with Bane training with the LOS in the prototype mask. I would imagine this stuff would have only been shown in quick flashes during the Talia reveal scene, but was cut out for whatever reason. I think the screenplay supports that, but not 100% sure.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Stuff that I would want to see in a director's cut most likely didn't get filmed

Examples: The Mayor talking about bringing Batman down after the hero's return, the crowd tossing rotten food at Gordon during his sentencing.

 

[Victarion]

I think Bane in his prototype mask would fit in where that quick shot of Ra's is, during the flashback when Talia says "my father saw only a monster"

 

[ThePhantasm]

^ According to Lindy Hemming, there was stuff shot with Bane training with the LOS in the prototype mask. I would imagine this stuff would have only been shown in quick flashes during the Talia reveal scene, but was cut out for whatever reason. I think the screenplay supports that, but not 100% sure.

Yeah, I remember her saying she was "surprised" it wasn't in the film.

 

[BatLobster]

Man...if you're a fan of TDKR, don't ever waste your time reading through user reviews on Netflix like I just did. A lot of venom there. So many one star ratings, saying it's too long/boring/dark. There's a few more intelligent criticisms, but there's a lot of really uninformed stuff there. As if people didn't see the first two movies and just decided to rent it because it was Batman, having no idea what they were in for. A lot of people bashing the whole trilogy too.

I can deal with people complaining about the plot, or Bane's voice, whatever...it's deeply frustrating when I see people saying this film is just dark for the sake of being dark and is just depressing and nihilistic. It's like they just paid attention to Bane and ignored Bruce's whole arc in the film.

 

[ThePhantasm]

What kind of person takes the time to write a Netflix review anyways?

 

[Snow Queen]

Man...if you're a fan of TDKR, don't ever waste your time reading through user reviews on Netflix like I just did. A lot of venom there. So many one star ratings, saying it's too long/boring/dark. There's a few more intelligent criticisms, but there's a lot of really uninformed stuff there. As if people didn't see the first two movies and just decided to rent it because it was Batman, having no idea what they were in for. A lot of people bashing the whole trilogy too.

I can deal with people complaining about the plot, or Bane's voice, whatever...it's deeply frustrating when I see people saying this film is just dark for the sake of being dark and is just depressing and nihilistic. It's like they just paid attention to Bane and ignored Bruce's whole arc in the film.

Netflix has some of the worst ratings for movies I've ever seen. Not sure if the ratings are the same in the American version as the Canadian version but I saw Tremors rated 5/5. I mean, WTF?

And remember, any time something is dark, that means it's just for the sake of it and not because the story calls for it. TDKR needed more colours and Whedon jokes to be good.

 

[BatLobster]

What kind of person takes the time to write a Netflix review anyways?

Precisely what I was wondering, lol

Netflix has some of the worst ratings for movies I've ever seen. Not sure if the ratings are the same in the American version as the Canadian version but I saw Tremors rated 5/5. I mean, WTF?

Yeah, it's pretty atrocious honestly. Some of it seems like borderline trolling, at least with the 1 start ratings. And I hate to sound snobby, but you can tell there's a lot of people on there who aren't really "movie fans" as such, and approach it more from a ... "my husband and I watched this last night and we ended up falling asleep halfway through. The plot was kind of hard to follow, the bad guy was hard to understand but Anne Hathaway made a pretty good Catwoman"...perspective.

Admittedly, being caught up in the bubble of geekdom and internet fandom, sometimes it's easy to forget that not everyone is going to approach the movie with the same kind of reverence and affinity. If one little thing rubs them the wrong way that could easily be enough to sour their whole perception of the movie. Especially a really long movie like TDKR that asks you to engage to fully get everything it has to offer.

Yeah, it's definitely not gonna be everyone's cup of tea. But it's still kind of shocking to see people calling it the worst Batman film ever made in a world where we have Schumacher's films.

 

[Anita18]

^ That's a good point. During Talia's death scene you can she that she's obviously taking glee in the fact that she is dying a "hero's" death by completing her father's work. I really love that Bruce's ultimate victory in the film is in choosing life over "a good death". Powerful stuff.

I also find it fascinating that Nolan's trilogy seems to say that having a superhero vigilante is actually NOT a good thing. Especially with TDK and TDKR. (BB was pretty idealist and comic-booky in its "Yeah Batman is a hero wooo!" rhetoric.)

In TDK, Batman's actions cause the very situation that allows Joker to gain his power through the mobs' desperation. And it's arguable that Joker would not exist if Batman didn't exist. He questions Batman's reason for being.

In TDKR, Bane and Talia (as well as Alfred) point out Bruce's reason for being Batman and how unhealthy it is. That it's too much responsibility to bear on just one person's shoulders, especially someone as damaged as Bruce. He draws his very identity of being heroic. What happens to Blake is yet to be seen, but we do get the idea that he doesn't base his entire identity on being THE hero. He just does the right thing when he can. That's what he can offer to Gotham. Whereas Bruce has the capability of offering so much more and chooses to be Batman and put himself through all that pain instead. At the end, when he turns Wayne Manor into an orphanage and gives Blake the tools he needs to continue to do the right thing, he's finally stepping aside and giving other people the resources to do good. That's what society needs - the opportunity for good people to do their work. Not one superhero who's going to save the world all by their lonesome. Because it's simply too much responsibility.

 

[craigdbfan]

I also find it fascinating that Nolan's trilogy seems to say that having a superhero vigilante is actually NOT a good thing. Especially with TDK and TDKR. (BB was pretty idealist and comic-booky in its "Yeah Batman is a hero wooo!" rhetoric.)

In TDK, Batman's actions cause the very situation that allows Joker to gain his power through the mobs' desperation. And it's arguable that Joker would not exist if Batman didn't exist. He questions Batman's reason for being.

In TDKR, Bane and Talia (as well as Alfred) point out Bruce's reason for being Batman and how unhealthy it is. That it's too much responsibility to bear on just one person's shoulders, especially someone as damaged as Bruce. He draws his very identity of being heroic. What happens to Blake is yet to be seen, but we do get the idea that he doesn't base his entire identity on being THE hero. He just does the right thing when he can. That's what he can offer to Gotham. Whereas Bruce has the capability of offering so much more and chooses to be Batman and put himself through all that pain instead. At the end, when he turns Wayne Manor into an orphanage and gives Blake the tools he needs to continue to do the right thing, he's finally stepping aside and giving other people the resources to do good. That's what society needs - the opportunity for good people to do their work. Not one superhero who's going to save the world all by their lonesome. Because it's simply too much responsibility.

Great post.

As for Batman Begins I think that's pretty much the point. There's a certain amount of naivety in Wayne's mentality when setting up the Batman persona in Begins. That bit is carried on through TDK and we see the mass repercussions of both his actions as Wayne and Batman unfold onto almost every single person in Gotham whether they be the most prominent players (Dent, Gordon, Dawes, and The Joker) or just some petty drug dealers fearing the Bat signal.

It's quite amazing actually.

 

[Anita18]

Great post.

As for Batman Begins I think that's pretty much the point. There's a certain amount of naivety in Wayne's mentality when setting up the Batman persona in Begins. That bit is carried on through TDK and we see the mass repercussions of both his actions as Wayne and Batman unfold onto almost every single person in Gotham whether they be the most prominent players (Dent, Gordon, Dawes, and The Joker) or just some petty drug dealers fearing the Bat signal.

It's quite amazing actually.

I also find it quite mature for TDK and TDKR to carry the ramifications of the storyline before it in such an affecting manner. It's really about consequences. Well, among other things obviously, but the focus on consequences is so very different from other superhero movies. Note that the lie about Dent doesn't actually affect the plot in TDKR directly. Bane and Talia would have went ahead regardless, and finding out about it is just icing on the cake. But it affects the plot indirectly because it causes Gordon to make rash decisions in his paranoia. The guilt has affected him, and not in a good way. Same with Bruce.

The trilogy asks, what if Bruce gets his wish and becomes a successful superhero vigilante? What does that mean for society? What does it mean for people who support Batman? What does that mean for him? None come out unscathed, because there's always a price for having so much power and responsibility.

 

[BatLobster]

Great posts Anita. TDK and TDKR definitely ask some hard questions about the impact of someone like Batman on society.

And it's all set up early on, starting with in the epilogue of Batman Begins. If Batman is going to attract loonies to Gotham, what does that mean about his crusade?

And then the end of TDK sets us up for TDKR. If Batman is willing to sacrifice the very intention of the symbol he created in order to preserve hope for Gotham, what will be ultimate cost for a Bruce Wayne who is already damaged and is currently without a plan to live a normal life?

Then TDKR goes a step further and asks, what if he got what he wanted and his actions have finally led to Gotham cleaning itself up? Does evil just disappear? How does the inherent good in humanity triumph over some of the evils, or undesirable truths inherent to society?

Tough questions for sure. Ones that can't be answered by Batman punching evil in its stupid face (as Kevin Smith likes to say), though that doesn't make it any less satisfying when he does.

 

[Anno_Domini]

After thinking about the trilogy, I am amazed how Nolan is able to reveal the Dent lie and still make sure the criminals don't get away because of the reveal by having all of the Blackgate inmates becoming part of Bane's army and in the end they are still going to be sent back to prison because of that.

 

[BatLobster]

There's definitely some sense I get from TDKR that Bane's revolution was somehow a necessary part of Gotham's eventual growth. It's like if Gotham can rise from that, they can rise from anything.

 

[shauner111]

There's definitely some sense I get from TDKR that Bane's revolution was somehow a necessary part of Gotham's eventual growth. It's like if Gotham can rise from that, they can rise from anything.

This is very true now that i think of it. Even if Joker were to escape for example, or a new mob guy starts building his little empire, i think they now have Batman in their hearts and the whole "Bane occupation" in their minds. This new stuff will have NOTHING on what they experienced during those months in TDKR.

Even if we don't see the people standing up for the city during the crisis, i think it's fine to assume (and not a crime) that they'll be able to handle things better on their own from now on, and say "we dont have Batman anymore, now it's our time to step up". It may be an assumption but when you think of all the crap they went through, especially towards the end with Bane? You best believe Gotham can handle anything.

That's why the ending speaks volumes with Blake. He's there incase and we don't have to see a spinoff because even if he were to suit up, it wouldn't need to be for a long time. The people and the police can find the courage to take care of everything like any other city does.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Seeing regular citizens standing up for the city or not during the crisis isn't really a big deal when the city's police force did in the very end. In the beginning, we had a police force that seemingly worked hand in hand with the mob or just turned a blind eye on the mob, whereas now, they were with Batman to the end and they were Batman's army. And after that, I doubt anyone would assume the GCPD will be as they were back in the BB days anymore.

 

[shauner111]

Exactly, and that's amazing. When you look at them during Begins and then at the end of Rises..that's a huge progression. It lets me believe that Gotham may not need a vigilante at night whatsoever. "Will" is the most important thing and Batman (and in alot of ways, Banes actions) have inspired the police to stick together and become one in fighting evil.

 

[Mad Love]

There's definitely some sense I get from TDKR that Bane's revolution was somehow a necessary part of Gotham's eventual growth. It's like if Gotham can rise from that, they can rise from anything.

I thought Bane's revolution was staged by his men.

 

[shauner111]

Revolution or not, what happened during that time with Bane controlling the city and the people..it seems like it was necessary for Gothams citizens to grow and learn from it.

 

[BatLobster]

On top of that, there were plenty of disgruntled Gothamites who willingly joined Bane's cause/army unaware of the eventual plans for Gotham. For the people of Gotham on both sides of it, it was real because they lived through it.