The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 145

[The Joker]

Your "more coherent, stronger story" was an active Batman that didn't retire for so many years in the beginning...I was fine with that, so I would say TDKR did have a coherent and strong story.

In other words you were happier with what you were given, as opposed to what we could have gotten. That's fine if you feel that way. That's not what I asked you. You're acting so close minded that you can't or won't entertain the idea that we could have gotten much better than what we were given.

People feel a much better story was possible than what we got. Looking at TDKR that is easy to see. Furthermore name one movie that disappointed fans where they don't offer alternative suggestions of what could have been done as opposed to what was done. TDKR is hardly the first movie where fans talk about that. That's a natural reaction. If people are unhappy with a movie because it fell short for them, they discuss ways it could have been better.

From the past of posters comparing it to TDK almost all the time and not by its own merit.

Where is this happening? The movie is criticized for what it is, and not for not being a TDK clone. I asked you to show me proof that most of these detractors are doing what you say, and you haven't given it. Considering you claim it's a predominant thing, you should be able to provide many sources of this.

But no, you give me some hearsay.

Just overlooked blindly is more like it because it goes back to the idea of TDKR not being the film some wanted. Plain and simple.

So you keep saying. When you start backing up this hearsay about all of these people, I'll take this argument seriously.

I hate when people try and speak on the behalf of others just to ease their own minds about why a movie they love gets criticized.

But okay, let's talk about quality...why should a film with "high quality" be the excuse of why flaws aren't criticized? I love TDK as much as the next Batfan, but I can call out its flaws in a heartbeat.

So does everyone else. It's not one set of rules for one movie and a different set for another.

It is both patronising and ignorant, frankly. There is nothing more annoying than being told what you think when the analysis is completely inaccurate and baseless. There is plenty of crap amongst the cream in TDKR. You do not need to view the movie with any presumptions or preconceptions in order to see it. The fact that BB and TDK were great films is not the reason we find TDKR to be somewhat mundane and disappointing: it is merely the reason we care.

Exactly

If nobody had been giving lots of valid reasons why TDKR fell short, I'd agree with this mentality. But that is far from being the case.

 

[Tequilla]

It makes no difference to me whether you loved the movie so much that you carry the DVD cover in your wallet. That's great. But your baseless assertions that it is somehow unique in the vast lexicon of Batman material is simply empirically wrong- you can find where every idea has appeared before.

Your name calling has come from nowhere, and it does you little credit.

Your first accused me (or maybe implied , to be a little less strong) of not knowing Batman legacy (when i was talking about the quality of the movie).

Then you said i cant remember it well (and that i claim to know it....)

And finalized it with , i didnt understand it.

Now the dvd cover in the wallet . And baseless assertions.

Do you really want to discuss anything ? I've answered all your posts previously fair and square and you kept bombarding me with these sort of stuff. Why such an arrogance ?

 

[The_Raganork]

I see it completely differently. It's not about Bruce Wayne, the billionaire playboy rising. It's about the human being that was lost the moment tragedy struck his childhood and cast a shadow over his whole life (including the empire and all that wealth), finally reemerging into the light and getting a second chance to live his life.

That's a nice way to throw what you'd like out of that scene in there but it actually doesn't do that does it?

He gets mauled by Bats right before the jump...it's all about Batman. There's no mention of the tragedy with his parents in that moment. 0. Everything you're saying is beautiful, don't get me wrong, but not at all presented in the film.

Bruce's motivation in that scene is to stop Bane, to train his body to be able to BEAT Bane. Nothing to do with owning the pain of his parents death or anything like that. That Brute force motivation is a factor of Batman.

That is why TDKR is the perfect conclusion to what was setup in Batman Begins. It's "the prestige"- it brings the thing we thought was gone, back. And yet, it makes good on the idea that the Batman symbol can be everlasting and allows Bruce to be more than just a man.

That is why the whole, "Bruce Wayne becomes the White Knight" idea was never going to work for this movie.

How can you possibly say it was never going to work. You can keep nearly the same exact situations and shift the ending slightly and have the White Knight ending with 99% of the same material in TDKR. Of course it could work

I also don't get why people are so fixated on the fact that Gordon and Batman "lie" again. First of all, Gordon isn't complicit in the lie this time. He truly thinks Bruce is dead when the city honors Batman, and he only gets a hint that he could still be alive. Second of all, they're not lying about who the real hero is this time, and that is important. I never wanted TDKR to have some broad, "Lying is bad mmmk?" message. That's obvious. But the world of Batman has never been of black and white moral absolutes. It lives in the grey. Both TDK and TDKRs endings are grey, but TDK's leans much darker where TDKR's leans more optimistic. But there's still a touch of the appropriate cynicism there, for a story that acknowledges that sometimes the structures fail us and we need things that can operate outside of them for salvation.

They LIE.

Lying is what got them in the place TDKR was in the same place. They failed to trust the Gotham people with the truth and again they decide to do that. Aside from being retreading old territory it's just not what these films presented themselves to be leading to.

 

[regwec]

Your first accused me (or maybe implied , to be a little less strong) of not knowing Batman legacy (when i was talking about the quality of the movie).

And I answered that point, too. I am not interested in disabusing you of your preferences: if you are one of the lucky few who feels that TDKR is the best marble in the Batman jar, then lucky you.

Then you said i cant remember it well (and that i claim to know it....)

And finalized it with , i didnt understand it.

Now the dvd cover in the wallet . And baseless assertions.

They're not assertions per se, just deductions based on the fact that, considered objectively, TDKR cannot be described as original or even unusual as a Batman story. Again, let me repeat that I don't think this is a bad thing: I like the comics and I like to see movies based upon them drawing heavily on the material.

The wallet comment was a bit of levity.

Do you really want to discuss anything ? I've answered all your posts previously fair and square

No, you have merely repeated variants upon "TDKR is the best, TDKR is unique" again and again while failing to offer any cogent justification. Again, if that's your opinion and that's that, then fine. But as an assertion of fact, the latter half of the construction doesn't stand up.

and you kept bombarding me with these sort of stuff. Why such an arrogance ?

Firstly, I am not 'bombarding' you at all- do not be so sensitive and defensive. Secondly, I don't know what you mean by 'why such an arrogance', but your belief in it seems to be drawn from the fact that we disagree, so I might similarly ask you 'why such an arrogance'. Not that I want to resort to an "I know you are, but what am I" exchange.

 

[BatLobster]

That's a nice way to throw what you'd like out of that scene in there but it actually doesn't do that does it?

He gets mauled by Bats right before the jump...it's all about Batman. There's no mention of the tragedy with his parents in that moment. 0. Everything you're saying is beautiful, don't get me wrong, but not at all presented in the film.

Bruce's motivation in that scene is to stop Bane, to train his body to be able to BEAT Bane. Nothing to do with owning the pain of his parents death or anything like that. That Brute force motivation is a factor of Batman.

It's my honest interpretation of the scene. It goes back to the whole issue of the kind of story TDKR is. You say it's superficial. For me it's highly symbolic. Things aren't always spelled out, but there are bucketloads of symbolism and subtext.

The entire pit is one giant metaphor for the well Bruce fell down as a child. The thing that represents where he was right before tragedy struck his life. The thing that defined fear for him. It's almost impossible to miss (they make sure of it by flashing back). It's impossible for me to see him climbing out of the pit as not representing the return of a man, and a man discovering the will to live again.

Bruce's motivation is to get out and save Gotham, yes (the fact that he calls it "my city" shows that he's still in touch with the Wayne legacy, and has been the whole time even as Batman). But it's the fact that he has to let go and embrace the thing he's been pushing back and trying to manipulate the whole time (fear) that makes him whole again.

I really don't feel I'm making stuff up. That is the movie I saw, that is why I get emotional when I watch the scene.

They LIE.

Lying is what got them in the place TDKR was in the same place. They failed to trust the Gotham people with the truth and again they decide to do that. Aside from being retreading old territory it's just not what these films presented themselves to be leading to.

Hoisting a murderous politician up as the city's one true savior and then allowing laws to be built in his name is what got the city into trouble. Not all lies are created equally. It has nothing to do with trusting or not trusting the people with the truth. It's about Bruce wanting to give them something more elemental to believe in. A hero can be ANYONE. It's Bruce's last wish as Batman. He wants to inspire the people to be better, but he also wants to leave the door open for someone to take the mantle should Gotham need a protector again. If he allows himself to be outed as Batman, that door gets closed forever.

Again, it's that balance of pessimism/optimism that makes it such a quintessentially BATMAN ending to me.

 

[Tequilla]

Your variation of Tdkr is bad , is horrible again and again in this boards , also fail in offering any cogent justification. But hype has this awesome feature. Post history. Discover it.

If you can't see how someone saying to another user that he doesn't know Batman story (when he has no idea who he's talking to) , that he doesn't remember , that he doesn't understand it , that he walks with the dvd on the wallet isn't arrogant......you can call me and deduct about myself whatever the hell you want.

I'l refrain from characterizing your discussion any further . I don't want to create any problems with the mod's.

 

[regwec]

Your variation of Tdkr is bad , is horrible again and again in this boards , also fail in offering any cogent justification. But hype has this awesome feature. Post history. Discover it.

If you can't see how someone saying to another user that he doesn't know Batman story (when he has no idea who he's talking to) , that he doesn't remember , that he doesn't understand it , that he walks with the dvd on the wallet isn't arrogant......you can call me and deduct about myself whatever the hell you want.

I'l refrain from characterizing your discussion any further . I don't want to create any problems with the mod's.

...not sure you really 'characterized' anything other than your keyboard, there.

Edit:

 

[Tequilla]

...not sure you really 'characterized' anything other than your keyboard, there.

Edit:

The day you speak and write my native language...make fun of my grammar and misspells . You have no idea what it is to be respectful. None.

Have a great day.

 

[regwec]

I am not making fun of any misspells, I assure you. Just pointing out that there is no need to be so...cross. Okay?

 

[Tequilla]

That's a nice way to throw what you'd like out of that scene in there but it actually doesn't do that does it?

You see , that's the thing. I had a very similar interpretation of the scene to the one BatLobsterRises wrote . So to me it also does it. It's right there on the film. If someone sees it entirely different , then i would say it's their fault. And you can say the same from mine's interpretation.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Rag has brought up some great points about how TDKR took Wayne and Gordon's character arcs in some unexpected, perhaps even inconsistent, directions.

In BB and TDK, Bruce initially views the Batman as a temporary fix to Gotham's woes. Nolan and Goyer have described not merely a duality to the character but a three-sided dimension. Batman is a facade, as is public Wayne - the real Wayne is the one only Alfred and Rachel know.

One could argue that Rachel's death in TDK spiritually injures the 3rd "real" Wayne to the point that he is absorbed by "the Batman" in TDKR. But this isn't what we see. Instead we see "playboy public Wayne" largely disappear in TDKR. Batman disappears too - Wayne gives it up. The only thing that still exists is "real Wayne." And he's a hollow man for some reason, despite the fact that Rachel's death did not emotionally and spiritually cripple him in TDK.

The idea is that "Gotham no longer needed Batman" and real Wayne didn't have a Rachel to move on with. But the "Gotham no longer needs Batman" premise is suddenly and startlingly undermined by Bruce passing on the identity to Blake. There's a sudden reversal. Gotham is healed but Wayne suddenly intends to keep the legend going forever. Its a thematic clash - did Wayne always intend for Batman to be temporary, or did Wayne always intend for "anyone to be Batman"? Gotham doesn't get the hero with a face that it was promised.

So what we have is a thematic muddle, with Wayne's character suddenly reduced to a duality that is an oversimplification of what we saw previously in the trilogy. His hope was always to inspire Gotham to fix itself, to inspire the people. Instead we see him inspire one man, John Blake, to fight for Gotham. We see little of Gotham's reaction, aside from the statue unveiling. Gotham City was a vibrant character in the first two films, whereas here, like Gordon, it is relegated to a small and ambiguous arc.

Oh, Gordon. He starts the film struggling with a lie and ends it embracing a lie. There's no arc there, he's basically there to teach Blake its okay to throw off the law's shackles. One of my favorite characters in the trilogy gets abandoned by his family with no resolution to that point, hardly interacts with Batman at all in the film, and ends the film brushing off the bat-symbol and looking around for his hero. It really feels like Nolan and co. didn't know what to do with Gordon's character in this film, because he doesn't really do much.

In the end we get a surface level resolution for Bruce. He moves on, with a hot girl. The "real Wayne" is ultimately self-effacing so that Batman's legacy can take the spotlight. And the Bruce of TDK, who told Alfred that he wished to inspire the people of Gotham, not create more Batman-imitators, passes the reigns off to some other guy to become Batman indefinitely. Which, I guess, in the end means Ra's was kinda right. Gotham is beyond saving. Its better off, but not restored. It still needs Batman, like a crutch. It never got a hero with a face.

 

[Tequilla]

One could argue that Rachel's death in TDK spiritually injures the 3rd "real" Wayne to the point that he is absorbed by "the Batman" in TDKR. But this isn't what we see. Instead we see "playboy public Wayne" largely disappear in TDKR. Batman disappears too - Wayne gives it up. The only thing that still exists is "real Wayne." And he's a hollow man for some reason, despite the fact that Rachel's death did not emotionally and spiritually cripple him in TDK.

Not for some reason. He's a hollow man because he has nowhere to go. His absence has Batman and failure as Bruce makes him like that. A crippled hollow man. When he gets to be Batman again he breaks that state. But he is still completely wrapped in rage and death. Entrapped in a different persona that dominates him. Rachel alerts him over and over about that.

Only after releasing is alter ego , he is finally is able to live on. His catharsis is his ability to escape that destructive persona that has lived in him since he saw his mother and father dying.

 

[Kane52630]

Please watch the third trailer for TDKR and ask yourself if you got <that> movie.

That's the thing, watch any trailer for any movie and see if that was the movie you got. Trailers always lie and it's never exactly what you had in your head when watching it.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Not for some reason. He's a hollow man because he has nowhere to go. His absence has Batman and failure as Bruce makes him like that. A crippled hollow man. When he gets to be Batman again he breaks that state. But he is still completely wrapped in rage and death. Entrapped in a different persona that dominates him. Rachel alerts him over and over about that.

Only after releasing is alter ego , he is finally is able to live on. His catharsis is his ability to escape that destructive persona that has lived in him since he saw his mother and father dying.

I mentioned that later in the post. The "for some reason" there is to indicate that this is an odd shift from TDK (where he doesn't have that reaction to Rachel's death) to TDKR (where he does). In TDK he can still function at Batman and as Bruce Wayne. In TDKR we find out he was unable to function as either. Its jarring.

 

[Tequilla]

I mentioned that later in the post. The "for some reason" there is to indicate that this is an odd shift from TDK (where he doesn't have that reaction to Rachel's death) to TDKR (where he does). In TDK he can still function at Batman and as Bruce Wayne. In TDKR we find out he was unable to function as either. Its jarring.

I think , as long TDK goes the less he's able to function like that.

 

[BatLobster]

It's all about how you interpret the ending though. To me it means, Gotham will have a Batman if it needs one.

Or maybe perhaps, Gotham will see "a brilliant people rising from this abyss". The point is Bruce is not naive enough to think he can walk away and say "job well done" without some sort of backup plan. He reaches a point of mental and spiritual health to realize, "I've done enough, I can walk away now." But after everything he's seen, he should know that there will always be dangers and threats to Gotham that the police may not be able to deal with.

And ending where Bruce retired or died without any hint of someone else being able to take up the mantle wouldn't have sit right with me. Being expected to believe that Gotham will 100% certainly live happily ever after is just too big a pill to swallow for me. The movie presents that as a possibility, but also reminds us of the inevitability of evil and the need for heroes like Batman.

Also, I don't think Bruce's processing of Rachel's death it was an odd shift at all. He was in tears about it in TDK, blaming himself. But he quickly has to dust himself off because there is an imminent threat to take care of. Take away those imminent threats, and he's confronted more directly with all that pain, loss and guilt.

 

[ThePhantasm]

It would have helped if your "if" had been mentioned anywhere in the film. Instead we get a bunch of talk about "anyone could be Batman" (a phrase I strongly dislike - its not true) which seems to indicate the persona is meant to continue indefinitely. There's no indication that this is meant to be a backup plan, and Gordon's reaction to the bat signal seems to indicate that he expects to have a continuing vigilante partner.

I'm not saying we can't rationalize it away the way you did above, I'm just saying it feels awkward doing so. I shouldn't have to add in extra info to my perception of the film in order to make it thematically work.

 

[Tequilla]

But do you interpret it as "anyone could be a vigilante ?" I would also strongly disagree with that , but I never saw it like that. Batman as in , an altruist person who can help a closed one.

Dent gives a great description about him in TDK.

"Gotham's proud of an ordinary man standing up for what's right" Anyone can be like that. No . Anyone should be like that. Bruce exists to show that to everyone else.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

It's all about how you interpret the ending though. To me it means, Gotham will have a Batman if it needs one.

I thought it was pretty cut and dry. Gotham will need a new Batman, because the people can't take care of themselves, and their structures will fail those who want to do good (Blake).

Or maybe perhaps, Gotham will see "a brilliant people rising from this abyss".

This was undoubtedly meant to be ironic, juxtaposed with a scared populace awkwardly coming out of their holes after having done nothing to save themselves.

The point is Bruce is not naive enough to think he can walk away and say "job well done" without some sort of backup plan.

He was pretty naive the entire trilogy.

He reaches a point of mental and spiritual health to realize, "I've done enough, I can walk away now." But after everything he's seen, he should know that there will always be dangers and threats to Gotham that the police may not be able to deal with.

There will only be dangers that the police won't be able to deal with if there is no extra martial protector like batman or Nightwing. Escalation, remember.

Except the LOS, they will try to hit Gotham again I'm sure. let's hope Batman 6.0 is prepared by then.

And ending where Bruce retired or died without any hint of someone else being able to take up the mantle wouldn't have sit right with me.

It would've worked. In a true hero with a face (like Wayne) and a proactive populace motivated to do good instead of hiding in their homes like in Rises.

Being expected to believe that Gotham will 100% certainly live happily ever after is just too big a pill to swallow for me.

Nobody said it will be a fairytale like Metropolis. Gotham will have crime, like a normal city. It just won't have crime like Gotham.

The movie presents that as a possibility, but also reminds us of the inevitability of evil and the need for heroes like Batman.

At the expense of making chickens out of a previously proactive populace that were able to rise against their baser, horrible selves (in TDK). I doubt TDK's Gothamites would've taken to what Bane did with so much ass bending.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Great post, Excelsior.

 

[BatLobster]

It would have helped if your "if" had been mentioned anywhere in the film. Instead we get a bunch of talk about "anyone could be Batman" (a phrase I strongly dislike - its not true) which seems to indicate the persona is meant to continue indefinitely. There's no indication that this is meant to be a backup plan, and Gordon's reaction to the bat signal seems to indicate that he expects to have a continuing vigilante partner.

Ah, but of course that was never stated in the movie. "Batman could be anyone" is the actual line, and I don't think it's being pedantic to draw the distinction.

The point is not that Bruce wanted copycats, it's that he wanted the idea of an anonymous hero being out there to inspire Gotham with the notion that it could be anyone of them out there.

The fact that he says it to Blake is just foreshadowing the fact that Blake is his kindred spirit and someone he will eventually trust to carry the symbol forward into the future. He's explaining to Blake the whole point of his crusade. That's his answer when Blake asks, "Why the mask?"

As for Excelsior's post- the people of Gotham acted the way most normal people living in a major city would probably act in such an extreme situation. I don't think the film was really attempting to condemn those that were paralyzed in fear. As far as they were concerned, if they tried to do anything, Gotham goes kaboom. People like Foley were still hoping that government would be able to intervene and save them.

Personally, I didn't want to see the people of Gotham take arms. I quite liked the idea of the police force becoming their de facto "military".

 

[Kane52630]

It is both patronising and ignorant, frankly. There is nothing more annoying than being told what you think when the analysis is completely inaccurate and baseless. There is plenty of crap amongst the cream in TDKR. You do not need to view the movie with any presumptions or preconceptions in order to see it. The fact that BB and TDK were great films is not the reason we find TDKR to be somewhat mundane and disappointing: it is merely the reason we care.

It's actually what I saw being posted and my response to those inane posts of people expecting a TDK 2.0. so it's not baseless or inaccurate. I know you weren't the ones I'm talking about so try not to get too attached to what I said, my apologies because it wasn't meant to be patronizing or ignorant. Also I didn't find the movie disappointing but I do see the flaws (which was mainly the editing for me), but there is a fair amount of criticism for BB and TDK that doesn't get talked about to the length that TDKR gets.


I do wonder the legacy of TDKR though, will some of us still look down upon it harshly when the next Bat film goes into making?

 

[shauner111]

Please watch the third trailer for TDKR and ask yourself if you got <that> movie.

I absolutely got that movie, thank you very much.

 

[BatLobster]

I absolutely got that movie, thank you very much.

Absolutely. This is where things start getting highly subjective though.

I go back and watch TDKR Trailer 3 fairly often, and feel it spectacularly represents the film in a nutshell.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Another thing that bothers the hell out of me: why the heck did League of Shadows attack Gotham again anyways? The only problem Gotham seemed to have was a lack of jobs according the goofy kid. A real problem and one that mirrors America today. But hardly the reason for LOS to be destroying it no? Crime seemed to be at an all time low thanks to the unconstitutional "Harvey Dent Act" that stripped the basic civil rights of every criminal down to their desperate minimum. The "Lie", the ultimate cover up of Harvey's true nature was only known to people you can count with one hand. Heck, it was so secret that not even the League of Shadows, of whom there are supposedly people in every level of every infrastructure, knew about it until Bane accidentally ran into Gordon. Other than that the police were well organized, if overpowered.


So......Talia attacked Gotham because of a lack of jobs, a slightly overpowered police force....and a law that they would actually support (that limits criminals' civil rights, Ras would love this.)? No wonder it all seemed hokey. Where is the iron conviction of Ras and the Joker?