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

[kvz5]

I was still kinda sad that they never got to do this in the trilogy...




OT... Man I could watch Phantasm any day of the week and watch it from beginning to end.

I remember being SO EXCITED when we saw the pics of the Wayne tombstones because I thought we're finally going to get something like that (something that I've been wanting since Begins). I remember a lot of us imagining how magical a scene like that could be with a great Nolan dialogue, Bale's acting, a beautiful Zimmer score, Wally's lighting, etc. If I could add only one thing to the trilogy, it would've been that.

 

[Anno_Domini]

As much as I'm glad there was only one scene at the graveyard which made it all the more emotional in seeing Alfred saying he failed while standing infront of all three tombstones...I still wish we saw what could've been a grand scene involving Bruce at his parent's tombstones. Although it always felt like, while Nolan wanted Bruce to honor his parents, he never made it a position of Bruce remembering his parents by either visiting Crime Alley or talking to his parents in the graveyard. That was a mistake, imo.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Nobody says Nolan didn't have his heart in it, they say it feels like Nolan didn't have his heart in this movie because the quality of it is a dramatic drop from the previous two movies.

A director doesn't have to physically say it in an interview. It shows in his work. Like an artist.

Same thing, really. People have said Nolan's heart wasn't in the film period because of the so-called "quality drop". I will always beg to differ on that one. Besides The Prestige, TDKR, imo, has the most heart in a Nolan-directed film.

I'd love to see where all these comparisons were. I really would.

Take a look around for yourself. I have seen from day one the comparisons always been made that TDKR isn't another TDK besides the film being looked at with its own merit.

As I already said it's not stated as a fact. As an opinion based on the quality of the movie itself.

And it's my opinion that I feel like a good chunk of the fans that don't like TDKR are basing it because it's not a TDK 2.0. How can one have such an opinion and you can't call it BS, but you call mine BS when others feel the same as well? Please, answer that one.

BB and TDK had plenty of articles picking apart their plots, too.

If you say so.

 

[BatLobster]

The mere fact that that the 8 year gap has come up so much as a point of criticism does seem to speak to some people wanting a story that was closer in proximity to TDK. That coupled with things like some people being upset with no mention of The Joker, while openly admitting that they didn't want the League of Shadows to return seems to speak to towards wanting more of a sequel to TDK than Begins, which is more what TDKR was. That's not to say people wanted TDK 2.0, but I think it's fair to say that some people wanted more of a sequel to TDK rather than a movie that wraps everything up a bow and goes full circle to Begins. I'm not going to name names, but I definitely remember some posters being FURIOUS when it first started leaking that the LOS and Talia were a part of the movie and adamant that it wasn't true.

I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing that out nor do I think there's anything wrong with some fans wanting a different movie than the one we got btw.

And, I'm sorry but the "Nolan's heart wasn't in it" is as baseless as it gets. Even if you don't like the movie, Nolan could have made mistakes even with his heart still being in it. It's possible to care too much and ruin something, you know? The whole "his heart wasn't in it, he got lazy etc." seems like unfair character assassination of Nolan IMO and an awfully harsh conclusion to arrive at. Especially when so many criticism are leveled at the story that they chose to tell, which Goyer has an equal part responsibility for. And Jonah is the one who wrote the novel of a screenplay before giving it to Chris to pair down. Why would he want to spend years of his life making something he didn't want to make at this point in his career? It makes no sense. He has way too much control over his projects at this point, and no matter what he does he's got a lot of 0's coming his way with each paycheck.

Saying Nolan just didn't care smacks of oversimplification and an attempt to rationalize. It's ignoring the possibility that...maybe just maybe Nolan did care a LOT, and that gasp!- he's happy with the result.

 

[Infinity9999x]

TDKR really doesn't get bashed all that much in terms of the general public. On here people are a little harsher, but that's always the case with the hardcore nerd coummunity.

One thing that's definitely coming into play is overhyping. That has lead to a few overreactions when it comes to comic fans. It happened with Spider-Man 3. That film ha HUGE hype, only surpassed by the insane hype TDK had. When it turned out to be a mediocre cic film, people flipped. We had people saying it was one of the worst films ever, which was absurd, since it wash even one of the worst comic films ever

I think TDKR suffered from that, to a smaller extent. It was a sequel to one of the biggest comic films ever that included a performance that everyone, not just comic fans, will remember for years to come. No matter what they did with it, people were going to be disappointed.

That said, TRKR had some obvious flaws that were a little more glaring then the flaws in the previous films. Some were small, but very bothersome because they could have been easily fixed. The weak explanation for Blake knowing the secret, or the fact that grown men couldn't make a jump that a malnourished 10 year old girl could.

But the biggest one for me was that the overall master plan of the villains didn't seem all that roused. In BB, Ra's wants to destroy Gotham because it's ridiculously corrupt. In TDK, the Joker wants to spread chaos and prove that anyone can be brought to his level. In TDKR, apparently Talia wants to complete her father's work...but that doesn't make a whole lot of sense since Gotham is actually doing pretty good. She also wants revenge, but it would have made more sense to me if revenge had been the only motivator, since Gotham doesn't really meet the LOS "kill list" anymore.

It just felt a little jumbled.

 

[regwec]

The mere fact that that the 8 year gap has come up so much as a point of criticism does seem to speak to some people wanting a story that was closer in proximity to TDK.

For me, it is just that taking an 8 year holiday is something that Batman wouldn't do. It rather craps on the premise of the previous two films, and the case for it is not made out. That is a product of the movie wanting to be The Dark Knight Returns and wanting to be No Man's Land and wanting to be Knightfall and wanting to be Batman Begins II. And wanting to work Selina Kyle in for some light relief. Oh, and Talia. There are so many borrowed and half-incorporated ideas that none of them are rendered very fully, and we are asked to accept them on faith. If Nolan really felt that the starting point needed to be The Dark Knight Returns then he should have given the themes therein more time and space to develop. The reasons we are given- that Gotham is now some sort of crimeless totalitarian city state- is a pretty big idea to sell. It was not achieved by a few lines of dialogue between anonymous cops. It felt like a flimsy excuse for Batman to jack it in.

 

[Tequilla]

Yeah...If there's one positive I can take from TDKR it's thinking of new ways to do things and it has also sky-rocketed my interest in getting into film making or at least being involved in some part of it.

May i ask , because of the discussions the movie brings up , or because you really enjoyed the picture ?

 

[The Joker]

Same thing, really. People have said Nolan's heart wasn't in the film period because of the so-called "quality drop". I will always beg to differ on that one.

It's not the same thing. It's not a case of Raimi and Spider-Man 3 here where we know for certain he wasn't happy with the direction of the movie. The difference is TDKR feels like Nolan was not as invested in it as he was with the previous two movies. For many there's a big quality drop. That's why they say it doesn't feel like his heart was in it.

You can beg to differ all you like because you're one of the ones who thinks what we got was great. Fortunately not everyone sees it that way.

Take a look around for yourself. I have seen from day one the comparisons always been made that TDKR isn't another TDK besides the film being looked at with its own merit.

Take a look around for myself? Ok, how about you point me to a few specific places I should be looking for this hearsay.

And it's my opinion that I feel like a good chunk of the fans that don't like TDKR are basing it because it's not a TDK 2.0. How can one have such an opinion and you can't call it BS, but you call mine BS when others feel the same as well? Please, answer that one.

Because you're stating something as factual. You're claiming people were actually saying these things. Thousands of them. So if it is so factual and happened so frequently you should be spoiled for choice in showing many examples of it.

Whereas the others who say they feel like Nolan's heart wasn't in the movie are basing that on a movie they perceive to be a much weaker than it's predecessors.

 

[BatLobster]

For me, it is just that taking an 8 year holiday is something that Batman wouldn't do. It rather craps on the premise of the previous two films, and the case for it is not made out. That is a product of the movie wanting to be The Dark Knight Returns and wanting to be No Man's Land and wanting to be Knightfall and wanting to be Batman Begins II. And wanting to work Selina Kyle in for some light relief. Oh, and Talia. There are so many borrowed and half-incorporated ideas that none of them are rendered very fully, and we are asked to accept them on faith. If Nolan really felt that the starting point needed to be The Dark Knight Returns then he should have given the themes therein more time and space to develop. The reasons we are given- that Gotham is now some sort of crimeless totalitarian city state- is a pretty big idea to sell. It was not achieved by a few lines of dialogue between anonymous cops. It felt like a flimsy excuse for Batman to jack it in.

Let me ask you this though- if you just put the source material aside for a moment, are most of those things still issues from a pure filmmaking perspective? Is it a bad thing that a returning Batman gets his back broken in a movie where a new strong villain leading an army that threatens to take over Gotham leading to Gotham getting cut off from the rest of the world etc.? To me most of those elements gelled together rather smoothly. Not quite as smoothly as the various comic influences went together in TDK I'll give you, but I was pretty delighted to see the amount of source material that was dripping through this movie.

And the thing is, I think Nolan felt the TDK Returns-type setup could be achieved by giving the end of the last film some practical sort of outcome. We may not get every nook and cranny of how the Dent Act works as a piece of legislation, but we understand why the Dent Act happened because that is the lynchpin of the ending of TDK. There's enough connective tissue there for me.

I look at it this way. Let's say the film opened a year after the events of TDK. Gotham now has a reduced mob presence, but now freaks have taken over and filled the vacuum. Batman is trying his best to take them down, but his efforts can only go so far because every time there's a sighting, there's a police chase the size of which we saw in TDKR. Things in Gotham are perhaps still "worse than ever".

Now, this might play as a perfectly acceptable sequel scenario to plenty of people, but I'm thinking..."Welp, this is what you wanted Bruce. You're struggling to effectively do your job now that Gotham needs you as much as it ever did. Guess your gamble didn't pay off." And suddenly the choice made in TDK seems to lose all that meaning and punch with the realization that it ultimately accomplished precisely nothing.

That's why I'm a fan of the 8 year gap and the Dent Act. That is one element I have no problem accepting on faith. In fact I prefer the reasons for retirement in Rises to the ones in Returns.

 

[regwec]

Was it implied that the objective of Bruce's 'gamble' in TDK was to produce some sort of martial law with the complete suspension of civil liberties?

If it was, then some exploration of Bruce's hitherto closet fascism needed to be made. He had been set up as a heroic figure prior to that point, despite his claims to the contrary, after all.

 

[BatLobster]

Was it implied that the objective of Bruce's 'gamble' in TDK was to produce some sort of martial law with the complete suspension of civil liberties?

If it was, then some exploration of Bruce's hitherto closet fascism needed to be made. He had been set up as a heroic figure prior to that point, despite his claims to the contrary, after all.

I don't think that was necessarily a foreseen outcome at all, how could it have been?

The main idea was to make sure those prisoners Dent prosecuted stayed locked up, and Gotham still had a hero with a face to inspire the people to carry on in his example. I think he wanted more social crusaders like Harvey to rise up in Gotham, not necessarily a legislation in his name.

 

[Victarion]

I think Bruce just wanted someone with his zeal to be the public face of justice in Gotham. The stuff in the Dent Act that upset some of the Gothamites was an unforseen consequence of Bruce's desire for someone to take up his mantle. It is one thing to have a vigilante enacting something akin to martial law/civil liberty violations. The public can still root for the police, even if the vigilante is doing a better job than them. However, when you get the police doing it...you get Bane and Talia's revolution.

Bruce quitting feels natural when you look at him as a puppet master throughout TDK; his puppet in this case is Harvey Dent.

 

[The_Raganork]

Again...for me the entire fault of the film is from a filmmaking/Storytelling position. I'm sure it holds to the Batman mythos to some degree but there are certain things you do and don't do with characters and TDKR seems to try to make as many ballsy errors as it can for the sake of being different.

There's a lot of, potential, good in the film but a lot of it just doesn't seem realized by the end. I get why people like it but I (and this is going to sound a little harsh) usually just chalk that up to people not understand good story structure and filmmaking.

I don't want that to seem like an insult, I like plenty of films that I still consider 'bad'. I'll watch "The Lost World" every time it comes on but I can admit It's not a great movie. I enjoyed TDKR for what it was but it was a mediocre film and mediocrely made at that.

For a trilogy that seemed to be going places with the characters that few other in the genre had before TDKR just seems to drop that for the chance to be an action film.

There is no moment in TDKR as slick or as rich as Bruce's backstory in BB or the interrogation in TDK. It simply does not have those moments. The fight between Batman and Bane was awesome but really offered little depth aside from some quotable and memorable dialogue.

Anything in that fight that could have been jarring is spoiled by Alfred already knowing Bane was part of the league of shadows. Anything hopeful and surprising about the end is spoiled by Alfred's exposition in the start of the film where he basically says: "This is how the movie is going to end"

It's almost as if they went out of their way to step on their own toes when making TDKR.

Couple that with some a middle that does absolutely nothing but pander on it's own laurels about Bruce climbing out of the cave, consequentially ignoring: Selina, Gordon, Fox, Tate, Foley and to a lesser degree, Blake, which could have been the most interesting part of the film.

I see people here going on about how TDKR is about people rising up and taking back their city and I just don't believe any of you really believe that. NONE of that was shown. It's said in pretty dialogue but the truth of the situation is that the police state Gotham is won back from it's invaders AGAINST the people's will. There are Gothamites fighting in the crowd against the police and no Gothamites fighting with the police. It perfectly hands us the exact OPPOSITE message that it claimed it intended to give us.

 

[The_Raganork]

I don't think that was necessarily a foreseen outcome at all, how could it have been?

The main idea was to make sure those prisoners Dent prosecuted stayed locked up, and Gotham still had a hero with a face to inspire the people to carry on in his example. I think he wanted more social crusaders like Harvey to rise up in Gotham, not necessarily a legislation in his name.

More proof to the "White Knight" theory.

 

[BatLobster]

There's a lot of, potential, good in the film but a lot of it just doesn't seem realized by the end. I get why people like it but I (and this is going to sound a little harsh) usually just chalk that up to people not understand good story structure and filmmaking.

I don't want that to seem like an insult, I like plenty of films that I still consider 'bad'. I'll watch "The Lost World" every time it comes on but I can admit It's not a great movie. I enjoyed TDKR for what it was but it was a mediocre film and mediocrely made at that.

Yyyep, that's kind of insulting, but it's okay haha. Would you say all film buffs and critics who raved about the movie don't understand what good filmmaking is? I'm glad you had the balls to say it though, because it's what I suspect most of the film's harshest critics on here might be thinking, but wouldn't dare say because it would make them look like hypocrites for calling out folks who say "You don't get it!".

I just chalk it up to different taste. I don't want to say better or worse.

More proof to the "White Knight" theory.

Could Bruce honestly ever be the White Knight in the eyes of Gotham though? Taking off a mask does not a white knight make. His methods were always extreme, illegal and dangerous. It just wouldn't suit him. Bruce circa BB and TDK wanted more people like Rachel and Dent working WITHIN the system, fighting corruption legally.

TDKR goes right back to the beginning and explores the meaning of what the bat symbol was intended for in the first place. It's about reaffirming the value of that symbol. Sometimes they are more powerful than men can ever be, I think that is one of the whole points of the trilogy.

 

[The_Raganork]

Yyyep, that's kind of insulting, but it's okay haha. Would you say all film buffs and critics who raved about the movie don't understand what good filmmaking is? I'm glad you had the balls to say it though, because it's what I suspect most of the film's harshest critics on here might be thinking, but wouldn't dare say because it would make them look like hypocrites for calling out folks who say "You don't get it!".

I just chalk it up to different taste. I don't want to say better or worse.

It's not that I don't think people "Don't get it" I just think some are more willing to excuse TDKR's mistakes because for them it's a fun Batman movie...and that's fine! There's really absolutely nothing wrong with that.

But from a purely cinematic standpoint I cannot see how anyone can excuse the editing in the film or even the bland, misshapen story and when someone says to me: "I didn't mind the editing" or "The story was good for me" I instantly think: "They've yet to see good editing or a good story" I'm not convinced that's the right attitude but I could turn you on to several different ways that one could take the same film and make it better with some minor adjustments to the story and editing.

As for critics...I've learned long ago to stop listening to them. Someone will always say any film is the best film they've ever seen. Some are coming from a standpoint of "This is a comic book move so if it's even ok it must be great" and some are paid to say great things.

If one is really looking at TDKR from a critical stand-point I don't see how they can miss some of the gaping flaws in it as a film.

Again though: It's fine to like TDKR. I like TDKR, I don't think it's the worse film ever made but I just think it wasn't the movie it tried to be either.

I like "Quantum of Solace" and that was pretty yucky at points. I can explain to you why I like it but I also can see that it's not a greatly made film. So please I don't want anyone to take what I said as an insult. Sometimes we all like something that's not really all that great.



Could Bruce honestly ever be the White Knight in the eyes of Gotham though? Taking off a mask does not a white knight make. His methods were always extreme, illegal and dangerous. It just wouldn't suit him. Bruce circa BB and TDK wanted more people like Rachel and Dent working WITHIN the system, fighting corruption legally.

TDKR goes right back to the beginning and explores the meaning of what the bat symbol was intended for in the first place. It's about reaffirming the value of that symbol. Sometimes they are more powerful than men can ever be, I think that is one of the whole points of the trilogy.[/QUOTE]

 

[regwec]

For me, some of the acting is as big of a problem as the poor editing, script and structure. Plurality of opinion is a wonderful thing, but it is always a surprise to see Marion's performance defended.

 

[The Joker]

For me, some of the acting is as big of a problem as the poor editing, script and structure. Plurality of opinion is a wonderful thing, but it is always a surprise to see Marion's performance defended.

Well I would never defend Marion's acting in Talia's death scene. That was laughably bad. But apart from that scene her acting is adequate, IMO. Not great. Not terrible. She's just there. Bland. Unmemorable.

Who elses acting did you dislike, reg?

 

[Tequilla]

I get why people like it but I (and this is going to sound a little harsh) usually just chalk that up to people not understand good story structure and filmmaking.

......DAMN !

Where's that user who said people who defended the movie (and resort to that style of argument) were patronizing and ignorant ?

I think i know a thing or two about filmmaking , and i say this without no doubts. Rises , from a strictly technical point of view , completely craps all over any other Nolan movie (i dont even need to put the superhero genre )

 

[The_Raganork]

Could Bruce honestly ever be the White Knight in the eyes of Gotham though?

Yes. 100% You have two and a half films leading up to it.

Taking off a mask does not a white knight make. His methods were always extreme, illegal and dangerous. It just wouldn't suit him. Bruce circa BB and TDK wanted more people like Rachel and Dent working WITHIN the system, fighting corruption legally.

But TDKR through out all the rules. Suddenly you have Batman willing to kill to save Gotham. You have a city that has lost it's laws in place of chaos.

"One day the Batman will have to answer for his crimes..." -Harvey Dent.

Indeed so but that's apart of growing up isn't it? When Batman takes the blame for Harvey in TDK, for me, that was the most heroic thing I've ever seen a superhero do in a film. In that moment it wasn't about him, it was about saving Gotham from what Joker had done.

The system fell apart in TDKR, the best way to save it was to restart it. Bane had complete control over Gotham. It would have been nice if the people of Gotham finally stood up for themselves (as Bruce original intended Batman to inspire) and take their city back from Bane and who better to lead them than Bruce Wayne.

Does he have to out himself? No. It's not necessary, I'm saying Wayne needed to be the figure that Gothamites strived for and the movie hints that that's the ultimate goal. When Blake scolds Bruce for the funding of the Orphanage...that's IT! That's the kind of way Wayne could influence the city. When Alfred suggest Bruce give his information to the police...that's it! That's the way wayne could influence the city. They needn't know he's Batman, the simply needed to see that Wayne had grown up and would use his incredible wealth and power to protect the city. Additionally when something came up that needed a more...personal approach...they had Batman.

This is how it's been done in almost EVERY other Batman mythos. Batman fights the criminals. Bruce patches up the city so that it may have it's advantages against them. He could have been the face people looked at during Bane's siege and inspired them to not give in to Bane but to fight for their city. The same way Thomas and Harvey inspired them.

TDKR goes right back to the beginning and explores the meaning of what the bat symbol was intended for in the first place. It's about reaffirming the value of that symbol. Sometimes they are more powerful than men can ever be, I think that is one of the whole points of the trilogy.

But Wayne was a symbol already. Batman was a way for him to be something to the criminals but he hadn't figured out how to be something for the people. Time and time again we are shown that while Batman is good at fighting crime he still hadn't inspired the city the way he wanted to. When Bruce talks to Alfred about the copy cats he says: "When I said I wanted to inspire people this is not what I had in mind" all he created in them was more vigilantism and violence.

Then at the end of TDK Batman must become a wanted criminal to protect the image of Harvey Dent... not the other way around. Dent's purpose in Gotham was always more important than Batman. The trilogy NEVER EVER suggest that these symbols are, in fact, stronger than the actual person. Sure Bruce says it in BB: "As a man I'm flesh and blood but as a symbol..."

I know that.

But the one consistent thing about BB and TDK is that Bruce is almost always WRONG about things. He is in a constant state of learning about the world about. Ra's readily admits that Thomas was how the league was beaten the first time. Rachel tells him that he isn't Wayne but in fact Batman, that that boy never came back.

Even Bruce is inspired by Harvey Dent in TDK. It is the actions of men who are visible that shape Gotham. Thomas, Harvey, Gordon... not those who hide in the shadows. The trilogy has always shown that.

Batman was a means to curb crime and halt corruption but it would have been impossible with Gordon, Harvey and Rachel. People who put their lives on the line by being public and thus showing Gotham that there were other Gothamites who weren't afraid of the crime.

TDKR's first half hints that perhaps this is where Bruce needs to go with his life. That maybe Batman has ran it's course and it's time for Wayne to step up but what we see is that we still need Batman, to some degree to physically fight Bane.

But what about the broken city? How much more do you think Gotham would have been inspired if it's richest most powerful came down out of his tower and sided with the people? All that distrust and anger at the powerful could have been undone. Just because they survived a nuke doesn't mean the real conflict was ever addressed. Remember the people revolted against the establishment of Gotham because they saw it unfair. Nolan and co missed a perfect chance to have Bruce combat that rift in the city whilst Batman combatted the physical threat.

 

[The_Raganork]

......DAMN !

Where's that user who said people who defended the movie (and resort to that style of argument) were patronizing and ignorant ?

I can't stress enough that I'm not saying anyone is stupid but simply not recognizing the amazing technical flaws of Rises.

I think i know a thing or two about filmmaking , and i say this without no doubts. Rises , from a strictly technical point of view , completely craps all over any other Nolan movie (i dont even need to put the superhero genre )

That is absolutely insane.

Have you seen all of Nolan's other films?

 

[The_Raganork]

Well I would never defend Marion's acting in Talia's death scene. That was laughably bad. But apart from that scene her acting is adequate, IMO. Not great. Not terrible. She's just there. Bland. Unmemorable.

Who elses acting did you dislike, reg?

I know you're asking rEg and not rAg but I wanted to say this:

Gary Oldman.

Everyone knows I love Oldman and that Gordon is my favorite character but in TDKR there was nothing there for me. I felt he just phoned it in most the time.

 

[The Joker]

I know you're asking rEg and not rAg but I wanted to say this:

Gary Oldman.

Everyone knows I love Oldman and that Gordon is my favorite character but in TDKR there was nothing there for me. I felt he just phoned it in most the time.

Understandable considering he spent the bulk of his screen time doing boring things like sitting in a hospital bed or running around after potential bomb trucks.

 

[regwec]

Yeah, a lot of good actors seemed to have been poorly motivated or directed. I also found Hathaway unconvincing, though I know others will disagree. It was possibly Bale's strongest performance as Batman, but that seemed to be wasted against the mediocrity around him. Hardy was...okay, though it was hard to tell. Where the Nolan trilogy is remembered, it may be for its cartoon voices.

 

[Tequilla]

I can't stress enough that I'm not saying anyone is stupid but simply not recognizing the amazing technical flaws of Rises.



That is absolutely insane.

Have you seen all of Nolan's other films?

Oh come on...again with the i cant know , saw or read or understand ? Yesterday was the other user. sheesh

Off course i've seen them all. Prestige extremely elliptical cut structure through space and time is still Nolan's at is highest , but overall Rises is much stronger in visual compositions matching the structure and content of the narrative.

Prestige and Memento are much much better movies than Rises. But this is a movie where Nolan clearly shows is evolving technique. It doesnt have his virtuoso structures and cross-cutting , but from a pure visual storytelling it's definitely him at his best.