The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 148

[shauner111]

Or maybe they actually love Nolan's filmmaking and movies? Ugh.

 

[The Joker]

[YT]?v=ul3T3VuoJgQ[/YT]

It was nice to hear shout outs to Donner's Superman, Nolan's Batman, and even one for Adam West's 60's show.

 

[Shikamaru]

Did anyone here play Arkham Origins? I finished the game yesterday and one of the things I was very impressed with was Bane. Best take on Bane so far IMO. There is even some really heavy Nolan influences in their Bane, which I thought was cool.

In my opinion, Origins' Bane is exactly what TDKR's Bane should have been. He is still a mercenary, still has mercenary followers that are very loyal to him, still has his TDKR costume (kinda, though it is a bit more comic booky in this case), and is still played up as a genius. But at the same time, he is smart enough to [BLACKOUT]figure out Batman's identity and break into the batcave[/BLACKOUT], isn't anyone's lackey, beats up a Batman in his prime, and is viewed as an equal to the Joker (whereas I felt Ledger's Joker would have mopped the floor with both Bane and Talia if he was still around).

 

[The Joker]

Did anyone here play Arkham Origins? I finished the game yesterday and one of the things I was very impressed with was Bane. Best take on Bane so far IMO. There is even some really heavy Nolan influences in their Bane, which I thought was cool.

In my opinion, Origins' Bane is exactly what TDKR's Bane should have been. He is still a mercenary, still has mercenary followers that are very loyal to him, still has his TDKR costume (kinda, though it is a bit more comic booky in this case), and is still played up as a genius. But at the same time, he is smart enough to [BLACKOUT]figure out Batman's identity and break into the batcave[/BLACKOUT], isn't anyone's lackey, beats up a Batman in his prime, and is viewed as an equal to the Joker (whereas I felt Ledger's Joker would have mopped the floor with both Bane and Talia if he was still around).

I loved Arkham Origins. Best game story out of the Arkham games so far. So many brilliant character moments. The characters even get development. That never happened in the previous games, with all due respect to the great Paul Dini. Bane was a joke in the first two Arkham games. He really needed this proper characterization in Origins.

So you finally got around to playing it then. I remember you saying back in October you were holding out til December (I don't know how you managed to do it lol). How did you enjoy it overall?

 

[The Shape]

Too bad Bane reverted back to his roided-out self by the end of Origins. Other than that, Bane was awesome in the game. I think it's fair to say he wouldn't have been as awesome without the influences from Nolan's Bane.

 

[Shikamaru]

I loved Arkham Origins. Best game story out of the Arkham games so far. So many brilliant character moments. The characters even get development. That never happened in the previous games, with all due respect to the great Paul Dini. Bane was a joke in the first two Arkham games. He really needed this proper characterization in Origins.

So you finally got around to playing it then. I remember you saying back in October you were holding out til December (I don't know how you managed to do it lol). How did you enjoy it overall?

Definitely the best story of the three.

I really liked it overall, minus a few issues here and there that I have. I do think it lacks some of the magic and fun that the Rocksteady games had (the attention to detail, freshness, and "wow" comic book feel are either gone or watered down to an extent) but it is still a solid entry, still holds up to the Rocksteady games overall and is worthy of the Arkham title IMO. For a game that was essentially just an appetizer until the real "Arkham 3" comes out, I feel it achieved a few things that made it much more than just an appetizer (with Bane and the story being some of those things). It also payed off to wait until I have a Christmas tree and decorations around the living room t:.

I wrote a longer review on the game here: http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=27459049&postcount=133

Too bad Bane reverted back to his roided-out self by the end of Origins. Other than that, Bane was awesome in the game. I think it's fair to say he wouldn't have been as awesome without the influences from Nolan's Bane.

 

[Jamiestarr]

The Dark Knight Rises is only going to be more well regarded through the years. To say it's generally poorly regarded now is a bit of a lie. Compare it to other blockbuster sequels of the past:

Films like Back to the Future 2, Rocky IV, and (yes even the almighty)Empire Strikes Back all shrugged off initial mixed/negative reviews to be highly regarded classics by both the general public and critics doing retrospective type reviews.

I am not sure about the age of most of you on this thread, but clearly a lot of you weren't around to witness the Indiana Jones backlash of 1984.

The Temple of Doom was reviled by MANY in 1984. I dare say that it had about as much bad word of mouth and disappointed fans as a pre-internet blockbuster sequel could have.

As you know, between the over the top gore/violence, broad ethnic stereotypes, Willie, and kiddie friendly nature of Short Round (mixed with way dark slave children narrative) this film absolutely failed to live up to the hype and its predecessor. I dare say, if that film had been released nowadays it would have been crucified worse than Indy IV

Sidebar: Can you imagine modern internet fan boys responding to Kate Capshaw, or speaking/joking kid sidekick that speaks mainly in broken English/jokes and can successfully unleash martial arts on warriors twice his size as a plot device?

Despite all of it's negative backlash at it's birth, people (nowadays) generally adore Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom. People really don't draw much distinction between it and the other films in the initial Indy trilogy.

Anyways, my point is this: The Dark Knight Rises was mostly reviewed favorably by critics and fans. Yeah, I think general consensus is that it was not quite as good as The Dark Knight, but it certainly wasn't poorly received. Just highly nitpicked by nerds.

Think about this: In 2005, Batman Begins wasn't the earth shaking game changer of a movie that everyone views it to be now. Critics loved it, but the general movie going public were more keen on Episode 3 and Harry Potter. Batman Begins only became LOVED by the masses in the wake of The Dark Knight. Personally, I know many folks in real life and on the internet that initially claimed Batman (1989) was better than Batman Begins.

Bottom Line: The Dark Knight Trilogy is a genuine classic blockbuster trilogy. There is no weak link in it anymore than there is in the original Star Wars Trilogy.

 

[Tequilla]

The Dark Knight Rises has a rating of 8.6 on IMDb from over 700,000 votes! Extraordinary

Rated higher than:

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
Star Wars - Return of the Jedi
Back to the Future 2
Back to the Future 3
Godfather Part 3
Aliens
Toy Story 3
Any Marvel movie
Burton's Batman
Donner's Superman
Terminator
All Rocky movies
All Harry Potter films
All Jurassic Park films
All Bond films
All Star Trek films

Again, the rating is from over 700,000 votes. Amazing - it truly is one of the most well-loved films I have ever seen.

Regarding this , i went to check and TDK is going to dethrone Shawshank with the most votes. Almost at the 1.1 million. Really crazy.

The third....Inception. There's a pattern here t:

 

[DACrowe]

It was nice to hear shout outs to Donner's Superman, Nolan's Batman, and even one for Adam West's 60's show.

My thoughts. Hiddleston and Fassbender continue to prove that they're class acts, as well in how they talk about it. And Jamie Foxx quoting Christopher Reeve amused me.

However, the best answer is Harrison Ford, who clearly could not give less of two [Crystal Skulls] about this question. "Lois Lane. Sorry, I like girls." That had me laughing. This is why Ford begrudgingly dealing with fans will never get old.

 

[DACrowe]

Did anyone here play Arkham Origins? I finished the game yesterday and one of the things I was very impressed with was Bane. Best take on Bane so far IMO. There is even some really heavy Nolan influences in their Bane, which I thought was cool.

In my opinion, Origins' Bane is exactly what TDKR's Bane should have been. He is still a mercenary, still has mercenary followers that are very loyal to him, still has his TDKR costume (kinda, though it is a bit more comic booky in this case), and is still played up as a genius. But at the same time, he is smart enough to [BLACKOUT]figure out Batman's identity and break into the batcave[/BLACKOUT], isn't anyone's lackey, beats up a Batman in his prime, and is viewed as an equal to the Joker (whereas I felt Ledger's Joker would have mopped the floor with both Bane and Talia if he was still around).

He very much is influenced by Nolan's Batman. Same costume (save for the mask) and he is shown as Joker's equal, which I do believe was Nolan's intent. And to some effect it works, because Bane went from anonymity in the mainstream to well...being an A-lister who gets as much screentime in the latest Batman game as Joker, as well as the final boss fight (albeit, it turns into an apologist for his shoddy treatment in AA and AC after that).

But yes, he is still much more in line with the plotting of his character in Knightfall. Really the only thing I can see it doing better than Nolan, besides size, is that he doesn't work for Talia (though he does work for Joker, so is that much better?). However, the Nolan Bane breaks Batman unlike the AO one (if you don't die that is ) and has designs for Gotham past breaking the bat.

But yes, I was very happy to see that they are taking the best elements from Knightfall and Rises to make their version of Bane. If only they accepted the new mask is better as well.

 

[Victarion]

The old mask is fine if it looked more like a death's head than a wrestler's mask.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/vi...nd-modern-politics-in-the-dark-knight-trilogy

What?

 

[Jamiestarr]

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/vi...nd-modern-politics-in-the-dark-knight-trilogy

What?

To the creator of this video I say: Duh!?!? Why do you think Batman is called the DARK Knight?

Batman IS a vigilante. He isn't bound by the law and his morals are (relatively) flexible in order to stop criminals. Batman only "has one rule". In The Dark Knight several characters, even Batman himself, state that Batman "is not a hero."

Of course Batman straddles the line between good and evil in his war against crime. However, both in film and comics, it always has consequences for him. No one ever states that Batman never breaks laws/abuses his power/likes to hurt bad guys.

Also, Batman doesn't need to be held to the same standards/morals/laws that the United States Government should be.

Unlike U.S. policy makes/leaders/military personnel, etc, Batman doesn't answer to anyone. He's Batman. You know, works outside the law, wears a mask, etc.

If you want a law/moral abiding Batman that is deputized...Adam West is always there for you as a different version/legend of The Caped Crusader.


Lastly, Bruce Wayne is often portrayed as the most generous and charitable Billionaire in the world. It is not sexy to have an entire movie series centering the work of the Wayne foundation and all the good it does in terms of shaping Gotham's philanthropy, humanitarianism, and education, but it is there.

Batman Begins really hammers home the fact that Wayne's entire family has always been about the betterment of ALL of Gotham's citizens. I guess using Wayne Manor as an orphanage for Gotham's at risk youth wasn't enough for this critic?

 

[Shikamaru]

I haven't watched the video but based on the reactions, it seems to criticize Batman's methods as too extreme - a common criticism Batman often gets.

The funny thing about people's reactions to Batman's methods is how polar opposite they are. When you think about it, Batman is one of the most on-the-fence heroes in all of comics, if not the most on-the-fence superhero. On one hand, you have one side (usually the left-wing side) constantly criticizing him for going too far - beats criminals to a pulp, breaks & enters without warrants, takes the law into his own hands, constantly violates criminals' rights, etc. Then on the other hand, you have the other side (usually the right-wing side) constantly criticizing him for not going far enough - citing his views on guns as "left-wing dogma", citing his no-kill policy as him being "soft" on crime and being part of the problem, bringing up the fact that Batman has indirectly killed many lives by not killing the Joker, arguing that all he does is round up psychopaths in Arkham only for them to escape the next day, etc.

The funny thing is that these criticisms apply as much in real life as they do in comics. In the world of comics, Batman constantly gets criticism from Superman and more lighter characters for having methods that are too extreme while also getting tons of criticism from his villains, some of the GCPD, and characters like the Huntress for not being extreme enough due to his stance on guns/killing. Then in real life, you have tons of fans expressing militant disgust on forums like these for Batman's decision to not kill the Joker at the same time as the more Silver Age/"traditional superhero" fans that also express militant disgust on forums like these for how dark Batman is (citing him as an example of how dark comics have become).

Basically, the guy just can't win either way and that has always been one aspect of the character that has fascinated me so much. How is it possible for someone who gets so much criticism (in both real life and the DC universe) to, at the exact same time, get just as much criticism for not being extreme enough (in both real life and the DC universe)? That is perhaps one of the most fascinating Batman questions people should reflect on.

 

[James H]

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/vi...nd-modern-politics-in-the-dark-knight-trilogy

What?

Another person could interpret the film as being the exact OPPOSITE of what that guy has said.

You could argue that Nolan's Batman trilogy is critical of Batman and contemporary America, with Nolan mocking us (the audience) who support this hero. He mocks us with The Prestige, where after repeated viewings I can see that he was shoving the clues in my face continuously, yet I still couldn't see it - "Are you watching closely?".

Batman is "the hero Gotham (the corrupt city) deserves, but not the one it needs" - Maybe Gotham is better off without Batman? Is this pro-billionaire Bruce Wayne?

Bruce Wayne in TDKR - "The Batman wasn't needed any more, we won". - A city without Batman is winning? Actually, look at the next line by Gordon - "based on a lie" - is Batman being criticised once again? The billionaire is a liar?

Alfred: "The city needs Bruce Wayne - your knowledge, your resources". Alfred (i.e. one of the good guys in the film) telling Bruce Wayne he should stop beating up people as Batman and use his resources to help the city in other methods?

Ra's al Ghul in TDKR - "With all your strength, all your resources, all your moral authority, and the only victory you could achieve was a lie" - criticising billionaire Bruce Wayne again?

Bruce Wayne putting on the mask and fighting crime at night eventually leads to further problems - "What about escalation?" The Joker (whose "got a taste for the theatrical" like Batman) causes mayhem in Gotham.

John Blake: "Might be time to get some fresh air. Start paying attention to the details. Some of those details might need your help." Nolan criticising recluse billionaire Bruce Wayne?

The film could be interpreted as being overwhelmingly against rich people. Look at:

- The portrayal of the Congressman at the start of TDKR
- The Mayor - who is going to "dump him (Gordon - good guy) in the spring"
- John Daggett
- Philip Stryver (Executive VP of Daggett Industries) - "who for years has been living off the blood and sweat of those less powerful than him"
- The wealthy Miranda Tate - who turns out to be the villain

Look at the Stock Exchange scene, where the two rich guys are talking - "I vote bad"..."based on what?"..."I flipped a coin." Rich bankers gambling when making decisions?

All of the above could be how one person interprets the film.

These are some important things that the film shows:

Bruce Wayne loses his money and becomes "completely broke" as they say in the film. He retires at the end of the film with a poor woman.

Who is the next Batman after billionaire Bruce Wayne:

Rich man Harvey Dent? Nope, he's Two-Face and NOT worthy of being the next Batman.

Rookie cop John Blake? Yes, he is in fact the final person shown in the TDK trilogy, rising on the platform. He is shown as being worthy of taking on the mantle of Batman (and some could say he is shown as more intelligent and more heroic than billionaire Bruce Wayne).

At the start of TDKR, we hear this: "Homeless sheltering in the tunnels"

At the end of the film: "The house and grounds are left to the city of Gotham, on condition that they never be demolished, altered, or otherwise interfered with, and that they shall be used for one purpose, and one purpose only. The housing and care of the city's at-risk and orphaned children".

Bruce Wayne arguably accomplishes more by doing this, than he would ever do in a Batsuit.

Mayor, Congressman, Daggett, Stryver, Miranda Tate and Bruce Wayne are no longer in the city at the end. All rich people.

"Completely broke" Bruce Wayne gives up his home and makes it into an orphanage, so that homeless children no longer sleep in the tunnels. That horrible, horrible man, right?

 

[Victarion]

Honestly, either side of the political aisle could claim the trilogy (or at least TDK/TDKR) are standard-bearers of their ideology.

 

[Anita18]

Honestly, either side of the political aisle could claim the trilogy (or at least TDK/TDKR) are standard-bearers of their ideology.

Yup yup yup. That is what's so intriguing about it. It doesn't have an agenda, because it could be said to serve any agenda.

 

[Victarion]

Indeed. Next to the characters, that's one of my favorite aspects of TDK/TDKR.

 

[DACrowe]

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/vi...nd-modern-politics-in-the-dark-knight-trilogy

What?

This guy makes some good points, but falls too far into the confines of Bush era (which is exceedingly dated in the post-NSA wiretapping scandals of the Obama administration) confines of liberal vs. conservative--or as he more astutely narrows it down to, civil liberties vs. neoconservatives.

I would agree that Nolan's films (I will not try to guess about the man) have a very utilitarian POV when it comes to law enforcement, national security and likely espionage. However, that is not quite the same thing as endorsing the Bush era neoconservatism philosophy...which if you read the pages of the WSJ or wherever Bill Kristol and Karl Rove and Liz Cheney may land, you'll know it still exists and is waiting as a dormant volcano. Neoconservatism is more than just about a robust national defense, and is rather a philosophy of "liberty" (more aptly democratically governed free markets) created and controlled by a robust foreign policy about preemption of potential enemies and pliable geopolitical assets.

The Batman movies of Nolan's hand, and most especially TDK, are not dealing with this facet of politics and are more the broader question of how far can society go at bending its own principals in the name of security. While obviously the fact that Batman got involved and the GCPD use him to break the rules in capturing the Joker implies they do to an effect, it does not take into account:

1) All of Batman's attempted uses of torture or "advanced interrogation" techniques fail. Maroni does not give up the Joker to him, and the Joker does not give up Dent or Rachel to Batman, except because it was part of his own plans. He also feeds Batman false information in the torture, which results in Rachel Dawes' death.

2) Lucius Fox could also be viewed as the "check" to Batman's power on wiretapping, which he eventually destroys. However, the fact remains that he still uses it, leaving an unsettling issue open to debate.

3) If Harvey Dent is the message of what happens to a good man for doing the right thing, what of Jim Gordon? He also tries to do the right thing and stays more in the law than Dent, as he never murders anyone (or threatens to as Dent does pre-scarring). However, he is still tainted in political cover-up and conspiracy. But it blows a hole in the argument of "what happens to idealists." Especially considering how the cover-up comes back to bite him in Rises. Same would go for Fox, whose idealism keeps Batman from spying on the citizens (regularly).

And his critique of Rises is mind-numbingly stupid because (ahem):

The Dark Knight Rises was written and began production BEFORE Occupy Wall Street.

The irony of this faux hand-wringing from critics with political agendas in 2012 is still stunning to me. It should be more intriguing that it PREDICTED such economic outrage. Another movement that it could be drawn in comparisons to (one that actually existed when the Nolans DID write the screenplay) is the Tea Party. Again an aggrieved, POPULIST movement that is led by malcontents. Recall that Glenn Beck got about a hundred thousand people to march on the National Mall before Occupy ever formed.

Which raises the broader, more sociological point Nolan was making in Rises that is lifted straight from Dickens' reading of the French Revolution. And, as anyone who ever read Oliver Twist or A Christmas Carol or just about anything else should know, Dickens was no worshipper of the rich or status quo. However, A Tale of Two Cities embraces a "small c" form of Burkian conservatism--change made in incremental, slowly earned scales, as opposed to drastic mob mentality overthrow-rule, which the English saw as the downfall of French society.

Similarly, Nolan proposes a scenario where a false prophet, blowhard, agenda-driven opinion leader like Bane takes control of the discontent in the city and misdirects it for his own purposes. So, is Bane Glenn Beck or Fox News, then? Hardly. Bane is Robespierre or any populist leader who galvanizes himself by exploiting real social heartache. That was the point, which clearly went over this guy's head like the proverbial bat cape.

Now, he has a firmer point on the irony of a rich man beating up poor people in a society where crime is likely a symptom of poverty. However, he again simplifies it. Besides Wayne clearly giving his money to an orphanage and being depicted as a philanthropist in the third film--as well as spending excessive periods in both the first and third movies living in "poverty" outside the U.S.--it ignores that Batman is inherently part of the system and a defender of the status quo. This is why he will side with an army of cops over the "masses" in Rises. He is order to chaos.

If you want to say that makes him a fascist, it is a fair reading of the character, one that Frank Miller clearly would agree with (and apparently supports too), as seen in his Batman books. However, Nolan undermines this reading by making his mission not one of control or conquest of society, but one of reform. By making his mission limited to "until he is no longer needed" (though that is still debated among fans), Batman is viewed as a cultural symbol used to reform the system, as opposed to just a rich guy who gets his jollies by beating up poor people every night. That is why you never see Batman stopping "street crime" with no larger political goal in the whole series, save for Scarecrow at the start of TDK.

But the great thing about these movies is they are truly art. So, unlike most superhero movies we can actually have these discussions.

 

[ThePhantasm]

I would agree that Nolan's films (I will not try to guess about the man) has a very utilitarian POV when it comes to law enforcement, national security and likely espionage.

Yeah, and Nolan isn't even that responsible for that... this sort of thing has always been a part of the Batman character. That's who Batman is.

 

[Victarion]

Agreed with crowe.

 

[BatLobster]

Great peace of posting right there Crowe. Nailed it.

You also summed up why the Nolan take on the character is perhaps my favorite- he's definitely NOT just a paranoid rich guy beating up on poor people at night. I don't think he is in the comics either, but the movies really crystallized the fact that he is an idealist and has a more explicitly defined "greater good" that he's fighting for.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/vi...nd-modern-politics-in-the-dark-knight-trilogy

What?

I love this video and have been saying similar things for a couple of years to my sister. I still mostly enjoy the films though.

 

[James H]

Great post by DACrowe.

In the TDK trilogy, Batman targets organised crime - the mob, people like Falcone, Maroni, and people who work for them, e.g. Flass.

Look at how Flass treats "falafel guy" in Batman Begins and how he takes his money, who replies "Flass, I have kids to feed".

In real life gangs can make the lives of ordinary citizens a living hell. I, for one, support Bruce Wayne over people like Flass and Falcone. "Falafel guy's" family income would increase if corrupt people like Flass were afraid of the Batman, and also then more ordinary citizens would not be afraid of walking the streets in the evening, if there was less criminal activity going on in the streets of Gotham. More business for falafel guy. Falafel guy Junior probably gets better Christmas presents from his father, if less people like Flass are around, lol. He, like Blake, would be a "believer in the Batman", even if people like the guy who made the video are not.

 

[the last son]

I really loved in justice league doom how bane buried Bruce with his parents. Would have been cool if bane buried Bruce parents in the pit with him