The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 149

[Travesty]

Like how Robin John Blake saw symbolism in his bones and stuff?

 

[shauner111]

So if I say I see symbolism in Bane being a lackey to Talia, like how Scarecrow was to Ra's in Begins, then it's true, it exists?

For you it does. Im tired of arguing what is there and what isn't. If you see it, then good for you, im happy for you.

 

[The Shape]

I don't know who else still feels this way but TDKR would've worked better if it was split into two films or trimmed the story down into a smaller narrative. The only gripe I still have with this film aside from nitpicks was they packed in way too many elements into a 2 and half hour movie.

I don't know, man. People say 1 film wasn't enough to tell this story properly, but maybe 2 films would have been too much and the story would have been dragged out unnecessarily. I don't really believe that "way too many" elements were packed into TDKR, though certain aspects of the story could have definitely benefitted from a bit more focus. We can say that about a lot of blockbusters, though.

Don't get me wrong, I would have likely welcomed an extra Nolan/Bale Batman film with open arms. However, pairs of sequels filmed at the same time like the Matrix sequels and Pirates sequels really turn me off from the whole idea. I HATE straight up cliffhanger endings and a major split in the middle of the story would have likely hurt TDKR Part 1 and made it less interesting/exciting than Part 2. We really have no idea how it would've played out.

An example of a 2-part sequel that I think was truly warranted was Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. There really was just SO much story in that book, so many more characters that needed to get their due, and so many specific moments that fans needed to see. It was also the culmination of a 7-part series that had built up so much more than TDKT over the course of its run.

 

[Two-Face]

You are far from the only one who reacted that way to the ending.

All the stuff Bruce goes through i was happy he didn't die he went on his own life. A normal life Alfred wanted for Bruce. A wife and maybe couple of kids. He finally let go Batman. It is best way to end the series. Its not perfect like last two films but TDKR is good enough.

 

[The Batman]

Damn....I didn't know Milost got banned. Anyone know what happened?

 

[Shikamaru]

Wait, what? Milost got banned?!

 

[The Shape]

Bring it over to the Banned Users thread if you want answers.

 

[The Joker]

Well that will make some people here very happy.

I'll miss him though. He was one of the best posters we've ever had here. I wonder what got him banned.

 

[The Shape]

I wonder what got him banned.

It's certainly a mystery at this point.

 

[Shikamaru]

The note next to his user says "banned user". If it was a temporary ban, it should say "probationary ban". So more than likely, he is gone for good.

I'll really miss him. He was one of my favorite posters on here. I thought he managed to make solid points while being very funny/entertaining and without crossing that line into trolling territory (I know others disagree, but I digress). His posts just generated of energy, in the good way. They always got me hyped and "into" the topic, whether it was related to TDKR or not. Should've gave him my Skype/YT account or something.

As a side note:

"You know what you said about people joining SSH? You were right, and I can't take it. The anonymity. I mean, no one's ever gonna know who debated an entire film."

"They know. It was milost."

 

[Ryan]

As a side note:

"You know what you said about people joining SSH? You were right, and I can't take it. The anonymity. I mean, no one's ever gonna know who debated an entire film."

"They know. It was milost."

Ha, great post. Cheers to milost

 

[kvz5]

I don't know who else still feels this way but TDKR would've worked better if it was split into two films or trimmed the story down into a smaller narrative. The only gripe I still have with this film aside from nitpicks was they packed in way too many elements into a 2 and half hour movie.

I still feel the same way. I still think of what could've been if it had been two films or if certain things were cut off to leave more breathing room to the more important parts of it.

 

[shauner111]

Sometimes i do, but i think it would just feel bloated. 2 movies with Bane as the villain, only 1 with Joker. It would be too much.

 

[titansupes]

I'm gonna have to agree here. Not sure if it was the most interesting they could have done, but to me, it was more interesting than seeing him literally die.

I don't think killing Batman would have been any more "ballsy" than the ending we got. Batman dying is exactly what many people expected would happen or wanted to happen leading up the film's release. I thought it would have almost been the "easy" way out then and I still do today.

I don't know, man. People say 1 film wasn't enough to tell this story properly, but maybe 2 films would have been too much and the story would have been dragged out unnecessarily. I don't really believe that "way too many" elements were packed into TDKR, though certain aspects of the story could have definitely benefitted from a bit more focus. We can say that about a lot of blockbusters, though.

Don't get me wrong, I would have likely welcomed an extra Nolan/Bale Batman film with open arms. However, pairs of sequels filmed at the same time like the Matrix sequels and Pirates sequels really turn me off from the whole idea. I HATE straight up cliffhanger endings and a major split in the middle of the story would have likely hurt TDKR Part 1 and made it less interesting/exciting than Part 2. We really have no idea how it would've played out.

An example of a 2-part sequel that I think was truly warranted was Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. There really was just SO much story in that book, so many more characters that needed to get their due, and so many specific moments that fans needed to see. It was also the culmination of a 7-part series that had built up so much more than TDKT over the course of its run.

I completely agree.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Bring it over to the Banned Users thread if you want answers.

I did this morning, but nothing was said.

 

[Payaso]

In the comics Bruce chooses Dick Grayson to be his partner, a kid who after Bruce´s death offers the place of Batman to a guy he literally doesn´t know, just because of his acrobatic skills. It´s funny to see people talking about the "character´s nature", completely ignoring the fact that the character has been contradicting himself hundreds of times over the decades. In the comics Bruce Wayne has made way worst decisions than putting a guy like Blake in his place.

There is NO SUCH THING as "Batman wouldn´t do this", "Batman wouldn´t do that". There´s not a list of things Batman would or would not do. Batman has spent decades doing stuff many of you would think he should never do.

In Frank Miller´s DKR Bruce retires. He then comes back, but he still makes the decision of retiring for a good amount of time. How is that different from what we see in TDKR?

"He wasn´t wanted, so he retired"

Really? And since when it´s part of the "character´s nature" to depend on other people´s approval? Did he ask for permission before he became Batman in the first place?

And let´s not forget: In Frank Miller´s book, Bruce is retired when the city needs him. In TDKR he retires twice after saving the city.

 

[The Endless]

Difference is Bruce trained Dick.

This Bruce just left Blake the keys to his empire and ****ed off to Italy.

 

[The Joker]

I think Payaso was Kato seeing as he's a newbie and banned.

That guy is like a boomerang.

 

[Tequilla]

A two part movie would have been possible , but the story would have to be completely rearranged. No way you grab Rises and cut it in half (even adding some scenes here and there). Doesn't work as a story.

The ending and the beginning of the movie are connected. Breaking them would be awkward.

 

[shauner111]

They would have had to create a new ending for part 1 and a new one for part 2. That just brings back memories of Tarantino's Kill Bill. Which was filmed as one movie but they had so much there that they decided to split it into 2 volumes. By doing that, he had to create a brand new ending for part 1 and a intro for the next one. Which were cheesy as hell. Now Quentin is going to release the whole thing as one film minus those scenes.

So because of that, TDKR should have always been one thing. But just a longer movie. They could have made it longer than 3 hours. Splitting it in two would be like splitting Return Of The King in half.

 

[georgec]

If the movie had been split in two parts, the perfect point for intermission would have been when Blake is driving Gordon away from the hospital. Part two then begins with Bane stepping onto the Tumbler.

 

[shauner111]

I agree with how you would end the first part. But not part 2. I feel like the movie needs either an action sequence or something else that's mysterious..to lead into Bane's speech. As an opening.

Perhaps a nightmare-ish sequence that Bruce has about his parents and some of the bad events that have lead to his imprisonment then it goes to Gotham where citizens and reporters are frantic and wondering what Bane is about to say on the news. Right into the speech.

When that epic speech ends, doesn't it cut to Bruce crawling out of bed and they attempt to fix his back? Well, there you go. I think that would fit.

 

[Shikamaru]

Two films would have been way too much. It really wasn't needed. Plus that would lead to me even more chaos on these boards IMO.

A director's cut, though, would have been cool to see.

 

[shauner111]

Exactly.

 

[The Shape]

I completely agree.

Cheers, mate.