The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - Part 152

[Victarion]

Lucas Fox

 

[JackWhite]

So the latest rumor is BVS is being split up into two films. Funny how we were talking about TDKR being split up into two films.

 

[Victarion]

Huh. More and more I appreciate that Nolan kept this one to one movie. Originally I thought the two movie idea was great...but the pacing in TDKR is really excellent, and I think the two movie approach would add unneeded fat.

 

[georgec]

TDKR might have benefited from being about 15-20 minutes longer, but it didn't need to be two movies.

It might have been neat to do a short intermission after Blake and Gordon are driving from the hospital and the street lamps go out. Then act 2 would start with Bane's speech at the prison.

 

[Alex Logan]

Via the Sony leak madness...

http://www.ibtimes.com/david-o-russ...stle-set-leaked-sony-email-reportedly-1762131

Batman defending Lois Lane from the guy who once put Chris Nolan in a headlock = justice.

Wait, David O. Russell put Nolan in a headlock? That's crazy and bravo to Bale.

 

[the last son]

Thought Alfred was a little underdeveloped throughout. I think you should have developed him more and killed him off sometime throughout this movie. Maybe Bane kills him after Bruce and Alfred's exchange when he walks out on him. Would've made the fights more personal.

 

[JackWhite]

Thought Alfred was a little underdeveloped throughout. I think you should have developed him more and killed him off sometime throughout this movie. Maybe Bane kills him after Bruce and Alfred's exchange when he walks out on him. Would've made the fights more personal.

I thought Alfred had appropriate development throughout the trilogy. Sure his screen time was limited in TDKR, but it made sense considering his arc in the film.

As for him being killed off, I think if any character could have potentially bit the dust it should have been Lucius. But then that changes the whole dynamic of the end of the film, because you need all of Bruce's closest friends/allies alive to make us think he really did die in the explosion.

Do most agree that despite Caine's lack of screen time, that TDKR is his best performance?

 

[The Joker]

What more kind of development were you expecting to see from Alfred? I mean we saw what he meant to Bruce as both a kid and an adult. What the Wayne family meant to Alfred. We got some insight into his military background. And we always saw Alfred's feelings on Bruce's current situations as both Bruce and Batman, and how Alfred would give him the tough love approach. Supporting him either eagerly, reluctantly, or in TDKR's case not at all. Of course burning Rachel's letter to spare Bruce more heartache was one of the biggest Alfred moments of the trilogy. Showing how protective he was of Bruce's feelings, even if his action was misguided it was done with good hearted intentions. That's more development than any on screen incarnation of Alfred.

As for killing him off, what purpose would that serve other than cheap shock value. The Joker already killed Rachel in TDK, and that served a solid purpose for both Bruce and Dent. They'd done the whole villain killing someone Bruce loves angle. Alfred didn't need to die, too.

 

[The Shape]

Thought Alfred was a little underdeveloped throughout. I think you should have developed him more and killed him off sometime throughout this movie. Maybe Bane kills him after Bruce and Alfred's exchange when he walks out on him. Would've made the fights more personal.

I think losing your fortune, having your back broken, and being imprisoned for months whilst forced to watch your beloved city crumble from within made things pretty personal.

 

[Brother Jack]

I think losing your fortune, having your back broken, and being imprisoned for months whilst forced to watch your beloved city crumble from within made things pretty personal.

The fact that Bane does all that to torture Bruce is kind of incredible. Just the sheer breadth and force of the animosity towards the man, particularly when he had already suffered so much throughout his life. One of the things I love about the trilogy is how for each film the threat increases not just in scope but in how personal it is.

 

[Victarion]

Also...the bomb. They took Bruce's hope for the future and were going to use it to burn down his city.

 

[Panthro]

I'd have to agree that things were already personal enough for Bruce in TDKR without throwing Alfred's death on top of everything else he was suffering through.

Backing things up a little bit back to TDK, I had a brief argument once on line with a friend over Nolan's Batman films, and one of his chief complaints about about TDK was the scene where the Joker burned the mob's money and none of his assembled thugs objected, since he felt it was unrealistic that the thugs would continue working for Joker after that (but it's apparently okay that the 1989 Joker could bring down the Bat-Wing with a giant revolver since the film wasn't claiming realism). Barring his apparent dislike of Chris Nolan as a filmmaker & his dislike of Christian Bale & the late Heath Ledger as actors (admittedly I never did ask him if he disliked Ledger as an actor or just as the Joker) I tried pointing out that the Joker's thugs were more than likely made up of like minded nihilists who were in it for the joy of watching a society fall apart as opposed to the usual cash grab, or alternately they were already paid off and didn't care what the Joker did with the rest of the money, but the argument never went further than that. I was just wondering what others thought of that.

 

[Victarion]

Yeah, I figured they were psychopaths as well. Hence not caring about the money. Its just not something you waste time telling the audience when you can show them, as Nolan did with that scene.

 

[The Joker]

One of two possibilities:

1. They were like Thomas Schiff, a bunch of crazies, the sort of minds Joker attracts like Batman said.

2. Just because Joker burned the mob's money doesn't mean the cash flow in Gotham has dried up, considering Joker had pretty much taken over the underworld at this point. There was more money to be made. Burning this pile of money was as Joker said, sending a message. A statement that he was bringing in a better class of criminal who don't just care about money.

 

[The Shape]

Also, they were probably scared ****less of him. I'm sure there were some Nazis and Germans who objected to Hitler's methods, but wouldn't dare speak up or raise a finger to try and stop him.

 

[The Joker]

True, and Maroni did tell Batman everyone in the underworld was too scared of Joker to dare cross him. Even to Batman.

 

[Panthro]

I appreciate all your responses, fellow users.

Now, if I may ask of you the people, when a friend or fellow fan says they feel that Heath Ledger's Joker was not as "deep and complex" as Jack Nicholson's Joker - as my friend who disliked Nolan's films told me in that e-mail so long ago (and he actually thought Wolverine: Origins was a genuinely good film, which I don't pretend to understand), how does that make you feel? Speaking for myself and only myself I still have a soft spot for Jack's Joker and always will but I don't get a particularly "deep and complex" vibe from him so much as I feel like I'm just seeing Jack play himself in Joker make up. I honestly enjoy both films and performances but I do feel Ledger disappeared into the role more and made me forget who I was watching, something Jack for all his greatness doesn't quite do.

 

[The Joker]

I say anyone who thinks Wolverine: Origins is a good movie, their opinions should be taken with a grain of salt

But seriously I don't want to put down Jack's Joker, but I felt more complexity from Heath's Joker both in his crazy plans and beliefs, and in his relationship/feud with Batman. It wasn't just a case of 'I want to kill you because you dropped me in chemicals'. Heath's Joker related to Batman in a "You're a freak like me. You complete me. You're just too much fun" capacity, and that was much more complex and interesting to me.

 

[schereZada]

I appreciate all your responses, fellow users.

Now, if I may ask of you the people, when a friend or fellow fan says they feel that Heath Ledger's Joker was not as "deep and complex" as Jack Nicholson's Joker - as my friend who disliked Nolan's films told me in that e-mail so long ago (and he actually thought Wolverine: Origins was a genuinely good film, which I don't pretend to understand), how does that make you feel? Speaking for myself and only myself I still have a soft spot for Jack's Joker and always will but I don't get a particularly "deep and complex" vibe from him so much as I feel like I'm just seeing Jack play himself in Joker make up. I honestly enjoy both films and performances but I do feel Ledger disappeared into the role more and made me forget who I was watching, something Jack for all his greatness doesn't quite do.

Hi there, Panthro.

Really? Batman was made 25 years ago. Complexity in a superhero movie the way we have it today was not a thing back then. I'd say it wouldn't have been even allowed. Nicholson was brilliant in the role, he was born to play it. But complexity the way Nolan and Ledger had it for their take on the Joker? Nope. I just enjoy that Nicholson's take was faithful, funny and evil, and that he used things such as the laughing gas and deadly toys as in the comics that Nolan apparently left out because of realism/believability.

Cheers.

 

[BatLobster]

I think with Jack's thing it was also a vanity thing. It was partially revenge but also that Batman was stealing "his" press and he wanted to be the only freak in town.

I love both versions, but Heath's Joker embodied the idea of chaos which is really at the root of the archetype of what The Joker is. I don't even necessarily know if I'd call it more "complex", it's just that the Nolan films' scripts are just working on a different level thematically with the way things are interwoven and the way themes drive the plot. I think TDK nailed the core of The Joker's character and WHY he's such a monumental nemesis for Batman in the mythology in a way that we hadn't previously seen in a movie.

Your friend, no offense to him, sounds kind of like a typical Nolan hater with his approach to criticism. The go-to insults for those types are comments like "His movies aren't as smart or complex as they think they are", basically just dismissing the things that people tend to praise the most. In most cases it's a very obvious kneejerk reaction, basically just nay-saying the commonly celebrated aspects of his movies because they themselves don't really get the all the hype and see it all as overrated.

When someone like that also happens to be a huge fan of Burton's Batman, that's where, IMO, a bit of insecurity can come in push them to say things like that.

 

[Keehar]

I appreciate all your responses, fellow users.

Now, if I may ask of you the people, when a friend or fellow fan says they feel that Heath Ledger's Joker was not as "deep and complex" as Jack Nicholson's Joker - as my friend who disliked Nolan's films told me in that e-mail so long ago (and he actually thought Wolverine: Origins was a genuinely good film, which I don't pretend to understand), how does that make you feel? Speaking for myself and only myself I still have a soft spot for Jack's Joker and always will but I don't get a particularly "deep and complex" vibe from him so much as I feel like I'm just seeing Jack play himself in Joker make up. I honestly enjoy both films and performances but I do feel Ledger disappeared into the role more and made me forget who I was watching, something Jack for all his greatness doesn't quite do.

The Nicholson Joker is the worst version of the Joker I've ever seen. Hated that he was a known name gangster Jack Napier. Hated that he danced to Prince. Hated all the crap about being an art lover. Hated that he killed Batman's parents. Hated that he was always wearing flesh make up over his clown face like he wanted to look more like Jack than Joker. Hated the stalking Vicki Vale sub plot. Hated his boring rivalry with Batman, just a weak revenge thing.

Ledger's Joker all the way to infinity and beyond. Scary, complex, funny, an enigma. The whole package. He was the Joker

 

[The Shape]

The Nicholson Joker is the worst version of the Joker I've ever seen.

I stopped reading your post after this sentence.

 

[Keehar]

I stopped reading your post after this sentence.

Yeah you did. People who say that actually read the whole thing, don't like what they've read, so they pretend they only read the first sentence.

 

[The Shape]

Yeah you did. People who say that actually read the whole thing, don't like what they've read, so they pretend they only read the first sentence.

You got me. I'm a sham! I couldn't handle the truth-bomb you dropped on us all!!!!

 

[schereZada]

You got me. I'm a sham! I couldn't handle the truth-bomb you dropped on us all!!!!