The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - - - Part 156

[Awest66]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT4OCEnewlw

TDKR critique

Thoughts?

 

[BatLobster]

I think some of these analyses run into a bit of trouble when they try to read the films as a direct political allegory. They are designed to touch on some of these issues and leave you with something to think about, but at the same time they're meant to be pieces of entertainment.

TDKR would be a much longer and less entertaining (not to mention less realistic) film if it went out of its way to explain step by step how Bruce solved each and every one of Gotham's problems from energy to wealth inequality.

I feel sometimes people get so preoccupied about what the film is trying to say politically that they miss the fact that the movie is really a story about Bruce Wayne overcoming his demons and finding the will to live. He appoints a successor, sure, but the point is he lets go. He relinquishes his power, hands it off to someone more that's probably even more idealistic and less broken than he is, and really leaves the legacy in Blake's hands. I think the film also makes the case the Bruce has been imprisoned by his own wealth in a sense, and he has to break free from that as much as he does the cowl.

Idk, it's weird to me that some people read the Nolan films as pro-fascist. It's a fascinating debate when it comes to a character like Batman, I suppose. The thing is, on some level a character like Batman is an ubermensch power fantasy. All superheroes are to some degree. When you were a kid, the idea of living in a mansion with a butler and having an underground base of operations with all your cool toys and a Batmobile...all of that plays into the appeal of the character. Everyone wants to be Batman. It's the whole "if only I had unlimited money and time" thing.

I think the movies did a good job satisfying that sort of triumphalism and cathartic escapism that you come to expect with superhero movies and balancing that with revealing flaws of the hero by giving him great villains that challenge him philosophically or reveal something about him.

My question is, what's really the point of this critique other than to have something intelligent-sounding to say? I'm not trying to crap on the guy's video, I found it interesting even if I don't agree with it- I'm just trying to raise the point that I think people start to miss the bigger picture when they look at these movies solely as political message films and not highly entertaining movies that are meant to elicit certain emotions the way any movie is.

 

[Brother Jack]

Idk, it's weird to me that some people read the Nolan films as pro-fascist. It's a fascinating debate when it comes to a character like Batman, I suppose. The thing is, on some level a character like Batman is an ubermensch power fantasy. All superheroes are to some degree. When you were a kid, the idea of living in a mansion with a butler and having an underground base of operations with all your cool toys and a Batmobile...all of that plays into the appeal of the character. Everyone wants to be Batman. It's the whole "if only I had unlimited money and time" thing.

I think the movies did a good job satisfying that sort of triumphalism and cathartic escapism that you come to expect with superhero movies and balancing that with revealing flaws of the hero by giving him great villains that challenge him philosophically or reveal something about him.

Knight does this as well, but Rises is one of the only superhero films to show the repercussions of a life spent fighting crime. The physical degradation, the emotional baggage that comes along with it. A big part of the movie's overall thesis is in Batman empowering his allies to be their own heroes, in Bruce putting his trust in people to do the things he couldn't do.

I think, out of all the superlatives, the thing that I respect TDKT for the most is really following through on its protagonist's humanity. He's flawed, driven, at times broken, but ultimately heroic. And you get to see that whole exploration in the three films. That's why focusing just on the political allusions is missing the point, in a way. It's forgetting the character-driven motivations behind it. It's not so much about what the characters are doing, it's about why they're doing it.

 

[Kane52630]

http://kane52630.tumblr.com/post/156851732699/the-night-is-darkest-just-before-the-dawn-and-i

 

[The Shape]

Knight does this as well, but Rises is one of the only superhero films to show the repercussions of a life spent fighting crime. The physical degradation, the emotional baggage that comes along with it. A big part of the movie's overall thesis is in Batman empowering his allies to be their own heroes, in Bruce putting his trust in people to do the things he couldn't do.

I think, out of all the superlatives, the thing that I respect TDKT for the most is really following through on its protagonist's humanity. He's flawed, driven, at times broken, but ultimately heroic. And you get to see that whole exploration in the three films. That's why focusing just on the political allusions is missing the point, in a way. It's forgetting the character-driven motivations behind it. It's not so much about what the characters are doing, it's about why they're doing it.

Well said.

 

[Awest66]

While the IMDB board certainly is the internet's breeding ground for corruption, I found a post on one of the most eye-rolling criticisms towards TDKR.

"Why would the Leage of Shadows want to destroy a supposedly clean Gotham?

The LoS doesn't care if a city is "at peace" or not. They care about destroying centers of decadence and corruption. And in their eyes, Gotham had been that for decades.

The reason Gotham was so crime-ridden in BB was BECAUSE of the LoS. People often forget this. "Create enough hunger and everyone becomes a criminal." The LoS created the depression that allowed Gotham's underworld to thrive. People act like all the League cared about was crime. Nope. Crime was a TOOL that they used to try to destroy Gotham. But because of people like Thomas and Martha Wayne, Gotham had "limped on ever since."

All that crime-talk from Ra's in BB was just his way of getting Bruce on board (since Bruce cared about crime). But the LoS wasn't opposed to "crime" (in and of itself). It was opposed to decadence and corruption (which can lead to crime). This is made abundantly clear.

To review: The LoS identifies Gotham as the center of decadence and corruption in the world. They create an economic depression that allows Gotham's underworld to thrive (in an effort to destroy the city). Some of Gotham's rich decide to "fight back" by doing things for the poor. Gotham "limps on." Bruce is chosen by the LoS to finally destroy Gotham. He rejects this mission. Ra's al Ghul takes matters into his own hands. Bruce defeats him. Gotham survives... for now.

In TDKR, the League is operating under the same MO that they always have. Like their predecessors, they CAUSED the incident that would ultimately lead to Gotham's undoing (at least that's what they hoped). They used class warfare (and a bomb) to ultimately finish the job.

Plus, it's important to understand that the LoS wouldn't accept the narrative of the Dent Act. It was based on the OBVIOUS lie that Batman murdered the city's "white knight." So even if they didn't know the exact details regarding what actually happened when they put their plan in motion, you can be assured that they intended to find out and use it against Bruce.

When you take all of this into consideration, it makes perfect sense that the LoS wouldn't "give up" on their mission to destroy Gotham.

 

[Shadow Scars]

Hey guys! I just re-watched the Nolan trilogy this weekend and have some questions/thoughts. Sorry if this has come up already elsewhere and I haven't seen it.

How do you think Bane/Talia knew where the armory was? I get that they have a distinct advantage: she's on the Wayne board and knows Bruce is Batman, but Fox points out I don't know how many times that it's off the books and no one knows about it. I mean obviously Talia would know Batman is getting his stuff from Wayne Enterprises, but I don't see how they would know the exact location.

I get that Bane/Talia wanted to punish Gotham and give them false hope while waiting 5 months for the bomb to detonate, but why? Your plan is to blow up Gotham. Why not just blow it up? Why not kill Bruce as soon as you find out where the working reactor is? I know it's a movie, but it just seems silly to me.

Bane's mask administers pain relievers, ok. For what? I know in the flashback they show him bandaged up in the pit, but in present day he has no visible injuries unless his face is all jacked up under the mask. What does he need constant pain relief from?

This is regarding Dark Knight, but I'll just include it here since I'm on a sad roll. I know this has been discusses a lot, but seriously. Who are the "5 dead including 2 cops" deaths Batman is held responsible for. It doesn't add up.

 

[shauner111]

I think you answered your own question when it comes to the armory.

Bane and Talia seemed to get off on the idea of torturing the city slowly. Like Bane says to Bruce in the pit after he asks him "why didn't you just kill me"..Bane says "your punishment must be more severe". He wants him to slowly witness the city clamoring over each other and then finally he'll detonate the bomb. It's not silly, you just have to pay attention to Bane's monlogue in that prison pit.

Again, it's all explained in the film. The mask was put on his face to keep the pain at bay. Prisoners screwed up his face bad when he was younger. What do you mean he has no visible injuries? He has a mask on at all times, because...he needs it.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Shadow probably means scars or something? I guess? We see that his back has a huge gash scar in one scene, and I'm sure his jaw was permanently disfigured as well, hence the mask.

 

[Panthro]

I think some of these analyses run into a bit of trouble when they try to read the films as a direct political allegory. They are designed to touch on some of these issues and leave you with something to think about, but at the same time they're meant to be pieces of entertainment.

TDKR would be a much longer and less entertaining (not to mention less realistic) film if it went out of its way to explain step by step how Bruce solved each and every one of Gotham's problems from energy to wealth inequality.

I feel sometimes people get so preoccupied about what the film is trying to say politically that they miss the fact that the movie is really a story about Bruce Wayne overcoming his demons and finding the will to live. He appoints a successor, sure, but the point is he lets go. He relinquishes his power, hands it off to someone more that's probably even more idealistic and less broken than he is, and really leaves the legacy in Blake's hands. I think the film also makes the case the Bruce has been imprisoned by his own wealth in a sense, and he has to break free from that as much as he does the cowl.

Idk, it's weird to me that some people read the Nolan films as pro-fascist. It's a fascinating debate when it comes to a character like Batman, I suppose. The thing is, on some level a character like Batman is an ubermensch power fantasy. All superheroes are to some degree. When you were a kid, the idea of living in a mansion with a butler and having an underground base of operations with all your cool toys and a Batmobile...all of that plays into the appeal of the character. Everyone wants to be Batman. It's the whole "if only I had unlimited money and time" thing.

I think the movies did a good job satisfying that sort of triumphalism and cathartic escapism that you come to expect with superhero movies and balancing that with revealing flaws of the hero by giving him great villains that challenge him philosophically or reveal something about him.

My question is, what's really the point of this critique other than to have something intelligent-sounding to say? I'm not trying to crap on the guy's video, I found it interesting even if I don't agree with it- I'm just trying to raise the point that I think people start to miss the bigger picture when they look at these movies solely as political message films and not highly entertaining movies that are meant to elicit certain emotions the way any movie is.

Knight does this as well, but Rises is one of the only superhero films to show the repercussions of a life spent fighting crime. The physical degradation, the emotional baggage that comes along with it. A big part of the movie's overall thesis is in Batman empowering his allies to be their own heroes, in Bruce putting his trust in people to do the things he couldn't do.

I think, out of all the superlatives, the thing that I respect TDKT for the most is really following through on its protagonist's humanity. He's flawed, driven, at times broken, but ultimately heroic. And you get to see that whole exploration in the three films. That's why focusing just on the political allusions is missing the point, in a way. It's forgetting the character-driven motivations behind it. It's not so much about what the characters are doing, it's about why they're doing it.

Interesting points BLR and BrotherJack.



So... why do so many fans hate the ending again? Dashed hopes of seeing other filmmakers come along and pick up where Nolan left off (which may happen anyway given the power of the nostalgia scene), or is there just something weirdly cathartic about Batman never getting a happy ending?

I'm sorry, I'm sure it's come up before but I can't remember ever getting a straight answer from anyone I've asked either on line or in person.

 

[Awest66]

Interesting points BLR and BrotherJack.



So... why do so many fans hate the ending again? Dashed hopes of seeing other filmmakers come along and pick up where Nolan left off (which may happen anyway given the power of the nostalgia scene), or is there just something weirdly cathartic about Batman never getting a happy ending?

I'm sorry, I'm sure it's come up before but I can't remember ever getting a straight answer from anyone I've asked either on line or in person.

I'd honestly say it's a bit of both.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Interesting points BLR and BrotherJack.



So... why do so many fans hate the ending again? Dashed hopes of seeing other filmmakers come along and pick up where Nolan left off (which may happen anyway given the power of the nostalgia scene), or is there just something weirdly cathartic about Batman never getting a happy ending?

I'm sorry, I'm sure it's come up before but I can't remember ever getting a straight answer from anyone I've asked either on line or in person.

I like the film / ending right up until the literal final scene. Realistically, Blake is gonna get killed. He could barely handle himself the whole movie and had nowhere NEAR the amount of training Batman had.

 

[BatLobster]

I like the film / ending right up until the literal final scene. Realistically, Blake is gonna get killed. He could barely handle himself the whole movie and had nowhere NEAR the amount of training Batman had.

But that's only if you assume he's immediately going to jump into action. Gotham just went through a turbulent, society warping and destructive period and appears to be heading into a period of healing and rebuilding at the end of the film. I don't think the idea is that Gotham at the end of TDKR needs a Batman "right now". It's that there's one in waiting should the day ever come again. He has time to train for the job. And remember,

"The training is nothing, the will is everything."

 

[titansupes]

I don't know how many times I've had to explain that Blake wasn't literally about to put on the Batsuit at the end of TDKR.

It's a new (this time real) peace time in Gotham City. He has time to go off and learn how to become a Batman, and he's starting from a much better base than Bruce did.

 

[shauner111]

He has time to go find Bruce and get training just like Bruce did with Ducard.

 

[titansupes]

Eh, I think Bruce would stay out of it. He's done his time. Let Blake find a different super ninja mentor.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I like the film / ending right up until the literal final scene. Realistically, Blake is gonna get killed. He could barely handle himself the whole movie and had nowhere NEAR the amount of training Batman had.

Realistically Bruce Wayne would get killed too.

 

[Brother Jack]

The only aspect of the ending that really deviates from any other ending that has been done to Bruce's story is the idea that he could have a fulfilling life without being Batman, which I can understand not being a fan of. But I think it is appropriate for this particular, self-contained take on the character. Every other element is consistent. Coming out of a retirement, faking his death, and handing the mantle over to the next generation. These are in virtually every conclusion that's ever been attempted, from Batman Beyond to Dark Knight Returns.

 

[batfreakforever]

But that's only if you assume he's immediately going to jump into action. Gotham just went through a turbulent, society warping and destructive period and appears to be heading into a period of healing and rebuilding at the end of the film. I don't think the idea is that Gotham at the end of TDKR needs a Batman "right now". It's that there's one in waiting should the day ever come again. He has time to train for the job. And remember,

"The training is nothing, the will is everything."

So true.

 

[batfreakforever]

He has time to go find Bruce and get training just like Bruce did with Ducard.

Brues's story as Batman or training someone is over. Bruce would never go back to Gotham. Anything from Gotham, apart from Selina is behind him.
Bruce would never train him. Bruce is living a normal life now.

 

[shauner111]

Not necessarily. Gotham is behind him, being Batman is behind him. Doesn't mean he wouldn't train Blake.

 

[Awest66]

Read this laughable review of TDKR on Collider.com which basically amounted too "There's not enough Batman in costume therefore it's not about Batman".

It's rather eye-rolling.

 

[shauner111]

From back in 2012 you mean?

 

[Awest66]

Yes I do. Sorry for not clarifying

 

[Bruce Malone]

Seeing Logan it sort of reminded of TDKR in that we got to see an actual finality to a comic character on screen which we rarely get in comic book films.