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

[Jones81]

My feelings on Rises are still mixed after 8 years. I think it gets more right than wrong, and ultimately, I'm satisfied where the film ends.

Its alot of the stuff in between that always makes it problematic for me at least. I think its biggest issue is that its just overwritten . There were lots of ideas and concepts that were interesting, but ultimately I think its could have benefited from streamlined in terms of ideas , subplots, and characters.

But then again, Hardy is great as Bane, Bale gives another great performance, and Hathaway is a great Catwoman.

The first Batman and Bane fight is classic, The idea of Bane breaking Bruce emotionally, Physically, mentally, financially, is great as a means of challenging our hero on every level. I also really like the idea of Bane basically bull dozing his way through every obstacle until he finally breaks the spirit of the Bat ,and the Spirit of Gotham.

But then again, after the breaking of the bat and the ceiling off of Gotham , the film sort of looses steam for me and never really rises, pardon the pun , to that high of the sewer fight , even with all the chaos afterwards.

So for me, the film is still a mixed bag, but its still one of the better Batman films, even with its weaknesses.

Spot on. A big issue for me is that the film is overcomplicated. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight hit the ground running. However, there’s so much set up in Rises. There’s Bruce’s failed energy project, which isn’t even failed it’s just been abandoned. There’s the boys home, Dagget trying to take over Wayne Enterprises, the clean slate, Bruce being a recluse, Miranda’s involvement with the clean energy project, the vague history between Bane and Catwoman. My problem is half of those things aren’t even that interesting. There’s also way too many characters. I think Foley, Talia, Daggett, and his assistant Stryver should’ve all been cut at the script stage.

Having said all of that I agree that the film had more good than bad. However, I’m also mixed overall. I do think the strongest thing about the film is Bruce’s arc. I just love when filmmakers take these iconic characters and put them dark situations (with the exception of Luke Skywalker). It reminds me of Spider-Man 3 a bit. I think it was ballsy of Raimi to take a recognizable character like Peter Parker and turn him into an egotistical *****e who’s hellbent on revenge. It’s kinda the same thing in Rises where Nolan took an icon like Batman and turned him into a broken man that welcomes death. Him having to get the fear of death back and wanting to live his life is a good arc for the character and a nice way to end his story.

 

[Awest66]

Spot on. A big issue for me is that the film is overcomplicated. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight hit the ground running. However, there’s so much set up in Rises. There’s Bruce’s failed energy project, which isn’t even failed it’s just been abandoned. There’s the boys home, Dagget trying to take over Wayne Enterprises, the clean slate, Bruce being a recluse, Miranda’s involvement with the clean energy project, the vague history between Bane and Catwoman. My problem is half of those things aren’t even that interesting. There’s also way too many characters. I think Foley, Talia, Daggett, and his assistant Stryver should’ve all been cut at the script stage.

Having said all of that I agree that the film had more good than bad. However, I’m also mixed overall. I do think the strongest thing about the film is Bruce’s arc. I just love when filmmakers take these iconic characters and put them dark situations (with the exception of Luke Skywalker). It reminds me of Spider-Man 3 a bit. I think it was ballsy of Raimi to take a recognizable character like Peter Parker and turn him into an egotistical *****e who’s hellbent on revenge. It’s kinda the same thing in Rises where Nolan took an icon like Batman and turned him into a broken man that welcomes death. Him having to get the fear of death back and wanting to live his life is a good arc for the character and a nice way to end his story.

Thing about Nolan is that he likes to make ensemble movies with expansive casts of characters. I dont really see how these characters were anymore "unnecessary" than Falcone, Maroni or Chechen were in the previous two.

 

[Jones81]

Thing about Nolan is that he likes to make ensemble movies with expansive casts of characters. I dont really see how these characters were anymore "unnecessary" than Falcone, Maroni or Chechen were in the previous two.

The difference for me is that I never felt like those characters were simply there to move the plot from A to B. An argument can be made that that isn't true of Foley, but I just don't find him that compelling of a character. There's a depth to Maroni specifically that I think is lacking in every character that I listed. I do like that Maroni is never fully on board with The Joker and even for him it gets to a point where things have gone too far.

 

[Awest66]

The difference for me is that I never felt like those characters were simply there to move the plot from A to B. An argument can be made that that isn't true of Foley, but I just don't find him that compelling of a character. There's a depth to Maroni specifically that I think is lacking in every character that I listed. I do like that Maroni is never fully on board with The Joker and even for him it gets to a point where things have gone too far.

But even so I dont think Daggett or Stryver really take up any more time than Maroni or Lau did in the Dark Knight, They"re just supporting cast.

 

[Jones81]

But even so I dont think Daggett or Stryver really take up any more time than Maroni or Lau did in the Dark Knight, They"re just supporting cast.

It’s not even about screen time really. It’s about trying to streamline the story for me. Daggett is mainly there to explain why Bane is in Gotham. I don’t think they needed to make a new character in order for that to happen.

 

[The Joker]

But even so I dont think Daggett or Stryver really take up any more time than Maroni or Lau did in the Dark Knight, They"re just supporting cast.

That's true, but its more about quality than quantity. What they do with the characters in their screen time. I do feel they gave Maroni a bit more of a characterization and nuance for the reasons Jones81 mentioned than they did for Daggett and Stryver. Maroni is reluctant to jump on board with the Joker from the get-go. He shows us the fear the underworld has for Joker when he'd rather get his ankles broken by Batman than cross the Joker. And it reaches a breaking point when Joker's chaos gets so crazy that he goes to Gordon and offers to sell out Joker's whereabouts to him. He was a good character to showcase Joker wasn't just rattling the good people of Gotham, but the bad ones, too.

Even little things like how he warmly embraces the Chechen by clasping hands at the mob meeting, the look of derision on his face when the Chechen said they should hire the Joker after they learn Batman got Lau out of China etc. All adds to giving him a bit of a personality.

The Chechen was great, too. In some ways he was like a contrast to Maroni in terms of the mob's attitude to the Joker. He's pretty welcoming to Joker, right from the beginning at the mob meeting he silences the hot headed Gambol because he wants to hear what Joker's got to say. He doesn't once join in with the others any time they laugh at the Joker. He pushes for the mob to take Joker up on his offer to fix Batman. Plus he was a humorous memorable character in his own right; "My dogs are HONGRAY!!!", "They won't work for a FREEEEEAK!!!"".

Can't speak for everyone, but the Chechen and Maroni left more of an impression on me than Daggett and Stryver did. They were not bad characters or anything, there's just wasn't much stand out about them.

 

[shauner111]

It’s not even about screen time really. It’s about trying to streamline the story for me. Daggett is mainly there to explain why Bane is in Gotham. I don’t think they needed to make a new character in order for that to happen.

Or making Foley out to be a guy who spent so many years with Gordon (“you remember all the years we were on patrol?”)...so where was Foley during the first two movies?

I’ve been thinking about what Matt Reeves said about ‘point of view’ and how he’s looking to do something different with his movie. He said TDK is good but it’s not from Bruce’s POV. I notice how in that movie we see Bruce Wayne through the eyes of Alfred, Lucius and Rachel. And we usually see Batman through the eyes of Gordon, Joker and Dent. I see that we’re talking about Daggett but In Rises there’s a lot of time spent on Blake’s POV, Selina’s and Foley. Maybe if we spent less time with them (especially in the second half) and more time with Bruce in the pit. Dive into his dreams/subconscious during that second act. Spend more time with Bane’s backstory and eventually Bruce traveling back to Gotham, preparing at Wayne Manor instead of so much time on Gordon/Foley arguing over the bomb Miranda etc trying to track the bomb. Nolan puts too much of his energy on the plot. And for a final instalment where Bruce’s arc is quite emotionally driven, you’d think he would change his ways and lean on ‘character’ more.

 

[Awest66]

It’s not even about screen time really. It’s about trying to streamline the story for me. Daggett is mainly there to explain why Bane is in Gotham. I don’t think they needed to make a new character in order for that to happen.

Well to be fair, Daggett is also the explanation as to how Bane is able to lay explosives all throughout Gotham city as well. All of Daggetts screentime is him interacting other important characters before Bane kills him so its not like he takes over the movie or anything. His plot function is very much the same as Falcone in Begins or Maroni in TDK. Its an absolutely fair argument to say that hes not as interesting as those characters but to say hes "unnecessary" while those characters were is a bit perplexing to me.

Small-note but the whole "do you feel in charge" scene with Bane is awesome ( its equivalent to the first "you wanna know how I got these scars" story from The Dark Knight) Im not saying its a justification but if not Daggett who would he have done it too?

 

[BatLobster]

I actually really enjoy Daggett. Ben Mendelson plays him so deliciously smarmy.

With Rises, although there's a lot of characters and plot, it all has thematic glue IMO. I enjoyed how with the mob out of the way, we shift to the white collar corporate guys pulling the strings in Gotham. Similar to how The Joker is unleashed by the mob, Bane and the LOS gain access to infrastructure in Gotham all due to pure naked greed. So his inclusion helps support the plot of how Bane is able to lay explosives throughout the entire city, adds another layer to haves vs have nots theme, which comes to a head in that great neck-snapping scene with Bane. The nod to the BTAS character is also a fun little bonus for fans.

I will say, Nolan certainly likes to include a lot of 'stuff' in his films, but I things are also never included for no reason. It's usually kind of like a pyramid, where everything that there is usually in support of a plot, larger theme, or to serve a more important character in some capacity. I think the only thing with Rises was the scope of the story was so ambitious, that it definitely could've warranted a 3 hour+ film. Or an HBO series for that matter.

#ReleasetheJonahNolan500PageDraft

 

[Brother Jack]

Daggett and Stryver are there as representatives of the upper-class white collar crime and corruption that had metastasized in Gotham following the Dent Act and the defeat of the mob. They give a face and justification for Selina's desire for revolution, which Bane later weaponizes. Foley is there to show the police cowardice and ineptitude that's crept into the GCPD during the period of "peace time", and has his own little redemption arc.

 

[Dede]

The extras.... It just keeps getting worse the more you stare at it.

Honestly I’ll take real extras over cgi any day. And whatever sloppy choreography I can just chalk up to it being realistic with people not knowing how to fight in real life

 

[Dede]

That's true, but its more about quality than quantity. What they do with the characters in their screen time. I do feel they gave Maroni a bit more of a characterization and nuance for the reasons Jones81 mentioned than they did for Daggett and Stryver. Maroni is reluctant to jump on board with the Joker from the get-go. He shows us the fear the underworld has for Joker when he'd rather get his ankles broken by Batman than cross the Joker. And it reaches a breaking point when Joker's chaos gets so crazy that he goes to Gordon and offers to sell out Joker's whereabouts to him. He was a good character to showcase Joker wasn't just rattling the good people of Gotham, but the bad ones, too.

Even little things like how he warmly embraces the Chechen by clasping hands at the mob meeting, the look of derision on his face when the Chechen said they should hire the Joker after they learn Batman got Lau out of China etc. All adds to giving him a bit of a personality.

The Chechen was great, too. In some ways he was like a contrast to Maroni in terms of the mob's attitude to the Joker. He's pretty welcoming to Joker, right from the beginning at the mob meeting he silences the hot headed Gambol because he wants to hear what Joker's got to say. He doesn't once join in with the others any time they laugh at the Joker. He pushes for the mob to take Joker up on his offer to fix Batman. Plus he was a humorous memorable character in his own right; "My dogs are HONGRAY!!!", "They won't work for a FREEEEEAK!!!"".

Can't speak for everyone, but the Chechen and Maroni left more of an impression on me than Daggett and Stryver did. They were not bad characters or anything, there's just wasn't much stand out about them.

Stryver I agree but I love daggett . That might be because I love Ben Mendelsohn and that He is involved in one of the more terrifying scenes I’ve ever seen with his death scene

 

[shauner111]

I don’t have much use for the Daggett character although Mendelssohn is so entertaining in every scene. He’s a plot device and I hate that cut when Nolan interrupts the thumping chase scene where Batman’s on his batpod and locks eyes with Bane with his red helmet on...only to cut to Daggett getting information aka exposition from his goon. Cut back to the chase and score. It completely cuts off the momentum of that scene, and makes me dislike the use of Daggett/Stryver more.

I was really impressed with Nolan’s screenplay for Dunkirk and his willingness to cut back. Tenet could be the return of the exposition king. Hope not.

Honestly I’ll take real extras over cgi any day. And whatever sloppy choreography I can just chalk up to it being realistic with people not knowing how to fight in real life

Look at the top right. He’s selling a punch without being hit. It’s like when you’re 10 and imitating wrestling with your brother.

Yeah I’ll take real extras over CGI as well. But that doesn’t automatically make it good. There’s a way to do it with extras and make it more believable. If you don’t focus on the background at all and keep your eyes on the main characters, it’s not a problem. But after 10 viewings you do have to force yourself to not wander to the extras back there.

 

[Dede]

I don’t have much use for the Daggett character although Mendelssohn is so entertaining in every scene. He’s a plot device and I hate that cut when Nolan interrupts the thumping chase scene where Batman’s on his batpod and locks eyes with Bane with his red helmet on...only to cut to Daggett getting information aka exposition from his goon. Cut back to the chase and score. It completely cuts off the momentum of that scene, and makes me dislike the use of Daggett/Stryver more.

I was really impressed with Nolan’s screenplay for Dunkirk and his willingness to cut back. Tenet could be the return of the exposition king. Hope not.

Look at the top right. He’s selling a punch without being hit. It’s like when you’re 10 and imitating wrestling with your brother.

Yeah I’ll take real extras over CGI as well. But that doesn’t automatically make it good. There’s a way to do it with extras and make it more believable. If you don’t focus on the background at all and keep your eyes on the main characters, it’s not a problem. But after 10 viewings you do have to force yourself to not wander to the extras back there.

Yeah obviously it’s not automatically good but I think there were more good than bad extras. With 3000 people fighting its impossible for it it be 100% choreographed to perfection so I’m willing to cut some slack. Every movie that has a large fight scene has this problem from braveheart to gangs of New York but I think all 3 pull it off imo

 

[The Joker]

Stryver I agree but I love daggett . That might be because I love Ben Mendelsohn and that He is involved in one of the more terrifying scenes I’ve ever seen with his death scene

Yeah his death scene was good, but that was down to Hardy's Bane, IMO. Same as how the infamous Why So Serious scene is great not because of Gambol but because of Ledger's epic acting.

 

[shauner111]

There are more bad than good, believe me. All the extras are atrocious throughout the entire trilogy.

 

[The Joker]

I don't believe that, because I've seen the movies for myself. The extras are predominantly solid in the trilogy. Its only in Rises that there are some seriously bad ones you can spot in the background.

 

[Dede]

There are more bad than good, believe me. All the extras are atrocious throughout the entire trilogy.

I just don’t think they are that bad but hey opinions are opinions

 

[Dede]

I don't believe that, because I've seen the movies for myself. The extras are predominantly solid in the trilogy. Its only in Rises that there are some seriously bad ones you can spot in the background.

I’m guessing he’s counting the ones like the guys weird facial expression during the no more dead cops scene as well that cop himself

 

[Kane52630]

Honestly I’ll take real extras over cgi any day. And whatever sloppy choreography I can just chalk up to it being realistic with people not knowing how to fight in real life

Nobody is saying they should be CG and your lowered expectations doesn't make that sloppy shot valid. It's okay to criticize them.

 

[Eddie Dean]

How those Bane speeches aging right now?

 

[Dede]

Nobody is saying they should be CG and your lowered expectations doesn't make that sloppy shot valid.

Fine that shot and others are sloppy I think it’s still an excellent fight scene

 

[Dede]

How those Bane speeches aging right now?

Good? They’re pretty relevant to what’s happing right now

 

[Kane52630]

 

[Rorschach2012]

What was the explanation for Bruce getting back to Gotham in TDKR? I don’t remember, and it always kinda felt like a plot hole to me. I’m sure there’s an explanation though.