The Dark Knight Rises Unpopular Opinion but I hate The Christopher Nolan Dark Knight Trilogy

[Awest66]

At times, I really do wonder if the people who rag on The Dark Knight Rises have even bothered to watch it

 

[Spider-Fan]

At times, I really do wonder if the people who rag on The Dark Knight Rises have even bothered to watch it

Don't do that. You can argue the merits of the movie you like without blankly insulting every user who doesn't share your opinion. People dont have to like what you like or see things the way you do. If this is too much for you, post somewhere else

 

[Spider-Fan]

Seriously, when yall try and make that point that "you didn't understand it" or whatever, you realize what you watched right? This wasn't 2001: A Space Odyssey or some David Lynch film that is left purposefully vague and left to your imagination and interpretation. This is a 200+ million dollar 4 quadrant movie about a guy dressing as a bat and fighting a secret society of or mercenaries and ninjas. It's not a hard to "get" movie. Yall can debate this movie with civility and without the condescension. If not, I hand out vacations and close the thread eventually. Yalls choice

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Seriously, when yall try and make that point that "you didn't understand it" or whatever, you realize what you watched right? This wasn't 2001: A Space Odyssey or some David Lynch film that is left purposefully vague and left to your imagination and interpretation. This is a 200+ million dollar 4 quadrant movie about a guy dressing as a bat and fighting a secret society of or mercenaries and ninjas. It's not a hard to "get" movie. Yall cam debate this movie with civility and without the condescension. If not, I hand out vacations and close the thread eventually. Yalls choice

I'm in the process of typing my response to @Awest66 but if you want me to stop my part of the conversation, I'll stop.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I'm in the process of typing my response to @Awest66 but if you want me to stop my part of the conversation, I'll stop.

Yall can reply to each other. Just no more personal attacks and vague insults and such. Debate the movie itself

 

[BoredGuy]

At times, I really do wonder if the people who rag on The Dark Knight Rises have even bothered to watch it

I'll say I watched it exactly twice, when it first came out (once in theaters and once when it hit streaming)
And it was extremely disappointing to me both times, especially coming off what I thought was the greatest superhero movie ever made in TDK

Bane was a weak nigh-unintelligible villain (not to mention much too small), his plan was full of holes, the twists felt contrived, the supporting characters were underdeveloped, and Batman himself also felt small and was not the character I wanted to see. The action was decent especially the plane intro scene, and the cinematography was beautiful as it always is on Nolan's films, but that didn't make up for a ton of other weaknesses imo.

All that said, the strength of BB and TDK still make this one of, if not the, best trilogies ever

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Bane having the same motivation as Ras is kind of the point.

and that was a problem for me. we already had a movie with Ra's as the main villain and his motive of destroying Gotham. Bane to me is just Ra's al Ghul 2.0 just based on his motivation alone.

He's presented as a dark reflection of Batman, who Bruce could have become if he didn't turn his back on the League.

I disagree. The movie established that Bane himself was so extreme that he got kicked out of the League. He only got back to the League after Ra's was dead.

He could have been presented as a dark reflection of Batman without involving the League in the plot. The layout was there in his comic book origins.

Nolan was trying to go for a "past comes back to haunt us" vibe which most traditional film trilogies incorporate.

I don't care what most traditional film trilogies incorperate. if Nolan's idea of going full circle was to have the League as a threat in the first and third movies, then he should've had them incorporated into the second film too. But he didn't, and the second film being what it was made it seem like each installment was going to be standalone.

and Batman Begins wasn't about a terrorist taking control of a city to torture it for the sake of forcing one man to realize the depths of his failure in trying to protect it or make it a better place. That's completely different from Batman Begins

nobody said that what I said what was that BB was Batman vs. The League, who steals a device from Wayne Enterprises and uses it as a superweapon to destroy Gotham. That's exactly the same as DKR.

But you're not citing just one ethnicity here. If it were specific, It would just be "middle eastern" or just be "Asian" not "Middle Eastern" or "Asian". I don't have a source for what O'Neil or Adams said but I've never read them as saying he was based on one specific nationality either.

there are hundreds if not thousands of ethnicities within the human genome. if we get technical here, Middle Eastern can also fall under Asian since the Middle East is located in western Asia.

if I named ethnicities all throughout the world from every corner, then that would make things ambiguous because it's saying Ra's could be from anywhere. but based on what I said, his origins are somewhere within Asia or the Middle East which are close to each other geographically.

Again, We are trying to get away from the "luchador wrestler" stereotype here.

who is "we" in this case? just because he wears a luchador mask doesn't make it stereotypical. it's him sporting his Latin American roots. from the entire history of the character's portrayals, I don't think his outfits were ever seen as problematic.

but even if people take issue with that or see it as a stereotype - that doesn't mean Nolan had to completely ignore Bane being a Latino. he could've still had the same arc and same outfits and just be portrayed by a Latino actor instead. it's not like he would have to wear a suit consistent with the comics if they decided to keep his ethnicity consistent with the comics.

His desire to "fulfill Ra's Al Ghul's destiny" is entirely his own. There is absolutely nothing that says that he's doing it just because of Talia.

"I never escaped, Ra's Al Ghul rescued me. That's why I must avenge his murder and fulfill his destiny"

either way, I personally just didn't like his motivation. either he's doing everything to avenge Ra's, or he's doing everything because he loves Talia. either way, I didn't like it.

if he's trying to complete what Ra's did, then it furthers my sentiment about how DKR is just BB 2.0 because it's another movie in this series of Batman movies about a villain with the League at the helm and a mission to destroy Gotham. and if he's doing everything because he loves Talia, then my sentiment is all of the above + the fact that now it's revealed that he's done it all out of love as his main motive.

That felt more like a request than an "order".

not to me it didn't. once it was revealed that the leader of the League had a daughter and that was her, the twist had the story shift to her being the one pulling the strings all along.

Bane is absolutely the main villain of the Dark Knight Rises. The militaristic vibe of the movie is a direct result of his character, his men fear and revere him (HIM, not Talia), It's his movie just as much as The Dark Knight's was the Jokers.

from a narrative or storytelling perspective, I can agree with you here. he had the screen time and the involvement so for all intents and purposes, the viewers are all led to believe that the threat in Gotham is being led by him and him alone.

The revelation that he's not really the son of Ra's Al Ghul (which was hinted at earlier in the movie) changes none of that.

but this is where I disagree. we get a scene of exposition & flashbacks explaining what has really been going on leading up to the moment where Batman gets stabbed. then, Bane is killed off and the movie goes on like as if he was just another henchman for the League the whole time. he's not brought up ever again. whereas the Joker was still being talked about up until the last few minutes of TDK, even after he's arrested and out of the picture.

Again, as I've said before, "Past comes back to haunt us". Nolan didn't want to make a "villain of the week" series. He wanted a film that would tie back to both movies.

I already responded to this kinda. if Nolan's idea of his Batman going full circle is just to run into the League again, then the whole trilogy should've just been about the League. TDK was standalone. Bane in the comics was born in a prison and had to fend for himself. that's a tragic upbringing that mirrors Batman's and facing a Bane with a more comic accurate origin with his own vendetta could have still had a story involving going full circle.

What do you think Bane's "original goal" should have been? Just take over the Gotham crime families like in the comics? Nolan would probably view that as being small potatoes compared to what came before.

I don't know. I just didn't want Bane's goal to involve the League. he's much more than that in the comics. Joker's original goal wasn't to establish full on anarchy within Gotham in all of the comic runs, was it? so there could have been a story with Bane as the main villain they could have come up with if they wished to do so.

 

[Awest66]

I'll say I watched it exactly twice, when it first came out (once in theaters and once when it hit streaming)
And it was extremely disappointing to me both times, especially coming off what I thought was the greatest superhero movie ever made in TDK

Bane was a weak nigh-unintelligible villain (not to mention much too small), his plan was full of holes, the twists felt contrived, the supporting characters were underdeveloped, and Batman himself also felt small and was not the character I wanted to see. The action was decent especially the plane intro scene, and the cinematography was beautiful as it always is on Nolan's films, but that didn't make up for a ton of other weaknesses imo.

All that said, the strength of BB and TDK still make this one of, if not the, best trilogies ever

Im sorry but I just really cant see this point of view at all. I thought Bane was a terrigic antagonist, his plan was no more "full of holes" than the Jokers was, the supporting characters were just as good as the previous two and what exactly do you mean by "Batman feeling small"?

Making a sequel to The Dark Knight was never gonna be easy but I think Rises acquitted itself well.

 

[BoredGuy]

Im sorry but I just really cant see this point of view at all. I thought Bane was a terrigic antagonist, his plan was no more "full of holes" than the Jokers was, the supporting characters were just as good as the previous two and what exactly do you mean by "Batman feeling small"?

Making a sequel to The Dark Knight was never gonna be easy but I think Rises acquitted itself well.

Bane's plans just made very little sense to me. Joker's relied on plenty of conveniences, sure, but it at least made "movie sense". Bane's just didn't hold water from a logical standpoint imo. The whole time watching the movie I was like "That's not how that would work" which is not a thought train you want viewers riding on while trying to focus on your story. (Plus, I wanted a big motherf***er who could finally provide for some awesome fight scenes in this series, and we didn't really get that. Not saying they weren't visceral, just not as bombastic as I'd hoped for hearing Bane would be the villain)

And I didn't feel Catwoman or JGL's character were nearly as well developed as Harvey Dent in TDK for instance.

And by "small" I mean Batman starting the film retired and hermit-y after breaking a leg and taking the blame in TDK? Not the characterization of him I'd prefer.

Fine if you disagree, just how I felt about it

 

[Awest66]

and that was a problem for me. we already had a movie with Ra's as the main villain and his motive of destroying Gotham. Bane to me is just Ra's al Ghul 2.0 just based on his motivation alone.

I disagree. The movie established that Bane himself was so extreme that he got kicked out of the League. He only got back to the League after Ra's was dead.

He could have been presented as a dark reflection of Batman without involving the League in the plot. The layout was there in his comic book origins.

I don't care what most traditional film trilogies operate. if Nolan's idea of going full circle was to have the League as a threat in the first and third movies, then he should've had them incorporated into the second film too. But he didn't, and the second film being what it was made it seem like each installment was going to be standalone.

nobody said that what I said what was that BB was Batman vs. The League, who steals a device from Wayne Enterprises and uses it as a superweapon to destroy Gotham. That's exactly the same as DKR.

there are hundreds if not thousands of ethnicities within the human genome. if we get technical here, Middle Eastern can also fall under Asian since the Middle East is located in western Asia.

if I named ethnicities all throughout the world from every corner, then that would make things ambiguous because it's saying Ra's could be from anywhere. but based on what I said, his origins are somewhere within Asia or the Middle East which are close to each other geographically.

who is "we" in this case? just because he wears a luchador mask doesn't make it stereotypical. it's him sporting his Latin American roots. from the entire history of the character's portrayals, I don't his outfits were ever seen as problematic.

but even if people take issue with that or see it as a stereotype - that doesn't mean Nolan had to completely ignore Bane being a Latino. he could've still had the same arc and same outfits and just be portrayed by a Latino actor instead. it's not like he would have to wear a suit consistent with the comics if they decided to keep his ethnicity consistent with the comics.


either way, I personally just didn't like his motivation. either he's doing everything to avenge Ra's, or he's doing everything because he loves Talia. either way, I didn't like it.

if he's trying to complete what Ra's did, then it furthers my sentiment about how DKR is just BB 2.0 because it's another movie in this series of Batman movies about a villain with the League at the helm and a mission to destroy Gotham. and if he's doing everything because he loves Talia, then my sentiment is all of the above + the fact that now it's revealed that he's done it all out of love as his main motive.

not to me it didn't. once it was revealed that the leader of the League had a daughter and that was her, the twist had the story shift to her being the one pulling the strings all along.

from a narrative or storytelling perspective, I can agree with you here. he had the screen time and the involvement so for all intents and purposes, the viewers are all led to believe that the threat in Gotham is being led by him and him alone.

but this is where I disagree. we get a scene of exposition & flashbacks explaining what has really been going on leading up to the moment where Batman gets stabbed. then, Bane is killed off and the movie goes on like as if he was just another henchman for the League the whole time. he's not brought up ever again. whereas the Joker was still being talked about up until the last few minutes of TDK, even after he's arrested and out of the picture.

I already responded to this kinda. if Nolan's idea of his Batman going full circle is just to run into the League again, then the whole trilogy should've just been about the League. TDK was standalone. Bane in the comics was born in a prison and had to fend for himself. that's a tragic upbringing that mirrors Batman's and facing a Bane with a more comic accurate origin with his own vendetta could have still had a story involving going full circle.

I don't know. I just didn't want Bane's goal to involve the League. he's much more than that in the comics. Joker's original goal wasn't to establish full on anarchy within Gotham in all of the comic runs, was it? so there could have been a story with Bane as the main villain they could have come up with if they wished to do so.

Bane had a much more militaristic approach towards carrying out the Leagues goal and that him stand out from Ras even if they had the same motive.

Yes, Bane could have had his comic book motivation of wanting to destroy a man he never met so he could rule his city as a crime lord but is that honestly that much better than what we already have? It would honestly feel like pretty small potatoes compared to what came before.

Your complaint about "all the films needing to be standalone" feels really unfair. That just because Nolan didnt include the League in TDK, They could never come back in any way, shape or form? Does this mean he couldnt use the Joker again even if Heath Ledger hadnt passed?

On the whole ethnicity debate, I dont really care anymore. I thought Liam Neeson was absolutely terrific in the role and its much more important to cast a great actor than match him up exactly with how he is in the comics.

Same with Bane. Him being "latino" has never been a defining feature in the comics and really wouldnt have added anything to the movie. Its other adaptstions like TAS that needlessly exaggerated that feature. He wasnt even originally envisioned as a "luchador" either, his mask was meant to symbolize an executioners hood and to inspire fear.

For the rest, Im just gonna say this. The Dark Knight Rises isnt trying to be Batman Begins 2.0, its trying to be a movie that ties both Begins and The Dark Knight into one cohesive package and it couldnt have been that if had tried to be another installment about Batman fighting a new villain of the week. If the original James Bond series had a standalone movie without SPECTRE (Goldfinger) and then went right back to them, theres no real reason it coudnt be the same for the trilogy.

 

[Awest66]

Bane's plans just made very little sense to me. Joker's relied on plenty of conveniences, sure, but it at least made "movie sense". Bane's just didn't hold water from a logical standpoint imo. The whole time watching the movie I was like "That's not how that would work" which is not a thought train you want viewers riding on while trying to focus on your story. (Plus, I wanted a big motherf***er who could finally provide for some awesome fight scenes in this series, and we didn't really get that. Not saying they weren't visceral, just not as bombastic as I'd hoped for hearing Bane would be the villain)

And I didn't feel Catwoman or JGL's character were nearly as well developed as Harvey Dent in TDK for instance.

And by "small" I mean Batman starting the film retired and hermit-y after breaking a leg and taking the blame in TDK? Not the characterization of him I'd prefer.

Fine if you disagree, just how I felt about it

The arguments that Banes plan "doesnt make any sense" dont hold any water to me. The stock exchange heist? They used a virus that changed the information on the computer and Fox explicitly said theyd be able to prove fraud eventually. The police going underground? Something exactly like this happened in real life.

I thought Catwoman and Blake were developed just fine considering the ensemble nature of the cast. (Both got more development than Rachel did)

Were you hoping that Batman would still be figting crime as a fugitive vigilante? Because that would really render his perserving Harveys reputation entirely pointless.

 

[BoredGuy]

The arguments that Banes plan "doesnt make any sense" dont hold any water to me. The stock exchange heist? They used a virus that changed the information on the computer and Fox explicitly said theyd be able to prove fraud eventually.

The second they stepped through those doors all trading would've stopped, virus or not. Unless the cyberattack began before the actual attack, which they never made clear

The police going underground? Something exactly like this happened in real life.

When? Not being obstinate, I've just really never heard this. When did a whole police force go into a sewer after a group of mercenaries? In the US I Feel like the National Guard would do something like that if the scale was serious enough, not police.

I thought Catwoman and Blake were developed just fine considering the ensemble nature of the cast. (Both got more development than Rachel did)

Agree to disagree

Were you hoping that Batman would still be figting crime as a fugitive vigilante? Because that would really render his perserving Harveys reputation entirely pointless.

Yes. He didn't have to be "The Batman". Bruce has used plenty of disguises over the years. But holing himself up in Wayne Manor for years is not something he's done very often.

 

[Awest66]

The second they stepped through those doors all trading would've stopped, virus or not

Its a good thing they didnt actually make any trades then. It was a virus that manipulated the information in the computer to make it look like Bruce had made put options (trades made months in advance). It wouldnt have mattered if all trading was stopped because they werent actually making trades on the day. Again, Fox said "Well be able to prove fraud in the long term"

When did a whole police force go into a sewer after a group of mercenaries? In

I meant there was a similar situation in which thousands of cops were sent into the sewers. They also didnt send the "whole police force" in Rises. Therese quite a few cops top side helping Blake and Gordon

He didn't have to be "The Batman". Bruce has used plenty of disguises over the years. But holing himself up in Wayne Manor for years is not something he's done very often.

So what exactly would Bruce be doing? Just hanging around dive bars as Matches Malone to make sure everythings running smoothly? Bruce only "holed himself up in Wayne Manor for three years.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Bane had a much more militaristic approach towards carrying out the Leagues goal and that him stand out from Ras even if they had the same motive.

you already said this and I already told you that the fact that Bane's motive being the same as Ra's' as well as the similar story beats of BB & DKR just struck me as too similar. Bane's approach being militaristic and more in-your-face versus Ra's elusiveness didn't matter to me.

Yes, Bane could have had his comic book motivation of wanting to destroy a man he never met so he could rule his city as a crime lord but is that honestly that much better than what we already have?

are you asking my personal opinion? then yes, I would have liked it if the third installment of Nolan's Batman trilogy was also standalone with Bane as the main villain faithfully with Latino roots and his own vendetta against Batman.

It would honestly feel like pretty small potatoes compared to what came before.

"pretty small potatoes" is your opinion. my opinion just isn't the same and based on recent responses it looks like I'm not alone. we're all fans of Batman, so my opinion or someone else's is just as valid as yours.

Your complaint about "all the films needing to be standalone" feels really unfair.

Unfair in what way? Am I being unfair to Nolan himself? He's responsible for the highest grossing Batman films of all time so why would he care what some random amateur critic like me even thinks?

That just because Nolan didnt include the League in TDK, They could never come back in any way, shape or form?

There are a totally of 3 films in this series. the majority of them have to do with the League of Shadows and their mission to destroy Gotham. if you're asking my personal opinion if they should have left out the League entirely? I would have liked that better, sure. I don't absolutely hate the fact that the League was brought back for DKR, it's just that it felt too similar to BB for reasons I already told you.

Does this mean he couldnt use the Joker again even if Heath Ledger hadnt passed?

I 100% believe that if Heath Ledger was still alive, he would have appeared in DKR in some capacity. Maybe he would've even been the mock judge instead of Scarecrow. and speaking of Scarecrow, he was also brought back in TDK even though the plot of that movie had no bearing on everything he did in BB. so if you're asking my opinion, yes of course the Joker could've been used again.

On the whole ethnicity debate, I dont really care anymore.

well okay then. you do you. but I'm always going to hold the whitewashing against Nolan & his Batman movies.

I thought Liam Neeson was absolutely terrific in the role and its much more important to cast a great actor than match him up exactly with how he is in the comics.

well I did say in my first post in this thread that he did a good job in the role itself. but the film didn't owe its success to his casting, and nor does it mean that an actor that matches up with the character exactly how he is in the comics wouldn't have also been absolutely terrific in the role. I certainly wouldn't say whitewashing is excused if a great actor is cast instead of an actor whose background matches the character's.

Same with Bane. Him being "latino" has never been a defining feature in the comics and really wouldnt have added anything to the movie.

just because it isn't a defining feature or add to the movie doesn't mean Nolan should have disregarded it. we're going in circles at this point. again, in a world where minorities still struggle to find roles in high profile Hollywood projects, Bane's inclusion in the plot of a Batman film was definitely an opportunity to give a Latino actor a huge breakthrough role.

Its other adaptstions like TAS that needlessly exaggerated that feature.

needlessly exaggerated? his muscle proportions may be exaggerated just like every other comic book character in an animated capacity but as I said before I don't think his outfits in other adaptations were ever seen as being problematic. from my understanding, BTAS has always been held in high regard.

He wasnt even originally envisioned as a "luchador" either, his mask was meant to symbolize an executioners hood and to inspire fear.

and that's also totally fine. look, in case it was I was being unclear, I don't take issue with the fact that Bane didn't have a suit in DKR that was comic book accurate. what I take issue with is the actual whitewashing in the role. Bane could've been played by an actor of Hispanic or Latino descent, while his design in the film keeps Nolan's vision.

For the rest, Im just gonna say this. The Dark Knight Rises isnt trying to be Batman Begins 2.0, its trying to be a movie that ties both Begins and The Dark Knight into one cohesive package

I know DKR wasn't trying to be BB 2.0, but my opinion is my own. the plot of the film was just too similar to feel like it was good storytelling. it tied much more into BB than it did into TDK, and some people have even said that viewers could go from BB right into DKR in a watching marathon, even if it doesn't make as much sense than to watch the entire trilogy.

and it couldnt have been that if had tried to be another installment about Batman fighting a new villain of the week. If the original James Bond series had a standalone movie without SPECTRE (Goldfinger) and then went right back to them, theres no real reason it coudnt be the same for the trilogy.

I don't know what you mean when you keep on saying "villain of the week" other than if you mean to say Bane wouldn't have been as good of a villain if his arc wasn't tied to the League. Joker wasn't tied to the League, and Bane could've had a background that wasn't tied to it either.

I'm not getting into the James Bond stuff. similarly to Star Wars, it is unfamiliar territory for me.

 

[Awest66]

you already said this and I already told you that the fact that Bane's motive being the same as Ra's' as well as the similar story beats of BB & DKR just struck me as too similar. Bane's approach being militaristic and more in-your-face versus Ra's elusiveness didn't matter to me.

are you asking my personal opinion? then yes, I would have liked it if the third installment of Nolan's Batman trilogy was also standalone with Bane as the main villain faithfully with Latino roots and his own vendetta against Batman.

"pretty small potatoes" is your opinion. my opinion just isn't the same and based on recent responses it looks like I'm not alone. we're all fans of Batman, so my opinion or someone else's is just as valid as yours.

Unfair in what way? Am I being unfair to Nolan himself? He's responsible for the highest grossing Batman films of all time so why would he care what some random amateur critic like me even thinks?

There are a totally of 3 films in this series. the majority of them have to do with the League of Shadows and their mission to destroy Gotham. if you're asking my personal opinion if they should have left out the League entirely? I would have liked that better, sure. I don't absolutely hate the fact that the League was brought back for DKR, it's just that it felt too similar to BB for reasons I already told you.

I 100% believe that if Heath Ledger was still alive, he would have appeared in DKR in some capacity. Maybe he would've even been the mock judge instead of Scarecrow. and speaking of Scarecrow, he was also brought back in TDK even though the plot of that movie had no bearing on everything he did in BB. so if you're asking my opinion, yes of course the Joker could've been used again.

well okay then. you do you. but I'm always going to hold the whitewashing against Nolan & his Batman movies.

well I did say in my first post in this thread that he did a good job in the role itself. but the film didn't owe its success to his casting, and nor does it mean that an actor that matches up with the character exactly how he is in the comics wouldn't have also been absolutely terrific in the role. I certainly wouldn't say whitewashing is excused if a great actor is cast instead of an actor whose background matches the character's.

just because it isn't a defining feature or add to the movie doesn't mean Nolan should have disregarded it. we're going in circles at this point. again, in a world where minorities still struggle to find roles in high profile Hollywood projects, his inclusion in the plot of a Batman film was definitely an opportunity to give a Latino actor a huge breakthrough role.

needlessly exaggerated? his muscle proportions may be exaggerated just like every other comic book character in an animated capacity but as I said before I don't think his outfits in other adaptations were ever seen as being problematic. from my understanding, BTAS has always been held in high regard.

and that's also totally fine. look, in case it was I was being unclear, I don't take issue with the fact that Bane didn't have a suit in DKR that was comic book accurate. what I take issue with is the actual whitewashing in the role. Bane could've been played by an actor of Hispanic or Latino descent, while his design in the film keeps Nolan's vision.

I know DKR wasn't trying to be BB 2.0, but my opinion is my own. the plot of the film was just too similar to feel like it was good storytelling. it tied much more into BB than it did into TDK, and some people have even said that viewers could go from BB right into DKR in a watching marathon, even if it doesn't make as much sense than to watch the entire trilogy.

I don't know what you mean when you keep on saying "villain of the week" other than if you mean to say Bane wouldn't have been as good of a villain if his arc wasn't tied to the League. Joker wasn't tied to the League, and Bane could've had a background that wasn't tied to it either.

I'm not getting into the James Bond stuff. similarly to Star Wars, it is unfamiliar territory for me.

I have a question for you actually.

Would yiu have preferred if Nolan had chosen not to come back to make a third Batman movie and pawned off that responsibility to anothet writer/?director?

 

[BoredGuy]

Its a good thing they didnt actually make any trades then. It was a virus that manipulated the information in the computer to make it look like Bruce had made put options (trades made months in advance). It wouldnt have mattered if all trading was stopped because they werent actually making trades on the day. Again, Fox said "Well be able to prove fraud in the long term"

So it was pointless then. Not like Bruce would've been kicked out of the Manor, or even cut off from funding. We've seen how the rich are treated, he would've gotten the benefit of the doubt while the issues were cleared up.

I meant there was a similar situation in which thousands of cops were sent into the sewers. They also didnt send the "whole police force" in Rises. Therese quite a few cops top side helping Blake and Gordon

Hyperbole on my part, so sorry. Regardless, no trained police force in this country would send hundreds of police officers into one sewer entrance after a small mercenary force. Again that probably wouldn't even be the police's job, that would be a federal issue

So what exactly would Bruce be doing? Just hanging around dive bars as Matches Malone to make sure everythings running smoothly? Bruce only "holed himself up in Wayne Manor for three years.

That's a bit reductive, there's a lot more he could do undercover than just making sure things "run smoothly". This is Batman, dude could think of some ways to be helpful from the shadows, which is like, his whole forte. And I'd contend three years is a long f**ing time. Covid was a couple months and that s*** felt like forever, lol...

 

[Spider-Fan]

I have a question for you actually.

Would yiu have preferred if Nolan had chosen not to come back to make a third Batman movie and pawned off that responsibility to anothet writer/?director?

I can answer this for me, and that entirely depends on the creative. All I know right now is what Nolan came up with didn't work for me. I would need to know what the alternative was to answer this

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

I have a question for you actually.

Would yiu have preferred if Nolan had chosen not to come back to make a third Batman movie and pawned off that responsibility to anothet writer/?director?

would I have preferred it? probably not. I like a lot of Nolan's work.

but as @Spider-Fan suggested, I wouldn't be totally outraged if WB announced back in like 2011 or something that he was getting replaced either.

 

[Awest66]

So it was pointless then. Not like Bruce would've been kicked out of the Manor, or even cut off from funding. We've seen how the rich are treated, he would've gotten the benefit of the doubt while the issues were cleared up.

Hyperbole on my part, so sorry. Regardless, no trained police force in this country would send hundreds of police officers into one sewer entrance after a small mercenary force. Again that probably wouldn't even be the police's job, that would be a federal issue

That's a bit reductive, there's a lot more he could do undercover than just making sure things "run smoothly". This is Batman, dude could think of some ways to be helpful from the shadows, which is like, his whole forte. And I'd contend three years is a long f**ing time. Covid was a couple months and that s*** felt like forever, lol...

It wasnt pointless. They didnt need for Bruce to be broke long term. Just long enough for him to give control if WE (and the fusion reactor) to Tate.

So the issue isnt that they sent a large amount, its that they sent them after a mercenary force? Doesnt particularly bother me, Gordon probably thought they didnt have time.

The whole point of the beginning is that Batmans sacrifice amounted to something. The preservation of Harveys name created a Gotham that didnt need Batman anymore. If Batman is "whatever Gotham needs him to be" than he wont be whatever Gotham doesnt need him to be.

 

[Awest66]

I can answer this for me, and that entirely depends on the creative. All I know right now is what Nolan came up with didn't work for me. I would need to know what the alternative was to answer this

In broad stroaks, What would be an alternative that would work for you?

Batman still fighting crime as a fugitive vigilante? The city seeing no real improvement from keeping Harveys reputation intact? Banes motivation as just "Break a guy Ive never met so I can unite and take over the Gotham crime families"?

If WB turned to another director, I dont even think we"d see Bane at all. Theyd probably just acquiese to WBs desire to have the villain be the Riddler.

 

[Spider-Fan]

In broad stroaks, What would be an alternative that would work for you?

Batman still fighting crime as a fugitive vigilante? The city seeing no real improvement from keeping Harveys reputation intact? Banes motivation as just "Break a guy Ive never met so I can unite and take over the Gotham crime families"?

If WB turned to another director, I dont even think we"d see Bane at all. Theyd probably just acquiese to WBs desire to have the villain be the Riddler.

I dont have a horse in the race of what I would have wanted to see or would have done. Hire someone talented with a great idea. They could have built of TDK in any number of ways that I would have probably found more interesting. What I can tell you for certain is what they opted to do for TDKR didn't work for me.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

I can imagine a movie with an Arabic Ra's in 2005 being pretty rejected, disapproved of as too politically incorrect/insensitive or even incendiary, it also could have worked and been accepted, even liked, but I think understandable Nolan wanted to just avoid the risk.

I understand where you're coming from when you say a Ra's played by an Arab actor in 2005 would be rejected, but only because of business in a Hollywood run & ruled by mostly white people. I honestly still do not think that makes the whitewashing okay.

If that's something Nolan actually was considering and it was that serious of a concern, then he would have/should have picked a different main villain rather than Ra's. I truly think he just didn't care enough and didn't even think enough people would care (and he was right...in the grand scheme of things, when we look at all of the criticisms of his Batman trilogy, the whitewashing usually doesn't turn up that much).

Just remember. in 2019, it was revealed that a Hollywood executive wanted Julia Roberts to play Harriet Tubman in a biopic, with the rationale being that because the history was so long ago, the public wouldn't even remember that she was Black.

 

[Awest66]

I dont have a horse in the race of what I would have wanted to see or would have done. Hire someone talented with a great idea. They could have built of TDK in any number of ways that I would have probably found more interesting. What I can tell you for certain is what they opted to do for TDKR didn't work for me.

I find it really sad that some people genuinelly dont think that the guy who actually made the Dark Knight was able to do that.

 

[Awest66]

I understand where you're coming from when you say a Ra's played by an Arab actor in 2005 would be rejected, but only because of business in a Hollywood run & ruled by mostly white people. I honestly still do not think that makes the whitewashing okay.

If that's something Nolan actually was considering and it was that serious of a concern, then he would have/should have picked a different main villain rather than Ra's. I truly think he just didn't care enough and didn't even think enough people would care (and he was right...in the grand scheme of things, when we look at all of the criticisms of his Batman trilogy, the whitewashing usually doesn't turn up that much).

Just remember. in 2019, it was revealed that a Hollywood executive wanted Julia Roberts to play Harriet Tubman in a biopic, with the rationale being that because the history was so long ago, the public wouldn't even remember that she was Black.

I have another question actually. Since youre hung up on the "race thing", Who would you have cast to Play Ras Al Gul and Bane?

For that matter, Are there any Batman characters you think Liam Neeson and Tom Hardy could have played instead?

 

[Spider-Fan]

I find it really sad that some people genuinelly dont think that the guy who actually made the Dark Knight was able to do that.

I never said he couldn't. I said he didn't. There is a difference. Stop taking these things personally. Unless you are Christopher Nolan or something? I didn't like a movie he made. It doesn't go beyond that amigo. Great filmmakers sometimes make bad movies. I love Martin Scorsese, but you couldn't force me to sit through New York New York ever again.