Discussion in 'The Dark Knight Rises' started by TheDevilIsMe, Feb 27, 2013.
Yours is definitely the better choice.
I'm just spit-balling over here. I was never down with TDKR being split into two films, but I'm starting to wish that's what we got, instead of one truncated and somewhat rushed film.
I felt it was fair to give the film another look. I had no intention of buying it on DVD on day one of its release so I waited until it hit the bargain bins at my local retailer coz frankly I don't think it deserved me paying full price. It wasn't so much lowering of expectations, it's more about just accepting it for what it is, I just look at it as a silly popcorn film dressed up to look smarter than it actually is. I just think it's a shame that I can't look at all three films through the same lens. But it is what it is, there's really no point me *****ing about the film any further to be honest, just gotta move on. I still appreciate everything Nolan has done, he's delivered a fantastic Batman series that will last in people's memory's for a long time, and has ticked off pretty much all the important elements and characters of the mythology so in that sense I haven't got too much to complain about. Here endith my issues with Rises.....Justice League is now firmly in my sights.
I'll also say this, for me Rises is to the Nolan series what Forever is to the Burton/Schumacher series, a film that isn't great but can be enjoyed if you don't take it too seriously.
I'm sorta new here but I was thinking about TDKR being not as well liked by a portion of casual movie goers and CBM fans the other day and I had a few thoughts on it. I think the main thing that I've noticed a lot of people have a problem with is that it isn't The Dark Knight. All three movies in this trilogy are different types of films IMO. To me Begins is a coming of age/realizing your destiny type of film, The Dark Knight is a crime drama and Rises is more of an action film. And I think a lot of people were expecting The Dark Knight part 2. Like another crime drama type of film, which is understandable. So during the four year gap TDKR sort of got put on a pedestal and expected to be more like The Dark Knight and that wasn't the case when people saw it. And I don't blame people for wanting another TDK, it's expected, but I also don't blame, and respect, Nolan for not wanting to make the same movie twice. I mean if you're gonna dedicate like 2 years of your life to a film why would you wanna do the same thing you did already?
In terms of ideas and story TDKR is my favorite of the Trilogy and I'm willing to overlook the plot holes and problems because the things it gets right are just really amazing to me. I for sure think
it would have benefited from being split into 2 movies. Idk i just feel there could have been a lot more done with the story if there was more time to flesh some things out (Blake figuring out Bruce is Batman, Banes Revolution, Talia's motivations,Bane's backstory, etc.)
Again, great post and I probably can't say it any better or clearer. I"m under no illusions that Begins or TDK were perfect films. They weren't. There are definately scenes in BB that make me cringe and some edits or plot holes in TDK that drive me nuts as well. But for me TDKR just didn't work as whole, and I didn't feel that it lived up to the other 2 films. That being said, Nolan's Batman films are probably my favourite trilogy (outside of the original Star Wars films) and got me back into being a Batman fan.
No, lol...I meant when I go back and look at the trilogy, I would hope Nolan didn't use IMAX for TDK. It was close to getting some sleep, I should've been awake enough to explain myself further. Sorry about that, lol.
That's where it becomes tricky...we don't know how much is really cut as only one draft was supposedly 400 pages long and a lot of first drafts are incredibly long, so it's hard to say what really is filmed except for what we can find in the script you can download or some things mentioned such as Bane's origin. That would make it weird to get two parts that each would feel much shorter than even Batman Begins.
In any case, I would say no on cutting Blake or Talia as I'm fine with the product we have where Talia is used and where Blake is used. Just more time needed to be given, that's all I'd ask for. I also wanted more frenzy from Batman's first return and Coleman Reese showing up again.
Just re-watched TDKR (only my 3rd viewing). I enjoyed it more than before.
The problem before was that I was expecting something as good or better than The Dark Knight which affected my enjoyment of the film.
This time, I really got into the action scenes, the melodramatic attempt at drama, understood Bane's dialogue because of the subtitles. Nolan's having fun in this so I can overlook the poor dialogue and the messy editing of this movie. TDKR isn't as affecting, haunting, focused, influential, and relevant as TDK, but it's still a great popcorn movie.
I have changed my rating for TDKR:
BATMAN BEGINS 8/10
THE DARK KNIGHT 9/10
THE DARK KNIGHT RISES 8/10
The answer to the thread title is "cognitive dissonance".
I just rewatched this for the first time since theaters, and it pains me to say it, but I really disliked this movie. For the record, Im not a "why wasn't it TDK2" band wagoner- I love Batman; hell, I spent most of my teens posting in the Begins forum on SHH when it was supposed to be called "Intimidation Game." Now, if I watch DKR as "Chris Nolan's Die Hard with a Batman Cameo," it's a pretty decent summer blockbuster. As someone who grew up when Batman movies weren't cool, I respect Nolan for rescuing the character from the depths of character hell, because BB and TDK taught me that he "got" Batman.... well, at least I thought he did until TDKR.
Watching Begins and The Dark Knight build up to the tragedy of the character (Rachel telling Bruce that Batman is his true self- Gotham will always need Batman)- the outcome of Rises just didnt click with me. Im probably beating a dead horse, but I felt as if Nolan had 2 separate for ideas for 2 movies, and ended up with the worst combination.
1- Batman has been fighting crime and is beat to hell for 8 years- so by the time Blake comes along, Bruce has earned the happy ending.
2- Bruce has been holed up for 8 years, but Bane comes along, and shows Bruce that he is needed in Gotham forever. (Yeah, Dark Knight Returns had Batman quitting for a decade... but that Batman at least put more than 1.5 years of time in).
Instead it was- Holed up for 8 years and promptly quits. It just didn't work on a narrative level for me. And worst of all, TDKR now bleeds into BB and TDK. When I used to watch BB, I thought Bruce overcame the moping, but now it's as if he didn't really learn anything haha. Same goes for watching him ride off into the night at the end of TDK. I love Batman because of Bruce's dedication and endurance- which Nolan handled masterfully in BB and TDK without going full Keaton-murder. TDKR overdid it with the "woe is me" to the point where I thought Alfred was the most heroic character in the movie. Like I said, if someone is just watching this as a summer blockbuster and/or has a different feeling for what their Batman is (and we all have our personal versions of what Batman is), I can see why its enjoyed- heck, Im jealous. But my personal baggage and love for the character didnt match up with what I personally think rings true. (There were a ton of other things that I didnt enjoy- Bane and Batman not having a glorious final fight after 3 hours of buildup is unforgivable, Talia was laughable, etc- but the characterization is what does me in.) I thought Skyfall handled the "defeated hero" much better in terms of pace and tension. Anyways, my drunken Friday night two cents as to why Im not pro-TDKR.
This movie sucks because:
-Batman stops being Batman after part 2,then comes back,then takes off again.
-Catwoman and Bane are horrible villains.
-The League of Shadow shouldn't of been in this.
^ That has to be sarcasm, right?
She wasn't a villain.
She was a tweener.
Stone Cold! Stone Cold!
I haven't watched wrestling in ages, but I just recently found out that Mick Foley is going to be inducted into the WWE Hall of fame next month. Will definitely be checking that out. Bang, Bang!
As a Lizard fan, I would not be insulting Bane or especially Catwoman as characters, villains or otherwise, if I had a gif of the awful sad excuse of a "Lizard" from TAS as my avy.
I actually really respect Nolan quite a bit for doing this. He chose to attempt a story that comics, by their very nature, would never dare to consider. A definitive ending. Even The Dark Knight Returns got a sequel. An ending where Bruce Wayne will never be Batman again.
He could have done it with Batman dying a hero or savior's death, but instead while playing with that convention went the other way. He chose to make a film about Bruce Wayne OUTGROWING Batman. His funk after Rachel dies is a bit immature and a left over staple from his anger and anguish over losing his parents. By having, ever unsubtle as all things are with Nolan, Bruce literally climb out of his anger and hate, he is liberating himself from being Batman. He is throwing away out the trauma and rage that created him in BB. That is why we get to see Batman, for the first time in the whole trilogy, in daylight at the end. That is why he gives up on his absolutist rules to stop the bomb (he pretty much kills Talia and her driver and also is pretty ambivalent about Catwoman using his motorcycle to murder Bane). He is wearing the costume at this point as a symbol to rouse Gotham awake like he talked about in BB. But for him, he no longer is personally controlled by it. That is why he can leave it all behind at the end.
It is a very unique and ambitious take on the character. One that may indeed peeve off some fans because it is not only saying Batman's existence must be finite, but that it is in some ways childish. Gotham may need Batman, but Bruce Wayne needs to let him go for his own sake. It is pretty much the opposite of what 70 years of comic book wisdom (the "war on crime" never ends) will say. Some really dislike that. I respect it for its uniqueness and appreciate it all the more.
I honestly also think it does it much better than Skyfall. Bond's hesitation and shaky gun hand comes and goes too often for plot convenience (can't save child prostitute girl, but can kill all the bad guys immediately after? Can't hit Bardem in the subway but can shoot like a super marksman at Parliament and on the homestead?!). Also, he completely fails at the end as Bardem succeeds in killing M. Enjoyable movie, but it does not handle its hero very well.
For all of the things that TDKR didn't quite fulfill for me (which were mostly small plot inconsistencies, pacing, character development, and a trimmed down film thanks to IMAX) Batman/Bruce Wayne's journey was always handled properly, IMO. When I look back at what Nolan set out to do, which was tell a concise, 3 part arc for Bruce, I couldn't have asked for anything more in that regard.
And while most of my problems with the film occur within the second act, it is Bruce's outward turmoil within the pit that keeps me glued to my seat and invested.
Agree with everything, excellent post.
This was written last summer, but it's a really great analysis. Just stumbled upon it. It's a bit gushy, so fair warning if you're not into that. But it's a really good read that really nails it for the most part.
Figured I'd post it here in light of DACrowe's post, since a lot of the article is about Bruce's journey.
Lack of Batman in this movie.
For the last Christopher Nolan Batman film. There should been a hell lot more Batman in this movie. Retired for 8 years is lame. He could have said he was tried from fighting Poison Ivy, Riddler, Killer Croc and other villains even if Christopher Nolan would have never put them in his movies.
Batman sitting around doing nothing for 8 years? Really?
Too much John Blake. Too little Talia al Ghul development.
Talia al Ghul has been trained in many forms of martial arts. Christopher Nolan could have had Talia al Ghul fight Batman and Catwoman in hand to hand combat at the end of the move at the same time.
This is exactly what I would say about the movie. Good post, Clerk.
Just substitute the government wanting heroes to "stand down" or just leave with the Dent Act and substitute Jason Todd's death with Rachel's and boom.
I am curious to hear people's personal opinions on this. I would like everyone to answer this question as honestly as possible.
Whether or not you liked the idea of a closed ending with Bruce quitting and whether or not you thought Nolan did it well, did you personally want a closed ending or would you have preferred a more open ending with Bruce still being Batman by the end?
Just want to hear other people's thoughts.