The Dark Knight Rises Why is everyone slamming TDKR?

[Anno_Domini]

He did say "One man or the mob." It should've been known from even Batman Begins that Batman's entire mission was to take down the mob that only gets reinforced by Batman's line in TDK and then saying Batman wasn't needed anymore in TDKR because they "won" by taking out the mob once and for all. Yah, there are freaks like Scarecrow and Joker, but it was never going to escalate when Gordon and Batman created that lie so it would never show how easy someone can be corrupted as Joker tried to do. If anything, a "rise of freaks" could be thought of after TDKR's events and that's why Bruce passed down the mantle to a younger guy to be the new Batman because there will come a time when even the more prosperous Gotham City will need help again after the reveal about Dent which could result in that "rise".

 

[DACrowe]

Interesting thought:

I just watched last night The Dark Knight Returns: Part 2 for the first time. It was a solid rendering of Miller's classic tale. Let me preface this by saying that I do think that The Dark Knight Returns (the GN) is far better than The Dark Knight Rises--though I much prefer Nolan's take of the character than the neo-fascist Miller envisions him as--but I realized something.

If one picked apart the original GN that that animated film faithfully adapted with the kind of zealous, minutia-crazed fanaticism as critics of Rises or the whole Nolan trilogy do here...yikes.

Since when do nuclear missiles become EMPs in space? And how does an EMP going off create a nuclear winter?

Why would a late night comedy show let a serial killer/terrorist on their show? Yes, it is satirical. But if we look at it with the same ravenous demands that this trilogy is looked at, can you imagine Osama bin Laden (if alive) being allowed to yuck it up with Jimmy Fallon?

Why was there no police force actually inside the taping of the comedy or on the ground floor in case of, I dunno, the Joker trying to escape? They are just all on the roof and (badly) firing gun shots at the Batman?

If we want to nitpick Bruce Wayne recovering from his back injury over 3 months, how about recovering from being shot once and stabbed 3-4 times by the Joker literally overnight before riding a horse into Gotham to police the city for a week?



I can keep going. I do think Returns (at least in print) is far superior, even when I dislike Miller's fascism and sexism. However, it stands up no better to this kind of scrutiny than the third Nolan entry does.

 

[BatLobster]

I find it hard to compare them. From a historical context I think Returns will obviously remain the more influential work that revolutionize the way an entire generation viewed Batman. Including the Nolans.

Both are epics though, that's for sure.

 

[Anno_Domini]

No one would dare nitpick a graphic novel or an animated movie. A live action sequel that some wanted to feel like the previous film? You bet

I will say this though, I too prefer The Dark Knight Returns over The Dark Knight Rises. But I also prefer The Dark Knight Returns(1 + 2) over The Dark Knight Trilogy as a whole.

 

[BatLobster]

I couldn't go that far. I love TDKReturns 1 & 2 though, they blew me away. But nothing can really take the place of what The Dark Knight Trilogy meant to me over these past 8 years (almost 10 if I count my time following the production of Batman Begins).

That's just on a personal level though.

 

[DACrowe]

I find it hard to compare them. From a historical context I think Returns will obviously remain the more influential work that revolutionize the way an entire generation viewed Batman. Including the Nolans.

Both are epics though, that's for sure.

I am not comparing them as works, because Returns is a much more beautifully executed and influential piece than Rises will ever be (though I could argue TDK may have a similar impact on superhero cinema as Returns, as in one that is more idolized with nostalgia than copied). However, my point is the standard to which fans hold Nolan's films would decimate even Returns. There are a lot of plot holes in that story and massive leaps in logic. People want to complain about leaving Blake with the mantle, well how about Batman taking in a new Robin one night without any training? Never mind an entire gang of thugs who days earlier were murdering people in the name of a freak. What could Ronald Reagan exactly do to Superman if he said no to being a puppet?

The story can be picked apart if one wants to get that petty about it is my point.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I too prefer TDKR (the comic book) over TDKR. I didn't see the films though because I have little interest in a moving version of a paneled story with awkward voice acting.

No one would dare nitpick a graphic novel or an animated movie.

The Dark Knight Returns has its critics. Many go far enough to discredit the entire work as balderdash. Many who hate it are fans of Superman.

People want to complain about leaving Blake with the mantle, well how about Batman taking in a new Robin one night without any training?

I don't think that was a leap. I don't know about the animation, but in the comic Bruce is shown to miss his Robins severely. A weird simultaneous combination of guilt from the death of Jason and yearning for his embrace. Which he later fulfills (nude) with Carrie Kelly.

 

[BatLobster]

I am not comparing them as works, because Returns is a much more beautifully executed and influential piece than Rises will ever be (though I could argue TDK may have a similar impact on superhero cinema as Returns, as in one that is more idolized with nostalgia than copied). However, my point is the standard to which fans hold Nolan's films would decimate even Returns. There are a lot of plot holes in that story and massive leaps in logic. People want to complain about leaving Blake with the mantle, well how about Batman taking in a new Robin one night without any training? Never mind an entire gang of thugs who days earlier were murdering people in the name of a freak. What could Ronald Reagan exactly do to Superman if he said no to being a puppet?

The story can be picked apart if one wants to get that petty about it is my point.

Yeah, I totally get ya there. I guess I just tend to view comics and films each as part of a different medium with a different set of merits and value and that's why I find it hard to compare. There are a ton of things a film can do that a comic could never do, and vice versa. I'm the same way with books and film though. I don't tend to be someone who will complain about a film adaptation of a book leaving something out or changing something (if it works) because it's the filmmaker's job to make it work for the screen, and I tend to sympathize with the filmmaker.

I didn't see the films though because I have little interest in a moving version of a paneled story with awkward voice acting.

I think you should give them a chance at some point Excelsior. The voice acting isn't as wooden as it was in Year One IMO. Peter Weller really felt like the perfect voice for Frank Miller's Batman. In addition to the great animation, the music was outstanding and really heightened the material in a very cinematic way. It all worked far better than I thought it would. You might be pleasantly surprised.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I was initially interested, but after seeing clips from Youtube I was turned off completely. The voice acting I thought was cheesy as hell and didn't at all envision the voices I heard in my head, even Weller. I actually preferred Michael Ironside from that BTAS parody episode. I'll give you the animation. But the way some of the scenes were directed (from the snippets I've seen) rubbed me the wrong way. They chose to lend movement to scenes in motions that I thought betrayed their original intention. The score did nothing for me either. When I envisioned a moving TDKR, I imagined long stretches of silence.

All in all, frame by panel, verbatim translations rarely work for me. They never line up with my interpretation of them. I guess I have an overactive imagination. Weirdly though, I adore the BTAS parody of Returns. That is my definitive animated version of the story. In fact, I will go watch it right now.

 

[DACrowe]

I too prefer TDKR (the comic book) over TDKR. I didn't see the films though because I have little interest in a moving version of a paneled story with awkward voice acting.

The Dark Knight Returns has its critics. Many go far enough to discredit the entire work as balderdash. Many who hate it are fans of Superman.

I don't think that was a leap. I don't know about the animation, but in the comic Bruce is shown to miss his Robins severely. A weird simultaneous combination of guilt from the death of Jason and yearning for his embrace. Which he later fulfills (nude) with Carrie Kelly.

I am fine with different interpretations. I personally do not like how Miller turns Batman into a fascist who not only is a proponent for authority, but is one who wants to supplant the current system for one of his own. I mean it is an interesting dark vision for the character, but is far more cynical and warped than I tend to view the character as.

I was just speaking more from there being quite a few plot holes or faulty logic--such as the police only going after Batman and ignoring the Joker in the TV station. Or authorities and the mental institution even allowing a serial killer to be a host on Letterman. Speaking of which, can you imagine any late night show that would yuck it up with a man responsible for murdering a thousand people? That sort of thing just would not happen. But it makes for a great story if one ignores the leaps that the writer is making.

 

[DACrowe]

I will say that the use of music and literal film narrative (even as an animation) does take away from some of the surrealism and satirical nature of the book. But unlike the Year One film (which I found a bore), it is very entertaining and captures most of the essence of the book--though they leave out some of the darker moments, especially in regards to Batman's relationship with Jason and then Carrie, as well as the levels of depravity the Joker descends.

The only major complaint I have on the films is that by elongating the action set pieces they make it look ridiculous. Batman could not last that long in a fight with Superman. Likewise, the cops are turned to idiots given how many moments the films add of them missing a senior citizen running around.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I was just speaking more from there being quite a few plot holes or faulty logic--such as the police only going after Batman and ignoring the Joker in the TV station. Or authorities and the mental institution even allowing a serial killer to be a host on Letterman. Speaking of which, can you imagine any late night show that would yuck it up with a man responsible for murdering a thousand people? That sort of thing just would not happen. But it makes for a great story if one ignores the leaps that the writer is making.

I understand. But I thought him so readily accepting Carrie Kelly wasn't a gape in logic. It perfectly fits within his warped mindset. he knows it's wrong but he can't help it. Having a Robin by his side satisfies a specific part of his damaged mind. It quenches his thirst to control someone (his facist inclinations); Robin is repeatedly called soldier and given commands. It satisfies his inner child that never got to actually be one.

 

[Anno_Domini]

I couldn't go that far. I love TDKReturns 1 & 2 though, they blew me away. But nothing can really take the place of what The Dark Knight Trilogy meant to me over these past 8 years (almost 10 if I count my time following the production of Batman Begins).

That's just on a personal level though.

I would go that far, lol. It's not something against Nolan's trilogy at all, but I just really enjoyed the Dark Knight Returns saga. I just hope that they now put both movies into one one day.

 

[Anno_Domini]

People want to complain about leaving Blake with the mantle, well how about Batman taking in a new Robin one night without any training?

That was my biggest problem with the new Robin for TDKR. Literally no training but she's able to climb out of her apartment, not fall to her death and is taken under Batman's wing without any training. It's fine that later on, Batman starts to train her, but in the beginning, it's like she magically knows how to defend herself. At least Blake obviously trained to become a police officer.

The Dark Knight Returns has its critics. Many go far enough to discredit the entire work as balderdash. Many who hate it are fans of Superman.

I wouldn't know of the criticism it gets. I have mostly heard a lot of praise.

 

[milost]

Interesting thought:

I just watched last night The Dark Knight Returns: Part 2 for the first time. It was a solid rendering of Miller's classic tale. Let me preface this by saying that I do think that The Dark Knight Returns (the GN) is far better than The Dark Knight Rises--though I much prefer Nolan's take of the character than the neo-fascist Miller envisions him as--but I realized something.

If one picked apart the original GN that that animated film faithfully adapted with the kind of zealous, minutia-crazed fanaticism as critics of Rises or the whole Nolan trilogy do here...yikes.

Since when do nuclear missiles become EMPs in space? And how does an EMP going off create a nuclear winter?

Why would a late night comedy show let a serial killer/terrorist on their show? Yes, it is satirical. But if we look at it with the same ravenous demands that this trilogy is looked at, can you imagine Osama bin Laden (if alive) being allowed to yuck it up with Jimmy Fallon?

Why was there no police force actually inside the taping of the comedy or on the ground floor in case of, I dunno, the Joker trying to escape? They are just all on the roof and (badly) firing gun shots at the Batman?

If we want to nitpick Bruce Wayne recovering from his back injury over 3 months, how about recovering from being shot once and stabbed 3-4 times by the Joker literally overnight before riding a horse into Gotham to police the city for a week?



I can keep going. I do think Returns (at least in print) is far superior, even when I dislike Miller's fascism and sexism. However, it stands up no better to this kind of scrutiny than the third Nolan entry does.

Last time I checked, Superman existed in The Dark Knight Returns and it's also part of some comic canon (with mentions of Wonder Woman, the inclusion of Green Arrow, etc.)

It's not like Frank Miller said that his stories were "grounded" and "realistic" and "based in reality" like the Nolan series has. Maybe that's why people overlook all those things with Dark Knight Returns, while scrutinize them in TDKR. It really isn't hypocritical to let things slide in Miller's graphic novel, even implausible things, but to pick them apart in TDKR. Nolan's Batman movies were always treated as "something more", whether that's Nolan and company's fault, or the hardcore fan boys. Whatever the case may be, after The Dark Knight, it always had this feeling of having a greater importance or being supercilious. After that, people were bound to look at it with a more critical eye.




Miller's book came from humble beginnings, a different time in the 80s.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Last time I checked, Superman existed in The Dark Knight Returns and it's also part of some comic canon (with mentions of Wonder Woman, the inclusion of Green Arrow, etc.)

It's not like Frank Miller said that his stories were "grounded" and "realistic" and "based in reality" like the Nolan series has. Maybe that's why people overlook all those things with Dark Knight Returns, while scrutinize them in TDKR. It really isn't hypocritical to let things slide in Miller's graphic novel, even implausible things, but to pick them apart in TDKR. Nolan's Batman movies were always treated as "something more", whether that's Nolan and company's fault, or the hardcore fan boys. Whatever the case may be, after The Dark Knight, it always had this feeling of having a greater importance or being supercilious. After that, people were bound to look at it with a more critical eye.




Miller's book came from humble beginnings, a different time in the 80s.

And yet everyone hilariously only scrutinizes the "realism" "mistakes" on TDKR while just overlooking Nolan's Two-Face in TDK or the microwave emitter in BB.

 

[BatLobster]

It's sad that realism became seen as a barometer of quality. It's only based on interviews with Nolan where he said he was interested in grounding the character.

If you just watched Batman Begins without knowing any of that, it would just feel like a serious comic book movie that felt more like a regular movie in the way it was shot, and the fact that the villains didn't have ridiculous over the top costumes. Grounded for sure, but not like the be all, end all of realism.

 

[georgec]

It's sad that realism became seen as a barometer of quality. It's only based on interviews with Nolan where he said he was interested in grounding the character.

If you just watched Batman Begins without knowing any of that, it would just feel like a serious comic book movie that felt more like a regular movie in the way it was shot, and the fact that the villains didn't have ridiculous over the top costumes. Grounded for sure, but not like the be all, end all of realism.

I wish you'd stop writing posts with which I agree.

Like I said previously, on top of the technology and villains the most important aspect of realism in these films is the mental and physical toll that being Batman takes on Bruce.

 

[JackWhite]

I wish you'd stop writing posts with which I agree.

Like I said previously, on top of the technology and villains the most important aspect of realism in these films is the mental and physical toll that being Batman takes on Bruce.

Yep!

It's not about realism, more so consequences. For every action there is a reaction.

 

[milost]

And yet everyone hilariously only scrutinizes the "realism" "mistakes" on TDKR while just overlooking Nolan's Two-Face in TDK or the microwave emitter in BB.

Yup.


Then again, the series didn't really feel pretentious during the Batman Begins days, from what I can remember. It never felt like "something more" until after the Dark Knight, that gap between 2008 and 2012 where some folks treated it like a god send.

Yeah, the realism talk was laid down with begins sure, but back in 2005, I think the biggest arguments that went on was "who is better, Keaton or Bale" and all the '89 vs Begins and Burton vs Nolan arguments. The realism thing was there, but not like it was in recent years. People just wanted to see a good Batman film, especially after Batman and Robin, and we got it. I mean, even Batman Begins came from humble beginnings really.

Then the series started to get, I don't know, what's the right word (I don't want to keep using pretentious, because it almost seems like a cliche at this point)? It felt as though people thought the series could do no wrong, that it was definitive, comic accurate and the best interpretation yet all rolled into one. So when you have that sort of hyperbole, of course it will eventually backfire. After TDKR came out though, that exaggerated feeling obviously died down. For awhile, it was naively viewed as perfection (whether folks like us felt that way or not). We all saw things like, "Oscar worthy" (whatever that means), "superior, deep writing", "a thinking man's movie", so by the time July 20th rolled around, it sort of opened itself to even more criticism compared to past films. Some of it was/is legitimate, others just to contradict/counter what it was being hyped up as before.



The Dark Knight Returns is harmless. It was a game changer for the character back in the 80s, nobody saw anything like it before. Who has the time or the desire to rip on a 27 year old graphic novel that paved the way for most of the great Batman stuff we all hold dear today? Nobody really. What did people really have to compare with it back then? Not much. There's also the fact that message boards didn't exist then.


TDKR is different, it was always going to be viewed differently with a more critical eye (fairly and unfairly) after the success and phenomenon of The Dark Knight. TDKR was this big beast with tons of hype and anticipation riding on it so even small flaws would stand out to those looking to trash on it. That's just how it is. It's an evolving thing. You can't really compare it or criticize it to Dark Knight Returns because well, they're not the same thing. Returns came out then, TDKR came out recently. Dark Knight Returns was an original story (of it's time) and TDKR was an amalgamation of various things people have seen before (from Howard Hughes to various comic stories).


People simply reacted differently two the two different Batman stories. People like what they like, and that's that, double standard or not. Alot has changed in those almost 30 years. People change, things change. There are different perspectives on things.







Now, most are starting to realize that these are simply interpretations, either to be liked and enjoyed or criticized and hated. There used to be serious double standards from various comics to even the films. A good example would be Batman 1989. Most of the criticisms against it back in the day was it's fidelity to the comics. "They wouldn't do this", "Batman wouldn't do that", "this doesn't happen in the comics" or even "that could never happen, that's not realistic". Then slowly, it all started to change and we're all a little better at taking these stories/films/whatever as they are and judging them in that way.

 

[georgec]

Yep!

It's not about realism, more so consequences. For every action there is a reaction.

And Batman Begins laid the groundwork for this ever so beautifully, especially in the final rooftop scene.

I think people will appreciate TDKR more over time if they approach the trilogy as one cohesive story rather than purely an adaptation of the comics.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Yup.

That's all the acknowledgment I need to know that most of the nitpicking is a joke when it's focused on TDKR when they overlook the past two films simply because they, and mostly The Dark Knight, are held on a pedestal when it shouldn't.

 

[milost]

That's all the acknowledgment I need to know that most of the nitpicking is a joke when it's focused on TDKR when they overlook the past two films simply because they, and mostly The Dark Knight, are held on a pedestal when it shouldn't.

For some probably, sure.


But it doesn't mean that everyone that criticizes it is doing so for that reason. Nitpicking, or what is being nitpicked can vary from person to person. What might be minor for you, might not be for someone else. Not all scenarios and events are created equal. Just because someone is fine with a plot in one film doesn't mean they'll be as forgiving with another.

The film has to click with you, that's key. There has to be something in there that you get out of it. If you're not really capable of enjoying it, or being immersed with what is unfolding, of course you'd be more prone on focusing on minutia when you can't find anything great about the whole picture. It simply doesn't click with you and/or you find it has few redeeming qualities or replay value.



Back to the "how can people nitpick TDKR but not the Dark Knight Returns". Well, for me personally, Dark Knight Returns is much more engaging and closer to how I see the character. So any oddities like DACrowe goes into like, "why would Joker be at a talk show" is a moot point because I'm engaged in the scene. I'm enjoying it. I'm not going to pick apart a scenario I'm loving and enjoy seeing. Now TDKR on the other hand, I'm more inclined to crap on because I'm not in with what they're trying to do or what they want to tell.




It's subjective.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Most of the criticism I've heard is because of that reason. It's just not like The Dark Knight and when they bring up about it doesn't feel "real", they just seem to think anyone in the real world can end up being like Two-Face too, lol.

Now, yes, there are some with criticism that does make me think that tries not to think TDKR just jumps the shark at times that TDK or BB never had before, and when they talk, I listen. For the most part, milost, I find some of your stuff new and exciting to read, but then sometimes, what you say even just sounds like nitpicks.

 

[DACrowe]

Last time I checked, Superman existed in The Dark Knight Returns and it's also part of some comic canon (with mentions of Wonder Woman, the inclusion of Green Arrow, etc.)

It's not like Frank Miller said that his stories were "grounded" and "realistic" and "based in reality" like the Nolan series has. Maybe that's why people overlook all those things with Dark Knight Returns, while scrutinize them in TDKR. It really isn't hypocritical to let things slide in Miller's graphic novel, even implausible things, but to pick them apart in TDKR. Nolan's Batman movies were always treated as "something more", whether that's Nolan and company's fault, or the hardcore fan boys. Whatever the case may be, after The Dark Knight, it always had this feeling of having a greater importance or being supercilious. After that, people were bound to look at it with a more critical eye.




Miller's book came from humble beginnings, a different time in the 80s.

I would not call a stand alone 4-issue book intended to be some version of "The End of Batman" or "Batman's Epilogue" as humble. It was always meant to be a game changer, especially in how it created a rift between Batman and Superman still felt in comics to this day.

I see that argument, but I honestly think it is because fanboys scrutinize these movies everyday for years while they would not turn such a ridiculously critical eye on a treasured comic classic. I think Returns is far and away superior, but it is a double standard that fans are holding the movie to. This actually goes for any movie on this site, which is why they all end up hated or evenly mixed after a few years. Only TDK has really avoided that. I suppose that counts for something.