The Dark Knight Rises Why is everyone slamming TDKR?

[BatLobster]

It's pretty disheartening to see the cycle play out time and time again, considering we're currently living in the golden age of comic book movies.

But on the whole Returns vs. Rises thing, one thing I prefer in Rises is that I find Bruce's arc to be more inspirational and satisfying. I also think it's more interesting that it's Bruce's own actions that bring about his early retirement as opposed to a Presidential mandate. I have an easier time accepting Bruce retiring during a peace time than him retiring as Gotham descends into hell.

I don't have the nerve to say that I think Rises is "better" than Returns, because Returns is too seminal and too important a work. To steal a line, "it's too big". It was influencing my view of Batman before I even knew it existed (I was born in 86). Rises itself owes quite a lot to Returns. The whole trilogy does. But I do think Rises is able to offer some more poignant emotional payoffs as a result of it being a conclusion to a specific Batman story rather than the history of the comics as a vague backdrop. And I don't think there's anything comparable in any Batman media that breaks up Bruce Wayne's life story into a definite beginning, middle and end. That's why I believe The Dark Knight trilogy will remain a uniquely valuable piece of Bat-lore for years and years to come.

 

[BCDawg97]

My issue is that people slam Rises for the same issues you can apply to the "holy grail" of DK. People nitpick various aspects of Rises that go "unseen" such as Bruce getting back to Gotham but don't question the logic of the Joker loading boats and a hospital with explosives (or how these acts don't make him a schemer with plans). Or how in Begins, they don't show Batman actually searching for the apt after interrogating Flass. He just shows up at it in the next scene - ala DK where he finds Dent with Schiff. Shouldn't that result in posts of "OMG - they didn't show him travelling through Gotham!!1!11!!" ?

Obviously logistics of each particular sequence of events are different - but the idea is the same. We basically have to suspend some disbelief. I don't get giving BB/TDK a pass just because Ledger's Joker was such an awesome character (which it was). Of course, not everyone falls into this category of giving a pass to one but not the other. My point is that you should still be able to enjoy each of the movies for what they are - a story about Batman telling one person's interpretation. Seems to me that Rises continued the same basic themes/universe laid out in the first 2.

 

[DACrowe]

It's pretty disheartening to see the cycle play out time and time again, considering we're currently living in the golden age of comic book movies.

But on the whole Returns vs. Rises thing, one thing I prefer in Rises is that I find Bruce's arc to be more inspirational and satisfying. I also think it's more interesting that it's Bruce's own actions that bring about his early retirement as opposed to a Presidential mandate. I have an easier time accepting Bruce retiring during a peace time than him retiring as Gotham descends into hell.

I don't have the nerve to say that I think Rises is "better" than Returns, because Returns is too seminal and too important a work. To steal a line, "it's too big". It was influencing my view of Batman before I even knew it existed (I was born in 86). Rises itself owes quite a lot to Returns. The whole trilogy does. But I do think Rises is able to offer some more poignant emotional payoffs as a result of it being a conclusion to a specific Batman story rather than the history of the comics as a vague backdrop. And I don't think there's anything comparable in any Batman media that breaks up Bruce Wayne's life story into a definite beginning, middle and end. That's why I believe The Dark Knight trilogy will remain a uniquely valuable piece of Bat-lore for years and years to come.

I do agree the Nolan take will be very influential. More than his suddenly new detractors will care to admit.

One interesting parallel I noticed is that Bane in TDKR is not that different from Batman in Returns. They both take control of a mob of malcontents to inflict their own order on Gotham. There is probably something interesting there to contrast.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Bane felt more like the Mutant Leader then Batman in TDKReturns, but I get your point.

I always felt there was something comparable to when Batman takes charge of Gotham and when Batman leads an army of the GCPD to take back control of Gotham City.

 

[jmc]

My issue is that people slam Rises for the same issues you can apply to the "holy grail" of DK. People nitpick various aspects of Rises that go "unseen" such as Bruce getting back to Gotham but don't question the logic of the Joker loading boats and a hospital with explosives (or how these acts don't make him a schemer with plans). Or how in Begins, they don't show Batman actually searching for the apt after interrogating Flass. He just shows up at it in the next scene - ala DK where he finds Dent with Schiff. Shouldn't that result in posts of "OMG - they didn't show him travelling through Gotham!!1!11!!" ?

Obviously logistics of each particular sequence of events are different - but the idea is the same. We basically have to suspend some disbelief. I don't get giving BB/TDK a pass just because Ledger's Joker was such an awesome character (which it was). Of course, not everyone falls into this category of giving a pass to one but not the other. My point is that you should still be able to enjoy each of the movies for what they are - a story about Batman telling one person's interpretation. Seems to me that Rises continued the same basic themes/universe laid out in the first 2.

Suspension of disbelief is dependent on the story, you can't just throw a blanket over every movie and say just suspend disbelief, the context of the story counts for a lot of what people are willing to suspend their beliefs in. A guy loading up a boat full of explosives is far more easier to go with than a bunch of cops surviving underground for 5 months. The more audacious the setting the more ludicrous things can come across if it's not executed correctly. TDK is not the same type of movie as Rises, it's very much in the crime drama genre and therefore it's easier to buy into certain aspects of what's going one, Rises is more a disaster movie genre which by their nature are very over the top. It's hard to suspend disbelief when you start taking on over the top concept.

 

[batfreakforever]

I don't get the hate for tdkr from people who loved the first two films but not this one. Just because it did'nt fit your vision. From what i've read from over the net alot of people didnt and still haven't understood the nolan's/goyers take on the bat-verse. If they did there wouldn't be alot of forums asking dumb questions about the films but mainly tdkr. But hey thats just how I view them. I don't post that often because I understand how, what and why about the trilogy. But when I read comments or forums I think hey there was not need to ask that because it's in the film,or the cast/crew have said it. I don't know maybe I just listen and pay attention and don't have too much of a reserved judgement. I live and breath batman. Not much info escapes me when it come too batman.

 

[BCDawg97]

Suspension of disbelief is dependent on the story, you can't just throw a blanket over every movie and say just suspend disbelief, the context of the story counts for a lot of what people are willing to suspend their beliefs in. A guy loading up a boat full of explosives is far more easier to go with than a bunch of cops surviving underground for 5 months. The more audacious the setting the more ludicrous things can come across if it's not executed correctly. TDK is not the same type of movie as Rises, it's very much in the crime drama genre and therefore it's easier to buy into certain aspects of what's going one, Rises is more a disaster movie genre which by their nature are very over the top. It's hard to suspend disbelief when you start taking on over the top concept.

I'm going to regret this but here goes. Agreed that you can't throw a blanket suspension of disbelief over an entire movie. But you acknowledge that they are two different types of movies so that allows for a different set of rules so to speak with the movie in terms of how you suspend your disbelief.

There is a mess up that the cops did not look more ragged after five months underground. But Nolan did show that they were receiving supplies at various points throughout the movie. For the explosives on the boat, it's not that it isn't he getting them on the boat, it's that no one noticed them before the boat left. One "nitpick" that still gets me is the how Batman got back to Gotham when the other movies showed "movement" from one place to another without actually showing how he got there. Or how he crossed the ice when that has been established with BB. Though I will concede that a shot/flashback would have made a stronger case. But at the same time any movie can be the best ever if you include every explanation/action; unfortunately, that likely makes a 3-4 hour movie.

I honestly never thought anything about TDK until the critique of Rises began. Now I'm looking for everthing in all the movies; it's a shame but that's on me. I still love all the movies and they are still in my top 10 of all time. I'm not saying Rises is above reproach, just that the critiques of certain aspects are a little bit much given the world Nolan created in the first two movies. TDK is still a comic book movie crime drama. And I should say that by saying "suspension of disbelief" I mean more of an acceptance of the rules laid out in this universe that he is creating for this character. There is still some element of fantasy or comic book-ishness to it (that most likely we'll just have to agree to disagree about how much it detracts from the movies) as much as he tried to ground it in "reality".

 

[Marvin]

There is a mess up that the cops did not look more ragged after five months underground. But Nolan did show that they were receiving supplies at various points throughout the movie.

More often than not, Nolans direction has always chosen the more "subtle" route when going about making points of this matter. Batman being the best ninja out of the school for example, Batman being angry, being smart, Gotham police corruption, Begins Gotham being really really bad....the list goes on.

In most cases audiences have either filled in the blanks or just accepted it as fine. In this particular case it's just too apparent. That many people being stuck in sewers for even 1 month needs to be more visually poignant and conveyed. It just does.

One "nitpick" that still gets me is the how Batman got back to Gotham when the other movies showed "movement" from one place to another without actually showing how he got there.

In the other films, Bruce getting from place to place wasn't met with a level of impossibility seeing as how he had maybe the most money in the world and the destinations weren't cut off and guarded. I personally don't question that Bruce wayne of all people could pull off such a task, if a similar situation happened in the comic books no one in their right mind would question it, however this isn't the same bruce wayne from the comics.

 

[BCDawg97]

Marvin,

All valid points. I do understand people's critiques of the film. They just never detracted from the film for me. Nor will my explanations convince others that they are not flaws. Hopefully most can agree that the "truth" lies in the middle. One mistake Nolan made was attempting such a grand scale film. It really did need another 15-30 minutes of screen time and it does seem he had to sacrifice some detail.

 

[JackWhite]

Marvin,

All valid points. I do understand people's critiques of the film. They just never detracted from the film for me. Nor will my explanations convince others that they are not flaws. Hopefully most can agree that the "truth" lies in the middle. One mistake Nolan made was attempting such a grand scale film. It really did need another 15-30 minutes of screen time and it does seem he had to sacrifice some detail.

Exactly. I'm still puzzled that Nolan felt he could just shave off that much of film and expect people to just buy it. The fact that he filmed the Bane origin scene and had concept art showing Bruce getting back to Gotham just irks me. Who knows what else we will find out that didn't make the film in the upcoming years.

It's a shame because so much of it is downright brilliant: Batman's return scene, the Bat-Cat dynamic, Bane's initial takeover, and final battle to name a few. But then you have these small mistakes which shouldn't have even been a problem for a great director like Nolan.

Even if TDKR wouldn't have completely blown TDK out of the water, I still feel like it could have been on par with it and on that level. It's like with BB and TDK, yeah I think TDK is better because it goes deeper into the story and characters, but BB still holds it's own.

 

[Hamill-Joker]

In the other films, Bruce getting from place to place wasn't met with a level of impossibility seeing as how he had maybe the most money in the world and the destinations weren't cut off and guarded. I personally don't question that Bruce wayne of all people could pull off such a task, if a similar situation happened in the comic books no one in their right mind would question it, however this isn't the same bruce wayne from the comics.

How did Bruce get all the way out to Asia in Batman Begins?

How did Bruce get Lau back into the United States and Gotham in The Dark Knight?

 

[BatLobster]

I've made my peace with the things that were cut either from the script or film. IMAX was too important IMO, and I wouldn't have traded that one of a kind presentation for Nolan to hold my hand through things that aren't really essential and are pretty easy to figure out if you connect the dots. More time would have just helped the pacing a bit, but IMO it's very common for Nolan films to have that super fast paced, "next, next, next" kind of feeling. So it didn't really surprise me in TDKR. I could think of moments in BB and TDK I would've liked to see breathe more too, but I guess I've just grown accustomed to Nolan's style. But if you look back to when they were released, both at various points were accused of feeling "rushed".

I think when people think "epic", they tend to think "Peter Jackson epic", where we have all these little asides and indulgent moments and subplots that just inflate the running time and often are the things that make you check your watch. With TDKR we saw what "Chris Nolan epic" is, and to me that's basically just him making the same type of propulsive movie he usually does, only on a much larger scale. The result is an immense world of story that lives almost as much in your mind as it does on screen.

 

[The Joker]

How did Bruce get all the way out to Asia in Batman Begins?

On a ship.

How did Bruce get Lau back into the United States and Gotham in The Dark Knight?

South Korean smugglers plane.

 

[Hamill-Joker]

Alfred came in a private jet.

I said how did he get to Asia, not how did he get back to Gotham from Asia.

He threw away his wallet and obviously hadn't accessed any of his bank accounts or else they wouldn't have been able to declare him dead.

On a ship.

Did they actually show him get on this ship? He had no I.D., he threw away his wallet. They really show nothing.

South Korean smugglers plane.

So they just flew over Gotham and dropped him off when they were coming all the way from China?

If people are going to get nitpicky about Bruce getting back to Gotham in TDKR, then think about all the details actually involved in actually getting him with Lau back into Gotham.

And then did Bruce then exit the country again and then comeback in with the Russian ballet dancers to continue his alibi? How does Bruce exit the country again without compromising his alibi?

 

[jmc]

I'm going to regret this but here goes. Agreed that you can't throw a blanket suspension of disbelief over an entire movie. But you acknowledge that they are two different types of movies so that allows for a different set of rules so to speak with the movie in terms of how you suspend your disbelief.

There is a mess up that the cops did not look more ragged after five months underground. But Nolan did show that they were receiving supplies at various points throughout the movie. For the explosives on the boat, it's not that it isn't he getting them on the boat, it's that no one noticed them before the boat left. One "nitpick" that still gets me is the how Batman got back to Gotham when the other movies showed "movement" from one place to another without actually showing how he got there. Or how he crossed the ice when that has been established with BB. Though I will concede that a shot/flashback would have made a stronger case. But at the same time any movie can be the best ever if you include every explanation/action; unfortunately, that likely makes a 3-4 hour movie.

I honestly never thought anything about TDK until the critique of Rises began. Now I'm looking for everthing in all the movies; it's a shame but that's on me. I still love all the movies and they are still in my top 10 of all time. I'm not saying Rises is above reproach, just that the critiques of certain aspects are a little bit much given the world Nolan created in the first two movies. TDK is still a comic book movie crime drama. And I should say that by saying "suspension of disbelief" I mean more of an acceptance of the rules laid out in this universe that he is creating for this character. There is still some element of fantasy or comic book-ishness to it (that most likely we'll just have to agree to disagree about how much it detracts from the movies) as much as he tried to ground it in "reality".

We're also talking about a sequel though aren't we?

 

[The Joker]

I said how did he get to Asia, not how did he get back to Gotham from Asia.

He threw away his wallet and obviously hadn't accessed any of his bank accounts or else they wouldn't have been able to declare him dead.

I know what you said. He hopped on one of the ships in the Gotham docks. He hears a ship about to take off and he goes running towards it. A stowaway.

So they just flew over Gotham and dropped him off when they were coming all the way from China?

I don't know if it was Gotham specifically they stopped off at, but it was the smugglers plane he used.

If people are going to get nitpicky about Bruce getting back to Gotham in TDKR, then think about all the details actually involved in actually getting him with Lau back into Gotham.

Yeah what about them? He wasn't a financially ruined man in a foreign country who just spent months in a prison who got back to another country and into a city that had it's bridges blown and was sealed off by the army.

And then did Bruce then exit the country again and then comeback in with the Russian ballet dancers to continue his alibi? How does Bruce exit the country again without compromising his alibi?

Easy. He spins some BS yarn to the ballet people that he went off spelunking or space jumping for the day.

 

[BatLobster]

I think of the three films as companion pieces as much as I do sequels. TDK was just so much different from BB in tone and execution. From that point on I fully expected, and hoped for, the third film to be something of its own beast that blended together some of the contrasting aspects of the first two films to give the trilogy a feeling of unity. And TDKR clearly aimed to accomplish both of those things. Whether it was successful or not I suppose will continue to be debated, but for me it was a slam dunk for everything the previous two films had set up. Specifically on a visual and thematic level.

 

[Schrute]

It's not that Bruce getting back into Gotham isn't easy to figure out, it's just that the film presents situations that made it seem awkward and anti-climactic to just have him conveniently pop up right where Selina was.

There is only one real way into Gotham (bridge) which has the US army guarding on one side so no one crosses the bridge, and most likely Bane's men covering the other side so no one can get out. Before Bruce returns it is basically implied (imo) that no one has made it across the ice. He can't fly a plane over Gotham, we don't know if there are tunnels that go from the Manor into Gotham, we don't know if he disguised himself like the Special Forces men. He just pops up.

I was genuinely interested in seeing how Nolan would bring Bruce back into Gotham in some badass heroic way maybe, but instead he just shows up with no real explanation and I was totally drawn out of the film when it happened.

 

[Hamill-Joker]

I know what you said. He hopped on one of the ships in the Gotham docks. He hears a ship about to take off and he goes running towards it. A stowaway.

Here's my point. People nitpick the idea of Bruce getting back into Gotham in TDKR, which I think is ridiculous considering the acceptance they have had with other things in this series and in the comics.

In Batman Begins, Bruce is able to live and travel for 7 years without accessing his fortune. And yet suddenly in TDKR, Bruce is helpless to travel because he doesn't have a fortune anymore?

He wasn't a financially broke man in a foreign country who got back to another country and into a city that had it's bridges blown and was sealed off by the army.

It is not impossible to get into Gotham. Hell, the government snuck in several special ops guys. So the US Government can sneak in their own agents, but Bruce can't get in?

The point of the sealed off city is to keep people from getting out of Gotham.

 

[Schrute]

If people are going to get nitpicky about Bruce getting back to Gotham in TDKR, then think about all the details actually involved in actually getting him with Lau back into Gotham.

I think it is a little unfair to call wanting to see how Bruce got back into Gotham under those intense situations and being bummed that you couldn't see it a "nitpick".

 

[Marvin]

All problems would be solved if Bruce Wanye was in fact the BatGod lol.

Seriously though, Assuming Bruce did give up access to any of his money in his initial trip, he still has the ability to generate money though various exploits and then make his way around the world in non walled off countries.

In TDKR, it's all done inside of a day or so or something like that. Granted he perhaps called in a favor from an old "ring" of some sort, and then just disarmed and disabled whomever was guarding the particular gotham check point. Again the problem is that the audience rightly thinks this is behind Nolans characterization to the point that is needs to be spelled out.
If Bruce could have made a call to Fox his saviour then I'm sure it would have been pretty easy.

 

[Hamill-Joker]

I think it is a little unfair to call wanting to see how Bruce got back into Gotham under those intense situations and being bummed that you couldn't see it a "nitpick".

I can see your point, but my feelings are mainly directed at those who seem to believe that the movie was ruined and is a bad third act because of things like that.

For me, it didn't bug me one bit. I saw Bruce's main challenge as the one he had been having for the whole movie, finding the strength and will to live again, with the climbing out of the pit as the physical presentation of that challenge. Once he conquered the pit, it was back to Gotham to conquer Bane. My natural assumption that once he got out is that it wouldn't be a problem for him to get back because he had conquered the real challenge, which was the pit.

The point of the city being cut off wasn't about Bruce not being able to get back in, it was about the people being cut off from the outside. They were alone and had to submit to Bane's rule.

I think my feelings were accurately described in this podcast:
http://hollywood-gauntlet.blogspot.com/2012/10/004-dark-nolan-trilogy.html

 

[Snow Queen]

Wasn't going to get involved but, Marvin, it was done in around 20 days.

 

[BatLobster]

I saw Bruce's main challenge as the one he had been having for the whole movie, finding the strength and will to live again, with the climbing out of the pit as the physical presentation of that challenge. Once he conquered the pit, it was back to Gotham to conquer Bane. My natural assumption that once he got out is that it wouldn't be a problem for him to get back because he had conquered the real challenge, which was the pit.

That's exactly how I view it too.

Sounds like an interesting podcast too, gonna bookmark that one for when I have some time.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

One of the first things Bruce says when he comes back is "I can give you a way out of the city".

Bruce later tells Selina that the tunnel is her way out.

So do you think maybe that's how he got in?....

Or rather...why would people doubt that he did get in that way considering that's his solution for Selina getting out? Or did people just not think of it?

But showing Bruce coming back through the tunnel before as well....would kind of be redundant...no?