The Dark Knight Rises Why is everyone slamming TDKR?

[The Joker]

nobody mentioned Ra's in TDK either.

Nothing Ra's did was relevant to the main events of TDK.

There was a Doc Ock reference in SM3? What was that again?

 

[milost]

Also, Nolan clearly called back Ra's in TDKR. Too much for some viewers. He also called back Scarecrow and Two-Face. Yet, he did not really call Ra's back by name in TDK.

Only if they directly effect the story will he work them in. He intentionally crafted a story for the third where the oker would not need direct mentioning.

Crane effected the story and worked in TDKR? I don't think so.


They could have easily left him out and it would have no bearing on the story. He's a frivolous cameo as far as I'm concerned. A nod and nothing more. His appearance in The Dark Knight made perfect sense, they tied up a loose end from Batman Begins. There's a resolution there. TDKR? Not so much. That was just Nolan putting in his old friend Cillian Murphy and winking to the fans. They undo the resolution.


It's odd to have all these characters, have them mentioned and be a part of the story, but nothing for the Joker. I mean, practically the whole gang from Begins and Dark Knight are there. We have Ra's, we have Rachel, Dent, a good amount of flashbacks, a hallucination, the League of Shadows, Thomas Wayne, Gordon's family in Cleveland, young Gordon and young Bruce, the well, the Mayor, mentions of the events of Dark Knight and Begins . . . . but absolutely no Joker?



We know why Nolan did it, but that doesn't make it any less glaring. Think of The Dark Knight's world. Would the Joker really just go down quietly? He wouldn't have a trial? He wouldn't have anything bigger planned? He'd never be able to escape from where he was? That's nonsense.


To see that great mention of him as an "armed robber" and Joker card reveal at the end of Batman Begins and then see everything he does in the Dark Knight, then no word of him in TDKR is maddening. Especially when, again, practically everything else is mentioned. From "that night with the SWATS" to the fact that this crazy outcome was practically Joker's fault anyway.




I'd argue he made more of an impact than ANY of the characters in all three films after what he did in TDK. He got under EVERYONE'S skin and practically interacted with every character. I'd say he's as much a key player as Batman as far as the films are concerned.

 

[Victarion]

TDKR felt like it was trying to knit together BB and TDK, which stood well enough on their own. Dent contributed to the hubris that had taken hold of the city, ultimately. So I think he and Joker were both big players in the trilogy. I mean, Joker does get referenced. Just not by name. Look at Gordon's "letting the bad guy get ahead", or the state Bruce is in; being unable to move on because Rachel isn't there for him.

 

[BatLobster]

Spoiler

Ah, ok. I don't really count the opening credits as they're entirely removed from the narrative of the film. The newspaper is a nice little touch.

 

[The Joker]

Ah, ok. I don't really count the opening credits as they're entirely removed from the narrative of the film. The newspaper is a nice little touch.

I don't know, I would count the opening credits as they are a visual recap for the audience of the story so far, and they include Doc Ock in that story.

 

[BatLobster]

I don't know, I would count the opening credits as they are a visual recap for the audience of the story so far, and they include Doc Ock in that story.

True, but it just feels a bit hollow as Doc Ock has no real relevance to the story of S-M3. I might feel differently if he cast a shadow over the third film the way The Joker does for TDKR. Don't get me wrong though, I enjoyed Raimi's opening credits approach on the sequels (taking a page out of Donner's book for Superman 2). Especially Alex Ross' artwork in S-M2.

 

[The Joker]

True, but it just feels a bit hollow as Doc Ock has no real relevance to the story of S-M3. I might feel differently if he cast a shadow over the third film the way The Joker does for TDKR. Don't get me wrong though, I enjoyed Raimi's opening credits approach on the sequels (taking a page out of Donner's book for Superman 2). Especially Alex Ross' artwork in S-M2.

Doc Ock himself had no relevance to the main story of SM-3, true, but his actions did as they resulted in both Harry and MJ finding out the truth about Peter being Spider-Man, the city was in love with Spidey after he saved that train Ock put in peril, and Aunt May had become a Spidey fan after she was saved by him from Doc Ock.

It was only right he was there in the recap. He played an important role in some of the big events of the trilogy.

 

[BatLobster]

Doc Ock himself had no relevance to the main story of SM-3, true, but his actions did as they resulted in both Harry and MJ finding out the truth about Peter being Spider-Man, the city was in love with Spidey after he saved that train Ock put in peril, and Aunt May had become a Spidey fan after she was saved by him from Doc Ock.

It was only right he was there in the recap. He played an important role in some of the big events of the trilogy.

True enough. Since they were doing recaps he absolutely belonged in there.

 

[Anno_Domini]

See, I don't think you realize how you're acting. I myself am not throwing out baseless claims like majorities and minorities, that's all you. I've simply stated that a good amount of audiences had problems with the voice mix from day 1 on. And that's all true (unless you were living under a rock and blocking out the criticism).


You continue to downplay it when a simple google search or a search in this very thread from December 2011 and July 2012 proofed otherwise. You can't just say "well the majority didn't have a problem" and imply that those that have a problem have arguments that are insignificant. You seem to be doing this with most criticisms and it's not really fair.

I feel differently from you, obviously but you don't see me saying "only a small minority feel the way you do". It's simply not the case.

A few Google searches still shows the minority, as I stated. A few links showing the dislike of Bane's voice doesn't count on the millions of people that watched TDKR. What I've been saying is close enough when a few Google searches doesn't equate to the mass that watched TDKR.

Totally forgot about the opening credits. Really a nice touch, but I will always prefer the opening credits in Spider-Man 2(what a shocker, something S-M 2 does best in Raimi's trilogy ).

My picture isn't showing up of this on the previous page, but you have a much clearer shot of it anyways.

Crane effected the story and worked in TDKR? I don't think so.

Fear being a theme once more that was sorta sidetracked in TDK as well as the hint that Crane is in league with the LoS again and once again used as a pawn without knowing the LoS's endgame. Crane worked for the threequel for sure.

I'd even bring up the "full circle" aspect of Crane not being captured at the end as was the case in BB too.

As much as personally, I wouldn't have used Crane, he does make sense to be in TDKR.

 

[BCDawg97]

Crane effected the story and worked in TDKR? I don't think so.


They could have easily left him out and it would have no bearing on the story. He's a frivolous cameo as far as I'm concerned. A nod and nothing more. His appearance in The Dark Knight made perfect sense, they tied up a loose end from Batman Begins. There's a resolution there. TDKR? Not so much. That was just Nolan putting in his old friend Cillian Murphy and winking to the fans. They undo the resolution.


It's odd to have all these characters, have them mentioned and be a part of the story, but nothing for the Joker. I mean, practically the whole gang from Begins and Dark Knight are there. We have Ra's, we have Rachel, Dent, a good amount of flashbacks, a hallucination, the League of Shadows, Thomas Wayne, Gordon's family in Cleveland, young Gordon and young Bruce, the well, the Mayor, mentions of the events of Dark Knight and Begins . . . . but absolutely no Joker?



We know why Nolan did it, but that doesn't make it any less glaring. Think of The Dark Knight's world. Would the Joker really just go down quietly? He wouldn't have a trial? He wouldn't have anything bigger planned? He'd never be able to escape from where he was? That's nonsense.


To see that great mention of him as an "armed robber" and Joker card reveal at the end of Batman Begins and then see everything he does in the Dark Knight, then no word of him in TDKR is maddening. Especially when, again, practically everything else is mentioned. From "that night with the SWATS" to the fact that this crazy outcome was practically Joker's fault anyway.




I'd argue he made more of an impact than ANY of the characters in all three films after what he did in TDK. He got under EVERYONE'S skin and practically interacted with every character. I'd say he's as much a key player as Batman as far as the films are concerned.

It is a glaring omission. He obviously left the Joker alive at the end of TDK for a reason (a la leaving Crane alive at the end of BB). But he still crafted a story in TDKR that didn't require the use of the Joker to move the trilogy forward. And I'm not saying whether Rises was a good or bad movie. Only that the Joker wasn't needed to tell the story.

 

[Anno_Domini]

It's sort of unsettling for someone to know why Nolan did what he did with not mentioning the Joker, but they continue to bring it up...it's beating a dead horse(the subject; that's not to be looked at as being messed up with the topic at hand).

 

[milost]

A few Google searches still shows the minority, as I stated. A few links showing the dislike of Bane's voice doesn't count on the millions of people that watched TDKR. What I've been saying is close enough when a few Google searches doesn't equate to the mass that watched TDKR.

Find all of them in all the search engines, link them. Go on other websites, there are plenty of qualms about it there too. Compile everything you find, make a few polls while you're at it.


Then prove to me that "a majority don't have a problem with it".


There are no gut feelings with a claim as bold as that one. No, "well, my theater didn't have a problem or my friends or family". You can't just belittle the opinion of others and insinuate that it's a non issue with "majorities" and "minorities". You can't back it up, not when multiple searches with "Bane voice hard to understand", or any of the other problems that are in this very thread or on this very message board exist.



And you can't say "vocal minority" either. Because, even before I signed up I've seen these issues discussed everywhere. If you want to go with "feelings" or "appearances" or "gut feelings", it's either,


- the majority of the audiences don't care enough anymore to even argue for or against the praises or criticisms for this 2012 Batman movie and have moved on (which is most likely the truth)

- it's a 50/50 split for the community that cares (us, other fan message boards)






Before it was released it was speculated that this movie would be polarizing, and I think it has. Polarizing isn't "majorities" or "minorities", it's a good amount from both sides.


Look at what this place has devolved to, or other message boards, or youtube, or commentators, or blogs, etc. etc. For every "I HATE TDKR" topic I can find on the internet, you can find a "I LOVE TDKR" topic. And vice versa.

Fear being a theme once more that was sorta sidetracked in TDK as well as the hint that Crane is in league with the LoS again and once again used as a pawn without knowing the LoS's endgame. Crane worked for the threequel for sure.

I'd even bring up the "full circle" aspect of Crane not being captured at the end as was the case in BB too.

As much as personally, I wouldn't have used Crane, he does make sense to be in TDKR.

And the Joker could "make sense" in TDKR as well, even if it's just a mention. You just make sense of it in your writing and thought process.


That's the brilliance of story telling, you can make it whatever you will and tell whatever you want.


It doesn't mean everyone will like or agree with it though . . . case and point.

 

[BatLobster]

OMG. Is anybody still really upset that The Joker wasn't mentioned in TDKR? The reason is clear. It's easy to respect that. The Joker gets to remain this unstoppable force that plows through the second film and puts the heroes in the difficult situation they find themselves in for the third film. He gets his own movie to shine. His own little masterpiece. He's on the cover of the damn DVD/Blu-ray for crying out loud.

But it's not The Joker's story. It's Bruce's. TDKR returned to that. You couldn't make a "TDK 2" without addressing The Joker. But thankfully, TDKR was anything but TDK 2.

 

[RAINMAKER]

Except Ra's never made himself known to Gotham with elaborate threats via broadcasting to millions of people in the city. Everyone in Gotham knew who the Joker was, he was in public several times.

Exactly. The only person that knew Ra's was Bruce Wayne. People believed it was "Scarecrow" that released the toxin into the city.

 

[milost]

OMG. Is anybody still really upset that The Joker wasn't mentioned in TDKR? The reason is clear. It's easy to respect that. The Joker gets to remain this unstoppable force that plows through the second film and puts the heroes in the difficult situation they find themselves in for the third film. He gets his own movie to shine. His own little masterpiece. He's on the cover of the damn DVD/Blu-ray for crying out loud.

But it's not The Joker's story. It's Bruce's. TDKR returned to that. You couldn't make a "TDK 2" without addressing The Joker. But thankfully, TDKR was anything but TDK 2.

This is also true.

I wouldn't even say that the Joker not being included (by mention) in TDKR is a crime. It's only a crime to the film's "world" so to speak (if you view this as a "Trilogy" of it's own world that's interconnected). It could also be viewed as a blessing on another hand.


As far as films go though, if we simply view them as they are on their own terms, I like that the Joker is only in Begins and The Dark Knight and isn't "tainted" in TDKR (for me anyway) with some lame flashback or convoluted mention. For me, lots of the characters like Bruce, Alfred, and Gordon are worsened after TDKR, not so with the Joker.


He's a single entity of existence in the first two films that it just makes TDKR feel far and away from them, as it's own thing. Sure, it forces itself into the other two with "Dents" and "Rachels" and Ra's hallucinations that somehow give important plot details and "full circles", but it'll always be missing that special slice of the pie that the other 2/3 have that keep it from being the "full circle", the best slice, the Joker.


Is he in Arkham? Does Arkham exist? Is he dead? Did he escape? Does he even exist anymore?


Who cares? He was there in Batman Begins and the Dark Knight, and that's all that matters.

 

[RAINMAKER]

It is a glaring omission. He obviously left the Joker alive at the end of TDK for a reason (a la leaving Crane alive at the end of BB). But he still crafted a story in TDKR that didn't require the use of the Joker to move the trilogy forward. And I'm not saying whether Rises was a good or bad movie. Only that the Joker wasn't needed to tell the story.

I disagree. The impact of the Joker was enormous! Had the truth been revealed, all the work that Harvey, Batman and Gordon did would be all for naught.

In fact, it wouldn't have mattered why Harvey went on rampage. If the truth was revealed that "Two-Face" murdered all those people, Gotham City would be right back to where it was when BB started.

And it was all because of the Joker.

 

[BCDawg97]

I disagree. The impact of the Joker was enormous! Had the truth been revealed, all the work that Harvey, Batman and Gordon did would be all for naught.

In fact, it wouldn't have mattered why Harvey went on rampage. If the truth was revealed that "Two-Face" murdered all those people, Gotham City would be right back to where it was when BB started.

And it was all because of the Joker.

Correct. And Bane used Dents actions in his Blackgate prison speech. The Jokers actions do still resonate in Rises, but my point was only that Nolan wrote Rises in such a way as to where he didn't have to specifically mention the Joker

 

[RAINMAKER]

Correct. And Bane used Dents actions in his Blackgate prison speech. The Jokers actions do still resonate in Rises, but my point was only that Nolan wrote Rises in such a way as to where he didn't have to specifically mention the Joker

I see what you're saying.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Find all of them in all the search engines, link them. Go on other websites, there are plenty of qualms about it there too. Compile everything you find, make a few polls while you're at it.


Then prove to me that "a majority don't have a problem with it".


There are no gut feelings with a claim as bold as that one. No, "well, my theater didn't have a problem or my friends or family". You can't just belittle the opinion of others and insinuate that it's a non issue with "majorities" and "minorities". You can't back it up, not when multiple searches with "Bane voice hard to understand", or any of the other problems that are in this very thread or on this very message board exist.



And you can't say "vocal minority" either. Because, even before I signed up I've seen these issues discussed everywhere. If you want to go with "feelings" or "appearances" or "gut feelings", it's either,


- the majority of the audiences don't care enough anymore to even argue for or against the praises or criticisms for this 2012 Batman movie and have moved on (which is most likely the truth)

- it's a 50/50 split for the community that cares (us, other fan message boards)






Before it was released it was speculated that this movie would be polarizing, and I think it has. Polarizing isn't "majorities" or "minorities", it's a good amount from both sides.


Look at what this place has devolved to, or other message boards, or youtube, or commentators, or blogs, etc. etc. For every "I HATE TDKR" topic I can find on the internet, you can find a "I LOVE TDKR" topic. And vice versa.

Cool.

I've said all I needed to say about this subject.

And the Joker could "make sense" in TDKR as well, even if it's just a mention. You just make sense of it in your writing and thought process.


That's the brilliance of story telling, you can make it whatever you will and tell whatever you want.


It doesn't mean everyone will like or agree with it though . . . case and point.

Okay? I'm just telling you why Crane made sense to your statement on him returning making no sense to you.

And Joker of course would make sense, but sadly Ledger died and couldn't be used. So...leave it be and stop bringing up Joker anymore for Christ's sake.

OMG. Is anybody still really upset that The Joker wasn't mentioned in TDKR? The reason is clear. It's easy to respect that. The Joker gets to remain this unstoppable force that plows through the second film and puts the heroes in the difficult situation they find themselves in for the third film. He gets his own movie to shine. His own little masterpiece. He's on the cover of the damn DVD/Blu-ray for crying out loud.

But it's not The Joker's story. It's Bruce's. TDKR returned to that. You couldn't make a "TDK 2" without addressing The Joker. But thankfully, TDKR was anything but TDK 2.

What's even more of a joke is someone saying they know the reason why Joker isn't mentioned and yet they STILL talk about how Joker should be mentioned anyways.

 

[The Joker]

Just been discussing this with a fellow Hype member: When she escaped the pit how did young Talia know where to find her father, or even know what the heck he looked like since she was born and raised in the pit all of her life?

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Yeah, Joker and I had a serious revelation about that...I mean, it's not like Mrs. Al Ghul had a freaking picture of Ra's, and even then..and who's to say Ra's even would believe her? Did she google Ra's Al Ghul like Alfred did for Bane?

 

[milost]

Just been discussing this with a fellow Hype member: When she escaped the pit how did young Talia know where to find her father, or even know what the heck he looked like since she was born and raised in the pit for years?

I JUST mentioned this in the other thread, pretty cool.



Better question would be, how would Ra's Al Ghul, the head of an organization that can burn London to the ground, topple Rome and ruin Gotham financially, not be able to find a prison pit to rescue his pregnant wife with a host of ninja soldiers at his disposal and either rescue them or exact terrible vengeance on his own?

 

[The Joker]

Yeah, Joker and I had a serious revelation about that...I mean, it's not like Mrs. Al Ghul had a freaking picture of Ra's, and even then..and who's to say Ra's even would believe her? Did she google Ra's Al Ghul like Alfred did for Bane?

I JUST mentioned this in the other thread, pretty cool.

Better question would be, how would Ra's Al Ghul, the head of an organization that can burn London to the ground, topple Rome and ruin Gotham financially, not be able to find a prison pit to rescue his pregnant wife with a host of ninja soldiers at his disposal and either rescue them or exact terrible vengeance on his own?

Another thing: why the hell would Ra's even believe this skin headed kid is his when he had no idea his wife was even pregnant?

 

[milost]

Another thing: why the hell would Ra's even believe this skin headed kid is his when he had no idea his wife was even pregnant?

 

[A Necessary Evil]