The Dark Knight Rises Why is everyone slamming TDKR?

[Shikamaru]

The "Robin" name is more important to the idea of Batman's successor anyway, as evidenced by as many as five characters having taken on that persona (with a potential sixth on the horizon).

It was fan service AND pandering to the audience. It was an acknowledgement of the Robin character in the Nolanverse. Kind of a big deal for some of us.

As I said, I don't think the general audience wouldn't have gotten the message by the end.

And how would calling him Dick Grayson or Tim Drake make it any less of an acknowledgment of the Robin character in the Nolanverse for the fans? It would've been an even better easter egg IMO.

Also, I hope I don't sound like I think this is a huge problem. It isn't. It's more of a small personal inconvenience.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

This.

The thing people do not seem to understand about Batman is that he is not a legacy character like how Flash and Green Lantern are. Batman is the byproduct of Bruce Wayne's damaged psychological mind. That part of Bruce is what makes Batman who he is. There is and can only be one true Batman. Sure that you can have someone like Dick Grayson or Tim Drake take over the Batman mantle for a short period of time if Bruce is missing, considered dead, or is off somewhere doing something else but Bruce is the only one capable of being Batman in the long run.

However, Batman Beyond is the one exception in all of history that has managed to pull of the "Batman is a legacy" thing while still staying true to what Batman is all about. This is not only because, as you said, they created a character just as disturbed as Bruce, but also because they show how far Amanda Waller has to go and how dirty her hands have to get in order to create another Batman, as well as what consequences both her and the Batman she created (Terry) have to go through because of this. Nolan should've taken notes from Timm and Dini in this department.

McGinnis didn't think up the Bat idea separately did he ? It's not a product of McGinnis' mind as well.

Terry being a character just as disturbed as Bruce is the same as what they did with Blake. A boy who watched his parent die.

 

[BatLobster]

As I said, I don't think the general audience wouldn't have gotten the message by the end.

And how would calling him Dick Grayson or Tim Drake make it any less of an acknowledgment of the Robin character in the Nolanverse for the fans? It would've been an even better easter egg IMO.

Also, I hope I don't sound like I think this is a huge problem. It isn't. It's more of a small personal inconvenience.

That's fine. I just didn't agree with you saying it wasn't fan service and was instead catering to the audience. There can be some overlap there where it's both things at once. They wanted it to be a moment where everyone would instantly get the significance of the name said. But the general audience also might not realize how Blake is an amalgam character with various aspects of the Robins. So it was a nod to the fans who had picked up on that throughout the movie, while also working for the GA that got a general "sidekick" vibe from him.

Granted, I understand the resistance to call it fan service if it didn't please you as a fan, but I think the attempt was there.

This.
However, Batman Beyond is the one exception in all of history that has managed to pull of the "Batman is a legacy" thing while still staying true to what Batman is all about. This is not only because, as you said, they created a character just as disturbed as Bruce, but also because they show how far Amanda Waller has to go and how dirty her hands have to get in order to create another Batman, as well as what consequences both her and the Batman she created (Terry) have to go through because of this. Nolan should've taken notes from Timm and Dini in this department.

Are you implying that Blake would have been a better character if he was genetically engineered with Bruce's DNA?

 

[Shikamaru]

McGinnis didn't think up the Bat idea separately did he ? It's not a product of McGinnis' mind as well.

Terry being a character just as disturbed as Bruce is the same as what they did with Blake. A boy who watched his parent die.

That's not what I meant. Batman is a byproduct of Bruce's mentality in the sense that Batman was created out of the psychological trauma, emotions, dedication, obsession, and overall character of Bruce - not in the sense that Bruce came up with the idea to dress up as a Bat. Terry has those things too.

Blake didn't watch his parents die, or at least didn't watch his parents get murdered. Also, being an orphan =/= being able to become Batman. Terry is damaged like Bruce is but in a different way. His damage comes from the things he did and got involved with in his childhood as well as from the regrets he has from his past.

That's fine. I just didn't agree with you saying it wasn't fan service and was instead catering to the audience. There can be some overlap there where it's both things at once. They wanted it to be a moment where everyone would instantly get the significance of the name said. But the general audience also might not realize how Blake is an amalgam character with various aspects of the Robins. So it was a nod to the fans who had picked up on that throughout the movie, while also working for the GA that got a general "sidekick" vibe from him.

Granted, I understand the resistance to call it fan service if it didn't please you as a fan, but I think the attempt was there.

Fair enough.

Are you implying that Blake would have been a better character if he was genetically engineered with Bruce's DNA?

Given the way he looks, I would suspect him more to be the genetically engineered son of the Joker .

 

[Agent Orange]

While on the subject of Batman Beyond I love the Epilogue episode of Justice League Unlimited based purely on the themes and motifs that it presents but I'm kind of iffy on the "Project Batman Beyond" angle. I thought that that could have been handled a little better but there's only so much you can do in the allotted 22-23 minutes.

 

[Agent Orange]

Are you implying that Blake would have been a better character if he was genetically engineered with Bruce's DNA?

Yeah... I kind of hate that.

 

[Anno_Domini]

I see people saying that the Robin name was fan service like how Zsasz and Henri Ducard were. It was not fan service; it was pandering to the audience.

Fan service would've been if his name was Dick Grayson or Tim Drake or even Terry McGinnis. That would've been a really cool easter egg to do, one fans would've understood while the general audience overall would've still got the message of Bruce passing on the torch. It's not like they wouldn't have understood that by the end if the name drop wasn't there.

It is fan service because this wasn't Dick Grayson or Tim Drake. It was Nolan's own version of a Robin that could fit with his universe and his name just happened to be Robin since he wasn't going to be Robin, Batman's side-kick. His name is Robin who was going to be the next Batman.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

That's not what I meant. Batman is a byproduct of Bruce's mentality in the sense that Batman was created out of the psychological trauma, emotions, dedication, obsession, and overall character of Bruce - not in the sense that Bruce came up with the idea to dress up as a Bat. Terry has those things too.

How did Terry, when he first donned the cowl, have these things anymore than Blake did?

Blake didn't watch his parents die, or at least didn't watch his parents get murdered. Also, being an orphan =/= being able to become Batman. Terry is damaged like Bruce is but in a different way. His damage comes from the things he did and got involved with in his childhood as well as from the regrets he has from his past.

To me, the delivery of the line, "and I remember that one...just fine", very much suggested that he did watch his dad get murdered and was traumatized by it.

So again, i dont see what makes him any less fit to don the cowl than 17 year old Terry.

I'd be curious to see what the reaction would be like if Blake's name actually was Dick Grayson or Terry McGinnis.

 

[BatLobster]

Fair enough.

Cool

Given the way he looks, I would suspect him more to be the genetically engineered son of the Joker .

Well played, sir.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

This was pages back, and I don't know what the immediate topic is on this certain page, but I have a question.

How is ignoring the Joker's whereabouts (and pretty much his entire existence) in TDKR a move to "respect Ledger's death"?

I mean, I can't think of any saints or even deities in religious history that are treated with that much reverence. The only thing that comes to mind is Voldemort from Harry Potter (and he still had an alternate title). In other words, it comes across to me as perhaps unintentionally disrespectful, if anything. Not to mention it's rather odd from a storytelling standpoint. The Joker was Chaotic Evil incarnate to Gotham. But everyone so conveniently swept him under the rug. Weeeeeeird.

 

[Snow Queen]

This was pages back, and I don't know what the immediate topic is on this certain page, but I have a question.

How is ignoring the Joker's whereabouts (and pretty much his entire existence) in TDKR a move to "respect Ledger's death"?

I mean, I can't think of any saints or even deities in religious history that are treated with that much reverence. The only thing that comes to mind is Voldemort from Harry Potter (and he still had an alternate title). In other words, it comes across to me as perhaps unintentionally disrespectful, if anything. Not to mention it's rather odd from a storytelling standpoint. The Joker was Chaotic Evil incarnate to Gotham. But everyone so conveniently swept him under the rug. Weeeeeeird.

I saw it as a move from Nolan to avoid some pain as well. Not disrespectful in the slightest, just a way of dealing with pain. Imagine having a friend, that friend dying and then spending months and months watching him on monitors in the film, knowing you will never see him again.

 

[Anno_Domini]

In Nolan's mind, it was respecting Ledger. I still don't understand that notion, but if Nolan felt was it respecting Ledger, than great, that was his call. If I was the director, I would have done it differently, but I respect the decision no doubt.

 

[milost]

Yeah, it might not be what we would have done and it might not be disrespectful to us, but our names weren't on the directors chair.

Even if it doesn't make sense to us or the story, it was his choice, what happened, happened. We weren't there on set or see what was going on behind the scenes and that's that.


I just hope one day a plethora of behind the scenes material shows up about Ledger as the Joker. I'd love to see what he was doing behind the scenes or see alternate takes or deleted scenes. I bet they had some documentary on the make up and prosthetic involving him too. Probably a bunch of goodies that haven't been made public as of yet.

 

[Leetank]

I think it's great and I loved bane as a villain, but it dragged in parts for sure, but there was a lot of good which imo outweighs the little bad.

 

[batfreakforever]

But what fans see as bad are really just nitpicks. I still get the vibe from the complainers is that they still dont understand this version of Batman/Bruce wayne because alot of it comes down to is the comics are not like this so this is wrong. Ahh no buddy. There are other ways to tell the same story in different mediums. Why is it ok for a comic artist/writer to do things differently but not film-makers. Just seems like some fans are two-faced or have double standards. Just because ones on paper like the comic books, but then again they will complan no matter what. Film-makers should be able to have the same freedom as comic book artists/wrters.

 

[Anno_Domini]

But what fans see as bad are really just nitpicks.

Get off of this idea, man.

People don't like TDKR or hate it, so what. Let it go. It doesn't disturb your enjoyment of the film, does it?

 

[Art Damage]

But I wouldve cut Blake/Talia from the movie altogether, so Im pretty biased here.

I'm with you 100%.

 

[Frodo]

I gotta say overall ,from what i've seen people generally liked it . I really haven't seen people hate the film , and when I say hate, I mean real hate, not just critical of creative choices or pointing out things they didn't like. If anything the arguement is between it could have been better if x,y,and z, happened, to It was amazing.

The thing is , alot of fanboys get rilled up someone doesn't agree with them 100% on a film or for whatever else. Its like people take it personally which , I don't get because films are subjective , but never the less, fans get all worked up because they don't agree on something. Then again, its the same way with sports and poltics so I guess its not that unusaul.

 

[BatMatt]

Sometimes reading posts on this forum would make it hard to remember the film has a 87% Rottentomatoes score and A Cinemascore. The film has been rather polarizing but from what I've gathered only amongst these type communities. Everyone I know outside these boards seemed to love it.

 

[Brain Damage]

In terms of my friend group/other people who've seen it, no one hates it (although one of my friend cannot STAND Bane's voice) but no one likes it nearly as much as TDK.

 

[tek]

for the same reason people slam IM3 even without seeing it, although rewatching tdkr on the small screen had it lose alot of its appeal.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Haven't followed this thread, so I don't know what constitutes "everyone" slamming TDKR. Critical reviews aside which are great (87% Avg rating 8/10 on RT, 78 on Metacritic), the reviews and reaction from the general audience have been great as well (8.6 on IMDB and #48 in the top 250, 8.4 user score on Metacritic and 92% of audience liking it Avg rating 4.5/5 on RT). You don't achieve those kinds of audience numbers with a movie that "everyone" is slamming.

Personally, I love this movie. It is my 2nd favorite of the 3 after TDK and the ending is my favorite of the three. These movies rank for me as the best in the genre and TDKR is a huge reason why.

 

[Frodo]

I think its important to keep in perspective and realize that just because a group of fans may be divided about something doesn't mean that somehow everyone is "slamming" or everyone is "loves" a certain film . As other posters have noted , alot of critics did like the film and alot of audiences enjoyed the film generally speaking.

The thing is that if you stay in one group or focus on one group of people , and all you do is listen and talk back to argue with them back and forth , it can give you the impression that everyone feels a certain way .

 

[JackWhite]

Haven't followed this thread, so I don't know what constitutes "everyone" slamming TDKR. Critical reviews aside which are great (87% Avg rating 8/10 on RT, 78 on Metacritic), the reviews and reaction from the general audience have been great as well (8.6 on IMDB and #48 in the top 250, 8.4 user score on Metacritic and 92% of audience liking it Avg rating 4.5/5 on RT). You don't achieve those kinds of audience numbers with a movie that "everyone" is slamming.

Personally, I love this movie. It is my 2nd favorite of the 3 after TDK and the ending is my favorite of the three. These movies rank for me as the best in the genre and TDKR is a huge reason why.

True. A lot of people make it seem like TDKR was received like Spider-Man 3 was, and both films couldn't be more different in terms of quality.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Haven't followed this thread, so I don't know what constitutes "everyone" slamming TDKR. Critical reviews aside which are great (87% Avg rating 8/10 on RT, 78 on Metacritic), the reviews and reaction from the general audience have been great as well (8.6 on IMDB and #48 in the top 250, 8.4 user score on Metacritic and 92% of audience liking it Avg rating 4.5/5 on RT). You don't achieve those kinds of audience numbers with a movie that "everyone" is slamming.

Personally, I love this movie. It is my 2nd favorite of the 3 after TDK and the ending is my favorite of the three. These movies rank for me as the best in the genre and TDKR is a huge reason why.

I've said it before. The film would not have had the legs it did if people hated it like the tiny minority insists. SM3 had awful legs, which backed up the idea that even the general audience agreed with some of the angry fans on it.

The box office gets more and more frontloaded every year. TDKR, with a massive $160m opening and nearly 3 hour runtime, still managed a 2.8 multiplier. That is stellar by the standards of the superhero genre circa 2012.