The Dark Knight Rises Why is everyone slamming TDKR?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tony is definitely much, much, much more proactive obviously in IM3 and I loved that he continue his work while dealing with PTSD, although any resolution from that is what kills Tony's arc. The PTSD is "cured", and Stark decides to destroy his armor while getting rid of his mini arc reactor in exchange to live happily(as well as making Pepper happy). I get it, Pepper was worried sick about Tony, but I still don't get the reasoning of Stark doing all of this. Getting rid of everything resembles so much like Bruce Wayne walking away from Gotham City, but there's a reason why Bruce should have and Tony shouldn't have.

These Iron Man films are meant to be in some huge universe where there's going to be an Avengers 2, and Stark getting rid of everything just doesn't add up even if "Tony Stark will return". And needless to say, Stark getting rid of the mini arc just makes Iron Man 2's plot even worse when Stark could've gotten rid of the thing in the second flick.

Stark gets rid of everything for a girl, or at least that's what I took out of it.

Bruce gets rid of his old life because he needed to move on.

Tony Stark, imo, did not need to really move on.

I see. Thanks for that little synopsis, Anno. One last question, would you say Tony is in his suit more or less than Bruce was in TDKR?

I've tried to tell people that the marvel movies while big now and certainly cashed in big time are going to be the downfall of comic movies. Not taking any chances, little to no themes, and just catering to children. The avengers in my eyes was just as cheeseballish as Batman and Robin. Stupid jokes and just a movie that was written by middle school kids. I may not like all the DC movies but I give them all the credit in the world for at least letting adults enjoy these characters. Marvel movies outside of the first two spiderman movies have taken ZERO RISKS and it's doing more harm than good for the art of comic book movies.

Eh, while I'm not particularity keen on Marvel's approach to comic book films(Raimi's Spider-Man flicks and TASM not included), I get what they are trying to achieve and where there major demographic is targeted. It's smart, marketable business.

With that being, this is why I am so against DC trying to copy Marvel with the "cinematic universe". Could you imagine MOS ending up on the level of TDK-Trilogy, if Supes is left alone within his own world? Reboot Batman eventually, take a well thought out and honest take on Green Lantern, and eventually take a crack at Wonder Woman, and DC could have there own thing - Great stand alone trilogies. Eventually they could do a JLA film down the road for kicks, but I digress...
 
You have to strike while the iron is hot. there is no reason for DC not to put out a JL movie. 20 years from now comic book movies might not be in. Especially with Marvel doing the quick cash scheme they are doing
 
Tony is definitely much, much, much more proactive obviously in IM3 and I loved that he continue his work while dealing with PTSD, although any resolution from that is what kills Tony's arc. The PTSD is "cured", and Stark decides to destroy his armor while getting rid of his mini arc reactor in exchange to live happily(as well as making Pepper happy). I get it, Pepper was worried sick about Tony, but I still don't get the reasoning of Stark doing all of this. Getting rid of everything resembles so much like Bruce Wayne walking away from Gotham City, but there's a reason why Bruce should have and Tony shouldn't have.

These Iron Man films are meant to be in some huge universe where there's going to be an Avengers 2, and Stark getting rid of everything just doesn't add up even if "Tony Stark will return". And needless to say, Stark getting rid of the mini arc just makes Iron Man 2's plot even worse when Stark could've gotten rid of the thing in the second flick.

Stark gets rid of everything for a girl, or at least that's what I took out of it.

Bruce gets rid of his old life because he needed to move on.

Tony Stark, imo, did not need to really move on.





I thought keeping Dummy was a nice touch. Wasn't that what he built as a kid in Iron Man 1?


I don't think the ending is meant to say he's done being Iron Man or that he won't put on another suit and moving on. I think he simply got rid of his "distractions" for Pepper. It wasn't really necessary to have all those suits that he compulsively built and I think he was saying that the tech and the arc reactor don't make him. I mean he even says at the end, "I'm Iron Man".


He'll don the the suit again.
 
I think it's stupid to argue which film is ''better'' because Batman fans will say Batman & Iron-man fans will say Iron-man. I only liken them to other Batman films in Nolans series. That's all. Things like how far Bruce has comes since donning the cape & cowel in Batman begins. Has his attitude changed, goals changed, is he doing more harm then good, is his arc complete, is there anymore he can do? I don't judge or have a hissy fit about how much screen time he is in the suit, I judge what he gets done in the suit, he isn't just on the screen in the suit for no reason, he is in it for a reason. If other characters are on screen instead of Bruce/Batman I try and see how they help Bruce's arc like Harvey dent, Blake, Gordon, Young Ra's, Selina etc.
 
I think it's stupid to argue which film is ''better'' because Batman fans will say Batman & Iron-man fans will say Iron-man. I only liken them to other Batman films in Nolans series. That's all. Things like how far Bruce has comes since donning the cape & cowel in Batman begins. Has his attitude changed, goals changed, is he doing more harm then good, is his arc complete, is there anymore he can do? I don't judge or have a hissy fit about how much screen time he is in the suit, I judge what he gets done in the suit, he isn't just on the screen in the suit for no reason, he is in it for a reason. If other characters are on screen instead of Bruce/Batman I try and see how they help Bruce's arc like Harvey dent, Blake, Gordon, Young Ra's, Selina etc.

We aren't arguing that at all. I merely brought up the common similarities TDKR and IM3 have.
 
You have to strike while the iron is hot. there is no reason for DC not to put out a JL movie. 20 years from now comic book movies might not be in. Especially with Marvel doing the quick cash scheme they are doing

I guess sci fi, fantasy and action films won't be in either in 20 years. :whatever:
 
I see. Thanks for that little synopsis, Anno. One last question, would you say Tony is in his suit more or less than Bruce was in TDKR?

About the same really. Tony is in the suit(or, should I say suits as it is plural in the final battle) in three big occasions, much like Bruce as Batman in TDKR. Both are seen as presumed to be dead as well, but the difference is that Tony is in the suit just once before that happens, and Bruce is Batman twice before he's presumed dead.

I will say this, and what's ironic, is IM3 reminds me of TAS-M...both films, I very much enjoyed the first hour, and then after that hour, there's only one specific scene that I really enjoyed. With TAS-M, it's the high school battle and with IM3 it's the final battle. Once Tony leaves Tennessee, it just goes downhill...hated that Mandarin was a cop out and hated that a character in the comics, Aldrich Killian, turns out to be Mandarin. And I think that's my biggest issue. I can look past the idea if they wanted Mandarin to be someone different, but getting Ben Kingsley to portray a doped out decoy while Mandarin is merged with another comics character...it's just such an idiotic move.

Oh, and the final battle is simply amazing...until Killian survives that mini explosion and when Pepper comes out of her own explosion unscathed and takes out Killian herself. Killian should've died from the explosion and Pepper should have died from her fall into the debris and fire. As well as the fact that Tony shouldn't have went all "Clean Slate"(and that's what JARVIS called it :doh:) and destroyed his armors as well as getting rid of the shrap metal(oh, and the surgeon, Dr. Wu, you only see him one other time and that's the very beginning, lol).

I thought keeping Dummy was a nice touch. Wasn't that what he built as a kid in Iron Man 1?


I don't think the ending is meant to say he's done being Iron Man or that he won't put on another suit and moving on. I think he simply got rid of his "distractions" for Pepper. It wasn't really necessary to have all those suits that he compulsively built and I think he was saying that the tech and the arc reactor don't make him. I mean he even says at the end, "I'm Iron Man".


He'll don the the suit again.

Yah, Dummy was used from the beginning when Tony was a kid and then in the last two films as well. I guess him keeping Dummy was a sign that he'll continue on as Iron Man, but the ending was such a weird moment to try and give someone an ending if he's going to show up again.
 
Last edited:
They gave Iron Man an "ending" because Robert Downey Jr has finished his contract and at the time of production, and possibly still now, it was unknown if he would return.

But it's not really an complete ending. This is just a maturation of Tony, he doesn't need to focus his life on the suits anymore (which is why he didn't get rid of the arc reactor in IM2, like someone brought up), he can focus on Pepper. But his monlogue very clearly states "I am Iron Man" and we know from that, if the need arises, he can come back.
 
Spoiler tags, lol.

Even if one can make sense to that ending, it just seems odd. Getting rid of the arc reactor, his armors...even with him saying he's Iron Man, it's still a very odd ending to boot. I won't be surprised at all if he shows up in TA 2, and he should, but the ending wasn't something I thought would be necessary, especially since supposedly him building "cures" his PTSD, as that was mentioned by Harley that he should build.
 
So yeah, as much criticism TDKR gets around these parts, it's weaknesses sure do not compare to those of Iron Man 3. Granted I liked the movie enough, definitely an improvement over Iron Man 2, but it has some very glaring issues. Perhaps the worst villain set I've seen in a comic book movie in some time.
 
Spoiler tags, lol.

Even if one can make sense to that ending, it just seems odd. Getting rid of the arc reactor, his armors...even with him saying he's Iron Man, it's still a very odd ending to boot. I won't be surprised at all if he shows up in TA 2, and he should, but the ending wasn't something I thought would be necessary, especially since supposedly him building "cures" his PTSD, as that was mentioned by Harley that he should build.

The way I view it is that he intends to retire, but unlike with Bruce Wayne in TDKR it doesn't really feel like closure. The big difference in the characters is that Bruce Wayne is Batman because he feels he needs to be, whereas Tony Stark is Iron Man because he likes it. He won't be able to resist coming back.

That said, they can also use it as finale for RDJ if he doesn't come back, which is probably why it is in the film in the first place.
 
This is a massive thread so I didn't read it all, so I apologize if my thoughts echo ones previously mentioned.


I am of the opinion a person can like or dislike whatever they want. Opinions are opinions and everybody has the right to theirs.

BUT....I do think opinions can be ill informed and reactionary. Does that mean all the opinions I vehemently disagree with are reactionary? No, but I can't help but feel in this case, much of it is.

No one, not a single person can honestly say with a straight face that TDKR has any more plot inconsistencies or "holes" than TDK. I've seen fans completely dismiss points brought up against TDK in defense of Rises simply because "IT'S TDK ZOMG JOKER NOLAN TWO-FACE IT'S PERFECT END OF STORY!"

They can refute any point you make agaisnt TDK, but when you do the same thing to Rises, you're just a fanboy apologist. The simple fact is you can nitpick TDK as much, if not more than Rises.

-What was up with the school buses in the beginning? You are to assume the Joker planned all of those buses to be there so he could blend into them. But you hear childrens laughing, indicating that these are regualr school buses, in the soundtrack. Did he know these buses would be there at that exact moment? What if they were late? What if there was a traffic jam? None of the drivers noticed a freaking bus pull out of the wreckage of a bank? No one reported it?

-What about the whole skyhook thing? Bruce is seen jumping off of his yacht to a suspicious plane run by foreign smugglers. Later on, we are to assume these same smugglers are the people to snatch Bats up with skyhook in Hong Kong. For one, how did these guys not put two and two together? How did they not know it was Bruce they picked up from the yacht? Did Bruce use a false name? Was he not recognizable? How did they not say..."hey this guy is Batman we just picked up, I wonder if it's that rich dude we picked up a few day ago? You think they're the same guy? Does Batman work for him?" And how did that freakin' plane manage to fly over Hong Kong airspace without detection or without being forcibly redirected?

-Where did the Joker go after he threw Rachel out of the window? Ya, ya we know there is a deleted scene showing what happens, but it's not in the film, nor is it even available on the DVD. So that's not a good excuse. He came with the purpose of finding Harvey. Why did he just give up?

-How about the Jokers plans requiring him to be, literally, omnipotent? There is no getting around the fact that Jokers schemes crumble under a little thinking about the logistics. It is literally impossible for him to concoct all of these plans by the seat of his pants so fast one after the other. He is a "dog chasing cars" as he puts it. A guy who just "does things". The assassination attempt for example. The city has gone to hell, the mayors life has been threatened, but nobody notices that the Honor Guard is a set of totally different people? Nobody notices the SCARS on one of the dudes face?

-What about the "fire truck" gag? There is a fire truck on fire in the middle of the city and nobody calls it in? Where was everybody anyway? Gotham must be the most boring city to live in, the streets were deserted. The cops even fall for the fire truck gag! There was no context to the set up. It was just a random fire truck on fire, in the middle of road. No other emergency vehicles present, no firemen, no FIRE anywhere in site. You would figure the criminal who has been 10 steps ahead of you the whole time would try to divert you would you?

-Did the Joker know Batman would save Harvey in the nick of time when he shot the bazooka at Harveys truck? Joker needs Harvey for his plot. He is the linchpin of the whole damn thing! Why shoot a BAZOOKA at his truck?

-His whole point was corrupting Harvey Dent right? Why set up the chance to kill him in the explosion? Did he know Bats would be the one to save him in time? Did he have another plan set up if Harvey just exploded right then and there? What would become of his plan to corrupt him then?

-And how did Joker know that cop would stay with him, alone, in the interrogation room giving him the chance to escape so he could set off the bomb? Why would the cops be that dumb as to leave one cop alone with the Joker, who is un-restrained? We don't even see The Joker get the better of the cop.

-How did the Joker and his henchmen rig up the hospital and ferries with explosives? A hospital is run 24/7 with staff. How did no one find the bombs? Stumble onto the goons planting them? Same with the ferries. How could nobody find a bunch of explosives on a public transportation unit like a ferry? Gotham doesn't inspect their stuff?

-How come Harvey wasn't the first person to be evacuated? Where was his security? Arguably the most important man in the city right now just escaped a murder attempt with half of his face disfigured, and you don't have a few cops posted about to keep an eye out? A guy with a painted face can just waltz in to his room with a nurse outfit and gab with him for 10 minutes and nobody comes in to get him out?



But no, all of this is forgiven and brushed under the rug because, ITS THE DARK KNIGHT! But Batman getting into Gotham, or the logistics of the plane crash, or the quality of the cops freshness of the cops in the sewers are somehow more unforgivable than anything mentioned above. :facepalm:
 
It is literally impossible for him to concoct all of these plans by the seat of his pants so fast one after the other. He is a "dog chasing cars" as he puts it. A guy who just "does things".

I agree with some of your critiques, but the above isn't a cogent one. The Joker is a liar, and he was lying to Dent. It is clear from his end conversation with Batman that he actually does have meticulous plans laid out far in advance.
 
I agree with some of your critiques, but the above isn't a cogent one. The Joker is a liar, and he was lying to Dent. It is clear from his end conversation with Batman that he actually does have meticulous plans laid out far in advance.

He still had no way of knowing how most of them would play out.

The "Everything Wrong With..." video on the film highlights some of my points and ones I didn't ever realize myself. While some of the points they bring up are purely for comedy, most of them are legit gaps in logic and plot. In fact, there are more serious questions in that video than the Rises one, which is has WAY more purely jokey points than TDK.

Oh, and I love all three films by the way. I'm just trying to prove a point:) Don't want to come across as a hater.
 
The only "plot hole" that took me out of the film was seeing Bruce already back in Gotham. My buddy that I saw TDKR with said that was pretty much his only complaint, at least on our first viewing. And it only got worse because I remember seeing some concept art of Bruce walking back to Gotham on the frozen over lake.
 
The only "plot hole" that took me out of the film was seeing Bruce already back in Gotham. My buddy that I saw TDKR with said that was pretty much his only complaint, at least on our first viewing. And it only got worse because I remember seeing some concept art of Bruce walking back to Gotham on the frozen over lake.

But how come nobody mentions it in BB? In BB Bruce travels the globe with no means what so ever. How did he manage that?
 
But how come nobody mentions it in BB? In BB Bruce travels the globe with no means what so ever. How did he manage that?

He hops on a freighter and then takes it from there.
And he comes home on a private jet that Alfred flies out to meet him in.

I don't think either of those are the same thing as 1. Getting to America from the Pit (which I can buy, they even show that there's a city out in the distance) or 2. Getting into a Gotham when it's in lockdown (which I take qualms with).
 
He hops on a freighter and then takes it from there.
And he comes home on a private jet that Alfred flies out to meet him in.

I don't think either of those are the same thing as 1. Getting to America from the Pit (which I can buy, they even show that there's a city out in the distance) or 2. Getting into a Gotham when it's in lockdown (which I take qualms with).

Yeah, we at least get something to show how that worked out for him in BB.
 
People like TDKR and can forgive its flaws and leaps in logic.

People love BB and TDK and can forgive the same flaws and leaps in logic.

People love BB and TDK, but don't like TDKR, which is why the flaws are easier to observe.

You like Rises and can get past some holes and say "well why don't you criticize Begins and TDK?" it's for the same reason you don't really care for the flaws in Rises, you love the film. People like BB and TDK so the flaws don't jump out, those same people may not also like Rises so the flaws do jump out.
 
I don't know, I loved that shot of Bruce standing there behind Selina. It was just one of those things I never questioned. I liked that there was some mystery to how he got back into Gotham. It didn't need to be explained. I certainly understand why it would anger people though.
 
The only "plot hole" that took me out of the film was seeing Bruce already back in Gotham. My buddy that I saw TDKR with said that was pretty much his only complaint, at least on our first viewing. And it only got worse because I remember seeing some concept art of Bruce walking back to Gotham on the frozen over lake.
It didn't need to be explained. If people saw Batman Begins and knew what kind of ninja training he had, and how he traveled from place to place..or even just knowing the character well enough, they should be able to put 2 and 2 together. It's Batman, he's a ninja. End of.

BUT now when I watch it, now that ive seen the concept art...I think "Man it would have been cool to show a 5 second shot of Bruce walking the ice on the outskirts of Gotham, with the back of Wayne Manor in the distance.. the countryside".

normal_bat034.jpg

A parallel shot of this^ with the same score behind it.

It's something I would love to see in a director's cut, that we wont be getting.
 
Last edited:
It didn't need to be explained. If people saw Batman Begins and knew what kind of ninja training he had, and how he traveled from place to place.

Yes, it did need to be explained. This was not a case of being a stow away on a ship going abroad like in Begins. We're talking about getting back into a city that's sealed off by the army and has it's bridges blown. The whole point of it was nobody can get in or out.

So Bruce just casually appearing out of the blue like that needed an explanation.
 
No it didn't. Not every part of Gotham was sealed off. I cant see Wayne Manor having security or anything like that. It's on the outskirts. Like I showed in the above post, all they could have given was a 5 second shot of Bruce walking the ice with Wayne Manor in the distance.
 
No it didn't. Not every part of Gotham was sealed off.

How do you know that? Show me proof.

If that were true then Bane's siege was even more laughable. If you're not making Gotham physically inescapable then what's the point in sealing it off?

I cant see Wayne Manor having security or anything like that. It's on the outskirts.

Says who?

Like I showed in the above post, all they could have given was a 5 second shot of Bruce walking the ice with Wayne Manor in the distance.

But they didn't did they. They didn't offer any explanation. Verbally or visually.
 
Says the films. Wayne Manor is on the outskirts and who knows what kind of secret passages Bruce has behind Wayne Manor.

But my point is not every place is sealed off. At least that's how I see it. The quote was "You don't have enough men to stop 10 million people from leaving this island."........."No, but you do."

I don't see there being enough men to guard every corner of Gotham. The point is, even if they did, Bruce obviously has a secret place to get in, which is why he tells Selina that there's a way on and off the island.

You don't need every single thing explained to you, even if Nolan is the master of explaining things in great detail. Some of the imagination should be left intact no?

And no, we didn't see that scene come to life. The concept art. I don't think it was needed. It certainly wasn't needed for me or my buddies when we went to see it, so why should I care about what others need to see? But it would have been a cool touch and a very nice parallel to that shot in Begins.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,554
Messages
21,759,212
Members
45,594
Latest member
evilAIS
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"