The Dark Knight Rises Why is everyone slamming TDKR?

[Brain Damage]

How do you know he had to ? Was there no other way ? I would say he probably wanted to revisit his old fellow. Why would he randomly smuggle to Gotham in Begins when he has a private jet at his disposable ? The man loves endurance , but there's a limit.

Seriously....? Are we going to play the "Well, maybe he could have done this" game? Sure, maybe there were other ways, but that's not what the movie presents. The movie presents that in order to get back to Gotham, he had to call his butler and his private jet. Maybe Bane is a terrific opera singer, but we don't know that because that's not what the movie presents.

At the beginning of Begins he hopped on a random freighter because:
a.) It's a spontaneous decision
b.) He's giving up his privileged nature as a result of what Falcone says to him. Shown by him throwing away his coat and wallet, and giving his cash to the hobo.

Even in TDK we are shown how resourceful he is entering and exiting Gotham.

Yes, entering and exiting Gotham when he still had billions of dollars at his disposable and Gotham wasn't a city under siege isolated from the rest of the world.

 

[milost]

It also doesn't help that we don't know where in God's name the pit is even located. It's out in the middle of nowhere, panning up and showing a small little village doesn't help.


I still remember the whole "where is the pit located, Gotham or ____" topics.

 

[Tequilla]

Seriously....? Are we going to play the "Well, maybe he could have done this" game? Sure, maybe there were other ways, but that's not what the movie presents. The movie presents that in order to get back to Gotham, he had to call his butler and his private jet. Maybe Bane is a terrific opera singer, but we don't know that because that's not what the movie presents.

At the beginning of Begins he hopped on a random freighter because:
a.) It's a spontaneous decision
b.) He's giving up his privileged nature as a result of what Falcone says to him. Shown by him throwing away his coat and wallet, and giving his cash to the hobo.



Yes, entering and exiting Gotham when he still had billions of dollars at his disposable and Gotham wasn't a city under siege isolated from the rest of the world.

The movie show us something. You are right. But you wrote something entirely different. That he had to . Where did the movie showed that ?

My hypothesis is exactly the same thing you did. You are interpreting he had to. I say he wanted to. Nothing in the movie discredits both options.

In tdk we are shown how resourceful he is (with money). In Begins he also shows how resourceful he is (without money). In Rises he only applies the knowledge we have seen in the previous movies , and in many actions during the trilogy. Batman always gets around the problems.

It also doesn't help that we don't know where in God's name the pit is even located. It's out in the middle of nowhere, panning up and showing a small little village doesn't help.

Yes. Even a less reason to show him entering Gotham. We dont even know where he is.

Nolan doesnt estabilish where the action is situated. Why would he shows us the proceedings of something not defined .

 

[GremlinZilla89]

Exactly



We know how he traveled. He stowed away aboard ships. We know how he survived. He stole food. Then he joined up with criminals. Then he was arrested and put in prison.

Nolan lays out all the little details.

Arrested on his own accord, mind you.

Little details, but no explanations. So he stowed away on a ship LEAVING Gotham (which is only hinted at, never shown). Does that mean he did just that for 7 years? Maybe, one can assume. just like one can assume he used his world class skills as a ninja to get back into Gotham. I seem to remember him being trained on the ice in Begins as well. But I guess that will be brushed aside for the sake of the nitpicking.

Again, nobody has a problem brushing aside all the WTFs of the first two but for some reason are willing and able to jump at this ones throat. You can find a way to trivialize whatever point anyone else makes, just to prove that somehow, out of all the points brought against the first two, Bruce getting back into Gotham is somehow the king of all plotholes. Nolan has NEVER been bothered by the little details with this series. Not once. How did Alfred get Bruce off the roof in BB? He was incapacitated and out bugged out of his mind, an effect the drug was shown to have numerous times. We can ASSUME (just you assume all Bruce did in BB was boat hop) Alfred, as old as he is, scaled the building in the dark in the rain and brought down Batman in full gear all by himself. But we don't know. Yet, where is all the hubbub about that? Oh wait, you'll make some excuse that Alfred eluded to his military training in TDK makes it ok for him to bring Batman down from a building all by himself, but Batman being the most skilled warrior in the world isn't a good enough reason to assume he was able to get back into Gotham.

If you wanna tear apart Rises, feel free. But at least be fair and point the same ridiculously nitpicky BS back at the other two, because they all do the same thing.

 

[Brain Damage]

The movie show us something. You are right. But you wrote something entirely different. That he had to . Where did the movie showed that ?

My hypothesis is exactly the same thing you did. You are interpreting he had to. I say he wanted to. Nothing in the movie discredits both options.

I'm interpreting it as he had to because that's the only way we are shown Bruce getting back to Gotham. I have yet to see the version of BB where Bruce gets to Gotham on his own and surprises Alfred at the Wayne Manor door.

We can imagine hypothetical scenarios all day long, but the movie shows us one thing and one thing only. If you think he wanted to, fine, it's an opinion which you are perfectly entitled to hold, but I just don't see that anywhere in the film. What I see is Bruce having no money or resources and needing his old friend to help him come home.

In tdk we are shown how resourceful he is (with money). In Begins he also shows how resourceful he is (without money). In Rises he only applies the knowledge we have seen in the previous movies , and in many actions during the trilogy. Batman always gets around the problems.

"Batman always gets around the problems". So then why have a movie? If we know he's just going to win and "get around the problems" in the end, why bother showing ANY of it?

 

[shauner111]

It also doesn't help that we don't know where in God's name the pit is even located. It's out in the middle of nowhere, panning up and showing a small little village doesn't help.


I still remember the whole "where is the pit located, Gotham or ____" topics.

Who cares where it is? LOL. Jesus.

 

[Schrute]

edit

 

[GremlinZilla89]

I'm interpreting it as he had to because that's the only way we are shown Bruce getting back to Gotham. I have yet to see the version of BB where Bruce gets to Gotham on his own and surprises Alfred at the Wayne Manor door.

We can imagine hypothetical scenarios all day long, but the movie shows us one thing and one thing only. If you think he wanted to, fine, it's an opinion which you are perfectly entitled to hold, but I just don't see that anywhere in the film. What I see is Bruce having no money or resources and needing his old friend to help him come home.



"Batman always gets around the problems". So then why have a movie? If we know he's just going to win and "get around the problems" in the end, why bother showing ANY of it?

Because semantics about Batman sneaking back into Gotham when it was already established how skilled he is isn't a problem that needed to be explored along with oh, I don't know the actual spiritual and dramatic storytelling.

 

[Schrute]

Arrested on his own accord, mind you.

Little details, but no explanations. So he stowed away on a ship LEAVING Gotham (which is only hinted at, never shown). Does that mean he did just that for 7 years? Maybe, one can assume. just like one can assume he used his world class skills as a ninja to get back into Gotham. I seem to remember him being trained on the ice in Begins as well. But I guess that will be brushed aside for the sake of the nitpicking.

Again, nobody has a problem brushing aside all the WTFs of the first two but for some reason are willing and able to jump at this ones throat. You can find a way to trivialize whatever point anyone else makes, just to prove that somehow, out of all the points brought against the first two, Bruce getting back into Gotham is somehow the king of all plotholes. Nolan has NEVER been bothered by the little details with this series. Not once. How did Alfred get Bruce off the roof in BB? He was incapacitated and out bugged out of his mind, an effect the drug was shown to have numerous times. We can ASSUME (just you assume all Bruce did in BB was boat hop) Alfred, as old as he is, scaled the building in the dark in the rain and brought down Batman in full gear all by himself. But we don't know. Yet, where is all the hubbub about that? Oh wait, you'll make some excuse that Alfred eluded to his military training in TDK makes it ok for him to bring Batman down from a building all by himself, but Batman being the most skilled warrior in the world isn't a good enough reason to assume he was able to get back into Gotham.

If you wanna tear apart Rises, feel free. But at least be fair and point the same ridiculously nitpicky BS back at the other two, because they all do the same thing.

Do you really not get it?

People who rip apart TDKR do it because they don't like it as much as BB or TDK. That's why the flaws and holes of the first two films don't bother them and the flaws and holes of Rises do.

You're spending time trying to debunk flaws of Rises because you like the film and then say "Well how come you aren't applying that logic to Begins or TDK"...because it's for the same reason you do it for Rises, people like Begins and TDK and may not like Rises.

You, and many others, like TDKR and will defend the "flaws" of the film and point out the flaws of Begins and Knight.....just like people who only like BB and TDK will defend the "flaws" of those films and criticize rises.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

Do you really not get it?

People who rip apart TDKR do it because they don't like it as much as BB or TDK. That's why the flaws and holes of the first two films don't bother them and the flaws and holes of Rises do.

You're spending time trying to debunk flaws of Rises because you like the film and then say "Well how come you aren't applying that logic to Begins or TDK"...because it's for the same reason you do it for Rises, people like Begins and TDK and may not like Rises.

You, and many others, like TDKR and will defend the "flaws" of the film and point out the flaws of Begins and Knight.....just like people who only like BB and TDK will defend the "flaws" of those films and criticize rises.

So it's ok to be blindly selective and deem "flaws" worse than others in a series and ignore them no matter how valid they are simply because you're not a fan of the film? That makes about ZERO sense. Apply the same f-cking logic to ALL films, no matter how well you enjoyed them or not.

 

[The Joker]

Arrested on his own accord, mind you.

Yes, because getting caught stealing takes such skill doesn't it.

Little details, but no explanations. So he stowed away on a ship LEAVING Gotham (which is only hinted at, never shown).

He hears the sound of ship preparing to leave, and he runs off towards that ship. Next scene we see him in a foreign country. I know Nolan likes expository dialogue, but even he didn't have to have it there.

Does that mean he did just that for 7 years? Maybe, one can assume.

You can assume anything with those 7 years because half of them could have been spent in prison, or on the streets. The point is it's not a plot hole. It doesn't leave any big question marks that need resolution.

just like one can assume he used his world class skills as a ninja to get back into Gotham. I seem to remember him being trained on the ice in Begins as well. But I guess that will be brushed aside for the sake of the nitpicking.

The difference is you're just making up blind baseless assumptions on this, whereas the Begins and TDK ones you're tackling offer explanations visually or verbally on the situations in question.

How did Alfred get Bruce off the roof in BB? He was incapacitated and out bugged out of his mind, an effect the drug was shown to have numerous times. We can ASSUME (just you assume all Bruce did in BB was boat hop) Alfred, as old as he is, scaled the building in the dark in the rain and brought down Batman in full gear all by himself. But we don't know. Yet, where is all the hubbub about that?

What makes you think Bruce stayed on the roof? That's another baseless assumption. All we saw was him call Alfred's name into the communicator. Then the scene cuts to him in the back of the limo. He had to tell Alfred where he was so he could collect him, and he also could have climbed off the roof in the process. By the time Alfred got to him he obviously had slipped into the completely delusional state we saw him in because the full effects of the drug and had taken over.

 

[BatLobster]

Do you really not get it?

People who rip apart TDKR do it because they don't like it as much as BB or TDK. That's why the flaws and holes of the first two films don't bother them and the flaws and holes of Rises do.

You're spending time trying to debunk flaws of Rises because you like the film and then say "Well how come you aren't applying that logic to Begins or TDK"...because it's for the same reason you do it for Rises, people like Begins and TDK and may not like Rises.

You, and many others, like TDKR and will defend the "flaws" of the film and point out the flaws of Begins and Knight.....just like people who only like BB and TDK will defend the "flaws" of those films and criticize rises.

This is 100% true. However, it's because I do love the film that I don't mind spending the time to discuss/defend it. I know I won't change anyone's mind, but I just like talking about the film.

 

[Brain Damage]

Because semantics about Batman sneaking back into Gotham when it was already established how skilled he is isn't a problem that needed to be explored along with oh, I don't know the actual spiritual and dramatic storytelling.

Semantics? A huge plot point is not semantics.
Storytelling involves plot. I'm not sure what "spiritual storytelling" is, but dramatic storytelling involves exploring how characters react and interact to the plot.

 

[Schrute]

So it's ok to be blindly selective and deem "flaws" worse than others in a series and ignore them no matter how valid they are simply because you're not a fan of the film? That makes about ZERO sense. Apply the same f-cking logic to ALL films, no matter how well you enjoyed them or not.

You still don't get it.

You tell me flaws in Begins, I could get over them because I like the film a lot.

I tell you flaws in Rises, you could get over them because you like the film a lot.

It's not because we are being selective, it's because certain flaws can stand out in a film that we don't particularly like.

There are people who absolutely will crap on Rises just to piss people off, but no one here is really doing that. People here are taking issue with the film because they just don't like it. THAT'S why the flaws in this film, that you could also find in the other two, do bother them or take away the enjoyment of the film.

 

[Tequilla]

I'm interpreting it as he had to because that's the only way we are shown Bruce getting back to Gotham. I have yet to see the version of BB where Bruce gets to Gotham on his own and surprises Alfred at the Wayne Manor door.

We can imagine hypothetical scenarios all day long, but the movie shows us one thing and one thing only. If you think he wanted to, fine, it's an opinion which you are perfectly entitled to hold, but I just don't see that anywhere in the film. What I see is Bruce having no money or resources and needing his old friend to help him come home.

No. The only way we are shown is him meeting up with Alfred. You are creating a motive that is never stated in the movie. He had no choice. I'm saying that he simply wanted to meet him .

You are also creating hypothetical choices. Imagining a reason that isn't there. That he had to. Nothing in the movie proves that.

"Batman always gets around the problems". So then why have a movie? If we know he's just going to win and "get around the problems" in the end, why bother showing ANY of it?

We are shown many times during the trilogy him getting around problems. Just like we see Joker getting away from places but we dont see him getting out of the party. It's the choices filmmakers make. Films usually are not real time oriented. They choose portions of moments and actions.

Batman also takes dumps during the day. But we are never shown that. But we know , he always has to take a crap during some part of the day. If they dont show us that , than by your logic , why bother showing him doing anything ?

 

[Shikamaru]

I agree that Bruce just popping up in Gotham like that is a plot hole but what really annoys me is how everyone here who agrees with it being a plot hole acts as if this plot hole not being there suddenly fixes every big flaw the movie has; it doesn't. Bruce just showing up in Gotham like that is the least of the film's problems but everyone treats it as if it's the biggest problem there is.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

Yes, because getting caught stealing takes such skill doesn't it.



He hears the sound of ship preparing to leave, and he runs off towards that ship. Next scene we see him in a foreign country. I know Nolan likes expository dialogue, but even he didn't have to have it there.



You can assume anything with those 7 years because half of them could have been spent in prison, or on the streets. The point is it's not a plot hole. It doesn't leave any big question marks that need resolution.



The difference is you're just making up blind baseless assumptions on this, whereas the Begins and TDK ones you're tackling offer explanations visually or verbally on the situations in question.



What makes you think Bruce stayed on the roof? That's another baseless assumption. All we saw was him call Alfred's name into the communicator. Then the scene cuts to him in the back of the limo. He had to tell Alfred where he was so he could collect him, and he also could have climbed off the roof in the process. By the time Alfred got to him he obviously had slipped into the completely delusional state we saw him in because the full effects of the drug and had taken over.

I fail to see how my assumptions are any worse than yours.


We don't SEE Bruce getting off the roof. But you are ok with the belief he could have gotten off, in his totally incapacitated state, but not ok with the fact he could have used his well established skills to get back into Gotham?

I just...I don't get you people.

 

[Anno_Domini]

It also doesn't help that we don't know where in God's name the pit is even located. It's out in the middle of nowhere, panning up and showing a small little village doesn't help.


I still remember the whole "where is the pit located, Gotham or ____" topics.

Yes. Even a less reason to show him entering Gotham. We dont even know where he is.

Nolan doesnt estabilish where the action is situated. Why would he shows us the proceedings of something not defined .

That is such a good reply...so yah, why even bother showing Bruce traveling back to Gotham if we're not even sure where the Pit is? Lol.

Anywho...I feel that the Pit would likely be in Morocco since 'Deshi Basara' is Moroccan.

 

[Shikamaru]

What if the pit is right across Gotham Bay?

 

[The Joker]

I agree that Bruce just popping up in Gotham like that is a plot hole but what really annoys me is how everyone here who agrees with it being a plot hole acts as if this plot hole not being there suddenly fixes every big flaw the movie has; it doesn't. Bruce just showing up in Gotham like that is the least of the film's problems but everyone treats it as if it's the biggest problem there is.

Lol yes the movie has bigger problems, it's just this particular plot hole is one that is an endless source of speculation.

I fail to see how my assumptions are any worse than yours.

We don't SEE Bruce getting off the roof. But you are ok with the belief he could have gotten off, in his totally incapacitated state, but not ok with the fact he could have used his well established skills to get back into Gotham?

It's getting off a roof. A roof. He's not on top of the Eiffel Tower. A 10 year old could do it. You're comparing that to getting into a military sealed off city with blown bridges with no resources at all.

A bit of a difference there.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

Semantics? A huge plot point is not semantics.
Storytelling involves plot. I'm not sure what "spiritual storytelling" is, but dramatic storytelling involves exploring how characters react and interact to the plot.

Yes. Semantics. That is all it is. Just like it's semantics on how the Joker is omnipotent in TDK, yet it's ok.

 

[Tequilla]

That is such a good reply...so yah, why even bother showing Bruce traveling back to Gotham if we're not even sure where the Pit is? Lol.

Anywho...I feel that the Pit would likely be in Morocco since 'Deshi Basara' is Moroccan.

But he really doesn't establish the place because its completely irrelevant. Just like its irrelevant the mechanics of him getting back.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

Lol yes the movie has bigger problems, it's just this particular plot hole is one that is an endless source of speculation.



It's getting off a roof. A roof. He's not on top of the Eiffel Tower. A 10 year old could do it. You're comparing that to getting into a military sealed off city with blown bridges with no resources at all.

A bit of a difference there.

You're right, a 10 year could do it....if they weren't drugged, tripping balls, and wearing Batman gear. The scale of the feat doesn't matter. It's still a pickle not given any explanation. DID Batman manage to get his crap together long enough to get off the roof? DID Alfred climb all the up a building in the dark in the rain, physically carry the bastard back down, and get him to the car? I don't know. You don't know. But, it's magically ok for this point to be dismissed because "a 10 year old could do it."

 

[Anno_Domini]

What if the pit is right across Gotham Bay?

People would still complain that we didn't see Bruce get to Gotham City

 

[The Joker]

You're right, a 10 year could do it....if they weren't drugged, tripping balls, and wearing Batman gear. The scale of the feat doesn't matter. It's still a pickle not given any explanation. DID Batman manage to get his crap together long enough to get off the roof? DID Alfred climb all the up a building in the dark in the rain, physically carry the bastard back down, and get him to the car? I don't know. You don't know. But, it's magically ok for this point to be dismissed because "a 10 year old could do it."

Why would him tripping balls prevent him from rolling off that roof? Of course the scale of the feat matters. The scale of the feat always matters because it dictates the credibility of it.

He was lucid enough to pull his communicator out of his belt and call Alfred after he'd just been drugged, set on fire, and jump out of a window, land on a car, put himself out, and then run away to safety. He managed all of that and you're going on about the possibility of him getting off a roof.

Honestly this is an absurd argument.