The Dark Knight Rises Why is everyone slamming TDKR?

[Brain Damage]

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.

Fair enough. We are both doing that, but I happen to think my logic is more sound. Though I'm sure you think the same about yours

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 ?

Not seeing Joker leave the party/the way Batman just stays with Rachel is somewhat of a plot hole. They even shot a scene of him leaving, it just isn't in the final cut. Of course films are all about portions of moments and actions, but showing Bruce getting into the city is a portion of the action that needed to be shown, imo. Because it's relevant to the plot. If we break down, beat by beat, Bruce's PLOT journey once his back is broken, it would be:

1. Refuses to accept his fate.
2. Rebuilds himself.
3. Fails to escape.
4. Accepts fear as necessary.
5. Escapes.
6. Gets back to Gotham.
7. Assembles a force (by saving Blake, Gordon, etc)
8. Takes down Bane.

Out of all of those steps, there's only one which we are not shown. Care to guess which one?

Again, I don't need a big, long explanation. A three second shot that told us what we needed to know would have been plenty.

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

I often think back to a great thing Vince Gilligan (creator of Breaking Bad) said about how an audience is willing to buy a plot convenience so long as it makes life more difficult for the protagonist. Case in point, the Joker in TDK.

In TDKR, magically appearing in Gotham makes Bruce's life WAY easier than if the writers had to actually show him getting inside instead of letting us all make up our own version of events.

 

[milost]

Actually, I'm beginning to think the whole movie was irrelevant and needed, especially after I watch Batman Begins or the Dark Knight.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

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.

Because rolling off the roof would have killed him? Duh, it wasn't some two-story house. It was a large building he zip lined up.

I'm going on about it because the very point of the scene was that he needed help. He couldn't do it, thus calling Alfred to get him. So, how did he get off the roof? The same way he got back into Gotham. The "Assumption" way.

 

[Shikamaru]

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

It strikes me as odd though. There are so many things wrong with character motivations, the characterization of Bruce/Batman, the ending, the messages that don't match up too well with the previous films, the ending, the back-break, and the list goes on. And people are pissed because they didn't show how Bruce gets back to Gotham. lol

Heck, there are bigger things than this that gets overlooked. Here's an example: How does Bane expose the truth about Harvey to Gotham? He has zero evidence for what he claims to be true. Reading from a letter he claims to have been written by Gordon is not solid evidence and there is no reason why anyone would believe the crazy terrorist with the freakin' bomb in the first place. Not one ever brings that up though; not even those that don't like TDKR. All everyone talks about is how Bruce gets back to 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.

Reading this made me laugh .

 

[GremlinZilla89]

Actually, I'm beginning to think the whole movie was irrelevant and needed, especially after I watch Batman Begins or the Dark Knight.

In the scheme of the trilogy, TDK is the least relevant in regards to characters, revelations and themes.

 

[milost]

Heck, there are bigger things than this that gets overlooked. Here's an example: How does Bane expose the truth about Harvey to Gotham? He has zero evidence for what he claims to be true. Reading from a letter he claims to have been written by Gordon is not solid evidence and there is no reason why anyone would believe the crazy terrorist with the freakin' bomb in the first place.

I still can't believe after 4 years of waiting, the oh so important Dent conspiracy is revealed to Gotham . . . via a handwritten letter that was kept in a coat pocket for more than a day.

I mean, that's the best they could come up with? A letter?

Then let's not forget the fact that the city doesn't even really care or being shown caring despite the entire thing being "all about them".

 

[Shikamaru]

In the scheme of the trilogy, TDK is the least relevant in regards to characters, revelations and themes.

Mainly because other than the death of Harvey and Rachel, TDKR tries to pretend as if TDK never happened.

 

[Shikamaru]

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

It strikes me as odd though. There are so many things wrong with character motivations, the characterization of Bruce/Batman, the ending, the messages that don't match up too well with the previous films, the ending, the batbreak, and the list goes on. And people are pissed because they didn't show how Bruce gets back to Gotham. lol

Heck, there are bigger things than this that gets overlooked. Here's an example: How does Bane expose the truth about Harvey to Gotham? He has zero evidence for what he claims to be true. Reading from a letter he claims to have been written by Gordon is not solid evidence and there is no reason why anyone would believe the crazy terrorist with the freakin' bomb in the first place. Not one ever brings that up though; not even those that don't like TDKR. All everyone talks about is how Bruce gets back to 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.

Reading this made me laugh .

 

[The Joker]

Because rolling off the roof would have killed him? Duh, it wasn't some two-story house. It was a large building he zip lined up.

He had just jumped out of a window and landed on a car. Why would this kill him? It was not a high roof, hence why a 10 year old could have climbed off it. He zip lined up because he obviously didn't have the physical ability to climb up it himself, you know because he'd just been drugged. So he zip lined up.

I'm going on about it because the very point of the scene was that he needed help. He couldn't do it, thus calling Alfred to get him. So, how did he get off the roof? The same way he got back into Gotham. The "Assumption" way.

Two things:

1. He needed help because he'd just been drugged and needed to get home before the full effects kicked in. He couldn't walk or drive the Tumbler in that state could he. That's why he needed Alfred. Rolling or tumbling down from a rooftop takes minimal effort.

2. You're trying to compare this very simple scenario to Bruce getting into a sealed off city with nothing but the clothes on his back.

 

[Tequilla]

Fair enough. We are both doing that, but I happen to think my logic is more sound. Though I'm sure you think the same about yours

t:t:

 

[The Joker]

It strikes me as odd though. There are so many things wrong with character motivations, the characterization of Bruce/Batman, the ending, the messages that don't match up too well with the previous films, the ending, the batbreak, and the list goes on. And people are pissed because they didn't show how Bruce gets back to Gotham. lol

Oh they've all been criticized to bits, too. Along with other favorites like the stupid LOS motive this time around.

Heck, there are bigger things than this that gets overlooked. Here's an example: How does Bane expose the truth about Harvey to Gotham? He has zero evidence for what he claims to be true. Reading from a letter he claims to have been written by Gordon is not solid evidence and there is no reason why anyone would believe the crazy terrorist with the freakin' bomb in the first place. Not one ever brings that up though; not even those that don't like TDKR. All everyone talks about is how Bruce gets back to Gotham.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXpcYvnV6GY#t=1m10s

Reading this made me laugh .

Sometimes the truth is funny

 

[Shikamaru]

Oh they've all been criticized to bits, too. Along with other favorites like the stupid LOS motive this time around.

My problem is that Bruce getting back into Gotham gets about an equal amount of criticism as all those things I brought up when all the things I brought up are much bigger problems.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXpcYvnV6GY#t=1m10s



Pretty much sums up all the things that don't make sense with Bane's plan. It's quite a genius plan, isn't it? With zero knowledge of the Dent coverup prior to his arrival to Gotham, Bane plans to prove to the Gothamites that the city is just as corrupt as it was before. How? By taking the whole city hostage, trapping all the cops in a tunnel, and breaking out all the criminals locked up so that they could spread havoc across Gotham....so that he could then justify blowing it up. Quite genius .

Well, that is true if you go by the first reason Bane tells Bruce to why he'll destroy Gotham, because he gives two reasons that completely contradict each other. His first was the reason I just addressed while his second reason being that he wants to give Gotham "hope".

But then again, I shouldn't blame Bane for this because not only do we find out with the Talia reveal that everything Bane said throughout the whole movie is just BS maybe - we seriously don't know what he's been saying throughout the film was true and what wasn't since we know nothing about his character after the Talia reveal - but also that this was Talia's plan all along.

And speaking of Talia, I still don't understand her motivation. "I hated my father till you killed him." What? Going by that line and by the backstory she gave (with Ra's excommunicating Bane from the LOS etc.), she technically has more reasons to want revenge on her father than on Batman. Then there is the fact that she doesn't even understand what her father stood for. She says she will fulfill her father's destiny by destroying Gotham except that A) Ra's wanted to destroy Gotham when it was corrupt, which was not the case anymore and B) Destroying Gotham was never his "destiny". He was never going to sacrifice himself with Gotham like Talia was. Gotham was just the next corrupt city he was targeting and after that, he would've moved on to the next corrupt city. So not only does she have possibly the worst motivation in CBM history but she also doesn't even understand her father's own motivations but claims to be doing his work.

Just as a joke, imagine an old sexist member of the LOS that worked with Ra's in the past watching over what Talia is doing from afar and saying to himself "This is what happens when you let a woman run the LOS". I'm not saying that I believe that about women (I'm not sexist); just that I can totally picture a ninja from the LOS who is sexist facepalming and saying that after seeing Talia's plan.

Sometimes the truth is funny

True .

 

[milost]

Get rid of Talia and the League of Shadows, change Bane and his motives a bit (keep his pit prison) and I think it would have been much better.

There are a lot of weak things in the picture, but the villains and their motives (and their way of carrying them out) are the worst.

 

[Snow Queen]

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.

I may be wrong but I think what the poster means by spiritual storytelling is when things may not make the most sense in the narrative that you see (ex. the hotel layout in The Shining) but make sense on a spiritual and symbolic level. This may be elaborate enough that there is an entire story there that you can't see on the surface (ex. The Shining, 2001: A Space Odyssey and A Clockwork Orange) or something like in Rises where the symbolism is based around a character arc.

 

[BatLobster]

What an extremely exhausting movie to debate this thing can be at times. Sometimes I feel like this is nothing more than an endurance contest.

Good thing I love the thing I've spent way too much energy on

 

[Isearch4dope]

I still can't believe after 4 years of waiting, the oh so important Dent conspiracy is revealed to Gotham . . . via a handwritten letter that was kept in a coat pocket for more than a day.

I mean, that's the best they could come up with? A letter?

Then let's not forget the fact that the city doesn't even really care or being shown caring despite the entire thing being "all about them".

The handling of this secret that carried so much weight at the end of the last movie really disappointed me. I still think that a decent way the reveal could have happened was by Gordon doing so at the end of the film after Batman (still tainted) has saved the city (Gordon named him a dark knight hence releasing him from that status to rise to the status of a white knight) or at least during the climactic days of the siege as a desperate attempt to get Gotham's citizens to join in the fight. He would use it in a way to try to instil some kind of patriotism in them by telling them that even if they think the Batman was wrong in his vigilante ways....the current situation needs them to take a page from his book and spring into action to at least try to preserve the city other than just waiting to die. Of course this would be strengthened if Gordon could convince them like he tried to convince Foley that the detonator wasn't with any unsung hero and things would only get fixed from inside the city.

 

[Isearch4dope]

What an extremely exhausting movie to debate this thing can be at times. Sometimes I feel like this is nothing more than an endurance contest.

Good thing I love the thing I've spent way too much energy on

Yea had to take a break t:

 

[shauner111]

It is too exhausting. I spent nearly a year away from this section of the forum, and for some reason I got sucked back into it last week or whenever it was. Im probably gonna leave this TDKR section again soon to be honest. These discussions give me a headache!

TDKR is a beautiful film for me. One of my favorites of this decade so far along with the likes of Drive, Inception, The Place Beyond The Pines, Looper, Django Unchained & The Master. Out of those 7 films, I would even put Rises in the top 3.

As for Nolan's other films, I even loved it more than Inception & Prestige...and I LOVE those two.

It's exactly what I wanted from the movie and SO much more. It delivered in every way, especially emotionally. And I can care less what people say about it. It shouldn't bother me anyway because film/music is subjective, and just because a person isn't emotionally attached to something, doesn't mean that should affect MY personal experience with a story.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Get rid of Talia and the League of Shadows, change Bane and his motives a bit (keep his pit prison) and I think it would have been much better.

There are a lot of weak things in the picture, but the villains and their motives (and their way of carrying them out) are the worst.

Getting rid of the League of Shadows would not have made the film any better. Bringing that in this conclusion to Bruce Wayne's story that had a VERY prominent role in the beginning of Bruce Wayne's story made the trilogy as a whole more exciting, imo. The LoS was this external threat to Batman in Nolan's trilogy as the mob was an internal threat.

 

[milost]

Yeah, that's right, your opinion.


It would have been fine for me, hence my desire to see them dropped. It was a case of "been there, done that". I saw what they were capable of in Begins. I saw the betrayal in Begins. I saw them jacking Wayne tech and Batman defeating them in Begins. I don't think audiences would have missed seeing them again in any capacity had they not been featured.

They should have died off with the burning of the monastery and the death of Ra's Al Ghul in Gotham city. I'm glad the Dark Knight moved on without them. I hate how they're this overreaching thing in these films now and Batman's main opponent.

 

[DarthDorranceBane]

What's the point of bringing up the perceived "flaw" of not showing Bruce getting back into Gotham again? Really. Just tell me. So that it can be justified that this film is STUPID, a FILM FOR IDIOTS, that it was WRITTEN AND DIRECTED LAZILY BY LAZY PEOPLE THAT HASN'T PUT THEIR HEART INTO IT? We know that the character of Bruce will get back inside Gotham, in one way or another. What would a three-second scene (really?) will add into the entire film?

This film doesn't show a badass Batman that can do a badass kung-fu, badass jump, badass kick, badass spin, quip out a badass one-liner, throw a badass batarang in a badass way, and people who always want to see action every 3 seconds couldn't just have that. Less action, less badassery = worst film ever, therefore the non-stop nitpicking. That's the basic of it really.

Can't we just simply accept the story the makers of the film wants to tell us and enjoy it? I am not simply asking it for TDKR, because I've been having this line of thought for other films, so that I can simply enjoy it. The Matrix sequels, the Star Wars prequels, these films received non-stop nitpicking years after people originally see them, and the base reason for all the complaints is really just "it wasn't told the way I wanted them told".

These films are flawed yes, ALL FILMS ARE, but it can be enjoyed, if we just get all preconceived expectations and notions out of our mind and accept the stories. Nolan and company wanted to tell a story about a Batman in his lowest point in his life, in a very weakened state. What's wrong with that? Because he's only doing his Batman thing for a year? Come on, people, it's just a detail. A very minor one. IN THE END a lot of people enjoyed the story that was told. We fans have other Batman stories to turn into, A LOT OF OTHER stories from a MANY VARYING SOURCES. We have television, comic books, games. What difference these films are going to make for these other stories?

Are films really just for public consumption? Can't it also be an outlet for the writer's/director's take on the story?

 

[milost]

Are films really just for public consumption? Can't it also be an outlet for the writer's/director's take on the story?

If they want to do that then they can write a book. Less expensive.

 

[DarthDorranceBane]

But they're not novelist, they're filmmakers.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Yeah, that's right, your opinion.


It would have been fine for me, hence my desire to see them dropped. It was a case of "been there, done that". I saw what they were capable of in Begins. I saw the betrayal in Begins. I saw them jacking Wayne tech and Batman defeating them in Begins. I don't think audiences would have missed seeing them again in any capacity had they not been featured.

They should have died off with the burning of the monastery and the death of Ra's Al Ghul in Gotham city. I'm glad the Dark Knight moved on without them. I hate how they're this overreaching thing in these films now and Batman's main opponent.

Yah that's right, my opinion. Hence saying 'imo' to begin with in reply to your opinion...so...what's the point of saying your opinion again? Lol. Or should I say mine again?

 

[milost]

It wasn't at the beginning, more towards the middle. You straight up stated, "Getting rid of the League of Shadows would not have made the film any better" as if what I posted was false.

I stated that it would. Simple.