View Single Post
Old 07-26-2012, 11:24 PM
Originally Posted by DorkisFig View Post
Soda, your knowledge is unparalleled and yet, I did not enjoy it nearly as much as you did simply because I feel Nolan made us suspend our belief too much
I actually felt the movie was the opposite: I felt the movie tried to explain a bit too much (ie, didn't give enough credit to the audience for suspension of disbelief.)

Examples always help, so I'll use one. One of the things I'm seeing, over and over again on this thread, is the whole "how did Bruce get back from India?" question. Maybe that pit that Bane left Bruce in was in India, maybe it was someplace else, doesn't really matter. People are asking how Bruce got back, and how he got back inside a quarantined Gotham.

I, for one, am totally uninterested in seeing that tale on screen. My comic book store guy and I were talking about it today, and he made the comment, "so, what do you want, like a little plane flying over a map, like in Indiana Jones? He got back, he's the goddamn Batman, getting back is well within his abilities." Its something that, IMHO, doesn't need to be shown, and doesn't need to be explained. Part of suspension of disbelief is that you understand that the movie is not real, and that the director/writer/actors are trying to tell a story.

Some things advance the story, other things don't. And in a film where you do have time constraints, I'm more than willing to cut out the stuff that doesn't really advance the story. I'm fine with Bruce showing up in Gotham in the next scene, some time obviously passed (ie, he didn't get back overnight) but the script fudged the details as far as a timeline well enough that it can fit. Bruce climbing out of the pit in India and showing up in Gotham is one thing, it doesn't need to be explained. Bruce getting out of the pit and showing up on Oa is something completely different, that I would like to see some explanation of, because while he may be the goddamn Batman, I wasn't aware that traveling across half the universe was one of his powers (you never know...) One is plausible within the confines of the film, the other isn't, and, because this is comics, the one that's not plausible can be explained by Bruce simply saying "I found a motherbox.".

Like I said above, comic fans are very well accostomed to this way of thinking. In comics, you have 22 pages a month, and that's it. There are tons of cool stuff that ends up on the cutting room floor. If you've ever read some of the silver age work of Neal Adams, that man is a master of implying things off panel. John Brynnes may be even better. When that man was creating MOS and silver age x-men, so much of what happened in the story was heavily implied, but never shown on panel. I like reading comics like that, I like watching movies like that. You want to know what would have happened if Nolan had put Bruce's journey home on screen? People would go "hey, that's not what I wanted to see, what I wanted to see was purple, not blue." Leaving stuff like that to the imagination, and the intelligence of the viewer, is the preferrable way to go, IMHO. I understand the issues some people have, but a movie isn't meant to be a medium in which every thread is tied together at the end.

Its why I believe Bruce told the people he was closest to that he wasn't really dead. He survived because he patched the auto-pilot, which means he put the bat on auto-pilot and ejected well before the bomb went off. That's what Lucius realizes. He fixes the bat-signal that was destroyed in TDK as a way to tell Gordon that he's alive and well. I doubt Bruce Wayne planned his own death in advance (I think he believed he could stop the bomb from going off) so I'd have to think he sent the coordinates to Blake AFTER the bomb went off. That's how Blake knows. And, of course, poor old Alfred knows because Bruce did something extra special for him: he gave Alfred what he really wanted. Now, all of those scenes happen so quickly that to be able to deduce what's going on does take a bit of effort, but in the end, there's nothing that's a huge leap in logic.

Okay, regarding Bane and Talia, here's my take. I think Talia was the biggest surprise for me in this film because its so, so obvious that the apple doesn't fall very far from the tree. Talia conceals her identity to the end, just like Ra's did in Batman Begins (Henry Ducard = Miranda Tate, the daughter conceals her identity just as her father did) and just like Ra's, Talia is a twisted woman who believes completely in her father's ideals. Talia's motivation in the film is to destroy Batman and by extension Gotham as revenge for what Batman did to her father. Some people were confused by Talia sleeping with Bruce, here's what I say to that.

The key to understanding Talia is actually pretty simple. She geniunely loves Bruce. In the comics, she addresses Bruce as "beloved", and Bruce geniunely reciprocates that affection. These two people do love each other, the reason they never get together is because of him. Talia has only one allegiance higher than her allegiance to Bruce, and that's her allegiance to Ra's. She will not betray her father, no matter what. And, as long as Talia is loyal to Ra's, Bruce, no matter how he feels, will not go where Talia wants him to go. Ra's in the equation is a deal-breaker for Bruce. I felt that was portrayed beautifully in TDKR, Talia and Bruce sleep together, showing geniune affection, but, when push comes to shove, Talia stabs Bruce because of her loyalty to her father. That scene also shows that Talia has the mark of the league of shadows on her (that's what that scar is, I picked up on that immediately) and that's because she is the league's field commander. I didn't find this entire thing confusing at all, but then again, I'm used to Talia from the comics, so I know how the dynamic works.

I too found Bane's death to be a weakness in the film. However, that is par for the course for Superhero movies. Think back to all the really, really quick death scenes we've seen from the villain in these movies over the years. Think back to all the films where a villian is built up over the course of two hours, and then, offed in a manner of seconds. Again, the reason its par for the course is because of the limits of cinema. Every second spend expousing on a villian's death is a second taken away from something else. I would like to see more detail on the death of the main villian, but, I understand why the choice is made that way, so it didn't really bother me that much.
Reply With Quote