#521  
Old 07-24-2012, 09:20 AM
One very small thing I forgot to mention was:

As a HUGE fan of the tv show Prison Break, it put a smile on my face to see the guy who played Bellick in the movie and he's playing a prison guard yet again!

It also amused me to see William Devane play the President of the United States.

Just two small faces that put a smile on my face when they showed up on screen.
Reply With Quote
  #522  
Old 07-24-2012, 10:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemovies View Post
One very small thing I forgot to mention was:

As a HUGE fan of the tv show Prison Break, it put a smile on my face to see the guy who played Bellick in the movie and he's playing a prison guard yet again!

It also amused me to see William Devane play the President of the United States.

Just two small faces that put a smile on my face when they showed up on screen.
Indeed! Nolan definitely populated this movie with a lot of recognizable faces that made me smile. We also had Desmond Harrington, Daniel Sunjata, Aiden Gillen, Reggie Lee,Thomas Lennon...

Just lots of fun people in very small roles that made the city feel populated.
Reply With Quote
  #523  
Old 07-24-2012, 10:12 AM
I saw two weird cameos - the guy who plays Quinn on Dexter played the Bridge Cop. And Chris Judge - Teal'c from Stargate - was a merc in it for like 2 seconds.

Also Tom Lennon as the doctor of course.
Reply With Quote
  #524  
Old 07-24-2012, 10:43 AM

I find it funny that those who give this movie a 10/10 feel that those that are nitpicking are doing so for the sake of it. Now, I don't care if you loved every aspect of this film, it still has flaws as EVERY SINGLE MOVIE does. That doesn't mean the nitpicking is any less valid either, hence my choice to give the movie an 8/10. Do I love the film, yes. Do I think it is perfect, no. My gripes are valid as are the gripes of others, just as those who LOVED it have just as valid a reason. See where I am going with this?
You can't be objective if you don't nitpick the things that stand out. I can ignore a lot, but certain things I just can't.
small list of my nitpicks:
1) Time. I hate time in movies, I time distance traveling all the time.So for me seeing the bomb time I found issues with distance and time. It kills the realism for me as well as suspense. It just annoys me instead.
2) Taking the time to make the burning signal on the building. Granted I found from a time perspective to be stupid, but Batman wanted Bane's attention without seeing Batman first, catch him off guard that way. So I can forgive.
3) How he gets to certain places just in the nick of time. From Gordon to Blake, from the prison to Selina, things like that. Good thing Batman is fully monitoring the city and his allies to find them JUST IN TIME. Again, it's a movie so whatever
4) Blake knowing exactly where to find Gordon from the drainage. Okay.
plus many more.

Thing is, it isn't a perfect film, perfect doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean you can't feel it was perfect either so long as you understand that there are those that feel it isn't. At the end of the day, I enjoyed the movie so who gives a fuck what everyone else thinks Just stop trying to make your view of the movie the end all be all. To each their own.
Reply With Quote
  #525  
Old 07-24-2012, 12:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by brodeurnumber1 View Post
I thought it was extremely entertaining, just like the previous two, and I think that's perfectly enough to constitute fun. I hate that stupid idea of these films being "funless" and having to be campy or some bullshit like other comic book films just because that's what it is based upon. Yes, Nolan integrated modern themes within his three films and made three films based on a man creating a character because his parents were murdered in front of his eyes as a young child (I know how fun that is).

And about Batman Forever, Two Face being an abortion of a character is a huge deal and Riddler was way too over the top (even for Riddler) to be 100% right. Plus, Bruce Wayne/Batman is a charismatic bastard which is what makes him really likable in the end. Val Kilmer had the charisma of a towel in Batman Forever.
I actually find it funny that people who only know Batman from the animated series or the previous films feel this is not really a Batman film. If you read the comics...it so is!!! Or people bitching about

Spoiler:
"Robin" being a cop because he wasn't. Dead WRONG! Dick Grayson WAS a cop on the Bludhaven Poilce Force.


Everyone I know who is a HUGE comics reader of Batman loves these films, the people who seem to have the most problems are the ones who haven't. The films...if they were done just like the comics...would be hard R ratings.


Anyway, I loved the film! Wasn't able to see it on IMAX due to it being sold out but plan to go again this weekend to see it in IMAX.
Reply With Quote
  #526  
Old 07-24-2012, 12:39 PM
8/10 as a film, in my opinion, 10/10 as a way to end Nolan's mythos. The good far, far outweighed the bad and I left the theater extremely satisfied.
Reply With Quote
  #527  
Old 07-24-2012, 01:26 PM
Christopher Nolan Says Goodbye to Batman in a letter - http://bit.ly/MUIV1G
Reply With Quote
  #528  
Old 07-24-2012, 03:54 PM
Bane's motivation?

First off I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed the movie but I dont get the core of the plot ...
Spoiler:
What was Bane and his people's motivation to hold Gotham City? I don't understand what 'giving the city back to the people' did. What was his point in all of this? His actions are intricately planned and his henchmen clearly believe in his cause (as seen in the opening with the man willing to be the corpse on the plane)...It can't be just because of Talia.

I get that the League of Shadows thought that Gotham was 'beyond saving' in Batman Begins, but clearly 8-9years later the city seems fine - so why all the effort to destroy Gotham?
I obviously need to watch this again, but I appreciate some input. Again, loved the movie - one of the my top 5 best times at the theater!
Reply With Quote
  #529  
Old 07-24-2012, 04:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
MASSIVE SPOILER IN PIC FORM BELOW



Spoiler:


I mean, on one hand it would be cool to see a batman movie without the constraints of bats and his rogues gallery, essentially allowing them to create new heroes, new villains and new dynamics.

On the other, it'd just be a great fuckin' time - after such massive city-wide destruction - to create a BUM BUM BUM

ARKHAM CITY



A fuck me I could not resist...2 more days till I see this. But is this real? cause it looks bad ass.
Reply With Quote
  #530  
Old 07-24-2012, 05:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by trapdoors View Post
First off I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed the movie but I dont get the core of the plot ...
Spoiler:
What was Bane and his people's motivation to hold Gotham City? I don't understand what 'giving the city back to the people' did. What was his point in all of this? His actions are intricately planned and his henchmen clearly believe in his cause (as seen in the opening with the man willing to be the corpse on the plane)...It can't be just because of Talia.

I get that the League of Shadows thought that Gotham was 'beyond saving' in Batman Begins, but clearly 8-9years later the city seems fine - so why all the effort to destroy Gotham?
Well...

Spoiler:
Bane's motivation was to destroy Gotham city from within, to have all the people rise up and basically dismantle every level of infastructure. However I think his TRUE motivation was finding the identity of Batman and subjecting Bruce to an insane amount of physical and psychological torture - IE, watching as Gotham City destroys itself as he is helpless to stop it. It was about REVENGE for what Batman did to the League of Shadows earlier, and about carrying on their plan from Batman Begins.
Reply With Quote
  #531  
Old 07-24-2012, 05:27 PM
So where was the Joker?

Arkham obviously doesn't exist in Nolan's Batman universe, if it did, Scarecrow would have been there and not in the prison that Bane liberated.
Reply With Quote
  #532  
Old 07-24-2012, 05:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CuatroDiablos View Post
A fuck me I could not resist...2 more days till I see this. But is this real? cause it looks bad ass.
Sorry but it is not real
Reply With Quote
  #533  
Old 07-24-2012, 05:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gyro_44 View Post
Well...

Spoiler:
Bane's motivation was to destroy Gotham city from within, to have all the people rise up and basically dismantle every level of infastructure. However I think his TRUE motivation was finding the identity of Batman and subjecting Bruce to an insane amount of physical and psychological torture - IE, watching as Gotham City destroys itself as he is helpless to stop it. It was about REVENGE for what Batman did to the League of Shadows earlier, and about carrying on their plan from Batman Begins.
Thanks for the response, but...
Spoiler:
I believe though that Bane, Talia, and the others must have already known Bruce Wayne was Batman since they were all once part of the League of Shadows (Ra's al Ghul and the League go to Wayne's birthday party in Batman Begins - they have always known that he was Batman) not to mention they gain control of Wayne Enterprise to get the Tumblers, etc.

And Bane was exiled from the League of Shadows, I don't believe Revenge would be his motivator.
Quote:
Bane's motivation was to destroy Gotham city from within, to have all the people rise up and basically dismantle every level of infastructure
That I can bite. But what does that accomplish for Bane and his men? It seems that there should be some more to that...I just dont know...
Reply With Quote
  #534  
Old 07-24-2012, 06:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz68 View Post
So where was the Joker?

Arkham obviously doesn't exist in Nolan's Batman universe, if it did, Scarecrow would have been there and not in the prison that Bane liberated.
Arkham did exist in BB. it was in the Narrows. your guess is as good as mine where the Joker was. however Nolan has said in numerous interviews he would not even mention the Joker in TDKR out of respect for Heath.
Reply With Quote
  #535  
Old 07-24-2012, 06:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by trapdoors View Post
First off I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed the movie but I dont get the core of the plot ...
Spoiler:
What was Bane and his people's motivation to hold Gotham City? I don't understand what 'giving the city back to the people' did. What was his point in all of this? His actions are intricately planned and his henchmen clearly believe in his cause (as seen in the opening with the man willing to be the corpse on the plane)...It can't be just because of Talia.

I get that the League of Shadows thought that Gotham was 'beyond saving' in Batman Begins, but clearly 8-9years later the city seems fine - so why all the effort to destroy Gotham?
I obviously need to watch this again, but I appreciate some input. Again, loved the movie - one of the my top 5 best times at the theater!
Bane's motivation was to follow the plan of Ra's Al Ghul. Ra's didn't just want to destroy Gotham (like with a bomb or something). He wanted to release a toxin where the citizens of Gotham would destroy themselves. He said something along the lines of "the world would watch in horror as its greatest city tears itself apart from the inside."

Bane's goal was something similar. He wanted the entire world to watch Gotham be destroyed by its own citizens. Had he just detonated a nuke right away, it wouldn't have been as impactful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jz68 View Post
So where was the Joker?

Arkham obviously doesn't exist in Nolan's Batman universe, if it did, Scarecrow would have been there and not in the prison that Bane liberated.
In my mind, at the end of Dark Knight, when the SWAT team shows up and Joker is hanging upside down, one of their trigger fingers slipped and popped Joker right there. We never actually saw him taken into custody. So that's what happened in my version.
Reply With Quote
  #536  
Old 07-24-2012, 06:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by trapdoors View Post
Thanks for the response, but...
Spoiler:
I believe though that Bane, Talia, and the others must have already known Bruce Wayne was Batman since they were all once part of the League of Shadows (Ra's al Ghul and the League go to Wayne's birthday party in Batman Begins - they have always known that he was Batman) not to mention they gain control of Wayne Enterprise to get the Tumblers, etc.

And Bane was exiled from the League of Shadows, I don't believe Revenge would be his motivator. That I can bite. But what does that accomplish for Bane and his men? It seems that there should be some more to that...I just dont know...
Spoiler:
Good point about the League knowing about Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins. I was thinking Bane needed to confirm who Batman was which was why he had Selina collect his fingerprints. Perhaps I'm a little confused about a few points as well...

But why should there be more to the League of Shadows' plan? In Batman Begins, Ra's Al Ghul said they existed to destroy a city once it reaches the "pinnacle of its decadence". In this, they returned to do just that, the job they had failed to do before. And in the process, they wanted to punish and torture the man who stopped them before - Batman/Bruce Wayne - and make him helpess to watch as the city crumbles. Sure Bane was exiled before, but the plan for him (and even moreso for Talia of course) definitely had to do with REVENGE.
Reply With Quote
  #537  
Old 07-24-2012, 06:33 PM
I realize that my view point of the old series versus the new series is unpopular and uncommon. That's why I didn't bother talking about TDK in 2008. After being beaten down by it's downbeat tone, I had no energy to even write about it. TDKR being the last the in the series, felt like saying something this time.

A lot of work and passion went into TDKR (and the two prior films), so I'm glad it's successful and that fans are eating it up. I just disagree with Nolan's vision of Batman and prefer the old series, because I am that old-school and prefer something more fun. But something both fun and dark if possible. Neither Tim Burton or Joel Schumacher got their movies perfectly right. It is "Batman" and "Batman Forever" that stick out for me. "Batman Returns" is okay. It's best asset is easily Catwoman. And "Batman & Robin" is so-bad-its-good, it is the perfect movie to watch when you want a laugh. Why despise something for the remainder of your life instead of enjoying it for what it is? For those that look past so-bad-its-good and just go straight to plain bad, I certainly get that.

In the end, I still have a fondness for "Batman Forever." I was ten years old when I saw it, and it was and still is fun/amazing entertainment for me. If you want you to talk about dark, how about the two-and-a-half hour director's cut? That was supposed to be darker and explore deeper emotional themes concerning Batman's need to be Batman (it's all in the title). Now, that I would like to see made available instead of another re-issue on video.

In the end, both series are imperfect and largely suffer from opposite problems. I am now looking forward to the next "Batman" film, should it be another reboot, to see if a director can come up with something in between the first and second series. I do like darkness in a story concerning someone named The Dark Knight, but this second series was drenched in it, too much it - kind of like chicken with broccoli from a Chinese restaurant drenched in too much gravy. It got a lot of things right, but didn't know what do with those things. Two-Face for one. Given a different structure for all three films to follow, Two-Face could have been given more screen time and a truly amazing presence. Given a different structure period, everything about this second series could have been amazing.

Last edited by Duke Nukem; 07-24-2012 at 06:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #538  
Old 07-24-2012, 06:42 PM
Just gonna quote myself and Quentin to sum up my feelings regarding the film:

Quote:
Originally Posted by QUENTIN View Post
I guess I'm the first nay. I kind of hated it. I thought it was an hour too long, incredibly convoluted, often boring, stupid as all get out, and perhaps most importantly for a comic book action movie - no fun. The atrocious script made Avatar look like Chinatown and I continued to be surprised they let the movie go into production in that condition, but I guess they knew it would make a billion+ no matter what. My disbelief suspension broke somewhere early in the second act and never came back. I kept wondering why they were focusing on all these ridiculous and unbelievable story lines I didn't give a shit about and not Batman. For the most part I liked Joseph Gordon-Levitt and his storyline, a fair amount of the Catwoman stuff, and not really anything else. For all the many problems I had with The Dark Knight, it's at least compulsively watchable for the first two-thirds whereas I thought this was plodding and interminable nearly the whole way through.

On the plus side, I love that the movie got Tommy Carcetti and Bunny Colvin a chance to work on a big budget feature that half a billion people will see.
I'm with you on this one. If I could describe the film in one word it'd be overwrought. Aside from the highlights, I was getting impatient watching the film. It was building and building and in the end, we get another "take the nuke out of the city" conclusion that felt uninspired.

A Batman film is only as good as its villain, and personally, I found Bane to be pretty one note. He was basically spouting one liners the entire time, holding his vest, or punching things but I never found him to be interesting in the way Ras Al Ghoul or the Joker were. They had a unique personality whereas Bane was just a very by-the-book villain.

I agree that the film was hardly ever fun, and when it was, it was mostly Anne Hathaway's scenes. Everything else was so overbearingly dramatic. Bruce kicking out Alfred for the note was just so damn silly to me... he'd never do that. The "heaviness" to me wasn't as dark as the complaints have been, it was just boring. It's the same heaviness I found boring in Inception. Leo brooding for a whole film over his dead wife wasn't interesting. Bruce Wayne brooding for an hour already felt overdone since that's all we saw him do in the Dark Knight.

The film was just a mess for me. And in that mess, there was some really nice moments such as Catwoman's scenes, the occasional JGL moment, and a few moments with Batman such as when he lights up the Batman signal on the bridge... But it's surrounded by a plot that I felt was beneath Batman, especially for it being the last film. And yes, I found the cops vs. terrorists/inmates to be silly. Maybe it was the execution of it, but it wasn't terribly exciting and there's something a little off about seeing Batman walking around in that suit in broad daylight.

All I know is, I have no desire to see the movie any time soon, especially not in a theater.
Reply With Quote
  #539  
Old 07-24-2012, 06:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Nukem View Post
I realize that my view point of the old series versus the new series is unpopular and uncommon. That's why I didn't bother talking about TDK in 2008. After being beaten down by it's downbeat tone, I had no energy to even write about it. TDKR being the last the in the series, felt like saying something this time.

A lot of work and passion went into TDKR, so I'm glad it's successful and that fans are eating it up. I just disagree with Nolan's vision of Batman and prefer the old series, because I am that old-school and prefer something more fun. That is not to say that either Tim Burton or Joel Schumacher got their movies perfectly right. They certainly didn't. It is "Batman" and "Batman Forever" that stick out for me. "Batman Returns" is okay. It's best asset is easily Catwoman. And "Batman & Robin" is so-bad-its-good, it is the perfect movie to watch when you want a laugh. Why despise something for the remainder of your life instead of enjoying it for what it is? For those that look past so-bad-its-good and just go straight to plain bad, I certainly get that.

In the end, I still have a fondness for "Batman Forever." I was ten years old when I saw it, and it was and still is fun/amazing entertainment for me. If you want you to talk about dark, how about the two-and-a-half hour director's cut? That was supposed to be darker and explore deeper emotional themes concerning Batman's need to be Batman (it's all in the title). Now, that I would like to see made available instead of another re-issue on video.

In the end, both series are imperfect and largely suffer from opposite problems. I am now looking forward to the next "Batman" film, should it be another reboot, to see if a director can come up with something in between the first and second series. I do like darkness in a story concerning someone named The Dark Knight, but this second series was drenched in it, too much it - kind of like chicken with broccoli from a Chinese restaurand drenched in too much gravy. It got a lot of things right, but didn't know what do with those things. Two-Face for one. Given a different structure for all three films to follow, Two-Face could have been given more screen time and a truly amazing presence. Given a different structure period, everything about this second series could have been amazing.
This was a great post. Well done.

I also admit to having a bit of a fondness for Batman Forever. Saw it when I was 12. Today it's cheesy as hell, but not bad, especially compared to what came after. Even when I was 15, I knew Batman and Robin was a horrible piece of shit. I think I probably would have if I was 5.
Reply With Quote
  #540  
Old 07-24-2012, 08:17 PM
why these movies are fun

The term 'fun' is pretty loose and I'm probably about to trip down a loophole by defining 'fun' with my own personal impression when I type 'Nolan's Bat series holds an enjoyment most others don't'. I'm a minority because I found Rises immensely more enjoyable than Avengers, and that's not a runaround for any deeper comparison between the two. The reason I enjoyed one movie and not the other came down to a taste for the tone of one but a distaste for the tone of other. And the tone I'm talking about sometimes supersedes standard measures of script and pacing and plotting, and is almost always exclusive to the comic book adaptation genre.

Realistic takes on these superheroes is entertaining. There's an intelligence to it that's beside cinematic qualities we usually reserve for intelligence. Most, if not all, superheroes are rooted in silly kitschy origins from bygone cultures and lower outdated standards. The single most interesting element in lasting comic franchises are their reflections of the decade and culture, and the way new writers and new artists have taken the silliness of 30s, 40s origins and expanded upon them with a consistency and ferocity unseen in other genres of storytelling. Comics, unlike novels, are a relatively new element in mainstream storytelling. Comics, unlike movies, are a relatively awkward match for mainstream sensibilities. While the bones of stories themselves have been packed with enough meat to fill whole tomes of Batman or Superman stories, the kitsch of costumes and colors and comic panels remain, holding the storyline within the medium, preventing it from growing wider accessibility. A lot of comic book fans were happy because mainstream is finally prepared to embrace that kitsch; with the success of Avengers, a movie that less incorporated superheroes into cinema than filmed superheroes straight from the comics, fraught with mind control sticks, other dimensions, gods, monsters, relics and camp. Those fans are probably excited that so many people have gotten used to the costumes and the colors and the grandstanding and the formula of it all. But that's not what interests me about the genre. That's not where I find my fun.

I want to watch superheroes gradually, gracefully, sometimes gaudily sophisticated into the formula of serious cinema, just because that's often times the farthest thing to reach for a comic book superhero. I'm not demeaning the comics, since plenty of series are serious writings. I'm just pointing out the difference between comic formula and cinema formula, and encouraging the translation between the two. Comic adaptations have a dimension most movies don't have because comic adaptations have a process of transformation, rearranging one formula for another, sophisticating one standard into another. It's a process of conceptualization you don't really get to see happen in other movies, and it's exactly what excites me about superhero flicks.

Nolan, however strained, ponderous or pretentious you decide, has always taken that step with every character, concept and mythology he incorporates into the Bat series. A lot of these are lifted directly from choice passages or plotlines in the comics with cinematic potential. A lot of them aren't. When someone like me praises the series for its intelligence, I'm not looking at an intelligence in cinema alone, complimenting its pace or its script or any of those standard buttons. I'm looking at an intelligence in translation-- a creative rearrangement on top of superheroes whose foundations are so strong they can survive reinvention and remain true to themselves. Nolan's Batman series is intelligent because of its reinvention and not necessarily because of more typical compliments. Collapsing gotham into a class / civil war in Rises isn't intelligent because it necessarily plots itself in a real world fashion, it's intelligent because of the way it incorporates the doom of Batman's comic book mythos into the cinematic world. It's intelligent because of the way it escalates the threat of previous movies. It's intelligent because of the way it becomes a paradigm for the heightened realities of the series' "city building", and all of these things are unique challenges in a unique genre.

Audience members who are watching these movies just as movies, without any cursory awareness of the comics, or any interest in how those comics are reinvented, are missing out on this dimension in the series. You can look at Bane as a gritty Jaws from Bond, but the intelligence in the reinvention comes from the changes in the character's design & demeanor (if not necessarily backstory). That's why the publicity for this series has been so interesting. A single image of the Joker can be intelligent in a way no other pre-release image for any other genre of movies can be-- attentive fans can notice the change in appearance as a conceptual change, and appreciate that change on the same level mainstream movie fans appreciate the actual plot. If some of these superheroes really are the equivalent of our modern myths, the atmosphere of those myths, reflected in the designs and the tones and the mood, are almost as important as the myths themselves.

This is what I find entertaining in superhero movies today. This is what I'm looking for. This is a fun totally separated from how many bullets were fired, explosions were set off or lasers were laser'd. I'm sitting in the audience processing these adaptions along with the movie, and their interpretations sometimes supersede the actual script, storyline, direction, what-have-you. And I'm sort of explaining this to myself as I type this post because I wasn't sure why I disagreed so much with posters who didn't get much in the way of fun from Nolan's Batman.

It's only a matter of opinion, but this is one of the reasons these movies are so much fun. Attention to these translations is one of the reasons I feel Nolan's series has more dimension than some less successful adaptations. It's a fuller experience you only get from translating mythologies that have imprinted pop culture for well over half a century. And that's coming from somebody who only has a cursory knowledge of the comics.
Reply With Quote
  #541  
Old 07-24-2012, 10:16 PM
Great post Shini. Agreed 100%. I had a shitload of fun with Rises because of how well it brought everything together from the first film, how perfectly it fits and ends the trilogy as a whole, Bruce Wayne's character arc and how the progression of the villains patterned itself beautifully with Nolan's unique vision of the Bat universe.

I saw it again last night and though there are a few issues with the final act, namely

Spoiler:
Talia's reveal and her subsequent demise a few minutes later. For such an important character she needed more screen time and more room to breath. I'm talking about scenes when she was Miranda Tate too. Cottilard did a great job, but she deserved more attention.


it was still just as good as the first time. Bane is quickly becoming one of my favorite on screen villains.

One question.

I understood pretty much everything he said except the line he says right after he tells Dagget that he's Gotham's reckoning. Help?
Reply With Quote
  #542  
Old 07-24-2012, 10:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beard_of_Meat View Post
Sorry but it is not real
Uff I am relieved and upset at the same time..lol.
Reply With Quote
  #543  
Old 07-24-2012, 11:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaMovieMan View Post
I understood pretty much everything he said except the line he says right after he tells Dagget that he's Gotham's reckoning. Help?
Something about borrowed time. Like "I'm the borrowed time you were living off." Something to that effect.
Reply With Quote
  #544  
Old 07-25-2012, 12:24 AM
I personally found it to be the best superhero film yet, and I don't intend on seeing another take on the character for quite some time unless it takes up the Arkham plotline. I can definitely see how many would prefer The Dark Knight, but this is another film entirely. I loved how the film was split up between multiple characters; the suspense that it gave was seriously some of the most enduring I've ever seen in a film; and I think it was the perfect ending to the characters. I'm really into The French Revolution, (I had a geeky squeal at a reference to the storming of the Bastille) so perhaps I am biased, but overall I found this to be a remarkable film and probably among the best "Summer blockbusters" I've seen in the cinema. Bane may not have been as memorable a villain as The Joker, but he certainly had his moments and he was pure intimidation. His presence was certainly felt whenever his character was on screen.

I have to give it a 10/10, because I really enjoyed it and was absorbed into the plot in a way that few films are capable of sucking me into.

PS: Just for clarity, I am not a Nolan nor am I a Batman "fanboy." The only film of either I have seen thus far has been The Dark Knight, so take what you will from that. I definitely plan to research the character with some classic stories after this, though, and look deeper into the enigma that is Batman.
Reply With Quote
  #545  
Old 07-25-2012, 12:28 AM
Yeah, I don't get the this movie is not fun criticism. It may be darker than most comic book movies, but it was still a hell of a lot of fun as far as I'm concerned.

But to each their own.
Reply With Quote
  #546  
Old 07-25-2012, 12:34 AM
Here is something interesting I just read and makes perfect sense about that ending:

Spoiler:
At the cafe:

People have a problem with Alfred finding Bruce Wayne at this Cafe, a one in a million chance.. BUT it is known that Bruce's mothers pearls have GPS on them... and at the end of the movie when they are going over Bruce's estate, they specifically say that the pearls are missing. Thus Alfred could have GPS'd the pearls and boom, found Bruce.. and yes it could be anywhere, but because of the story told by Alfred earlier, it was perfect to find him at the specific cafe.. that is making a movie, if people dont like those small liberties that are made to make a movie, they just wont like anything!

Reply With Quote
  #547  
Old 07-25-2012, 02:07 AM
"Fun"

Can we all just come to a common consensus on these boards that there are more than one singular definition of a lot of words?

You guys are talking about "having fun" when I think the complaints of "fun" are about a lack of playfulness in the movies.

I had a blast at this film, but felt it was much more serious than the previous two. That wasn't a problem for me, other than how is drastically shifted in the last minutes, seeming to cram a whole play date into the goodbyes, but others had a problem with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyNet View Post
Here is something interesting I just read and makes perfect sense about that ending:

Spoiler:
At the cafe:

People have a problem with Alfred finding Bruce Wayne at this Cafe, a one in a million chance.. BUT it is known that Bruce's mothers pearls have GPS on them... and at the end of the movie when they are going over Bruce's estate, they specifically say that the pearls are missing. Thus Alfred could have GPS'd the pearls and boom, found Bruce.. and yes it could be anywhere, but because of the story told by Alfred earlier, it was perfect to find him at the specific cafe.. that is making a movie, if people dont like those small liberties that are made to make a movie, they just wont like anything!

I don't think Alfred cared to find them and was just being respectful of Wayne's wishes, no matter what they were. Alfred rolls like that.
Reply With Quote
  #548  
Old 07-25-2012, 03:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gyro_44 View Post
Spoiler:
Good point about the League knowing about Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins. I was thinking Bane needed to confirm who Batman was which was why he had Selina collect his fingerprints. Perhaps I'm a little confused about a few points as well...

But why should there be more to the League of Shadows' plan? In Batman Begins, Ra's Al Ghul said they existed to destroy a city once it reaches the "pinnacle of its decadence". In this, they returned to do just that, the job they had failed to do before. And in the process, they wanted to punish and torture the man who stopped them before - Batman/Bruce Wayne - and make him helpess to watch as the city crumbles. Sure Bane was exiled before, but the plan for him (and even moreso for Talia of course) definitely had to do with REVENGE.
About the finger prints...
Spoiler:
They needed that in order to make the exchange on the stock market (to gain control of Wayne Enterprises).

I just didn't think that 9 years after Ra's initial plan to destroy Gotham under the pretense that 'the city is beyond saving' was valid anymore. That was a major point of BB and TDK - that Gotham is worthy. I figured the LoS where above revenge and focus on the bigger picture - restore harmony in the world (or something like that). And it seemed like since the Dent Act, Gotham was somewhat at peace.

However, after re-reading your explanation, it does seem to be the most probable. I guess Bane still strictly believed in the plan as a Mercenary and not for the greater cause as the League would (which is why he was banished?...cause he thinks like that...?)
Thanks for helping me think this through!
Reply With Quote
  #549  
Old 07-25-2012, 05:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
"Fun"

Can we all just come to a common consensus on these boards that there are more than one singular definition of a lot of words?

You guys are talking about "having fun" when I think the complaints of "fun" are about a lack of playfulness in the movies.

I had a blast at this film, but felt it was much more serious than the previous two. That wasn't a problem for me, other than how is drastically shifted in the last minutes, seeming to cram a whole play date into the goodbyes, but others had a problem with it.



I don't think Alfred cared to find them and was just being respectful of Wayne's wishes, no matter what they were. Alfred rolls like that.
Spoiler:
Alfred told Bruce about where he liked to go on vacation so if anything he ( Bruce ) made it a point to "accidentally" be in the same place as him

Last edited by dellamorte dellamore; 07-25-2012 at 12:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #550  
Old 07-25-2012, 09:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by trapdoors View Post
About the finger prints...
Spoiler:
They needed that in order to make the exchange on the stock market (to gain control of Wayne Enterprises).

I just didn't think that 9 years after Ra's initial plan to destroy Gotham under the pretense that 'the city is beyond saving' was valid anymore. That was a major point of BB and TDK - that Gotham is worthy. I figured the LoS where above revenge and focus on the bigger picture - restore harmony in the world (or something like that). And it seemed like since the Dent Act, Gotham was somewhat at peace.

However, after re-reading your explanation, it does seem to be the most probable. I guess Bane still strictly believed in the plan as a Mercenary and not for the greater cause as the League would (which is why he was banished?...cause he thinks like that...?)
Thanks for helping me think this through!
Keep in mind, Gotham was ignorant in its peace. The Dent Act (that they didn't clarify) seemed to basically give the police free reign to do whatever they want. The people arrested under the Dent Act never got fair trials or anything (remember the scene with Blake and Gordon). So Gotham was only in this improved state because of a lie: the myth of Harvey Dent. That's why Bane exposed it. He wanted the citizens to realize that they were lied to these last 8 years. Once that happened, some people started to turn.
Reply With Quote
  #551  
Old 07-25-2012, 11:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by trapdoors View Post
About the finger prints...
Spoiler:
They needed that in order to make the exchange on the stock market (to gain control of Wayne Enterprises).

I just didn't think that 9 years after Ra's initial plan to destroy Gotham under the pretense that 'the city is beyond saving' was valid anymore. That was a major point of BB and TDK - that Gotham is worthy. I figured the LoS where above revenge and focus on the bigger picture - restore harmony in the world (or something like that). And it seemed like since the Dent Act, Gotham was somewhat at peace.

However, after re-reading your explanation, it does seem to be the most probable. I guess Bane still strictly believed in the plan as a Mercenary and not for the greater cause as the League would (which is why he was banished?...cause he thinks like that...?)
Thanks for helping me think this through!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Kenshin View Post
Keep in mind, Gotham was ignorant in its peace. The Dent Act (that they didn't clarify) seemed to basically give the police free reign to do whatever they want. The people arrested under the Dent Act never got fair trials or anything (remember the scene with Blake and Gordon). So Gotham was only in this improved state because of a lie: the myth of Harvey Dent. That's why Bane exposed it. He wanted the citizens to realize that they were lied to these last 8 years. Once that happened, some people started to turn.
Spoiler:
I think it was a combination of the Harvey Dent lie - that the mayor and Gotham used to keep the criminals Dent locked up behind bars - and that Bane and Talia wanted to finish Ras Al Gul's legacy. They didn't know that Dent went nuts and killed several people until they got Gordon's speech. The original plan was to blow Gotham to hell . . . Dent being a murderer was just icing on the cake.
Reply With Quote
  #552  
Old 07-25-2012, 05:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemovies View Post
Yeah, I don't get the this movie is not fun criticism. It may be darker than most comic book movies, but it was still a hell of a lot of fun as far as I'm concerned.

But to each their own.
Well, this looks like it's time to further explain the complaint about it not being fun. Post Master made a good point that fun is a very subjective term, and so did Shini, who has explained that the realistic take in and of itself is a fun concept to bring to the superhero genre in film. And I totally understand that point.

Spoiler:
For me, the movie wasn't fun because I basically found a lot of the story to be half-assed to a degree. I felt like Nolan barely skimmed the surface of the subjects he was trying to cover in TDKR. For example, the Robin subplot felt tedious even though JGL was solid. If Nolan really wanted to him to be Robin, he should have actually put him in the final act of the film. Instead, we get the equivalent of a striptease with no payoff. The final shot of the film did nothing for me. If Nolan was going to try to put Robin in the film, he should've had the balls to go all the way with the idea, and not just put his toe in the water like an amateur storyteller. It was Nolan trying to have his cake and eat it too after he'd said he never wanted to do a Robin storyline in his films. Well, he went and did it, but he did a pretty weak version. And he had the perfect moment to actually have Robin emerge after Batman disappears: after the explosions and Batman is in exile.

Which segues into another part that was skimmed: the post-disaster Gotham. What exactly was going on with Gotham in those 2 or 3 months after Bane blew up the stadium and bridges? I have no fucking clue because the movie never bothers to explore what happens. We follow the cops, Batman, John Blake, but not the city. That's something I found lacking that I enjoyed about the Dark Knight. Nolan actually made Gotham feel like a real city whereas in this, it's merely a backdrop. It just felt like it cut from Bane blowing up the bridges to Batman in the prison, and then we fast forward to the ending. It completely wastes the situation. And I mostly blame it on Nolan fumbling around with the first hour and a half of the film. He had all these espionage sub-stories happening that it hurt the rest of the film because he didn't have the time to smell the roses. I would've loved to have seen what happened to Gotham after the disaster, but instead it just becomes an excuse to have the battle between the cops and terrorists/inmates, which for me wasn't really all that exciting to watch.

When I was talking about the movie not being fun, it wasn't because it lacked one-liners, jokes, etc. I don't need that in a Batman film, but what I do want is proper attention to detail. I want to get lost in the story. That's fun to me. With TDKR, I was constantly aware of all the plot mechanics. There were scenes that were literally just to spoon feed information to either the audience or another character (basically all the Gordon scenes in the hospital where JGL runs in to tell him what's happening), or I noticed a common problem with Nolan: he has to always explain the theme of his film through a character. I kind of can't stand that. It was annoying when they did it in Batman Begins, it was annoying in the Dark Knight (when they're all talking about the theme of the movie over dinner in the restaurant), and it's still annoying when they have Alfred or Catwoman talk to Batman about what the movie's about. For me, it's clumsy writing. It's what you're not supposed to do, but Nolan is obsessed with doing that. Why? I have no idea. Maybe he thinks the audience won't get the message unless somebody explains it for us. I really wish he would stop it though. It's a terrible habit.

I couldn't care less whether or not Nolan deviated from the DC universe or changed characters to suit his story. You're supposed to do that as a filmmaker. The problem was that I found his choices to be prosaic. The film lacked depth because it kept insisting that it had depth. I felt as if the film kept hammering at me, "Look, I may be a film about a guy in a cape, but I have depth! Look, there are terrorists destroying a city! Doesn't that remind you of 9/11?!" And yes, it did, but at the same time, Nolan had nothing interesting to say about terrorism, or about what it's like to live in fear of people who are bent on destroying your society. I'm all for comics and adaptations to speak about the time we're living in, but please have something to say about it instead of just borrowing a situation like that for entertainment's sake. That's not smart filmmaking to me. It's as if all Nolan had to say was, "Terrorists are bad people." Again, that seems to be a problem I have with Nolan in that he spends too much time trying to construct a complex plot when deep down, there's not really a whole lot going on in the movie. When Bane goes to the stock market exchange to wreak havoc, it's actually really disappointing to see it was just to make Wayne stock plummet. You'd think somebody in the League would want to just make the whole market crash and still find a way to take control of Wayne Enterprises. But again, it felt so petty once you find out what that whole scenario was for.

The twists were also telegraphed, such as the Talia Al Ghul twist. It would have been more interesting if it came sooner than at the end. She was essentially a plot device disguised as a character. There was no real depth to her as a villain because most of the time she's playing a boring businesswoman named Miranda Tate, which harkens back to my complaint that Nolan half-assed a lot of stories and characters in this film. He gave us the weakest versions of Robin and Talia Al Ghul. Maybe because he thought Bane was so interesting that he didn't need to explore Talia, but I I found him to be a redundant character. Most of his scenes felt the same.

One more thing that bothers me, which again ties back to my assertion that Nolan didn't follow through on his ideas: the scene where Bane reads Gordon's letter to the public. Were we supposed to believe that everyone who saw that on TV actually believed Bane? What was supposed to be the dramatic impact of that moment? The man had a few scraps of paper. He had no real proof. I mean, we live in a time of internet rumors and hearsay, we're a savvy bunch now. Would everyone actually believe what Bane had to say at that point? He may as well have been reading Gordon's diary to a couple of students at lunch time. I found that moment to be really sloppy. It had no dramatic impact because in the end, that moment had no real effect on the rest of the story because Bane would've attacked the prison anyway. It changed nothing in the story. Levitt was mad at Gordon for a scene, but then it's all good. And it doesn't seem to bother other people (which goes back to my point about Nolan not focusing on Gotham at all -- we don't know how it affects people in the city). I just feel Nolan missed something crucial here. Imagine the scene where Bane's people are going after Gordon in the hospital. Now imagine, that instead of the badass "Gordon kills em" moment, what if his men were able to break in the room? Now, what if those men weren't there to kill Gordon but to capture him, and they do. Now the scene with Bane reading the note has more power because guess who's on his knees next to him... Gordon. And Gordon is the one guy who could confirm the letter for the whole city. And he does (let's say Bane threatens the life of a cop or something). And Gordon tells the truth. Nolan could've even upped the ante and had Bane kill Gordon right after his confession... or instead, he lets all the inmates kill Gordon out of revenge of the Dent Act. Now that's drama. That's how you milk a scene for all its worth. And that's why I didn't really enjoy the Dark Knight Rises. I'm glad you guys really dug it. I respect everybody who loves the movie, and you're not going to get any guff from me. I just simply didn't enjoy it and those are my reasons.

I could go on and on with my problems with the film, but I think you guys can get where I'm coming from. I really wanted to enjoy this film. I bought my tickets a week in advance to see it on IMAX. I was giddy that day... But alas, I simply couldn't enjoy it like I wish I had. I did enjoy certain things about the film like Catwoman. I thought Anne Hathaway did a bang-up job and I think they actually wrote her better than the other characters. She had a real personality whereas other characters like Matthew Modine's Captain were just so one note. Even Bane felt one note to me. I wasn't really impressed by what he did in the film or the performance. I also did really enjoy the fake trials held by the Scarecrow. That was something I felt was straight out of a Batman panel.
Reply With Quote
  #553  
Old 07-25-2012, 06:10 PM
So, I don't know if anyone has debunked this supposed plot hole yet, but I'm gonna go ahead and do it anyways.

Some people on here complained about Bane not killing the cops trapped in the tunnel. He didn't kill them because he wanted the citizens of Gotham to view him as a liberator, as someone who was for the people. It was part of his whole plan to "poison Gotham's soul with hope." He wanted them to trust him so that when the bomb finally did detonate, it would be all the more devastating. He didn't just want to destroy the city outright, he wanted to punish its citizens while revealing its rotten core.
Reply With Quote
  #554  
Old 07-25-2012, 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cop No. 633 View Post
Well, this looks like it's time to further explain the complaint about it not being fun. Post Master made a good point that fun is a very subjective term, and so did Shini, who has explained that the realistic take in and of itself is a fun concept to bring to the superhero genre in film. And I totally understand that point.

Spoiler:
For me, the movie wasn't fun because I basically found a lot of the story to be half-assed to a degree. I felt like Nolan barely skimmed the surface of the subjects he was trying to cover in TDKR. For example, the Robin subplot felt tedious even though JGL was solid. If Nolan really wanted to him to be Robin, he should have actually put him in the final act of the film. Instead, we get the equivalent of a striptease with no payoff. The final shot of the film did nothing for me. If Nolan was going to try to put Robin in the film, he should've had the balls to go all the way with the idea, and not just put his toe in the water like an amateur storyteller. It was Nolan trying to have his cake and eat it too after he'd said he never wanted to do a Robin storyline in his films. Well, he went and did it, but he did a pretty weak version. And he had the perfect moment to actually have Robin emerge after Batman disappears: after the explosions and Batman is in exile.

Which segues into another part that was skimmed: the post-disaster Gotham. What exactly was going on with Gotham in those 2 or 3 months after Bane blew up the stadium and bridges? I have no fucking clue because the movie never bothers to explore what happens. We follow the cops, Batman, John Blake, but not the city. That's something I found lacking that I enjoyed about the Dark Knight. Nolan actually made Gotham feel like a real city whereas in this, it's merely a backdrop. It just felt like it cut from Bane blowing up the bridges to Batman in the prison, and then we fast forward to the ending. It completely wastes the situation. And I mostly blame it on Nolan fumbling around with the first hour and a half of the film. He had all these espionage sub-stories happening that it hurt the rest of the film because he didn't have the time to smell the roses. I would've loved to have seen what happened to Gotham after the disaster, but instead it just becomes an excuse to have the battle between the cops and terrorists/inmates, which for me wasn't really all that exciting to watch.

When I was talking about the movie not being fun, it wasn't because it lacked one-liners, jokes, etc. I don't need that in a Batman film, but what I do want is proper attention to detail. I want to get lost in the story. That's fun to me. With TDKR, I was constantly aware of all the plot mechanics. There were scenes that were literally just to spoon feed information to either the audience or another character (basically all the Gordon scenes in the hospital where JGL runs in to tell him what's happening), or I noticed a common problem with Nolan: he has to always explain the theme of his film through a character. I kind of can't stand that. It was annoying when they did it in Batman Begins, it was annoying in the Dark Knight (when they're all talking about the theme of the movie over dinner in the restaurant), and it's still annoying when they have Alfred or Catwoman talk to Batman about what the movie's about. For me, it's clumsy writing. It's what you're not supposed to do, but Nolan is obsessed with doing that. Why? I have no idea. Maybe he thinks the audience won't get the message unless somebody explains it for us. I really wish he would stop it though. It's a terrible habit.

I couldn't care less whether or not Nolan deviated from the DC universe or changed characters to suit his story. You're supposed to do that as a filmmaker. The problem was that I found his choices to be prosaic. The film lacked depth because it kept insisting that it had depth. I felt as if the film kept hammering at me, "Look, I may be a film about a guy in a cape, but I have depth! Look, there are terrorists destroying a city! Doesn't that remind you of 9/11?!" And yes, it did, but at the same time, Nolan had nothing interesting to say about terrorism, or about what it's like to live in fear of people who are bent on destroying your society. I'm all for comics and adaptations to speak about the time we're living in, but please have something to say about it instead of just borrowing a situation like that for entertainment's sake. That's not smart filmmaking to me. It's as if all Nolan had to say was, "Terrorists are bad people." Again, that seems to be a problem I have with Nolan in that he spends too much time trying to construct a complex plot when deep down, there's not really a whole lot going on in the movie. When Bane goes to the stock market exchange to wreak havoc, it's actually really disappointing to see it was just to make Wayne stock plummet. You'd think somebody in the League would want to just make the whole market crash and still find a way to take control of Wayne Enterprises. But again, it felt so petty once you find out what that whole scenario was for.

The twists were also telegraphed, such as the Talia Al Ghul twist. It would have been more interesting if it came sooner than at the end. She was essentially a plot device disguised as a character. There was no real depth to her as a villain because most of the time she's playing a boring businesswoman named Miranda Tate, which harkens back to my complaint that Nolan half-assed a lot of stories and characters in this film. He gave us the weakest versions of Robin and Talia Al Ghul. Maybe because he thought Bane was so interesting that he didn't need to explore Talia, but I I found him to be a redundant character. Most of his scenes felt the same.

One more thing that bothers me, which again ties back to my assertion that Nolan didn't follow through on his ideas: the scene where Bane reads Gordon's letter to the public. Were we supposed to believe that everyone who saw that on TV actually believed Bane? What was supposed to be the dramatic impact of that moment? The man had a few scraps of paper. He had no real proof. I mean, we live in a time of internet rumors and hearsay, we're a savvy bunch now. Would everyone actually believe what Bane had to say at that point? He may as well have been reading Gordon's diary to a couple of students at lunch time. I found that moment to be really sloppy. It had no dramatic impact because in the end, that moment had no real effect on the rest of the story because Bane would've attacked the prison anyway. It changed nothing in the story. Levitt was mad at Gordon for a scene, but then it's all good. And it doesn't seem to bother other people (which goes back to my point about Nolan not focusing on Gotham at all -- we don't know how it affects people in the city). I just feel Nolan missed something crucial here. Imagine the scene where Bane's people are going after Gordon in the hospital. Now imagine, that instead of the badass "Gordon kills em" moment, what if his men were able to break in the room? Now, what if those men weren't there to kill Gordon but to capture him, and they do. Now the scene with Bane reading the note has more power because guess who's on his knees next to him... Gordon. And Gordon is the one guy who could confirm the letter for the whole city. And he does (let's say Bane threatens the life of a cop or something). And Gordon tells the truth. Nolan could've even upped the ante and had Bane kill Gordon right after his confession... or instead, he lets all the inmates kill Gordon out of revenge of the Dent Act. Now that's drama. That's how you milk a scene for all its worth. And that's why I didn't really enjoy the Dark Knight Rises. I'm glad you guys really dug it. I respect everybody who loves the movie, and you're not going to get any guff from me. I just simply didn't enjoy it and those are my reasons.

I could go on and on with my problems with the film, but I think you guys can get where I'm coming from. I really wanted to enjoy this film. I bought my tickets a week in advance to see it on IMAX. I was giddy that day... But alas, I simply couldn't enjoy it like I wish I had. I did enjoy certain things about the film like Catwoman. I thought Anne Hathaway did a bang-up job and I think they actually wrote her better than the other characters. She had a real personality whereas other characters like Matthew Modine's Captain were just so one note. Even Bane felt one note to me. I wasn't really impressed by what he did in the film or the performance. I also did really enjoy the fake trials held by the Scarecrow. That was something I felt was straight out of a Batman panel.
I agree with these criticisms--especially the part when Bane reads the letter (this is something I mentioned in another forum). It just felt so unbelievable that it took me out of the scene. You're right though, Gordon could have been killed then, Bruce could have revealed himself at the hospital (as if it didn't seem obvious enough that it was him), and it would have gone in part with Bane wanting to destroy Bruce's spirit.
Reply With Quote
  #555  
Old 07-25-2012, 06:14 PM
Fair warning for the uninitiated - after this weekend I will probably be too lazy to continue spoiler tagging... Anything. The thread has done an awesome job getting this far with relatively minimal leakage.

Spoiler:

Cop No. 633^

Your scenario with Gordon would have been great. I think Gordon was supposed to survive, so the criminals couldn't have killed him, and I think Gordon should have remained in Bane's captivity so Bane didn't go through the repetition of snatching the guy twice, but that would have added an extra punch to the climactic act. Batman could have been fighting his way through the crowds to rescue Gordon as much as confront Bane, giving him even more to do.

But I thought they handled robin's rise well. The trouble with developing blake into robin in the third act is the leap between the officer he begins as and the presumed transformation he starts at the end. I don't think they had the runtime to make that leap. They showed blake as a cop, then a detective, then someone at odds with the system, but that was a quicker segue to punch up with his backstory than something monumental like showing him becoming batman. The Dark Knight had batman copycats, but they were oafs. From a storytelling point of view, I don't know how feasible it would be to not only build up another batman, but then initiate that batman into play by the third act. The writers might have needed to introduce blake already in training at the start of the movie and then pack his backstory with both motivation and abbreviated instances leading him to the decision he didn't otherwise reach until the end of Rises.
Reply With Quote
  #556  
Old 07-25-2012, 06:25 PM
Spoiler:
I mentioned it earlier, but I think Bane's demise, even happening nearly the same, would have been way better had it been Blake, in mask, using Wayne technology. It was set-up to happen so perfectly, and would have been an amazing character reveal instead of the second coming-ish hint we were left with. The ending could have even happened the same, with Robin, not Blake, oh-BTW-he's-also-legally-named-Robin-now, discovering the Batcave.

Last edited by The Postmaster General; 07-25-2012 at 06:27 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #557  
Old 07-25-2012, 06:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinigami View Post
Fair warning for the uninitiated - after this weekend I will probably be too lazy to continue spoiler tagging... Anything. The thread has done an awesome job getting this far with relatively minimal leakage.

Spoiler:

Cop No. 633^

Your scenario with Gordon would have been great. I think Gordon was supposed to survive, so the criminals couldn't have killed him, and I think Gordon should have remained in Bane's captivity so Bane didn't go through the repetition of snatching the guy twice, but that would have added an extra punch to the climactic act. Batman could have been fighting his way through the crowds to rescue Gordon as much as confront Bane, giving him even more to do.

But I thought they handled robin's rise well. The trouble with developing blake into robin in the third act is the leap between the officer he begins as and the presumed transformation he starts at the end. I don't think they had the runtime to make that leap. They showed blake as a cop, then a detective, then someone at odds with the system, but that was a quicker segue to punch up with his backstory than something monumental like showing him becoming batman. The Dark Knight had batman copycats, but they were oafs. From a storytelling point of view, I don't know how feasible it would be to not only build up another batman, but then initiate that batman into play by the third act. The writers might have needed to introduce blake already in training at the start of the movie and then pack his backstory with both motivation and abbreviated instances leading him to the decision he didn't otherwise reach until the end of Rises.
Spoiler:
I think he could've had enough time to explore John Blake's subplot if he had chopped down the first hour and a half. I felt a lot of that time was wasted on setting up story lines with Dagget and Bane. If Nolan had introduced Bane into Gotham a lot sooner, I think it would've given him more time to explore the second half of the story which was more interesting than the first half. Like I said, we never got to see Gotham in shambles. That would have been the perfect opportunity for John Blake to step in since Batman was MIA for 3 months. It also would've given more suspense to his scenes because it puts him in greater danger. Also, if they had the foresight to kill Gordon off (who basically wasn't really needed in the rest of the film), it could've been the catalyst that made Blake put on a mask.

I think if Nolan had done another rewrite, he could have made it work without having John Blake's arc to be hokey. Saving for the very end just felt lazy to me. Sort of like how Nolan had to explain the moment between Alfred and Bruce at the restaurant in Italy. Dramatically, I think it would've been stronger if Nolan had cut out Alfred's explanation an hour beforehand. It took away from what could've been a great moment by whispering in our ears, "Hey, this is that great moment I told you about earlier!" There was just a lack of emotional punches in this film for me.



Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
Spoiler:
I mentioned it earlier, but I think Bane's demise, even happening nearly the same, would have been way better had it been Blake, in mask, using Wayne technology. It was set-up to happen so perfectly, and would have been an amazing character reveal instead of the second coming-ish hint we were left with. The ending could have even happened the same, with Robin, not Blake, oh-BTW-he's-also-legally-named-Robin-now, discovering the Batcave.
Spoiler:
Don't even get me started on his "legal name." I did not like that moment one bit. Also, you're totally right that it could've been a cool reveal instead of Catwoman. Ball dropped, Mr. Nolan, ball dropped.

Last edited by Cop No. 633; 07-25-2012 at 06:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #558  
Old 07-25-2012, 06:53 PM
Cop No. 366:

I enjoyed the movie on my second viewing, but I think Nolan severely took advantages of the minor plot holes that were prevalent, but not as bad in TDK. Sure, things seemed way too convenient in regards to Joker's archaic scheme, but it seemed like that "go with the flow" plot mechanics were pushed a bit further in TDKR. Since Harvey's story line in TDK worked so well in one movie, he decides to throw in other minor characters in hopes that there's enough time to create full fledge story lines in the conclusion.

Unfortunately, it just didn't work that way for this film. It makes those plot holes that were minor in TDK feel much more major in this installment. I think some viewers are cool with that (like me on some level), but other film goers (like Cop No. 366) just aren't gonna be up for that type of "go with it" storytelling.
Reply With Quote
  #559  
Old 07-25-2012, 07:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.HyDe807 View Post
Cop No. 366:

I enjoyed the movie on my second viewing, but I think Nolan severely took advantages of the minor plot holes that were prevalent, but not as bad in TDK. Sure, things seemed way too convenient in regards to Joker's archaic scheme, but it seemed like that "go with the flow" plot mechanics were pushed a bit further in TDKR. Since Harvey's story line in TDK worked so well in one movie, he decides to throw in other minor characters in hopes that there's enough time to create full fledge story lines in the conclusion.

Unfortunately, it just didn't work that way for this film. It makes those plot holes that were minor in TDK feel much more major in this installment. I think some viewers are cool with that (like me on some level), but other film goers (like Cop No. 366) just aren't gonna be up for that type of "go with it" storytelling.
I'm not sure if plot hole is the right word because I never really called the movie out for plot holes, but that I think Nolan didn't take advantage of the situation he created for the film. I don't mind plot holes if the story is really good. There was a lot of dramatic potential in this film, but the stakes just weren't there for me. I never felt as if anybody was in harm's way in TDKR. Not Batman, not Gordon, not John Blake, Catwoman... at least in TDK, it felt as if people could die at any moment. Killing off Rachel and having the Joker threaten Gotham's citizens directly elevated the stakes in that film giving it more suspense. You need to have high stakes in a film like this and for me, the nuke was a terrible way to convey that feeling simply because you know that it was never going to destroy Gotham. It's a MacGuffin in the worst sense of the word. At least with Batman Begins, Nolan was more clever for making that MacGuffin tie in with the Scarecrow's fear toxin. And we saw how it was affecting Gotham. Everyone was losing their minds on the drug. That rose the stakes in the climax. In TDKR, it was simply a nuke. He didn't go that extra step, which I was used to from the other Batman films he made.

It also reminds me of a great line from the Joker in the Dark Knight which explains my disappointment with this film: You didn’t think I’d risk the battle for Gotham’s soul in a fistfight with you? And that is essentially what the ending of TDKR film was. It was a giant fist fight over Gotham. Between Bane and Batman. Between the cops and the terrorists/inmates.
Reply With Quote
  #560  
Old 07-25-2012, 07:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cop No. 633 View Post
I'm not sure if plot hole is the right word because I never really called the movie out for plot holes, but that I think Nolan didn't take advantage of the situation he created for the film. I don't mind plot holes if the story is really good. There was a lot of dramatic potential in this film, but the stakes just weren't there for me. I never felt as if anybody was in harm's way in TDKR. Not Batman, not Gordon, not John Blake, Catwoman... at least in TDK, it felt as if people could die at any moment. Killing off Rachel and having the Joker threaten Gotham's citizens directly elevated the stakes in that film giving it more suspense. You need to have high stakes in a film like this and for me, the nuke was a terrible way to convey that feeling simply because you know that it was never going to destroy Gotham. It's a MacGuffin in the worst sense of the word. At least with Batman Begins, Nolan was more clever for making that MacGuffin tie in with the Scarecrow's fear toxin. And we saw how it was affecting Gotham. Everyone was losing their minds on the drug. That rose the stakes in the climax. In TDKR, it was simply a nuke. He didn't go that extra step, which I was used to from the other Batman films he made.

It also reminds me of a great line from the Joker in the Dark Knight which explains my disappointment with this film: You didnít think Iíd risk the battle for Gothamís soul in a fistfight with you? And that is essentially what the ending of TDKR film was. It was a giant fist fight over Gotham. Between Bane and Batman. Between the cops and the terrorists/inmates.
My bad man, That last post was a bit all over the place. I certainly agree with you with not being able to take advantage of the Gotham situation. The point I was trying to make was that Nolan's sense of storytelling that felt so concise and on point in TDK felt a bit more lost in the shuffle in this outing, as if Nolan felt he took more character arcs since he was able to handle Dent/Batman/Gordon's/etc. characters arc so well. It just seemed like Nolan thought he could bit off more than he could chew in some regards.

But, for me, there was so much good in some of the missed opportunities that I came out satisfied for the most part.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump