#881  
Old 11-22-2012, 01:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AspectRatio1986 View Post
^Driving 4 hours to Pittsburgh to be an extra for that scene was an incredible experience...to see Nolan working for 10 hours and being one of the first few thousand people in the world to see and hear Bane's voice was just awesome. That being said - the final cut scene in the film was so very disappointing compared to what was shot that day. Mass audience panic....it was an incredible experience and I wish I saw what it looked like on film. 10,000 people just rushing towards the exits.....I have no clue why no shots of this were included.

I am pretty sure a lot of scenes were not included from the original 4 hour cut.... I just Downloaded the Extras from a torrent site and it's fucking awesome.
Reply With Quote
  #882  
Old 11-22-2012, 05:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AspectRatio1986 View Post
^Driving 4 hours to Pittsburgh to be an extra for that scene was an incredible experience...to see Nolan working for 10 hours and being one of the first few thousand people in the world to see and hear Bane's voice was just awesome. That being said - the final cut scene in the film was so very disappointing compared to what was shot that day. Mass audience panic....it was an incredible experience and I wish I saw what it looked like on film. 10,000 people just rushing towards the exits.....I have no clue why no shots of this were included.
so what did Bane's voice sound like in person? how different was it compared to what we hear in the film? i remember seeing photos and footage of when all that was being filmed. they also had the camouflaged Tumblers out on the field too, which you don't see in the film.
Reply With Quote
  #883  
Old 11-22-2012, 10:55 PM
My original reaction to Bane's voice was to compare with old german war propaganda recordings...something to that extent. And yes...his original lines were very very hard to understand....but it just sounded so badass and original.

The 3 Tumbler's on the field were not for filming...it was more of a fan friendly thing to do...Hines Ward (Steelers WR) rode out sitting on top of one...nonetheless it was cool experience seeing them in person. I'm just keeping my fingers crossed some behind the scenes or cut shots make it into the special features of the mass panic.
Reply With Quote
  #884  
Old 11-23-2012, 07:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AspectRatio1986 View Post
My original reaction to Bane's voice was to compare with old german war propaganda recordings...something to that extent. And yes...his original lines were very very hard to understand....but it just sounded so badass and original.

The 3 Tumbler's on the field were not for filming...it was more of a fan friendly thing to do...Hines Ward (Steelers WR) rode out sitting on top of one...nonetheless it was cool experience seeing them in person. I'm just keeping my fingers crossed some behind the scenes or cut shots make it into the special features of the mass panic.
Sadly none of that is on the extras.
Reply With Quote
  #885  
Old 11-23-2012, 08:49 AM
Oh shit.
Reply With Quote
  #886  
Old 11-23-2012, 05:33 PM
More The Dark Knight Rises behind the scenes footage - this time of Anne Hathaway as Catwoman - http://wp.me/p2CCWq-2ne
Reply With Quote
  #887  
Old 11-23-2012, 07:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by P1NSTR1PEZ View Post
More The Dark Knight Rises behind the scenes footage - this time of Anne Hathaway as Catwoman - http://wp.me/p2CCWq-2ne
these behind the scenes clips are almost more interesting than the film itself! still wish they would find a new link to the first clip with Bane & Bats fighting.
Reply With Quote
  #888  
Old 11-23-2012, 10:14 PM
So I watched this again the other night. I must say, I liked it less the second time. While I still have no qualms about the time issues and pacing, the editing left a lot to be desired on second viewing. There are instances where a scene is clearly cut as a character is about to deliver another line. I still have to give Nolan kudos on how well, overall, this film was paced despite the breakneck speed of the editing. Without a doubt, this is the biggest drawback, to me, for this film. I also felt less emotionally connected this go round. The feeling I had leaving it the first time, came back even stronger this time. I felt the two biggest situations for conflict and drama for Bruce in this film would be the consequences of Alfred leaving, and trying to build himself back up to take on Bane the second time.

To me, these two instances should have been the focal point of the film. I'm obviously not a professional filmmaker and don't think I could put out a better product than this, so no, this is not Nolan bashing. Stripping everything away and looking just at story and plot points, I felt Alfred leaving was more important to the story of Bruce Wayne & The Dark Knight than any of the stuff with Talia (before the reveal) or JGL's cop. I would've loved to have seen a struggling Bats (like he was anyway) with the mental constraints of no longer having Alfred around, whom Bruce was clearly, incredibly dependent on.

Still, I loved the hand to hand combat, loved Bane, and loved the semi-final shot of Bats's face in The Bat flying over the bay. Still a great example of how blockbusters should be done, and the action set pieces were phenomenal. I was still more emotionally engaged than The Avengers, but I still think Avengers was a better spectacle.

But for me, Skyfall topped them both as to how a blockbuster should be done.
Reply With Quote
  #889  
Old 11-24-2012, 12:30 AM
A family member put a copy of Rises on my hard drive the other day. When I got home I tried to watch it. The sound did not work. Damn! 1080P looked great though
Reply With Quote
  #890  
Old 11-24-2012, 10:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by xseanymacx View Post
So I watched this again the other night. I must say, I liked it less the second time. While I still have no qualms about the time issues and pacing, the editing left a lot to be desired on second viewing. There are instances where a scene is clearly cut as a character is about to deliver another line. I still have to give Nolan kudos on how well, overall, this film was paced despite the breakneck speed of the editing. Without a doubt, this is the biggest drawback, to me, for this film. I also felt less emotionally connected this go round. The feeling I had leaving it the first time, came back even stronger this time. I felt the two biggest situations for conflict and drama for Bruce in this film would be the consequences of Alfred leaving, and trying to build himself back up to take on Bane the second time.

To me, these two instances should have been the focal point of the film. I'm obviously not a professional filmmaker and don't think I could put out a better product than this, so no, this is not Nolan bashing. Stripping everything away and looking just at story and plot points, I felt Alfred leaving was more important to the story of Bruce Wayne & The Dark Knight than any of the stuff with Talia (before the reveal) or JGL's cop. I would've loved to have seen a struggling Bats (like he was anyway) with the mental constraints of no longer having Alfred around, whom Bruce was clearly, incredibly dependent on.

Still, I loved the hand to hand combat, loved Bane, and loved the semi-final shot of Bats's face in The Bat flying over the bay. Still a great example of how blockbusters should be done, and the action set pieces were phenomenal. I was still more emotionally engaged than The Avengers, but I still think Avengers was a better spectacle.

But for me, Skyfall topped them both as to how a blockbuster should be done.
Felt then, and still feel now, the entire "retirement" angle should have been ditched. Not only does it go against the character of Batman (imo) but it measn Bruce has to come back... TWICE.

If Bruce opened the film strong, but damaged by the decade as Batman, that's a totally different film. Bane breaks him and he has to re-discover himself as Batman in a horrible prison - not unlike the beginning of Batman Begins.

I never liked that Batman just gave up after losing Rachel. Pussy. It's not Batman. Granted, thats what Nolan's going for, a more human version. It just never rang true to me.
Reply With Quote
  #891  
Old 11-24-2012, 10:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
Felt then, and still feel now, the entire "retirement" angle should have been ditched. Not only does it go against the character of Batman (imo) but it measn Bruce has to come back... TWICE.

If Bruce opened the film strong, but damaged by the decade as Batman, that's a totally different film. Bane breaks him and he has to re-discover himself as Batman in a horrible prison - not unlike the beginning of Batman Begins.

I never liked that Batman just gave up after losing Rachel. Pussy. It's not Batman. Granted, thats what Nolan's going for, a more human version. It just never rang true to me.

Kind of like how he quit when Jason Todd died in The Dark Knight Returns?
Reply With Quote
  #892  
Old 11-24-2012, 10:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by poopontheshoes7 View Post
Kind of like how he quit when Jason Todd died in The Dark Knight Returns?
Eh. Even if that's canon, wasnt he much older, like i his 50's? Even still, combining two stories of Batman "returning" is just repetitive.
Reply With Quote
  #893  
Old 11-24-2012, 11:56 AM
I too watched the film recently and my disappointment has only increased. As a whole, TDKR provides a somewhat fitting and emotional conclusion to Nolan's trilogy, but as an individual film, it's just not that good. As adamjohnson mentioned, deciding to have Bruce be a retiree for the last eight years only hindered the plot. As well as his need to rediscover his role as Batman and to face fear just felt redundant. Now, if Bane would have confronted Bruce earlier and he had been in the Lazarus Pit for a longer point in the movie then I think it would have been more properly suited for the darker arc Nolan was attempting to give us.

Last edited by Roy Batty; 11-24-2012 at 12:01 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #894  
Old 11-24-2012, 01:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123 View Post
I too watched the film recently and my disappointment has only increased. As a whole, TDKR provides a somewhat fitting and emotional conclusion to Nolan's trilogy, but as an individual film, it's just not that good. As adamjohnson mentioned, deciding to have Bruce be a retiree for the last eight years only hindered the plot. As well as his need to rediscover his role as Batman and to face fear just felt redundant. Now, if Bane would have confronted Bruce earlier and he had been in the Lazarus Pit for a longer point in the movie then I think it would have been more properly suited for the darker arc Nolan was attempting to give us.
I didn't feel Bruce's character arc or other elements of TDKR's story felt redundant at all. Nolan chose to show a much different Bruce Wayne this time around, a damaged man in both an emotional and physical sense. Just because he disappeared in BB for seven years and returned doesn't make his eight year absence in TDKR redundant. Bruce's approach to Batman in BB and TDK worked largely due to his excellent physicality, youthful energy, and his immunity to fear that Ra's was able to instill in him. When you take the first two elements away, it turns out you need something more to fight a physically superior villain and a battle in which the odds are not in your favor; you need to reattain that fear of death that was present before you ever started your journey. That's what keeps you breathing.
Reply With Quote
  #895  
Old 11-24-2012, 03:13 PM
quick thought:

I like TDKR, as much as anyone, but if I were doing a Batman film, its not how i would go about it. I tend to side with AJ, the idea of Batman "retiring" just doesn't jive with me. Its realistic, I get that, but its not the Batman I know, Batman is defined by his inability to quit.

Another thought that passed through my head today. You want to know what has always fascinated me about comics, and comic book based movies by extension? How powerful the characters are, and how many cool superpowers there are. We have a guy who can manipulate magnitism. A guy who can control space. A person who can bend reality at her will. A despot with an immortal army of followers. Beings with the powers of gods. A being who is God's hand of judgement. Yet, for all those powers, all those abilities, the most terrifying of the terrifying, the king, is HIM. The man you fear the most is the one who has no powers at all, and wages an eternal war against a guy dressed like a bat. There's something that Mr. J adds to any film, any display that is simply unique. Unlike Lex Luthor and Magneto, Mr. J hasn't been overexposed to the point where its same old same old. There's an edge that he brings, that I felt was missing from TDKR.

I just read Scott Synder's Batman #14, and it blew me away (just like #13 did), its the Joker at the peak of his powers, at the peak of his insanity. Check out what happens to poor old Alfred:



Jim Gordon:



(The Joker poisoned him with Blood Thinner, Batman got him to a hospital in time)

and that's just one issue, and doesn't count what he did to Barbara's mother. I felt like that edge was missing from TDKR. It was still a great film, but man, it didn't have that feeling of unleashed chaos, that you never knew what was going to happen next, because you never what happens when he's in town.
Reply With Quote
  #896  
Old 11-24-2012, 03:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by soda View Post
quick thought:

I like TDKR, as much as anyone, but if I were doing a Batman film, its not how i would go about it. I tend to side with AJ, the idea of Batman "retiring" just doesn't jive with me. Its realistic, I get that, but its not the Batman I know, Batman is defined by his inability to quit.

Another thought that passed through my head today. You want to know what has always fascinated me about comics, and comic book based movies by extension? How powerful the characters are, and how many cool superpowers there are. We have a guy who can manipulate magnitism. A guy who can control space. A person who can bend reality at her will. A despot with an immortal army of followers. Beings with the powers of gods. A being who is God's hand of judgement. Yet, for all those powers, all those abilities, the most terrifying of the terrifying, the king, is HIM. The man you fear the most is the one who has no powers at all, and wages an eternal war against a guy dressed like a bat. There's something that Mr. J adds to any film, any display that is simply unique. Unlike Lex Luthor and Magneto, Mr. J hasn't been overexposed to the point where its same old same old. There's an edge that he brings, that I felt was missing from TDKR.

I just read Scott Synder's Batman #14, and it blew me away (just like #13 did), its the Joker at the peak of his powers, at the peak of his insanity. Check out what happens to poor old Alfred:


Jim Gordon:



(The Joker poisoned him with Blood Thinner, Batman got him to a hospital in time)

and that's just one issue, and doesn't count what he did to Barbara's mother. I felt like that edge was missing from TDKR. It was still a great film, but man, it didn't have that feeling of unleashed chaos, that you never knew what was going to happen next, because you never what happens when he's in town.

I completely disagree. Once the city started blowing up it felt as chaotic as anything else that happened in the previous movies. If you think about it, Bane did what the Joker failed to do. The film didn't have Jokers maniacal edge, but I feel it was just as unpredictable as far as how events would play out.
Reply With Quote
  #897  
Old 11-24-2012, 06:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycheoutsteve View Post
I didn't feel Bruce's character arc or other elements of TDKR's story felt redundant at all. Nolan chose to show a much different Bruce Wayne this time around, a damaged man in both an emotional and physical sense. Just because he disappeared in BB for seven years and returned doesn't make his eight year absence in TDKR redundant. Bruce's approach to Batman in BB and TDK worked largely due to his excellent physicality, youthful energy, and his immunity to fear that Ra's was able to instill in him. When you take the first two elements away, it turns out you need something more to fight a physically superior villain and a battle in which the odds are not in your favor; you need to reattain that fear of death that was present before you ever started your journey. That's what keeps you breathing.
Previously, Nolan showed emotionally damaged Bruce in Batman Begins, he barely showed Bruce in The Dark Knight, and in The Dark Knight Rises we have an emotionally damaged Bruce (again) but this time he's physically damaged as well--as you mentioned. I guess, personally, I thought Nolan was going to go the less predictable route with the final but instead we got the typical Part 3 format. We discover something that we thought we knew but turns out wasn't really so, we get the mentor in a weakened position and leaves the hero for a time, then we get the happy ending. Now, the latter I would have been completely fine with hadn't Bruce decided to show up in the restaurant in Florence to greet Alfred. If we're going to have callbacks to Batman Begins, then Ras' line of the world being too small of a place for someone like Bruce Wayne to disappear is very fitting--especially if his death was a global attention grabber which I'm sure it was.
Reply With Quote
  #898  
Old 11-24-2012, 09:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by poopontheshoes7 View Post
I completely disagree. Once the city started blowing up it felt as chaotic as anything else that happened in the previous movies. If you think about it, Bane did what the Joker failed to do. The film didn't have Jokers maniacal edge, but I feel it was just as unpredictable as far as how events would play out.
Okay, let's thresh this one out a bit. Most superhero films, TDKR included, have a plot where there's this big fight at the end, and hero wins it. Usually, he's punched his way there. Generally, plots have an ending. Bane wasn't about creating chaos, for its own sake, he created Chaos to serve his bigger purpose (or Talia's bigger purpose, depending on your POV): finishing Ra's job, and destroying Gotham. Not bringing Gotham to its' knees, destroying it, as in wiping it off the map. As mad as that is, its a "rational" (quoted because everyone in Gotham city is insane. If you live there, or just get your mail delivered there, guess what? You're kukoo for Cocoa Puffs.) objective. Once the hero figures out what the objective is, he can take steps to thwart it, as Batman eventually does.

In TDK, the Joker wants to bring Gotham to its knees, and then what? What does he want out of that? Revenge? No. Money? No. Fame? No. He goes through an awful lot of trouble to do what he does, and the reason basically is to show human beings what they are really like. To get the people of the city to eat each other. To show Batman how futile his quest to help his city really is. Suppose he succeeds. Then what? The city is still standing, and its filled with lunatics, but that's what the situation was before. That's the thing with the Joker, his motives make sense to only one person, himself. Chaos, in this case, is a function of that randomness. If you live in Gotham city, there are two kinds of people you could be: the kind Bane wants to kill, to further his plan, and the kind Bane wants to kill when the bomb goes off and levels the city. The Joker has only one category: people he wants to kill. No reason, just people he wants to kill.

If you think about the ending to TDRK, the plot was foiled. Bane was defeated. Talia is dead. The bomb goes off but doesn't kill anyone. A lot of people died, but the city is still standing. If you think about the ending to TDK, Nolan borrows one of the classic Joker stories and ends the film with a fascinating sequence: in order to defeat the Joker, in order to prevent him from "winning", Gordon and Batman have to lie, they have to engage in treachery and deceit (which goes against the character of both men) to keep the crooks Dent put away behind bars. This kind of Bargain, this spreading a lie to promote a greater good is something that has happened at the end of a Joker story more than once.

The most famous such instance was how the Tim Drake Affair was sorted out in the flashback sequence of Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker. At the end of TDK, you don't know whose won or lost. The Joker is still alive ("I have a feeling you and I are destined to do this forever") the crooks are still behind bars, but the Joker used and destroyed Harvey Dent. It feels like Batman and Gordon lost, they may have gained their larger objective: keeping the crooks in jail, and bringing the Joker to Justice, but that objective exacted a horrible personal price (Rachel died, Dent betrays everything he stood for and dies, Gordon and Batman are forced to lie, and Batman is taken out of the picture in Gotham for eight years). The "win" over the Joker is pryrric. That's what makes Mr. J the greatest, you can beat him, but you won't escape unscatched. You'll know you were in a fight.

For the record, this isn't to say that I didn't think TDKR wasn't an awesome flick, I think I gave it a very good review (don't remember if I posted that here or not). Just that the tone and style was different from TDK, which was the film I preferred. Also for the record, I probably wouldn't have done the movie the way Nolan did in TDK either, but to each his own preferences.

Last edited by soda; 11-24-2012 at 09:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #899  
Old 11-24-2012, 11:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123 View Post
Previously, Nolan showed emotionally damaged Bruce in Batman Begins, he barely showed Bruce in The Dark Knight, and in The Dark Knight Rises we have an emotionally damaged Bruce (again) but this time he's physically damaged as well--as you mentioned. I guess, personally, I thought Nolan was going to go the less predictable route with the final but instead we got the typical Part 3 format. We discover something that we thought we knew but turns out wasn't really so, we get the mentor in a weakened position and leaves the hero for a time, then we get the happy ending. Now, the latter I would have been completely fine with hadn't Bruce decided to show up in the restaurant in Florence to greet Alfred. If we're going to have callbacks to Batman Begins, then Ras' line of the world being too small of a place for someone like Bruce Wayne to disappear is very fitting--especially if his death was a global attention grabber which I'm sure it was.
Usually, when someone is declared dead, people stop looking for them. That explanation doesn't completely masque any plot hole involving the discovery of Bruce Wayne alive, but as much suspension of disbelief as this plot detail requires, it's a very fitting ending considering the narrative. At some point people have to realize although Nolan's films aspired to have a realist feel to them, they're still movies. Every Batman movie, however realistic, will require some suspension of disbelief because of the particular content it deals with.

IMO, there's nothing to bitch about here, the character was given his due. I mean, what do you people want? Do you want some dramatic death just for the sake of effect rather than an ending that honors the story being told? Given the story Nolan wanted to tell, what exactly would be the point in killing off Batman? Basically, if you did that he becomes a martyr, which goes against the entire message of the movie; that Bruce's journey didn't have to end in death, that he could find a reason to live and possibly be happy. After all the shit Bruce went through, as an audience member, you should want him to be happy.

Even if any the plot elements in this film reflected the plots of other third entries in other trilogies, every plot turn made perfect sense in this film. Everything came together full circle. To be honest, I didn't see anything typical about this particular happy ending. It wasn't like Return of the Jedi or Return of the King, where I knew everything would be alright in the end. For a minute there, I thought Nolan had tricked me and killed the beloved caped crusader, but that's just a testament to his storytelling and directing abilities.

This third entry goes into darker territory than most third entries are willing to tread into, but it isn't dark for the sake of being dark, like the matrix revolutions. It does something that I think we'll see more of in popular franchises and trilogies to come: It takes the hero and breaks him down, but allows him to climb out of the darkness and face his adversaries again as a changed man/woman. One can argue that this plot development isn't anything new, but it's currently being presented in a more edgy way in movies. Just look at Skyfall and the upcoming Iron Man 3. People don't want to see the hero fight the bad guys at full strength anymore, they want to see how they fight in their most desperate and dire condition. It's a reflection of our times, I think.

Plus, The Bruce Wayne we see in BB and the Bruce Wayne we see in TDKR are not in the same mental/physical condition at all. It's almost as if they're different people, and that's fitting considering how Bruce's journey changes him over time.
Reply With Quote
  #900  
Old 11-25-2012, 06:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycheoutsteve View Post
Usually, when someone is declared dead, people stop looking for them. That explanation doesn't completely masque any plot hole involving the discovery of Bruce Wayne alive, but as much suspension of disbelief as this plot detail requires, it's a very fitting ending considering the narrative. At some point people have to realize although Nolan's films aspired to have a realist feel to them, they're still movies. Every Batman movie, however realistic, will require some suspension of disbelief because of the particular content it deals with.

IMO, there's nothing to bitch about here, the character was given his due. I mean, what do you people want? Do you want some dramatic death just for the sake of effect rather than an ending that honors the story being told? Given the story Nolan wanted to tell, what exactly would be the point in killing off Batman? Basically, if you did that he becomes a martyr, which goes against the entire message of the movie; that Bruce's journey didn't have to end in death, that he could find a reason to live and possibly be happy. After all the shit Bruce went through, as an audience member, you should want him to be happy.

Even if any the plot elements in this film reflected the plots of other third entries in other trilogies, every plot turn made perfect sense in this film. Everything came together full circle. To be honest, I didn't see anything typical about this particular happy ending. It wasn't like Return of the Jedi or Return of the King, where I knew everything would be alright in the end. For a minute there, I thought Nolan had tricked me and killed the beloved caped crusader, but that's just a testament to his storytelling and directing abilities.

This third entry goes into darker territory than most third entries are willing to tread into, but it isn't dark for the sake of being dark, like the matrix revolutions. It does something that I think we'll see more of in popular franchises and trilogies to come: It takes the hero and breaks him down, but allows him to climb out of the darkness and face his adversaries again as a changed man/woman. One can argue that this plot development isn't anything new, but it's currently being presented in a more edgy way in movies. Just look at Skyfall and the upcoming Iron Man 3. People don't want to see the hero fight the bad guys at full strength anymore, they want to see how they fight in their most desperate and dire condition. It's a reflection of our times, I think.

Plus, The Bruce Wayne we see in BB and the Bruce Wayne we see in TDKR are not in the same mental/physical condition at all. It's almost as if they're different people, and that's fitting considering how Bruce's journey changes him over time.
It's evident that you and I walked into the film with different expectations and because of those differing expectations; we look at the finished film very differently. I respect your admiration for the film and for Nolan as a filmmaker, but I just thought it wasn't that good. Sure, your points are valid to an extent, but that could be argued about almost every movie--even the very bad--just as long as there's a sound argument in support for the film being anything other than garbage (not saying TDKR is).
Reply With Quote
  #901  
Old 11-25-2012, 09:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123 View Post
It's evident that you and I walked into the film with different expectations and because of those differing expectations; we look at the finished film very differently. I respect your admiration for the film and for Nolan as a filmmaker, but I just thought it wasn't that good. Sure, your points are valid to an extent, but that could be argued about almost every movie--even the very bad--just as long as there's a sound argument in support for the film being anything other than garbage (not saying TDKR is).
Yeah, I'll respect the fact that we have differing perspectives on the film, but I have yet to see someone provide a sound argument for why the Resident Evil films aren't garbage. Just saying, it's not like I injected anything into the discussion that wasn't present in the film.
Reply With Quote
  #902  
Old 11-25-2012, 09:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycheoutsteve View Post
Yeah, I'll respect the fact that we have differing perspectives on the film, but I have yet to see someone provide a sound argument for why the Resident Evil films aren't garbage. Just saying, it's not like I injected anything into the discussion that wasn't present in the film.
I agree, but in the end, there's only but so much suspense of disbelief one can take in a movie, that in its last two films, had a better sense of realism.
Reply With Quote
  #903  
Old 11-25-2012, 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123 View Post
I agree, but in the end, there's only but so much suspense of disbelief one can take in a movie, that in its last two films, had a better sense of realism.
You might be able to argue that point successfully. Whenever you raise the stakes with a final chapter, you always run the risk of increasing that suspension of disbelief one needs to enjoy a film. That said, I think this film called for the type of stakes-raising that it employed, but I still didn't feel that it betrayed the tone that Nolan first established in BB. He's always shot for heightened realism, and I think this film still manages to stand in that category.
Reply With Quote
  #904  
Old 11-25-2012, 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycheoutsteve View Post
That said, I think this film called for the type of stakes-raising that it employed, but I still didn't feel that it betrayed the tone that Nolan first established in BB. He's always shot for heightened realism, and I think this film still manages to stand in that category.
You're absolutely right here, but I guess this issue of 'raising the stakes' to the point of almost eliminating any sense of realism besides retaining the same cast, comes of the hot streak of TDK making Gotham so grounded that retreating back to a more 'comic booky' scope just feels odd. I don't think Bane's plan needed the doomsday element, it could have kept the League of Shadows spin but focused more on Bane proving he was better than Batman and a worthy inclusion of the League. It would have made him seem even more insane because he's hellbent on proving himself to an organization and a figure that's no longer even in power.
Reply With Quote
  #905  
Old 11-28-2012, 09:48 PM
Finally! Christopher Nolan opens up about the ending of The Dark Knight Rises and more - http://wp.me/p2CCWq-2op
Reply With Quote
  #906  
Old 12-05-2012, 01:26 PM
Michael Caine dishes on the ending to TDKR and if He's willing to do the Justice League film - http://wp.me/p2CCWq-2qs
Reply With Quote
  #907  
Old 12-05-2012, 01:47 PM
Anne Hathaway Talks about a Catwoman spinoff - http://wp.me/p2CCWq-2qz
Reply With Quote
  #908  
Old 12-06-2012, 01:57 AM
im not sure if this had already been pointed out (with over 900 replies im sure it has)... but there was all this talk about how did bruce wayne get back to gotham after escaping the pit so fast... but in the movie Luscious says that the bomb is set to go off in 23 days... when Wayne shows up the Bomb is set to go off the next day... so it took Wayne around 22 days to get back. everyone said it was a plot hole, but it turns out Nolan was smarter than all of us!


Posted from Joblo.com App for Android
Reply With Quote
  #909  
Old 12-06-2012, 02:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyNet View Post
im not sure if this had already been pointed out (with over 900 replies im sure it has)... but there was all this talk about how did bruce wayne get back to gotham after escaping the pit so fast... but in the movie Luscious says that the bomb is set to go off in 23 days... when Wayne shows up the Bomb is set to go off the next day... so it took Wayne around 22 days to get back. everyone said it was a plot hole, but it turns out Nolan was smarter than all of us!


Posted from Joblo.com App for Android

Doesn't Luscious say that before Wayne retrains/heals and not between the time he escapes and shows back up?

Last edited by The Postmaster General; 12-06-2012 at 02:30 AM.. Reason: pronouns
Reply With Quote
  #910  
Old 12-06-2012, 04:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyNet View Post
im not sure if this had already been pointed out (with over 900 replies im sure it has)... but there was all this talk about how did bruce wayne get back to gotham after escaping the pit so fast... but in the movie Luscious says that the bomb is set to go off in 23 days... when Wayne shows up the Bomb is set to go off the next day... so it took Wayne around 22 days to get back. everyone said it was a plot hole, but it turns out Nolan was smarter than all of us!


Posted from Joblo.com App for Android
The plot hole was never about the time. It was more of a question of how does a man with no money travel across the world, and enter a city guarded by the military who is keeping people from getting in or out? He's Batman so I'm sure he could do it, but that is a pretty big hurdle for our hero to overcome without explanation.

It almost feels like a joke or a comedy skit where the hero says "We need to cross thousands of miles of ocean and land, and break into this heavily fortified base. We have no money, no vehicles, and no help. We are on our own.", then in the very next scene they are inside the base. That's a lot of very important information to just completely skip over.
Reply With Quote
  #911  
Old 12-06-2012, 04:47 AM
^Right, I thought it was more about the pacing issue people had with the movie as a whole. It would really only take a couple days, at the most, to get around the world. One of my favorite sequences in TDK was when they showed how Wayne infiltrated into Hong Kong. My complaint with him showing back up was just the way it was cut, not the plausibility of it.

That said, I don't remember if the time frame was given before or after Wayne actually left the pit. I have the BR trilogy in my closet and have been struggling over whether this one will end up making it as a gift from Santa, as I'm way too eager to pop it in early. I feel like I'm in a 12-step program. 19 days and counting down...
Reply With Quote
  #912  
Old 12-06-2012, 08:46 AM
I know Nolan has never used title cards so we're aware of the time jumps, but they would have been very helpful here.
Reply With Quote
  #913  
Old 12-06-2012, 09:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverload View Post
The plot hole was never about the time. It was more of a question of how does a man with no money travel across the world, and enter a city guarded by the military who is keeping people from getting in or out? He's Batman so I'm sure he could do it, but that is a pretty big hurdle for our hero to overcome without explanation.

It almost feels like a joke or a comedy skit where the hero says "We need to cross thousands of miles of ocean and land, and break into this heavily fortified base. We have no money, no vehicles, and no help. We are on our own.", then in the very next scene they are inside the base. That's a lot of very important information to just completely skip over.
Wayne, as a teenager, traveled the world with no money. I guess he learned a thing or two.
Reply With Quote
  #914  
Old 12-06-2012, 04:43 PM
Alright, broke into it, a early Xmas gift for me and a kid who's been home sick.

Wayne escapes, the next time frame given is 18 hours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
Wayne, as a teenager, traveled the world with no money. I guess he learned a thing or two.
Again though, it wasn't about the feasibility (at least in my case) but more about the way things were cut. It just felt abrupt, kind of out of nowhere, which is a change of pace for the way Nolan has previously shown Wayne doing his thing. But again, it wasn't a real criticism on my end, just something that I wish had been done different. Even my favorite films, there's a few things I'd rather had been done different.

Also, I think you're the one I have to reply to on this, but having watched the BR, I hafta conceded on a point I was arguing against on Bane's voice. There is clearly something going on - I notice it much more than I did in my theatrical viewings. Maybe it was the sound system in the theater I'd seen it twice in, but watching it at home, it stands out. In terms of cadence and other such stuff, I'd never seen the IMAX preview outside of bad bootlegs, but I'm pretty sure you and others were right that it was changed. It's just too different from the other voices in the film to not think there was something reworked beyond just post tweaking.
Reply With Quote
  #915  
Old 12-06-2012, 05:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverload View Post
The plot hole was never about the time. It was more of a question of how does a man with no money travel across the world, and enter a city guarded by the military who is keeping people from getting in or out? He's Batman so I'm sure he could do it, but that is a pretty big hurdle for our hero to overcome without explanation.

It almost feels like a joke or a comedy skit where the hero says "We need to cross thousands of miles of ocean and land, and break into this heavily fortified base. We have no money, no vehicles, and no help. We are on our own.", then in the very next scene they are inside the base. That's a lot of very important information to just completely skip over.
I don't consider that to be important at all in the grand scheme of things. The movie runs 165 min. Why do we need an extra scene or two explaining how Bruce traveled from the prison back to Gotham? It would just kill the pace of the film and it doesn't really accomplish anything.

Obviously, some people feel as if Nolan contradicted his own internal logic established by the first two films in The Dark Knight Rises. I just really don't get that complaint. Nobody was bitching when people were speculating about Bane using an earthquake machine to destroy Gotham a year or two ago, as if that plot element would be more fitting in Nolan's Batman universe than a bomb.
Reply With Quote
  #916  
Old 12-06-2012, 07:14 PM
I have to agree with the post above me. I absolutely agree with Postmaster in that it seemed very abrupt, but I personally don't need to know how Bats got back. Shit, it would've been very disappointing if he didn't
Reply With Quote
  #917  
Old 12-06-2012, 09:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
Alright, broke into it, a early Xmas gift for me and a kid who's been home sick.

Wayne escapes, the next time frame given is 18 hours.



Again though, it wasn't about the feasibility (at least in my case) but more about the way things were cut. It just felt abrupt, kind of out of nowhere, which is a change of pace for the way Nolan has previously shown Wayne doing his thing. But again, it wasn't a real criticism on my end, just something that I wish had been done different. Even my favorite films, there's a few things I'd rather had been done different.

Also, I think you're the one I have to reply to on this, but having watched the BR, I hafta conceded on a point I was arguing against on Bane's voice. There is clearly something going on - I notice it much more than I did in my theatrical viewings. Maybe it was the sound system in the theater I'd seen it twice in, but watching it at home, it stands out. In terms of cadence and other such stuff, I'd never seen the IMAX preview outside of bad bootlegs, but I'm pretty sure you and others were right that it was changed. It's just too different from the other voices in the film to not think there was something reworked beyond just post tweaking.
I hated it. It sounded like they stuck a microphone inside the mask and used that audio. It was so detached. Not like if you were hearing it from outside.
Reply With Quote
  #918  
Old 12-07-2012, 02:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by xseanymacx View Post
I have to agree with the post above me. I absolutely agree with Postmaster in that it seemed very abrupt, but I personally don't need to know how Bats got back. Shit, it would've been very disappointing if he didn't
I think there weren't many scenes in between there and it might have been a matter of those scenes all feeling kind of cut short. I'd commented on this since seeing the movie first and it held up when watching at home yesterday, but the transition from Gordon and Co. doing their thing, then to Catwoman, and then Wayne showed up - it all kind of felt rushed to me. It was just kind of this happened, this happened and this happened. That just felt out of place to me in terms of when Bruce is back.

Add to that, there was only one line that I can remember about the pit being inescapable (given by Alfred) prior to Bruce being in the pit. Then there was a lot of focus on Gotham being on lockdown - entire scenes essentially saying, "No one gets in no one gets out." So when so much time was spent watching Bruce try and try again to get out of the pit, he rises out of it and we see this city that's obviously on the other side of the world in the distance, I kind of got this feeling anticipation.

Now, I didn't need to see a journey as if he was going to throw a ring into the fire of Mordor, but I think instinctively I expected the journey to not feel so short. So when we go through the next scenes, only to next see him strolling down the street, it was just kind of like "Oh." So I don't know if it was even that there was a lack of showing him get back into to Gotham as much as how it felt like he'd just gotten walked back into Gotham. I'd have almost been better off had the scene with him running into Catwoman not been there and it just went straight to him rescuing Gordon, or maybe even with the burning bat symbol. It was more like the fact that it felt like we were seeing him arriving back in Gotham more than the fact that he was back in Gotham. I compare it to The Wolf in Pulp Fiction, where he hangs up the phone then the next thing we see is him showing up at Jimmy's in Toluca Lake. That was played as a visual gag. Here, I don't think we needed to really see Bruce returning because we all knew he would.

Again, I don't mind them not showing it, but there just felt like something weird, to me, with the between within him escaping and him returning. It wasn't really the feasibility for me but more that it felt rushed. It just felt like not much happened between him leaving and him returning. I think with the way Nolan took his time with so many other sections of the plot, that felt, as we're saying, abrupt.

I still enjoy the movie though - it hold up for me among the other ones and has some of my favorite moments from the trilogy. It's hard to rank it among the other two but they're all good to me.

Now that I've been talking about this - what happened to Wayne Manor during the take-over of Gotham? Did the bad guys just stay downtown and not make it out to The Palisades?

Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
I hated it. It sounded like they stuck a microphone inside the mask and used that audio. It was so detached. Not like if you were hearing it from outside.
Yeah I think the volume is just too high. There were times I was scrambling to turn down the center speaker when Bane started talking.

Last edited by The Postmaster General; 12-07-2012 at 03:02 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #919  
Old 12-07-2012, 06:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
Now that I've been talking about this - what happened to Wayne Manor during the take-over of Gotham? Did the bad guys just stay downtown and not make it out to The Palisades?
Excellent observation. Wouldn't Wayne Manor have been Bane's first target for a takeover/destruction? Especially with knowing Bruce is having to watch the news from the pit.
Reply With Quote
  #920  
Old 12-08-2012, 02:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by xseanymacx View Post
Excellent observation. Wouldn't Wayne Manor have been Bane's first target for a takeover/destruction? Especially with knowing Bruce is having to watch the news from the pit.
Holy plot hole! When I wrote that I wasn't even thinking about the fact that Bane knew Wayne was Batman.
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