Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Dark Knight Rises - Pre-release Discussion [** NO SPOILERS PLEASE **]
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Sorry, but I couldn't let this go.OK, so let's how TDK falls on it's arse. I'll work my way from end to beginning because the film gets worse as it goes along, but will probably flit around.
1. Batman takes the fall for several murders he did not commit. This is blatantly put in to make Batman a pariah for the follow-up film. Instead of subtly introducing this throughout the whole film, they stuff it into the last minute of the film.
But they did subtley introduce this throughout the film. After the heist we hear Engels on TV giving out about the toleration of a vigilante on Gotham's streets. Gordon's wife later screams at Batman about how he's “brought this madness on us” after Gordon's 'death'. Then, at Harvey Dent's press conference, members of the public are shouting about how he “should turn himself in.” Were you not paying attention?All that BS about 'Gotham losing faith' is complete nonsense. At no point in the film do we see any evidence suggesting that Harvey Dent is a source of inspiration for anybody.
No, what you're saying is complete nonsense. Have you forgotten the “I Believe In Harvey Dent” campaign? And that even began in the viral marketing - before the movie was even released! All the way through we keep hearing Dent being referred to as Gotham's 'White Knight' – which is a fairly obvious contrast with the title of the movie itself. (Nolan even said that 'The Dark Knight' could be a reference to Dent as much as Batman) A major set piece in the movie takes place at a fund raiser thrown by Wayne for Harvey Dent, where Wayne describes him as “the future of our city”. It's pretty clear that all the good guys are pinning their hopes on Dent from early on. Rather than no evidence of him being a source of inspiration, you could argue this part of the film is rammed down our throats!Really, Batman should always have been a pariah. He flattened several cop cars in Batman Begins, and is engaging in illegal activity by being a vigilante, and he's SHOWING UP AT CRIME SCENES IN TDK???
It's pretty clear that it's Gordon's doing alone. Not even his Major Crime officers are happy with Batman being there but they bow to Gordon's authority. Seriously though, how can you complain about this? Have you ever even seen or read another Batman comic/movie/TV show in your life? Batman and Gordon conversing at a crime scene is a basic trope of the mythology. You might as well complain about the fact that he dresses up as a bat and jumps off buildings. It kinda misses the point don't you think?2. Two-Face has no split personality. He's just pissed that his girlfriend died. So there goes one of DC's best villains and his entire character and what makes him interesting.
Em...he's a highly respected public servant and upholder of law and order one minute, then he's punching mobsters in court and playing Russian roulette with another guy as soon as he's put under a bit of pressure the next. Sounds like the actions of a schizo to me...3. The final fight. In Batman Begins, a whole cities population was going to be wiped out. Not only that, but they would do it themselves, ripping, gouging, stabbing and shooting each other. It's interesting; not cookie-cutter like 'a nuke', which seems to be where TDKR is heading
Maybe you shouldn't criticise a movie you haven't seen yet hmm?What does TDK do? Two ships with bombs on them. One loaded with murderers and rapists, and the other with a bunch of people whining that they should blow the other guys up. Am I supposed to care for either group? Which one? The rapists or the whiners?
Maybe you didn't care but that's your prerogative. The intention was for the audience to sympathise with the ordinary citizens, but Nolan pulls the rug out from under us (as is his wont) by showing them bottling it and having one of the criminals play the hero. Cos the whole theme of the film is to make us think about what it actually means to be a hero. What defines a hero? His/her actions? His words? How he is perceived by others? What's more important, the truth or the the myth? Pretty deep for a superhero movie. But clearly all this went over your head.Not to mention the fact that most people I've talked to don't even realize the Joker was lying and they actually had the trigger to their own bombs...
4. Lucius Fox. OH NO WE CAN SEE THE VAGUE SILHOUETTE OF 4 MILLION PEOPLE. BIG BROTHER MAN. I QUIT! Nonsense.
Can't really comment on this cos you don't provide much analysis.5. Rachel Dawes. Continuity man, continuity. Yes Katie Holmes is a scientologist and they are all fruitcakes, but she's hotter,
Seriously, is this your argument?a better actress (i.e. didn't play an assistant district attorney like she was playing a dumb cheerleader) and oh yeah, CONTINUITY! Write her out if she won't be recast!
It would be breaking continuity if she didn't appear. The script had already been written before Holmes dropped out. Rachel was too important a character to write out at the last minute.The ginger. Yes... blackmailing Batman. That sounds like a great idea until you say it out loud. Actually, no it sounds even scarier in my head! What was the whole point of that side story?
Cos if you were a billionaire vigilante in charge of your own multi-national corporation, someone's bound to discover your secret and take advantge of it. Part of Nolan's so-called 'realism' I would say. Later this sub-plot is integrated into the main plot when the Joker uses Reece to cause more chaos in Gotham. More skillful storytelling from the Nolan brothers IMO...Hope there are no 'asides' like that in TDKR. Except if I need to go piss or something.
Way too much of it takes place during the day. It even opens during the day.
The Joker goes through with his heist during the day cos he knows Batman only comes out at night. Also he needs the school bus on a school day to evade capture. Makes perfect sense.
For me, it's one of the clichés of the Batman mythos that everything has to occur during the night. I thought it was a bold decision of Nolan to have much of the action occur in the daytime. And you'll notice that Wayne deliberately doesn't go out as Batman during the day. During Loeb's funeral and the destruction of the hospital he goes out on a motorbike and sports car in his civvies.That incescant icky licking. Stop it Ledger. Stop.
Well, if you think about it, if you were someone who suffered a Glasgow smile (self-inflicted or not) and were left with severe scars on either side of your mouth, it's quite likely that you would develop a habit of licking the scar tissue incessantly, be it from a build up of saliva or scabbing or whatever. I think it was a brilliant acting choice by Ledger to do this, it shows how much thought he put into his performance.Oh and stop giving us regular old Joker. Give us something new.
Okay, I'll grant you your opinion that he didn't give us something new. But the consensus from the movie going public, not to mention an Oscar and countless other awards, was that it was one of the best and most original acting performances to come out of Hollywood in years. As a fan of the comics I was delighted to see a Joker performance that highlighted the psychopathic creepiness of the character rather than the old comical harlequin aspect that we've seen on screen loads of times before.Look how refreshing Murphy's Scarecrow was. The whole point of this trilogy was to make it more realistic, and have the villains we know, but have them fit into a more realistic environment, be less fantastical.
Actually,this is exactly what the Nolan brothers did. By getting rid of the gimmicky aspects of the Joker (smile toxin, acid squirting flower etc) they brought him back to basics. The Joker says it himself, he likes “gunpowder, dynamite, gasoline” and, of course, knives.The goddamn suit. The one that Lucius Fox designed to be more susceptible to knives (Joker) and gunfire (Two-Face). Wink-wink! I groaned during that dialogue.
Look up 'exposition' in the dictionary. All movies have it.Why was scarecrow even in it? Such a shame to see him as a petty drug-dealer.
And while your at it, look up 'foreshadowing' as well. The Scarecrow's scene was to show us how the 'freak' criminals that have followed in Batman's wake are now becoming part of the fabric of Gotham's underworld. In the Scarecrow's case he becomes a drug dealer. This foreshadows how the Joker later allies himself with the mob before finally taking them over for his ends. All due to Batman's influence on the city. Unintended consequences – another major theme of the movie.The way they went about capturing Joker. Elaborate much? And was it absolutely essential to that plan to fake Gordon's death? His poor feckin' wife and kid!
Eh yes? If he hadn't have faked his death, the Joker would have hit him where he was vunerable i.e. his family (like how Two-Face does later). Gordon explains all this to the Mayor later in the cell scene. Seriously, were you even listening?OK so this is gonna be how we capture the Joker. We're gonna bait him with Harvey Dent. Oh, so that burning bus in the way of our route is probably the Joker's doing, right? So, maybe we shouldn't divert into an underground tunnel? Cause maybe that's what he wants? Nah, let's go for it anyways, I don't like that helicopter with all that weaponry that's defending us, even if we have to stop to slowly go around that flaming bus.
It a burning fire engine actually. And yes, maybe the SWAT team were absolutely bricking themselves that the Joker was gonna strike at any time from anywhere and so were afraid to stop and turn back, so made a panic decision and diverted down the tunnel? Also, at this point they weren't to know that the Joker had a legion of nutball volunteers who were willing to help him run police vehicles off the streets.
Yeah, maybe none of that shouldn't have happened. Maybe we shouldn't have had a kick-ass car chase at all. We don't want that in an action film.I'm sure there's more, I'll add as I remember.
I don't think The Dark Knight is a flawless film by any means. I know plenty of people who have issues with it, and I respect their criticism as valid. Of course, it's all a matter of opinion at the end of the day. But really I don't think your arguments hold up at all, and as someone mentioned above it seem like you're just looking for things to criticise the film about to get up everyone's collective nose.0 -
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 30470
Care to elaborate? Because I thought Nolans series was supposed to be much more realistic than the comics (which is why I love BB and don't particularly care for TDK), everything I've noted does has to do with the awful screenplay, none of which are wrong, and oh; I would have loved to have been happy with the finished film. Why wouldn't I be?
Some people just wanna watch the world burn
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 30470
One thing which has been hinted at in BB but not mentioned in TDK is the new Batcave. In BB it is unfinished and not very hospitable with water dropping down everywhere(not meaning to suggest previous ones had shag pile in them or anything). At the end of BB when the mansion is destroyed by fire, Alfred suggests they "improve the foundations in the south-east wing", obviously hinting at a professionally built batcave.
Does anyone have any thoughts on whether we will get to see it? If so, what would a Nolans Batman(e.g. realistic), Batcave look like and what would be in it?
There was talk of the Turda Salt Mines in Romania being used as the new cave, don't know if it ever got confirmed or not.
0 -
-
-
oh, i can make one too!shrewdness wrote: »Honestly can't see how anyone would think Maggie Gyllenhaal is better looking than Katie Holmes tbh.
or
and i think you have completely missed the whole point of my post, i was saying you are using alot of nonsense to try to backing up that you think TDK is a bad film.
Your subjective opinion is fine (which is why I said it was an interesting read) but bashing on the vase/actress (which is something utterly insignificant in BB/TDK) to help making your points is just lame.
Troll harder or go watch Secretary.
katie holmes is generic. Maggie Gyllenhaal is a diamond.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement