The Dark Knight Rises - seen thread *SPOILERS WITHIN* See Mod Warning in first post

krudler

the guy who played Harvey Dent was rubbish.

eh, what? Aaron Eckhart was fantastic in that role.

Professey Chin

brianregan09 wrote: »

I haven't seen it mentioned here but how come in 5 months of no Batman Bane or any of his goons never thought to dismantle all Batmans stuff , I mean his gone for 5 months and his Bat/Plane is still in the exact same place he left it, WTF like, Surely they'd have guards or somthing at least near it, same with his batsuit , I mean they were running the city, Surely the smaller details would have been covered especially as the Batman was probaly the only thing that could foil there plans, I suppose Bane thought he was feiced after the beating he gave him but still I would have obliterated burned every thing belong to him in front of the people too to make them even more downhearted lol

They didnt know about the batcaves or how to get to them?

FortuneChip

Dirkvoodoo, fully agree with you.

Wayne hoped that his "Batman" would inspire people to stand up against injustice etc, and he saw something in Blake in the final movie, and really pushed his idea forward.

I think the use of the name "Robin" was just for a little tongue in cheek on Nolan's part. He said the character Robin wouldn't be in the trilogy and it's not.
I don't think the ending serves as an indication that there will be a future series, I think it was very conclusive. One can't expect that there will no longer be crime because Batman got rid of Bane & co, but the people of Gotham know that Batman saved the day, and is still watching over them. The only difference is that Batman is now Blake, not Bruce

johnny_ultimate

Give it back to Joel Schumacher, I say. Firstly, it means we can all ignore it. Secondly, it will re-emphasise how great the Nolan interpretations were. And thirdly it will lose the studio a ****load of money and relegate the franchise to obscurity, at least for another half decade or so.

Everyone's a winner! Except that guy who doesn't read the Internet and unknowingly purchases a ticket. And the studio who will lose lots of money. Em.. possibly the cinemas too. But yeah, apart from that, success!

FortuneChip wrote:

I think the use of the name "Robin" was just for a little tongue in cheek on Nolan's part

I'd agree with this: it's little more than a jokey reference to the character in light of his continued rejection of adding Robin. I can't see anyone who was paying attention to the films' thematic arcs being confused about his actual place in the narrative.

al28283

brianregan09 wrote: »

I haven't seen it mentioned here but how come in 5 months of no Batman Bane or any of his goons never thought to dismantle all Batmans stuff , I mean his gone for 5 months and his Bat/Plane is still in the exact same place he left it, WTF like, Surely they'd have guards or somthing at least near it, same with his batsuit , I mean they were running the city, Surely the smaller details would have been covered especially as the Batman was probaly the only thing that could foil there plans, I suppose Bane thought he was feiced after the beating he gave him but still I would have obliterated burned every thing belong to him in front of the people too to make them even more downhearted lol

I don't thinki Wayne Manor or the Batcave is in the city. It's outside somewhere, not on the island

stakey

Got back from London last night where I caught this in the IMAX in the BFI. So much to say, but overall I thoroughly enjoyed this film, it did everything I hoped it would.

Just back to the IMAX, the future Mrs.Stakey got this as an anniversary treat after I made an off remark about wanting to see it on IMAX last year. Kudos to her, she remembered and I'm glad she did. This was my first IMAX movie and I was completely bowled over by the experience. The sheer size of the screen is astonishing, the IMAX scenes are engrossing.

I can see why Nolan loves this format so much, the action sequences especially that opening set are jaw dropping in scale. When I think of movies I've seen in 3D over the last few months, such as Prometheus I just think, wasted, completely wasted. I should've seen that on IMAX.

On the film itself, this was a perfect ending to the trilogy, I felt it really brought this story to a fitting close. It wouldn't be a film if I didn't have any gripes but they're minor. I feel Bane's intelligence could've been fleshed out a little more. But overall Hardy did a brilliant job portraying his prowess and emotions through mostly physical acting.

To me Talia's character was the most disappointing, whilst I enjoyed her character and how they used her I think they just went a little too far pushing her to the side so the viewer wouldn't suspect who she was. The result being her interactions with Bruce felt a little rushed and maybe even forced.

Gordon could have had a little more redemption, he carried a huge burden and lost his family to his dedication to Gotham. Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Anne Hathaway were amazing and pulled off an extraordinary job placing their characters in this universe so well.

Caine and Bale stole the show though, the performances by both were phenomenal. This truly was Bruce Wayne's story and as another poster mentioned it shows the importance of symbolism and having an idol to look up to. Something that Bruce Wayne vied to create from the onset.

The ending could have ended at the nod and I can look past that, some people just need the extra push to make sure they know it's not a dream

Overall I think people will prefer TDK to TDKR, but I feel that's due to how much back story had to be fleshed out for some characters to properly conclude the story. TDK has the benefit of not requiring a back story for the Joker just the premise that "some people just want to watch the world burn".

Kinski

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Give it back to Joel Schumacher, I say. Firstly, it means we can all ignore it. Secondly, it will re-emphasise how great the Nolan interpretations were. And thirdly it will lose the studio a ****load of money and relegate the franchise to obscurity, at least for another half decade or so.

Everyone's a winner! Except that guy who doesn't read the Internet and unknowingly purchases a ticket. And the studio who will lose lots of money. Em.. possibly the cinemas too. But yeah, apart from that, success!

Just like with Star Wars prequels...I mean, nobody went to the other two after the first one turned out ****, right? I think Mark Kermode's blockbuster formula comes into play here: big name star + breathtaking FX + newsworthy budget - comedic genre = virtually certain success. The griping of internet cinebuffs would count for little.

phil1nj

spankmaster2000 wrote: »

Considering the fact that Scarecrow even made an (unnecessary) reappearance; I'd have appreciated a throwaway line regarding the Joker at the very least.
i.e. "...we haven't seen anything like this since the Joker", etc...
His existence isn't even mentioned once; which I thought was unusual.

I quite enjoyed the Scarecrow's appearance in the TDKR. I did wonder though when I saw it, would Heath Ledger's Joker have been the "Judge" in this scene had things not taken such a tragic turn for him in real life? That's not to take away from Cillian Murphy's take on The Scarecrow but it's one of those great "what might have been" scenarios. But as another poster here mentioned already, out of repect for him, Chris Nolan said that there would be no mention of the Joker anywhere in the TDKR which, when all is said and done, is ultimately the case.

I also think people would have assumed that Joker was in Arkham Asylum which (depending on what you use for a source) is not actually on the same island as Gotham city, so it would have been spared the onslaught from Bane and TLOS. I go along with the other posters way of thinking that the Blackgate prison break stood in for Arkham in TDKR.

johnny_ultimate

Kinski wrote: »

Just like with Star Wars prequels...I mean, nobody went to the other two after the first one turned out ****, right? I think Mark Kermode's blockbuster formula comes into play here: big name star + breathtaking FX + newsworthy budget - comedic genre = virtually certain success. The griping of internet cinebuffs would count for little.

As I've said before, I have no beef with how they reboot Batman. I'm happy with what we got, and couldn't care less what happens with the franchise after this (sometimes with a good thing you just have to say "no more"). If we get another good version - perhaps some tonally different but intriguing take on the character - then fair enough. But nor do I particularly care if the next film is a load of nonsense.

Perhaps whatever comes next will make obscene money, bollocks or not. But I think the Dark Knight trilogy captured the wider imagination in an almost completely unique way. I fully expect this film to shatter box office records. For once, I think the absence of a director might actually negatively impact later box office receipts - Nolan's name is one of the few that actively sells a film to a huge audience. James Cameron is arguably the only other, and maybe Peter Jackson (although The Lovely Bones didn't do gangbuster...)

But as you said people went to see Star Wars and Transformers 3. If the next Batman is a steaming turd though, I don't care. This trilogy is far better than we could ever have expected ten years ago. Hopefully Nolan and other directors will instead go on to give other series - god forbid, some purely original ideas too - the care Batman had lavished upon it for three films.

Professey Chin

Blackgate was always separate from Arkham. Its just the main prison while Arkham holds the loons

I'm pretty sure The Joker wouldn't have been in this at all. He plays second fiddle to no-one.

"How much do you want?"
"Half."

I can't even see Bane et al letting him out as he is completely uncontrollable and could possibly inadvertently sully their plans. Scarecrow however, was already aligned with the league and never the man in charge.

DirkVoodoo

I would be disappointed if Nolan bowed to studio pressure. He seems more concerned with artistic integrity to me. Sure, WB could try and keep the universe alive themselves, but with a different director, what would be the point? Nolan also developed a strong rapport with the central cast and actors he has used before (Hardy, Gordon-Levitt, etc.), it would be hard for a new director to get the same out of them.

I can't see why they would continue in Nolan's world without Nolan, it would be doomed to failure. The movie going public are not idiots and a "Nolan-eaque" sequel without him at the helm would certainly turn people off forking out their hard earned money for what would be an obvious studio cash-in.

Anyway, came across this, I'm sure it's been posted before but I'm not trawling through 45 pages to make sure:

http://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/fall-speculating-batmans-fate-dark-knight-rises/

Well written piece on the overarching themes of Nolan's Batman and why the ending we got was the best possible ending we could have got. As for Alfred looking at the camera, what would this achieve? Being artistic and clever for the sake of it? We know that it would mean Bruce is alive, so why not let the audience enjoy seeing Bruce Wayne finally free of all his rage and anger and happy in a new life with Selina? I certainly enjoyed that shot.

DoesNotCompute

Simeon Calm Sheepskin wrote: »

And it annoys me how the doctor fellow in the prison wouldn't speak any English until he had something profound to say.

I noticed that too, but I just shrugged it off as a throwback to Batman Begins, when Wayne is being trained, and Ken Watanabe is overlooking the training session, claps his hands, and says "impressive".

don ramo

i can somehow see nolan continuing with this series (not batman) more having a big involvement with a JLA series of films, hes made the 3 of these superb films and hes onboard as a producer for man of steel, so he has involvement in 2 of the biggest draws of a JLA film,

maybe they might make JGL robin or nighthawk but i honestly couldn't see him as a batman, hes not very physically intimidating, hed make a great side character like rhodes of black widow in the avengers/ironman, but i dont think hes a good choice for a lead in a superhero film,

i think it would be good to do a batman beyond thing with a JLA film, still use nolans verse but have someone else take up the mantle of batman a decade or so later, and have him hook up with supes

also why are people complaining about a nuclear bomb, it wasnt really about the bomb it was more what gotham was being put trough, the bomb was merely a means to an end, the city got blown half way to hell with that explosive concrete and then it was put through hell by a bunch of madmen for 5 months while the world looked on, if anything i think nolan didnt go into enough detail about the suffering of the people of gotham during those 5 months, so it doent translate just how bad things were,

tony1kenobi

Rezident wrote: »

Mssively dissappponting. Considering expectations it was the most disappointing film I've seen at cinema. The final quarter, or considering the ludicrous length maybe it was only the final tenth, was good despite the final cop out but it was mostly disappointing and there were so many huge plot holes it lost me within the first hour despite me really really wanting to love it.

Bruce the billionaire has an injured leg but doesn't go to the doctor for 8 years. And from there it got worse and worse. Too convoluted, it over reached and missed and some of the various plots were so contrived as to be risible. Massive fail. Bitterly disappointed.

He didn't go to the hospital about his leg.He went there to see Gordon.

He went to Fox to fix his leg.

homerun_homer

Jeff Jensen's column on the movie mentions that an Insider at Warner told him that 'Robin' and that ending was not a set up to continue on the franchise with JGL.

al28283

homerun_homer wrote: »

Jeff Jensen's column on the movie mentions that an Insider at Warner told him that 'Robin' and that ending was not a set up to continue on the franchise with JGL.

If WB decides to continue it they'll continue it no matter what Nolan intended

This is pretty funny:
http://charismagic.tumblr.com/day/2012/07/23

“The Dark Knight Rises” in 5 Minutes Or Less
INT. PLANE. DAY.

COUNCILMAN CARCETTI: So, Doctor Nuclear, we’ve finally caught you!

BANE: And me.

COUNCILMAN CARCETTI: I’m sorry, what? I can’t understand a word you’re-

BANE: And another bigger plane is going to make this one hang upside down and then we’ll steal Doctor Nuclear and this plane will crash and nobody will ask any questions.

COUNCILMAN CARCETTI: That seems … unnecessarily convoluted.

BANE: Oh, then it’s a good thing you’re not going to be around for the rest of the movie.

INT. WAYNE MANOR. NIGHT.

COMMISSIONER GORDON: It’s been eight years, but you’d never guess it by the way we still haven’t dealt with Harvey Dent’s death.

BRUCE WAYNE: Or Rachel’s death. I’m still super sad. Woe.

SELINA KYLE: I’m here to steal your fingerprints. And your women’s jewellery. *backflips out a window*

BRUCE WAYNE: Rachel Who??

INT. SEWERS. NIGHT

THUG: Hey boss, we caught Commissioner Gordon!

BANE: You brought me the most powerful police official in all of Gotham? This upsets me! *crushes the Thug’s throat*

COMMISSIONER GORDON: Laters! *jumps into the sewer water, gets shot in the leg*

INT. WAYNE MANOR. DAY.

JOHN ROBIN BLAKE: Hey Bruce Wayne, I totally know you’re Batman.

BRUCE WAYNE: What? How?

JOHN ROBIN BLAKE: Cos I met you once years ago and you looked sad and I thought “Batman would probably be sad, too”. Plus, you didn’t deny just now.

BRUCE WAYNE: Damn!

Click link for full article

homerun_homer

al28283 wrote: »

If WB decides to continue it they'll continue it no matter what Nolan intended

That's a given but at least for now it's apparently not the intention nor does it seem Nolan was pressured to leave it a bit open ended for their sake.

DirkVoodoo

The bat thing is annoying me. I need to see it again, but it's not a plot hole. I believe that the bat is an active project at Wayne Enterprises and not a mothballed prototype like the tumbler, nomex survival suit, etc.

The mechanics or techs, whatever they are, seem to be sitting in another prototype when Lucius walks in and asks have they fixed the autopilot. They say it was fixed a few months ago by Bruce Wayne. In a software patch.

The original Bat was destroyed, sure, but the software would not have been, it would have been stored at Wayne Enterprises.

That (very funny) piece above seems to suggest that Bane knowing Batman's identity is a plot hole. Again, no. Firstly I would believe that as the league of shadows knew his identity, so too would Talia. Her plan has been in the works for some time, moving into the Wayne Enterprises inner circle through her "green energy product" was no accident, so it's reasonable to assume she knew who Batman was after her father was killed in Gotham. Furthermore, Bane is tunnelling into the secret applied sciences division to get all of Batman's toys, a section of the company that is "completely off the books". He could only do this if he already knew the link between Bruce and Batman. Lastly, it's a nice doffing of the hat to the comics. Bane was intelligent enough to work out Batman's true identity.

Kenno90

Finally seen the movie , its safe to return to the film forums

osnola ibax

3 out of 10, thought it was truly awful, gets the crap kicked out of him by bane who then puts him in a cell with a physio and a doctor and all he had to do is climb out a hole, dirt.

Basq

osnola ivax wrote: »

all he had to do is climb out a hole, dirt.

To be fair.. he breaks his back beforehand!

al28283

Basq wrote: »

To be fair.. he breaks his back beforehand!

nah, he hurts his back. Broken backs don't heal in 5 months with a well aimed punch

DirkVoodoo

osnola ivax wrote: »

3 out of 10, thought it was truly awful, gets the crap kicked out of him by bane who then puts him in a cell with a physio and a doctor and all he had to do is climb out a hole, dirt.

I like your logic. Let's apply it to something like the Shawshank redemption, I mean let's ignore everything about criticizing a movie intelligently. Ok, here I go:

"Get's thrown into prison. Gets bummed a few times. Finally digs a hole out of the prison with a little hammer and paints a boat with Morgan Freeman. Dirt".

Fair enough you didn't like it, but if you are going to go to the trouble of posting how much you disliked it, at least back it up. Otherwise why bother posting? Facebook not working today?

Fishooks12

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

I like your logic. Let's apply it to something like the Shawshank redemption, I mean let's ignore everything about criticizing a <a class="inlineAdmedialink" href="#">movie</a> intelligently. Ok, here I go:

"Get's thrown into prison. Gets bummed a few times. Finally digs a hole out of the prison with a little hammer and paints a boat with Morgan Freeman. Dirt".

Fair enough you didn't like it, but if you are going to go to the trouble of posting how much you disliked it, at least back it up. Otherwise why bother posting? <a class="inlineAdmedialink" href="#">Facebook</a> not working today?

He didn't like the film, his opinion. He didn't exactly give great insight to his opinion but your reply was a bit hysterical

Shawshank Redemption is a hugely flawed film IMO too.

who_me

al28283 wrote: »

nah, he hurts his back. Broken backs don't heal in 5 months with a well aimed punch

Not even Bat backs?

DirkVoodoo

Fishooks12 wrote: »

He didn't like the film, his opinion. He didn't exactly give great insight to his opinion but your reply was a bit hysterical

Shawshank Redemption is a hugely flawed film IMO too.

Ah you missed the point. Opinions are yours to have, but if you are going to share it, try and make it interesting and/or challenging for everyone else. Not some childish synopsis of the movie.

Hysterical? Please...

Oscorp

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

"Get's thrown into prison. Gets bummed a few times. Finally digs a hole out of the prison with a little hammer and paints a boat with Morgan Freeman. Dirt".

I'll never be able to take that film seriously again

norrie rugger

maximoose wrote: »

I liked and disliked it :pac:

I thought she was gonna say Dick or Jean-Paul. I did like his character a lot.

Personally I would have preferred if she had said Terry tbh. The Nightwing character has too much of a backstory with Wayne.

PS I also loved the "So that's what that feels like" comment from Bats