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

Sad Professor

Re: the absence of the Joker

This film would have gained nothing by his presence IMO. He would only have been a distraction. The Batman/Joker dynamic is totally played out in TDK. Part of what I loved about Nolan's whole game theory take on it was that ultimately it is a battle without end. Neither Batman or Joker can win, because as the Joker says at the end "this is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object". What we see at the end of TDK is equilibrium. Batman can't beat the Joker, all he can do is lock him up and hope he never gets out. For this reason I don't think the Joker would have been a suitable foe for the third film.

And even though the Joker is never mentioned in TDKR, I still feel like the events of TDK hang like a shadow over much of the film. Rachel's death, the lie about Harvey, the 8 years of peace based on that lie, Bruce's psychological state, it's all largely down to the Joker. Even the social upheaval caused by Bane upon revealing the truth by Harvey seems to have been predicted by the Joker at the end of TDK. So the Joker doesn't need mentioning. Everyone remembers him and what he did.

faceman

Catwoman was a very 2 dimensional character that really served no purpose other than to become the closest thing to a Tim Burton Batman character that we have seen. Everytime she spoke I cringed.

Bane was also non sensical. To me his strength came from his physical strength and his perceived lack of fear of dying. However the ending showed him up to be what he actually was, a man who did not handle the issues of his upbringing probably. His desire for revenge on Batman by "killing him anyway" and him, well, crying. That was a :rolleyes: moment for me.

Batman was very off the wall. It was if the previous movie never happened. Where was all his cunning, wits and intelligence. He was more Incredible Hulk in his character, wanting to smash every thing.

And speaking of which, the fisticuffs were cringeworthy in the film. Batman does not perform well in a fight. It looked awful.

But these points are just touching the surface. In the previous 2 films, there was an underlying theme with the movies. This was noticeably absent from this film and the film suffered as a result. Instead we got too much of trying to cram everything in and fit the story around it which is why the ending suffered as a result. If you are asked to sum up in a line or a word what this film is about, its difficult to do. Batman evolved in each film bar this one. The first film Wayne learns who he is, who Batman is and comes to terms with it. The second film, he learns his limitations and comes to grip with chaos and the lack of control. This time round, there is no development.

I still think its an ok film but its a poor Christopher Nolan film.

Handsome Bob

Squ wrote: »

Can a mod split this tread into

"i have seen the film and want to discuss all aspects of it"

And

"zomg, dat is d best movie eeeevvvvveeerrrr and all d haterz can go and fúck demselves!!!!!!1!!"

It's by no means perfect, I had my own problems with it:

1. Bane's anti-climatic death, I thought that the character deserved more.
2. Talia reveal didn't quite carry the same weight as Ra's' in BB, but I did like the twist of her being the actual one who climbed the pit.
3. I didn't like that what inspired Bruce to rise from the pit was basically wanting to take back the city. I wanted him to rise for himself, rather than solely for the city. I know that the ending suggested that he did rise for himself, but I wanted him to say it.
4. The bomb, yeah, wasn't terribly excited by the whole thing, mostly because I knew where it was going. Bruce's final line to Gordon while brilliant, wasn't a worthy enough interaction between the two given that Bruce was holding Gordon's hand in the hospital earlier in the film.
5. John Blake, while having a great role in the film, still don't know what I think about the ending.
6. Gordon didn't have enough of a role this time around.

homerun_homer

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

Erm, one assumes that since The Joker lived at the end of TDK and since The Scarecrow made a comeback after being freed from prison, that The Joker may have showed up? In fact, it is not too much to think that perhaps the third film would have been written very differently had Ledger not died. Who knows, but that's what I was referring to. I never said I wanted to see this, to answer your sort of question/shout. In fact, I would have rathered he not come back, so the rest of your post is a waste. My point was that, without a Ledger-esque performance, the third was never going to reach those heights. That is all. Still, to address your subsequent text, I think the third was like a half-baked attempt at mixing the first (fall from grace, and comeback) and the second (a seemingly unstoppable, ruthless baddie). So yeah, it was a rehash.

A way of looking at it is that Arkham asylum wasn't on the main island of Gotham. In Begins they shut off access to it by raising the bridge and Raas used the train to get the machine to the main part of gotham in an attempt to destroy the city. Therefore for DKR you would believe Joker is in Arkham and not affected by Banes plans and breaking prisoners out.

As for Crane, he may have been put in regluar jail after being caught in DKR or maybe since he was mainly a drug dealer got out in the meantime. He wasn't privy to Raas' plans to destroy Gotham, he believed he would hold it to ransom.

krudler

Sad Professor wrote: »

Re: the absence of the Joker

This film would have gained nothing by his presence IMO. He would only have been a distraction. The Batman/Joker dynamic is totally played out in TDK. Part of what I loved about Nolan's whole game theory take on it was that ultimately it is a battle without end. Neither Batman or Joker can win, because as the Joker says at the end "this is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object". What we see at the end of TDK is equilibrium. Batman can't beat the Joker, all he can do is lock him up and hope he never gets out. For this reason I don't think the Joker would have been a suitable foe for the third film.

And even though the Joker is never mentioned in TDKR, I still feel like the events of TDK hang like a shadow over much of the film. Rachel's death, the lie about Harvey, the 8 years of peace based on that lie, Bruce's psychological state, it's all largely down to the Joker. Even the social upheaval caused by Bane upon revealing the truth by Harvey seems to have been predicted by the Joker at the end of TDK. So the Joker doesn't need mentioning. Everyone remembers him and what he did.

Zactly, I love the final scene between Bats and The Joker in TDK "You won't kill me out of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness. And I won't kill you because you're just too much fun..." It sums up their relationship brilliantly. Its done really well in Arkham City as well when (game spoiler for anyone who's not played it yet)

Joker is about to die and Batman tells him that "Even after all you've done, I still would have saved you"

Its a genuine pity that Ledger's death meant we'd never get to see that incarnation of that superb character again.

longhalloween

How did Bruce not know who Bane was? I mean he trained with the League of Shadows for years, Ra's Al Ghul was his mentor and no one told him about either Bane or Talia?

phil1nj

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

Erm, one assumes that since The Joker lived at the end of TDK and since The Scarecrow made a comeback after being freed from prison, that The Joker may have showed up? .

There's your problem.

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

In fact, it is not too much to think that perhaps the third film would have been written very differently had Ledger not died. Who knows, but that's what I was referring to. .

You're right no-one will ever know considering what happened. But as I 've said before on this thread most of the critics of TDKR can't help but bring up teh Joker when it comes to criticisng the choice of villains in this movie (you even did it in a round about way yourself). The Scarecrows cameo makes a lot more sense due to the fact that he was working for the LOS in BB and was seen at the start of TDK as a low level drug dealer.

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

I never said I wanted to see this, to answer your sort of question/shout. .

Who's shouting?

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

In fact, I would have rathered he not come back, so the rest of your post is a waste. My point was that, without a Ledger-esque performance, the third was never going to reach those heights. That is all. Still, to address your subsequent text, I think the third was like a half-baked attempt at mixing the first (fall from grace, and comeback) and the second (a seemingly unstoppable, ruthless baddie). So yeah, it was a rehash.

I disagree about your interpretation of BBs by the way (where exactly was the fall from grace?). Bruce Wayne suffers an indiscribeable tradgedy and decides to wander the earth to try and understadn crime/evil as part of a bigger plan (takes almost an hour for him to start to become Batman). His past then comes back to bite him on the arse, cue subsequent mayhem and distruction and victory and on to the next story.

Sorry, it looks to me like despite what you said, you had higher expectations of TDKR and were disappointed with the end result, fair enough. Like I said each to their own but I disagree with your opinion but I'm not going to tell you you're wrong either.

krudler

longhalloween wrote: »

How did Bruce not know who Bane was? I mean he trained with the League of Shadows for years, Ra's Al Ghul was his mentor and no one told him about either Bane or Talia?

Ah now, the league probably has loads of members, Ra's does say he had a wife, his "one great love" or something, just because he does't say "I had a wife, oh and kid who is living in prison, and there's this guy who took a shine to her and he's now a mask wearing badass" you can't retcon everything just because they didn't write that into Begins knowing this is where the story would go, I'd imagine Nolan only even went with Bane after Ledger's death meant they couldnt have the Joker back in any capacity, I don't think he was done with the character.

homerun_homer

longhalloween wrote: »

How did Bruce not know who Bane was? I mean he trained with the League of Shadows for years, Ra's Al Ghul was his mentor and no one told him about either Bane or Talia?

Years? It was never established in the movie that he was with the League of Shadows for years. He was absent from Gotham and from any contact with anyone for years while doing his uncovering the minds of the criminal underworld thing, but doesn't mean he was training for years.

Chazz Michael Michaels

phil1nj wrote: »

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

Erm, one assumes that since The Joker lived at the end of TDK and since The Scarecrow made a comeback after being freed from prison, that The Joker may have showed up? .

There's your problem.

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

In fact, it is not too much to think that perhaps the third film would have been written very differently had Ledger not died. Who knows, but that's what I was referring to. .

You're right no-one will ever know considering what happened. But as I 've said before on this thread most of the critics of TDKR can't help but bring up teh Joker when it comes to criticisng the choice of villains in this movie (you even did it in a round about way yourself). The Scarecrows cameo makes a lot more sense due to the fact that he was working for the LOS in BB and was seen at the start of TDK as a low level drug dealer.

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

I never said I wanted to see this, to answer your sort of question/shout. .

Who's shouting?

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

In fact, I would have rathered he not come back, so the rest of your post is a waste. My point was that, without a Ledger-esque performance, the third was never going to reach those heights. That is all. Still, to address your subsequent text, I think the third was like a half-baked attempt at mixing the first (fall from grace, and comeback) and the second (a seemingly unstoppable, ruthless baddie). So yeah, it was a rehash.

I disagree about your interpretation of BBs by the way (where exactly was the fall from grace?). Bruce Wayne suffers an indiscribeable tradgedy and decides to wander the earth to try and understadn crime/evil as part of a bigger plan (takes almost an hour for him to start to become Batman). His past then comes back to bite him on the arse, cue subsequent mayhem and distruction and victory and on to the next story.

Sorry, it looks to me like despite what you said, you had higher expectations of TDKR and were disappointed with the end result, fair enough. Like I said each to their own but I disagree with your opinion but I'm not going to tell you you're wrong either.

Erm, he starts BB (chronologically) as a privledged child and at his lowest point ends up scrambling around the dirt in a Chinese prison. Yeah, not a fall from grace, he was 'finding himself'. Only when Ras found him, did BW 'find himself' and he began his (spiritual) climb upwards.

TDKR, another fall, another prison, another comeback. Lazy.

Handsome Bob

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

Erm, he starts BB (chronologically) as a privledged child and at his lowest point ends up scrambling around the dirt in a Chinese prison. Yeah, not a fall from grace, he was 'finding himself'. Only when Ras found him, did BW 'find himself' and he began his (spiritual) climb upwards.

TDKR, another fall, another prison, another comeback. Lazy.

Bruce never really found himself in BB, he found a way to challenge his pain and resources for good, but never actually learned how to effectively deal with his pain and grief and to move on.

johnny_ultimate

faceman wrote: »

But these points are just touching the surface. In the previous 2 films, there was an underlying theme with the movies. This was noticeably absent from this film and the film suffered as a result. Instead we got too much of trying to cram everything in and fit the story around it which is why the ending suffered as a result. If you are asked to sum up in a line or a word what this film is about, its difficult to do. Batman evolved in each film bar this one. The first film Wayne learns who he is, who Batman is and comes to terms with it. The second film, he learns his limitations and comes to grip with chaos and the lack of control. This time round, there is no development.

Sorry, I can't agree with that comment at all. There's a crystal clear thematic and character arc in this film - in fact, I'd say it's the single most interesting, brilliant thing about it. It's a direct continuation of TDK for Wayne - forced to don the bat suit one more time for the greater good. After eight years, Batman is finally the hero Gotham needs right now (as explicitly alluded to by Gordon at the conclusion of the last film). And he also manages to find a way to have the icon continue to exist, even in his retirement - and that whole plan, revealed in the final minutes is one that allows to viewer to reinterpret Wayne's motivations and actions throughout - to get 'Robin' to take up the mantle of caped crusader is a beautiful illustrator of Wayne's intelligence.

As for summing up the themes and narrative trajectory in one word? Well, it's right there at the end of the title

As a film about Bruce Wayne and Batman, I can only firmly disagree with the suggestion that this was a failure.

phil1nj

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

Erm, he starts BB (chronologically) as a privledged child and at his lowest point ends up scrambling around the dirt in a Chinese prison. Yeah, not a fall from grace, he was 'finding himself'. Only when Ras found him, did BW 'find himself' and he began his (spiritual) climb upwards.

TDKR, another fall, another prison, another comeback. Lazy.

Jesus wept, we could do this all day. He was in prison by choice in BB begins (wanting to understand the minds of criminals and all that hokem). He came to the attention of the LOS and then started to become the Batman with his newly acquired skills.

TDKR, Bane puts him in prison, broken and with a direct line to the suffering of Gotham's citizens. What was he suppossed to do, kill him (no movie there), keep him in a box in Gotham somewhere (boring) or put him in the worst (well as bad as a 12A movie would let Chris Nolan show) prison which was described as hell on earth with a damaged back and a broken spirit (TDKR)?

Like I said, you're coming across as someone who saw a bad movie (why you think it's a bad movie has been well documented) but maybe it's because your expectations were a tad too high after TDK. That is all.

jaykhunter

Hey did Bane/Talia mention why the League of Shadows are back to burn Gotham to the ground? Just wondering since Gotham seemed to be doing pretty well for itself since the end of TDK.

Professey Chin

jaykhunter wrote: »

Hey did Bane/Talia mention why the League of Shadows are back to burn Gotham to the ground? Just wondering since Gotham seemed to be doing pretty well for itself since the end of TDK.

Because its all built on lies & corruption but the balance of power still stayed with all the wealthy

Nervous Wreck

jaykhunter wrote: »

Hey did Bane/Talia mention why the League of Shadows are back to burn Gotham to the ground? Just wondering since Gotham seemed to be doing pretty well for itself since the end of TDK.

Cos Gotham had achieved 8 years of peace that were based on a lie.

Jimmy Iovine

Kiith wrote: »

You'd need 3 thread.

1. Reasonable - "I saw it and want to discuss it."
2. Fanboy - "It was brilliant, everyone else is wrong."
3. Wannabe film critic - "Why didnt they get on their stomach and spread their weight out on the ice to survive..."

I was actually thinking that during the film. Maybe I should become a film critic now.

conorhal

jaykhunter wrote: »

It seems for every person "nit-picking" in the thread there's one person with a pot on their head, clanging it saying "no! no! no! no! it was absolutely perfect! shut up shut up shut up"

To deny some people that there are some flaws, or things people didn't think was great, is ridiculous.

I refer to it as ‘Phantom Menace Psychosis’ , there are some poor bastards that have spent years in therapy, just to get to a place where they can admit to themselves that even the Ewoks sh1t all over Jar-Jar…


I thought TDKR was pretty disappointing.
The film felt like Nolan had gotten bored by number 3 and just wanted to end it expediently.
The writing was lazy (action, exposition, action, exposition), the plot awful (nuke with a big digital count-down) and the action uninspired (all a bit Biff! Bam! Wallop!).
It lacked any real emotional core, paid some pedestrian lip services to greater themes that it left unexplored and felt like there were at least a dozen scenes that Nolan either cut or just couldn’t be bothered films and said instead, ‘ah we’ll just have Alfred give another expositionary speech to join up the dots’.
It wasn’t terrible, it wasn’t great, it was just pretty ‘meh’ and I found my attention wandering.. a lot.

jaykhunter

The Great Chinholio wrote: »

Because its all built on lies & corruption but the balance of power still stayed with all the wealthy

Cheers to both of u! And did they come back when Gotham was about to implode on itself (without their help) or were they just a bit cheesed off Gotham has managed to hold itself together even if it was hollow?

Ellian

I loved the film but one thing that disappointed me - especially given the title was that I never got a moment in it, the hero moment that makes my heart leapt like salmon. Best example I can give is in Batman Begins where the bridges have been lifted, Gordon is on the radio and person on the other end says something like "no-one is coming" and then the Tumbler comes roaring up, and leaps the chasm leaving everyone standing around in awe. The closest the film came to was Batman's reappearance, but overall I thought that was an opportunity wasted.

Professey Chin

jaykhunter wrote: »

Cheers to both of u! And did they come back when Gotham was about to implode on itself (without their help) or were they just a bit cheesed off Gotham has managed to hold itself together even if it was hollow?

It was their influence that seemed to be making gotham start to implode from what I could see. Id imagine they were pissed off though since they had tried to bring it down twice already without success

Professey Chin

Ellian wrote: »

I loved the film but one thing that disappointed me - especially given the title was that I never got a moment in it, the hero moment that makes my heart leapt like salmon. Best example I can give is in Batman Begins where the bridges have been lifted, Gordon is on the radio and person on the other end says something like "no-one is coming" and then the Tumbler comes roaring up, and leaps the chasm leaving everyone standing around in awe. The closest the film came to was Batman's reappearance, but overall I thought that was an opportunity wasted.

I thought the tunnel scene & the bat symbol on the bridge worked pretty well. I would agree for the most part though. (Im a sucker for those kinda entrances)

Newaglish

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Cos Gotham had achieved 8 years of peace that were based on a lie.

I thought Bane didn't know that until he read Commisioner Gordon's letter?

Professey Chin

Newaglish wrote: »

I thought Bane didn't know that until he read Commisioner Gordon's letter?

I think they knew something wasnt right about it(knowing batmans sense of justice didnt match up with what he took the blame for) but having Gordons own words would be much more effective then making claims without backup

krudler

The Great Chinholio wrote: »

It was their influence that seemed to be making gotham start to implode from what I could see. Id imagine they were pissed off though since they had tried to bring it down twice already without success

and especially since the whole reason for Ra's wanting to take down Gotham is that its corrupt and full of scum, now its no longer that thanks to Batman sooo, why the hating on Gotham? Talia wanting to kill Batman to avenger her dad, fine with that, but why take down a city for no reason? if its just to annoy Batman then that's pretty fcuking elaborate. thats why the Talia reveal is a contradiction of sorts, if Bane wanted to destroy Batman by ruining Gotham then thats one thing, but she's fulfilling her fathers plan which is now rendered pointless because Gotham is safe and no longer run by organised crime.

CerebralCortex

I was thrilled by Batman's desperate fight against Bane, pretty much made the movie for me or how he brazenly avoids the cops at his first reappearance.

hatrickpatrick

I was thinking about the ice thing as well, but actually weren't they given something like 8 minutes to get across? Crawling on your stomach would have taken a lot longer than that, and if I'm right about the 8 minutes thing they were going to be shot if they hadn't made it by the end of the time limit.

Chazz Michael Michaels

Aisia wept, this thread is eating my day away, so I'm out. In summary:

BB: Fall, rise, redemption - awesome
TDKR: Fall, rise, redemption - yawn

I will leave the fanboys to it.

Professey Chin

krudler wrote: »

and especially since the whole reason for Ra's wanting to take down Gotham is that its corrupt and full of scum, now its no longer that thanks to Batman sooo, why the hating on Gotham? Talia wanting to kill Batman to avenger her dad, fine with that, but why take down a city for no reason? if its just to annoy Batman then that's pretty fcuking elaborate. thats why the Talia reveal is a contradiction of sorts, if Bane wanted to destroy Batman by ruining Gotham then thats one thing, but she's fulfilling her fathers plan which is now rendered pointless because Gotham is safe and no longer run by organised crime.

Because its still full of scum to them. All powerful CEOs and politicians controlling so much while people more just live poor.
It was always going to have Occupy Wall Street echos and its why the rich were put on trial when they took control

Triangla

jaykhunter wrote: »

Hey did Bane/Talia mention why the League of Shadows are back to burn Gotham to the ground? Just wondering since Gotham seemed to be doing pretty well for itself since the end of TDK.

I thought this was Talia just seeking revenge against the person who killed her father.

It wasn't a League of Shadows operation as such.

It was a pity there were no fights in the prison. It would have been good to see BW built himself up and have to fight to even climb the wall.

The amount of time & money spent on the film I expected a lot more. I think they crammed two films into one for some reason. I would liked to have seen Bane wreaking havoc in the city running Batman ragged and end with him seemingly broken and then had the 'rises' aspect in a seperate film.

Along the lines of the KnightSaga comic book series.

It wasn't bad though, the only part I thought was silly was when Batman let himself be led into a trap by Selina. That was just really out of character, deathwish or not.