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

hightower1

The Great Chinholio wrote: »

He managed to disappear pretty well in Begins. Police didnt even recognise his name when he was caught robbing the Wayne Enterprises stuff. Only Ra's knew who he was (partly to convince him that he could teach him to become even more invisible)

As I stated above there was nothing in BB that showed the LOS were monitoring his movements so even in a backwater prison in china someone tipped off the LOS. In the ending of TDKR he is in Florance which I think you'll agree is far more developed, connected and more westernized than China. If you wanted to drop off the grid and were a high profile eccentric playboy celebrity billionaire you certainly wouldnt go to Florance thb.

It was clearly a last min scene forced into the movie to manufacture a happy ending scene for WB. It made no common sense. Look at the scene where mr fox find out the auto pilot was fixed by bruce months before... ending the movie there would have been far more nolan like ending and would have left questions like "did he die in the blast on purpose" like alfred said he wanted "or did he truly eject and vanish".

MrStuffins

hightower1 wrote: »

As I stated above there was nothing in BB that showed the LOS were monitoring his movements.....

There was also nothing in the movie that showed Cillian Murphy in Medical School, does that mean Dr. Jonathan Crane wasn't a doctor?

johnny_ultimate

Increasingly tempted to add 'no nitpicking' rule to charter [/madwithpower]

hightower1

Sad Professor wrote: »

If everyone knew he was in China, then why was he declared dead back in Gotham? Ra's found Bruce because he was probably looking for him.

So Ra's was looking for a man declared dead and the movie never at any point shows or even hints at this supposed fact? Come on, your clutching at straws now.

hightower1

e_e wrote: »

Again, not a plot hole. What's to stop him just forming a new identity elsewhere?

The fact that he looks like himself....the eccentric famous playboy billionaire Brice wayne. Its like saying why didnt steve jobs fake his death and go into hiding all while still looking exactly as he always did. Someone will recognize you if you dont change your appearance , stay out of public view and avoid all major cities / 1st world countries. Three things which are common sense , three things the movie decides to ignore for the sake of a happy ending scene that wasnt needed

Sad Professor

hightower1 wrote: »

It was clearly a last min scene forced into the movie to manufacture a happy ending scene for WB. It made no common sense. L

Then why was it in the script? And in the novelisation? And why is it clearly set up earlier in the film?

jaykhunter

Going by replies on the film thread, after the "What have you watched recently thread" which is a few hundred of 10,000; TDKR's two threads combined have over 5,500 posts about it and over 350,000 views. I wonder if this the most talked about film in boards.ie history then. Nolan must be doing something right

MrStuffins

jaykhunter wrote: »

Going by replies on the film thread, after the "What have you watched recently thread" which is a few hundred of 10,000; TDKR's two threads combined have over 5,500 posts about it and over 350,000 views. I wonder if this the most talked about film in boards.ie history then. Nolan must be doing something right

I hate this logic I really do!

hightower1

Sad Professor wrote: »

Then why was it in the script? And in the novelisation? And why is it clearly set up earlier in the film?

One can theorize that the original cut didnt include the set up and the final scene. Perhaps he was asked to have a final scene that was more obvious and a happier ending with ambiguity where the audience could decide what happened.

I think all can agree the ending of TDKR was very much not nolans usual style and seemed off, ending the movie on the auto pilot fixed scene would have been far more his MO... also the scene immediately before the actual ending of the movie.

Professey Chin

hightower1 wrote: »

As I stated above there was nothing in BB that showed the LOS were monitoring his movements so even in a backwater prison in china someone tipped off the LOS. In the ending of TDKR he is in Florance which I think you'll agree is far more developed, connected and more westernized than China. If you wanted to drop off the grid and were a high profile eccentric playboy celebrity billionaire you certainly wouldnt go to Florance thb.

Why not? His parents death prevented the LOS original economic plan to bring down Gotham & Ras said that he wanted Bruce to lead the new attack on it. Gothams favourite son bringing justice to it.
And why not Florence? ive never seen an Italian give a sh!t about american billionaires. Even Zuckerburg went around italy recently reletively painlessly and everyone knew he was there. Bruce has made it all over the world without being recognised (in TDK he was standing in the middle of Hong Kong taking pictures when he was supposed to be in the Gulf), why is 1 day that we know of in Florence so hard to believe?

johnny_ultimate

hightower1 wrote: »

One can theorize that the original cut didnt include the set up and the final scene. Perhaps he was asked to have a final scene that was more obvious and a happier ending with ambiguity where the audience could decide what happened.

I think all can agree the ending of TDKR was very much not nolans usual style and seemed off, ending the movie on the auto pilot fixed scene would have been far more his MO... also the scene immediately before the actual ending of the movie.

Isn't the scene immediately before the actual ending the scene in Florence?

The actual ending - and the beautifully apt one - is 'Robin' rising on the platform. A more appropriate cut to black I cannot imagine.

Barring a single shot, the ending is otherwise pitch perfect.

jaykhunter

jaykhunter wrote: »

Going by replies on the film thread, after the "What have you watched recently thread" which is a few hundred of 10,000; TDKR's two threads combined have over 5,500 posts about it and over 350,000 views. I wonder if this the most talked about film in boards.ie history then. Nolan must be doing something right

MrStuffins wrote: »

I hate this logic I really do!

Why? Care to mention another way to quantify boards' discussion on a particular film then, or is this just a mean hit and run comment?

K-9

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Also, here's an interesting read: http://mubi.com/notebook/posts/the-big-murk-a-conversation-about-christopher-nolans-the-dark-knight-rises With many people criticising the film for supposed plot holes, it's interesting to read opinions from hardcore cinephiles. Unfortunately, several of them seemed to have been expecting a Bela Tarr film rather than a $250 million spectacle movie, but it's a curious, in-depth read despite the regular lashings of pretension.

Jaysus a lot of political waffle in that. Personally I saw a good middle ground depicted, the lies of Wall Street, you fear mob rule as well, mob rule wins out, legal safeguards are disposable, and politicians will sell out morality for the "greater good". Torchwood "Children of Earth" did a better job at depicting how expendable people are, given the right circumstances.

I think there's a stab at Socialism and Libertarianism in there!

MrStuffins

jaykhunter wrote: »

Why? Care to mention another way to quantify boards' discussion on a particular film then, or is this just a mean hit and run comment?

Sorry dude, I didn't mean to be mean. Sorry if it came across that way.

But discussion, IMO, doesn't necessarily mean Nolan (or anyone) is doing something right. (See the Prometheus thread).

it's like when you get those vapid idiots who say "Love me or hate me, you're talking about me".

Yes, i'm talking about how much of a brainless moron you are!

Mickeroo

jaykhunter wrote: »

Why? Care to mention another way to quantify boards' discussion on a particular film then, or is this just a mean hit and run comment?

I think he means the whole "he must be doing something right if everyone's talking about it" line of thinking.

johnny_ultimate

K-9 wrote: »

Jaysus a lot of political waffle in that. Personally I saw a good middle ground depicted, the lies of Wall Street, you fear mob rule as well, mob rule wins out, legal safeguards are disposable, and politicians will sell out morality for the "greater good". Torchwood "Children of Earth" did a better job at depicting how expendable people are, given the right circumstances.

I think there's a stab at Socialism and Libertarianism in there!

The major problem with the article, although well articulated and clearly from knowledgeable people, is that they seem to ignore the basic reality of crafting a film of this scale and are expecting another The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. Of course a film that cost this much money isn't going to be a bold political analogy - that's not what it is. IMO, it's great that Nolan has made a film that actually attempts to integrate the basic social iconography of the moment. Trying to make a political statement in the process could have actively soured that. I didn't go to see TDKR as a liberal or conservative fantasy - I wanted an intelligent superhero film, and that's what I got.

DB21

Just with the whole "What if Bruce was spotted in Italy?" thing; People claim they've seen famous dead people alive and well (Elvis for example). What happens though? Their version of events is chalked up to being a lunatic who's seeing things. Someone in the Nolan-verse saying they saw Bruce Wayne, a man confirmed by GCPD and witnesses to be dead, strolling around Italy in broad daylight would likely get the same reaction.

tony1kenobi

Bruce bought that coffee shop in Florence and he owned every person in it.

amacca

tony1kenobi wrote: »

Bruce bought that coffee shop in Florence and he owned every person in it.

We just missed the bit where he ordered two tables to be put together and himself, alfred and selina + bruces helper monkey sat in awkward silence while Alfred totally revised his opinion of master Bruce and considers him to be a bit of a socially inept bolox now :pac:

tony1kenobi

He certainly has form for those sort of shenanigans.

Sad Professor

Can everyone please lay off the snipping, the sarcasm and the general hostility. There's been several warnings about this already. We're going to start handing out bans next.

It's a polarising film. It worked for some people, it didn't work for others. Stop acting like children.

From this point on, posts that aren't about the film or feature comments that might derail the thread will be deleted. If you want to engage in petty verbal attacks on each other, do it via PM.

Proxy

Came out of second viewing last night (I was trying to like it), and had to try and write out my disappointment, to figure out why I didn't like it so much:

John Blake: Just 'knowing' BW was Batman, cause he looked at him funny once. Seriously, that scene was one of the most cringeworthy, lazy scenes I've ever scene in a movie. Also "you should use your first name" - LAME. That said, I liked the end scene with him going into the cave and "Rising" to become the Batman. Overall, probably too much of a significant character to introduce in film 3.

Miranda/Talia: Surprisingly bad acting, and she did that really annoying villain thing of explaining everything she did or was going to do. And she didn't seem any way... villainous? At least Bane seemed like a evil force, a genuine villain.

Bane: Voice was a bit... I don't know. I liked it in parts and hated it in others, sounded like a Victorian Rumpole of the Bailey type voice... I was waiting for him to come out with "Well I put it to YOU kind sir...". Liked his scenes with Batman. First fight; brilliant. No music, just thuds and brute force. Second fight; almost as good, a bit clichéd in the way he just arrives and strolls back up to Bane through a crowd of supposed armed and dangerous criminals, but I liked how in fighting him he capitalises a weakness and both individuals gradually show the frustration build up. But then again, another deux ex machina, Selina shows up on the Batpod and boom, gone, whatever.... Nick of time!

MacGuffins galore: the bomb, the bomb signal blocker, the Bat, the bat autopilot, the "Clean Slate", even the EMP weapons. It was like they were proofing the script, found plotholes, so made up a little deux ex device to plug the gaps.

The plot itself... it was a mess. Bloated and full of those weak, "Gotham must be saved"/"I found the strength to do X" points. What is this, Power Rangers?

The stupid out of place one-liners: "My mother warned me about getting into cars with strange men" WHILE RUNNING FROM MACHINE GUN HOLDING INTERNATIONAL TERRORISTS.

Overall, it was like a bad Bond movie where Bond ran around in a mask and cape. Very disappointed.

Grimebox

Proxy wrote: »

Came out of second viewing last night (I was trying to like it), and had to try and write out my disappointment, to figure out why I didn't like it so much:

John Blake: Just 'knowing' BW was Batman, cause he looked at him funny once. Seriously, that scene was one of the most cringeworthy, lazy scenes I've ever scene in a movie. Also "you should use your first name" - LAME. That said, I liked the end scene with him going into the cave and "Rising" to become the Batman. Overall, probably too much of a significant character to introduce in film 3.

Miranda/Talia: Surprisingly bad acting, and she did that really annoying villain thing of explaining everything she did or was going to do. And she didn't seem any way... villainous? At least Bane seemed like a evil force, a genuine villain.

Bane: Voice was a bit... I don't know. I liked it in parts and hated it in others, sounded like a Victorian Rumpole of the Bailey type voice... I was waiting for him to come out with "Well I put it to YOU kind sir...". Liked his scenes with Batman. First fight; brilliant. No music, just thuds and brute force. Second fight; almost as good, a bit clichéd in the way he just arrives and strolls back up to Bane through a crowd of supposed armed and dangerous criminals, but I liked how in fighting him he capitalises a weakness and both individuals gradually show the frustration build up. But then again, another deux ex machina, Selina shows up on the Batpod and boom, gone, whatever.... Nick of time!

MacGuffins galore: the bomb, the bomb signal blocker, the Bat, the bat autopilot, the "Clean Slate", even the EMP weapons. It was like they were proofing the script, found plotholes, so made up a little deux ex device to plug the gaps.

The plot itself... it was a mess. Bloated and full of those weak, "Gotham must be saved"/"I found the strength to do X" points. What is this, Power Rangers?

The stupid out of place one-liners: "My mother warned me about getting into cars with strange men" WHILE RUNNING FROM MACHINE GUN HOLDING INTERNATIONAL TERRORISTS.

Overall, it was like a bad Bond movie where Bond ran around in a mask and cape. Very disappointed.

All that said, do you think the film still holds merit? Disappointed is a relative term.

I completely agree with everything you say but still think that the film was good. Very flawed, forgettable but fun action film. I just feel like I've been playing devil advocate to the people referring to the film as the second coming.

al28283

Bane "Ah, you've come back to die with your city"
Batman "No, I've come back to stop you"

:rolleyes:

splashthecash

There was a few clunky lines dotted here and there, a handfuls of dubious plot choices but overall, I really enjoyed the film....I need to watch it a second time but it is by no means a dud, on the other side of the coin it is not a masterpiece.

P.S. I watched it in the iSense...good sound but I wouldn't go out of my way to see a film in there again (which is what I did)....the Savoy and Cineworld are good enough for me. Don't know what all the fuss is about to be honest

Otacon

al28283 wrote: »

Bane "Ah, you've come back to die with your city"
Batman "No, I've come back to stop you"

:rolleyes:

Joker "You've got a little fight in you. I like that."
Batman "Then you're going to love me."

Despite these movies being of a higher class, they are still action blockbusters and a few cheesy one-liners are not going to ruin them TBH.

splashthecash

Otacon wrote: »

Joker "You've got a little fight in you. I like that."
Batman "Then you're going to love me."

Despite these movies being of a higher class, they are still action blockbusters and a few cheesy one-liners are not going to ruin them TBH.

I like that line!.....what I always found funny is the thought of batman waiting in the wings, hiding and then slowly sneaking up to the joker, standing up and then delivering the line thinking to himself..."i hope he says "a little fight in ye, i like that" cos i have this killer line ready".

Scanlas The 2nd

I thought the first hour or so was perfect. ( up until bane fight). The fact almost every single police officer was trapped underground was ridiculous and far too convenient. The pit was great as was the ending including seeing Bruce and Selina, perfect. Bane's tumblers were destroyed far too easily in the final action sequence.

Grimebox

Otacon wrote: »

Joker "You've got a little fight in you. I like that."
Batman "Then you're going to love me."

Despite these movies being of a higher class, they are still action blockbusters and a few cheesy one-liners are not going to ruin them TBH.

That line is better though.

As a whole the screenplay was somewhat in TDKR. A lot of the dialogue felt like the audience were being directly told something. It felt lazy and fake at times.

Mickeroo

Grimebox wrote: »

That line is better though.

As a whole the screenplay was somewhat in TDKR. A lot of the dialogue felt like the audience were being directly told something. It felt lazy and fake at times.

There was some clunky exposition now and then. The scene where Fox is explaining the situation to the undercover special forces guys was particularly bad, fox would say something then Blake would basically repeat it in simpler language. it was along the lines of:

Fox: The core will will become unstable to the point of detonation.

Blake: That means its a timebomb.

etc.

I just felt like they were trying to spell it out to the audience a bit too much in that scene, its not like the situation was hard to understand in the first place, reminded me of Ellen Paige in Inception. Still thought the film was awesome though