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

Nervous Wreck

OU812 wrote: »

So are we to expect a nightwing movie now ?

No.

M three

Saw it last night, bit long and its slow in parts, beginning was great though, not sure if its as good as the start of the last movie when the joker robs the bank.

One think that did stick out, when the young cop is on the bridge and he's being warned against crossing by the police on the other side they tell him;
"take one step forward and we'll shoot you, take 2 steps forward and we'll blow the bridge"

How did they expect him to keep walking after they shot him the first time!

krudler

Justin10

The fight scene when Robin is starting the rescue of the policemen through the man hole.

The fight scene before Batman blows up the tunnel, was extremely poor.
It reminded me of the fight scenes years ago WHAM BOOM BAM!!!!

There was cringe parts but that imo makes it because it is after all a super hero film.
Thought the bat was a little over the top but not such a big deal.

Fago123

I've heard a few people mention the flaming bat signal and just wanted to clarify a few things:

Batman saves Gordon's life with cool little whizzing Bat-darts laced with something.
Gordon notices the flare and he tells him to "light it up".
Gordon does, throwing it on the ice.
A fiery trail leads to a massive, awesome Bat signal.
The music swells and Gotham's people know their hero has returned to try to save them.
I'm sitting in the cinema with a huge grin on my face, resisting the urge to cheer out loud and thinking "man I wish I was Batman".
Meanwhile apparently other people in the cinema are thinking things like "how did he get on the ice without breaking it?" and "would he not have better things to do with his time?".

That's extremely alien to me, I honestly hope I never watch movies like that, but each to their own I guess.

Penn

OU812 wrote: »

I assume that's where the they were going with the ending (deliberately not putting anything so no spoilers).

Would be interesting & a great transition

No.

Robin John Blake in the movie is not Dick Grayson, Jason Todd or Tim Drake. He is not "Robin" from the comics in any sense of the word. Having his birth name as Robin was only a nod to the audience. He's not becoming "Robin" the superhero, or Nightwing. It's only implied that in Nolan's bat-universe, John Blake becomes Batman since Bruce has left, which is also hinted at by Commissioner Gordon finding a repaired Bat-signal on the police building roof. But Nolan's bat-universe is over and won't be continued as DC are going to reboot the franchise to tie in with a proposed Justice League film, which means it has to be Bruce Wayne as Batman.

Nightwing is Dick Grayson, who used to be Batman's sidekick Robin.
Joseph Gordon Levitt played Robin John Blake, a completely new character.

Grimebox

Penn wrote: »

No.

Robin John Blake in the movie is not Dick Grayson, Jason Todd or Tim Drake. He is not "Robin" from the comics in any sense of the word. Having his birth name as Robin was only a nod to the audience. He's not becoming "Robin" the superhero, or Nightwing. It's only implied that in Nolan's bat-universe, John Blake becomes Batman since Bruce has left, which is also hinted at by Commissioner Gordon finding a repaired Bat-signal on the police building roof. But Nolan's bat-universe is over and won't be continued as DC are going to reboot the franchise to tie in with a proposed Justice League film, which means it has to be Bruce Wayne as Batman.

Nightwing is Dick Grayson, who used to be Batman's sidekick Robin.
Joseph Gordon Levitt played Robin John Blake, a completely new character.

To the uninitiated that is just confusing. One of the main characters is referred to by name as Robin in a ridiculous manner. He is Robin

Penn

Grimebox wrote: »

To the uninitiated that is just confusing. One of the main characters is referred to by name as Robin in a ridiculous manner. He is Robin

But surely it's obvious that even if his name is Robin, he's not going to become a superhero called "Robin." Batman even told him to use disguises to protect the people he cares about. Plus the Bat-signal Gordon found.

maximoose

Penn wrote: »

But surely it's obvious that even if his name is Robin, he's not going to become a superhero called "Robin." Batman even told him to use disguises to protect the people he cares about. Plus the Bat-signal Gordon found.

Straight after the film someone said to me "OMG, I cant wait for Batman and Robin!"

Whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosssssssshhhhhhhhhh

homerun_homer

If "Robin" takes over the mantle of Bruce Wayne (in a hypothetical post TDKR lifetime) then I wonder how well he will get on without the same money Bruce had and League of Shadows training.

Penn

homerun_homer wrote: »

If "Robin" takes over the mantle of Bruce Wayne (in a hypothetical post TDKR lifetime) then I wonder how well he will get on without the same money Bruce had and League of Shadows training.

Yeah the training was something I wondered about too, didn't even think of the money (though then again, most of the equipment already exists for him, and I wouldn't be surprised if Lucius Fox, seeing as how they were working on another Bat, was able to retake control of Wayne Enterprises and would now work with Blake).

Grimebox

maximoose wrote: »

Straight after the film someone said to me "OMG, I cant wait for Batman and Robin!"

Whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosssssssshhhhhhhhhh

Coming to that conclusion isn't that far fetched

maximoose

Grimebox wrote: »

Coming to that conclusion isn't that far fetched

IMO it is. It's hardly likely to happen when it would completely undermine and not tie in at all with the story of this film.

Penn

Grimebox wrote: »

Coming to that conclusion isn't that far fetched

It is when the original Batman (Bruce Wayne) is largely believed to be dead and has retired from the hero stuff, and is now living a peaceful life with Selina Kyle. That's the whole point of the film.

IamMetaldave

jaykhunter wrote: »

That's awesome, that's what I want to hear. For me Batman Begins got worse on second watch and better on third watch (something that's never happened before) and I'm hoping TDKR gets better which each subsequent viewing.

Well, I can tell you after seeing it 8 times now that it was as awesome last night as it was the first time (obviously not jumping up and down as much as I know what's coming).

I absolutely love this film. By far my favourite of the trilogy.

Off to London BFI on Friday week to see it in IMAX and can't wait

Also, I'm probably over thinking this, but anyone else notice when Bane kicks Batman off the walkway in the first fight that there's a gong of a bell sound? Like; For Whom the Bell Tolls, the old way of when someone has died in a town they ring the church bell? (Over analyzed????).

johnny_ultimate

This is what happens when you trust your audience

The Robin reference is little more than a quick gag: a wink and nod to the fans after Nolan promising Robin would never be in the films. The thematic and narrative arc of the film should make it abundantly clear that he has been groomed to take up the mantle of caped crusader.

iColdFusion

The way it ended I think him becoming Nightwing is a strong possibility, after all Batman is now the martyr hero who saved Gotham:

"You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain"


Plus Nightwing sounds cool :cool:

Proxy

Fago123 wrote:

Meanwhile apparently other people in the cinema are thinking things like "how did he get on the ice without breaking it?" and "would he not have better things to do with his time?".

That's extremely alien to me, I honestly hope I never watch movies like that, but each to their own I guess.

To me the enjoyment of a film is entirely in that. Think of the time and work put into these movies. It's an appreciation of the art to try to view them with a critical eye.

Also, particularly in the area of comic book movies, there is a huge community behind each character. Batman is important to a lot of people, and they generally feel owed a quality movie experience. For some, this delivered; for others (like me), it didn't, and they were disappointed. Hence, the polarised views and arguments often seen

jpm4

Fago123 wrote: »

I've heard a few people mention the flaming bat signal and just wanted to clarify a few things:

Batman saves Gordon's life with cool little whizzing Bat-darts laced with something.
Gordon notices the flare and he tells him to "light it up".
Gordon does, throwing it on the ice.
A fiery trail leads to a massive, awesome Bat signal.
The music swells and Gotham's people know their hero has returned to try to save them.
I'm sitting in the cinema with a huge grin on my face, resisting the urge to cheer out loud and thinking "man I wish I was Batman".
Meanwhile apparently other people in the cinema are thinking things like "how did he get on the ice without breaking it?" and "would he not have better things to do with his time?".

That's extremely alien to me, I honestly hope I never watch movies like that, but each to their own I guess.

You've actually kinda hit the nail on the head there, as regards the polarisation of opinion on this film. You either buy into this kinda thing or you don't, and it seems most people do. You go in and cheer for Batman, enjoy the action scenes, appreciate the high production values, good actors and a passable script, the gloss of intelligence about the whole thing. The odds of Nolan dropping the ball on this completey were miniscule, so if you liked the other films you were almost certain to like this. Any flaws can be ignored.

But if this just another film to you and you basically don't really give much of a s**t about Batman, then yeah you are going to focus on things that don't make sense, plot holes, convoluted story lines whatever else because at the end of the day seeing Batman doing his thing isn't enough. But it is for most.

Mitch Connor

Fago123 wrote: »

I've heard a few people mention the flaming bat signal and just wanted to clarify a few things:

Batman saves Gordon's life with cool little whizzing Bat-darts laced with something.
Gordon notices the flare and he tells him to "light it up".
Gordon does, throwing it on the ice.
A fiery trail leads to a massive, awesome Bat signal.
The music swells and Gotham's people know their hero has returned to try to save them.
I'm sitting in the cinema with a huge grin on my face, resisting the urge to cheer out loud and thinking "man I wish I was Batman".
Meanwhile apparently other people in the cinema are thinking things like "how did he get on the ice without breaking it?" and "would he not have better things to do with his time?".

That's extremely alien to me, I honestly hope I never watch movies like that, but each to their own I guess.

I did think it was awesome at the time, and also that it was a bit odd - but I think the symbol was required.

The people of Gotham were beaten and hopeless at this point, the police felt impotent - they needed a symbol to rally behind again. Batman would, of course, provide this by simply being there, but only to people who see him. The symbol alerts all of Gotham to his return - as well as Bane himself. You see Bane shocked at the symbol, and possibly shaken.

The time it would have taken to do is a little odd in the circumstances, but I can see the reason for doing it as well.

Grimebox

Penn wrote: »

It is when the original Batman (Bruce Wayne) is largely believed to be dead and has retired from the hero stuff, and is now living a peaceful life with Selina Kyle. That's the whole point of the film.

Bruce Wayne is utterly bound by duty. He could easily come back if some super criminal appeared in Gotham again. Do you really think he would just sit back and watch the city burn?

I know as well as you do that this is Nolan's last Batman so a "Batman and Robin" type film is impossible, but to those that didn't know that, it could easily take place within this universe.

OU812

I wanna see a nightlong movie now. They may have just been teasing it, but I bet JGL has a contract. Exec produced by CN & maybe directed by an up & coming director.

OU812

^ Nightwing

Damn autocorrect

splashthecash

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Watched it today and was very disappointed. It was boring in parts, Michael Caine would not stop crying, I couldn't understand half of what Bane was saying, too many plot holes, too many orphans.

Of all the nit-picking posts - the above is the first one to say that there were too many orphans....I haven't heard that before hahaha!

Turtyturd

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Just noticed a subtle thing in the movie.

As we all know, at one point in the movie Gordon says the triggerman deal is all crap as he believes bane wouldnt trust someone with that.

But prior to this, Bane wasnt carrying the detonator in the two explosions he caused (underneath wayne enterprises and the football field / underground tunnels) Both times he gustured for someone to pass him the detonator then he detonated.


To me this looks like a sublte indication from Nolan to sharp viewers that the triggerman is indeed real while watching the movie first time around.

Anyone agree?

There is a big difference between trusting someone to hold the detonator for to small pieces of the overall plan and holding the detonator that is essential to his grand plan.

As for all this Robin talk.............

Otacon

Grimebox wrote: »

Bruce Wayne is utterly bound by duty. He could easily come back if some super criminal appeared in Gotham again. Do you really think he would just sit back and watch the city burn?

Why do you think he left Blake with instructions on how to get to the Batcave?

A point brought up throughout the Nolan trilogy is that Batman is a symbol and can be anyone. In the entire second movie, Bruce wants to stop being Batman and leave the city in the hands of a hero 'without a mask'. When Rachel gets killed, he realises Gotham still needs Batman as men are corruptable. When Blake comes along, his prayers are answered and he gets to have a life and move on.

I think people are getting caught up in how these movies tie up with the overall Batman universe. Personally, I treat these movies as a standalone trilogy.

Penn

Grimebox wrote: »

Bruce Wayne is utterly bound by duty. He could easily come back if some super criminal appeared in Gotham again. Do you really think he would just sit back and watch the city burn?

No, but that's why he came back in this movie. But his journey in this film led him to a place where he could pass off the responsibility to someone he could trust, and enjoy his life and retire. Obviously, since he's alive he could come back for another film, but the film points to the complete opposite; that he won't come back and has retired. Again, that's the whole point of the movie. That's Bruce's character arc.

Grimebox wrote: »

I know as well as you do that this is Nolan's last Batman so a "Batman and Robin" type film is impossible, but to those that didn't know that, it could easily take place within this universe.

If Blake got into trouble as Batman and Gotham was in danger, maybe he would come back. But again, this movie in no way points to that happening. Anyone who thinks a Batman and Robin movie is possible with Bale as Batman and Levitt as Robin a) did not understand this movie and b) came up with that conclusion on their own, as this was not hinted at in any way in the film.

Grimebox

Otacon wrote: »

Why do you think he left Blake with instructions on how to get to the Batcave?

I actually completely missed that. I thought he just went searching around Wayne's property till he found it

WatchWolf

Would I be allowed to post the screenplay for it here?

al28283

WatchWolf wrote: »

Would I be allowed to post the screenplay for it here?

why would you do that