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

Turtyturd

Fishooks12 wrote: »

Name me a comic book film where the lead character dies. It was a typical hollywood hogwash ending where you think for a second he may have died only for him to emerge alive

300....2 of the Sin City stories.

Tipsy McSwagger

It was the same old shyte that is in every comic book movie. Hero gets beaten to a pulp halfway through the movie and then miraculously recovers to beat the villain at the end. TDKR was a massive letdown. I wanted to kill Michael Caine with his overacting 'I'm sorry Master Bruce wah wah', Catwoman was suddenly an expert at driving the bat bike thingy?, let's put every cop in the sewers (wasn't Bane's layer about 50 feet from the bar where Catwoman got stung), a bus full of orphans not allowed to cross the bridge nearly made me puke. When Batman helped the third rock from the sun kid near the end there was a fight and one of the thugs was pointing a gun right at Batman but didn't shoot, why not? It was overlong, boring in parts and a bit crap really.

astrofool

Fishooks12 wrote: »

I felt they should have killed him. But instead they pandered to the masses and gave the hollywood popcorn ending. I thought Nolan should have killed him, but hey, that's an opinion

I don't think Nolan would have pandered to anyone, the sub-text with Albert has been there since Batman Begins, it was setup to happen this way, killing him would have been the cliché in this instance.

But, seeing as this is a trilogy with no sequel, you can just imagine he died and be happy.

I mean, Armageddon did it, and it was a deep profound movie, wasn't it?

krudler

Fishooks12 wrote: »

I felt they should have killed him. But instead they pandered to the masses and gave the hollywood popcorn ending. I thought Nolan should have killed him, but hey, that's an opinion

But it wasnt pandering, Nolan has said they had the idea of where the series would end mapped out years ago. Killing him for the sake of it would have just made it pointless.

Mickeroo

krudler wrote: »

But it wasnt pandering, Nolan has said they had the idea of where the series would end mapped out years ago. Killing him for the sake of it would have just made it pointless.

The ending makes perfect sense because of the themes of the entire trilogy and not to mention Bruce's character arch.

Also if someone can argue that the ending of this was in any way ambiguous then they could probably argue that the ending of LITERALLY EVERY FILM EVER MADE was ambiguous. Sure Kevin actually dies of hypothermia in central park in Home Alone 2, what we saw in the film was all a dream :pac:

johnROSS

I think some people need to remember that, while it is a very serious movie and all, a huge profit will be made from the sale of merchandise. Which is mostly sold to kids. I reckon Christopher Nolan would have loved to kill off Batman/Bruce, but the men in suits and " somebody think of the children!" over-PC people who are in charge couldn't allow him to do that. It's a shame, but until Tarantino directs a Batman movie, it's the way things are gonna be.


Also, imagine a Tarantino Batman movie? That would be brilliant. :pac:

WatchWolf

johnROSS wrote: »

I think some people need to remember that, while it is a very serious movie and all, a huge profit will be made from the sale of merchandise. Which is mostly sold to kids. I reckon Christopher Nolan would have loved to kill off Batman/Bruce, but the men in suits and " somebody think of the children!" over-PC people who are in charge couldn't allow him to do that. It's a shame, but until Tarantino directs a Batman movie, it's the way things are gonna be.


Also, imagine a Tarantino Batman movie? That would be brilliant. :pac:

I honestly doubt that the studios have very much control over Nolan's films. They gave him a huge budget to make Inception for Christ's sake.

Bruce faking his death is directly emulated from the classic Frank Miller comic "The Dark Knight Returns". It was the logical step for Nolan to end his film in the same way, as it perfectly accomplished Bruce Wayne's primary story arch.

And a Tarantino Batman makes about as much sense as a G-rated porno.

Liam O

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

It was the same old shyte that is in every comic book movie. Hero gets beaten to a pulp halfway through the movie and then miraculously recovers to beat the villain at the end. TDKR was a massive letdown. I wanted to kill Michael Caine with his overacting 'I'm sorry Master Bruce wah wah', Catwoman was suddenly an expert at driving the bat bike thingy?, let's put every cop in the sewers (wasn't Bane's layer about 50 feet from the bar where Catwoman got stung), a bus full of orphans not allowed to cross the bridge nearly made me puke. When Batman helped the third rock from the sun kid near the end there was a fight and one of the thugs was pointing a gun right at Batman but didn't shoot, why not? It was overlong, boring in parts and a bit crap really.

you're telling me that when Alfred was making that gut wrenching speech to Bruce about Rachel all you could think was "wow Michael Caine is really overacting here", really?

Nitpicking that Catwoman can drive the bike after having it for about 2 hours is a bit ridiculous too.

A random thug pointing a gun at Batman and didn't fire? Have you ever seen movie henchmen? It's like complaining that the stormtroopers didn't kill all the main characters in Star Wars tbh.

First person I've heard say it's overlong too.

Toby Take a Bow

johnROSS wrote: »

I think some people need to remember that, while it is a very serious movie and all, a huge profit will be made from the sale of merchandise. Which is mostly sold to kids.

And yet they 'let' him make the darkest of the Batman films? Very strange way to aim your product at children.

And if the kids liked the darkness of Nolan's Batman films, surely they would've been okay with him dying in the end?

Nevermind that much of Batman's journey in Nolan's films (especially at the end of the last one/beginning of this one) is a return from the suicidal/death wish that he has. To have him killed in the end would actually have more of a meh or huh feeling.

I think people just think it would be 'cool' for Batman to get killed, they don't really care that it wouldn't make sense in a narrative sense.

fluke

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

And yet they 'let' him make the darkest of the Batman films? Very strange way to aim your product at children.

And if the kids liked the darkness of Nolan's Batman films, surely they would've been okay with him dying in the end?

Nevermind that much of Batman's journey in Nolan's films (especially at the end of the last one/beginning of this one) is a return from the suicidal/death wish that he has. To have him killed in the end would actually have more of a meh or huh feeling.

I think people just think it would be 'cool' for Batman to get killed, they don't really care that it wouldn't make sense in a narrative sense.

Exactly, this poster gets it. To those who think he should have died, look at the film again (and the others if you wish) and look at the moments between Alfred and Bruce and listen to the discussion. Alfred wants Bruce to realise he can’t do this forever and Bruce feels like he can’t move on. Eventually the opportunity comes for Bruce to do that while in the process allowing Batman to be redeemed and become a symbol of hope. If he dies then this film and the other two are undermined.

Also if he dies then it’s a real downer, really you’ll be watching Batman Begins thinking yeah well he dies in the end.. I don’t get some of the posters here – they don’t want him to come out at the other end okay. Plus if he died that would have meant Alfred failed him and his parents. Personally I wanted him to be alive for his sake and for Alfred, and that Alfred realises he’s alive means it’s the icing on the cake.

krudler

not TDKR related but thought this was very cool:

Stabshauptmann

DesperateDan wrote: »

You do realise that it should be open to interpretation right?

Well I now see why your name is "desperate" Dan.

Nolan would've noticed that the chances of Alfred realising his previous vision of seeing Wayne across the table in a small European cafe, catwoman being there and the three of them living happily ever after are rather slim/wishful thinking.

He may have noticed it, I wish he had had the back bone not to allow it to come to fruition, but that is the garbage that ended up on the screen.

It is more likely to have been another vision/dream of Alfred's, or one of Wayne's from the afterlife?

More likely? No, I dont think so.
Its not "one of Waynes from the afterlife". Thats just not in keeping with the film. And for it to be one of Alfreds, you'd need to have that character on screen before the vision sequence.

Under no circumstances would Warner Bros. allow Batman to die on-screen after three movies, the general populace would be pissed. Nolan got as close as he could though, the studio is happy, the fans that think he shouldn't have survived are happy, and the "happily-ever-after" fans are content in one fell swoop.

Well, no, because as you can see in this thread, there are a lot of people not happy. The ending blew.

OMARS_COMING_

The scene when all the police march with battons against banes army who have guns........what happened there? maybe i missed abit but how did they manage to get into a fist fight?

krudler

OMARS_COMING_ wrote: »

The scene when all the police march with battons against banes army who have guns........what happened there? maybe i missed abit but how did they manage to get into a fist fight?

some of the cops have guns you can see them using their sidearms as they run.

al28283

OMARS_COMING_ wrote: »

The scene when all the police march with battons against banes army who have guns........what happened there? maybe i missed abit but how did they manage to get into a fist fight?

no, you didn't miss anything. they just glossed over it, very lazy

krudler

al28283 wrote: »

no, you didn't miss anything. they just glossed over it, very lazy

they didnt gloss over anything, the cops charge the mercenaries, a load of them get shot, some are firing back with their pistols, they make it to where the mercs are and start laying into them, its not purely a fistfight you see cops using guns in it, sure Matthew Modine is firing an assault rifle in parts of it, the action just moves to Bane v Batman.

Tipsy McSwagger

Its a ridiculous scene. There's around 50 mercs with automatic rifles and they only kill around 12 cops.

Mickeroo

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Its a ridiculous scene. There's around 50 mercs with automatic rifles and they only kill around 12 cops.

There was 34 police officers killed.

Turtyturd

Mickeroo wrote: »

There was 34 police officers killed.

I can't wait till their story gets turned into a movie.;)

JJJJNR

Had a few hours to kill on Friday and went to see this, want my 2hrs 45mins back please.. shockingly bad.

iColdFusion

fluke wrote: »

Exactly, this poster gets it. To those who think he should have died, look at the film again (and the others if you wish) and look at the moments between Alfred and Bruce and listen to the discussion. Alfred wants Bruce to realise he can’t do this forever and Bruce feels like he can’t move on. Eventually the opportunity comes for Bruce to do that while in the process allowing Batman to be redeemed and become a symbol of hope. If he dies then this film and the other two are undermined.

Also if he dies then it’s a real downer, really you’ll be watching Batman Begins thinking yeah well he dies in the end.. I don’t get some of the posters here – they don’t want him to come out at the other end okay. Plus if he died that would have meant Alfred failed him and his parents. Personally I wanted him to be alive for his sake and for Alfred, and that Alfred realises he’s alive means it’s the icing on the cake.

Its the implications of Bruce Waynes true character that ruined the ending for me:

The first two movies he's determined to fight injustice at all costs, protect the weak & those close to him and basically honour his parents legacy by making sure no-one has to suffer the loss of their loved one's the way he has.
He is willing to die for what he believes in and that is the Batman I cheered for.

The start of Rises had me a bit angry that he has just given up on all that but I guess the loss of Rachael and Dent ruined his future plans and he broke.
Understandable, he is far more "human" that most other superheroes.

Then he gets reborn in the Pit and its a full return to character, he rushes back into the fray to rescue the people and city he swore to protect.
"You go kick some ass Mr Batman!!" I think.


And then it turns out for half the film he has been plotting to not only abandon all his closest friends but make them think he's dead.
What sort of cruel, sick, selfish b*stard does that!?

To add insult to injury he's doing it to run off with the woman he's known for 5 minutes and in that time has bankrupted him, betrayed him to his arch enemy, left him to rot in prison and STILL refused to help him against Bane!
You get the feeling it was 50/50 between Talia or Catwoman.

He could have easily killed off Batman, reclaimed his fortune with help from Catwoman and then retired as Bruce Wayne while training Robin as his replacement but instead I'm left watching Batman Begins shouting at Alfred to leave just leave the asshat in the burning mansion :pac:


I don't think I would have had a problem with him dying as it would have added significance to Robin taking over and the whole autopilot mention would have been a nice red herring.

MJ23

astrofool wrote: »

I don't think Nolan would have pandered to anyone, the sub-text with Albert has been there since Batman Begins, it was setup to happen this way, killing him would have been the cliché in this instance.

Who is Albert ?

Mickeroo

iColdFusion wrote: »

Its the implications of Bruce Waynes true character that ruined the ending for me:

The first two movies he's determined to fight injustice at all costs, protect the weak & those close to him and basically honour his parents legacy by making sure no-one has to suffer the loss of their loved one's the way he has.
He is willing to die for what he believes in and that is the Batman I cheered for.

The start of Rises had me a bit angry that he has just given up on all that but I guess the loss of Rachael and Dent ruined his future plans and he broke.
Understandable, he is far more "human" that most other superheroes.

Then he gets reborn in the Pit and its a full return to character, he rushes back into the fray to rescue the people and city he swore to protect.
"You go kick some ass Mr Batman!!" I think.


And then it turns out for half the film he has been plotting to not only abandon all his closest friends but make them think he's dead.
What sort of cruel, sick, selfish b*stard does that!?

To add insult to injury he's doing it to run off with the woman he's known for 5 minutes and in that time has bankrupted him, betrayed him to his arch enemy, left him to rot in prison and STILL refused to help him against Bane!
You get the feeling it was 50/50 between Talia or Catwoman.

He could have easily killed off Batman, reclaimed his fortune with help from Catwoman and then retired as Bruce Wayne while training Robin as his replacement but instead I'm left watching Batman Begins shouting at Alfred to leave just leave the asshat in the burning mansion :pac:


I don't think I would have had a problem with him dying as it would have added significance to Robin taking over and the whole autopilot mention would have been a nice red herring.

But the whole point of him hanging up his cape at the end of this is that his character has changed since Batman begins, the whole story of his character is him learning to accept that he doesn't have to give his life for gotham, that he's done enough and can fully get over his parent's murder and get on with his life.

I get where you're coming from though, they could have gone a route of Batman being a complete fanatic to his cause and sacrificing himself completely, but they really haven't been working towards that in this trilogy. He intended to quit ever since Batman Begins, was ready to do it in TDK too. For him to have given himself over at the end of this would have meant BB and TDK being fairly different portrayals of Batman to what they are.

I suppose they could have done it in a way where he could stay living as Bruce Wayne but I think everyone thinking he's dead ties in better with how alfred was saying that he hoped he would never come back to gotham before the events of Begins. I think him living a normal life in Gotham would be impossible anyway as he would never be fully free of Batman then which is why I thought it made more sense for him to dissappear in this manner.

I'm not bothered about him running off with Catwoman, she was never portrayed as evil or a full on villain in the film and redeemed herself at the end quite a bit by risking being blown up by the bomb when she could have saved herself.

Sad Professor

More posts have been deleted.

Once again, if you can't show respect for opinions that differ from your own, then please refrain from posting in this thread. Calling other users "fanboys", "delusional", "trolls", or other insults, because they hold views about the film different from your own is not acceptable. If you are unable to discuss the film without engaging in petty insults, then please go away, you are not welcome here.

ancapailldorcha

Do people think that the film would have better if they added scenes to cover the holes, like a scene with Bruce's accountant regarding various worldwide bank accounts? Grant a few things were a bit ridiculous like Bruce recovering from injuries but I thought a lot of the "holes" disappeared with a bit of thinking.
On another note, I've very tempted to go see it again. Does it really get better with the second viewing.

al28283

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Do people think that the film would have better if they added scenes to cover the holes, like a scene with Bruce's accountant regarding various worldwide bank accounts? Grant a few things were a bit ridiculous like Bruce recovering from injuries but I thought a lot of the "holes" disappeared with a bit of thinking.
On another note, I've very tempted to go see it again. Does it really get better with the second viewing.

I'd like know how Gordon knew the guy in the sewers was bane, and why he thought he was so evil. And how Alfred seemed to know more about Bane and the secret society LoS than the CIA. And how Blake found Gordon after the sewers. Lots of things really

senordingdong

My ultimate thought on the movie was that it was all very dull.

I loved BB and was a huge critic of TDK and this film was definitely a huge change of pace. I can overlook the obvious, Christopher Nolan plot issues/conflicts but as a whole the film had no real pacing to the story.

It had a very long beginning, no middle, and then an end crammed into the last ten minutes.
A major problem with TDK was that the story constantly jumped from one dramatic crisis to another, whereas TDKR just stumbled clumsily around the core crisis of a madman with a nuke - a very weak crisis for a Batman film.

And then that brings me to Bane. I think he was a poor decision for an enemy and it was really difficult to feel any threat from him, not just because of his mask and hammy voice, but his intentions were cloudy and why he did much of what he did was not made particularly clear.

Selina Kyle had great potential but was very under-utilised. Gary Oldman didn't feature much either and far too much time was devoted to Banes back story. Hans Zimmer churned out another disappointing recycled score and the film was hugely lacking in Batman.

The highlight for me was Batmans short lived return scene from the start and their decision to drop the Bat-voice.

And with this trilogy allegedly concluded, I'm left with the opinion that Michael Cains Alfred was the best character throughout, he was the only character that consistently delivered a top performance and the only character with some actually provocative and thoughtful dialogue.

Turtyturd

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Do people think that the film would have better if they added scenes to cover the holes, like a scene with Bruce's accountant regarding various worldwide bank accounts?

Forget that, what's really missing is a 20 minute scene where Bruce thumbs a lift just outside the pit, followed by an hour of an awkward journey to the airport with sparse Arabic dialogue* specific to the region the Pit is located in. Followed by a plane trip etc,.




*Dialogue will be between Bruce and the guy who picks him up, and there will also be a flashback to the Batman Begins era showing Bruce in a class learning the language for those unable to piece things together for themselves.

Turtyturd

al28283 wrote: »

I'd like know how Gordon knew the guy in the sewers was bane, and why he thought he was so evil. And how Alfred seemed to know more about Bane and the secret society LoS than the CIA. And how Blake found Gordon after the sewers. Lots of things really

To be fair if you are missing stuff like that the movie isn't the problem.

Mickeroo

al28283 wrote: »

I'd like know how Gordon knew the guy in the sewers was bane, and why he thought he was so evil. And how Alfred seemed to know more about Bane and the secret society LoS than the CIA. And how Blake found Gordon after the sewers. Lots of things really

Blake found Gordon because he came out the same place as the dead kid from the orphanage.

As for Alfred knowing about Bane, I guess its from his military background, Bane seems to be a pretty infamous gun for hire within the film, Aiden Gillan's CIA agent had heard of him too. Alfred's knowledge of LoS comes from Bruce(who was a member) and the events of the first film.

Gordon thinking Bane was evil, witnessing him ruthlessly killing one of his own men would have helped.