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

Scanlas The 2nd

cloud493 wrote: »

Gamb!t wrote: »

Probably seeing as the Batman that got in a fight with Bane the first time had been retired for 8 years.

No, he demolishes the thugs/banes men on the roof, and in the sewers before actually fighting bane.

He could always demolish groups of men. Remember in BB he beat up a group of fellow inmates on his own before he got
Any training. So that was nothing, it doesn't suggest
One bit he was near his peak
Fighting capabilities.

Rabidlamb

nix wrote: »

What plot holes? Are you sure there are plot holes? Alot of people screaming plot holes when the reality is their observation skills are lacking and they overlooked alot from the movie...

What plot holes are you referring too?

Mickeroo wrote: »

Or what they refer to as plot holes aren't plot holes at all.

nix wrote: »

lol i know!

Nothing worse than seen a movie get slated as a result of the audience ignorance, and then people complain about being spoon fed info in a movie and wonder why it has to be done :rolleyes:

I outlined my reservations a few pages ago
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80559484&postcount=2048

That list was just off the top of my head from a single viewing weeks ago.
I loved BB & I thought TDK was perfect had it been an act shorter.
Nolan has made The Prestige & Inception which are 2 of my all-time favorites.
As for not understanding the plot of TDKR, please, it's not exactly Primer.

I wont allow a devotion to one director blind me from what is a very patchy script.
I understand I'm in the minority here as the reviews were wildly positive
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_dark_knight_rises/
I sometimes wonder if Hollywood need this film to be bigger & better than it actually is . . . "are you watching closely".

cloud493

Rabidlamb wrote: »

I outlined my reservations a few pages ago
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80559484&postcount=2048

That list was just off the top of my head from a single viewing weeks ago.
I loved BB & I thought TDK was perfect had it been an act shorter.
Nolan has made The Prestige & Inception which are 2 of my all-time favorites.
As for not understanding the plot of TDKR, please, it's not exactly Primer.

I wont allow a devotion to one director blind me from what is a very patchy script.
I understand I'm in the minority here as the reviews were wildly positive
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_dark_knight_rises/
I sometimes wonder if Hollywood need this film to be bigger & better than it actually is . . . "are you watching closely".

Caine's constant whinging - hardly whinging, he's been with this family for years and years, and he watched Bruce grow up without parents, and now he fears he'll lose Bruce in the same way Bruce lost his parents.
Clean slate being explained over and over - big point of the movie.
Wayne's lost fortune during Bane's heist - yes, but as explained, with his fingerprints, a fraud investigation would take time/
Batman having no decent toys on his belt during the fight - Which fight? The bane fight? What he's going to do, start using the explosive setter from TDK while banes breaking his spine?
Bane leaving gotham to put Bruce in a prison halfway round the world - yes, its a big thing. And they have planes y'know.
Bruce's protruding vertebrae being cured with a punch to the back & a bit of rope - its not just that, its a while of intensive effort, a significant amount of time passes before Bruce can try climbing the pit, yet alone returning to gotham
Bruce falling 30+ feet & being whiplashed by the rope on the same bad back.
- Back healed? He's batman? Where we told he had whiplash?
Bruce leaving the prison in god knows where & getting back to Gotham with no money, ID or passport. - He's batman? He's still Bruce wayne, still has assets, people to help.
Blake recognising Batman from Wayne's visit to the orphanage - Why call this a 'plothole' it was one broken kid, seeing something in another one.
How every cop went down the sewers, every cop from every shift at the same time - never actually said that. Most of the cops. Therefore, any left that didn't run would have been killed by Banes army, or tried by the court and sentenced to exile.
Stupid nuclear bomb that would blow up if anyone tried to escape but would also go off in 5 months due to radioactive decay - Hardly a plothole. Its an old enough device, hasn't been used at all.
Super duper Bane turned into a blubbering mess then getting blown away, was that it, really - serving someone he loved. Then catwoman blasts him away
Sending people out on the ice to die but that didn't bother Gordon, his cohorts or Batman who even lit a nice fire on it - what exactly could they have done? Batman was recovering./ Gordon was underground. Not much to be doing/
How nobody noticed that both Batman & Wayne died at the same time - it was assumed Wayne died in the intial takeover of gotham, being one of the upperclass
How one of the worlds most recognisable young billionaires could appear in a Piaza in Florence & not one person know it's him, no disguise, nothing - he's supposed to be dead? He just turns up in Italy, no ones going to be looking for him.

Rabidlamb

^^^^^^
Fair play for typing all that out.
I accept there's explanations for all these actions, my problem is that they don't seem logical.

I'm going to watch it again in December when it's out on DVD.
Perhaps some additional scenes would flesh out some of the jumps & problems I have with characters rationale.

bunnymunro

,,,,

ancapailldorcha

Thing is, in the comics Batman going up against a group of thugs is just a formality. He's use gas or something to incapacitate them and get to work. It wouldn't make for much viewing if he tasered Bane to end it right away.

Mark Hamill

fluke wrote: »

I actually think one of the strengths of the TDKR was the fight scenes. I finally felt after BB and TDK (and to an extent Inception) 'Yes! Nolan's finally got a handle on how to film a fight scene'

I dont have any problems with how the fights where filmed (or the phsycological aspect that people are bringing up), its with exactly what each character was doing, in a "if this was a real fight" kind of sense. I wasn't expecting anything totally realistic (the fight scenes in The Raid aren't exactly realistic, but they are much better than DKR), but there is a point in fight scenes where they become so stupid looking that it negatively effects the experience. I had the same reaction to the fight scenes that a physicist friend of mine had to the explanation of the bomb.

norrie rugger

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

What if it had cut to black after we see Alfred toasting, and not shown Bruce Wayne and Selina Kyle? After all, when speaking earlier about the cafe in Florence, Alfred said, "I had this fantasy, that I would look across the tables and see you there."

Cutting to black may have implied that Alfred was fantasising, or it may have implied that Bruce Wayne had survived. But it would have been left open to interpretation.

PS: I know I'm far from the first person on this thread to suggest this alternate ending!

You know what?? NO!

I go to the cinema to see stories played out on screen. I do not go to have things be ambiguous and for me to interperate them.
The writers, directors and actors are storytellers; so tell the entire goddamn story, to its end and do not leave things hanging

Mickeroo

norrie rugger wrote: »

You know what?? NO!

I go to the cinema to see stories played out on screen. I do not go to have things be ambiguous and for me to interperate them.
The writers, directors and actors are storytellers; so tell the entire goddamn story, to its end and do not leave things hanging

Even if it had cut to black at the toast it wouldn't have been ambiguous, there's nothing in the scene that suggests he's fantasising. It would just be another case of people looking for ambiguity where there is none.

e_e

norrie rugger wrote: »

You know what?? NO!

I go to the cinema to see stories played out on screen. I do not go to have things be ambiguous and for me to interperate them.
The writers, directors and actors are storytellers; so tell the entire goddamn story, to its end and do not leave things hanging

You must loathe David Lynch.

norrie rugger

Mickeroo wrote: »

Even if it had cut to black at the toast it wouldn't have been ambiguous, there's nothing in the scene that suggests he's fantasising. It would just be another case of people looking for ambiguity where there is none.

Exactly that though. The amount of crap that Nolan left, after that bloody spinning top (That was obviously slowing down) made me hate any sense of an unfinished tale. Spell it out if you need to but just finish the story

e_e wrote: »

You must loathe David Lynch.

You might think but no :rolleyes:

e_e

While I think the end of TDKR and Inception are a lot more concrete than some think, I really don't see what the big deal is with people wanting to read more into it. People are free to interpret anything as they see fit, I wouldn't be so condescending as to censor somebody's imagination.

...and ambiguity can be a pretty powerful thing at times. I love movies that provoke thought and that just doesn't happen when a film just predictably dishes out answers. I truly believe that an open ended film can be more truthful than something that tells you "this happened for x reason", probably why I think Certified Copy, Cosmopolis, Meek's Cutoff and Tree of Life are among the best films of the decade so far. Not sure what this has to do with Batman, but I guess I want Nolan and mainstream movies in general to give the viewers more credit. Nolan is capable of this whereas other directors are like watching somebody do a connect the dots puzzle for you. It's kinda patronizing to me.

Nervous Wreck

e_e wrote: »

While I think the end of TDKR and Inception are a lot more concrete than some think, I really don't see what the big deal is with people wanting to read more into it. People are free to interpret anything as they see fit, I wouldn't be so condescending as to censor somebody's imagination.

...and ambiguity can be a pretty powerful thing at times. I love movies that provoke thought and that just doesn't happen when a film just predictably dishes out answers. I truly believe that an open ended film can be more truthful than something that tells you "this happened for x reason", probably why I think Certified Copy, Cosmopolis, Meek's Cutoff and Tree of Life are among the best films of the decade so far. Not sure what this has to do with Batman, but I guess I want Nolan and mainstream movies in general to give the viewers more credit. Nolan is capable of this whereas other directors are like watching somebody do a connect the dots puzzle for you. It's kinda patronizing to me.

Yeah but.... it's not open to interpretation. He survived.

krudler

norrie rugger wrote: »

You know what?? NO!

I go to the cinema to see stories played out on screen. I do not go to have things be ambiguous and for me to interperate them.
The writers, directors and actors are storytellers; so tell the entire goddamn story, to its end and do not leave things hanging

Why though? I like not being spoonfed stuff and having something open to interpretation as well.

sReq | uTeK

I loved the movie, im going to erase the final 20 minutes from my memory.

the thoughts that Bane was a puppet in all of this and that a kid of such a young age could out jump grown men training for it for years is just absolute horse ****.

Bane was on equal to the joker in terms of screen presence for me, the thought of him being a puppet getting his strings pulled just made my jaw drop.

Would have been a much better story had it been BANE who was the child born and he didn't escape until manhood, I don't see why they needed to link the rest in.
Just my 2 cents.

Otacon

krudler wrote: »

Why though? I like not being spoonfed stuff and having something open to interpretation as well.

An ambiguous ending is only good if the ambiguity has a point.

In Inception, the point was that

it didn't matter whether he was awake or asleep, his catharsis was equally valid.

What would ambiguity have done in TDKR?

Mickeroo

e_e wrote: »

While I think the end of TDKR and Inception are a lot more concrete than some think, I really don't see what the big deal is with people wanting to read more into it. People are free to interpret anything as they see fit, I wouldn't be so condescending as to censor somebody's imagination.

...and ambiguity can be a pretty powerful thing at times. I love movies that provoke thought and that just doesn't happen when a film just predictably dishes out answers. I truly believe that an open ended film can be more truthful than something that tells you "this happened for x reason", probably why I think Certified Copy, Cosmopolis, Meek's Cutoff and Tree of Life are among the best films of the decade so far. Not sure what this has to do with Batman, but I guess I want Nolan and mainstream movies in general to give the viewers more credit. Nolan is capable of this whereas other directors are like watching somebody do a connect the dots puzzle for you. It's kinda patronizing to me.

I agree with you, ambiguity when used well can be great. It really depends on the film though, sometimes closure serves the story better than an open ending and I think thats very much the case with TDKR.

krudler

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

I loved the movie, im going to erase the final 20 minutes from my memory.

the thoughts that Bane was a puppet in all of this and that a kid of such a young age could out jump grown men training for it for years is just absolute horse ****.

Bane was on equal to the joker in terms of screen presence for me, the thought of him being a puppet getting his strings pulled just made my jaw drop.

Would have been a much better story had it been BANE who was the child born and he didn't escape until manhood, I don't see why they needed to link the rest in.
Just my 2 cents.

also Bane says he was born in darkness and didnt see the light until he was a man, throughout the movie we assume he's the child, when its revealed he isnt that means there's a whole other origin story for him. Wonder was anything ever shot for it.

also how come Talia doesnt tell Bane that Bruce is back? she meets Bruce before the flare lights up the batsign, surely she would have gotten word to Bane about him returning? Its one of those plot twists that unravels some earlier stuff on a second watch.

e_e

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Yeah but.... it's not open to interpretation. He survived.

I'm not arguing with that.

Nervous Wreck

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

the thoughts that Bane was a puppet in all of this and that a kid of such a young age could out jump grown men training for it for years is just absolute horse ****.

Err, the kid didn't out jump anyone... The jump was about 7 feet; anyone could have made it. Everyone but the kid and Bruce Wayne attempted the jump with a safety rope tied to them and the safety rope was too short, not giving enough slack for the jump to be made. That was the point. If you're not up to the challenge, your caution will hold you back; but if you embrace your fear and move in spite of it, your will can get you through. It wasn't about the jump, it was about being willing to stare death in the face to set yourself free.

johnny_ultimate

It's not the lack of ambiguity or general happiness of the ending that's attracting criticism. I think some people (myself included) just felt that leaving out that single shot of Wayne would have been a nicer way to conclude the story. It's more that the scenes and explanations surrounding that scene fairly definitively state that Wayne survived the explosion. I know when Alfred smiled in realisation, I smiled too: simply a perfect moment to round up that arc. The shot of Bruce was just a tad disappointing, as IMO it overemphasised a revelation that was already abundantly clear. I personally didn't feel it would have been ambiguous in the slightest if it was left out, as the moments surrounding the Florence shots got across the point well. And, as has been stated several times before, the ending in general is close to pitch perfect thematically and narratively. There's just that single shot that is contentious.

I've come to slightly retract that opinion since, and now feel that Nolan made the right choice in leaving the shot in. Because even with an ending as blunt and definitive as the one we got (which, frankly, is point blank not open for interpretation) viewers are still constantly (and needlessly?) questioning it. I can only imagine the complaints if they hadn't put in that definitive punctuation mark.

So while I think that the absence of a single shot would have IMO been a nicer, more understated directorial decision, ultimately Nolan knew his audience and was dead right to minimize potential confusion. The old advice is to trust your audience: if TDKR discussions prove anything, it's that sometimes you shouldn't.

krudler

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

It's not the lack of ambiguity or general happiness of the ending that's attracting criticism. I think some people (myself included) just felt that leaving out that single shot of Wayne would have been a nicer way to conclude the story. It's more that the scenes and explanations surrounding that scene fairly definitively state that Wayne survived the explosion. I know when Alfred smiled in realisation, I smiled too: simply a perfect moment to round up that arc. The shot of Bruce was just a tad disappointing, as IMO it overemphasised a revelation that was already abundantly clear. I personally didn't feel it would have been ambiguous in the slightest if it was left out, as the moments surrounding the Florence shots got across the point well. And, as has been stated several times before, the ending in general is close to pitch perfect thematically and narratively. There's just that single shot that is contentious.

I've come to slightly retract that opinion since, and now feel that Nolan made the right choice in leaving the shot in. Because even with an ending as blunt and definitive as the one we got (which, frankly, is point blank not open for interpretation) viewers are still constantly (and needlessly?) questioning it. I can only imagine the complaints if they hadn't put in that definitive punctuation mark.

So while I think that the absence of a single shot would have IMO been a nicer, more understated directorial decision, ultimately Nolan knew his audience and was dead right to minimize potential confusion. The old advice is to trust your audience: if TDKR discussions prove anything, it's that sometimes you shouldn't.

I wonder was it a studio decision? The whole scene in Florence is telegraphed a few minutes into the movie, the shot of Bruce was basically hammering home something that would have been clear anyway. The reveal that the autopilot worked, the pearls were missing and the nod couldnt have made it any clearer. It's probably my favourite part of the movie, the way the drums on the score start as Alfred is looking at the camera. as far as hairs on neck moments from the three films goes its up there with "I never said thank you" "And you'll never have to" and the Joker telling Batman "I think you and I are destined to do this forever".

Otacon

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

There's just that single shot that is contentious.

That shot also gave us Selina Kyle's story its resolution too though. Of course it could have been left out or a different scene could have been added to do this but I liked it myself.

Rabidlamb

Colmo52

People seem to be forgetting that the florence seen isin't the last scene. The last scene is Blake going into the batcave and rising (literally) on the platform which is a much better ending imo.

sReq | uTeK

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Err, the kid didn't out jump anyone... The jump was about 7 feet; anyone could have made it. Everyone but the kid and Bruce Wayne attempted the jump with a safety rope tied to them and the safety rope was too short, not giving enough slack for the jump to be made. That was the point. If you're not up to the challenge, your caution will hold you back; but if you embrace your fear and move in spite of it, your will can get you through. It wasn't about the jump, it was about being willing to stare death in the face to set yourself free.

Can't agree with this, there is PLENTY of slack on the rope, this is seen when they miss the fall and free fall 10-15 feet downwards, slack was not a factor here.

It's just unrealistic you can try to justify it by any means you like, but sadly I'll call horse**** on it every time

Mickeroo

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

Can't agree with this, there is PLENTY of slack on the rope, this is seen when they miss the fall and free fall 10-15 feet downwards, slack was not a factor here.

It's just unrealistic you can try to justify it by any means you like, but sadly I'll call horse**** on it every time

Yeah there was tonnes of slack but the reason the kid made the jump was explained very very very clearly in the film.

ricero

Still the best film of 2012 for me. Can't wait for the DVD to come out does anyone know when it's realeased ?

Rabidlamb

ricero wrote: »

Still the best film of 2012 for me. Can't wait for the DVD to come out does anyone know when it's realeased ?

Early December I read, just in time for Christmas.

sReq | uTeK

Mickeroo wrote: »

Yeah there was tonnes of slack but the reason the kid made the jump was explained very very very clearly in the film.

Not questioning if it was explained in detail or not, im simply stating it doesn't add up and is horse****. take from it what you will, that's my synopsis