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

Otacon

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

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

There is a shot in the movie, when Bruce climbs up, I believe the first time, where he tugs on the rope once he reaches the ledge, clearly displaying that there was little to no extra slack.

Nervous Wreck

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

Jesus. Physics. Plenty of slack on the way down because the rope was anchored on a part of the wall much lower than the ledge that Bruce was standing on. Surely that's clear as day. There is fuck all slack. The first time he stands on the ledge, he goes to the edge and tugs on the rope and there is almost no slack. I spotted this first time and verified it on second viewing. It's absolutely insane to have missed this when it was made so abundantly clear.

phil1nj

krudler wrote: »

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.

My opinion would be that Bane and Talia could not risk being seen together seeing as she was the trigger woman for the bomb. Perhaps, she/they figured for their plan to work, no contact of any kind should be attempted whilst the bomb was in play this ensuring that Bane was the main focus of the GCPD and the citizenry. Plus, my take on it was that Talia wanted to "twist the slow knife" herself in Bruce and this would involve ensuring the ploy was kept up right until the last minute (which is pretty much how it played out). Could be wrong though.

Mickeroo

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Jesus. Physics. Plenty of slack on the way down because the rope was anchored on a part of the wall much lower than the ledge that Bruce was standing on. Surely that's clear as day. There is fuck all slack. The first time he stands on the ledge, he goes to the edge and tugs on the rope and there is almost no slack. I spotted this first time and verified it on second viewing. It's absolutely insane to have missed this when it was made so abundantly clear.

I missed that completely. Kind of takes away from the significance of Bruce making the jump if that was the case though no?

Nervous Wreck

Mickeroo wrote: »

I missed that completely. Kind of takes away from the significance of Bruce making the jump if that was the case though no?

Not at all! It makes it all the better. The point was that he needed the fear of death to make it. When he let go of the rope, he could legitimately expect to die if he missed. Missing is still a very real possibility, even with it being a short jump. Anything could happen. You could lose your footing or grip, under/over estimate the jump or simply not be strong enough to hoist yourself up, and a lot of people wouldn't be able to hoist themselves up from a dead hang. Keeping a safety rope removes the fear but also the ability to make the jump. You had to want your freedom enough to risk death and for people in the pit, even though they had a crappy existence, the risk still wasn't worth it. Bruce was set apart by the fact that he would risk his own life to escape to Gotham.

krudler

phil1nj wrote: »

My opinion would be that Bane and Talia could not risk being seen together seeing as she was the trigger woman for the bomb. Perhaps, she/they figured for their plan to work, no contact of any kind should be attempted whilst the bomb was in play this ensuring that Bane was the main focus of the GCPD and the citizenry. Plus, my take on it was that Talia wanted to "twist the slow knife" herself in Bruce and this would involve ensuring the ploy was kept up right until the last minute (which is pretty much how it played out). Could be wrong though.

Could be that too, these are minor plot annoyances though

Mickeroo

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Not at all! It makes it all the better. The point was that he needed the fear of death to make it. When he let go of the rope, he could legitimately expect to die if he missed. Missing is still a very real possibility, even with it being a short jump. Anything could happen. You could lose your footing or grip, under/over estimate the jump or simply not be strong enough to hoist yourself up, and a lot of people wouldn't be able to hoist themselves up from a dead hang. Keeping a safety rope removes the fear but also the ability to make the jump. You had to want your freedom enough to risk death and for people in the pit, even though they had a crappy existence, the risk still wasn't worth it. Bruce was set apart by the fact that he would risk his own life to escape to Gotham.

Yeah i get all that, that was abundantly clear. But if it's physically impossible to make the jump with the rope because it's too short (as you were saying) then he could very well have made it the first time when he still didn't fear death. Which is why I'm declaring shenanigans on the rope having no slack.

Nervous Wreck

I think that was kinda the point. He did fear it, he just didn't embrace the fear and make it his own. He denied having it cos he was a sad li'l puppy :P. When he finally admits, embraces and owns his fear, he encounters the bats (in a lovely moment) and makes the jump!

Mickeroo

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

I think that was kinda the point. He did fear it, he just didn't embrace the fear and make it his own. He denied having it cos he was a sad li'l puppy :P. When he finally admits, embraces and owns his fear, he encounters the bats (in a lovely moment) and makes the jump!

Yeah i get that too but the length of the rope doesn't change that, like surely all the prsioners would clearly be able to see that the rope was too short for them to make the jump after the countless people who tried it? If the rope was long enough then Bruce overcoming it is completely psychological and much more significant than if its just the length of the rope holding him back the first few times. He wouldn't have needed the guy to tell him to embrace the fear of death either because he would have known the rope was too short.

EDIT: Well i suppose thinking about it another way its like dangling a carrot. THe ones who gave them the rope could be like "you know you wouldn't make it with the rope but none of you are brave enough to try it without it" kind of thiing. in that way I guess it works.

sReq | uTeK

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Not at all! It makes it all the better. The point was that he needed the fear of death to make it. When he let go of the rope, he could legitimately expect to die if he missed. Missing is still a very real possibility, even with it being a short jump. Anything could happen. You could lose your footing or grip, under/over estimate the jump or simply not be strong enough to hoist yourself up, and a lot of people wouldn't be able to hoist themselves up from a dead hang. Keeping a safety rope removes the fear but also the ability to make the jump. You had to want your freedom enough to risk death and for people in the pit, even though they had a crappy existence, the risk still wasn't worth it. Bruce was set apart by the fact that he would risk his own life to escape to Gotham.

Okay I missed that, which makes it even more bull**** IMO.

So every man who tried that jump just had to realise the rope was stopping them from making the jump, all they had to do was do it rope free and it was an easy jump.

The fact that an able body man whos well trained could BARELY make the jump without the rope but a small child did, i just think its bad story telling.

Nervous Wreck

Mickeroo wrote: »

Yeah i get that too but the length of the rope doesn't change that, like surely all the prsioners would clearly be able to see that the rope was too short for them to make the jump after the countless people who tried it? If the rope was long enough then Bruce overcoming it is completely psychological and much more significant than if its just the length of the rope holding him back the first few times. He wouldn't have needed the guy to tell him to embrace the fear of death either because he would have known the rope was too short.

EDIT: Well i suppose thinking about it another way its like dangling a carrot. THe ones who gave them the rope could be like "you know you wouldn't make it with the rope but none of you are brave enough to try it without it" kind of thiing. in that way I guess it works.

Yes. The jump isn't the real challenge; jumping without a rope in the face of death is. Anyone can walk a tightrope 200feet in the air as long as there's a safety net. It doesn't matter if you fail or succeed. But very few, even if they were world class at tightrope walking, would walk it without the net. That's the challenge.

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

Okay I missed that, which makes it even more bull**** IMO.

So every man who tried that jump just had to realise the rope was stopping them from making the jump, all they had to do was do it rope free and it was an easy jump.

The fact that an able body man whos well trained could BARELY make the jump without the rope but a small child did, i just think its bad story telling.

What? Are you even reading what I'm saying? It's not an easy jump by any means. It's an easy distance, sure. But jumping from one ledge to another at that height, when the ledges are so narrow and dusty, and you have to pull yourself up from a dead hang right up on top of the ledge with sweaty palms and a tenuous grip and the option is cling on or die, is definitely not easy. But, in spite of all that, he makes the jump. That's what makes it special.

And tbh, I'd argue that it'd probably be easier for a child to make the leap. A child's smaller frame would make the narrow ledge less of an issue; their lighter weight and default limberness would make the jump easier and the pull-up from a dead hang much easier; and the near fearless nature of a child with a wall to climb would make the whole thing easier. Around my area, I constantly see walls I used to jump off as a kid and, faced with that same jump now, I would shit myself and if I tried to jump from them, I'd probably really hurt myself.

JohnMarston

krudler wrote: »

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

In some cases, a movies ending left to interpretation can be good, leaves the mind wander about what you just witnessed.
But with a straightforward action summer movie like TDKR, the last in a triology, not having a satisfying ending that closes nicely can leave the audience feeling cheated, and the writers looking lazy, not knowing how to end it.

Mark Hamill

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Not at all! It makes it all the better. The point was that he needed the fear of death to make it. When he let go of the rope, he could legitimately expect to die if he missed. Missing is still a very real possibility, even with it being a short jump. Anything could happen. You could lose your footing or grip, under/over estimate the jump or simply not be strong enough to hoist yourself up, and a lot of people wouldn't be able to hoist themselves up from a dead hang. Keeping a safety rope removes the fear but also the ability to make the jump. You had to want your freedom enough to risk death and for people in the pit, even though they had a crappy existence, the risk still wasn't worth it. Bruce was set apart by the fact that he would risk his own life to escape to Gotham.

Also, the guy at the bottom, holding the other end of the rope, yanks as hard as he can when someone jumps, because he's an ass and likes to see people fall, thats why he is in the prison :pac:

Tom_Cruise

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

Okay I missed that, which makes it even more bull**** IMO.

So every man who tried that jump just had to realise the rope was stopping them from making the jump, all they had to do was do it rope free and it was an easy jump.

The fact that an able body man whos well trained could BARELY make the jump without the rope but a small child did, i just think its bad story telling.

I watched this for the second time last night.I reviewed it 6.5/10 last week or so,but i wanted to see it again as i dont think i picked up on everything the first time.

I found the first viewing alot better.This movie i feel could of been so much better than it is.

The part you mentioned,about making the jump on the ledge defiantly stood out,i mean the jump didnt look all that hard and he made it with ease - i understand not making it means certain death but as you said,if a small child can do it then there really should be alot more that can as well.

On the topic of the prison - the way Bane described it,it was hell on Earth.I was expecting it to be terrible,but all in all it looked like a pretty decent place to be 'in prison',especially since you have an opportunity to escape at any time.

I dont understand why Bane sent Bruce there,instead of murdering him?

Also the scene where the cops are released from the sewers and charge Banes minions,i thought i spotted a bat car or two and plenty of armed soldiers but it ended up in a fist fight?


Yes - i am picking some what small errors in this movie - but as a big Dark Knight fan,it seems like this movie is really rushed.


Second viewing 5/10,sorry batman.

The King of Moo

Tom_Cruise wrote: »

I watched this for the second time last night.I reviewed it 6.5/10 last week or so,but i wanted to see it again as i dont think i picked up on everything the first time.

I found the first viewing alot better.This movie i feel could of been so much better than it is.

The part you mentioned,about making the jump on the ledge defiantly stood out,i mean the jump didnt look all that hard and he made it with ease - i understand not making it means certain death but as you said,if a small child can do it then there really should be alot more that can as well.

On the topic of the prison - the way Bane described it,it was hell on Earth.I was expecting it to be terrible,but all in all it looked like a pretty decent place to be 'in prison',especially since you have an opportunity to escape at any time.

I dont understand why Bane sent Bruce there,instead of murdering him.

Also the scene where the cops are released from the sewers and charge Banes minions,i thought i spotted a bat car or two and plenty of armed soldiers but it ended up in a fist fight?


Yes - i am picking some what small errors in this movie - but as a big Dark Knight fan,it seems like this movie is really rushed.


Second viewing 5/10,sorry batman.

He didn't kill him immediately because he wanted to destroy him completely (no doubt at Talia's request to gain revenge for her father's death) by first destroying his spirit by making him watch the drawn-out destruction of Gotham, and then killing him.

In fairness, he states this very clearly:
Bane: "You don't fear death... You welcome it. Your punishment must be more severe."
Bruce Wayne: "Torture?"
Bane: "Yes. But not of your body... Of your soul...
"You can watch me torture an entire city and when you have truly understood the depth of your failure, we will fulfill Ra's al Ghul's destiny... We will destroy Gotham and then, when it is done and Gotham is ashes, then you have my permission to die."

It was even in the trailer.

As for the cops running at Bane's men, I saw that as case of adrenaline and passion taking over (I wouldn't expect too much cool, calm rational planning of tactics from them given the situation).
Perhaps though, there may be some tactical advantage to it: forcing the probably better-armed (with rifles) into hand-to-hand combat might negate the advantage to a degree.
But I think the main reason for it is cinematic: it's better emotionally and visually, especially as a backdrop to Batman and Bane's fight.

krudler

Tom_Cruise wrote: »

I watched this for the second time last night.I reviewed it 6.5/10 last week or so,but i wanted to see it again as i dont think i picked up on everything the first time.

I found the first viewing alot better.This movie i feel could of been so much better than it is.

The part you mentioned,about making the jump on the ledge defiantly stood out,i mean the jump didnt look all that hard and he made it with ease - i understand not making it means certain death but as you said,if a small child can do it then there really should be alot more that can as well.

On the topic of the prison - the way Bane described it,it was hell on Earth.I was expecting it to be terrible,but all in all it looked like a pretty decent place to be 'in prison',especially since you have an opportunity to escape at any time.

I dont understand why Bane sent Bruce there,instead of murdering him?

Also the scene where the cops are released from the sewers and charge Banes minions,i thought i spotted a bat car or two and plenty of armed soldiers but it ended up in a fist fight?


Yes - i am picking some what small errors in this movie - but as a big Dark Knight fan,it seems like this movie is really rushed.


Second viewing 5/10,sorry batman.

Jesus, seriously, this is all stuff thats blatantly spelled out for you in the movie.

Bane doesnt kill Batman because he wants to torture him first, he TELLS him this in the cell, even gives him a tv to watch Gotham burn, he's torturing his soul not his body as he puts it.

The prison is hell on earth because escape is so tantalisingly close, they even show a clip of another guy attempting the climb. Bane says its the same thing he'll do to Gotham, keep the people climbing towards the sun while their hope is lost.

There were two tumblers, until Batman dives down and blow the crap out of them in the Bat, then the cops cheer and charge towards Bane's men. Cops are gunned down, they make it to closer quarters and the battle ensues.

e_e

He's just jealous because MI: Ghost Protocol made 300 million less at the box office.

krudler

krudler wrote: »

Jesus, seriously, this is all stuff thats blatantly spelled out for you in the movie.

Bane doesnt kill Batman because he wants to torture him first, he TELLS him this in the cell, even gives him a tv to watch Gotham burn, he's torturing his soul not his body as he puts it.

Yeah but that could have just been a dream. Sure didn't he see Micheal Collins there as well?

Oafley Jones

Will There Be A Director’s Cut Of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES?

Interesting if true. I've since seen TDKR a second time and while I didn't hate it as much the second time round, I'm not sure what even 20-30 minutes extra could do to redeem what is an incredibly poor script - the theme for Summer 2012.

Sad Professor

The theatrical cut is the director's cut. But there's not going to be an extended cut either because there's nothing to add back it. The only thing Nolan cuts out of his films is the air between lines of dialogue. Anything that doesn't serve the plot is excised during the scripting stage. The flashback referred to in the link above was only a single sentence in the script and probably no more than a shot in the film. The only other significant cuts was a brief scene between Fox and Miranda and a shot of Foley getting run over by a Tumbler (which was possibly changed on the spot due to technical issues).

Elessar

Decided to go see this for the 4th time today (last time I'll see it in the cinema).

A poor experience unfortunately, but that was down to the cinema more than anything. Uber small screen (looked about the size of a pub projector screen!) and the sound only coming from the front speaker (no surround sound) which was also hissing :mad: Couldn't hear half the music! Also the projection wasn't aligned properly and the top half of the image was flickering. Santry Omniplex screen 8 if anyone wants to know.

Very disappointed. Considered complaining but a) I would have missed a part of it and b) I'm sure nothing would be entirely fixed anyway. Place looked and smelled like it was rarely used. Constant smell of either p*ss or must from a pub. One of the worst cinema experiences ever.

It's such an Irish thing - "sure it's grand like". I bet nobody ever checks these things. Doubt you'd find similar in America or the the bigger multiplexes in the UK where they actually want to keep custom.

These issues pretty much ruined it for me this time around. Though I don't think I'll ever get sick of the bane and batman fights!

One thing I noticed was two shots of batman in the bat AFTER the explosion as the bat flies out towards the bay (with the bomb). My initial thinking was he had ejected right before the building explosion, but clearly he hadn't. So how did he escape?

cloud493

How does Batman does this? How does batman do that? Answer, he's Batman :pac:

krudler

Elessar wrote: »

Decided to go see this for the 4th time today (last time I'll see it in the cinema).

A poor experience unfortunately, but that was down to the cinema more than anything. Uber small screen (looked about the size of a pub projector screen!) and the sound only coming from the front speaker (no surround sound) which was also hissing :mad: Couldn't hear half the music! Also the projection wasn't aligned properly and the top half of the image was flickering. Santry Omniplex screen 8 if anyone wants to know.

Very disappointed. Considered complaining but a) I would have missed a part of it and b) I'm sure nothing would be entirely fixed anyway. Place looked and smelled like it was rarely used. Constant smell of either p*ss or must from a pub. One of the worst cinema experiences ever.

It's such an Irish thing - "sure it's grand like". I bet nobody ever checks these things. Doubt you'd find similar in America or the the bigger multiplexes in the UK where they actually want to keep custom.

These issues pretty much ruined it for me this time around. Though I don't think I'll ever get sick of the bane and batman fights!

One thing I noticed was two shots of batman in the bat AFTER the explosion as the bat flies out towards the bay (with the bomb). My initial thinking was he had ejected right before the building explosion, but clearly he hadn't. So how did he escape?

Why didnt you ask for your money back? If I'm paying to see a film I want to see it in the best way possible. if something is on in a shoebox cinema I wont bother, would rather wait and watch it at home on decent headphones

JohnMarston

Tom_Cruise wrote: »

I dont understand why Bane sent Bruce there,instead of murdering him?

Also the scene where the cops are released from the sewers and charge Banes minions,i thought i spotted a bat car or two and plenty of armed soldiers but it ended up in a fist fight?

Bane wanted Bruce to see all of his work to save Gotham undone before he killed him, hence the tv in the cell.

There were several Tumblers (aka batmobiles) in Wayne Enterprises applied science labs (spares i suppose), accessible only to Lucius and Bruce. Bane tunnelled under the building and him and his army took the cache of goodies within, including those vehicles.

event

Elessar wrote: »

Decided to go see this for the 4th time today (last time I'll see it in the cinema).

A poor experience unfortunately, but that was down to the cinema more than anything. Uber small screen (looked about the size of a pub projector screen!) and the sound only coming from the front speaker (no surround sound) which was also hissing :mad: Couldn't hear half the music! Also the projection wasn't aligned properly and the top half of the image was flickering. Santry Omniplex screen 8 if anyone wants to know.

Very disappointed. Considered complaining but a) I would have missed a part of it and b) I'm sure nothing would be entirely fixed anyway. Place looked and smelled like it was rarely used. Constant smell of either p*ss or must from a pub. One of the worst cinema experiences ever.

It's such an Irish thing - "sure it's grand like". I bet nobody ever checks these things. Doubt you'd find similar in America or the the bigger multiplexes in the UK where they actually want to keep custom.

These issues pretty much ruined it for me this time around. Though I don't think I'll ever get sick of the bane and batman fights!

One thing I noticed was two shots of batman in the bat AFTER the explosion as the bat flies out towards the bay (with the bomb). My initial thinking was he had ejected right before the building explosion, but clearly he hadn't. So how did he escape?

you've seen it 3 times already, I'd say you'll know what happens.
tbh you cant really complain about the issues if you didnt let the cinema know IMO

splashthecash

Elessar wrote: »

Decided to go see this for the 4th time today (last time I'll see it in the cinema).

A poor experience unfortunately, but that was down to the cinema more than anything. Uber small screen (looked about the size of a pub projector screen!) and the sound only coming from the front speaker (no surround sound) which was also hissing :mad: Couldn't hear half the music! Also the projection wasn't aligned properly and the top half of the image was flickering. Santry Omniplex screen 8 if anyone wants to know.

Very disappointed. Considered complaining but a) I would have missed a part of it and b) I'm sure nothing would be entirely fixed anyway. Place looked and smelled like it was rarely used. Constant smell of either p*ss or must from a pub. One of the worst cinema experiences ever.

It's such an Irish thing - "sure it's grand like". I bet nobody ever checks these things. Doubt you'd find similar in America or the the bigger multiplexes in the UK where they actually want to keep custom.

These issues pretty much ruined it for me this time around. Though I don't think I'll ever get sick of the bane and batman fights!

One thing I noticed was two shots of batman in the bat AFTER the explosion as the bat flies out towards the bay (with the bomb). My initial thinking was he had ejected right before the building explosion, but clearly he hadn't. So how did he escape?

jeez dude, you already saw the flick 3 previous times...I defo would have asked for my money back. that sounds like the worst cinema in the world. no use coming onto boards and complaining though unfortunately

FrostyJack

Tom_Cruise wrote: »

Second viewing 5/10,sorry batman.

I had the opposite experience, obvously like everyone else I had high expectations. I finally got to see it in an IMAX cinema but through my own fault I misread the start time and was late. I had to sit off centre and near the front so the viewing experience wasn't great (add kids constantly walking in and out from my row, why are kids let into cinemas?), I would have given it a high 7/10 score, pushing 8 maybe. Not as good as The Dark Knight but still great. It wasn't till over a week later I was talking to a friend who mention Aidan Gillen, I was like, I didn't see him. Long story short I missed the first 20 minutes! I went again to ordinary cinema and with dulled expectations I loved it. 9/10. A masterpiece on almost every level. Of course the usual "it is a comicbook movie snob, snob, snob" will never rate it, but it is hard to argue as a cinematic experience (especially when you include the other 2).
The one truely stupid part (in my opinion, of course there were others I could overlook) was when the cops charged the gang, and suddenly no one could shoot straight, ridiculous. Would have been more believable if they said Batman used an anti assult rifle spray.

e_e

Nevermind...

JohnMarston

Death....by exile!

cloud493

What would they have done if someone had somehow made it across the ice? :pac: