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

The King of Moo

krudler wrote: »

When Blake goes to met Wayne and tells him he pulled Gordon out of the sewer he says he was "babbling about a masked man named Bane" even though nobody refers to Bane by his name in the few seconds Gordon is in his presence, unless he already had heard of Bane and put two and two together, Alfred was able to find out a lot about him quite easily, maybe he googled him :pac:

It seems that Bane was pretty well known in intelligence circles - the CIA agent knew of him - so it's not hard to imagine a police commissioner of a major city or someone with access to the Batcomputer would've heard of him.

ancapailldorcha

PaulB1984 wrote: »

Totally disagree. The Dark Knight has perfect writing and a stunning script. Listening to the Joker alone makes everything worth it.

Oh, it's a long way from perfect and it's littered with plotholes. The sum of the film as a whole is more important than the individual flaws the identification of which have become an annoyingly popular internet craze.

PaulB1984

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Oh, it's a long way from perfect and it's littered with plotholes. The sum of the film as a whole is more important than the individual flaws the identification of which have become an annoyingly popular internet craze.

Plot holes? Where? As for individuals, no one will ever deny the excitement of the Joker uttering such brilliance, that's why Heath Ledger's performance of him is the greatest movie villian i've ever seen, and why i can't stand Bane.

Andy!!

Just to prove PaulB1984 doesnt know what hes talking about, Bane wasnt even looking when Catwoman fired the Batpod guns. He was looking at bats, and pointing a shotgun in his face. He never saw it coming.

Still quite sudden in my opinion.

PaulB1984

Andy!! wrote: »

Just to prove PaulB1984 doesnt know what hes talking about, Bane wasnt even looking when Catwoman fired the Batpod guns. He was looking at bats, and pointing a shotgun in his face. He never saw it coming.

Still quite sudden in my opinion.

In fairness, to quote one thing from me when i've clearly said mostly the entire movie is complete rubbish, confuses me. The fact that Bane is a rotten character, that he gets killed by an almost non-existent Catwoman and that he gets killed so quickly and so suddenly, jerks my chain a lot more. Does it not bother you that Batman was saved by bleedin' Catwoman? That the whole movie is based on some crappy arm wrestling match between Batman and Bane, and yet when it came down it, Batman was a dead man? And then instead of a grand big explosion of a death for Bane, he's hit by a rocket from a bike? It works extremely well for Delta Force, but in what was touted to be the biggest Batman movie ever going to happen? Joker in Batman 89? Penguin in Batman Returns? Raz Al Ghul in Begins? Harvey Two-Face in TDK? etc...

Andy!!

PaulB1984 wrote: »

Plot holes? Where? As for individuals, no one will ever deny the excitement of the Joker uttering such brilliance, that's why Heath Ledger's performance of him is the greatest movie villian i've ever seen, and why i can't stand Bane.

Seriously? Lets start at the end, where Bats takes the fall for 5 murders that Two Face committed.

Heath Ledger was only as good as Nicholson. His performance in TDK is grossly overhyped.

ancapailldorcha

PaulB1984 wrote: »

Plot holes? Where? As for individuals, no one will ever deny the excitement of the Joker uttering such brilliance, that's why Heath Ledger's performance of him is the greatest movie villian i've ever seen, and why i can't stand Bane.

Well, there's the fact that Batman leaves a homicidal maniac alone with several people to jump out a building, some woeful fight scenes and the fact the film had little to do with Batman at all. It seemed to be more about the Joker and Batman was just the guy who had to stop him. Say what you want about TDKR, it's definitely a film about Bruce Wayne and why he does what he does.

PaulB1984

Andy!! wrote: »

Seriously? Lets start at the end, where Bats takes the fall for 5 murders that Two Face committed.

Heath Ledger was only as good as Nicholson. His performance in TDK is grossly overhyped.

Batman is Gotham's Dark Knight, Harvey Dent was Gotham's White Knight. Now had the citizens of Gotham found out that Harvey Dent had become a crazed killer and tried to murder a young boy, the city would have crumpled like paper under the weight of knowing their new leader was an attempted kiddy killer. So Batman having Gotham's best interest at heart says in not these exact words "I'm already a fugitive, Gotham already hates me for waiting so long to hand myself over the the Joker, so i'd rather they thought i killed those people as a vigilante instead of their White Knight Harvey Dent killing them out of being a lunatic who then tried to killed the Commisoner's own young son!". As someone who's defending Dark Knight Rises, i'd have thought you knew that this was the central plot in that movie.

Heath Ledger was magnificent as the Joker, so magnificent they gave the poor man an Oscar for his performance. He's truly iconic, and i can't believe you've said what you just said. And here's me debating a movie's merits with you.

ancapailldorcha

I reckon he just the oscar because he died. It was a good performance, just highly overrated.

PaulB1984

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Well, there's the fact that Batman leaves a homicidal maniac alone with several people to jump out a building, some woeful fight scenes and the fact the film had little to do with Batman at all. It seemed to be more about the Joker and Batman was just the guy who had to stop him. Say what you want about TDKR, it's definitely a film about Bruce Wayne and why he does what he does.

Ehhh, correct me if i'm wrong... But didn't Joker just throw the love of Bruce Wayne's life out that very window? I know i said i want him to be Batman more, but to switch off his feelings for a bunch of people Joker wouldn't even harm for the fun of it? As for it having nothing to with Batman, hahahahahaha! I'll get back to you later on that one, once i collect the thousands of reasons that it is about Batman.

PaulB1984

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I reckon he just the oscar because he died. It was a good performance, just highly overrated.

Plenty of people died and got no Oscars. Go watch The Dark Knight and remind yourself of how incredible a movie can be when it focuses on what really matters, both to fans of the comic books and fans of movies in general. Heath was wonderful as the Joker, and you're the only person i see saying differently.

ancapailldorcha

PaulB1984 wrote: »

Plenty of people died and got no Oscars.

Well, yes. But Heath was in his prime and would probably have gone on to do TDKR had things worked out differently. They didn't stop banging on about it for weeks so it makes sense to toss him an oscar. I never said his performance wasn't good. It's excellent, just overrated. TDKR stands up to repeated viewings much better than it's predecessor.

PaulB1984

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Well, yes. But Heath was in his prime and would probably have gone on to do TDKR had things worked out differently. They didn't stop banging on about it for weeks so it makes sense to toss him an oscar. I never said his performance wasn't good. It's excellent, just overrated. TDKR stands up to repeated viewings much better than it's predecessor.

The Dark Knight is a lavish 2 hour 20 minute crime thriller with the greatest villian of all time, the greatest comic book hero of all time and action sequences that will never be beaten in a movie of it's type. Dark Knight Rises is a 2 hour 45 minute boreathon with what i can only describe as Hannibal Lector let loose on the cookie jar talking gibberish no one understands in an accent no one recognises and as i've said countless times... Bruce Wayne down a blasted hole for what feels like an hour while Bane stomps around copying Die Hard 4.0. By all means, when the movie comes out to buy, i'll be first in line, and after my next 200 watches of it, should i be converted, i'll gladly sing it's praise from the top of a mountain. After all, it's the third chapter to 2 of the greatest movies i've seen in my life, movies i couldn't adore more if i tried, so DKR will be given as many chances as it takes. But for now, it's a pile of junk and if you and other people here would only read some reviews from other people, you'd see it's not just me saying it. As an example: On IMDB, The Dark Knight has a rating of 9.0 over the space of 4 and a half years. Dark Knight Rises has a rating of 8.8 after 6 months. Will it have the guts to rise to 9.0 and maintain that rating constantly for 4 more years?

PaulB1984

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Well, yes. But Heath was in his prime and would probably have gone on to do TDKR had things worked out differently. They didn't stop banging on about it for weeks so it makes sense to toss him an oscar. I never said his performance wasn't good. It's excellent, just overrated. TDKR stands up to repeated viewings much better than it's predecessor.

Watch this and tell me it's overrated.

That scene right there... Better than the entire Dark Knight Rises movie. Check the comments, check the likes, check the views. Overrated by quite a lot, eh?

ancapailldorcha

PaulB1984 wrote: »

Watch this and tell me it's overrated.

That scene right there... Better than the entire Dark Knight Rises movie. Check the comments, check the likes, check the views. Overrated by quite a lot, eh?

That's your opinion.

PaulB1984 wrote: »

The Dark Knight is a lavish 2 hour 20 minute crime thriller with the greatest villian of all time, the greatest comic book hero of all time and action sequences that will never be beaten in a movie of it's type. Dark Knight Rises is a 2 hour 45 minute boreathon with what i can only describe as Hannibal Lector let loose on the cookie jar talking gibberish no one understands in an accent no one recognises and as i've said countless times... Bruce Wayne down a blasted hole for what feels like an hour while Bane stomps around copying Die Hard 4.0. By all means, when the movie comes out to buy, i'll be first in line, and after my next 200 watches of it, should i be converted, i'll gladly sing it's praise from the top of a mountain. After all, it's the third chapter to 2 of the greatest movies i've seen in my life, movies i couldn't adore more if i tried, so DKR will be given as many chances as it takes. But for now, it's a pile of junk and if you and other people here would only read some reviews from other people, you'd see it's not just me saying it. As an example: On IMDB, The Dark Knight has a rating of 9.0 over the space of 4 and a half years. Dark Knight Rises has a rating of 8.8 after 6 months. Will it have the guts to rise to 9.0 and maintain that rating constantly for 4 more years?

So.. you're going to buy a movie you hate and watch it a few hundred times? I love the Craig Bond films but I wouldn't buy Quantum of Solace unless the Blu Ray was less than a fiver. I don't see why I need to read reviews. There's plenty of problems with the films but it's the story and characters that keep me coming back. There's some seriously dodgy filming in TDK's action sequences where you see guys just standing there waiting to engage Batman rather than stopping him beating on their friends. I don't see why you're making a big deal on IMDB. TDK started at 9.1, went to 8.9 and is at 9.0 now. 0.2 isn't a big difference and simply reflects the fact that most people consider both films to be excellent. About 400,000 have given an average of 8.8 to TDKR.

PaulB1984

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's your opinion.



So.. you're going to buy a movie you hate and watch it a few hundred times? I love the Craig Bond films but I wouldn't buy Quantum of Solace unless the Blu Ray was less than a fiver. I don't see why I need to read reviews. There's plenty of problems with the films but it's the story and characters that keep me coming back. There's some seriously dodgy filming in TDK's action sequences where you see guys just standing there waiting to engage Batman rather than stopping him beating on their friends. I don't see why you're making a big deal on IMDB. TDK started at 9.1, went to 8.9 and is at 9.0 now. 0.2 isn't a big difference and simply reflects the fact that most people consider both films to be excellent. About 400,000 have given an average of 8.8 to TDKR.

OK, so seriously, that clip from TDK isn't better than the whole of TDKR? Fair enough so. 1 to me, 0 to you.

Of course, yes, i will buy it, i plan to buy the trilogy box set, which softens the blow (Although i own Begins and TDK on Blu-Ray already). And yes, i'll watch it countless times, as many times as it takes to see why peop,e such as yourself have the hilarity to say the clip i just posted is overrated and that TDKR is better than it. As for IMDB, i clearly called it an example. To hold such a good rating for almost 5 years is very impressive, to have less than it after only 6 months is far less impressive. Anyway, are we done yet? I stopped taking this seriously about 20 minutes ago when you called Heath Ledger's Joker performance "Overrated".

ancapailldorcha

PaulB1984 wrote: »

OK, so seriously, that clip from TDK isn't better than the whole of TDKR? Fair enough so. 1 to me, 0 to you.

How did you work that out? Actually, don't answer. You just keep talking in circles.

PaulB1984

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

How did you work that out? Actually, don't answer. You just keep talking in circles.

Uploader of the video titled it "Heath Ledger - Incredible Acting". You disagreed, i didn't. 2 to me, 0 to you. If you don't know what that means, walk out into the street and tell a passer by that Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight was no better than Jack Nicholson and that the only reason he had an Oscar "thrown" to him was because he's dead.

ancapailldorcha

PaulB1984 wrote: »

Uploader of the video titled it "Heath Ledger - Incredible Acting". You disagreed, i didn't. 2 to me, 0 to you. If you don't know what that means, walk out into the street and tell a passer by that Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight was no better than Jack Nicholson and that the only reason he had an Oscar "thrown" to him was because he's dead.

I never said he was no better than Jack Nicholson. Jack Nicholson was atrocious. I'm sticking with my comment about the oscar though. Tainted the film IMO.

The King of Moo

PaulB1984 wrote: »

Does it not bother you that Batman was saved by bleedin' Catwoman? That the whole movie is based on some crappy arm wrestling match between Batman and Bane, and yet when it came down it, Batman was a dead man?

That was entirely in keeping with one of the main themes of the film: that Bruce had reached the limits of what he could do as one man fighting crime, and needed to help in other ways, either by using his wealth and knowledge - Alfred: "This city needs Bruce Wayne, your resources, your knowledge. It doesn't need your body, or your life. That time has passed." - or by using Batman as a symbol to inspire others and either accept their help or allow them to take over his mantle, as he'd originally planned to do.

Being rescued by Selina demonstrated precisely that inspiring others as Batman, as opposed to taking on the League of Shadows single-handed, was a much more effective approach. Because of Bruce's heroic example, she developed from a selfish individual to one who cared enough about him and the citizens of Gotham to stay in the city and help save the day.

What I love about the climax is that it's a team effort. It's not just Batman saving the day by beating loads of goons (contrast it with the [great] climactic scene at the end of The Dark Knight where Batman rescues the hostages by beating up loads of guys and ignoring Jim Gordon).
He's working with the people he inspired: Selina, Gordon and Blake, to save the city they love.
It's a fantastic way to show the character's development from single-mindedly avenging his parents' death to really seeing the bigger picture and truly achieving what he had planned to do by becoming a symbol greater than himself, and inspiring others to take up the fight against those who stand for evil, allowing him to move on with his life.
I can't think of a better way to bring what was probably the main emotional thread of the trilogy to a conclusion.

Armin_Tamzarian

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I never said he was no better than Jack Nicholson. Jack Nicholson was atrocious. I'm sticking with my comment about the oscar though. Tainted the film IMO.

So Heath Ledger was no better than Jack Nicholson who was atrocious, meaning that Heath Ledger was atrocious.
Would ya wise up, Ledger was outstanding in DK lived up to the hype.
It's ridiculous to compare him to Nicholson.

Nicholson wasn't atrocious either, it was an atrocious incarnation of the Joker that he played well.

PaulB1984

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I never said he was no better than Jack Nicholson. Jack Nicholson was atrocious. I'm sticking with my comment about the oscar though. Tainted the film IMO.

Oh, apologies, that was Andy.

So Heath Ledger winning one of possibly the 5 most deserved acting Oscars in movie history tainted the movie? May i ask a little favour of you? Would you mind going onto Youtube and posting me a scene from TDKR featuring Bane in a better scene than i've posted here? Or even still, just posting a scene from TDKR that's better than anything from TDK?

phil1nj

PaulB1984 wrote: »

It's called The Aviator, not The Aviation. And there's rarely a scene where "The Aviator" is not seen in "The Aviator". But as you mention it, imagine The Aviator movie without Howard Hughes, but instead everyone around him.

Hmmmmm, I saw a lot of Howard Hughes in this movie, I even seen Howard Hughes flying a couple of planes in this movie. But you seem to think that HH was The Aviator for every single scene of that movie, well In that case I consider every minute BW is onscreen in TDKR to be a minute where Batman is also onscreen too. Kind of makes a **** of your "there's only 15 minutes of Batman in this Batman movie" mantra that you've been spouting on this thread.

Oh and by the way, I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions from post #2325. I'm bracing myself for more opinionated ****e and drivel though so probably best if you don't answer it.

FloatingVoter

Without taking sides in the Ledger Oscar debate - a lot of Oscars are awarded for a body of work. Especially posthumous ones. Brokeback Mountain was also on his CV so probably contributed to the final vote. It was a damn fine piece of acting as the Joker and its a pity he didn't stick around long enough to have a career as eminent as Jack Nicholson.

PaulB1984

The King of Moo wrote: »

That was entirely in keeping with one of the main themes of the film: that Bruce had reached the limits of what he could do as one man fighting crime, and needed to help in other ways, either by using his wealth and knowledge - Alfred: "This city needs Bruce Wayne, your resources, your knowledge. It doesn't need your body, or your life. That time has passed." - or by using Batman as a symbol to inspire others and either accept their help or allow them to take over his mantle, as he'd originally planned to do.

Being rescued by Selina demonstrated precisely that inspiring others as Batman, as opposed to taking on the League of Shadows single-handed, was a much more effective approach. Because of Bruce's heroic example, she developed from a selfish individual to one who cared enough about him and the citizens of Gotham to stay in the city and help save the day.

What I love about the climax is that it's a team effort. It's not just Batman saving the day by beating loads of goons (contrast it with the [great] climactic scene at the end of The Dark Knight where Batman rescues the hostages by beating up loads of guys and ignoring Jim Gordon).
He's working with the people he inspired: Selina, Gordon and Blake, to save the city they love.
It's a fantastic way to show the character's development from single-mindedly avenging his parents' death to really seeing the bigger picture and truly achieving what he had planned to do by becoming a symbol greater than himself, and inspiring others to take up the fight against those who stand for evil, allowing him to move on with his life.
I can't think of a better way to bring what was probably the main emotional thread of the trilogy to a conclusion.

I'd still rather know that a hero i grew up with could still win the day and not be at the final mercy at the hands of a ****ty villian i'd never even heard of until Batman & Robin came along, without being saved by Catwoman.

ancapailldorcha

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

Would ya wise up, Ledger was outstanding in DK lived up to the hype.

I've never said anything negative about Ledger's performance beyond the fact that it's overrated. Brilliant, but the way people go on and on about it drives me mad. Nicholson was terrible, just woeful.

phil1nj

PaulB1984 wrote: »

I'd still rather know that a hero i grew up with could still win the day and not be at the final mercy at the hands of a ****ty villian i'd never even heard of until Batman & Robin came along, without being saved by Catwoman.

Is this the hero from the TV series and the Joel Schumacher movies that you grew up with?

Or is it the hero from the comic books that you never read? Just curious........

PaulB1984

phil1nj wrote: »

Hmmmmm, I saw a lot of Howard Hughes in this movie, I even seen Howard Hughes flying a couple of planes in this movie. But you seem to think that HH was The Aviator for every single scene of that movie, well In that case I consider every minute BW is onscreen in TDKR to be a minute where Batman is also onscreen too. Kind of makes a **** of your "there's only 15 minutes of Batman in this Batman movie" mantra that you've been spouting on this thread.

Oh and by the way, I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions from post #2325. I'm bracing myself for more opinionated ****e and drivel though so probably best if you don't answer it.

Oh, OK, so Howard Hughes was a crimefighting superhero who flew around a city beating up bad guys and driving tanks through police cars and over rooftops? Cool, thanks, i must watch The Aviator again, i believe it just had the title character all the way through it. See? I am so wrong a lot, eh? Boo to you Batman, i don't wanna see your cape and cowl and see you fighting villians, i wanna see Bruce Wayne walking around his creepy old mansion as a cripple. Oh, and can someone please tell Kara Monaco to stop taking her clothes off? Playboy is about the articles and her private life, not her waltzing around naked! Show us what we paid to see!

pixelburp

Johnny_ultimate, do you still have that shotgun handy? I think this thread has descended into pointless bickering and back&forth'ery.

phil1nj

PaulB1984 wrote: »

Oh, OK, so Howard Hughes was a crimefighting superhero who flew around a city beating up bad guys and driving tanks through police cars and over rooftops? Cool, thanks, i must watch The Aviator again, i believe it just had the title character all the way through it. See? I am so wrong a lot, eh? Boo to you Batman, i don't wanna see your cape and cowl and see you fighting villians, i wanna see Bruce Wayne walking around his creepy old mansion as a cripple. Oh, and can someone please tell Kara Monaco to stop taking her clothes off? Playboy is about the articles and her private life, not her waltzing around naked! Show us what we paid to see!

You're just being daft now. You might want to open a window wherever you are....