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

maximoose

Andy!! wrote: »

Katie Holmes is THE ONLY Rachel, Maggie acted like she was playing a dumb cheerleader when in fact she was supposed to be a Assistant D.A.

I agree. Katie was better, Maggie... forgettable. In fact when I think of her as Rachel all I can think of is the retarded way she says "I know these briefs backwards"

krudler

Andy!! wrote: »

Look into getting a PS3, they're pretty cheap and have one built in.

This, and they're one of the better br players, or were anyway. plus its a media centre too.

Andy!!

She should have been written out of TDK. Of course its possible that too many wheels were turning by the time Holmes refused to return, but I think its a clear sign that Nolan had pretty much stopped caring about the trilogy and just went 'ah sure feck it.'

krudler

Andy!! wrote: »

She should have been written out of TDK. Of course its possible that too many wheels were turning by the time Holmes refused to return, but I think its a clear sign that Nolan had pretty much stopped caring about the trilogy and just went 'ah sure feck it.'

I still hate that Bruce retired because of Rachels death, if anything it should have inspired him to be more of a presence in the city. he stopped being Batman because he had a case of the sads, shenanigans.

Andy!!

krudler wrote: »

I still hate that Bruce retired because of Rachels death, if anything it should have inspired him to be more of a presence in the city. he stopped being Batman because he had a case of the sads, shenanigans.

Yeah there were definitely other and better ways to have him retire for a few years only to be dragged back in, which still is an interesting plot point. But unfortunately they making him a pariah was a 2 minute afterthought in TDK and was the same in TDKR.

I forget, why did he step out in TDKReturns the graphic novel?

krudler

Andy!! wrote: »

Yeah there were definitely other and better ways to have him retire for a few years only to be dragged back in, which still is an interesting plot point. But unfortunately they making him a pariah was a 2 minute afterthought in TDK and was the same in TDKR.

I forget, why did he step out in TDKReturns the graphic novel?

there was a fake/fan script floating about with TDKR beginning right where TDK finished, Batman injured and being chased by the cops, that could've worked, the whole idea that he was going to be out fighting crime while being public enemy #1 was a cool idea at the end of TDK and they never followed through with it. It could have given us some cool character beats between Gordon and Batman if he was trying to help him without letting on he knew the truth about Harvey to the rest of the police force, instead we get Gordon wandering around with a confession letter in his pocket, gah.

Andy!!

krudler wrote: »

there was a fake/fan script floating about with TDKR beginning right where TDK finished, Batman injured and being chased by the cops, that could've worked, the whole idea that he was going to be out fighting crime while being public enemy #1 was a cool idea at the end of TDK and they never followed through with it. It could have given us some cool character beats between Gordon and Batman if he was trying to help him without letting on he knew the truth about Harvey to the rest of the police force, instead we get Gordon wandering around with a confession letter in his pocket, gah.

Yeh that plus having him have to constantly outrun a dedicated task force while just having petty thieves to waste his time on would have worked I guess.

krudler

Andy!! wrote: »

Yeh that plus having him have to constantly outrun a dedicated task force while just having petty thieves to waste his time on would have worked I guess.

Indeed, him being truly against the odds every time he goes out while wading through petty thugs, would have made for a far more interesting continuation than him sitting around doing nothing for 8 years. The backbreaking arc could have still come into it.

if it had been set at the same time as TDK then Gordon would have been off rounding up the remaining crime syndicate and they could have had Matthew Modine's character set with a task force for taking down Batman, he's completely pointless in TDKR.

Oafley Jones

Andy!! wrote: »

Look into getting a PS3, they're pretty cheap and have one built in.

The cheapest ps3 costs triple that of a blu-ray player.

I'm a big fan of the format, I've no idea what the dvd quality of the TDKR is like, but TDK was shocking and clearly warners were up to their old tricks of pushing a new format by degrading the old standard.

Theboinkmaster

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Is it worth buying a blue ray player to see this on blue ray rather than DVD?

If you have a big enough TV then Yes, IMO anything less than a 32" you may not tell much difference.

PS3 for €250 happy days.

ScrubsfanChris

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Is it worth buying a blue ray player to see this on blue ray rather than DVD?

The scenes shot in IMAX are unreal, the sense of depth and clarity is miles ahead of what can be achieved with normal 35mm.
The helicopter shots in the opening scene and views of Gotham are amazing.

Tesco have some decent players for around €140, get one with built-in wifi receiver for Netfilx and such...

Scanlas The 2nd

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

If you have a big enough TV then Yes, IMO anything less than a 32" you may not tell much difference.

PS3 for €250 happy days.

Just saw you can get a decent 3d Bly ray player with wifi for 130 euro, think ill get that, turns your tv into a smart tv apparently.

krudler

Oafley Jones wrote: »

The cheapest ps3 costs triple that of a blu-ray player.

I'm a big fan of the format, I've no idea what the dvd quality of the TDKR is like, but TDK was shocking and clearly warners were up to their old tricks of pushing a new format by degrading the old standard.

the non-IMAX stuff in the bluray of TDK was no great shakes either apparently, I never really had an issue with it but some of review sites were pretty critical of it.

cloud493

PS3 is my bu ray player too. Brilliant it is

Mickeroo

krudler wrote: »

Indeed, him being truly against the odds every time he goes out while wading through petty thugs, would have made for a far more interesting continuation than him sitting around doing nothing for 8 years. The backbreaking arc could have still come into it.

if it had been set at the same time as TDK then Gordon would have been off rounding up the remaining crime syndicate and they could have had Matthew Modine's character set with a task force for taking down Batman, he's completely pointless in TDKR.

I don't know why they didn't use the back breaking as the reason for the 8 year lay off tbh. They could have still had Rachel as something he's been mulling on but not the reason he stopped. Ten minute prologue that takes place an instant after TDK maybe, bat's in reasonably bad shape already, Bane reveals himself and demolishes bats. Would have been a much more intimidating intro for bane too rather than the awesome but ultimately nonsense sequence we got.

krudler

Mickeroo wrote: »

I don't know why they didn't use the back breaking as the reason for the 8 year lay off tbh. They could have still had Rachel as something he's been mulling on but not the reason he stopped. Ten minute prologue that takes place an instant after TDK maybe, bat's in reasonably bad shape already, Bane reveals himself and demolishes bats. Would have been a much more intimidating intro for bane too rather than the awesome but ultimately nonsense sequence we got.

The plane heist? cool looking but dumb as **** sequence

Mickeroo

krudler wrote: »

The plane heist? cool looking but dumb as **** sequence

Absolutely, still enjoyed it though.

Sad Professor

Rachel's death isn't the reason Bruce retired, she's the reason he didn't move on. The reason he retired is because Gotham didn't need Batman anymore. At the end of TDK the Joker is locked up, Harvey is dead, the mob is locked up. Bruce spends the whole movie talking about how he'll soon be able to retire and live a normal life with Rachel. Obviously the Joker screws up this plan and Batman/Gordon have to lie in order to stop all their good work from being undone. But essentially the end of that film is a victory for the city, if not necessarily for Bruce who loses Rachel and has to take the fall for Harvey's crimes.

The purpose of the 8 year gap in TDKR was to show that they actually succeeded, that Gotham was at peace and was not (as suggested in Begins) beyond saving. Having Batman make that sacrifice at the end of TDK only for Bane to show up a week later would have rendered his sacrifice meaningless. This sort of thing is acceptable in the comics where Batman is ageless, but Nolan's Batman is very much a mortal man who neither wants nor is capable of fighting crime forever.

krudler

Think it might be time to watch the trilogy as a whole over a weekend or something, been ages since I watched TDK fully. Its such a pity Ledger died (for obvious reasons as well as being part of the franchise) as Nolan didnt do the easy thing of killing him off, you can only wonder what might have been if he was around to be in TDKR as well.

"you know, I think you and I are destined to do this forever.." already awesome line that's even more poignant now.

jaykhunter

Really brilliant retrospective video on the trilogy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s4aAp8OxGg

jaykhunter

Actually - can someone explain the Lazarus pit pulley system to me?
'Cause here's what it looks like : One end is tied around the inmate's waist. And the other end goes through some kind of pulley at the top of the entrance, and back down again to someone at ground level. It's strong enough to support a grown man plummeting down when he fails to make the jump....then surely one could just climb up the rope?

Mickeroo

jaykhunter wrote: »

Actually - can someone explain the Lazarus pit pulley system to me?
'Cause here's what it looks like : One end is tied around the inmate's waist. And the other end goes through some kind of pulley at the top of the entrance, and back down again to someone at ground level. It's strong enough to support a grown man plummeting down when he fails to make the jump....then surely one could just climb up the rope?

Pretty sure the rope is fastened about halfway up the wall before the jump, hence the long fall when a climber doesn't make the jump.

Andy!!

Mickeroo wrote: »

I don't know why they didn't use the back breaking as the reason for the 8 year lay off tbh. They could have still had Rachel as something he's been mulling on but not the reason he stopped. Ten minute prologue that takes place an instant after TDK maybe, bat's in reasonably bad shape already, Bane reveals himself and demolishes bats. Would have been a much more intimidating intro for bane too rather than the awesome but ultimately nonsense sequence we got.

Because its too fast. You got to set a character up first.

Andy!!

Sad Professor wrote: »

Rachel's death isn't the reason Bruce retired, she's the reason he didn't move on. The reason he retired is because Gotham didn't need Batman anymore. At the end of TDK the Joker is locked up, Harvey is dead, the mob is locked up. Bruce spends the whole movie talking about how he'll soon be able to retire and live a normal life with Rachel. Obviously the Joker screws up this plan and Batman/Gordon have to lie in order to stop all their good work from being undone. But essentially the end of that film is a victory for the city, if not necessarily for Bruce who loses Rachel and has to take the fall for Harvey's crimes.

The purpose of the 8 year gap in TDKR was to show that they actually succeeded, that Gotham was at peace and was not (as suggested in Begins) beyond saving. Having Batman make that sacrifice at the end of TDK only for Bane to show up a week later would have rendered his sacrifice meaningless. This sort of thing is acceptable in the comics where Batman is ageless, but Nolan's Batman is very much a mortal man who neither wants nor is capable of fighting crime forever.

His sacrifice was meaningless; it was badly written, utter bollox. It would be like Spiderman told his girlfriend in the latest movie that he was responsible for her father, so that she wouldnt hate the Lizard.

The only reason for the 8 year gap is to reference the graphic novel.

Alfred Borden

Sad Professor wrote: »

Rachel's death isn't the reason Bruce retired, she's the reason he didn't move on. The reason he retired is because Gotham didn't need Batman anymore. At the end of TDK the Joker is locked up, Harvey is dead, the mob is locked up. Bruce spends the whole movie talking about how he'll soon be able to retire and live a normal life with Rachel. Obviously the Joker screws up this plan and Batman/Gordon have to lie in order to stop all their good work from being undone. But essentially the end of that film is a victory for the city, if not necessarily for Bruce who loses Rachel and has to take the fall for Harvey's crimes.

The purpose of the 8 year gap in TDKR was to show that they actually succeeded, that Gotham was at peace and was not (as suggested in Begins) beyond saving. Having Batman make that sacrifice at the end of TDK only for Bane to show up a week later would have rendered his sacrifice meaningless. This sort of thing is acceptable in the comics where Batman is ageless, but Nolan's Batman is very much a mortal man who neither wants nor is capable of fighting crime forever.

100% agree with this, exactly what I interpreted.

jaykhunter

Sad Professor wrote: »

The purpose of the 8 year gap in TDKR was to show that they actually succeeded, that Gotham was at peace and was not (as suggested in Begins) beyond saving.

Em...how come Bane wants to destroy Gotham then? Is it more out of spite or because the LoS said they would before? Or they still think it's broken despite it being pretty prosperous since the Dent Act?

krudler

jaykhunter wrote: »

Em...how come Bane wants to destroy Gotham then? Is it more out of spite or because the LoS said they would before? Or they still think it's broken despite it being pretty prosperous since the Dent Act?

In BB its because its full of organised crime and beyond saving, yet in TDKR its without major crime, but rich people have nice apartments so, I dunno, lets blow up the city :pac:

Really its for Tahlia's vengeance (you'd wonder why after she says Bats murdered her dad he didnt point out that he actually didn't, he just never saved him from the train, and had in fact saved his life previously)

Nervous Wreck

krudler wrote: »

I still hate that Bruce retired because of Rachels death, if anything it should have inspired him to be more of a presence in the city. he stopped being Batman because he had a case of the sads, shenanigans.

Sad Professor wrote: »

Rachel's death isn't the reason Bruce retired, she's the reason he didn't move on. The reason he retired is because Gotham didn't need Batman anymore. At the end of TDK the Joker is locked up, Harvey is dead, the mob is locked up. Bruce spends the whole movie talking about how he'll soon be able to retire and live a normal life with Rachel. Obviously the Joker screws up this plan and Batman/Gordon have to lie in order to stop all their good work from being undone. But essentially the end of that film is a victory for the city, if not necessarily for Bruce who loses Rachel and has to take the fall for Harvey's crimes.

The purpose of the 8 year gap in TDKR was to show that they actually succeeded, that Gotham was at peace and was not (as suggested in Begins) beyond saving. Having Batman make that sacrifice at the end of TDK only for Bane to show up a week later would have rendered his sacrifice meaningless. This sort of thing is acceptable in the comics where Batman is ageless, but Nolan's Batman is very much a mortal man who neither wants nor is capable of fighting crime forever.

Additionally, Miranda (Talia) remarks that Wayne became a recluse when his clean energy project fell apart. Batman wasn't needed and his work and social lives as Bruce Wayne had hit dead ends.

krudler

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Additionally, Miranda (Talia) remarks that Wayne became a recluse when his clean energy project fell apart. Batman wasn't needed and his work and social lives as Bruce Wayne had hit dead ends.

Wasn't his refusal to turn on the machine why it fell apart? Fat lot of good that did :pac:

Wonder what cover story they used when Bruce "died" since a few people would have seen him alive and well when he's picked up on purpose by Bane's goons, hired goons.

corcaigh07

cloud493 wrote: »

Katie holmes is not a good rachel, and the scarecrow didn't feel like a good villain, and Falconi(or however you spell that) wasn't a good mob boss. I like Gordon and Batman the most though. And he uses that mental gadget, summoning the bats to distract the cops when rachel's been poisoned.

don't agree plus he wasn't the main threat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCELYhYlLtU