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

indough

Andy!! wrote: »

You're telling me Alfred didn't know? He seemed very unsurprised to see a dead man sitting in a cafe then!

And the fact that Bats was in the cockpit a second before a nuke went off 20feet under him?

Would you have had him fall on the floor having a heart attack or what?

The scene prior to the explosion could be explained in a number of ways, for example, we could have been seeing him in an escape pod, or the editing could have been showing him out of chronological sequence

This film is not inception, the writers were not going to end the trilogy of Batman movies without letting us know whether the hero survives or not, they are certainly not going to dangle an ambiguous ending in your face and they certainly didn't

Mickeroo

Nolan pretty much rams it down our throats that Bruce is alive at the end, Alfred explained earlier in the film exactly why he doesn't act shocked when he sees Bruce.

indough

indough wrote: »

There is no ambiguity whatsoever, the film clearly shows you that he survived...

Turtyturd wrote: »

Don't think it could be any clearer...

I personally think he's supposed to have survived, or at least that's the idea that Nolan is trying to plant in your head at the end of the film, but that leaves a myriad of unanswered questions and plot holes in relation to the filmmaking itself.

At the risk of getting complaints again for re-covering stuff already discussed, or bringing up old "nonsense" again:

If he lived, how did he get clear of the blast zone when he was in the bat a few seconds before detonation?
Why was he shown in the bat a few seconds before detonation if it had an autopilot, and he presumably was intending to live, and not get blown up.
How did he get to shore with a stab wound in his side after being so far out to sea?
What was the vehicle that fox was seen examining the autopilot on? The bat (a prototype, not in production at any level) was seen being destroyed in a nuclear blast.

Sorry if these are awkward, nit picky questions, but this is all unresolved plot hole stuff that points to lacklustre film making by a director who knows better. Nolan knows how to do this better, so why did the ending appear on screen as it did?

If the ending of the film is as he wanted it all along, and the plan was for Wayne to have survived, these questions would most likely never have arisen. Nolan is a better director than that. At worst, all of these questions wouldn't have been difficult to tie up with some further exposition in another 2-3 minutes of footage.

It really looks like either poor filmmaking, or (more likely) re-jigged editing on the last few scenes, and just because Nolan says that's the way he wanted it all along, that doesn't necessarily make it true. Directors and actors are contractually obliged not to say anything nasty about the film or the studio as part of a film's PR, and it wouldn't be the first time a major director compromised on his delivery to keep the people paying his salary happy.

indough wrote: »

...The scene prior to the explosion could be explained in a number of ways, for example, we could have been seeing him in an escape pod, or the editing could have been showing him out of chronological sequence...

That's not good enough. It's a cop out to make an excuse for errors in direction and editing, and an example of more exposition that was missing from the narrative. If that's true, it's remiss of Nolan not to have shown a quick shot of that escape pod, or corrected that chronological sequence to leave no doubt in people's minds. If he escaped, fine, if he died, fine, but he should have made up his mind one way or the other and not left so many holes.

Nolan wanted to take the audience on a journey, make them think wayne had been killed, and then reveal that he'd actually survived and it was all a master plan, but the way in which he did it left too many holes and unanswered questions.

Including the shot of Bats in the cockpit with 5 seconds on the clock was a big directing/editing blunder if you ask me, as it made so many of the possible options for explaining away the "faked his own death" storyline defunct.

Sad Professor

Deleted User wrote: »

IIf he lived, how did he get clear of the blast zone when he was in the bat a few seconds before detonation?

He's Batman.

Why was he shown in the bat a few seconds before detonation if it had an autopilot, and he presumably was intending to live, and not get blown up.

He wasn't necessarily intending to live. I think at that moment Bruce was seriously grappling with whether he wanted to live or not. Alfred talks about this earlier in the film.

How did he get to shore with a stab wound in his side after being so far out to sea?

He's Batman.

What was the vehicle that fox was seen examining the autopilot on? The bat (a prototype, not in production at any level) was seen being destroyed in a nuclear blast.

Another prototype. You can see it in the background when Fox is showing Bruce The Bat earlier in the film.

Andy!!

indough wrote: »

Would you have had him fall on the floor having a heart attack or what?

So youre saying that finding out the dearest person to you is not dead after all merits no surprise or shock at all.

K.

johnny_ultimate

Everytime anyone wants to question a supposed plot hole or inconsistency, it is most definitely worth seeing if the question is answerable with 'He's Batman' before asking

Turtyturd

Andy!! wrote: »

So youre saying that finding out the dearest person to you is not dead after all merits no surprise or shock at all.

K.

What's to say Fox didn't tell him after he found out the autopilot had been fixed?

indough

well yeah these are all nit-picky questions but there are possible answers

we don't know how fast the bat is going before the explosion, 5 seconds at incredible speed could mean quite a distance from the blast. also, the escape pod could be made from some material more resistant to that kind of damage than we imagine, it is make believe after all.

tl;dr version: it doesn't really pay to over-analyse these things or expect too much from a film maker who gave us a trilogy of great movies about a rich guy who dresses up as a giant bat to fight criminals and manages to make it not ridiculous

Andy!!

MackDaddi wrote: »

I personally think he's supposed to have survived, or at least that's the idea that Nolan is trying to plant in your head at the end of the film, but that leaves a myriad of unanswered questions and plot holes in relation to the filmmaking itself.

At the risk of getting complaints again for re-covering stuff already discussed, or bringing up old "nonsense" again:

If he lived, how did he get clear of the blast zone when he was in the bat a few seconds before detonation?
Why was he shown in the bat a few seconds before detonation if it had an autopilot, and he presumably was intending to live, and not get blown up.
How did he get to shore with a stab wound in his side after being so far out to sea?
What was the vehicle that fox was seen examining the autopilot on? The bat (a prototype, not in production at any level) was seen being destroyed in a nuclear blast.

Sorry if these are awkward, nit picky questions, but this is all unresolved plot hole stuff that points to lacklustre film making by a director who knows better. Nolan knows how to do this better, so why did the ending appear on screen as it did?

If the ending of the film is as he wanted it all along, and the plan was for Wayne to have survived, these questions would most likely never have arisen. Nolan is a better director than that. At worst, all of these questions wouldn't have been difficult to tie up with some further exposition in another 2-3 minutes of footage.

It really looks like either poor filmmaking, or (more likely) re-jigged editing on the last few scenes, and just because Nolan says that's the way he wanted it all along, that doesn't necessarily make it true. Directors and actors are contractually obliged not to say anything nasty about the film or the studio as part of a film's PR, and it wouldn't be the first time a major director compromised on his delivery to keep the people paying his salary happy.

Give it up mate, you're not allowed to critically look at TDK or TDKR on boards. The only circumstance where it is acceptable is if you say that TDKR sucked because none of the cast died after the film shooting (i.e. its sucks cause its not TDK). I've tried, let me tell you from experience, you'll just get trolled out of it by most, and the polite ones will just offer up conjecture. You ain't gonna get a decent discussion here, sorry.

I agree with you about Blake 'figuring out' Bats' identity. I had never thought of it that way. If Blake could figure it out for arbitrary reasons, surely the rest of the world would figure it out for the obvious ones.

Mickeroo

Deleted User wrote: »

I personally think he's supposed to have survived, or at least that's the idea that Nolan is trying to plant in your head at the end of the film, but that leaves a myriad of unanswered questions and plot holes in relation to the filmmaking itself.

At the risk of getting complaints again for re-covering stuff already discussed, or bringing up old "nonsense" again:

If he lived, how did he get clear of the blast zone when he was in the bat a few seconds before detonation?
Why was he shown in the bat a few seconds before detonation if it had an autopilot, and he presumably was intending to live, and not get blown up.
How did he get to shore with a stab wound in his side after being so far out to sea?
What was the vehicle that fox was seen examining the autopilot on? The bat (a prototype, not in production at any level) was seen being destroyed in a nuclear blast.

Nolan isn't trying to plant the idea that Bruce is alive, he actually literally shows us a shot of him having tea with his missus in a cafe. Or was it coffee?

Regards the shots of Batman in the cockpit, how he escaped etc. It's quite simple really, it's misdirection on the part of Nolan. There's no point pretending to kill a character if the Audience don't genuinely believe he's dead too at first. The reason we don't see how he escapes is to give more of an emotional impact to the reveal in the cafe.

Regards there being more than one Bat prototype, there's more than one tumbler sure and also having two prototypes as opposed to one can still be considered "not in production at any level" imo.

indough

Andy!! wrote: »

So youre saying that finding out the dearest person to you is not dead after all merits no surprise or shock at all.

K.

well when said person is a genius billionaire known for cheating death night after night as a bat costume dressed vigilante and has already been thought dead for years previously then it might not come as such a shock, i'd imagine.

Andy!!

Turtyturd wrote: »

What's to say Fox didn't tell him after he found out the autopilot had been fixed?

There should be no 'whats to say...'. Thats the problem. You gotta show the audience this stuff! That theory is probably the most likely, but bloody film Fox calling up Alfred after hearing about the autopilot! You gotta fill those gaps in, or else it's just bad film-making. There is a massive difference between leaving things left unsaid when they dont need to be; and just making a mess.

Andy!!

indough wrote: »

well when said person is a genius billionaire known for cheating death night after night as a bat costume dressed vigilante and has already been thought dead for years previously then it might not come as such a shock, i'd imagine.

Really; no momentary surprise and shock whatsoever. Not even an instant.
I can see him not being surprised afterwards, but theres not a human in the world who would be literally unphased by the instant.

indough

Andy!! wrote: »

Really; no momentary surprise and shock whatsoever. Not even an instant.
I can see him not being surprised afterwards, but theres not a human in the world who would be literally unphased by that.

well then put it down to a moment of bad acting if you wish, but whatever way you put it the fact remains that it is not an ambiguous ending

Andy!!

indough wrote: »

well then put it down to a moment of bad acting if you wish, but whatever way you put it the fact remains that it is not an ambiguous ending

I find that actually offensive.

Are people so unable to admit that Nolan and his brother screwed the pooch that they would actually attack Caine instead, a flawless actor in this trilogy?

indough

Andy!! wrote: »

I find that actually offensive.

Are people so unable to admit that Nolan and his brother screwed the pooch that they would actually attack Caine instead, a flawless actor in this trilogy?

okay now it's obvious that you are a WUM

johnny_ultimate

Here we go again *sigh*

Andy!!, we've had to ban you already because of your responses in this thread. You're on a slippery slope again with some of the nonsense posts today. Don't try and play the innocent card.

Everyone else, please try and discuss with courtesy.

Turtyturd

Andy!! wrote: »

I find that actually offensive.

Are people so unable to admit that Nolan and his brother screwed the pooch that they would actually attack Caine instead, a flawless actor in this trilogy?

You have to be taking the piss?

Mickeroo

I think this scene explains perfectly why Alfred doesn't act shocked:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJPCUvaGnj0

indough

i think the film should have ended with wayne waking up in an orphanage as a child and it was all just a dream

duuum-duuuum-duuuuuuuum-duuuuuuuuuuuuum

Andy!!

Andy!! wrote: »

There should be no 'whats to say...'. Thats the problem. You gotta show the audience this stuff!...You gotta fill those gaps in, or else it's just bad film-making. There is a massive difference between leaving things left unsaid when they dont need to be; and just making a mess.

Yes, yes, yes, this is 100% the point i was trying to make. I can buy all the explanations posted here as being possible, and they would have been perfectly credible on screen, but that's the point, they weren't shown on screen, and it was just bad decisions by the director and/or editor.

I'm a huge fan of Batman, and a big Nolan fan too, but that doesn't stop me from ignoring obvious flaws in a film i really wanted to love. This film is just too busy with stuff going on in an over complicated plot, and as a result it doesn't have enough time for exposition (ie: explaination and showing on-screen) of many of the crucial little bits of plot that tie it all together, and make it 100% coherent and make sense.

Don't get me wrong, i love batman, and everything to do with the character, but saying "He's batman", or "this or that could have happened" isn't good enough. If it wasn't referred to by one of the characters, or shown on screen, then it didn't happen, and it's not a basis for explaining away a poorly constructed finale to a film by a director who should have known better..

What I want to know is why Selina Kyle shares an apartment. She's obviously quite well-off so why not have a place of her own? It doesn't seem like her and her roommate are particularly close, she didn't even bring her to Florence.

Also how can Alfred still have an English accent after apparently living in America for so long?

And don't get me started on that bat-thing, it'd never work.

But the most baffling thing is that Bruce has been holed up for years. We don't see him eating during that time so how is he still alive? If they'd shown him eating a few meals every week during those years then it'd make sense but it wasn't shown on screen and therefore it was just bad decisions by the director and/or editor.

Andy!!

indough wrote: »

okay now it's obvious that you are a WUM

What is that.

Andy!!

Turtyturd wrote: »

You have to be taking the piss?

People think Caine did a bad job? News to me.

Andy!!

MackDaddi wrote: »

Yes, yes, yes, this is 100% the point i was trying to make. I can buy all the explanations posted here as being possible, and they would have been perfectly credible on screen, but that's the point, they weren't shown on screen, and it was just bad decisions by the director and/or editor.

I'm a huge fan of Batman, and a big Nolan fan too, but that doesn't stop me from ignoring obvious flaws in a film i really wanted to love. This film is just too busy with stuff going on in an over complicated plot, and as a result it doesn't have enough time for exposition (ie: explaination and showing on-screen) of many of the crucial little bits of plot that tie it all together, and make it 100% coherent and make sense.

Don't get me wrong, i love batman, and everything to do with the character, but saying "He's batman", or "this or that could have happened" isn't good enough. If it wasn't referred to by one of the characters, or shown on screen, then it didn't happen, and it's not a basis for explaining away a poorly constructed finale to a film by a director who should have known better..

Completely agree. It's film making 101.
I love Batman meself and have been reading the comics for years. Personally I didn't actually mind TDKR that much except for the very beginning and the last 5 minutes. Really liked how they brought the concept of the lazarus pit into a more realistic universe, even though there is the obvious 'how did a penniless Wayne get back to Gotham' angle on it.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

...the most baffling thing is that Bruce has been holed up for years. We don't see him eating during that time so how is he still alive? If they'd shown him eating a few meals every week during those years then it'd make sense but it wasn't shown on screen and therefore it was just bad decisions by the director and/or editor.

I get the joke, very funny, but there's a difference between an assumption that somebody's eating offscreen to stay alive and an assumption that there was an escape pod just out of shot in order to explain away a major plot point that wasn't fully thought through.

Andy!!

Mickeroo wrote: »

I think this scene explains perfectly why Alfred doesn't act shocked:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJPCUvaGnj0

He is talking about a dream he had. If I won a million euros in the morning I'd be shocked, despite dreaming of that exact scenario many times.

Andy!!

Buttonftw wrote: »

What I want to know is why Selina Kyle shares an apartment. She's obviously quite well-off so why not have a place of her own? It doesn't seem like her and her roommate are particularly close, she didn't even bring her to Florence.

Also how can Alfred still have an English accent after apparently living in America for so long?

And don't get me started on that bat-thing, it'd never work.

But the most baffling thing is that Bruce has been holed up for years. We don't see him eating during that time so how is he still alive? If they'd shown him eating a few meals every week during those years then it'd make sense but it wasn't shown on screen and therefore it was just bad decisions by the director and/or editor.

Sarcasm should be funny.

I am genuinely baffled how people dont understand the difference between information you dont have to supply the audience, and information you do.

MilanPan!c

Andy!! wrote: »

I find that actually offensive.

Are people so unable to admit that Nolan and his brother screwed the pooch that they would actually attack Caine instead, a flawless actor in this trilogy?

I wouldn't say Mr Weepy is a flawless actor in the trilogy... I also wouldn't say Nolan is all that either though...

Mickeroo

Andy!! wrote: »

He is talking about a dream he had. If I won a million euros in the morning I'd be shocked, despite dreaming of that exact scenario many times.

Doesn't matter how you'd react, the whole point of the scene is to foreshadow how alfred would react and how the ending plays out.