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

Rubber_Soul

Well Andy you've converted me. I for one hope Nolan releases a directors cut with 8 months worth of additional footage that will include showing Bruce sat in front of the Batcomputer coding the autopilot software, hitch-hiking back from the middle of nowhere and of course the swim back to shore.

MilanPan!c

StarshipPooper wrote: »

Well Andy you've converted me. I for one hope Nolan releases a directors cut with 8 months worth of additional footage that will include showing Bruce sat in front of the Batcomputer coding the autopilot software, hitch-hiking back from the middle of nowhere and of course the swim back to shore.

And there must be a few months of toilet time we've missed out on as well...

Andy!!

MilanPan!c wrote: »

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

Well thats surprising. Always felt Caine was very strong and that the cockney thing was genius.

Yeh he was a bit weepy in TDKR haha.

Andy!!

Mickeroo wrote: »

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.

It is how anyone would react.

SEEING SOMEBODY YOU THOUGHT WAS DEAD WOULD SURPRISE ANY HUMAN ON THE PLANET.

And yes; of course it was a foreshadowing, incredibly obvious.

Andy!!

StarshipPooper wrote: »

Well Andy you've converted me. I for one hope Nolan releases a directors cut with 8 months worth of additional footage that will include showing Bruce sat in front of the Batcomputer coding the autopilot software, hitch-hiking back from the middle of nowhere and of course the swim back to shore.

More unfunny sarcasm because you can't admit to the fact that there are holes that shouldn't be there. Sad.

(And I'm not the only one saying this. Singling out is futile.)

e_e

Grrrrrrrrr how dare a filmmaker credit me with having an imagination!

Rubber_Soul

Andy!! wrote: »

More unfunny sarcasm because you can't admit to the fact that there are holes that shouldn't be there. Sad.

(And I'm not the only one saying this. Singling out is futile.)

I think you're confusing me with someone else. I have no problems admitting there's faults with the film, imo it's the worst of the trilogy (still very good though). My issues with it are down to not buying the 5 month plan or feeling the Miranda/Bruce hookup plus a smattering of clunky dialogue and some dodgy pacing though, not nit picky rubbish like we don't see Batman (a genius who happens to be a trained ninja) manage to get back from India or wherever and sneak into the city, or swim back to shore after jumping out of the Bat. I don't need to see these things, I'm watching a movie not a documentary.

cloud493

He's batman is the answer to all these questions. And why do we need to see how Bruce survived?

Andy!!

e_e wrote: »

Grrrrrrrrr how dare a filmmaker credit me with using conjecture!

Fixed.

Scanlas The 2nd

Andy!! wrote: »

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.

I bet I could get back home from the pit if I wanted.

The part that bothers me most is why didn't Talia tell Bane when she found out Bruce had returned. That just brings me out of the movie and makes it seem cheap.

krudler

The problem with small plot details not being shown is if you do then the film gets bogged down in exposition, if you don't there are supposed plot holes.
some you can get away with, like in Begins, do we need to see how Bruce makes contact with Alfred to have him waiting on a runway for him after he wants to come back to Gotham? he was in a remote village I dont think he just Skyped him, but its not important.

But then on the flipside, we dont see exactly how Bruce gets from Gotham to Asia either, but you see one shot of him running along a quay towards a boat, 2 seconds and there's that conundrum solved, he stowed away, simples. You don't need to see the rest. You can lead the audience a little bit without pandering but then there's blatant "make it up yourself" parts of TDKR which veer into plot hole/bad writing territory.

Penn

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.

He's not talking about a dream he had. He's talking about something he used to do. He used to go to that cafe, he used to order that drink, and then he'd wish he could see Bruce there, living happily.

When he actually does see Bruce there living happily at the end, he's happy, not shocked. His eyes still scanned around the cafe looking for Bruce even though he thought Bruce was dead, because it almost became habit by that point. And I'd say a part of him believed (or at least hoped) that Bruce had survived, and that he'd see him in the cafe. Especially since he told Bruce about it, which means Bruce would have known if ever he had to disappear again for whatever reason, that could be how he'd let Alfred know he was okay.

Mickeroo

Andy!! wrote: »

It is how anyone would react.

SEEING SOMEBODY YOU THOUGHT WAS DEAD WOULD SURPRISE ANY HUMAN ON THE PLANET.

And yes; of course it was a foreshadowing, incredibly obvious.

And who's to say he wasn't surprised?
I find it weird you acknowledge the foreshadeowing of how it played out yet don't understand how it played out. It's story telling 101 etc.

I'm glad you've set me straight on how all human beings react in a 100% predictable manner in any given situation in real life though, much less in a made up film.

Anyway, I realise i'm only prolonging this thread's misery by replying directly to your posts so I'm going to stop now. Good day sir!

Sad Professor

Andy, people disagree with you, I know it's shocking. Now please stop derailing this thread with your nonsense. In fact, stop posting in this thread altogether. You've been banned once already for your behaviour in here, the next ban will be a lot longer.

The King of Moo

I never thought I'd see anyone ask for more exposition in a Christopher Nolan film.

I also don't get how someone could think Alfred wasn't surprised to see Bruce at the café.
It's clear in the look in his eyes as soon as he sees him and his face almost collapses as he struggles to contain his emotions. In my opinion it's a beautiful piece of acting which perfectly illustrates his feelings without the need for dialogue or an obvious reaction of surprise.

cloud493

krudler wrote: »

The problem with small plot details not being shown is if you do then the film gets bogged down in exposition, if you don't there are supposed plot holes.
some you can get away with, like in Begins, do we need to see how Bruce makes contact with Alfred to have him waiting on a runway for him after he wants to come back to Gotham? he was in a remote village I dont think he just Skyped him, but its not important.

But then on the flipside, we dont see exactly how Bruce gets from Gotham to Asia either, but you see one shot of him running along a quay towards a boat, 2 seconds and there's that conundrum solved, he stowed away, simples. You don't need to see the rest. You can lead the audience a little bit without pandering but then there's blatant "make it up yourself" parts of TDKR which veer into plot hole/bad writing territory.

Assumedly, Bruce had already given him a bell. Place with a runway is bound to have a phone of some sort. Or it could be cos Alfred is so awesome he just knew :pac:

Handsome Bob

Mickeroo wrote: »

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.

I'd go with the line of thinking that Bruce reached out to Alfred before that meeting as otherwise everything's a bit too convenient, especially how Alfred explained how it was dream and his calm and knowing look after seeing Bruce.

indough

was selina not wearing the necklace with the tracking thing on it at the end?

krudler

indough wrote: »

was selina not wearing the necklace with the tracking thing on it at the end?

She was I think, Bruce had the tracking doodad though so wouldnt have mattered.

indough

krudler wrote: »

She was I think, Bruce had the tracking doodad though so wouldnt have mattered.

im not sure i agree, i think alfred is supposed to have followed them there because of the necklace left by bruce as a clue. there is a line around the scene of the will about them missing the necklace and not being able to just leave it off the manifest, which would be completely superfluous and out of place otherwise. it would explain why he wouldnt be that shocked to find them there.

Penn

indough wrote: »

im not sure i agree, i think alfred is supposed to have followed them there because of the necklace left by bruce as a clue. there is a line around the scene of the will about them missing the necklace and not being able to just leave it off the manifest, which would be completely superfluous and out of place otherwise. it would explain why he wouldnt be that shocked to find them there.

Bruce and Selina were in the cafe because Alfred had already said he used to go to that cafe every year on his holiday. Alfred didn't know he'd be there, but Bruce knew Alfred would, and so that's why they went there. If Alfred knew that Bruce was alive and would be in the cafe, he would have looked for him before sitting down and ordering his drink and drinking it at a completely different table

The line about the necklace was because Bruce had taken the necklace back from Selina earlier in the film. It now being missing was the first hint that Bruce and Selina ended up together. (ie. The necklace should have been back in Wayne Manor, but was now missing, which meant Selina probably had it, which means Bruce probably gave it to her after his supposed death)

indough

i just dont recall him telling bruce the exact restaurant he used to go to. in my opinion it would make more sense if the line was meant to be both to let alfred know something was up and also to lead him to the restaurant, killing two birds with one stone. i dont see any reason why it couldnt be tracked by alfred given that he had no problem finding info on someone like bane earlier on in the movie, and this explains it better for me.

krudler

indough wrote: »

im not sure i agree, i think alfred is supposed to have followed them there because of the necklace left by bruce as a clue. there is a line around the scene of the will about them missing the necklace and not being able to just leave it off the manifest, which would be completely superfluous and out of place otherwise. it would explain why he wouldnt be that shocked to find them there.

Thats a gigantic leap of logic, the pearls were taken by Bruce and he gave them to Selina, obviously everything in Wayne manor would have been catalogued, pearls missing, they wanted to find them, simples.

maximoose

indough wrote: »

i just dont recall him telling bruce the exact restaurant he used to go to.

He's Batman, also known as the world's greatest detective - I'm sure he could figure it out. As evidenced by him figuring it out.

Not having a go at you, but I just really don't see why you need to make up explanations for things that really don't need to be explained!

krudler

Alfred tells him its a restaurant on the banks of the Arno river in Florence, can't be THAT many cafes along it. He could have been watching Alfred for a while before that, or followed him, or took a guess, or a million other things, it doesnt need explaining!

indough

krudler wrote: »

Thats a gigantic leap of logic, the pearls were taken by Bruce and he gave them to Selina, obviously everything in Wayne manor would have been catalogued, pearls missing, they wanted to find them, simples.

its not a giant leap of logic at all. why do you think they even wrote the tracking chip into the film? bruce could have easily found her in gotham without the need for a tracking chip, that particular mini-macguffin was all leading up to the point in the restaurant.

indough

maximoose wrote: »

Not having a go at you, but I just really don't see why you need to make up explanations for things that really don't need to be explained!

yeah i know it doesnt really matter and all that :pac: but the line about the necklace would still be redundant without this explanation. bruce could have just shown up at the restaurant sans necklace with the same result. anyway ill shut up about it now

krudler

indough wrote: »

its not a giant leap of logic at all. why do you think they even wrote the tracking chip into the film? bruce could have easily found her in gotham without the need for a tracking chip, that particular mini-macguffin was all leading up to the point in the restaurant.

No it wasn't, that's taking two random plotlines and trying to tie them together, Alfred being at the restaurant has nothing to do with the string of pearls, at all.

ancapailldorcha

krudler wrote: »

Alfred tells him its a restaurant on the banks of the Arno river in Florence, can't be THAT many cafes along it. He could have been watching Alfred for a while before that, or followed him, or took a guess, or a million other things, it doesnt need explaining!

There's also the fact he might have used a credit card, told friends about it....

I don't get the obsession with pointing out little things wrong with films nowadays. There's tons and tons of youtube channels dedicated solely to this and trying to pass these observations off as jokes because they're too lazy to create material. Call me old fashioned but for me a film is about the experience as a whole as opposed to the sum of each minor flaw.

Anyways, I might go watch Die Hard before I see a list of things wrong with it somewhere...

krudler

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There's also the fact he might have used a credit card, told friends about it....

I don't get the obsession with pointing out little things wrong with films nowadays. There's tons and tons of youtube channels dedicated solely to this and trying to pass these observations off as jokes because they're too lazy to create material. Call me old fashioned but for me a film is about the experience as a whole as opposed to the sum of each minor flaw.

Anyways, I might go watch Die Hard before I see a list of things wrong with it somewhere...

It only seems to be a recent thing, ripping every detail of movies apart, Die Hard probably has rakes of "plot holes" but who gives a ****, its 25 years old and still one of the best action movies ever made. sure look at Home Alone, christmas favourite that the entire premise could have been resolved with Culkin just ringing the cops himself or taking a wander to one of the neighbours houses and telling someone two guys are planning to break in, dont overthink things.