The other thing I have found, is some of the "plot holes" I hear about can be answered if one reads many of those stories you mention. I know the story lines don't line up exactly, but the core info is there to actually go, "ahh well in the comic xyz happened" and you can apply that to the film.
I disagree. Just because something happens in the comics doesn't mean it makes sense in the world Nolan established
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 11 Aug 2012, 19:26I disagree. Just because something happens in the comics doesn't mean it makes sense in the world Nolan establishedI understand your point but let's run with the premise for a second. Suppose something illogical is clarified in some comic book out there. So what? A film needs to work as a completed narrative unto itself. Asking your audience to sift through external media is simply unacceptable.Case in point? The Star Wars prequels. Now, I like the Star Wars prequels and I think they're unfairly maligned. But the fact is that Lucas took a lot of narrative shortcuts secure in the knowledge that the expanded universe (comics, novels, video games, etc) would cover his @$$. Sorry, not good enough. He set up a lot of things that he ended up ignoring later on. Sure, some EU novel out there covers it but that's not good enough. Lucas set it up so it should be Lucas who pays it off. But he didn't.Same deal with Nolan.So even if he's right, I still reject that argument out of hand.
Very good point. It should be all in the movie itself. For example, I shouldn't have to read the novelisation to find out what really happened, or what a certain thing meant, after seeing the movie. In this instance they had a solid 2 hours 45 minutes. For example, cutting off bridges has happened in the comics. And that's fine. But I find Bane's reasoning for doing so in the movie weak and distorted. Thus making the comic reference a bit ho-hum. Just ripping from a comic panel doesn't make it automatic gold, y'know?Ras only attacked Gotham in BB because he deemed it beyond saving. At that point he was correct. Bane attacks Gotham in TDKR (before finding out about Dent's true nature) during peace time. When he first came to Gotham he's essentially starting something out of nothing. "It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan." There we go. Ras Al Ghul's plan. But things had certainly come a long way since those days.
Agreed - Rachel seems to have had a bigger impact on the Nolan Bruce than the death of his parents. Which I don't agree with. The 8 year hibernation was excessive, and this incarnation of Batman as a result wore the cape and cowl for a very short time indeed overall. That's the thing about this movie. We don't get to see what people, average Joes and Janes, actually think about Harvey Dent's true nature once it is revealed. Nor do we get a full impression of any sort regarding their opinion of Batman, given his name is now cleared. I was looking forward to such scenes (really, this stuff should be covered) as they're just as important, more so IMO, than the reveal itself. In TDK we're told people will lose hope if it's revealed and stuff like that. But this material isn't covered. When I saw little Levitt take on the mantle (after TDK told us Batman didn't believe in copycats, guns or no guns) I was disappointed and gobsmacked Nolan went that way. I read that in fan fiction and it actually came true. Nolan can argue that the will is everything, but in all seriousness I'd give this kid a week at most. Nolan said TDKR wouldn't blow up the balloon, but in my estimations he did just that.
If it weren't for his handgun, those truck guys would've killed him.If Gordon hadn't suddenly healed and taken out two League of Shadows members in the hospital, who knows what would've happened.If it weren't for Batman, the LoS men would've killed him in the snow.If it weren't for sheer luck that he didn't move closer, he would've gotten blown up by the army guys at the bridge.And obviously, if it weren't for Batman taking out the bomb, he would've gotten blown up with the kids and the rest of the city, too.
Guys, does anyone remember in which issue it was first mentioned that Gordon got separated with his wife?