"Top" critics
The Dark Knight Rises, an American genre falls
http://blogs.suntimes.com/foreignc/2012/08/the-dark-knight-rises-and-the-american-genre-falls.html
Peter David on TDKR
http://www.peterdavid.net/2012/07/29/the-dark-knight-rises-like-a-souffle-but-then-a-loud-bang-makes-it-fall-my-spoiler-filled-comments/
In-depth articles/ Analyses
Comic Influences on The Dark Knight Rises
http://www.batman-online.com/features/2012/7/29/comic-influences-on-the-dark-knight-rises
The Meaning Of Joseph Gordon-Levitt's Fate In 'The Dark Knight Rises'
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2012/07/26/the-meaning-of-joseph-gordon-levitts-fate-in-the-dark-knight-rises-spoilers/#more-4159
(maybe the definitive explanation for the ending)
Imagine The Fire: Analyzing the Dark Knight Rises
http://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/imagine-fire-analyzing-dark-knight-rises/
Why The Dark Knight Rises Fails
http://www.sequart.org/magazine/13903/why-the-dark-knight-rises-fails/
(even if someone disagrees with his opinion and loves the film, it's an interesting in-depth article)
Lists, "infojunk" etc.
Film School Rejects: Liked / Disliked / Okay
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/11-things-that-did-work-in-the-dark-knight-rises.php
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/11-things-that-didnt-work-in-the-dark-knight-rises-rfure.php/2
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/11-things-that-were-just-okay-in-the-dark-knight-rises.php
Ten Things That Were Stupid About 'The Dark Knight Rises' (http://www.manolith.com/2012/07/24/ten-things-that-were-stupid-about-the-dark-knight-rises/)
The Dark Knight Rises Explained: Unraveling The Unanswered Questions (http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Dark-Knight-Rises-Explained-Unraveling-Unanswered-Questions-32070.html)
15 Things That Bothered Us About 'The Dark Knight Rises (http://www.slashfilm.com/15-bothered-the-dark-knight-rises/)
4 Things That Sucked, 2 Things That Ruled (http://whatculture.com/film/the-dark-knight-rises-4-things-that-sucked-2-things-that-ruled.php)
The Dark Knight Rises Sequel: 10 Things Warner Bros Must Get Right (http://whatculture.com/film/the-dark-knight-rises-sequel-10-things-warner-bros-must-get-right.php/2)
Dark Knight Trilogy Articles, lists etc.
The 10 Best Things About Chris Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy
http://screenrant.com/batman-dark-knight-trilogy-best-parts/
15 Reasons Tim Burton's Batman is Better Than Chris Nolan's The Dark Knight
http://whatculture.com/film/15-reasons-tim-burtons-batman-is-better-than-chris-nolans-the-dark-knight.php
WHY fan the flames?
(positive , negative, neutral)
2014: UPDATES
The Dark Knight Sinks (The-Void.co.uk) (http://the-void.co.uk/film/feature/batman-dark-knight-rises-wasnt-good-enough-583/)
Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon Take on The Dark Knight Rises (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=113863)
There are some rebuttals to the Dark Knight Rises criticisms articles. I saw this rather snarky one on Facebook:
http://www.uproxx.com/gammasquad/2012/07/your-sarcastic-guide-to-alleged-plot-holes-in-the-dark-knight-rises/
I've seen a lot of arguments online regarding Bruce's return to Gotham from The Pit and the only argument supporting the execution in the movie is (via the uproxx article):
QuoteHow Does Bruce Wayne Get Back to Gotham With No Resources?
He's the ****ing Batman. Seriously, if any fictional character could pull this one off, it's the ****ing Batman. Stop whining.
Give me a break. This isn't like a Bond/Indiana Jones movie where the characters logically take regular transportation to get from one country to another. The movie firmly establishes that:
a) Alfred is gone
b) Bruce Wayne is broke
c) Bruce Wayne is stranded in another country with no Batsuit/gadgets/wallet.
d) Most importantly- Gotham City is cut off from the rest of the world. No one goes in, no one goes out.
So with all these obstacles in place, it's disappointing, dramatically, to see Bruce Wayne walk around in Gotham minutes later.
Is it a plot hole? Maybe. Maybe not. But I think it's lazy writing that's caused legitimate criticism.
There's a certain amount of BS that I'm willing to accept from a brainless action movie. The trick is realizing that, yes, Nolan's Batman films are brainless movies. After you accept that, plotholes and bizarre character motivations matter less.
Of course, that leads you down the dark path that if his Batman movies are brainless, they're also really pretentious because they aspire to be high cinema... while having plotholes that even Jerry Bruckheimer would have problems with but that's beyond the scope of this thread...
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 31 Jul 2012, 23:57
There's a certain amount of BS that I'm willing to accept from a brainless action movie. The trick is realizing that, yes, Nolan's Batman films are brainless movies. After you accept that, plotholes and bizarre character motivations matter less.
Of course, that leads you down the dark path that if his Batman movies are brainless, they're also really pretentious because they aspire to be high cinema... while having plotholes that even Jerry Bruckheimer would have problems with but that's beyond the scope of this thread...
O.O
Hi there stranger! Long time!
Greetings and salutations.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 31 Jul 2012, 23:57
There's a certain amount of BS that I'm willing to accept from a brainless action movie. The trick is realizing that, yes, Nolan's Batman films are brainless movies. After you accept that, plotholes and bizarre character motivations matter less.
Of course, that leads you down the dark path that if his Batman movies are brainless, they're also really pretentious because they aspire to be high cinema... while having plotholes that even Jerry Bruckheimer would have problems with but that's beyond the scope of this thread...
Indeed. The opening plane sequence for example is pointless. It looks cool on the screen but it is undeniably silly. And they just repeat TDK's skyhook rescue anyway. They
had Pavel with them right there in the car. Why on Earth would you go through with that plan which could fail and risk his life? They could've taken out the CIA on the ground and found out what they knew right then are there. What they did in the movie wasn't clever, it was reckless and easily avoided. And they were going to take over Gotham regardless.
It's good that you can recognize my observation as an observation. There are a lot of folks out there who would probably read it as an attack. For whatever it's worth, I enjoyed TDKRises a lot more on the first viewing than I did BB or TDK on their first viewings.
Still reading as I post this reply. I don't necessarily agree with it, but these tend to be a fun read.
20 Blunders in Chris Nolan's Trilogy
http://whatculture.com/film/the-dark-knight-rises-20-blunders-in-chris-nolans-trilogy.php
Never has such a respected critic written such a condescending article for an entire genre (wait, isn't Ebert the guy that refused to consider video games as a legitimate form of art? Yeah, that one). Critics are true artists when it comes to this sort of thing. Nonetheless, a good read, even though I never agreed with anything written by Ebert since I first passed a "reading comprehension in English" test.
The Dark Knight Rises, an American genre falls
http://blogs.suntimes.com/foreignc/2012/08/the-dark-knight-rises-and-the-american-genre-falls.html
Quote from: SilentEnigma on Fri, 10 Aug 2012, 19:29
Never has such a respected critic written such a condescending article for an entire genre (wait, isn't Ebert the guy that refused to consider video games as a legitimate form of art? Yeah, that one). Critics are true artists when it comes to this sort of thing. Nonetheless, a good read, even though I never agreed with anything written by Ebert since I first passed a "reading comprehension in English" test.
The Dark Knight Rises, an American genre falls
http://blogs.suntimes.com/foreignc/2012/08/the-dark-knight-rises-and-the-american-genre-falls.html
My beef with this guy's thinking is that it seems to think the superhero/comic book genre is fundamentally flawed in some way. In fact, I'd venture that Chris Nolan feels the same way. If you don't like a particular type of genre, you can keep beating your head against a wall and watching every single genre movie that comes down the pipeline or you can steer yourself more toward genres you do enjoy. But this idea of reinventing a genre just to make it more palatable for the hand-wringing, insecure, apologetic types just strikes me as wrongheaded. And I'm not just saying that because Nolan, good scenes or concepts aside, sucked everything fun about Batman out of his films.
EDIT- I should add that it's for these reasons that I'll always regard Nolan's Batman movies as an alternate universe. There was an Elseworlds Superman comic a few years ago where a real world kid named Clark Kent somehow gained powers and became a kind of Superman. To me, Nolan applied that concept to Batman for the movies.
I completely agree with the excerpts that I've listed underneath. It's from a review that was published three years ago, titled
'The Dark Gnat: How Christopher Nolan's Embarrassing Seriousness Ruined Batman'.
Quote"BATMAN IS THE hero Gotham deserves but not the one it needs right now." So says Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) during the finale of The Dark Knight (2008), the previous entry in the series. The problem with this line, and with the scores of others like it in this latest film, is that I have no idea what it means.
The Dark Knight, which was quite good for the first 90 minutes of its running time, eventually bogged down in ridiculous plot twists and ham-handed lessons in right vs. wrong. (Harvey Dent, the crusading district attorney, is so angry that the love of his life was killed that he decides to join forces with...her killer.) Eventually it is decided that the city of Gotham will not be able to handle the truth about Dent's turn to the dark side. Batman is cast as the villain instead, which presumably would also have been hard for the citizens of Gotham to accept, but never mind. Sometimes heroes must bear the greatest burden of all. (Nolan's scriptwriting style is infectious.)
The reason for recounting this creaky plot is that it is used as the set-up for the latest film, with the city of Gotham peaceful 8 years later. But a new super-villain, Bane, played with great menace by Tom Hardy, is intent on bringing Gotham down. He wants to return the city to the people, or destroy it, or both. The politics of the movie are muddled and confusing, but Bane does desire to humiliate the wealthy, and neuter or destroy the police. One of the many amusing aspects of the plot is that Bane and his henchmen, all psychopathic murderers and terrorists, are angrily moralistic that the police lied to Gothamites about Dent. These villains certainly have a strange ethical code—murder good, lying bad—but I think here, as elsewhere, we can glimpse Nolan the freshman philosopher peeking out from behind the camera. (Nolan obviously does not believe that lying for the greater good is on par with murder, but merely raising phony ethical dilemmas has an obvious appeal to him.)
Suffice to say, Nolan's villains never really make any sense. Only Ra's al Ghul had a more coherent agenda, in my opinion.
Quote
Prior to the film's release when test audiences reported difficulty understanding the character [Bane], Nolan loftily informed the studio that he would only consider changing the audio slightly because, as one executive said, "Chris wants the audience to catch up and participate rather than push everything at them. He doesn't dumb things down. You've got to pedal faster to keep up." One is tempted to inquire why Nolan perceives a link between incomprehensibility and intelligence. (Indeed, Bane is not the only character who is hard to understand. Several other actors have trouble being heard over blasting music.) But it is more important to note the backhanded compliment to the audience, as if watching the movie is in itself some sort of intellectual achievement.
Given all the outrageous things that happen in these movies despite how they're supposed to be "thought provoking" and so forth, I can't help but feel that WB executive was taking the piss out of the audience.
Quote
What is surprising for a director as talented as Nolan is how sloppy much of the movie is. Twists occur with little plausibility or coherence, characters appear in places they have no reason to be, and a crucial feat of physical strength is premised on the idea that Batman cannot do something that a small child was able to accomplish years before. This particular absurdity can be explained by Nolan's tiresome eastern spirituality ("you must journey inward," Batman was informed in the first film.) With a near Gandhian focus on mind-body distinctions, Nolan sets forth the opinion that any physical feat can be accomplished if one has the necessary inner strength. This may be risible (or worse) as morality, but it does add a dose of pretentiousness to Nolan's appeal.
And it's that appeal that is set to conquer all this weekend. Nolan cannily understands that the last thing an audience wants is to feel condescended to ("condescend" being one of those words that is misused in the script.) The Dark Knight sparked an endless amount of commentary over its supposed relevance to the Bush years, and this latest film has sparked related murmurings on the potential similarities between Occupy Wall Street and Bane's gang of thugs. But don't be fooled. Taking Nolan seriously as a social commentator is giving him more credit than he deserves. He has nothing to tell us about good or evil, other than the idea that evildoing and darkness are by definition profound. I remember being 17 when The Matrix was released, and partaking in endless conversations about "what is real" before grasping that it was these chats that explained the movie's success much more than the slow-motion fights did. Audiences want one thing more than entertainment: They want to feel respected. If only Christopher Nolan actually respected them.
Spot on. It makes me laugh how people say TDK and TDKR is a reflection of September 11 and terrorism in general. Last time I checked, terrorists in the real world tend to commit crimes because they have extreme religious and/or political motives. These are things that TDK's Joker couldn't give a damn about. And as if something like that stupid boat scene and how it ended could have happened in the real world. ::) Though that being said, I'm leaning towards to give The Matrix a second chance nowadays. I'm beginning to think that movie was more successful in the themes it was purported to having.
Source: www.newrepublic.com/article/105198/isaac-chotiner-dark-gnat-how-christopher-nolans-embarrassing-seriousness-ruined
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 17 Sep 2015, 11:01
I completely agree with the excerpts that I've listed underneath. It's from a review that was published three years ago, titled 'The Dark Gnat: How Christopher Nolan's Embarrassing Seriousness Ruined Batman'.
Suffice to say, Nolan's villains never really make any sense. Only Ra's al Ghul had a more coherent agenda, in my opinion.
How do they not make sense? Bane wanted to destroy gotham as a way of completing Ra's attack and while I don't think this is confirmed in the movie I think that he was trying to prove himself.
QuoteGiven all the outrageous things that happen in these movies despite how they're supposed to be "thought provoking" and so forth, I can't help but feel that WB executive was taking the piss out of the audience.
How do outrageous things happening make something not thought provoking?
QuoteSpot on. It makes me laugh how people say TDK and TDKR is a reflection of September 11 and terrorism in general. Last time I checked, terrorists in the real world tend to commit crimes because they have extreme religious and/or political motives. These are things that TDK's Joker couldn't give a damn about. And as if something like that stupid boat scene and how it ended could have happened in the real world. ::) Though that being said, I'm leaning towards to give The Matrix a second chance nowadays. I'm beginning to think that movie was more successful in the themes it was purported to having.
Source: www.newrepublic.com/article/105198/isaac-chotiner-dark-gnat-how-christopher-nolans-embarrassing-seriousness-ruined
The joker expresses his own ideology about what he's about. People doing the right thing could happen in the real world.
God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!
Quote from: Dagenspear on Thu, 17 Sep 2015, 14:04How do they not make sense? Bane wanted to destroy gotham as a way of completing Ra's attack and while I don't think this is confirmed in the movie I think that he was trying to prove himself.
"Theatricality and deception; powerful agents to the uninitiated."
"I am the League of Shadows. And I'm here to fulfill Ra's al-Ghul's destiny!"
Bane whipped up a phony baloney revolution based on class envy to turn the city against itself (ie, theatricality and deception) to distract them so that they wouldn't stand in the way of his plans to destroy Gotham City (Ra's al-Ghul's destiny according to Bane).
Bane's bourgeois vs. proletariat/class warfare rhetoric was meant to work the citizens of Gotham into a foaming frenzy, not be rationally analyzed. It was a cog in his plan and should be evaluated on those terms.
Of course, this arguably wasn't
Bane's idea. I assumed it was actually Talia's brainchild. Bane was just the front man to carry this all out. More theatricality and deception there.
And in a weird kind of way, Gotham basically tearing itself to pieces while the clock ticks down on the bomb is a form of destruction all by itself. The city's leadership would be neutralized, the citizens would destroy each other and the city itself would be turned into ashes. It's destruction on political, social and physical levels. So there's a degree to which the phony baloney revolution nevertheless is valid in terms of Gotham's destruction. I just think the
real move was the nuclear bomb.
All of this is a long way of saying that the political argument thing works in film since it's not supposed to make sense; it's just supposed to divide. And in that purpose it's a massive success.
Quote
Bane whipped up a phony baloney revolution based on class envy to turn the city against itself (ie, theatricality and deception) to distract them so that they wouldn't stand in the way of his plans to destroy Gotham City (Ra's al-Ghul's destiny according to Bane).
Bane and Talia's plan would have been far more successful if they had simply killed Bruce, and his allies. Instead, we get a contrived time bomb situation where they have to wait for five months to detonate the bomb. We see Talia going to bed with Bruce as part of her plan, when it could've been much easier if she had simply killed him when he's already down in the dumps. We see Bane sending Bruce to a prison where Talia escaped from as a little girl. We see Talia living among the hostages as she co-operates with Blake and Gordon...but not take the opportunity to kill them and prevent them from sabotaging her plan to destroy Gotham. All because of some hysterically misguided approach to "emotionally" cripple Bruce. I know that it's a common action movie trope when villains don't kill heroes despite the chance being there for the taking, but this is ridiculous. A lot of people make fun of Bane and Talia's plan by comparing them to Dr. Evil from Austin Powers, and rightly so (and yes, I realize one may rebut this by arguing the same can be said about every villain ever existed, but I'm using this example to show that Nolan's aren't that great as they're made out to be.).
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xAMYHJYesM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xAMYHJYesM)
Sure, it makes TDKR great entertainment as a comedy, but to take it seriously even remotely? No.
Let's face it, the whole mass murder-suicide plot to destroy Gotham was really a smokescreen for Talia's desire to get revenge at Batman for killing Ra's...even though she originally resented her father for kicking her and Bane out of the League. Never mind that Gotham was already peaceful for eight years before their arrival, thanks to the Dent Act.
In my opinion, that author I cited is right when he says that Nolan is cynical for his use of political themes. They come across as gimmicks that trick the audience, and don't really say anything meaningful about what's going on in the world, and come across as "let's put refer to something political in an attempt to sound sophisticated than we actually are". Other than that montage sequence showing people rioting when Gotham was under siege and Bane exposes the truth about Harvey, the streets are otherwise silent and empty.
That being said, Bane taking the opportunity to expose the truth about Dent only goes to show what a terrible ending that TDK had. Batman and Gordon choose to tell a lie that risks tearing the city apart if the truth gets exposed, when blaming the Joker and/or his henchmen, or even keeping Dent's death a mystery, could have allowed Dent's reputation to come out completely unscathed and spare the city from further chaos. Yet, some people reckon that ending was "uplifting". Too bad that Batman and Gordon never realized it was a terrible mistake. Even Blake, despite dismissing Gordon's justification with that shackles speech, told Gordon he was right to lie in the end.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 18 Sep 2015, 10:16Bane and Talia's plan would have been far more successful if they had simply killed Bruce, and his allies. Instead, we get a contrived time bomb situation where they have to wait for five months to detonate the bomb. We see Talia going to bed with Bruce as part of her plan, when it could've been much easier if she had simply killed him when he's already down in the dumps. We see Bane sending Bruce to a prison where Talia escaped from as a little girl. We see Talia living among the hostages as she co-operates with Blake and Gordon...but not take the opportunity to kill them and prevent them from sabotaging her plan to destroy Gotham. All because of some hysterically misguided approach to "emotionally" cripple Bruce. I know that it's a common action movie trope when villains don't kill heroes despite the chance being there for the taking, but this is ridiculous. A lot of people make fun of Bane and Talia's plan by comparing them to Dr. Evil from Austin Powers, and rightly so (and yes, I realize one may rebut this by arguing the same can be said about every villain ever existed, but I'm using this example to show that Nolan's aren't that great as they're made out to be.).
And a lot of the villains that have done it aren't not great. Villains doing that doesn't make the movie less.
QuoteSure, it makes TDKR great entertainment as a comedy, but to take it seriously even remotely? No.
Let's face it, the whole mass murder-suicide plot to destroy Gotham was really a smokescreen for Talia's desire to get revenge at Batman for killing Ra's...even though she originally resented her father for kicking her and Bane out of the League. Never mind that Gotham was already peaceful for eight years before their arrival, thanks to the Dent Act.
What's not to take seriously? Having resentment towards your father doesn't mean that you don't care when they die. The dent act allowed corruption and crime to come in under the radar without the people noticing and come at them from within in many ways.
QuoteIn my opinion, that author I cited is right when he says that Nolan is cynical for his use of political themes. They come across as gimmicks that trick the audience, and don't really say anything meaningful about what's going on in the world, and come across as "let's put refer to something political in an attempt to sound sophisticated than we actually are". Other than that montage sequence showing people rioting when Gotham was under siege and Bane exposes the truth about Harvey, the streets are otherwise silent and empty.
It showcases Bane's characterization. The joker rants about how bad people are, but at the end of the day it's not true. Like here. Bane rants about giving gotham back to the people. but people aren't into being held hostage with a bomb.
QuoteThat being said, Bane taking the opportunity to expose the truth about Dent only goes to show what a terrible ending that TDK had. Batman and Gordon choose to tell a lie that risks tearing the city apart if the truth gets exposed, when blaming the Joker and/or his henchmen, or even keeping Dent's death a mystery, could have allowed Dent's reputation to come out completely unscathed and spare the city from further chaos. Yet, some people reckon that ending was "uplifting". Too bad that Batman and Gordon never realized it was a terrible mistake. Even Blake, despite dismissing Gordon's justification with that shackles speech, told Gordon he was right to lie in the end.
He didn't tell him that. He said he was right about the structures becoming shackles. He did't say he was right about the lie. I don't know how tdkr shows that the ending of tdk is terrible. It shows that the decision they made wasn't great, but that doesn't make the ending bad.
God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 18 Sep 2015, 10:16Bane and Talia's plan would have been far more successful if they had simply killed Bruce, and his allies. Instead, we get a contrived time bomb situation where they have to wait for five months to detonate the bomb. We see Talia going to bed with Bruce as part of her plan, when it could've been much easier if she had simply killed him when he's already down in the dumps. We see Bane sending Bruce to a prison where Talia escaped from as a little girl. We see Talia living among the hostages as she co-operates with Blake and Gordon...but not take the opportunity to kill them and prevent them from sabotaging her plan to destroy Gotham. All because of some hysterically misguided approach to "emotionally" cripple Bruce. I know that it's a common action movie trope when villains don't kill heroes despite the chance being there for the taking, but this is ridiculous. A lot of people make fun of Bane and Talia's plan by comparing them to Dr. Evil from Austin Powers, and rightly so (and yes, I realize one may rebut this by arguing the same can be said about every villain ever existed, but I'm using this example to show that Nolan's aren't that great as they're made out to be.).
I completely understand your point and there isn't a logical rebuttal for it.
The narrative needs Bane and Talia
NOT to kill Bruce. So the narrative must provide incentives for Bane and Talia
NOT to kill Bruce. The persuasiveness of that is in the eye of the beholder. For me, their agenda to break Bruce on every possible level works. I don't want to come off like a big Nolan fan here because I think you know my views by now. But at the same time, I have to give credit where it's due. If Talia and Bane's reasons for not killing Bruce when they had the chance doesn't play for you, I can't provide you with an intellectual reason to change something you can't accept on an emotional level.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 18 Sep 2015, 10:16In my opinion, that author I cited is right when he says that Nolan is cynical for his use of political themes. They come across as gimmicks that trick the audience, and don't really say anything meaningful about what's going on in the world, and come across as "let's put refer to something political in an attempt to sound sophisticated than we actually are". Other than that montage sequence showing people rioting when Gotham was under siege and Bane exposes the truth about Harvey, the streets are otherwise silent and empty.
This requires discussing politics. So without stating my own views (because, trust me, nobody knows them but me) we see in TDK a sort of riff on arguments concerning the Patriot Act. Bruce developed technology that robbed people of their privacy so that he could find a, let's face it,
terrorist, civil liberties be damned.
The argument against the Patriot Act was that nobody can be trusted with that kind of power. Lucius implicitly has similar objections to Brother Eye in TDK. But Batman shows that his use of such invasive, intrusive technology
can be trusted. It gets destroyed used to capture the Joker.
That's not a cynical political argument for Nolan to make. If anything, it's pretty danged idealistic.
Again, I'm not commenting on my own political views; just trying to work through the interpretive difficulties of Nolan's apparent argument.
TDKRises is interesting inasmuch as it unintentionally predicted Occupy Wall Street. The rhetoric Bane used was echoed by any number of Occupiers I ever heard about. But in the end, Bruce, the plutocratic "self-made man", saved the day, reversed Bane's phony baloney "revolution" and basically put Gotham's upper crust back on top because they actually were innocent victims (apparently) all along.
Again, I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with what Occupy was all about. But only a fool could miss the rhetorical (though coincidental) similarities going on there. And here again one could say that Nolan has a very idealistic view of what has come to be called the 1%.
My firm belief is that if Occupy hadn't become a thing nearly four months after TDKRises finished shooting and nearly a year before the film was released, Bane's political machinations in the movie would've been the breaking point. I truly don't believe wide audiences would've accepted Bane's
Occupy Gotham unless a real life Occupy movement bloomed before the movie's release.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 18 Sep 2015, 10:16That being said, Bane taking the opportunity to expose the truth about Dent only goes to show what a terrible ending that TDK had. Batman and Gordon choose to tell a lie
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 18 Sep 2015, 10:16Yet, some people reckon that ending was "uplifting".
I've seen that argument myself. It's never made sense to me either.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 18 Sep 2015, 18:42
And a lot of the villains that have done it aren't not great. Villains doing that doesn't make the movie less.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 19 Sep 2015, 07:36
I completely understand your point and there isn't a logical rebuttal for it.
The narrative needs Bane and Talia NOT to kill Bruce. So the narrative must provide incentives for Bane and Talia NOT to kill Bruce. The persuasiveness of that is in the eye of the beholder. For me, their agenda to break Bruce on every possible level works. I don't want to come off like a big Nolan fan here because I think you know my views by now. But at the same time, I have to give credit where it's due. If Talia and Bane's reasons for not killing Bruce when they had the chance doesn't play for you, I can't provide you with an intellectual reason to change something you can't accept on an emotional level.
Yep. I've come around to TDKR much to my surprise. I actually think Dagenspear's posts have a lot to do with it. I was so one track mind negative about the movie, and his/her posts actually made me think and reconsider. I'm not the world's biggest Nolan lover, but the rebuttals do have merit. To the point I actually don't really care that much about the 'big deal' issues such as 'why did they leave Bruce alive', or 'why didn't they just shoot Bane'.
Sure, the ticking time bomb is a plot device so Bruce can come back and save the day just in time. But really, those complaints can be made of any movie or movie villain. Bane/Talia wanted to destroy Gotham physically, socially and politically and have Bruce watch the slow decay live on TV. That was their main objective. I'm willing to accept that. Bruce's escape was never on their radar, just like every past and future Bond villain.
It wasn't just to taunt Bruce, either. But to show the world the downfall of one of the world's biggest cities. Bane's comment about the board members experiencing "the next era of Western civilisation" says quite a lot I think about his views. I recall a comic run in 1997 where Bane threatens Gotham with a nuclear power plant, threatening to use it if Gotham didn't comply with him. But intended to use it anyway. So there's some comic grounding in this plotline.
Like I said, the action movie trope of villains not killing heroes when they have the chance is commonplace, but I found that these films, mainly TDK and TDKR, bit more than they could chew, so to speak. Yes, I can buy one moment of that trope happening, but not to have it stretched and repeated so often throughout the film.
I think it reaches a point when it comes to subjective taste, rather one being locked in a particular mindset (I know you weren't accusing me of being negative TDK, I was just making a point). Even if these films weren't put on a pedestal, I'd still hold that opinion.
The only superhero film that sticks out in my mind that may compare to TDKR is Iron Man 3, when Alrich Killian explains his plot to Tony Stark once he had him captured. But I can tolerate that much better because Killian tried to kill Tony at his mansion in Malibu, and Tony found where the Mandarin was supposedly hiding on his own and uncovered the conspiracy before getting captured. But most importantly, it can be argued that Tony surprised everybody when he used his Extremis armor to make his escape. That, and I think Killian's plot to use Extremis to profit on wars against terrorism by creating a fictional terror threat to cover up his tracks made his motives work. I won't go far to say that this thought-provoking stuff, but in my opinion, Killian's agenda is much better than anything I saw in Nolan's films here.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 19 Sep 2015, 07:36
The argument against the Patriot Act was that nobody can be trusted with that kind of power. Lucius implicitly has similar objections to Brother Eye in TDK. But Batman shows that his use of such invasive, intrusive technology can be trusted. It gets destroyed used to capture the Joker.
That's not a cynical political argument for Nolan to make. If anything, it's pretty danged idealistic.
Again, I'm not commenting on my own political views; just trying to work through the interpretive difficulties of Nolan's apparent argument.
I'll admit that you make a valid point by looking at it from that perspective. But my problem with that scene has everything to do with Lucius Fox. He's the same guy who supports Bruce Wayne by giving him the equipment that causes collateral damage e.g. the armored vehicles, gives him the tools to attack and kidnap people (i.e. using sonar during the Lau incident in Hong Kong, which was Fox's idea) and does so without any reservations. He's perfectly okay with enabling a vigilante that puts the entire town at risk and one who doesn't have to worry about things like jurisdictions, accountability, due processes and so on, but he thinks taking desperate measures to find a dangerous perpetrator is going too far? It's something that really annoys me and I just can't ignore. These films don't really explore how Batman impacts on the wider public like Frank Miller does in Dark Knight Returns, yet we're supposed to analyse the political undertones in that sonar scene? I think that I'd appreciate the scene a lot more if Batman called out on Fox's hypocrisy, but as it stands, I just can't help but feel it was disingenuous. I honestly think Nolan would be much better off if were to direct movies that are better suited for the themes he was going for, i.e. based on actual events. Putting them in a Batman movie just makes them too vague, in my opinion.
This is why I'm really hoping that Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice does a much better job at exploring how superheroes affect the public. It may focus Superman as a plot point, but don't be surprised if Superman himself questions Batman's methods as we may have heard in the trailer i.e. "This bat-vigilante is like a one man reign of terror". Whether it will be executed successfully is something that remains to be seen.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 19 Sep 2015, 08:35
Yep. I've come around to TDKR much to my surprise.
That's fine. But for me personally, I prefer a Batman adaptation that stays true to the character: a driven and dedicated crimefigher. And that doesn't necessarily mean he can't have flaws either. Keaton's Batman is unable to have a close relationship with someone like Vicki or have any close friends because of his secret life. TNBA's Batman became so driven and intense that he became distant to Robin, and it led to a falling out that never quite healed. These are flaws, but they keep in line with the nature of the character. If Nolan's point was Batman to becoming a symbol and wanted somebody else to take over the mantle, then he executed it poorly because that point gets contradicted in
all three films. I just can't accept that, and it's simply not a Batman that I admire.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 19 Sep 2015, 08:35
It wasn't just to taunt Bruce, either. But to show the world the downfall of one of the world's biggest cities.
Be though as it may, I find it ridiculous that Gotham is surprisingly quiet and empty after that little montage sequence. I think a lot of that has to do with the PG-13 rating hold back on the violence. I just the find the villains to be too ridiculous for my liking that I just can't their plot seriously. I just don't think it was very well executed. Once again, that's just my subjective opinion. Though I do find Tom Hardy's Bane as entertaining out of all the villains here.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 19 Sep 2015, 08:35
I'm not the world's biggest Nolan lover, but the rebuttals do have merit. To the point I actually don't really care that much about the 'big deal' issues such as 'why did they leave Bruce alive', or 'why didn't they just shoot Bane'.
It's one thing to know what to expect from a dumb action movie, but when a director as hyped as Nolan gets especially put on a pedestal as being better than your average filmmaker, I think it's fair to scrutinise his work to see if it lives up to those standards. Personally, not only do they not hold up to those standards, I don't even think his take on Batman holds up as typical action movies.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 19 Sep 2015, 10:43
Be though as it may, I find it ridiculous that Gotham is surprisingly quiet and empty after that little montage sequence. I think a lot of that has to do with the PG-13 rating hold back on the violence.
I don't find it ridiculous at all. The only people taking part in the violence and lootings are the Blackgate prisoners. As Dagenspear says, Bane rants about giving Gotham 'back to the people', but the people aren't into it. They're locked up in their homes like Foley, scared and isolated.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 19 Sep 2015, 11:34
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 19 Sep 2015, 10:43
Be though as it may, I find it ridiculous that Gotham is surprisingly quiet and empty after that little montage sequence. I think a lot of that has to do with the PG-13 rating hold back on the violence.
I don't find it ridiculous at all. The only people taking part in the violence and lootings are the Blackgate prisoners. As Dagenspear says, Bane rants about giving Gotham 'back to the people', but the people aren't into it. They're locked up in their homes like Foley, scared and isolated.
Are you sure about that? Because in some publications I've read that reviewed the film, it was reported that the chaos was led by Blackgate prisoners AND working class members of the public. Besides, there is a shot of a hotel doorman dragging a woman away by her fur coat during one of the lootings, so that gives me the impression that anybody could have joined if they wanted to.
Honestly, I find it's quite ridiculous if it was only the Blackgate prisoners doing all the damage, and nobody else in the public got involved in the chaos. That again would only go to show what a horrible ending TDK really had if the people "aren't into it", because it proves that Batman should never have backed down from his belief that people are "ready to believe in good" at the end of the boat scene.
There's believing in good, and then there's being threatened with a nuclear bomb with freed dangerous criminals roaming around on an island cut off from the mainland. So there's going to be an element of survival instincts coming to the fore for some people. But the guys with the guns and tanks and going to be at the top of the food chain. If some of the working class got involved, I don't see them making up the majority of the army. In TDK we saw people attempt to kill Reese as per Joker's demand, but again, those people are shown to be in the minority. Nolan, via the film, says the majority of citizens aren't curruptible by refusing to blow up the other ferry. I maintain the majority of people in TDKR weren't into Bane's forced revolution.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 19 Sep 2015, 10:43Like I said, the action movie trope of villains not killing heroes when they have the chance is commonplace, but I found that these films, mainly TDK and TDKR, bit more than they could chew, so to speak. Yes, I can buy one moment of that trope happening, but not to have it stretched and repeated so often throughout the film.
I think it reaches a point when it comes to subjective taste, rather one being locked in a particular mindset (I know you weren't accusing me of being negative TDK, I was just making a point). Even if these films weren't put on a pedestal, I'd still hold that opinion.
Then it's not something that's an issue with the film. Which is fine. But directing it at the film is a little unnecessary.
QuoteThe only superhero film that sticks out in my mind that may compare to TDKR is Iron Man 3, when Alrich Killian explains his plot to Tony Stark once he had him captured. But I can tolerate that much better because Killian tried to kill Tony at his mansion in Malibu, and Tony found where the Mandarin was supposedly hiding on his own and uncovered the conspiracy before getting captured. But most importantly, it can be argued that Tony surprised everybody when he used his Extremis armor to make his escape. That, and I think Killian's plot to use Extremis to profit on wars against terrorism by creating a fictional terror threat to cover up his tracks made his motives work. I won't go far to say that this thought-provoking stuff, but in my opinion, Killian's agenda is much better than anything I saw in Nolan's films here.
He wants to make money. How is that interesting? The plan is something sure, but his agenda is lame. Tony uncovered it by the power of plot contrivance, same way everything happens in most movies. There was also very little reason why Aldrich set out to kill Tony when Tony was the one who could help him. He also says that he's not interested in revenge so it isn't that, and why does Maya show up at that point? Why not sooner? And why did Aldrich use missles to attack him like that? Tony has a flying suit of armor. How does Aldrich think this is going to work? The fact that it nearly works is a contrivance in itself. jarvis just happens to not be able to function the security, Tony just happens, for some reason to be wearing an inefficient suit when he's attacked and for some reason Tony didn't activate all the other suits he had for protection. And he crashes in the place he set a flight plan for because he's unconscious for some reason as jarvis is flying and jarvis, an extremely advanced ai, doesn't understand that after an attack that maybe his previous flight plan might not be the issue now. Then jarvis shuts down because he lost power and Tony's reactor doesn't power this suit even though that was established to be the way his suits are powered, and jarvis shuts down, he's not cut off from Tony, he shuts down, how does that happen? Is jarvis in Tony's suit? That kinda goes against previously established information of jarvis being jacked into all of Tony's stuff. With jarvis being jacked into everything the logical assumption is that he has a core, I assumed in Tony's house and when jarvis shut down I thought that was because the house had been destroyed and jarvis' power was draining or something, but no, jarvis is functioning fine at the end. These are all contrivances.
QuoteI'll admit that you make a valid point by looking at it from that perspective. But my problem with that scene has everything to do with Lucius Fox. He's the same guy who supports Bruce Wayne by giving him the equipment that causes collateral damage e.g. the armored vehicles, gives him the tools to attack and kidnap people (i.e. using sonar during the Lau incident in Hong Kong, which was Fox's idea) and does so without any reservations. He's perfectly okay with enabling a vigilante that puts the entire town at risk and one who doesn't have to worry about things like jurisdictions, accountability, due processes and so on, but he thinks taking desperate measures to find a dangerous perpetrator is going too far? It's something that really annoys me and I just can't ignore. These films don't really explore how Batman impacts on the wider public like Frank Miller does in Dark Knight Returns, yet we're supposed to analyse the political undertones in that sonar scene? I think that I'd appreciate the scene a lot more if Batman called out on Fox's hypocrisy, but as it stands, I just can't help but feel it was disingenuous. I honestly think Nolan would be much better off if were to direct movies that are better suited for the themes he was going for, i.e. based on actual events. Putting them in a Batman movie just makes them too vague, in my opinion.
Political undertones don't have to be about how batman effects the people, but we do see reactions in criminals and in a few of the general public in tdk. But Bruce being batman doesn't actively violate people's privacy, regular people's privacy, not just the privacy of criminals, in particular. Accepting one doesn't necessarily contradict the other.
QuoteThat's fine. But for me personally, I prefer a Batman adaptation that stays true to the character: a driven and dedicated crimefigher. And that doesn't necessarily mean he can't have flaws either. Keaton's Batman is unable to have a close relationship with someone like Vicki or have any close friends because of his secret life. TNBA's Batman became so driven and intense that he became distant to Robin, and it led to a falling out that never quite healed. These are flaws, but they keep in line with the nature of the character. If Nolan's point was Batman to becoming a symbol and wanted somebody else to take over the mantle, then he executed it poorly because that point gets contradicted in all three films. I just can't accept that, and it's simply not a Batman that I admire.
It isn't contradicted. But what version of the character you like is your opinion and your entitled to that.
QuoteBe though as it may, I find it ridiculous that Gotham is surprisingly quiet and empty after that little montage sequence. I think a lot of that has to do with the PG-13 rating hold back on the violence. I just the find the villains to be too ridiculous for my liking that I just can't their plot seriously. I just don't think it was very well executed. Once again, that's just my subjective opinion. Though I do find Tom Hardy's Bane as entertaining out of all the villains here.
You not taking it seriously doesn't mean that it can't be.
QuoteIt's one thing to know what to expect from a dumb action movie, but when a director as hyped as Nolan gets especially put on a pedestal as being better than your average filmmaker, I think it's fair to scrutinise his work to see if it lives up to those standards. Personally, not only do they not hold up to those standards, I don't even think his take on Batman holds up as typical action movies.
It's unfair to judge a director based off of how he's view by other people. He's not the people that praise him. Their reaction isn't his fault.
God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 19 Sep 2015, 12:05
There's believing in good, and then there's being threatened with a nuclear bomb with freed dangerous criminals roaming around on an island cut off from the mainland. So there's going to be an element of survival instincts coming to the fore for some people. But the guys with the guns and tanks and going to be at the top of the food chain. If some of the working class got involved, I don't see them making up the majority of the army. In TDK we saw people attempt to kill Reese as per Joker's demand, but again, those people are shown to be in the minority. Nolan, via the film, says the majority of citizens aren't curruptible by refusing to blow up the other ferry. I maintain the majority of people in TDKR weren't into Bane's forced revolution.
Don't take this as a personal attack or anything, but you once agreed back in 'Your version of The Dark Knight' thread that the boat scene was rubbish and didn't buy the message that Nolan was going for. You thought it was unbelievable and called it a token 'feel-good' scene, and agreed that it was contradictory to have Reese threatened by those people. But now you're willing to justify this as those actions belonged to the "minority"?
Look, I'm not that cynical. I would've been perfectly fine with that message...if Batman actually told the truth about Two-Face's crimes and not go against his belief that people can persevere anything. This is why I think Spider-Man 2 dealt with the public faith WAY better than this. A cynic may laugh at the people promising to keep Peter Parker's identity a secret, but it goes to show how grateful they are that he saved their lives despite his lengthy absence.
Sorry, but I just don't buy that rationale, and I certainly do not buy the way Nolan tries to present the message.
Don't mistake me for completely liking what is presented. But I think that's what Nolan intended, such as the ferry scene. I still don't find that believable either. I think in reality the detonator button would have beenpushed by one of the ferries, if not both. But importantly, it's about what is shown in the film. I'm also mentally trying to understand the films, piece together some coherence in the hope I can enjoy them a little more.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 19 Sep 2015, 12:21Don't take this as a personal attack or anything, but you once agreed back in 'Your version of The Dark Knight' thread that the boat scene was rubbish and didn't buy the message that Nolan was going for. You thought it was unbelievable and called it a token 'feel-good' scene, and agreed that it was contradictory to have Reese threatened by those people. But now you're willing to justify this as those actions belonged to the "minority"?
That is the case. It's not a justification. It's what happens in the film. If Coleman Reese was being attacked by everyone that had someone in the hospital and with the amount of conviction one would give if they wanted to do something, nothing anybody did could've saved him. But that isn't what happened. A lot of people were yelling for him, two people tried to shoot him and one person tried to hit him with their car. That isn't everything everyone has to throw at this situation.
QuoteLook, I'm not that cynical. I would've been perfectly fine with that message...if Batman actually told the truth about Two-Face's crimes and not go against his belief that people can persevere anything. This is why I think Spider-Man 2 dealt with the public faith WAY better than this. A cynic may laugh at the people promising to keep Peter Parker's identity a secret, but it goes to show how grateful they are that he saved their lives despite his lengthy absence.
batman's belief or disbelief in the people don't define their goodness. What batman thinks doesn't matter in that regard. More than anything it shows that Bruce has lost belief in himself. spiderman 2's way of dealing with it was good, but it wasn't done for the same reason as it was in tdk. In spiderman 2 it was about showing Peter that he's appreciated for what he does in some way. In tdk it was about defeating the joker and having batman say that people are ready to believe in good. That's what batman says. That's his perception. That people don't simply believe in good, that they are ready to believe in good. It shows his perception of how he doesn't believe batman as doing real good, but seeing that goodness being something Harvey inspired and that it's just started, which is shown in the film.
QuoteSorry, but I just don't buy that rationale, and I certainly do not buy the way Nolan tries to present the message.
You not buying it doesn't make it something that can't be bought.
God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 19 Sep 2015, 12:31
Don't mistake me for completely liking what is presented. But I think that's what Nolan intended, such as the ferry scene. I still don't find that believable either. I think in reality the detonator button would have beenpushed by one of the ferries, if not both. But importantly, it's about what is shown in the film. I'm also mentally trying to understand the films, piece together some coherence in the hope I can enjoy them a little more.
I understand what you're saying. But, let's say for a second that you may be right about the people who threatened Reese were only a minority, whereas the majority of citizens are naturally good. That would've been fine, except the problem is that Bruce taking the fall for Dent still betrayed his belief about people were ready to believe in good, because he kept saying that the citizens of Gotham AND the prisoners wouldn't kill each other. That is amazingly rich for him to have faith in criminals, because they are the reason why he became Batman in the first place.
So if the message from that boat scene was supposed to mean that even convicts are capable of goodness regardless of whatever crimes they may have committed, then that gets totally flushed down the toilet when the truth comes out in TDKR. And you're okay with this?
TDK's ending is a huge catalyst for the Dent Act in TDKR, and Batman's decision to frame himself left an extremely bad taste in my mouth. Would Gotham have had eight years of peace if Batman and Gordon didn't lie to the public? Maybe not. But the disastrous consequences that happened once the lie was exposed by Bane only prove that it wasn't worth it.
I can appreciate a flawed film that has good intentions like Batman Forever, which had admirable plot points of Batman overcoming his guilt and makes his identity a choice rather than a burden, and ensuring that Robin doesn't make the same self-destructive mistake by seeking revenge for his parents' murders. But sadly, not only I'm not too keen on Nolan's ideas, I find his execution for them extremely shoddy.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 19 Sep 2015, 10:43I'll admit that you make a valid point by looking at it from that perspective. But my problem with that scene has everything to do with Lucius Fox. He's the same guy who supports Bruce Wayne by giving him the equipment that causes collateral damage e.g. the armored vehicles, gives him the tools to attack and kidnap people (i.e. using sonar during the Lau incident in Hong Kong, which was Fox's idea) and does so without any reservations. He's perfectly okay with enabling a vigilante that puts the entire town at risk and one who doesn't have to worry about things like jurisdictions, accountability, due processes and so on, but he thinks taking desperate measures to find a dangerous perpetrator is going too far?
Again, there isn't really a rational argument to get you to change your mind on this.
That said, my reading of Fox is that he's a man of principle. On some level, I believe he's okay with Bruce's activities as Batman because he's essentially breaking the law in order to enforce justice in a corrupt, imperfect system. There's an ideal being carried out there even if Bruce is wiping his butt with the law.
Brother Eye is different in that Bruce is now treading on what Fox at least believes is dangerous social and philosophical grounds in robbing people of their civil liberties. Yes, there's an ideal he's carrying out. But for the first time Fox sees Batman violating other ideals (due process, right to privacy, unauthorized surveillance) to accomplish it. Notice Fox doesn't disown Batman; he simply disowns using Brother Eye.
For a man of principle that I interpret Fox as being, it's one thing to ask him to design a new suit in order to build a better Batman. It's quite another, though, to expect him to indiscriminately spy on an entire city to capture one man. He wants to help... but he doesn't want to betray his own conscience in order to do it.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 19 Sep 2015, 10:43It's something that really annoys me and I just can't ignore. These films don't really explore how Batman impacts on the wider public like Frank Miller does in Dark Knight Returns, yet we're supposed to analyse the political undertones in that sonar scene?
I don't think Nolan intended to explore how Batman's actions affect the public. His interest has been on how Batman, as an abstract concept, affects primarily Bruce and, secondarily, his circle of friends and associates. The conflict in the Brother Eye scene revolves around Batman's willingness to go to any lengths to catch the Joker and Fox's revulsion at the basic underpinnings of a democratic society getting jettisoned in the process. In any case it's not the movie's focal point so it seems unnecessary to analyze the scene too much. Suffice it to say that nothing seems out of character for Batman or Fox in that scene.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 19 Sep 2015, 10:43I think that I'd appreciate the scene a lot more if Batman called out on Fox's hypocrisy, but as it stands, I just can't help but feel it was disingenuous. I honestly think Nolan would be much better off if were to direct movies that are better suited for the themes he was going for, i.e. based on actual events. Putting them in a Batman movie just makes them too vague, in my opinion.
Don't take this the wrong way but I haven't heard very many people comment on the political subtext of Nolan's Batman films who didn't see the war on terror metaphor in Batman Begins, the Patriot Act in TDK and that strange
Ayn Randian Ideal vs. Occupy Wall St rant in TDKRises. If you don't see the arguments made in those films, no offense, but that may actually be a good thing. I say this as someone who's sick of being politicked in entertainment media, btw.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 19 Sep 2015, 10:43This is why I'm really hoping that Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice does a much better job at exploring how superheroes affect the public. It may focus Superman as a plot point, but don't be surprised if Superman himself questions Batman's methods as we may have heard in the trailer i.e. "This bat-vigilante is like a one man reign of terror". Whether it will be executed successfully is something that remains to be seen.
Obviously the jury is still out on that. I, for one, am just happy to finally be getting a Superman/Batman team-up movie, especially one created by people who appear to love the characters so much.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 20 Sep 2015, 09:03
That said, my reading of Fox is that he's a man of principle. On some level, I believe he's okay with Bruce's activities as Batman because he's essentially breaking the law in order to enforce justice in a corrupt, imperfect system. There's an ideal being carried out there even if Bruce is wiping his butt with the law.
The issue I take with that is Batman takes a rather devil-may-care approach to doing things i.e. using Fox's Tumbler that endangers bystanders and miraculously didn't kill anyone during that chase sequence in BB. Unlike Alfred, we don't see Fox's reaction to that, as if he has no reservations towards it. If he didn't begin to question Batman's methods until that sonar scene, then quite frankly, Fox's head is in the clouds. I don't see how the Tumbler's collateral damage is less unethical.
I reckon Captain America: The Winter Soldier's surveillance debate between Cap and Nick Fury handled this better. Cap, a war veteran and Avenger, has issues with SHIELD taking drastic measures to prevent terrorism because he feels it's fear-mongering rather than liberating, whereas Fury justifies the agency needing to take measures according to how dangerous the world is. Especially following the Battle of New York.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 20 Sep 2015, 09:03
I don't think Nolan intended to explore how Batman's actions affect the public. His interest has been on how Batman, as an abstract concepts, affects primarily Bruce and, secondarily, his circle of friends and associates.
That's too bad, because it makes the whole talk about 'symbolism' even more hollow. If movies like this want to talk about the protagonist being a symbol that aspires people, then at least have the wider public take a position. Same thing goes for Harvey Dent. Otherwise, it's just tell, don't show.
Anyway, we both agree that Nolan's Batman is far from our preferred screen interpretation, so I have no issues with disagreeing on some aspects.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 20 Sep 2015, 09:03
Don't take this the wrong way but I haven't heard very many people comment on the political subtext of Nolan's Batman films who didn't see the war on terror metaphor in Batman Begins, the Patriot Act in TDK and that strange Ayn Randian Ideal vs. Occupy Wall St rant in TDKRises. If you don't see the arguments made in those films, no offense, but that may actually be a good thing. I say this as someone who's sick of being politicked in entertainment media, btw.
Don't worry, I'm definitely sick of it too. For me, my lack of tolerance is based on getting tired of the hype surrounding Nolan's villains and whatever subtext they bring, because in my opinion, they come across as even more cartoonish and silly than the Marvel villains, despite all the criticism about how jokey the latter are.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 20 Sep 2015, 09:03
Obviously the jury is still out on that. I, for one, am just happy to finally be getting a Superman/Batman team-up movie, especially one created by people who appear to love the characters so much.
Fingers crossed it turns out good.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 20 Sep 2015, 01:11I understand what you're saying. But, let's say for a second that you may be right about the people who threatened Reese were only a minority, whereas the majority of citizens are naturally good. That would've been fine, except the problem is that Bruce taking the fall for Dent still betrayed his belief about people were ready to believe in good, because he kept saying that the citizens of Gotham AND the prisoners wouldn't kill each other. That is amazingly rich for him to have faith in criminals, because they are the reason why he became Batman in the first place.
His belief that people were ready to believe in good was about Harvey. Bruce thought of batman at that point as an inspiration for madness. That's what he says to Alfred. I don't know how a criminal being the reason for him becoming batman means that Bruce should automatically believe that criminals aren't capable of doing the right thing, but Bruce knew that the boat had guards with weapons.
QuoteSo if the message from that boat scene was supposed to mean that even convicts are capable of goodness regardless of whatever crimes they may have committed, then that gets totally flushed down the toilet when the truth comes out in TDKR. And you're okay with this?
I don't see how it gets flushed down the toilet. It shows those criminals being bad guys. While tdk shows a single criminal deciding to do the right thing. The other criminals stay down. When people vote on the boats, there are people who want to save themselves. But either the criminals and civilians aren't willing to do it or the criminals are afraid of being shot by the guards. Everyone, in some way, does have good in them, but that doesn't mean that they'll do the right thing all the time. The film sends a message, but it also says that people can and do do bad things. The joker, Harvey, that russian guy and Lau are examples.
QuoteTDK's ending is a huge catalyst for the Dent Act in TDKR, and Batman's decision to frame himself left an extremely bad taste in my mouth. Would Gotham have had eight years of peace if Batman and Gordon didn't lie to the public? Maybe not. But the disastrous consequences that happened once the lie was exposed by Bane only prove that it wasn't worth it.
It leaving a bad taste in your mouth doesn't make it bad. I could be wrong, but I think that the lie not being a good idea was the point.
QuoteI can appreciate a flawed film that has good intentions like Batman Forever, which had admirable plot points of Batman overcoming his guilt and makes his identity a choice rather than a burden, and ensuring that Robin doesn't make the same self-destructive mistake by seeking revenge for his parents' murders. But sadly, not only I'm not too keen on Nolan's ideas, I find his execution for them extremely shoddy.
It's your right to not like the ideas, but most of the examples you've presented as shoddy don't appear to be that.
God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!
Just rewatched the first 40'ish minutes of TDKRises. I'd like to reassert my affection for how Bruce is portrayed in that part of the film.
For starters, he's physically debilitated. Now, to start with, I wasn't sure I completely bought the concept that about a year of being Batman would inflict that much damage on him. But then I remember that, altogether, I only played competitive tennis for three years as a kid. And today I've got poppy elbows and rly weak knees. Let me just say that my workouts weren't even remotely close to as high-impact as Bruce's single year'ish of being Batman, not to mention his many years of training and conditioning. So I now concede that I might've spoken prematurely when it comes to Bruce's many injuries and physical infirmities in TDKRises.
As I've said, I very much enjoy the story trope of the once mighty hero brought low and driven into solitude. Partly it's because that's very human and partly it's because you know it's just a matter of time until the hero take up his mantle once again. The lower you bring the hero, the greater his triumph when he eventually returns.
But for seconders, time has obviously done nothing to dull Bruce's mind. Whatever his physical frailties might be at the start of TDKRises, he's as mentally sharp as he ever was. He's able to detect Selina's presence in the drawing room, get the drop on her, identify her in the Batcave's computer, track her down in the city, concoct a ruse to visit Gordon in the hospital while concealing his identity and other things.
Batman's strongest asset has always been his mind. That was true from Day One and I appreciate the fact that Nolan keyed in on that early on. Yes, Batman is an ass-kicker for sure. But his mind has always been his most powerful weapon and Nolan never forgot that.
I'm not saying TDKRises is perfect. I see the argument that the movie is a little bloated. But I have nary a criticism of the film for the first 40 or so minutes.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 13 Feb 2021, 06:09
Just rewatched the first 40'ish minutes of TDKRises. I'd like to reassert my affection for how Bruce is portrayed in that part of the film.
For starters, he's physically debilitated. Now, to start with, I wasn't sure I completely bought the concept that about a year of being Batman would inflict that much damage on him. But then I remember that, altogether, I only played competitive tennis for three years as a kid. And today I've got poppy elbows and rly weak knees. Let me just say that my workouts weren't even remotely close to as high-impact as Bruce's single year'ish of being Batman, not to mention his many years of training and conditioning. So I now concede that I might've spoken prematurely when it comes to Bruce's many injuries and physical infirmities in TDKRises.
As I've said, I very much enjoy the story trope of the once mighty hero brought low and driven into solitude. Partly it's because that's very human and partly it's because you know it's just a matter of time until the hero take up his mantle once again. The lower you bring the hero, the greater his triumph when he eventually returns.
But for seconders, time has obviously done nothing to dull Bruce's mind. Whatever his physical frailties might be at the start of TDKRises, he's as mentally sharp as he ever was. He's able to detect Selina's presence in the drawing room, get the drop on her, identify her in the Batcave's computer, track her down in the city, concoct a ruse to visit Gordon in the hospital while concealing his identity and other things.
Batman's strongest asset has always been his mind. That was true from Day One and I appreciate the fact that Nolan keyed in on that early on. Yes, Batman is an ass-kicker for sure. But his mind has always been his most powerful weapon and Nolan never forgot that.
I'm not saying TDKRises is perfect. I see the argument that the movie is a little bloated. But I have nary a criticism of the film for the first 40 or so minutes.
Rises gets better with the passage of time. It's bloated in parts but I'm a fan. Bruce's ordeal and Bane's villainy make the movie. The Bruce of the first half doesn't have anything to live for. He's back on the job as Batman and using his skills, but if he falls in battle then so be it. He doesn't fear death, and Bane says the same during his prison speech.
Bruce of TDK Rises gets absolutely torn down and his biggest victory is simply surviving. Bane and Talia don't. I said in another thread that Batfleck has a mythic reputation for 20 years of crime fighting and serving with the League. I stand by that. But Baleman certainly gets street cred for the single act of flying the bomb out and saving Gotham. That's when his arc comes to fruition. The journey to that moment is encapsulated in the climb. At that point he has purpose and fears death: because of the possibilities ahead of him.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 13 Feb 2021, 12:00
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 13 Feb 2021, 06:09
Just rewatched the first 40'ish minutes of TDKRises. I'd like to reassert my affection for how Bruce is portrayed in that part of the film.
For starters, he's physically debilitated. Now, to start with, I wasn't sure I completely bought the concept that about a year of being Batman would inflict that much damage on him. But then I remember that, altogether, I only played competitive tennis for three years as a kid. And today I've got poppy elbows and rly weak knees. Let me just say that my workouts weren't even remotely close to as high-impact as Bruce's single year'ish of being Batman, not to mention his many years of training and conditioning. So I now concede that I might've spoken prematurely when it comes to Bruce's many injuries and physical infirmities in TDKRises.
As I've said, I very much enjoy the story trope of the once mighty hero brought low and driven into solitude. Partly it's because that's very human and partly it's because you know it's just a matter of time until the hero take up his mantle once again. The lower you bring the hero, the greater his triumph when he eventually returns.
But for seconders, time has obviously done nothing to dull Bruce's mind. Whatever his physical frailties might be at the start of TDKRises, he's as mentally sharp as he ever was. He's able to detect Selina's presence in the drawing room, get the drop on her, identify her in the Batcave's computer, track her down in the city, concoct a ruse to visit Gordon in the hospital while concealing his identity and other things.
Batman's strongest asset has always been his mind. That was true from Day One and I appreciate the fact that Nolan keyed in on that early on. Yes, Batman is an ass-kicker for sure. But his mind has always been his most powerful weapon and Nolan never forgot that.
I'm not saying TDKRises is perfect. I see the argument that the movie is a little bloated. But I have nary a criticism of the film for the first 40 or so minutes.
Rises gets better with the passage of time. It's bloated in parts but I'm a fan. Bruce's ordeal and Bane's villainy make the movie. The Bruce of the first half doesn't have anything to live for. He's back on the job as Batman and using his skills, but if he falls in battle then so be it. He doesn't fear death, and Bane says the same during his prison speech.
Bruce of TDK Rises gets absolutely torn down and his biggest victory is simply surviving. Bane and Talia don't. I said in another thread that Batfleck has a mythic reputation for 20 years of crime fighting and serving with the League. I stand by that. But Baleman certainly gets street cred for the single act of flying the bomb out and saving Gotham. That's when his arc comes to fruition. The journey to that moment is encapsulated in the climb. At that point he has purpose and fears death: because of the possibilities ahead of him.
As you know, I view it as Batman dying in that moment. When he was towing the bomb out of the city, he looked terrified. But once he gets out over the bay, he's finally at peace. He did what he set out to do, he saved the city, he knows his number is up and he accepts. Not with gladness and not with fear; just a perfect sense of peace. His time is over and he's fine with it.
That's a legitimate interpretation. I choose to believe he bailed once he blew apart the buildings with the cannons, with the explosion covering his ejection. The following closeups being misdirection from the moments leading up to his escape. We know the autopilot was fixed, which gives the theory solid grounding.