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

Andy!!

e_e wrote: »

Nice that people are still debating aspects of this film long after The Avengers and Amazing Spider-Man.

Well, now that you mention it, there is a very interesting theory that Loki fully intended to be captured in the end, cause it was his only way of getting back into Asgard. It's very interesting, it's quite a long article, don't know the URL though.

Tipsy McSwagger

Gbear wrote: »

I'd imagine that you're part of a tiny minority so I doubt they give a ****e tbh.

A hell of a lot of people were let down by TDKR (myself included). It's as good as Batman Forever but not as good as Batman Returns.

Handsome Bob

Batman Forever is the biggest pile of ****e ever, I hate it even more than B&R. I think the Star Wars trilogy is a better comparison: first one good, second one brilliant, third one good and provides a satisfying ending without reaching the heights of its' predecessor.

phil1nj

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

A hell of a lot of people were let down by TDKR (myself included). It's as good as Batman Forever but not as good as Batman Returns.

Batman Forever isn't in the same league as TDKR. It's a horrible, half-baked, cartoonish take on the Batman universe and was the beginning of the end for Tim Burton's take on the world of Batman (by this I mean the characters he introduced, Joel Schumacher went out of his way to **** all over what had been built up in the first two movies). Between TLJ's god-awful take on Two-Face to Jim Carrey's OTT and downright grating performance of the Riddler to the outlandish set-pieces and day-glo Gotham and the fact that it paved the way for the POS next installment that was "Batman and Robin" .

The TDKR on the other hand is (IMHO) a solid end to a decent trilogy of movies. Ok it's not perfect but it buries the memory of the previous two Batman movies and shows what can be done when a little bit of effort is applied to character development and trying to ground Bruce Wayne/Batman in some semblance of reality.

Mickeroo

StarshipPooper wrote: »

I agree about the ending, however whether Bruce is dead or alive is anything but a trivial detail, it's key to the plot. You can't compare that to people saying the film is unrealistic because it's unlikely Batman made a copy of the software patch and it's unclear if the Bat survived a nuclear detonation at ground zero or not, or things like how Batman could get back into the city without his batpassport. They're very different complaints.

It's not even unclear about The Bat, it's 100% obvious the one we see Lucious working on is not the one Bats was using throughout the film.

Rodin wrote: »

My point is that the knowing look would make it obvious that he was looking at Bruce, as he expressed a wish for earlier in the film.
We don't need an actual shot of Bruce to confirm it. Less is more.

I agree totally. Unfortunately, if they hadn't shown Bruce at the end it would only have made some people even more convinced that it was all a dream.

johnny_ultimate

PaulB1984 wrote: »

Worst i've ever seen, in terms of disappointment. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are among my top favourite movies, i have nothing but love for them, in my eyes they're perfect.

That's part of your problem with the film right there. The previous two films are in no way perfect. They're both plagued by the same over-frentic editing, awkward pacing and excessive plot conveniences that TDKR was criticised for. Like its sequel, the biggest problem with TDK is that tries so hard to fit a ****load of ideas into a too short running time - yes, of course it manages a few things better than TDKR, but its still unwieldy and imperfect in many ways.

e_e

The problem with TDK was that the plot just slowed to a halt at the end with characters giving heavy handed monologues and moralizing to each other. It was like the film yelling to be taken seriously when it was doing more than enough up to that point (the two face confrontation at the end is pretty cringeworthy looking back at it), I think Rises exceeds it in the end by having a lot more bite than bark.

Scanlas The 2nd

Overall as a trilogy I can't think of many better despite the numerous flaws throughout the trilogy. I'd rank it as a first class trilogy, partly because the competition isn't that great.

PaulB1984

Gbear wrote: »

I'd imagine that you're part of a tiny minority so I doubt they give a ****e tbh.

Well... I'm part of the minority who went to see a Batman movie expecting to see Batman.

Mickeroo

PaulB1984 wrote: »

Well... I'm part of the minority who went to see a Batman movie expecting to see Batman.

Considering the story arch much of this film was based on they probably could have had even more of the film without him donning the cape & cowl. Besides, this Trilogy has always been more about Bruce's character arch than anything else.

PaulB1984

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

That's part of your problem with the film right there. The previous two films are in no way perfect. They're both plagued by the same over-frentic editing, awkward pacing and excessive plot conveniences that TDKR was criticised for. Like its sequel, the biggest problem with TDK is that tries so hard to fit a ****load of ideas into a too short running time - yes, of course it manages a few things better than TDKR, but its still unwieldy and imperfect in many ways.

Trying as hard as i can to think of a single problem i had with either of the first 2 movies, i can't think of a thing. Batman Begins paces itself like the original Superman movie, it dedicates the most of the first half to the origin of Batman, and does so really well, which is what i thought DKR was doing. However, once Batman enters Begins, he rarely leaves, and what we end up with is wall-to-wall action, great villians, a brilliant story, fantastic acting from every cast member involved and a finale that excited me so much in my cinema seat that i cried just a tiny bit with joy (

The train finale

). Couldn't have been happier with it, thought it could never be beaten, and then The Dark Knight came along. The 'Heat' of superhero movies, as stylish and beautiful as it is incredible, exciting, action-packed and filled with performances the cast should be proud of. And the single greatest performance as a villian the movie world has ever seen, Heath Ledger as Joker, a man i doubted as fit for the role, and then changed my mind the minute i saw his face and heard his voice up on that screen. Everything about TDK is perfect to me, yes they do a lot in it's time, but that's how movies should be, and they found a perfect balance, plenty, but not too much to ruin it, as it's what ruined Spiderman 3 (Despite that still being a brilliant blockbuster). But the single most important thing with the first 2 movies is that they're Batman movies and they feature Batman more heavily than most of the previous movies. I've asked the question many times of who can name a scene with Batman in DKR to rival the tumbler chase from Begins or the incredible Batman V Joker chase from TDK, nobody has ever answered.

johnny_ultimate

e_e wrote: »

The problem with TDK was that the plot just slowed to a halt at the end with characters giving heavy handed monologues and moralizing to each other. It was like the film yelling to be taken seriously when it was doing more than enough up to that point (the two face confrontation at the end is pretty cringeworthy looking back at it), I think Rises exceeds it in the end by having a lot more bite than bark.

There's several sequences that bother me every time I watch it. The way it weirdly cuts just after Bruce and Rachel escape from the party. The editing choices during the 'Harvey or Rachel?' sequence. Bale's borderline comical enunciation. The amount of time spent on the boats. The 'you gotta be kidding me!' chase cutaways. The ****ing school bus. It's a testament to the strength of the film that I'm willing to forgive such genuine irritants, and I'd say the same about TDKR.

But yeah, I agree with you about the heavy-handedness. The themes of TDKR are deeply ingrained into both the plot and dialogue from the beginning, and while it could hardly be accused of subtlety, I found the way it weaved the film's grand scope into seemingly throwaway scenes or comments to be very impressive.

PaulB1984 wrote:

I've asked the question many times of who can name a scene with Batman in DKR to rival the tumbler chase from Begins or the incredible Batman V Joker chase from TDK, nobody has ever answered.

Batman's first appearance to the soaring Molossus. The visceral intensity of both Bane fights. The closing image of a new caped crusader rising. The chanting of deshi basara. Plenty of spine-tingling moments throughout, TBH.

PaulB1984

Mickeroo wrote: »

Considering the story arch much of this film was based on they probably could have had even more of the film without him donning the cape & cowl. Besides, this Trilogy has always been more about Bruce's character arch than anything else.

But there lies the problem. What story? It didn't have a story, it didn't have a goal, and it didn't have Batman! I'm upset that nobody seems to have given a care for the lack of Batman in a Batman movie. It's called The Dark Knight Rises, not Bruce Wayne Spends The Movie In A Hole. Would anyone settle for a movie with only Bruce Banner? Or Clark Kent? Or Peter Parker? Never. DKR lasts longer than the previous movies and features at the very most, 15 minutes of screen time with Batman. That to me is a disgrace.

Mickeroo

PaulB1984 wrote: »

Trying as hard as i can to think of a single problem i had with either of the first 2 movies, i can't think of a thing. Batman Begins paces itself like the original Superman movie, it dedicates the most of the first half to the origin of Batman, and does so really well, which is what i thought DKR was doing. However, once Batman enters Begins, he rarely leaves, and what we end up with is wall-to-wall action, great villians, a brilliant story, fantastic acting from every cast member involved and a finale that excited me so much in my cinema seat that i cried just a tiny bit with joy (

The train finale

). Couldn't have been happier with it, thought it could never be beaten, and then The Dark Knight came along. The 'Heat' of superhero movies, as stylish and beautiful as it is incredible, exciting, action-packed and filled with performances the cast should be proud of. And the single greatest performance as a villian the movie world has ever seen, Heath Ledger as Joker, a man i doubted as fit for the role, and then changed my mind the minute i saw his face and heard his voice up on that screen. Everything about TDK is perfect to me, yes they do a lot in it's time, but that's how movies should be, and they found a perfect balance, plenty, but not too much to ruin it, as it's what ruined Spiderman 3 (Despite that still being a brilliant blockbuster). But the single most important thing with the first 2 movies is that they're Batman movies and they feature Batman more heavily than most of the previous movies. I've asked the question many times of who can name a scene with Batman in DKR to rival the tumbler chase from Begins or the incredible Batman V Joker chase from TDK, nobody has ever answered.

You didn't ask that on here! The first fight between Bane & Batman for me easily rivals those scenes. Seeing Bane break his back like that on the big screen was something i thought i'd never see, it's one of the most iconic moments in the entire trilogy imho and so it should be. Funnily enough, though TDK is my favourite film of the three, I think both TDKR and BB are better out and out Batman movies.

Mickeroo

PaulB1984 wrote: »

But there lies the problem. What story? It didn't have a story, it didn't have a goal, and it didn't have Batman! I'm upset that nobody seems to have given a care for the lack of Batman in a Batman movie. It's called The Dark Knight Rises, not Bruce Wayne Spends The Movie In A Hole. Would anyone settle for a movie with only Bruce Banner? Or Clark Kent? Or Peter Parker? Never. DKR lasts longer than the previous movies and features at the very most, 15 minutes of screen time with Batman. That to me is a disgrace.

Can you categorically prove the film "didn't have a story"? because if you genuinely think it didn't then I'm not sure you understand what a story is TBH.

PaulB1984

Mickeroo wrote: »

You didn't ask that on here! The first fight between Bane & Batman for me easily rivals those scenes. Seeing Bane break his back like that on the big screen was something i thought i'd never see, it's one of the most iconic moments in the entire trilogy imho and so it should be. Funnily enough, though TDK is my favourite film of the three, I think both TDKR and BB are better out and out Batman movies.

Asked elsewhere i should have said, but now that you mention it, the Bane and Batman fight is good, but it's not "I want you to do it! Hit me! HIT ME!" good. It's Batman punching a fat guy around very much like Liam Neeson would do in Taken. As for anyone's back being broken, there's a major problem right there. There's so much wrong with that i can't even describe.

PaulB1984

Mickeroo wrote: »

Can you categorically prove the film "didn't have a story"? because if you genuinely think it didn't then I'm not sure you understand what a story is TBH.

The Blu-Ray/ DVD comes out, what will the synopsis be? The plot outline?

Mickeroo

PaulB1984 wrote: »

The Blu-Ray/ DVD comes out, what will the synopsis be? The plot outline?

Seriously?

phil1nj

PaulB1984 wrote: »

? ..... and it didn't have Batman! I'm upset that nobody seems to have given a care for the lack of Batman in a Batman movie.

I'm guessing then that you believe all those boxing movie fans out there must really hate Raging Bull then :rolleyes:

PaulB1984 wrote: »

? It's called The Dark Knight Rises, not Bruce Wayne Spends The Movie In A Hole. Would anyone settle for a movie with only Bruce Banner? Or Clark Kent? Or Peter Parker? Never. DKR lasts longer than the previous movies and features at the very most, 15 minutes of screen time with Batman. That to me is a disgrace.

My answer to you would be that Bruce Wayne is as much a part of a Batman movie (if not more so) than than other super-hero characters. He has no special powers as such, no physical mutations, no "alien" backstory to draw on and as such is much more interesting a character to observe. This series of films was (and I'm loathe to use this term) more about BW's journey to becoming the Dark Knight and where ultimately it led him. It explores what drives a man to inspire a crime ridden city to rise up and better itself and take back control. It also looks at what the consequences of these actions are (loss of close ones, actions and reactions to past decisions, responsibility for choices made etc). Anyone can hide behind a cowl or mask (IMHO generic masked vigilante/crime fighter stories are pretty uninteresing unless you know the WHY in the first place). Stick to Marvel comic book character movies in future for what your after would be my advice.

Mickeroo

PaulB1984 wrote: »

Asked elsewhere i should have said, but now that you mention it, the Bane and Batman fight is good, but it's not "I want you to do it! Hit me! HIT ME!" good. It's Batman punching a fat guy around very much like Liam Neeson would do in Taken. As for anyone's back being broken, there's a major problem right there. There's so much wrong with that i can't even describe.

Maybe they didn't literally break his back in the movie, my bad but please describe what's wrong otherwise your just coming out with pointless rhetoric?

johnny_ultimate

PaulB1984 wrote: »

The Blu-Ray/ DVD comes out, what will the synopsis be? The plot outline?

It has been eight years since Batman vanished into the night, turning, in that instant, from hero to fugitive. Assuming the blame for the death of D.A. Harvey Dent, the Dark Knight sacrificed everything for what he and Commissioner Gordon both hoped was the greater good. For a time the lie worked, as criminal activity in Gotham City was crushed under the weight of the anti-crime Dent Act.

But everything will change with the arrival of a cunning cat burglar with a mysterious agenda. Far more dangerous, however, is the emergence of Bane, a masked terrorist whose ruthless plans for Gotham drive Bruce out of his self-imposed exile. But even if he dons the cape and cowl again, Batman may be no match for Bane.

Alternatively: Batman vs Bane LOL.

phil1nj

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Alternatively: Batman vs Bane LOL.

Alternative alternatively: The other comic book movie of 2012 that took over a Billion Dollars at the box office that wasn't The Avengers (or in 3D):D

PaulB1984

phil1nj wrote: »

I'm guessing then that you believe all those boxing movie fans out there must really hate Raging Bull then :rolleyes:



My answer to you would be that Bruce Wayne is as much a part of a Batman movie (if not more so) than than other super-hero characters. He has no special powers as such, no physical mutations, no "alien" backstory to draw on and as such is much more interesting a character to observe. This series of films was (and I'm loathe to use this term) more about BW's journey to becoming the Dark Knight and where ultimately it led him. It explores what drives a man to inspire a crime ridden city to rise up and better itself and take back control. It also looks at what the consequences of these actions are (loss of close ones, actions and reactions to past decisions, responsibility for choices made etc). Anyone can hide behind a cowl or mask (IMHO generic masked vigilante/crime fighter stories are pretty uninteresing unless you know the WHY in the first place). Stick to Marvel comic book character movies in future for what your after would be my advice.

The difference between Raging Bull, Rocky etc.. is that they're about boxers and have boxers. Dark Knight Rises is about Batman and has no Batman to speak of, save for a few crumbs from the table.


No. Bruce Wayne is a man. If he didn't dress as a bat, no one would give a crap. Simple. This is not Clark Kent, Clark IS Superman, with or without a costume, he is Superman. Bruce Wayne without the Batman costume remains Bruce Wayne. If i wanna watch a movie about an old reclusive psycho millionaire, i'll watch The Aviator.

PaulB1984

Mickeroo wrote: »

Maybe they didn't literally break his back in the movie, my bad but please describe what's wrong otherwise your just coming out with pointless rhetoric?

Pointless rhetoric? So Dark Knight Rises does have lots of Batman then? Oh, OK, cool, i must watch it for the 6th time and open my eyes a bit further.

e_e

Would Wayne walking around his home with a cape for the first hour have improved the film for you?

Mickeroo

PaulB1984 wrote: »

Pointless rhetoric? So Dark Knight Rises does have lots of Batman then? Oh, OK, cool, i must watch it for the 6th time and open my eyes a bit further.

Jebus christ, what on earth are you talking about? Read your post again then read my reply then actually reply to what I said. What exactly is so wrong with breaking the bat (or in this case injuring him really badly) that you can't even possibly begin to describe?

And saying "it didn't have a story" or "batman was only in it for 15 minutes" or "there's so much wrong with whatever I can't even begin to describe it" is pointless rhetoric as you're basically saying nothing about the film.

johnny_ultimate

PaulB1984 wrote: »

Oh, OK, cool, i must watch it for the 6th time and open my eyes a bit further.

Why on Earth would you watch a film five times if you dislike it so intensely?

PaulB1984

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

It has been eight years since Batman vanished into the night, turning, in that instant, from hero to fugitive. Assuming the blame for the death of D.A. Harvey Dent, the Dark Knight sacrificed everything for what he and Commissioner Gordon both hoped was the greater good. For a time the lie worked, as criminal activity in Gotham City was crushed under the weight of the anti-crime Dent Act.

But everything will change with the arrival of a cunning cat burglar with a mysterious agenda. Far more dangerous, however, is the emergence of Bane, a masked terrorist whose ruthless plans for Gotham drive Bruce out of his self-imposed exile. But even if he dons the cape and cowl again, Batman may be no match for Bane.

Alternatively: Batman vs Bane LOL.

Here's mine...

"Last time we saw him, Batman was a fugitive being hunted by Gotham's finest, promising you a following chapter of huge action. Now he's back, as crippled old Bruce Wayne, spending an hour down a dark hole, with Bane, a British, South African, Scottish, Irish, Australian lunatic with the strength of an army in his moobs. Enter Catwoman, this time a cat burglar instead of a woman who acts like, or is a cat, who will aid old Bruce by robbing his mother's pearls, fight a couple of guys in an alley and then disappear until the end of the movie. Can Bruce really put on a brace that magically cures his crippled leg? Can he really punch the incredibly fat Bane in the stomach? Or will Bane win out by talking in a new dialect, entirely robbing the plot of Die Hard 4.0 and avoid the laziest lead movie villian death in history?"

At least you tried though

PaulB1984

Mickeroo wrote: »

Jebus christ, what on earth are you talking about? Read your post again then read my reply then actually reply to what I said. What exactly is so wrong with breaking the bat (or in this case injuring him really badly) that you can't even possibly begin to describe?

And saying "it didn't have a story" or "batman was only in it for 15 minutes" or "there's so much wrong with whatever I can't even begin to describe it" is pointless rhetoric as you're basically saying nothing about the film.

Actually, i was pointing out the fact that you believed Batman had his back broken. As for the rest, i've spoken as much about the movie as i possibly can. There's 15 minutes of Batman, there's no story, Bane is a fat stupid joke who can't speak english, Catwoman is a cat burglar instead of a cat, the Batwing looks like some piece of crap a kid made from Lego, i've seen more action in Twilight, the movie is bloody long and boring etc... What else can i say?

PaulB1984

e_e wrote: »

Would Wayne walking around his home with a cape for the first hour have improved the film for you?

A plot, a decent villian and Bruce Wayne in costume for an hour's worth of screen time would've improved the movie for me. Please remember it's a Batman movie, Batman being the operative word.