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

The Recliner

PaulB1984 wrote: »

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

Took you more than 4 sentences though which as per your post in the Transformers thread indicates a genius story

PaulB1984

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

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

I'm a curious guy, if i think someone else is seeing something i'm not, then i want to see it too.

johnny_ultimate

Em... have you ever actually read a Batman story? You are aware Catwoman was never actually a cat, and was in fact always a cat burglar? Or that The Dark Knight Returns - easily the most acclaimed and beloved Bat story ever composed - deals with an elderly, broken Bruce Wayne returning to his caped crusading ways? Or Knightfall, prominently featuring said back breaking?

You seem to be critiquing this film based on some vague, distorted perception of Batman mythology, rather than what he actually is. All three Nolan films are infinitely closer to the tone of the hero as written than anything that came before.

PaulB1984 wrote:

I'm a curious guy, if i think someone else is seeing something i'm not, then i want to see it too.

Thanks, that explains viewing number one. The other four?

PaulB1984

The Recliner wrote: »

Took you more than 4 sentences though which as per your post in the Transformers thread indicates a genius story

Fair enough. Here's a redo...

"Old busted up Bruce Wayne being beaten up by a fat guy, while a cat burglar robs him, 3 short Batman scenes with one scene involving a piece of flying crap."

That's 2 sentences.

phil1nj

PaulB1984 wrote: »

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.

We are a good hour in to Batman Begins before Batman shows up, just wondering if you were as pissed off at that as your were of the lack of Batman in the TDKR?

Also I would disagree with you there and say that Nolan's Batman films are more about Bruce Wayne than Batman himself. This is borne out by the fact that Nolan's Batman has a very short career actually fighting crime (about a years worth of time when looking at the three movies end to end) but the consequences on Bruce Waynes life last much longer consuming most of his (as seen on the screen via flashbacks etc) adult life.

PaulB1984 wrote: »

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.

I would argue that Superman is actually Clark Kent but why split hairs. My point is that anyone can be The Batman (and there have been several different people under the cowl over the years - Jean Paul Valley, Dick Grayson etc) but all they did was step in to Bruce waynes shoes temporarily. It is Bruce Wayne that created the Batman and put in place his ideals, moral code and methods. Ultimately his is the man behind the Mask and I don't think you can tell a decent Batman story properly without focusing on the Bruce Wayne aspect of it. You seem to think otherwise and you'll probably get your wish when the much touted Justice League movie is released. Hope you enjoy it as I doubt there'll be any exploaration of Bruce wayne/Batman's motivations for that particular incarnation of the The Dark Knight.

The Aviator is a great movie BTW, very little flying in it though (which didn't upset me) despite the misleading title:D:D:D

PaulB1984

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Em... have you ever actually read a Batman story? You are aware Catwoman was never actually a cat, and was in fact always a cat burglar? Or that The Dark Knight Rises - easily the most acclaimed and beloved Bat story ever composed - deals with an elderly, broken Bruce Wayne returning to his caped crusading ways? Or Knightfall, prominently featuring said back breaking?

You seem to be critiquing this film based on some vague, distorted perception of Batman mythology, rather than what he actually is. All three Nolan films are infinitely closer to the tone of the hero as written than anything that cam before.



Well that explains viewing number one. The other four?

Of course. But there you've said it, Catwoman is a cat burglar. A crap one too. Why add her when the more recent Catwoman is more popular? And please explain Bane ? As for the back breaking,... Close to back breaking. Not actual back breaking. But yes, as a fan of the Batman TV shows and movies, and not a comic book reader, i'm basing my opinions of the movie on previous movies. It's a crap movie. And i'm not the only one who believes so, there will be a few more out there who say so too.

PaulB1984

phil1nj wrote: »

We are a good hour in to Batman Begins before Batman shows up, just wondering if you were as pissed off at that as your were of the lack of Batman in the TDKR?

Also I would disagree with you there and say that Nolan's Batman films are more about Bruce Wayne than Batman himself. This is borne out by the fact that Nolan's Batman has a very short career actually fighting crime (about a years worth of time when looking at the three movies end to end) but the consequences on Bruce Waynes life last much longer consuming most of his (as seen on the screen via flashbacks etc) adult life.



I would argue that Superman is actually Clark Kent but why split hairs. My point is that anyone can be The Batman (and there have been several different people under the cowl over the years - Jean Paul Valley, Dick Grayson etc) but all they did was step in to Bruce waynes shoes temporarily. It is Bruce Wayne that created the Batman and put in place his ideals, moral code and methods. Ultimately his is the man behind the Mask and I don't think you can tell a decent Batman story properly without focusing on the Bruce Wayne aspect of it. You seem to think otherwise and you'll probably get your wish when the much touted Justice League movie is released. Hope you enjoy it as I doubt there'll be any exploaration of Bruce wayne/Batman's motivations for that particular incarnation of the The Dark Knight.

The Aviator is a great movie BTW, very little flying in it though (which didn't upset me) despite the misleading title:D:D:D

Batman Begins may not have featured Batman for the first hour, but when he does appear, he rarely leaves. That's a solid hour of pure Batman action and huge fun.

As for DKR, all i ask is that there be more than 15 minutes of Batman in a 2 hour 40 minute Batman movie, what's so wrong with that?

Superman doesn't exist, he's a creation of Clark Kent, which makes Clark Kent Superman.

Aviator is fantastic, it really is, it's perfect. But answer me one question... Who was the Aviator? And who do we see for most of the movie?

PaulB1984

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Em... have you ever actually read a Batman story? You are aware Catwoman was never actually a cat, and was in fact always a cat burglar? Or that The Dark Knight Returns - easily the most acclaimed and beloved Bat story ever composed - deals with an elderly, broken Bruce Wayne returning to his caped crusading ways? Or Knightfall, prominently featuring said back breaking?

You seem to be critiquing this film based on some vague, distorted perception of Batman mythology, rather than what he actually is. All three Nolan films are infinitely closer to the tone of the hero as written than anything that came before.



Thanks, that explains viewing number one. The other four?

First time seeing it, as a Batman fan. Next few times, to see what the bloody hell everyone is on about. I still haven't gotten there yet.

phil1nj

PaulB1984 wrote: »

Aviator is fantastic, it really is, it's perfect. But answer me one question... Who was the Aviator? And who do we see for most of the movie?

Howard Hughes was the Aviator.(...so do I win the Internet?) Funny enough we see Howard Hughes for most of the movie, we even see him fly a couple of planes during the course of the movie. Just as with TDKR, we see Batman for over 2 hours and 40minutes, its just that he's dressed as Bruce Wayne for a lot of that time.......Jesus Wept!

The Recliner

PaulB1984 wrote: »

Superman doesn't exist, he's a creation of Clark Kent, which makes Clark Kent Superman.

Clarke Kent is a creation of Kal El, Kal El is Superman, Superman is Kal El

Clark Kent is the suit that Kal El wears not the Superman one

You seem to be basing most of your opinions on previous movies or tv shows, it might be an idea to read more of the actual source material to have a more informed opinion

rockbeast

PaulB1984 wrote: »

Aviator is fantastic, it really is, it's perfect. But answer me one question... Who was the Aviator? And who do we see for most of the movie?

Nice line:) I think that sums it up really. I suppose it raises the question though...Can you be a bus driver and not be driving a bus..?

krudler

phil1nj wrote: »

The Aviator is a great movie BTW, very little flying in it though (which didn't upset me) despite the misleading title:D:D:D

The hell? its got loads of flying scenes, the Hells Angels stuff, him flying the X-11 for the record, taking Hepburn up flying, the Hercules scene, a few others in between. the whole movie is about aircraft.

unless my sarcasm meter is broken *tap tap tap*

Mickeroo

PaulB1984 wrote: »

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?

So your main problem with the film is it stayed pretty close to what Batman is actually about and not what you think/want it to actually be about. All your criticisms are based on innacurate pre-conceived notions you had about the film and not actually criticisms of the film itself. I genuinely don't know how you enjoyed the first two since you seem to want something more like the abominations Joel Schumacher made or the Tim Burton movies.

phil1nj

Lets do a bit of a breakdown on the paragraph below:

PaulB1984 wrote: »

Catwoman is a cat burglar. A crap one too. Why add her when the more recent Catwoman is more popular? .

The most recent Catwoman was Halle Berry's take on it. One of the worst movies ever made and it has no bearing on the Michelle Pfeiffer one from Batman Returns. So which one are you talking about? And why is TDKR's Catwoman a crap burglar?

PaulB1984 wrote: »

And please explain Bane ?.

This version of Bane is very close to the comic book interpretation. A similar powerful intellect to Batman but physically superior.

PaulB1984 wrote: »

As for the back breaking,... Close to back breaking. Not actual back breaking. ?.

Thsi is one of the most iconic events from the Batman cannon. Do a bit of homework FFS.

PaulB1984 wrote: »

But yes, as a fan of the Batman TV shows and movies, and not a comic book reader, i'm basing my opinions of the movie on previous movies.?.

This is the root of your problem. The TV show (and I am assuming you are referring to the camp 1960's effort) is one of the biggest affronts to the Batman legacy of all times. The animated shows get a pass as they are very close to the source material (indeed some episodes are classics). As for previous movies, these have a 50/50 success rate with Tim Burtons efforts being praised but Joel Schumachers being universely derided. Which ones appeal to you the most OP? I'm guessing it's the JS ones. I'd say you loved his Bane character (the idiotic, pumped up ex-wrestler with all the charisma of a pissed up gorilla) or was it the Batman credit card? The comics don't really come in to it (movies are a different medium) but to pin all of your aspirations on the TV shows and previous movies is ,well, not too clever all things considered.

PaulB1984 wrote: »

It's a crap movie. And i'm not the only one who believes so, there will be a few more out there who say so too.

I'm guessing you are in a minority on this one. The above statements don't help your case either.

phil1nj

krudler wrote: »

The hell? its got loads of flying scenes, the Hells Angels stuff, him flying the X-11 for the record, taking Hepburn up flying, the Hercules scene, a few others in between. the whole movie is about aircraft.

unless my sarcasm meter is broken *tap tap tap*

Oh there is flying (but there isn't non-stop, in your face, balls to the wall, stomach up in your brains, arse glued to the seat, blood pumping flight scenes 100% of the time which is what I would expect from a movie called "The Aviator":D). There are lots of other things like congressional hearings, blue-coloured golf courses, dinners with pefectly laid out peas on a plate and even some pissing in jam jars IIRC.

You might want to get that meter checked:). (There was no Batman in it either). Gutted!

e_e

PaulB1984 wrote: »

A plot

A very thorough plot that builds on its legacy and concludes almost 8 hours worth of film? Check.

PaulB1984 wrote: »

a decent villian

A villain with intellect, charisma, an intriguing back story, a devastating plan and is for once a real physical threat to the hero? Check again.

PaulB1984 wrote: »

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.

I don't understand your deal here at all, a good portion of the film is about a lack of heroic symbols in Gotham and it'd be so phony if he were to don the cape again within ten minutes, the audience is supposed to feel that sense of loss of hope in Gotham.

Sounds to me like you're favoring cheap pantomime over genuine character development and logic.

Handsome Bob

e_e wrote: »

I don't understand your deal here at all, a good portion of the film is about a lack of heroic symbols in Gotham and it'd be so phony if he were to don the cape again within ten minutes, the audience is supposed to feel that sense of loss of hope in Gotham.

Sounds to me like you're favoring cheap pantomime over genuine character development and logic.

Don't waste your time, the argument has already been made plenty of times in this thread. Sure, you could do it again, but then another chap will just come along in 2 months time complaining about "Not enough Batman!11!!"....and so the cycle continues.

rockbeast

Will go out on a limb/wing here but this may have some relevance in recognition of the fact that only the first installment in the Trilogy had "Batman" in the title. The other two referred to "The Dark Knight".

Dark Night of the Soul

"Saint John of the Cross' poem narrates the journey of the soul from its bodily home to its union with God. The journey is called "The Dark Night", because darkness represents the hardships and difficulties the soul meets in detachment from the world and reaching the light of the union with the Creator. There are several steps in this night, which are related in successive stanzas. The main idea of the poem can be seen as the painful experience that people endure as they seek to grow in spiritual maturity and union with God. The poem is divided into two books that reflect the two phases of the dark night. The first is a purification of the senses. The second and more intense of the two stages is that of the purification of the spirit, which is the less common of the two. Dark Night of the Soul further describes the ten steps on the ladder of mystical love, previously described by Saint Thomas Aquinas and in part by Aristotle. The text was written in 1578 or 1579, while John of the Cross was imprisoned by his Carmelite brothers, who opposed his reformations to the Order."

Spread over parts 2 and 3 I can see a connection...What do you think? Apologies if it has been discussed before.

RB

maximoose

Lads, quit feeding

Overheal

S. De Sousa wrote: »

Don't waste your time, the argument has already been made plenty of times in this thread. Sure, you could do it again, but then another chap will just come along in 2 months time complaining about "Not enough Batman!11!!"....and so the cycle continues.

Such a hypothetical person will be mocked.

It was all worth the payoff when Batman comes zooming in on a motorcycle EMP'ing the **** out of everything.

Scanlas The 2nd

Interesting article below on John Blake and who he is.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2012/07/26/the-meaning-of-joseph-gordon-levitts-fate-in-the-dark-knight-rises-spoilers/

Gamb!t

Decent read,some of the comments aren't half bad either and worth a read.

The King of Moo

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. So it's safe to say i had huge expectations for DKR. How horribly let down i was i'll never forget. I can forgive a movie outside of a franchise, or even a movie as part of a series where it has no real place anyway (Bourne Legacy for example), but not this. I should start with it's biggest problem, the complete lack of Batman himself. Not Bruce Wayne as Bruce Wayne, but Bruce Wayne actually as Batman. Right now, i remember 3 small scenes featuring Batman, totalling around 14 minutes. I also remember Bruce Wayne

spending half the movie down a well

which angered me even more. The story made no sense, almost as if it had no story at all. Bane was awful, between the hilariously bad and unidentifiable accent, to the seemingly pregnant body he carried. Even his motives made no sense at all to me. Anne Hathaway as Catwoman was a complete joke, i like the actress, but here she's just eye candy and nothing more, she served no purpose to anything and rarely even appeared. The 2 people i will give credit to are Michael Caine and Gary Oldman, they were wonderful, outdoing themselves in the previous entries. The directing and look of the movie is incredible, no one would expect otherwise from Christopher Nolan and his team, also special notice for Hans Zimmer's fantastic score. But everything else just fails. There's a scene when Batman first appears (The Batpod chase), he has this unsual weapon we'd seen plastered everywhere in publicity shots, but do we get to see what it does? Do we heck! A cop comes along and shoots it, ruining the entire scene. Just one of the many red herrings throughout the whole farce. A couple of impressive enough scenes, but as i type this, even now i feel the anger building up. What upsets me possibly more than anything is that this truly is the end of Nolan's run of Batman, which means he will never make up to me and other people disappointed, by giving us a truly spectacular action-packed Batman movie to end his series, so shame on them, and bravo to Michael, Gary and Hans for trying.

It's a small point to pick on, comparing to the others that other people have brought up, but why do you think all the lights went off?
It's an electro-magnetic pulse generator. He used a miniature version of it earlier in the film when entering the ball, which stopped the paparazzi cameras from working, then used another miniature version later in the fight against Bane. It got a lot of coverage.

I'm also curious as to what you mean by the more recent Catwoman (Halle Berry!!??) being more popular.

Andy!!

e_e wrote: »

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

Good point. Bruce Wayne actually is Batman people, that might have escaped some of you.

Armin_Tamzarian

Andy!! wrote: »

Good point. Bruce Wayne actually is Batman people, that might have escaped some of you.

And I think that never before were the lines between the two as blurred.

B.A._Baracus

I reckon this thread is about to get really popular again :pac: ... seeing as how a certain movie hit the net. lol.

Scanlas The 2nd

Interesting article on how to reboot batman, sounds brilliant. Not sure If the TV series would work though.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2012/10/05/how-warner-bros-could-reboot-batman-part-2/

Nervous Wreck

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

And I think that never before were the lines between the two as blurred.

I might argue that Kevin Conroy's version had verrrrry blurry lines in TAS....

Gamb!t

What sites were selling the limited edition boxset and when is that one out ?

promethius

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I reckon this thread is about to get really popular again :pac: ... seeing as how a certain movie hit the net. lol.

yes a lot of people seem to be viewing it since yesterday alright