The Dark Knight Rises *SPOILERS*

[Adolfo]

You guys are retarded. Everyone knows Michael Keaton actually wrote the Jurrasic Park movies.

LOL...........

 

[ZaCHw117]

It's like edwardnygma all over again.

 

[Maglor]

Wut, you kidding?


"A guy that dresses up like a Bat clearly has issues."

"No, *this* is your mask. Your real face is the one that criminals now fear."

"See, to them you're just a freak, like me . . . they'll cast you out."

etc. etc.

This ****ing guy talks to people in a "Bat voice" when, A. they're not around and B. when they know he's Batman. What the **** do you call that? I don't care how his cape functions, the dude puts on a cape, puts on a bat mask, and beats out of the criminals for a reason and catharsis. That ain't normal and this a movie, not real life.


Even when he's out of the suit he does the voice. What do you call that? It's a little more than dedication. This guy saw his parents gunned down, I mean what?

If anything, prior to TDKR Nolan made it ambiguous. Yeah, there's some symbol of hope talk, but you sort of see him really becoming Batman, especially by TDK's end. Bruce's mental health could be ambiguous. It can be whatever the viewer wants. If it's what Rachel saw, than boy, Bruce is Batman . . . forever until the day he dies.

Forgive me if I like seeing a tormented Batman. An unhinged, but good man that's dedicated. A Batman that doesn't quit and turns his anger and pain over the loss of his parents into something positive by stopping criminals and righting wrongs. A Batman who almost crosses the line (like in TDK with beating the Joker or getting satisfaction out of the "immoral" sonar device).

I don't see who couldn't dig a Batman that grapples with his sanity and is a little more complex, mentally ill character but still is a hero. You make it sound like that's a bad thing? Some of the best Batman incarnations aren't straight laced, take the Frank Miller TDKR Batman for example.






I'm sure Nolan and Co. voices and the feature itself is very, very convincing and fulfilling. They usually are, I love hearing what filmmakers have to say. I'm sure I'll love it. But that doesn't mean whatever they say is written in stone or that they're right, or that it's the way to go. It's their vision, period. The reason these things are for entertainment, that's it. While I was mildly entertained, I was ultimately disappointed, didn't like the story and thought it was subpar compared to Begins and TDK.

It's a little documentary for the film's intent. Just because it sounds great and they have a reason for it doesn't mean I'll like it or agree with it. It's all about perception and interpretation. Didn't like the choices, characters or not.

And it's not just Bruce, it's the whole damn movie. So, whatever. You're free to like it, but don't chastise those that don't. I can see what you're seeing, "I get" where they were going, I just don't like it among other things.

I was going to do the whole point by point thing, but who has the time.


Here's the bottom line for me:


I'm looking at 2 basic interpretations of Batman.

1) The traditional interpretation that has existed since the early days of the comics (which I don't read). That Batman was created to appeal to adolescents/teenagers. A big part of that demographic feels depressed/like they don't fit in/"tormented", so it makes sense that that kind of character would speak to them. That Batman does not get well. He is forever tormented. And yes, we celebrate the character because he finds a positive outlet for his negative feelings.

A big part of me still enjoys that version of Batman. There's a reason Batman Returns is one of my favorite movies. However, it's a younger/less experienced version of myself that relates to that character. Just like I still love old school Nine Inch Nails despite the fact that all the nihilistic wallowing in depression is no longer something I can relate to. It's still great art, but it doesn't touch me like it used to.






2) Nolan's Batman - which is set up and developed from Begins straight through to Rises. A Batman that truly finds out 'why we fall.' A Batman that truly learns to pick himself back up again.

The whole series telegraphs the way the series ends. Not only the "why do we fall" part, but the whole concept that Batman is a symbol and anyone can be Batman. I believe that from the start the writers knew Bruce Wayne's character arc, and that to view the character differently than Rises portrays is to betray the first two movies. The Bruce Wayne story is a true arc. He does not plateau the way the traditional Batman does at a perpetual state of misery induced heroism, he truly works out his demons over the course of the three films.

One of my favorite scenes in TDKR is when Bruce climes out of the pit. Do you remember why Bruce is able to succeed in getting out of the literal pit? He learned to fear death again. Meaning, he wanted to live. Anger and pain are no longer his motivating force. He is ready to be happy, and live the life that his parents would have wanted him to live. But he also knows that Gotham still needs him a little bit longer. When he returns, he is an enlightened Batman. A Dark Knight who has literally and figuratively risen from a pit. He does not return out of a misplaced sense of vengeance, rather he returns out of his love for the city that his father loved and helped build. He returns because he truly is a hero. Once the immediate threat is dealt with, and someone else is ready to become the symbol of Batman, he can move on. In a practical sense, this is the only logical thing that can happen in a story that is "grounded in reality". The condition that Bruce's body is in is how a real life body would be affected by being Batman. This is another recurring theme throughout the series. Alfred is constantly bringing Bruce's physical limitations to his attention. No man could continue fighting crime in this way into his 50's or 60's. A replacement must be found.

In short, this 2nd version of Batman is one that resonates on a much deeper level to the person I am now at 35 years of age. The idea that we can all rise above even the darkest loss, that we can do the right thing because we want to (not because we're driven to), is a message that I can strongly get behind.








Also, it has never been my intent to chastise anyone. The only person I've seen do that is:

To those who like their Batman with a vajayjay. Congrats on enjoying it!

My only real issue with this film (apart from the fact that Catwoman is just in it is that it doesn;t feel like the third act in a three part story. The fact that Bats was only active for at most 18 months and then GONE for seven years is really hard to swallow.

But ultimately the Nolan Batman is searching for redemption not justice. It started out that way with the first film where all he wanted was to save Gotham, but come TDK all he wants to do is give up the cowl and live happily ever after.
Of course all this goes back to the fact that Nolan's Bruce chooses to put on the costume. He's not driven to do so. Its not a compulsion for him. Every criminal he takes down isn't vicariously the man who killed his parents.

Wasn't that debunked long ago?

This is actually one of the great things about this character. He is a ****ed up fashist with a twisted world view. A pontificating fanatic, who is convinced he is the only sane and rightious man, among a filthy, degenerated world. He actually wanted to prove something with Gotham. When he said "the city is yours", he tought he was making a valid point about human nature (very similar to what Joker was saying) and behaviour when "the shackles of society" are gone. Similarily to Joker, he wanted to show how false, the civilised laws and structures are. Of course it was all BS really. He was wrong, becouse he wasn't truly setting people free (not really). Gotham wasn't free, it was under a boot of a ****ed up, crazy warlord, wtih criminals running amok, it sure as hell wasn't a place were representative human nature shows through. But as with any fanatic, Bane actions just warped the world to fit and match his twisted, little worldview. He tought the rioting masses and the likes of Crane, represented true human behaviour, but it really didn't. He also didn't care for his own life. He was ready to go out with a bang (literally), and make Gotham his epitaph, his tombstone. Just as real life terrorists and "freedom fighters", blow themselves the **** up, just to futilely prove some point, or shout some fanatical bull**** to the world, so too did Bane, but on a larger, comic, supervillain scale.

As for the hope/bomb theme. I am honestly suprised to see how many people, don't understand this. I mean Bane almost explicitly explains it to Bruce at one point in the movie. It was a mirror reflection of what happened to Bane in prison. "There can be no despair, without hope". He didn't just wanted to blow Gotham sky high. He wanted to torment its people, by giving them false hope, and watching how they behave in that little cesspool he created. To punish the upper classes, the kind of people who he believed were responsible for the misery of the likes of him, in the first place. In the comics, Bane was also a screwed up revolutionary. Nolan's version is even more suggestive, nuanced, real and threatening.


This has been beaten to death allready. A whole large chunk of "Batman Begins" was dedicated to showing young Bruce as a man who is resourceful enough, to make it on his own, in foreign, exotic, hostile lands, without any money or support. The trilogy allready established, that he spend whole 7 years, traveling the world, making it on his own. At this point we really don't need to have another trip, explained and showed to us verbatim, especially in a movie thats allready condensed with so much (a bit too much) plot, that it has no time for such bs.

It was in no way impossible, it wasn't even anything especially hard for someone like Bruce. But it probably was pretty uncinematic and mundane. Do You really need to see Bruce spend time making this thing? It was necessary tool, becouse of the dramatic effect it had on the citizens. The making of it, probably wasn't so.

Ok. Point for You. I also didn't entirely like it. The only reason it happend was becouse "that's what was written in the comics". I really wish Nolan would have ignored this piece of cannon. I guess it could be explained, that it was some twised way of really getting inside that guys head, getting real close to him, knowing him perhaps. She was after all, a crazy woman. It's entirely possible that she both hated him and was also at the same time, fascinated by him and drawn to him, in some way (which would also fit the comics if I remeber correctly).

Seriously? Thats a real argument against the film? How many times Nolan has to make this point. The voice is not just a theatrical tool for deception. Wayne is a bit of an animal, when he's Batman. He becomes something else when he puts on the cowl. He lets the inner beast out. That's not just a vocal trick, thats his persona, thats how the thing he becomes in the suit, speaks.

Good post.

Jesus christ people, its movie. Sounds like you were expecting the holy f'n grail. I've avoided this thread for the last few months because all anybody does in here is slam the film and anybody that even remotely enjoyed it.

Yeah, I'm gonna bow out of this thread again. With the Bluray release, it would have been nice to come in and celebrate the movie, but that's not gonna happen here.

What's awesome is that if they had made the film, it would have been the holy grail.

Myself, I'm humbled to be in the presence of such creative genius.

 

[ironwez20]

Lol............... funny.

 

[Adolfo]

I'm no detective but i'm starting to think DiFabio may not have liked TDKR.

LOL.........

 

[batfan08]

Lol............... funny.

I know, but it was nowhere near the level of the English midget joke. That one was priceless!

 

[Adolfo]

^ I agree. That ending would've worked. I actually expected that.

The ending as is still works

 

[ironwez20]

I know, but it was nowhere near the level of the English midget joke, though. That one was priceless!

Taliban Midget??? is than better?

 

[sarakawa]

Don't know what is going on in here but I watched dark knight rises for the first time last night and loved it! Kthxbai

 

[Adolfo]

So Nolan turned Batman into The Phantom?

no it was the Joker

 

[batfan08]

Taliban Midget??? is than better?

That makes even more sense!

 

[ironwez20]

That makes even more sense!

Sorry im on my iphone when I text on here. ****s up all the time.

 

[batfan08]

I'm on an iPhone, too!

 

[ironwez20]

Iphone 4s??????? HEll YEA!

 

[DiFabio]

Here's the bottom line for me:

I'm looking at 2 basic interpretations of Batman.

1) The traditional interpretation that has existed since the early days of the comics (which I don't read). That Batman was created to appeal to adolescents/teenagers. A big part of that demographic feels depressed/like they don't fit in/"tormented", so it makes sense that that kind of character would speak to them. That Batman does not get well. He is forever tormented. And yes, we celebrate the character because he finds a positive outlet for his negative feelings.

A big part of me still enjoys that version of Batman. There's a reason Batman Returns is one of my favorite movies. However, it's a younger/less experienced version of myself that relates to that character. Just like I still love old school Nine Inch Nails despite the fact that all the nihilistic wallowing in depression is no longer something I can relate to. It's still great art, but it doesn't touch me like it used to.

2) Nolan's Batman - which is set up and developed from Begins straight through to Rises. A Batman that truly finds out 'why we fall.' A Batman that truly learns to pick himself back up again.

The whole series telegraphs the way the series ends. Not only the "why do we fall" part, but the whole concept that Batman is a symbol and anyone can be Batman. I believe that from the start the writers knew Bruce Wayne's character arc, and that to view the character differently than Rises portrays is to betray the first two movies. The Bruce Wayne story is a true arc. He does not plateau the way the traditional Batman does at a perpetual state of misery induced heroism, he truly works out his demons over the course of the three films.

One of my favorite scenes in TDKR is when Bruce climes out of the pit. Do you remember why Bruce is able to succeed in getting out of the literal pit? He learned to fear death again. Meaning, he wanted to live. Anger and pain are no longer his motivating force. He is ready to be happy, and live the life that his parents would have wanted him to live. But he also knows that Gotham still needs him a little bit longer. When he returns, he is an enlightened Batman. A Dark Knight who has literally and figuratively risen from a pit. He does not return out of a misplaced sense of vengeance, rather he returns out of his love for the city that his father loved and helped build. He returns because he truly is a hero. Once the immediate thread is dealt with, and someone else is ready to become the symbol of Batman, he can move on. In a practical sense, this is the only logical thing that can happen in a story that is "grounded in reality". The condition that Bruce's body is in is how a real life body would be affected by being Batman. This is another recurring theme throughout the series. Alfred is constantly bringing Bruce's physical limitations to his attention. No man could continue fighting crime in this way into his 50's or 60's. A replacement must be found.

In short, this 2nd version of Batman is one that resonates on a much deeper level to the person I am now at 35 years of age. The idea that we can all rise above even the darkest loss, that we can do the right thing because we want to (not because we're driven to), is a message that I can strongly get behind.

You like a Bruce Wayne that's all about symbols, greek philosophy, Tale of two cities passages, Roman ideals and forced, theater melodrama.

If I wanted to see that, I'd read the Odyssey again or read English plays. Batman, for me, isn't a Greek fictional epic with analogous themes of unachievable ideals.


I quite enjoyed seeing a Bruce Wayne that pushes his own limits, is constantly watching his friends and enemies on monitors and replies "beautiful, isn't it" after doing morally questionable things. That's the great thing about Batman, he's on edge. He's just at the brink of becoming the very thing he seeks to eliminate. Thankfully, his humanity, parents and butler keep him from crossing that line.

If that pain goes away and he's cured of it then the city is in serious trouble.

You know would I would have liked to have seen? Not a tourist that goes off on some weird, life long vacation in Italy to do his butlers bidding (and in the process throws away both of his personas and leaves everything in the hands of a person he just meant) but is content with his duty as Batman and his responsibilities as Bruce Wayne. Let's not forget here, he's not just giving up Batman, he gives up Bruce Wayne too. Where's the philanthropy (other than last minute house give aways to orphans), wheres Bruce finally taking over Wayne Enterprises, doing what his father did during the day, and doing what his father couldn't do, as Batman, at night?


You keep going back to Begins. I think I recall Begins ending with Bruce feeling that he is fulfilled. His father wouldn't be proud of him? Rachel seems to think so, she even says that. I hate to break it to ya, but Begins HAD a hero's journey. It was a Year One story, that's what it was intended in 2005. It's called "Batman Begins", it was all about Bruce Wayne's transformation into Batman. While he does think in ideals and alludes to "symbols to inspire others", it goes both ways. Rachel suggests this. Batman COULD BE his real mask. What's wrong with that? Bruce Wayne's ONE wish was to be with Rachel, his childhood friend, but in the second one, she's gone. Batman should be dominant, what's so wrong with this?

That should have been another catalyst to get Bruce deeper into the Batman persona (where he was headed in TDK when he became a seasoned "Batman" after apprehending the Joker, taking the blame, and not becoming a hero, but a Dark Knight).




The thing wrong with what Nolan did, for me, is that he treated Batman as a bad thing, not just for the character, but in general. Just when you have high hopes that Bruce would embrace the character and you could finally move past the doubt he seemed to have (YES, RACHEL IS FINALLY GONE!), what does he do? He retires him, cripples him (only until he needs to conveniently come back again) and pacified the character for 7 years.

Begins was promoted as Bruce Wayne's Journey, as a Year One film. It lived up to it and had a promise for the future. The Dark Knight took it one step further and plunged deeper in the Batman persona, the stuff everyone wanted to see . . . . TDKR takes him back, well, not just him, takes everything back, changes it up, turns things on it's head and well, you get what we got in TDKR. An obligatory film full of contrived, "EPIC" ideas and messages and a setting that is most certainly . . . unrealistic.



I'll take a Bruce/Batman that can take beatings every night and survive than a Bruce that has a magic knee brace and can survive nuclear fallout with the rest of the city, just so he can have a greek heroes journey, (instead of, you know, Batman's journey) and a martyr's death so he can live it up with a one dimensional cat lady he just met on his swiss account.


People say that it makes sense for it to end, it's not like the comics which aren't real. Well, I hate to break it to anyone here, but these films aren't reality. They, like comics, could go on and on forever. Just like books, just like other entertainment. Is it because it's a "Trilogy" now. How many times do we have to see in interviews that it was NEVER INTENDED TO BE ONE? The writers and filmmakers were *gasp* making it up as they went along.

This isn't reality, it never was. They were just great Batman films until the bloated, final film where the vision and interpretation lost it's flavor.

 

[Maglor]

I've said my piece. If your happier disliking the movie than so be it. Personally, I prefer to like ****.

 

[UltraMarknus]

There have been so many incarnations and variations on the character. We can most definitely choose the Batman we like, but not what he should be. Through the Bat movies that have been released, we've had a few takes on him now. If someone didn't like the Nolan one, we got another one coming up!

 

[DiFabio]

I've said my piece. If your happier disliking the movie than so be it. Personally, I prefer to like ****.

And that's perfectly fine.

There's other crap we can agree with, and some we don't. Just a different perception on the thing, that's all.

 

[Jen]

You all need to STOP WITH THE INSULTS. It sure would be nice to come into a movie thread and be able to read people's different opinions on the movie and not a load of insults going back and forth. If you don't like someone, ignore them. If someone doesn't have proper grammar - who cares? This isn't an English composition class. I know when I use my iPad or cell phone it makes all kinds of crazy mistakes - mostly due to auto correcting incorrectly. People need to learn to just let it go.

 

[thenammagazine]

I love how the finger is always pointed at me, but I get trolled for typing "Elektro" instead of "Electro."