The Dark Knight Rises ***USE SPOILER TAGS***

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I know it seems a bit silly, but maybe they should have just watched the previous two films? :dunno

Yeah, they shouldve :lol
i guess some didnt bother anymore, not everyone has the time after all

Without giving anything away, [Bane]'s like a lackey, a big dopey brother figure to one of the characters in the film.

John Blake surprised the hell out of me. He's one of the best things about this film. I ripped him to pieces when I thought he was just a "made up, Nolan Inception character" but I was wrong. He may be the best character.

:goodpost: Nice points there DiFabio, i agree with you
 
Last edited:
see ya on the other side.

1027053598d4ee260b15879f2d606620978297b6.png
 
Im pretty sure all the haters of this movie are the Burton Schummaher fans, the Batman Forever fans, the fans that loved Riddler and Penguin and two face, yeah I can see that
 
can someone tell me why Bane destroys the Stadium? is it a simple answer or is it a big spoiler?
 
I had more time to digest the movie after a few hours of sleep and I retract some of my criticism of this movie.

Some parts that I thought were too conveniently explained with dialogue or too shove in actually makes a lot of sense within the context of the movie. Sure some of the events are just too much of a coincidence but then again, there are no coincidence. Within that context, I can buy a lot of the ideas in the movie.

A lot of the plot holes can also be solved with logical thinking. Nolan has never been the type to answer every single questions but all his questions can be answered if we watch carefully. I will be going for another showing Monday and I believe it will be a better experience.

I forgot to mention that Anne Hathaway as Catwoman is totally HOT and the definitive portrayal so far (yes, even better than Michelle Pfiefier.
 
To those that saw the film. I wanna see if you had the same gripe I had.


What did you guys think of that stupid knee thing? The biggest question on my mind before going into this film was, "how does Bruce possibly walk/run/fight well with missing cartilage in both knees?"

At first I thought it was a mental thing and that Bruce had it in his head that he needed a crutch until he went to the doctors and it's confirmed that he has some serious problems with his health.

So what happens? He ____ing has this little device that magically makes his legs stronger? I was shocked. I'm all for a suspension of disbelief, even though this film is always being described as realistic and grounded in reality but, c'mon. It seemed ridiculous.

Who is this guy, Tony Stark? I couldn't believe that. I mean he was able to kick that wall in? What the hell? Why didn't Bruce use the device in his eight years of being a hermit so he didn't need a cane?
 
To those that saw the film. I wanna see if you had the same gripe I had.


What did you guys think of that stupid knee thing? The biggest question on my mind before going into this film was, "how does Bruce possibly walk/run/fight well with missing cartilage in both knees?"

At first I thought it was a mental thing and that Bruce had it in his head that he needed a crutch until he went to the doctors and it's confirmed that he has some serious problems with his health.

So what happens? He ____ing has this little device that magically makes his legs stronger? I was literally like this in the theater, :monkey4.

Who is this guy, Tony Stark? I couldn't believe that. I mean he was able to kick that wall in? What the hell? Why didn't Bruce use the device in his eight years of being a hermit so he didn't need a cane?
It is basically an exoskeleton. Not entirely in the realm of impossibility since the Japanese have actually invented full body exo many years back and those exo can actually let paralyzed or semi paralyzed people walk again or lift heavy stuff.

I guess he just didn't wanna use any Wayne tech stuff during him self imposed exile.
 
Im pretty sure all the haters of this movie are the Burton Schummaher fans, the Batman Forever fans, the fans that loved Riddler and Penguin and two face, yeah I can see that

:slap

I had more time to digest the movie after a few hours of sleep and I retract some of my criticism of this movie.

I forgot to mention that Anne Hathaway as Catwoman is totally HOT and the definitive portrayal so far (yes, even better than Michelle Pfiefier.

:slap :slap
 

let me say it better

a lot of the criticism I hear is, this is not batman, batman was not in it enough, they wanted batman to fight crime, too serious, too dramatic,

well... what's the opposite of that?
Burton and Forever movies, those closer to the comic book feel and look,
 
Bane is a Weak villain to carry a nearly 3hr Film. Hardy probably does a phenomenal job, but the character itself, Bane, is to me, and always will be, a man who matches Batmans strength, is intelligent but thats it. Theres no substance to the character or conflic with batman.

bane isn't a weak villain, nolan just used him wrong and watered him down. bane is the anti batman. the same smarts & all that, but without the moral code
Watered him down? The connection between Bane and Batman, and the way one is a "what if" version of another, is very clearly made in the movie. Nolan's take on Bane, blows the comic book potrayals out of the water. Comic book Bane was a nice idea on paper, a sort of an "anti batman" if You will, but presented in a typicaly kitchy, over the top way. He served little purpose other than breaking the bat. Nolan's Bane is a terrifying fanatic. The very epitome of a super villain terrorist and a walking juggernaut, not just physicaly. Whereas the comic version was simply a big, overmuscled, hairy wannabe-luchador, Hardy's version is a real menace. The guy oozes voilence and fanatical conviction. He is not steroid-huge, but he doesn't need it, just one look and You know he means buisness. There is an aura of constant physical threat and utter ruthlessness about the guy(which I believe is far more in essence of the character, than just grotesquely huge musculature). Even his somewhat underdeveloped, rough physique attests to that. Hardy looks like a real thick-necked brute, not a clean-cut male model. There is even a promise of danger in the very way he moves. The militant, ideological fanatic feel refers not only to his looks, but also the character's backstory and Nolan's take on it. I believe it was a fantastic move on Nolan's part to show the "great mind" side of Bane, by giving him that fanatical ideology that he is trying to force on Gotham. Unlike Joker who prefered chaos, Bane has specific, ambitious plans for Gotham and is going to force them with practical, surgical violence and carnage. Bane in TDKR is someone who despite his great intelect, is nonetheless driven by some misguided and pathetic beliefs, that he is trying to force upon the world at gun-point. I believe its a great theme and awesome take on the character. Joker was a lunatic anarchist, Bane truly is a dangerous, driven "über-fanatic".

The voice itself, I believe is also a cool thing about Hardy's take on Bane. On one side, the highly stylised, british accent might be viewed as a cheap way of showing the character's "sophistication", but on the other hand there is a very creepy undertone to it, that combined with Hardy's eyes and look, makes for an awesome effect. A big, hulking brute, nonchalantly using "like a sir" accent as if nothing was wrong, while at the same time breaking people's bones and beating them to a pulp - how can You not love it? ;)

He is a right hand man of a larger villain IMO.
How is Ras bigger? He is neither as characteristic as Bane. Nowhere near as imposing presence on the screen. Not as ruthless. Even his plans pale in comparison. Yes, the use of microwave emmiter was ambitious on its own, but it's nothing compared to what Bane does with Gotham.

Let's show some love for the bald fella. ;)

mxLu3.jpg

1Ungi.jpg
 
Last edited:
Considering more than half of the Avengers opening box office was 3-D (Opening without 3-D surcharge would have been around $175 million) and with TDKR tracking higher than Avengers right now, I wonder if WB/DC regrets giving Nolan the power of insisting no 3D. That would have been a lot of extra cash and technically it still could have had it in 2D as well.
 
Considering more than half of the Avengers opening box office was 3-D (Opening without 3-D surcharge would have been around $175 million) and with TDKR tracking higher than Avengers right now, I wonder if WB/DC regrets giving Nolan the power of insisting no 3D. That would have been a lot of extra cash and technically it still could have had it in 2D as well.

Not about the money but about sounding a message?

I dunno. I agree with you there. Nolan got his real film and IMAX, it wouldn't hurt if after they were finished they converted it for a 3D run. Best of both worlds and more $$$. It's not like it wouldn't be showing in the regular 2D theaters or real IMAX.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top