The Dark Knight Rises (SPOILERS)

[marlon dingle]

Originally Posted by Debbie Downer

Regarding John Blake, and if he is or isn't

[Show spoiler] Robin. Of course he's not the real robin (robin from the comic books) like Dick Grayson and Tim Drake. That doesn't exist in Nolan's movies. So obviously this is his version of a Robin character its the equivalent.He combined traits from Grayson/Drake and made a completely new character. And yeah he made Robin his actual name instead of the alter ego name, it doesn't change it. I don't know how this is a dispute. Nolan changed many things from the comics already so why are people in denial. It's pretty clear he doesn't like the Robin character as we know it, so he changed it to make sense in his vision of Batman. What does Talia Al Gul have to do with her comic counter part besides the fact that she's Ra's Al Gul's daughter?

It's like saying this entire trilogy isn't really Batman because he never had a sidekick named Robin during his tenure as Batman like in the comics

[Show spoiler]I think you've misunderstood my original point. I'm not angry that Nolan has put a character name Robin in his film. Nolan has always said he would never put Robin(the character from the comic books that is Batman's sidekick) in his films. And true to his word he hasn't put that character in the film. It's Nolan self-referencing himself about what he has said in the past about the character. At the end of the film John Blake is taking up the mantle of Batman, not becomming Robin. His name is Robin, if he went about Gotham calling himself Robin, people would work out pretty quickly who he was. I personally enjoyed the John Blake storyline. Like I said before, when the woman mentions his real name being Robin, JGL might as well have looked straight to camera and winked at the audience.

Just to Clarify, John Blake isn't Robin the character. If the woman had said to him, "Oh you should use your real name, Richard." Then we could maybe talk about him being Robin.

[Debbie Downer]

Originally Posted by marlon dingle

[Show spoiler]I think you've misunderstood my original point. I'm not angry that Nolan has put a character name Robin in his film. Nolan has always said he would never put Robin(the character from the comic books that is Batman's sidekick) in his films. And true to his word he hasn't put that character in the film. It's Nolan self-referencing himself about what he has said in the past about the character. At the end of the film John Blake is taking up the mantle of Batman, not becomming Robin. His name is Robin, if he went about Gotham calling himself Robin, people would work out pretty quickly who he was. I personally enjoyed the John Blake storyline. Like I said before, when the woman mentions his real name being Robin, JGL might as well have looked straight to camera and winked at the audience.

Just to Clarify, John Blake isn't Robin the character. If the woman had said to him, "Oh you should use your real name, Richard." Then we could maybe talk about him being Robin.

[Show spoiler] But he's still the 'Robin' character of the series and inspired by it. And I stand by what I said still. His actual name is Robin yes, so he may be Nightwing, or Batman, or something else instead. What you got was Nolan's version of Robin. I'm sure all of us dislike that Catwoman movie from years ago. Has that version of the character ever existed in the comics? No. Was she Selina Kyle? No. But that was still that writer/directors version of Catwoman. It's like say in Batman Returns, they did the intelligent black mechanic thing they had planned and changed his birth name to Robin or something else entirely different, it would still be Robin. It's an adaptation.

Does anyone understand at all what I'm trying to say?

[marlon dingle]

Avengers spoilers also contained within this tag.

[Show spoiler] I can't believe that basically the two biggest films of the year (this and The Avengers) basically have the exact same ending with our hero flying the nuke a safe distance to detonate. Can't tell if it's an example of lazy script-writing or that there is no way to raise the stakes higher than just to stick a Nuclear Bomb in a major city?

[Show spoiler]All this can be forgiven though, just by how decent the 1st fight between Batman and Bane is. Can't wait to go see that bit again in particular. I personally guarantee that within the time this film will become just a great and well liked as The Dark Knight. Like a few people have said Bane isn't as good as The Joker, and I think that is a valid point, but with Ledger's death I think that kind of iconize the character and the performance even more. Once scene in particular that proved to me that Bane(and Tom Hardy's performance) was just as good was when Bane rests his hand on John Dagget's shoulder. The fact you can't see Bane's nose or mouth and all that fear and tension is pretty much pulled of with just his body movement and eyes really laments how good a performance it is. He also has just as many great one-liners, "That boy has a lovely voice." & "The shadows betray you, because they belong to me." Being two of my particular favourites.

[marlon dingle]

Originally Posted by Debbie Downer

[Show spoiler] But he's still the 'Robin' character of the series and inspired by it. And I stand by what I said still. His actual name is Robin yes, so he may be Nightwing, or Batman, or something else instead. What you got was Nolan's version of Robin. I'm sure all of us dislike that Catwoman movie from years ago. Has that version of the character ever existed in the comics? No. Was she Selina Kyle? No. But that was still that writer/directors version of Catwoman. It's like say in Batman Returns, they did the intelligent black mechanic thing they had planned and changed his birth name to Robin or something else entirely different, it would still be Robin. It's an adaptation.

Does anyone understand at all what I'm trying to say?

I guess we'll just have to disagree until Nolan comes out publically and proves me right.

[TheWildWhelk]

Sorry guys, but apart from the arse-numbing 2hours 45 minute running time of this film, my feelings about it are in total agreement with what Harry Knowles said about the film over at Aintitcool.com Seriously seriously dissapointed with this film. The following day i had a Tim Burton Batman 'Fest on BD and had a few friends around who also thought TDKR was a let-down. Thank god Nolan has finished with the franchise, that's all i can say!

[Debbie Downer]

[Show spoiler] His name is Robin. Who else would he be? Cletus the slack jawed yokel?

In the comics Robin is originally a boy named Dick Grayson, who becomes an orphan when his parents are murdered by a gangster. Bruce Wayne takes him in as his legal ward. And eventually fights crime as Robin.

In the Nolan Batman film series Robin is young boy named Robin John Blake who becomes an orphan, later becomes a police officer as John Blake, and later becomes Bruce Wayne/Batman's successor as....? We don't know for sure.

Copied from IMDB FAQs:

In the Batman universe, there are a few Robins, with John Blake being a product of the three of them. Nolan took aspects from Dick Grayson, Jason Todd and Tim Drake to create Robin John Blake: (1) Dick Grayson - a morally righteous orphan, much like Bruce, and additionally became a police officer (2) Jason Todd - his anger issues are much like Blake's tendency to hide his anger and desire to lash out behind a smile, and (3) Tim Drake - much like Blake, Tim becomes Robin by figuring out Batman's identity, which is probably the strongest resemblance to the character.

[marlon dingle]

Originally Posted by Debbie Downer

[Show spoiler] His name is Robin. Who else would he be? Cletus the slack jawed yokel?

In the comics Robin is originally a boy named Dick Grayson, who becomes an orphan when his parents are murdered by a gangster. Bruce Wayne takes him in as his legal ward. And eventually fights crime as Robin.

In the Nolan Batman film series Robin is young boy named Robin John Blake who becomes an orphan, later becomes a police officer as John Blake, and later becomes Bruce Wayne/Batman's successor as....? We don't know for sure.

Copied from IMDB FAQs:

In the Batman universe, there are a few Robins, with John Blake being a product of the three of them. Nolan took aspects from Dick Grayson, Jason Todd and Tim Drake to create Robin John Blake: (1) Dick Grayson - a morally righteous orphan, much like Bruce, and additionally became a police officer (2) Jason Todd - his anger issues are much like Blake's tendency to hide his anger and desire to lash out behind a smile, and (3) Tim Drake - much like Blake, Tim becomes Robin by figuring out Batman's identity, which is probably the strongest resemblance to the character.

[Show spoiler]I understand he is called Robin, I watched the film and heard that his name was Robin. I am not disagreeing with you on that point. The film is called The Dark Knight Rises. At the end of the film we see John Blake on a platform - rising. There is no question that he is to become BATMAN. Not Robin, he is already called Robin. But he is to become BATMAN.

Jesus, if Selina's name turned out to be Selina Ivy Kyle. We wouldn't have thought she was Poison Ivy. Do you catch my drift? Nolan was making fun out of his own movies and the character of Robin, because he ****ing hates that character. But he obviously thought that the storyline of someone taking up the mantle of Batman was a good way to close his story whilst leaving it open for someone to maybe come in and continue his universe if that is the decision Warner Brothers take.

[toddly6666]

John Blake is up for your own interpretation - you can choose who you want him to be in your mind! He's the spinning top at the end of Inception!

[marlon dingle]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

John Blake is up for your own interpretation - you can choose who you want him to be in your mind! He's the spinning top at the end of Inception!

That is a good way of putting it.

[binarymelon]

My thoughts on the film. I'm going to spoiler tag everything just because I don't want to judge what someone may consider a spoiler. For those just looking for opinions. If you liked either of the first two, go see it. It's a decent film. Not the best, but I do think I enjoyed it more than Begins.

[Show spoiler]I had two main issues, the first is with Bane's voice. It felt completely unnecessary and over dramatic to be honest. I found myself almost having to close my eyes and really focus on him to make sure I understood everything he was saying. Secondly, the middle felt kind of long. I can't say exactly what I would have wanted cut, but I know I felt annoyed that it was taking so long for Bruce to get back into the action. I loved the ending though. Basically everything from the Talia reveal on was spectacular.

[Lopan]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

John Blake is up for your own interpretation - you can choose who you want him to be in your mind! He's the spinning top at the end of Inception!

Exactly.

[AndyD]

Originally Posted by marlon dingle

[Show spoiler]I understand he is called Robin, I watched the film and heard that his name was Robin. I am not disagreeing with you on that point. The film is called The Dark Knight Rises. At the end of the film we see John Blake on a platform - rising. There is no question that he is to become BATMAN. Not Robin, he is already called Robin. But he is to become BATMAN.

I don't think the "Rises" in the title refers to

[Show spoiler]Blake rising on the platform at the end - if that's what you are suggesting. I think it refers to Batman being gone for 8 years and rising once again.

[Zelos]

Originally Posted by Debbie Downer

[Show spoiler] His name is Robin. Who else would he be? Cletus the slack jawed yokel?

In the comics Robin is originally a boy named Dick Grayson, who becomes an orphan when his parents are murdered by a gangster. Bruce Wayne takes him in as his legal ward. And eventually fights crime as Robin.

In the Nolan Batman film series Robin is young boy named Robin John Blake who becomes an orphan, later becomes a police officer as John Blake, and later becomes Bruce Wayne/Batman's successor as....? We don't know for sure.

Copied from IMDB FAQs:

In the Batman universe, there are a few Robins, with John Blake being a product of the three of them. Nolan took aspects from Dick Grayson, Jason Todd and Tim Drake to create Robin John Blake: (1) Dick Grayson - a morally righteous orphan, much like Bruce, and additionally became a police officer (2) Jason Todd - his anger issues are much like Blake's tendency to hide his anger and desire to lash out behind a smile, and (3) Tim Drake - much like Blake, Tim becomes Robin by figuring out Batman's identity, which is probably the strongest resemblance to the character.

I posted this before in this thread, but I'll just copy it:

You realize that IMDB-explanation actually comes from Mavrick, a member of this website, who posted it as a possible theory?

This isn't proven, but it seems likely.

Anyhow, I don't understand why there's such a discussion about

[Show spoiler]JGL being Robin/Batman/Nightwing or not. Obviously, people who don't understand that this was basically Nolan's version/take on the character (a simple wink), don't know anything about the comic books and think about it on a casual level. I mean, why aren't you people saying Bane wasn't the real Bane, because the 'real' Bane from the comic books wasn't a member of the League of Shadows? Exactly - because that goes too deep into the comics. Everyone knows Robin, so everyone has a theory about this, but they usually don't make sense . It is very clear that JGL played a version of Robin that, within Nolan's universe, would most likely take on the roll of the new Batman.

[El_Jay]

Originally Posted by Debbie Downer

[Show spoiler] His name is Robin. Who else would he be? Cletus the slack jawed yokel?

Did the thought of it merely being fan service, a little nod, cross your mind?

[Show spoiler]Based on the ending, it looks like Batman gave him the keys to the kingdom, took off and let him take the reins. Since when has Robin been a solo act?

Anyway it's really, really, really ambiguous at best, (and I'm definitely not ruling out the strong possibility that he is supposed to be Robin, just arguing that it's not really that cut-and-dried) so there's certainly no need for condescension like "who else would it be, Cliche the Awful Joke Guy" or whatever.

[KubrickFan]

I'll put my review in spoiler tags too, just to be sure.

[Show spoiler]I honestly don't know what to think of this film. Some pieces worked wonderfully, and others were just a bit "meh".
The good parts? Bane. He was truly terrifying, a very impressive visual menace. His fight with Batman in the sewer is honestly one of the best fights I've ever seen in any movie, ever. I don't know whether Nolan is finally learning to shoot action sequences, or that he finally learned to delegate, but it was awesome.
The whole ambiance of terror that was through this movie, was also great. It's a lot darker than the previous two, I agree. The scene of the city being destroyed, the bridges getting blown up, and the football stadium getting torn apart gave me chills down my spine. Especially the latter, which looked hokey in trailers, didn't have that same quality when seen in the movie. At least to me.
The bad parts? The fact that there is no flow in this movie whatsoever. That one can be put down to one individual, and that's Christopher Nolan himself, since previous movies of his have had the same problem. Things just seem to happen after each other, without any real structure, it seemed. The good part is that, as opposed to The Dark Knight, none of the scenes were superfluous (though maybe that'll change when I see it again). And while I'm typing, I really wonder if that's a bad thing at all. Should movies really be structured the same, every time? I don't think so. Then again, there wasn't anything that surprising either. The problem with Nolan is that, whenever something's happening, he feels the need to make sure everyone in the audience (even those that are asleep at that point ) knows something is going to happen. So he builds things up with some shots, then some more shots, and then of course the "reveal" which everyone sees coming. On top of that is the music of Hans Zimmer, which gets louder and louder, which really doesn't help either.
Catwoman (even if she isn't called that in the movie, we can still call her that) was okay. I didn't really think of Anne Hathaway as this tough girl, let alone a thief.
I do have to give Nolan credit for finally embracing the comic book roots of all this. The Bat looked awesome. Especially since the majority of it flying seemed like CGI, and very good examples of it too.
The other actors, apart from Tom Hardy, were fine, I guess. Apart from Bale and Caine, most were merely just part of the plot, and didn't really have much to do.

I do have to complain about the IMAX "experience". I know that here we don't have any real IMAX theaters, so I went knowingly to a faux IMAX one. The ticket was only 8 euros, so that wasn't so bad. The bad part was that the sound was excruciatingly loud. We know Nolan likes the soundtrack loud, we also know that the theaters like it a bit louder. The IMAX theater, thinking that "loudness equals quality" puts it up a notch. So examples like the opening scene, or the many chases in Gotham City were so loud, with music and sound effects and dialogues mixed incoherently together that it was way too overbearing. Completely ridiculous and unnecessary.
And then the film quality. Given that it's digital, it doesn't touch an IMAX film properly projected. But if you boast about better quality, use a 4K projector or something. I could see literally see the pixels. So with the pieces actually filmed in IMAX, you get a marginally better looking picture (I also saw some quite severe grain, so I'm wondering from what generation it was taken) with pixels, and with the stuff that was shot with anamorphic lenses, which on its own should still look excellent, we got the same look that The Dark Knight on Blu-ray has. Sharpened, and lacking a lot of detail. So basically the screen is just bigger, and the sound a lot louder.
So for those doubting, if you don't have a real IMAX screen in your neighborhood, don't bother. Stick with the normal version.

[marlon dingle]

Originally Posted by andydlp

I don't think the "Rises" in the title refers to

[Show spoiler]Blake rising on the platform at the end - if that's what you are suggesting. I think it refers to Batman being gone for 8 years and rising once again.

[Show spoiler]Yeah I was obviously being facetious. Sorry if that didn't come across. I think we can take "Rises" in many various ways. He comes back after being away 8 years. He rises up in the prison to escape. He rises above the things that were holding him back before like Rachel Dawes and his parent's murder. He literally rises when getting into "The Bat". The symbol of Batman become bigger that just one man and is adopted by the city as their saviour. He rises above his opponent to come back and defeat him. Remember, why do we fall?

[Bishop_99]

Considering Nolan's previous films and how the theatrical version seems to be his definite verison, but

[Show spoiler] is there a remote chance that he intended on having a dark ending but shot two versions just to please Warner Brothers and send the happy ending to Hollywood? I think if the ending changes from the point Talia stabs Batman, Catwoman leaves and doesn't come back to kill Bane so abruptly and they take it a really dark way from that point, I will have a completely new appreciation to this film. I really liked the rest of the film but from there I was disappointed.

I can only hope I guess But no word so far from Nolan of having done two different endings?

[Bishop_99]

Also, I went to a fake Imax at AMC and the difference between the Imax footage and the 35mm was very easy to spot. The aspect ratio did change, but it seemed to go from 2.35:1 for the 35mm scenes to 1.78:1 for the Imax scenes. The shift seemed very similar to that of The Dark Knight Blu-ray, so I doubt I saw the 1.44:1 open image that I would have seen in a real Imax theater. It seemed that it would have needed to be pillar boxed to get the real Imax footage.

The Imax scenes had great amount of detail and looked great, but the 35mm scenes looked much softer, similar to how Inception looked. Seems a bit odd since Nolan loves shooting on film, but they end up having a softer look. Not sure if the actual issue here was the process Imax does to their films and that's why the 35mm scenes looked softer than other 35mm films I've seen in that theater. If what i saw is the actual intended look of the film, then there is going to be a pretty big picture quality shift in the Imax scenes compared to the 35mm scenes on the Blu-ray. Now I know the Blu-ray will keep the resolution the same through out so technically there should almost be no difference, expect noticing that it was filmed with a different cam like with MI4. But to my understanding, in these fake Imax theaters, they run two projectors to create a sense of increased resolution? It's not that actual resolution of a real Imax screen. I remember seeing two projectors when I saw Inception in the fake Imax, I didn't look back this time.

[travOtaku]

The movie was pretty good, not as good as The Dark Knight. I would say 3.75/5 stars for me. The one thing that I didn't like about it was that there were several things that just popped right out of the screen and took me right out of the movie. I can't think of a single thing that was like that about The Dark Knight, though there may be some.

Examples include:

[Show spoiler]1. Thomas Lennon's cameo as the doctor. There was no reason for him to be in the movie and just suddenly seeing him show up on screen just took me right out of the moment.

2. Talia's death. That was one of the worst acted deaths I have ever seen.

3. Bane's death. I hated how anti-climactic his death was. He was made to be a huge hulking presence in the film and then right at a high tension scene he just got blown away and then instantly forgotten.

4. Talia's introduction. I hated that she was revealed as a villain with like 15 minutes left worth of running time. Cool that she was the one that kind of orchestrated everything, but it was dumb to introduce her as a villain and then have her want the exact same thing as Bane. "Oh hey, I want to blow up Gotham for EXACTLY the same reason as the previous villain did."

She was just like a female Bane as far as motivation goes. She seemed pointless.

5. The scene where Gordon gets exiled to the ice made me sooo mad. The start of the scene is filled with tension because we had watched people fall through the ice before. You could hear the ice cracking as Gordon and his team walked further and further onto the ice, and then they found the flare. After they found the flare, and then they just started standing around like nothing was dangerous. Even Batman was just strolling around the ice like there was no danger. Drained the tension instantly for me.

6. How did Bruce Wayne just end up right back in Gotham? The move set up such high stakes for people to come in and out of the city and he just strolls down the street after escaping a pit in some country halfway around the world.

There was plenty that I liked though, too:

[Show spoiler]1. Catwoman was awesome awesome awesome. She killed that role. Was the best Catwoman I have ever seen.

2. John Blake was one of the best things about the movie. He had the most complete story-arc out of everyone in the sense of starting as one thing and then becoming another by the end (in this case, starting as as "hot head" rookie and ending the film as a hero.)

3. The score was amazing.

4. Alfred as good as always.

5. The scene with Batman's return chasing Bane after the wall street attack was awesome. Loved how the batpod shut down the power of the lights as it went along to keep it in the darkness.

[ManWithNoUsername]

Originally Posted by TheWildWhelk

Sorry guys, but apart from the arse-numbing 2hours 45 minute running time of this film, my feelings about it are in total agreement with what Harry Knowles said about the film over at Aintitcool.com Seriously seriously dissapointed with this film. The following day i had a Tim Burton Batman 'Fest on BD and had a few friends around who also thought TDKR was a let-down. Thank god Nolan has finished with the franchise, that's all i can say!

I havent watched the Burton Batman movies in quite a while but I really like them. They're not over the top corny, aside from that army of penguins which is ridiculous, but everything else is just very creative comic book awesomeness. They have a lot of style.

Im also glad Nolan's done now. BB and TDK were great but Rises is just a bit of a mess, and really doesn't even feel like a Batman movie at all to me. It wasn't terrible, a decent 3rd and final movie, but definitely lost some steam after TDK.