The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

[GuruAskew]

By Nolan's own admission he was never sure he would make a third film and also by his own admission the (terrible) ending of TDKR was created long before the rest of the script was written.

The ending in and of itself is proof Nolan didn't have everything mapped out from the beginning. Take the scene in which Alfred recounts his dream if seeing Bruce living happily in Italy. Had Nolan envisioned ending from the very beginning that scene should have been included in the first film, or at least early in the second, and when his dream was realized at the end of the third film it might have had some weight and resonance. As it stands now it comes across as clumsy exposition. Pretty much anyone who knows anything about the mechanics of writing knows how the film will end the second Alfred ends his little speech.

[Steve Lilley]

Originally Posted by bootsy

That's not subjective either. The box office domestic and foreign, the reviews from fans and critics says it was very successful. I don't know what else to measure successfully besides that.

But... THE DARK KNIGHT RISES made less money domestically and wasn't as well reviewed as THE DARK KNIGHT. So judging by your own criteria, it wasn't as good, then?

What?

Originally Posted by GuruAskew

Pretty much anyone who knows anything about the mechanics of writing knows how the film will end the second Alfred ends his little speech.

Or by about the third time they mention that damnable autopilot, ha.

[zmarko]

Originally Posted by GuruAskew

Iron Man 3 isn't a trilogy-ender. It's the 4th film to feature the character with at least one more on the way.

If anything TDKR proves that the trilogy format isn't appropriate for every character. Why should the cinematic Batman have a beginning, middle and an end when these are characters that appear regularly for years without ever ending? That's part of why the TDKR ending was so widely-hated: Batman has done fine without having an ending for 74 years.

A lot of other superhero franchises have continued on past #3 and most of the other trilogies have had spinoff a or serious talk of fourth entries. But Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy is actually a trilogy by design.

Nolan's series is alone among superhero franchises in that it says "this is it, this is the whole story of Batman." And as such it's actually pretty disappointing. 2/3rds of it is devoted to the obscure Ra's al Ghul and the League of Shadows. The story spans over a decade and Wayne's career as Batman is implied to be little more than the brief in-costume action we see on screen: a handful of instances as opposed to the lifelong commitment to crimefighting that is the character's defining trait.

Worst of all, you have a terrible ending that exists to resolve one of the worst romantic subplots in the history of movies. Dawes was a disaster in the first film, as a major motivation for Batman/Bruce's ideology she was an unnecessary and ineffective failure and Nolan attempted to justify her existence by salvaging the character as a key component in the Two-Face origin, unsuccessfully again as the audience was happy to see her die and Dent simply turned into a single-minded crazed baddie anyway. And cut to the third film where he doesn't have to properly develop the Bats/Cats love story because he can wheel out old Rachel's bones again as a catalyst for a paper-thin "I was sad over her but you make me happy so lets go hang around in an Italian cafe" ending.

On top of that it presents an 8-hour cinematic work in which the most beloved rogue's gallery in popular fiction is all but ignored. To see Batman's complete career reduced to an annoyance for the al Ghul family without ever having him encounter characters like the Penguin and the Riddler is just plain wrong. This is a character that dresses up in a rubber bat suit. You can make those villains work, Nolan was just to scared to try.

So yeah, I hope the powers-that-be behind the next incarnation of Batman realize that the character is suited for a never-ending series of episodic adventures.

Holy cow. lol.

[bootsy]

Originally Posted by Steve Lilley

But... THE DARK KNIGHT RISES made less money domestically and wasn't as well reviewed as THE DARK KNIGHT. So judging by your own criteria, it wasn't as good, then?

What?

I'm talking the trilogy as a whole.

[Early Memphis]

Originally Posted by GuruAskew

... Dawes was a disaster in the first film, as a major motivation for Batman/Bruce's ideology she was an unnecessary and ineffective failure and Nolan attempted to justify her existence by salvaging the character as a key component in the Two-Face origin, unsuccessfully again as the audience was happy to see her die ...

Uh, I wasn't "happy" to see her die ... Although most of what you say is opinion, that's okay (if a bit stridently presented - as true to being a guru? ). I even agree with a lot of it. But I must take issue with your Dawes thrust. I thought her character was great, especially in that it linked up with Bruce's parents and his childhood - neither of which would or should simply vanish. She also provided a conscience - which bitter people need - a different kind of conscience than Alfred could provide.

However, to bring her back as more than a memory - especially after being forced to change actresses - was a big mistake (whatever Nolan's motivation might have been). The whole Two-Face thing was a disaster in my book. Not only, as you point out, did he avoid a dean's list of possible Batman adversaries, Two-Face is no longer a life-long, dangerous criminal, he's been reduced to being a one-shot, disillusioned ex-DA - without even being called Two-Face! Batman Begins was great, and origin stories are always allowed a bit more leeway, but to abandon Batman's legend and history (as Nolan chose to do), virtually guaranteed a legion of disappointed, disenchanted Batman fans - which, apparently, Nolan didn't give a fig about.

[GuruAskew]

Originally Posted by bootsy

I'm talking the trilogy as a whole.

I obviously was too, and you simply can't say, nearly one year later, with the hype gone and the honeymoon over, that most people think TDKR actually lived up to the first two.

[Steve Lilley]

Originally Posted by bootsy

I'm talking the trilogy as a whole.

But I'm not. I have no interest in talking about the trilogy as a whole. I'm talking about the one that I think isn't very good, THE DARK KNIGHT RISES.

Seriously, I think the movie is a great big mess. Nothing says "Ah, screw it" quite like throwing an HDTV with an apparent satellite cable hookup into what is supposed to be a pit of hopelessness and despair just to get some clumsy exposition across to Bruce Wayne.

[bootsy]

Originally Posted by GuruAskew

I obviously was too, and you simply can't say, nearly one year later, with the hype gone and the honeymoon over, that most people think TDKR actually lived up to the first two.

Yes I am. The reviews and the box office say so.

[bootsy]

Originally Posted by Steve Lilley

But I'm not. I have no interest in talking about the trilogy as a whole. I'm talking about the one that I think isn't very good, THE DARK KNIGHT RISES.

Seriously, I think the movie is a great big mess. Nothing says "Ah, screw it" quite like throwing an HDTV with an apparent satellite cable hookup into what is supposed to be a pit of hopelessness and despair just to get some clumsy exposition across to Bruce Wayne.

You jumped in the middle of my response to another poster about the TRILOGY and now want to dictate what I was talking about.

[Steve Lilley]

You understand that most neutral reviews get counted as positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, right?

Have you actually read reviews of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES or are you just looking at that number? Which, again, still isn't even as high as THE DARK KNIGHT.

Originally Posted by bootsy

You jumped in the middle of my response to another poster about the TRILOGY and now want to dictate what I was talking about.

Where do I that? Does the word "I" suddenly mean that I'm talking about someone other than myself?

Seriously, I used "I" like nine times. I don't understand how this is so hard.

[bootsy]

Originally Posted by Steve Lilley

You understand that most neutral reviews get counted as positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, right?

Have you actually read reviews of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES or are you just looking at that number? Which, again, still isn't even as high as THE DARK KNIGHT.

You understand that most neutral reviews get counted as positive reviews for ALL MOVIES, right?

Originally Posted by Steve Lilley

Where do I that? Does the word "I" suddenly mean that I'm talking about someone other than myself?

I replied to Guru about his analysis of the trilogy and then you jumped in and replied to me about what I posted about the trilogy and you say you are only talking about TDKR. It's like coming in on the middle of a conversation between two people and start talking about something else.

[Steve Lilley]

Originally Posted by bootsy

You understand that most neutral reviews get counted as positive reviews for ALL MOVIES, right?

Since you were using reviews as a judge of "success," I wanted to make sure that you were aware that "Eh, it was alright, I suppose. Nothing special." would be counted as a positive review by Rotten Tomatoes.

I replied to Guru about his analysis of the trilogy and then you jumped in and replied to me about what I posted about the trilogy and you say you are only talking about TDKR. It's like coming in on the middle of a conversation between two people and start talking about something else.

Yeah, it's weird that I was able to add myself to your private messages like that. I'll try to stop doing that in the future and will only post in regular threads on the board.

How about this: in the future, when I want to talk about "The Dark Knight Rises," I will only do so in threads that are literally titled "The Dark Knight Rises." Deal?

[bootsy]

Originally Posted by Steve Lilley

Since you were using reviews as a judge of "success," I wanted to make sure that you were aware that "Eh, it was alright, I suppose. Nothing special." would literally be counted as a positive review by Rotten Tomatoes.

What else should I go by. That's really one of the best ways to measure how a movie is received by critics. It's also at 78 on metacritic with a user rating of 8.5. I'm sure those were neutral fans as well.

Originally Posted by Steve Lilley

Yeah, it's weird that I was able to add myself to your private messages like that. I'll try to stop doing that in the future and will only post in regular threads on the board.

How about this: in the future, when I want to talk about "The Dark Knight Rises," I will do so in threads that are literally titled "The Dark Knight Rises." Deal?

What's weird is I was replying to someone else that was talking about the TRILOGY and then you replied to my reply. You don't really distinguish yourself when you do something like that unless you specifically say I'M ONLY TALKING ABOUT TDKR. Interesting concept eh. I mean it doesn't make sense to say after the fact that 'hey I was talking about TDKR even though I responded to your post talking about the trilogy'.

[GuruAskew]

Originally Posted by bootsy

Yes I am. The reviews and the box office say so.

They don't. The international box office market is growing substantially and you simply can't compare the international box office performance of a 2012 film on a 2008 film and attribute the comparative success of one to the other. If anything TDKR should have obliterated TDK due to the better international market. It just barely beat it and was still beaten by two other movies. It was a big deal to gross $1 billion in 2008 but in 2012 TDKR was only 1 of 4 films that did it.

As for the critical reviews, that's already been addressed. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic take something abstract and try to quantify it with numbers. Look around online: TDKR just isn't experiencing the unanimous praise that it's predecessors experienced.

[Steve Lilley]

Originally Posted by bootsy

What else should I go by. That's really one of the best ways to measure how a movie is received by critics. It's also at 78 on metacritic with a user rating of 8.5. I'm sure those were neutral fans as well.

So that's a "no" on the "Did you read the reviews of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES" question, then.

What's weird is I was replying to someone else that was talking about the TRILOGY and then you replied to my reply. You don't really distinguish yourself when you do something like that UNLESS YOU SPECIFICALLY SAY I"M ONLY TALKING ABOUT TDKR. Interesting concept eh.

I did specifically say that. You even quoted it.

Listen, I can see how this is obviously going to go, so I'll save us both the trouble. I'm out. Have a good one.

Good luck, Guru. You're gonna need it

[bootsy]

Originally Posted by Steve Lilley

So that's a "no" on the "Did you read the reviews of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES" question, then.

I don't know you tell me since you know so much.

Originally Posted by Steve Lilley

I did specifically say that. You even quoted it.

Listen, I can see how this is obviously going to go, so I'll save us both the trouble. I'm out. Have a good one.

LOL no you didn't. This was your first two replies to my post.

Originally Posted by bootsy

Nolan isn't saying 'this is it for Batman'. He's saying 'this is it for my version of Batman'.

Originally Posted by Steve Lilley

Exactly. And I don't really think his version of Batman ultimately means anything/makes much sense/is very good.

Originally Posted by bootsy

He had a plan it worked very successfully contrary to what you believe.

Originally Posted by Steve Lilley

The second part of your sentence is incredibly subjective, contrary to what you believe.

Both of these were replies to my post replying to Guru about THE TRILOGY. Nowhere do you state The Dark Knight Rises is what you are talking about.

[Steve Lilley]

Both of these were replies to my post replying to Guru about THE TRILOGY. Nowhere do you state The Dark Knight Rises is what you are talking about.

Except, of course, for when I said this:

Originally Posted by Steve Lilley

I'm talking about the one that I think isn't very good, THE DARK KNIGHT RISES.

My final word on the topic: bootsy literally just PMed me with a link to this thread because he wants me to respond some more

[blonde_devil]

one of the problems with doing a Batman movie is there have been so many little changes to the character over the years that depending on what version you like, you may or may not like the character. compare the Frank Miller Batman to the Adam West Batman of the 60's - they are barely the same character yet they both evolved from the same place. I am sure for some people, Batman wasn't dark enough yet others will say this is not the Batman they grew up on. Did Dark Knight Rises have its problems? yeah but there are issues with all the Batman movies. is it as good as the last one? not at all but there was no chance it was going to - Joker is the most well known of Batman's villains and one of the best. how could Bane measure up? is it a good movie? i liked it. if you don't think it was a good movie, cool - I have no problem with that. I do think it made an interesting set of movies.

as for Batman quitting, it is a different justification. when he is in the comics, he will never stop until evil is brought to justice because next month a new issue needs to come out. with the movies his motivation was to help clean up Gotham, not be its only defender. he did what others couldn't and inspired people to take a stand. he didn't plan on being Batman forever, just as long as it was needed. that didn't bother me. It would be interesting to see an actor sign on to do 5-10 movies over the next 40 years so we could see an evolution of Batman but for a relatively short set of films, I think it worked.

[bootsy]

Originally Posted by Steve Lilley

Except, of course, for when I said this:




My final word on the topic: bootsy literally just PMed me with a link to this thread because he wants me to respond some more

LOL that wasn't your reply to ME. Man you are

[MaxPowers]

Having just watched Iron Man 3, my respect to TDKR just went even more up. I liked IM3 but could never be emotionally engaged in any of it. This goes for all marvel movies, they are fun, but ultimately surface based entertainment.

As for TDKR, it as a satisfying and emotional trilogy ender. It is not as good as TDK, but contains the series' most emotional scenes. I have never been so moved in a comic book movie watching Bruce making the climb out of the pit. Not only it is a symbolic moment for Bruce but is also a perfect metaphor for life, sometimes only you can save yourself by getting out of life's most deepest abyss. A perfect scene that elegantly summarizes Bruce's character arc. I dare anyone name a scene as powerful in another comic book movie.

What Nolan did with this trilogy is elevate the genre that is considered simple and childish to an epic, emotional and thematic movie experience. Sure TDKR has a few plot holes, but ultimately it matters if the movie fails to engage the viewer emotionally and TDKR does this incredibly well. It concludes the character arcs and themes in logical manner as per the trilogy's mission statement if you will.

I will not mention music cinematography or direction as few will argue that they are top notch, but I will say that in an age of CGI it is a breath of fresh air to see a real movie with practical effects and action scenes. I could never relate to the cgi green screen battles in the Avengers as fun as they are. But here, every punch feels real, every stunt leaves you breathless and even the cgi that is present is used smartly to enhance the experience. In fact the Bane vs Batman fights are my favorite action scenes, as not only they are devoid of flashy over the top stunts and effects but they also have a meaning in the story beyond just having a set piece. Still remember how my heart dropped when Bane cracked Batman's cowl.

In the end we get a fantastic beautifully shot movie with excellent performances, with such scenes as the opening plane heist, Gotham under siege, thousands of real extras fighting on Wall Street, the truck chase through the streets, and a definite ending to the franchise, which is unheard of these days, as almost every comic book movie ends on a scene that promises another string of sequels.

It still baffles me somewhat that people concentrate on plot holes rather than see the big picture. Does it matter how Bruce returned to Gotham, or how Bane and Talia exactly worked together, or how his knee healed (although Bane could have left the knee bace on him really), it is the big picture that counts. And the big picture is that Nolan delivered a satisfying, emotional and spectacular finale for his Batman trilogy. I am not a comic book reader or fan, but these movies about a guy dressing as a Bat to fight crime have engaged me emotionally and thematically, which no other superhero movie could ever do.