TV Tropes Org
site search
The Dark Knight Rises back to reviews
Comments
So close
This was nearly it. But in the end if you wanted the same as other superhero films, this was probably very enjoyable, but the bar was set too high for Nolan and whilst this nearly rose as high as the very greatest of films, it fell short in a way that makes it hard to enjoy if that was what you hoped for.

Christopher Nolan knew what he was doing, this was different again and if it succeeded he would have created three entirely different films that each beat almost every other film in what they tried to do and yet still came together as a whole. Bane was the perfect villain for this, the story was right, the stakes were unbelievably higher. He completed Batmans arc and took the very best from stories like No Mans Land. Catwoman was exceptional and I can't believe what they managed to do with Gordon-Levitt's character.

But it doesn't come together. There are two big flaws that I can identify.
  • The story is of Bane tearing Batman down but it also starts 8 years later with a Batman whose just finding his feet again. It robs the power from the former and makes everything too unfamiliar and uncomfortable to get a grip on, and we don't get the security to compare with later events
  • Banes voice. In early trailers it was unintelligible and to fix it they made it sound like a children's cartoon character (and we're not talking The Brave And The Bold here). He has fantastic lines, but he needs a typical deep growly villain, instead his lines have no weight and they don't give the film the drive that the film demanded from Bane.

The second half, by the time you've got your head round, is very very good and it did enough to convince me to treat it at least like a normal superhero action flick and enjoy the hell out of it, but even with those two flaws, something is slightly off. The editing is a bit wrong or the score doesn't fit, something I can't pin down, but when the pieces are there, they aren't put together.

This is a film that I feel is going to get better on each viewing, but the film is fractured crystal and if the Hobbit turns out as hoped, will only be the third best film I've seen this year. The Avengers still aims much lower and doesn't attempt to make the full use of what it could be, like Rises did, but it succeeds in what it reaches for and The Dark Knight Rises doesn't quite

EDIT: NC is right, bad villain motivation was huge.
About the two big flaws you mentioned:

1) Agreed. 8 years was too big of a gap. Three or four years would have been better.

2) Completely disagree. I thought Bane's voice was great. Chilling and very unique. And I never had difficulty understanding him.
comment #15545 PurpleDalek 27th Jul 12
I didn't have difficulty understanding (well I did in the very early trailer before they changed it) I just don't think it gave the proper due to the lines he was saying. Like 'When Gotham is in ashes, then you may have my permission to die' is an epic line, but it wasn't an epic voice. I think it could have been close but I feel like the reediting was slightly rushed maybe.

Although I've heard a couple of people compliment it too, as well as the other people who dissented, so it seems to be a bit of a marmite situation
comment #15546 Tomwithnonumbers 27th Jul 12
Perhaps it would have been better if that the time skip was eight years but Batman gave up a fear years later, say, four or five? It would keep in with the tone set at the end of the previous movie.

comment #15547 morninglight 27th Jul 12
The more I think about it, I actually think the Nostaliga Critics point is the most important. Even if the Joker wasn't brilliantly acted in the Dark Knight, the Dark Knight would have been a good film because it was written well enough that we completely understand the aim of the Joker's actions, even if we don't understand why he's come to that point. When he was conducting his 'social experiments' we knew what he was trying to achieve and so we understood the interesting concept of the whole film, what the war is between the two people.

Whereas Bane's motivation is BS and although you can see a possible reason right at the end, it goes back to the Spoiler Warning Alan Wake thing, the twist should never be that your character has motivation.

It affects everything, Batmans villains have always been a reflection of him and the films themes. Begins was about fear, Batman used fear to inspire, Scarecrow used fear to gain power and Raz used fear to destroy. Raz and Batman were both people who wanted to help, but their methods and what they believed that was, were completely different.

Equally the Joker is an agent of chaos and Batman fights chaos, but the film was also about law and order and how Batman couldn't survive forever as that.

Now Bane was a good parallel in Batman in terms of ability and drive. The films theme was about rising, determination above all else, and that worked nicely. But there was no reflection in motivation because Bane didn't ever seem to have good motivation.

Now I think that instead of faking it Bane should really have meant what he said about giving Gotham to the people. He was a person who survived in the pit and it turned him against all authority and power. Like Batman he used his determination to inspire and get the people to do what he wanted them to do and be like. Batman should have still been fighting crime (and about 4 years later) but there wasn't much crime to fight and the police were chasing him and he'd lost sight of why he originally did what he wanted to do. The conflict with Alfred would still have fitted with that, as with Rachael's death and so he lacks the same drive and Bane breaks him.

The final theme of the film should have been about when to step away, Batman was a tool that he'd become unable to put away (they even talk about all this in the film) and death is his only way out. Bane would be the person who didn't know where to stop, who kept trying to shape the world until he did more harm than good and unlike in the end where Batman learned his limits and when to trust the world, Bane didn't and that led to his demise.
comment #15551 Tomwithnonumbers 27th Jul 12
I mean most of those messages were in the film, it just wasn't reflected by Bane and unlike the previous films, they didn't fit together nicely. Batmans determination here clashed with his Rise. The fact that he'd already fallen clashed with Bane making him fall. None of the characters themes, Bane, Batman, Alfred, Catwoman, Blake, the other lady, none of it complimented each other and in many ways it should of, Catwoman wanted a storm, it's just when the storm came, it wasn't what Bane actually wanted
comment #15552 Tomwithnonumbers 27th Jul 12
I agree with a lot of this. I completely don't understand why they decided to have Batman go into an eight year retirement. Not only did it bog down the beginning by making an unnecessary learning curve for the audience and contribute to the horrendous lack of Batman in the film, but it also took away from the last film. Did anyone really walk away from The Dark Knight thinking Batman was about to retire?

I keep hearing people say Bane was such a great villain and I really don't get it. He was basically Ra's without the style and gravitas spliced with Joker without the gimmick and the crazy, with some brute strength tossed in. Nothing about him was really unique, except the backstory. I actually enjoyed the backstory bits, but there was so much other draggy stuff in the movie that it was easy to lose patience with it.
comment #15554 StarryEyed 27th Jul 12
You're coming out more as complaining about the film not going the way would had like instead of the way it took being badly done. I think 8 years was needed to make the start more believable. You can't almost wipe out organized crime in a city like Gotham in only a couple of years. Wasn't the point of the second movie that Batman had taken care of the biggest threats and that the people had to fix things for themselves, and became the biggest thread himself in the public eyes.

But there was no reflection in motivation because Bane didn't ever seem to have good motivation.

Wasn't Bane's motivation the same as Ra's (or what they thought it was) from the beggining, I saw it as that ever since Alfred said he was cast out from the league of shadows.

Now I think that instead of faking it Bane should really have meant what he said about giving Gotham to the people. He was a person who survived in the pit and it turned him against all authority and power.

He did, but Bane was raised in a cruel all for themselves environment, while he chose to protect a Talia no one had shown that kind of behavior to him, giving him a more pessimistic view on humanity, which he transmitted to Talia.

The story is of Bane tearing Batman down but it also starts 8 years later with a Batman whose just finding his feet again. It robs the power from the former and makes everything too unfamiliar and uncomfortable to get a grip on, and we don't get the security to compare with later events

The movie takes from several batman story arcs, Knightfall where Bane defeated Batman after the later was exhausted from dealings with all the Arkham inmates that escaped (I liked him being defeated while weaker since it avoided the more powerful and skilled as plot demands), Legacy his relationship with Ra al Ghul, etc.
comment #15574 marcellX 29th Jul 12
I think 8 years was needed to make the start more believable. You can't almost wipe out organized crime in a city like Gotham in only a couple of years.

Problem is that the movie explicitly states that Batman hasn't been active for 8 years, not just that it's been 8 years since the last movie. In other words, what we saw in TDK is all there was until the events of TDKR. It wasn't years of valiant, relentless Bat-labor that produced the clean streets of Gotham, it was the magic law they enacted.

Wasn't the point of the second movie that Batman had taken care of the biggest threats and that the people had to fix things for themselves, and became the biggest thread himself in the public eyes.

See, I thought the point of the second movie was that Bruce was overly optimistic to think that above scenario could happen and that Gotham would always need a dark protector.

Wasn't Bane's motivation the same as Ra's (or what they thought it was) from the beggining, I saw it as that ever since Alfred said he was cast out from the league of shadows.

Except that when Ra's wanted to destroy Gotham, it was a cesspit of crime and corruption. In TDKR, it's been virtually crime-free for eight years. Bane's (or rather [spoiler: Talia's]) motive was revenge, pure and simple. Everything else is either misdirection or plain pretentiousness. Trouble is, their actions don't always make sense with their motive. For example: Ra's Al Ghul died nine years ago. Why did they wait so long and why did they start their attack at a time when Batman wasn't even active? (He became active in response to their actions, but they couldn't know for sure that would happen.)

The movie takes from several batman story arcs

Which is great, but only if that contributes to the story that the film is telling. I think one of the film's problems is that it's trying to do too much and be too much.

I liked him being defeated while weaker since it avoided the more powerful and skilled as plot demands

While that is true, that didn't really matter with the way that Bane was defeated in the film. I agree with the original poster that having Batman so broken at the beginning of the film made Bane's breaking him much less of a powerful and shocking event.

comment #15578 StarryEyed 29th Jul 12
Starryeyed said it all better than I could. The only stuff to add is, the review is reflective of my experience, whatever the story of the film, something about it didn't work and I think that's something that a lot of the people found as well. In the review I've tried to find the reasons, however the bit in the comments, is a comment and contains more of how I feel it could have been fixed.

So agreed in all above, and the thing about Talia, even if it did work as a motive, actually having motivation shouldn't be the twist. Waiting till the end to find that she's not thinking straight is useless to us, and as Starry Eyed said, the timescales just weird, even with that excuse
comment #15581 Tomwithnonumbers 29th Jul 12
Problem is that the movie explicitly states that Batman hasn't been active for 8 years, not just that it's been 8 years since the last movie. In other words, what we saw in TDK is all there was until the events of TDKR. It wasn't years of valiant, relentless Bat-labor that produced the clean streets of Gotham, it was the magic law they enacted.

Why is that a problem? I never said Batman cleaned the city in 8 years. The setting of the film was a more in control Gotham, which couldn't had been done in just a couple of years just because the Joker was put in jail.

See, I thought the point of the second movie was that Bruce was overly optimistic to think that above scenario could happen and that Gotham would always need a dark protector.

That would conflict with Gordon's line to his son

Gordon: Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now.

Also that's an interesting take. If he was thought that the city could eventually reach that point, then why would he always be needed? after all, it took another comic level thread for him to be needed again, and since he secluded himself and didn't kept himself in shape, it shows he didn't thought it would happen.

Except that when Ra's wanted to destroy Gotham, it was a cesspit of crime and corruption. In TDKR, it's been virtually crime-free for eight years. Bane's (or rather [spoiler: Talia's]) motive was revenge, pure and simple. Everything else is either misdirection or plain pretentiousness.

Tom said that he never thought Bane had any motivation, I said how in the beggining the motivation implied is to follow Ra's Al Ghul's ways but in an even more twisted way, specially told more and more about the prison. As Alfred said, this is a man who was thrown out of an organization of extremists, a KKK and WBC scenario. Like the crusades, and any number of examples I could mention, Talia and Bane had a warped view on Ra's Al Ghul's ideals, which is why up until the end they kept saying they were fulfilling his plan, Also it wasn't crime free for 8 years, it took around 8 years to make it that way.

Trouble is, their actions don't always make sense with their motive. For example: Ra's Al Ghul died nine years ago. Why did they wait so long and why did they start their attack at a time when Batman wasn't even active? (He became active in response to their actions, but they couldn't know for sure that would happen.)

Because plans aren't as simple as that, things just don't all fall into place one day, it takes time. Batman, the guy infamous for being distant and antisocial needed to have a deep and trusting relationship with Talia, to the point of trusting her with the reactor, as he said, he could had flooded it any time he wanted but didn't because he beleived in her. Putting bombs unnoticed all over the city undetected, all the preparations, intel, etc. And besides, doesn't that go against your complain of Batman being weak after years of inactivity, doesn't that make him an easier target specially for someone who probably considers him their biggest threat.

Which is great, but only if that contributes to the story that the film is telling.

Could you at least critique the complete point instead of misleading it by fragmenting it. As I said they were going for something closer to the first portrayal of Bane (before having more muscles than the Hulk) where he himself admitted a direct attack on Batman would be foolish, and who exhausted him first before defeating him. Near the end of the film we see how a more trained Batman had a better fight with him, which again goes with your earlier complain about waiting 9 years.

While that is true, that didn't really matter with the way that Bane was defeated in the film

I gotta admit I'm getting a little tired of the lack of elaboration, makes you guys seem like you're saying, this is the way it is because I say so. Why didn't it matter to the way Bane was defeated? you are too focus and enrolled in the level of shock of Batman's defeat that you're not even trying to reason the why it had to be done that way. Besides, Batman just defeating Bane after recovering from a back brake in a place where he was most likely malnourished when he couldn't defeat him in his prime would had changed the fan name of "plot armor" to the "bat-suit".

In the review I've tried to find the reasons, however the bit in the comments, is a comment and contains more of how I feel it could have been fixed.

The issue with that, is that when you keep asking for so many things to be done differently you come out as just wanting a different film instead of rightfully judging it, not thinking much of why where they done that way to begin with. While I found many flaws with the movie Dark Shadows, I don't concur with solutions of cutting characters, changing plots and or character's rankings. Burtom wanted Victoria to be Barnabas' true love, fine, just don't cut her off from half of the film.

So agreed in all above, and the thing about Talia, even if it did work as a motive, actually having motivation shouldn't be the twist. Waiting till the end to find that she's not thinking straight is useless to us, and as Starry Eyed said, the timescales just weird, even with that excuse

See, this is what I was talking about. Why is it useless (on a slightly unrelated note, what exactly do you think a twist is to begin to make such claim), why shouldn't a motivation be a twist, when you keep stating things as facts it comes of as you having a high opinion of yourself.

ps. You made a mistake that you didn't in your TDK review. The reviews, while being your opinion are being used as a form of information, if you don't wait to know what it is that bothers you then you're not really telling us anything, you're basically saying, I felt the movie had a certain problem, I just don't know exactly what it is. We can't agree or disagree because we don't know what it is, in fact we could make a large discussion in the comment section over something that wasn't even what bothered you.
comment #15602 marcellX 31st Jul 12
scratch the first line after the ps.
comment #15604 marcellX 31st Jul 12
Why is that a problem? I never said Batman cleaned the city in 8 years. The setting of the film was a more in control Gotham, which couldn't had been done in just a couple of years just because the Joker was put in jail.

I guess I misunderstood your comment. I still think the timeskip is weird, and so is the idea that eight years of Bat retirement somehow produces clean streets all by themselves.

''That would conflict with Gordon's line to his son Gordon: Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now.''

I took that line to mean Batman can't be recognized as the hero he truly is, not that Gotham doesn't need him anymore. It's possible to put the whole "he needs to retire and let Gotham take care of itself" meaning back on it in light of TDKR, but it doesn't flow naturally from TDK. Like I said before, no one walking out of the theater having seen TDK would have imagined that Batman was about to go into an eight year retirement. TDK implied part of the reason Batman decides to "be the villain" is that preserves his dark image, allowing him to strike fear into the heart of criminals more effectively. This, like other aspects of TDK, becomes pointless given TDKR.

in the beggining the motivation implied is to follow Ra's Al Ghul's ways but in an even more twisted way, specially told more and more about the prison. As Alfred said, this is a man who was thrown out of an organization of extremists, a KKK and WBC scenario. Like the crusades, and any number of examples I could mention, Talia and Bane had a warped view on Ra's Al Ghul's ideals, which is why up until the end they kept saying they were fulfilling his plan,

"More extreme" shouldn't mean "without any reason at all." Bane throws out a lot of empty rhetoric, but never gives a concrete reason that isn't explicitly a lie for what he is doing EXCEPT for making Batman suffer. We only get a reason for that at the end with the reveal of Talia and Talia and Bane's connection and vow for vengeance, which is why some people are saying that the twist is that the villain has motivation. I wouldn't take it that far, but I do think that the movie suffers for the motives being so vague and clouded for much of the movie and that when you re-evaluate the movie in light of the reveal, there are a bunch of things that don't add up.

Also it wasn't crime free for 8 years, it took around 8 years to make it that way.

From the conversations at Harvey Dent Day at the beginning, Gotham's been crime free for long enough to make people feel like war heroes are unwelcome reminders of a time that is past. I'll grant that it probably wasn't an instantaneous transition from TDK's end to clean streets, but the movie definitely supports a long peacetime interpretation. I'd say we're talking at least six years of peacetime.

Because plans aren't as simple as that, things just don't all fall into place one day, it takes time.

True, but nothing in TDKR suggests that it took nine years to plan/accomplish.

Batman, the guy infamous for being distant and antisocial needed to have a deep and trusting relationship with Talia, to the point of trusting her with the reactor, as he said, he could had flooded it any time he wanted but didn't because he beleived in her.

But Bruce meets Miranda Tate for the first time during the events of TDKR. This is one of my biggest peeves with the movie. If they had established that Miranda had been working closely with Bruce, building a relationship during the timeskip, it would have explained a lot, including the sudden romance scene. But that's not what happened.

Additionally, there's an element of fridge logic to the whole bomb thing: how did Talia know Bruce was even going to invent something like that? Why does her plan for revenge, which she logically should have started formulating as soon as her father was killed, hinge on something which didn't even exist until at least four or five years after her father's death?

And besides, doesn't that go against your complain of Batman being weak after years of inactivity, doesn't that make him an easier target specially for someone who probably considers him their biggest threat.

But if your goal is revenge through psychologically destroying someone, it doesn't make sense to wait to "hit him when he's down." You want to be the one to tear him down. If Talia and Bane's goals were practical, if they just wanted to get rid of Batman, I would agree, but not when their motivation is revenge.

Could you at least critique the complete point instead of misleading it by fragmenting it.

The point I felt you were making was that the storyline was good because it was based on several important Batman storylines from the comics. My response was that simply being based on classic stories doesn't make it a good plot for the film.

As I said they were going for something closer to the first portrayal of Bane (before having more muscles than the Hulk) where he himself admitted a direct attack on Batman would be foolish, and who exhausted him first before defeating him.

But in TDKR, BANE doesn't exhaust him. Batman weaks himself out through inactivity (and then there's some very confusing lingering injuries which we never saw him sustain during the previous films...yet he apparently retired just after TDK...). If wearing out the Bat was part of Bane (and Talia's) scheme, then I'd be fine with weak!Batman vs. Bane. What "physical threat" points are taken from Bane get fed back as "tactical threat" points, so Bane still seems really threatening as a villain. But since Bane doesn't do the wearing down here, the fact that Batman is so weak diminishes Bane as a villain.

Near the end of the film we see how a more trained Batman had a better fight with him, which again goes with your earlier complain about waiting 9 years.

...I'm not really seeing your point here. And Batman didn't really "train" (which implies practicing new techniques, developing skills, etc.) in the pit so much just "get in shape". If the film is at all trying to be realistic, there's no way that Batman - 8 years of inactivity + massive injury + five months of healing and working out is a physically superior Batman to the one at the end of TDK, who is not only significantly younger, but who also has been spending about the past seven years either training or actually being Batman.

''I gotta admit I'm getting a little tired of the lack of elaboration, makes you guys seem like you're saying, this is the way it is because I say so. Why didn't it matter to the way Bane was defeated? you are too focus and enrolled in the level of shock of Batman's defeat that you're not even trying to reason the why it had to be done that way. Besides, Batman just defeating Bane after recovering from a back brake in a place where he was most likely malnourished when he couldn't defeat him in his prime would had changed the fan name of "plot armor" to the "bat-suit". ''

I was trying to be a little vague about spoilers, but I guess it doesn't really matter. Okay, it doesn't matter because Bane gets killed by Catwoman firing a missile into his chest. It has absolutely nothing to do with Batman's physical condition. Batman could have been a haggard skeleton as Bane would STILL have been defeated because Batman doesn't EVER physically best him. So, no, no one could complain that Batman suddenly became stronger to defeat Bane.

The issue with that, is that when you keep asking for so many things to be done differently you come out as just wanting a different film instead of rightfully judging it, not thinking much of why where they done that way to begin with.

When you're dealing with a long-awaited final part to extremely popular film trilogy starring a iconic, beloved hero like Batman, to some extent, that's inevitable. Sure, if I was writing my own version of the third film, it wouldn't bear that much resemblance to TDKR (and it sure the heck wouldn't be called that) However, all I've done here is point out flaws in the story that was told and protest inconsistencies in the story's logic. I am accepting the story that was told...but that doesn't mean I have to ignore its flaws.

comment #15618 StarryEyed 1st Aug 12
Why is that a problem? I never said Batman cleaned the city in 8 years. The setting of the film was a more in control Gotham, which couldn't had been done in just a couple of years just because the Joker was put in jail.

I guess I misunderstood your comment. I still think the timeskip is weird, and so is the idea that eight years of Bat retirement somehow produces clean streets all by themselves.

''That would conflict with Gordon's line to his son Gordon: Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now.''

I took that line to mean Batman can't be recognized as the hero he truly is, not that Gotham doesn't need him anymore. It's possible to put the whole "he needs to retire and let Gotham take care of itself" meaning back on it in light of TDKR, but it doesn't flow naturally from TDK. Like I said before, no one walking out of the theater having seen TDK would have imagined that Batman was about to go into an eight year retirement. TDK implied part of the reason Batman decides to "be the villain" is that preserves his dark image, allowing him to strike fear into the heart of criminals more effectively. This, like other aspects of TDK, becomes pointless given TDKR.

in the beggining the motivation implied is to follow Ra's Al Ghul's ways but in an even more twisted way, specially told more and more about the prison. As Alfred said, this is a man who was thrown out of an organization of extremists, a KKK and WBC scenario. Like the crusades, and any number of examples I could mention, Talia and Bane had a warped view on Ra's Al Ghul's ideals, which is why up until the end they kept saying they were fulfilling his plan,

"More extreme" shouldn't mean "without any reason at all." Bane throws out a lot of empty rhetoric, but never gives a concrete reason that isn't explicitly a lie for what he is doing EXCEPT for making Batman suffer. We only get a reason for that at the end with the reveal of Talia and Talia and Bane's connection and vow for vengeance, which is why some people are saying that the twist is that the villain has motivation. I wouldn't take it that far, but I do think that the movie suffers for the motives being so vague and clouded for much of the movie and that when you re-evaluate the movie in light of the reveal, there are a bunch of things that don't add up.

Also it wasn't crime free for 8 years, it took around 8 years to make it that way.

From the conversations at Harvey Dent Day at the beginning, Gotham's been crime free for long enough to make people feel like war heroes are unwelcome reminders of a time that is past. I'll grant that it probably wasn't an instantaneous transition from TDK's end to clean streets, but the movie definitely supports a long peacetime interpretation. I'd say we're talking at least six years of peacetime.

Because plans aren't as simple as that, things just don't all fall into place one day, it takes time.

True, but nothing in TDKR suggests that it took nine years to plan/accomplish.

Batman, the guy infamous for being distant and antisocial needed to have a deep and trusting relationship with Talia, to the point of trusting her with the reactor, as he said, he could had flooded it any time he wanted but didn't because he beleived in her.

But Bruce meets Miranda Tate for the first time during the events of TDKR. This is one of my biggest peeves with the movie. If they had established that Miranda had been working closely with Bruce, building a relationship during the timeskip, it would have explained a lot, including the sudden romance scene. But that's not what happened.

Additionally, there's an element of fridge logic to the whole bomb thing: how did Talia know Bruce was even going to invent something like that? Why does her plan for revenge, which she logically should have started formulating as soon as her father was killed, hinge on something which didn't even exist until at least four or five years after her father's death?

And besides, doesn't that go against your complain of Batman being weak after years of inactivity, doesn't that make him an easier target specially for someone who probably considers him their biggest threat.

But if your goal is revenge through psychologically destroying someone, it doesn't make sense to wait to "hit him when he's down." You want to be the one to tear him down. If Talia and Bane's goals were practical, if they just wanted to get rid of Batman, I would agree, but not when their motivation is revenge.

Could you at least critique the complete point instead of misleading it by fragmenting it.

The point I felt you were making was that the storyline was good because it was based on several important Batman storylines from the comics. My response was that simply being based on classic stories doesn't make it a good plot for the film.

As I said they were going for something closer to the first portrayal of Bane (before having more muscles than the Hulk) where he himself admitted a direct attack on Batman would be foolish, and who exhausted him first before defeating him.

But in TDKR, BANE doesn't exhaust him. Batman weaks himself out through inactivity (and then there's some very confusing lingering injuries which we never saw him sustain during the previous films...yet he apparently retired just after TDK...). If wearing out the Bat was part of Bane (and Talia's) scheme, then I'd be fine with weak!Batman vs. Bane. What "physical threat" points are taken from Bane get fed back as "tactical threat" points, so Bane still seems really threatening as a villain. But since Bane doesn't do the wearing down here, the fact that Batman is so weak diminishes Bane as a villain.

Near the end of the film we see how a more trained Batman had a better fight with him, which again goes with your earlier complain about waiting 9 years.

...I'm not really seeing your point here. And Batman didn't really "train" (which implies practicing new techniques, developing skills, etc.) in the pit so much just "get in shape". If the film is at all trying to be realistic, there's no way that Batman - 8 years of inactivity + massive injury + five months of healing and working out is a physically superior Batman to the one at the end of TDK, who is not only significantly younger, but who also has been spending about the past seven years either training or actually being Batman.

''I gotta admit I'm getting a little tired of the lack of elaboration, makes you guys seem like you're saying, this is the way it is because I say so. Why didn't it matter to the way Bane was defeated? you are too focus and enrolled in the level of shock of Batman's defeat that you're not even trying to reason the why it had to be done that way. Besides, Batman just defeating Bane after recovering from a back brake in a place where he was most likely malnourished when he couldn't defeat him in his prime would had changed the fan name of "plot armor" to the "bat-suit". ''

I was trying to be a little vague about spoilers, but I guess it doesn't really matter. Okay, it doesn't matter because Bane gets killed by Catwoman firing a missile into his chest. It has absolutely nothing to do with Batman's physical condition. Batman could have been a haggard skeleton as Bane would STILL have been defeated because Batman doesn't EVER physically best him. So, no, no one could complain that Batman suddenly became stronger to defeat Bane.

The issue with that, is that when you keep asking for so many things to be done differently you come out as just wanting a different film instead of rightfully judging it, not thinking much of why where they done that way to begin with.

When you're dealing with a long-awaited final part to extremely popular film trilogy starring a iconic, beloved hero like Batman, to some extent, that's inevitable. Sure, if I was writing my own version of the third film, it wouldn't bear that much resemblance to TDKR (and it sure the heck wouldn't be called that) However, all I've done here is point out flaws in the story that was told and protest inconsistencies in the story's logic. I am accepting the story that was told...but that doesn't mean I have to ignore its flaws.

comment #15619 StarryEyed 1st Aug 12
I guess I misunderstood your comment. I still think the timeskip is weird, and so is the idea that eight years of Bat retirement somehow produces clean streets all by themselves.

The plot of TDK went on about how while batman is needed for a comic level thread like the joker, he wasn't going to be able to fix the city alone (a theme usually touched upon by superheroes) and how the people needed to all pitch in to improve the city and not just lay back and let a crusader do most to all of the work.

Like I said before, no one walking out of the theater having seen TDK would have imagined that Batman was about to go into an eight year retirement.

See, this is the whole thinking way too highly of your own opinion that I was talking about. I was someone who thought he would take less part in crime fighting unless another comic level thread like the Joker and Ra's Al Ghul arrived, in fact I remember several pages discussing the ending which you boldly simplified with a Blatant Lies of everyone thought the same as you.

From the conversations at Harvey Dent Day at the beginning, Gotham's been crime free for long enough to make people feel like war heroes are unwelcome reminders of a time that is past. I'll grant that it probably wasn't an instantaneous transition from TDK's end to clean streets, but the movie definitely supports a long peacetime interpretation. I'd say we're talking at least six years of peacetime.

The movie never said or in your rather pretentious words "definitely supports" that peace time has been for long, just that it currently has it. Which again goes with my issue with you about contradicting complains. Batman should had stayed fighting crime for 4 or so more years but in your view it only took 2 years to clean a city once compared to Sodom and Gomorrah. In fact the movie never stated it was crime free, but commenting on the great progress in dealing with violent and or organized crime.

"More extreme" shouldn't mean "without any reason at all." Bane throws out a lot of empty rhetoric, but never gives a concrete reason that isn't explicitly a lie for what he is doing EXCEPT for making Batman suffer. We only get a reason for that at the end with the reveal of Talia and Talia and Bane's connection and vow for vengeance, which is why some people are saying that the twist is that the villain has motivation. I wouldn't take it that far, but I do think that the movie suffers for the motives being so vague and clouded for much of the movie and that when you re-evaluate the movie in light of the reveal, there are a bunch of things that don't add up.

Ra's Al Ghul plan in Begins was to poison the city with fear gas to make the city "destroy" itself, he even comments about how the league of shadows has spread the black death and started the great fire of London among other things. This isn't so far off to what Bane and Talia wanted to do, just because they could get revenge for the death of Ra's doesn't mean it was the "only" drive.

True, but nothing in TDKR suggests that it took nine years to plan/accomplish.

What way do we have of knowing how long something takes for you to make that remark. At the start of the film we have Bane and his group abducting Prof. Pavel who was hiding from them and under protection; Having something to hire the master cat burglar Selene. Of course I'm not saying that that alone took 9 years, but it shows how we can't estimate how long these things take, specially in this movies that took a more realistic approach than the comics where in many incarnations the villains make whole death amusement parks in a few weeks, if that. Not to mention we don't know when the plan was made.

But Bruce meets Miranda Tate for the first time during the events of TDKR.

Bruce knew Miranda, they had worked on a clean fuel project where the generator idea was shut down and the overall project flopped after Bruce left, even their meeting in the movie was of people that already knew each other.

Additionally, there's an element of fridge logic to the whole bomb thing: how did Talia know Bruce was even going to invent something like that? Why does her plan for revenge, which she logically should have started formulating as soon as her father was killed, hinge on something which didn't even exist until at least four or five years after her father's death?

The power generator was a project that was shut down after being discovered it could be weaponised. Also you don't make plans of that scale on the spot, other wise think tanks wouldn't exist.

But if your goal is revenge through psychologically destroying someone, it doesn't make sense to wait to "hit him when he's down." You want to be the one to tear him down. If Talia and Bane's goals were practical, if they just wanted to get rid of Batman, I would agree, but not when their motivation is revenge.

If that were true Loki would never try to usurp Odin's throne during his Odin Sleep. The point was revenge, he was tortured by watching Gotham crumble, there's no stone writing saying that to psychologically destroy someone you have to beat them in their prime, it is a way, but one of thousands. That's a very simplistic way of viewing things.

The point I felt you were making was that the storyline was good because it was based on several important Batman storylines from the comics. My response was that simply being based on classic stories doesn't make it a good plot for the film.

I never expressed my taste in them, in fact their quality wasn't even relevant, it was their relation and inspiration on the movie, you can see that when you add it to the rest of the point, which is why I complained about your fragmentation.

(and then there's some very confusing lingering injuries which we never saw him sustain during the previous films...yet he apparently retired just after TDK...)

Isn't it said as far back as Begins how the armor is made to lower the damage he's constantly receiving while fighting crime? all the way through Begins and Dark Knight we see him suffer several injuries still enhancing his suit in TDK to protect himself more, and given his doctor's report it seems like he didn't took medical treatment in those years secluded, probably not to drive attention to himself.

But in TDKR, BANE doesn't exhaust him. Batman weaks himself out through inactivity (and then there's some very confusing lingering injuries which we never saw him sustain during the previous films...yet he apparently retired just after TDK...). If wearing out the Bat was part of Bane (and Talia's) scheme, then I'd be fine with weak!Batman vs. Bane. What "physical threat" points are taken from Bane get fed back as "tactical threat" points, so Bane still seems really threatening as a villain. But since Bane doesn't do the wearing down here, the fact that Batman is so weak diminishes Bane as a villain.

The point was that in both instances he was "weaker", be it from exhaustion or inactivity, and that a better suited Batman fared off better, be it from rest or getting back into shape.

And Batman didn't really "train" (which implies practicing new techniques, developing skills, etc.) in the pit so much just "get in shape"

I'm sorry what? training also implies getting into shape, how do you get into shape? by training. In the Olympics athletes already know the skills for their sport, they train to elevate their capacity, endurance, etc. That's exactly the reason why they give you several answers in dictionaries.

Training: to make (a person) fit by proper exercise, diet, practice, etc., as for an athletic performance.

...I'm not really seeing your point here. And Batman didn't really "train" (which implies practicing new techniques, developing skills, etc.) in the pit so much just "get in shape". If the film is at all trying to be realistic, there's no way that Batman - 8 years of inactivity + massive injury + five months of healing and working out is a physically superior Batman to the one at the end of TDK, who is not only significantly younger, but who also has been spending about the past seven years either training or actually being Batman.

Of course you're not, I never said that he batman at the end of TDKS was stronger than he was in TDK, just that he was more suited to fight Bane on their second fight that he was on the first. It's virtually impossible to say by ourselves if Bane could had defeated batman in TDK because they never fought back then and the fights they had in TDKR were affected by outside sources including time, age, inactivity, etc. It's not even a new concept for someone to be defeated by a new opponent after being inactive and out of shape for years only to win in a rematch. Many examples can be seen in boxing.

Batman could have been a haggard skeleton as Bane would STILL have been defeated because Batman doesn't EVER physically best him.

Then why did Talia had to knife Batman after the he subdued Bane

Okay, it doesn't matter because Bane gets killed by Catwoman firing a missile into his chest. It has absolutely nothing to do with Batman's physical condition.

From the movie's perspective it does. Specially after batman (the hero)'s defeat by his hands. On contrare, how Bane "dies" is what's of lower importance, specially when taking into account Bruce's no killing code. How would you have felt about the movie (and by association, the audience) if they didn't have a rematch.

Bane's (or rather [spoiler: Talia's]) motive was revenge, pure and simple

Then why didn't you thought that way before.

I am accepting the story that was told...but that doesn't mean I have to ignore its flaws

I was talking to Tom, who I felt was more focus on his ideas of how the film should had been instead of how well or why was it done the way it was given the picture Nolan had.
comment #15640 marcellX 3rd Aug 12
I was trying to be a little vague about spoilers, but I guess it doesn't really matter.

Then why didn't you thought that way before.

Bane's (or rather [spoiler: Talia's]) motive was revenge, pure and simple
comment #15641 marcellX 3rd Aug 12
We clearly interpreted TDK differently. I maintain that mine is/was the more mainstream interpretation, but I'll admit there's room there for different opinions. By "no one", I didn't literally mean "every single solitary person every" but rather "the vast majority of movie-goers". It's called hyperbole. It happens.

The movie never said or in your rather pretentious words "definitely supports" that peace time has been for long, just that it currently has it.

First off, quit calling people pretentious. No one is making ad hominen remarks about you. Also, it comes across like you're threatened by people with more formal/ polished writing styles.

Secondly, both the policemen's chatter at Harvey Dent Day and Selina's talk about the "storm" point to a rather substantial period of low crime and stability, during which the middle and upper class have grown comfortable and complacent. Even Gordon's near-miss of revealing the truth supports this, as he probably wouldn't even have considered the idea if it had only been a couple of years of peace. It's been so long that it feels permanent. That takes more than a few years. "At least six" is my personal interpretation, but I'm not going to haggle over a year here and year there. The point is: it didn't take all eight years to make Gotham the way it is. Gotham has been this way for a significant period of time.

Which again goes with my issue with you about contradicting complains. Batman should had stayed fighting crime for 4 or so more years but in your view it only took 2 years to clean a city once compared to Sodom and Gomorrah.

...That's not a contradiction. Yes, I think that Batman should have stayed Batman longer. Yes, I think logically it should have taken longer to clean Gotham up. When I say it took 2 years and no Batman, I say that because that's what I got from watching the movie. And you say I'm not accepting the film I'm given...

In fact the movie never stated it was crime free, but commenting on the great progress in dealing with violent and or organized crime.

Again, hyperbole. Obviously, the crime rate is not 0%.

Ra's Al Ghul plan in Begins was to poison the city with fear gas to make the city "destroy" itself, he even comments about how the league of shadows has spread the black death and started the great fire of London among other things. This isn't so far off to what Bane and Talia wanted to do, just because they could get revenge for the death of Ra's doesn't mean it was the "only" drive.

But Ra's was going to do that because of the state of corruption Gotham was in. Bane and Talia don't have that reason because Gotham is cleaned up when they attack. It's not their methods that I question; it's their motives. Aside from revenge, they don't have any. And revenge is in some ways the twist here.

What way do we have of knowing how long something takes for you to make that remark. At the start of the film we have Bane and his group abducting Prof. Pavel who was hiding from them and under protection; Having something to hire the master cat burglar Selene. Of course I'm not saying that that alone took 9 years, but it shows how we can't estimate how long these things take, specially in this movies that took a more realistic approach than the comics where in many incarnations the villains make whole death amusement parks in a few weeks, if that. Not to mention we don't know when the plan was made.

Logic and common sense. Abducting someone and hiring a cat burglar shouldn't even take a year to plan if your strategist is anywhere close to good. For comparison, everything the Joker did in TDK was planned in under a year. I'll buy that Bane needed more time than that, but nine years is way too long for them to have been continuously working on planning and executing their scheme. Which begs the question: why didn't they immediately start on this? If Talia is so hell-bent on revenge that she's willing to kill herself, the person who means the most to her in the world, and all her loyal followers to accomplish it, it shouldn't really get put on the backburner.

Bruce knew Miranda, they had worked on a clean fuel project where the generator idea was shut down and the overall project flopped after Bruce left, even their meeting in the movie was of people that already knew each other.

Miranda knew OF Bruce's work on the project and apparently worked for a similar project. They didn't work together and they had never met face to face before the events of TDKR. Miranda EXPLICITLY says she's attempted to meet Bruce in person before, but she's always been denied.

The power generator was a project that was shut down after being discovered it could be weaponised. Also you don't make plans of that scale on the spot, other wise think tanks wouldn't exist.

I never said it got made up on the spot. I allowed 4- 5 years for it to exist before TDKR. That seems like plenty of time for what we know of it's history, although I suppose it could have taken longer. The point still stands that Talia apparently waited several years before coming up with ANY plan to avenge her dad... why????

If that were true Loki would never try to usurp Odin's throne during his Odin Sleep. The point was revenge, he was tortured by watching Gotham crumble, there's no stone writing saying that to psychologically destroy someone you have to beat them in their prime, it is a way, but one of thousands. That's a very simplistic way of viewing things.

Loki's motives in Thor are way more complicated than simple revenge—guy's got issues. The situation isn't really comparable at all.

I never expressed my taste in them, in fact their quality wasn't even relevant, it was their relation and inspiration on the movie, you can see that when you add it to the rest of the point, which is why I complained about your fragmentation.

You said, basically, the plot is the way it is because it's based on such and such comics. My response is: the plot has to make sense as the plot for this movie. Having it be inspired by various comics is wonderful, but that doesn't cover logical flaws and story weakness that the movie plot has.

Isn't it said as far back as Begins how the armor is made to lower the damage he's constantly receiving while fighting crime? all the way through Begins and Dark Knight we see him suffer several injuries still enhancing his suit in TDK to protect himself more, and given his doctor's report it seems like he didn't took medical treatment in those years secluded, probably not to drive attention to himself.

But he has injuries (mainly the leg thing) that we NEVER SAW HIM GET. We're told he wasn't Batman anymore after TDK—so where did he get the injuries?

The point was that in both instances he was "weaker", be it from exhaustion or inactivity, and that a better suited Batman fared off better, be it from rest or getting back into shape.

MY point is that it makes Bane a less effective villain, since he is deprived of agency in the matter.

I'm sorry what? training also implies getting into shape, how do you get into shape? by training. In the Olympics athletes already know the skills for their sport, they train to elevate their capacity, endurance, etc. ...Of course Olympic athletes have to learn and practice new skills in their sports. Sports aren't static and you never know all the possible skills, techniques, and strategies, no matter what your level. But clearly, I phrased my comment badly. What I meant was that he's not practicing combat techniques. He's getting into better shape, but we don't see him dusting off his fighting skills.

Of course you're not, I never said that he batman at the end of TDKS was stronger than he was in TDK, just that he was more suited to fight Bane on their second fight that he was on the first. It's virtually impossible to say by ourselves if Bane could had defeated batman in TDK because they never fought back then and the fights they had in TDKR were affected by outside sources including time, age, inactivity, etc. It's not even a new concept for someone to be defeated by a new opponent after being inactive and out of shape for years only to win in a rematch. Many examples can be seen in boxing.

I still have no idea how any of this "goes against [my] complaint about 9 years."

Then why did Talia had to knife Batman after the he subdued Bane...From the movie's perspective it does. Specially after batman (the hero)'s defeat by his hands. On contrare, how Bane "dies" is what's of lower importance, specially when taking into account Bruce's no killing code. How would you have felt about the movie (and by association, the audience) if they didn't have a rematch.

Batman was definitely doing much better against Bane and had the upper hand, but the fight wasn't over and there's no guarantee Batman would have won. Talia intervenes because she can't take that chance, because Batman is messing up their plans, and because it's dramatic. Ultimately Batman never incapacitates (I don't need him to kill him) Bane, only Catwoman did. And yes, I did feel cheated by the movie.

Then why didn't you thought that way before.

In that very line, I was attempting to hide the spoiler. Unfortunately, I forgot the "s" and I can't edit the comment.

comment #15655 StarryEyed 3rd Aug 12
:( This is a lot of conversation to catch up on, sorry for the late response.

To start, to clear things up, when I said Bane hadn't got motivation, I meant his motivation was a bit silly and cartoony and didn't make much sense, rather than no excuse had been provided. To me it felt like his motivation was more of an excuse for the story, whereas previously with the Joker and even to some extent Raz, the motivation was such a core part of the film. Even in Begins the whole 'a city so corrupt it must be destroyed' felt a bit goofy, it fitted with the idea that Raz was someone who was just willing to go further and Gotham was such a pit of decadence that I could understand someone believing it would be more efficient to wipeout the whole city and risk hitting a few innocents to destroy the criminals. So it was okay. But here the city seemed quite a nice place, maybe a bit draconian, but it seemed that there were parallels drawn to most modern cities. So why does Gotham need to be wiped out? Especially since the method involved turning everyone into criminals. There was signs of bad things happening at certain levels, orphans weren't being treated right etc, but killing all the orphans doesn't seem to be the right way out. And why make everyone criminals for a short period of time and then blow things up? In makes sense in a kind of Dark Age comic sort of way, but its too elaborate and pointless for me to imagine a real person doing it. Whereas the Joker was like Fight Club, you could really imagine people being like that in a slightly larger than life way. What's more Bane doesn't have that 'more willing to do the right thing' thing going on, and in all honesty he didn't talk a whole lot about doing the right thing. Early on when they focused on the fantaticism of his followers and the cult vibe, I thought they were heading in a complete other direction but all that stuff just ended up as standard league of shadows stuff. I loved that Bane was this inspirational person, but in the end it didn't follow with his plot, whereas I still think it would have fitted if his plan had stopped after 'set free Gotham' but before 'blow it up whatever happens'

And so the motivation as twist thing. You're right, it's a more subtle point than I was making out, but the thing is, if the villain seems poorly motivated then I spend most of the film thinking 'this is a bit stupid' and not enjoying that part of the film. And then at the end they provide some decent motivation and all I can think is 'oh I wish I'd known that earlier' because then I wouldnt have blamed the film earlier on. In Alan Wake you spend the first 90% of the game trudging around doing stuff, not really understanding why, or connecting with the main character. Then right at the end they reveal some fantastic motivation as a twist. But it's too late because we've had to experience most of the product with a character who didn't seem to have good motivation.

There's some research I read just before I looked at this that suggests that spoiling twist stories before they start doesn't harm the experience http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/soc/2011_08spoilers.asp I haven't fully processed it yet and I'm not sure if I can fully believe it,but I think it does illustrate, that because a twist comes at the end, a twist can enhance the story but not fully make it, because by that time we've already experienced a lot of the story. If Bane appeared to have interesting motivation for most of the film and the twist substituted that Talia thing, then that would have been good, because the story was enjoyable to a point and then became even better as we got a fresh perspective. It's like how in Sixth Sense the film makes sense and feels interesting and understandable even before you know the twist.

I still think that my main review is free of me wishing another story, it was written before I'd even begun thinking about that and I don't make complaints that they didn't go down alternate paths or anything like that. The reason why if I fixed it, I'd rewrite a lot, is because Nolan's films have always been amazingly thematically tight, it was the thing that really stood out even with Begins and I didn't get that with this one. A lot of the themes and motivations and events seemed jagged and didn't compliment each other perfectly as each other. So to perfect it I think some of the themes would have needed to change, which is big rewrite.

That fits with the thing about TDKR to be honest, it was a good film and to be a better film it didn't need any major rewrite, just a pacing spruce up at the beginning (and for me some tweaking on Bane's voice, I'm coming to like it more with time, but it still wasn't great for me) but it's being compared to some of the greatest films of all time (and not just TDK, I was holding it up to [[Memento]], [[Inception]] and The Following as well. And it's not there, but it had the potential. And to get there it needed a larger change.

You're right that I probably jumped the gun on the review, I was too impatient to wait for the DVD release and the review suffers for it.

I don't think I've got much to add to the rest of the conversation. I can add support to Starry Eyed in that I agree with most of what was said and so at least one other person received the same impressions from The Dark Knight but I have no further insights into it. The last thing is though, that I would add support that I was completely blindsided by Batman retiring and I hadn't got that impression from TDK at all and it definitely made a big impact on why I felt the beginning was messy. If we talked about which impression TDK was intending to convey, presumably you are right, afterall same guys wrote this one as the last one and ( whilst they'd probably been planning a Joker plot and had to go back to the drawing board a bit for this one) they were presumably thinking about the third one at that time. Whether the film successfully conveyed that is more contentious but harder to discuss. I would table that describing him as Gotham's Dark Protector, the idea of him having to run (because if he just stops being Batman he doesn't need to run) and him being the hero Gotham deserves, all gave impressions that he would continue to be Batman rather than retire, but clearly not everyone thought that
comment #15666 Tomwithnonumbers 5th Aug 12
By "no one", I didn't literally mean "every single solitary person every" but rather "the vast majority of movie-goers". It's called hyperbole. It happens.

yes but when you continuously use it to such a scale, people become more inclined to disbelieve that. "no one walking out of the theater having seen TDK would have imagined", "the movie definitely supports", "but nothing in TDKR suggests".

No one is making ad hominen remarks about you.

It's not an Ad Homimen if I'm still addressing the argument, an Ad Hominem would had been to call you pretentious, not explain why I did and not adding anything to the argument.

Also, it comes across like you're threatened by people with more formal/ polished writing styles.

Explain how so, all that I've criticized even you have admitted to it. Which brings me to that point again. I explained why I found you and Tom come out as stating their views as facts due to the lack of elaboration when pointing something out, you just said I seem threatened by people with a formal writing style, yet don't explain why or add anything to the discussion using that, now that is an Ad Hominem.

And you say I'm not accepting the film I'm given...

At least finish reading because saying a Blatant Lie, I never said that.

"At least six" is my personal interpretation, but I'm not going to haggle over a year here and year there. The point is: it didn't take all eight years to make Gotham the way it is. Gotham has been this way for a significant period of time.

And my point is it didn't take as few as two years as you originally said (before you raised it to 6). And I don't think 4 years, the length of an office term, leap year and Olympics is and I quote, give or take one year.

But Ra's was going to do that because of the state of corruption Gotham was in. Bane and Talia don't have that reason because Gotham is cleaned up when they attack. It's not their methods that I question; it's their motives. Aside from revenge, they don't have any. And revenge is in some ways the twist here.

And that's where my more extreme point and Tom's point of Bane's view on authority point come in. Where authority and their methods are seem as oppression, telling the normal citizens after killing politicians and trapping policemen to take control of their city, releasing prisoners who were affected by Wayne and Gordon's deception of everyone even when they did had a reason to be put there, etc.

Abducting someone and hiring a cat burglar shouldn't even take a year to plan if your strategist is anywhere close to good.

I fail to see the logic in that, how is quality affected by time? Also abducting someone protected by the CIA, and there the problem is not how long it took to plan but to execute.

For comparison, everything the Joker did in TDK was planned in under a year.

Not exactly the same. Most if not all of the Jokers plans are simple and short sided, mostly making things as he goes along, dealing with criminals and simply taking advantage of their lower morals like hiring normal crooks to rob a bank, disposing of them by telling each of them that they'll get a bigger cut if they kill another, paying other crooks to betray a crime lord (not exactly the most unheard of thing); In fact that goes with my point of scrapping plans. While the Joker had the advantage of Gotham being at one of it's worst points, the Dent act continued to decrease crime and raised general morality. Not to mention that they even planned differently, while the Joker adapted to the results, Bane and Talia's took measurements, as I said in the other review, it didn't matter much when batman wore the cowl again.

I never said it got made up on the spot. I allowed 4- 5 years for it to exist before TDKR. That seems like plenty of time for what we know of it's history, although I suppose it could have taken longer. The point still stands that Talia apparently waited several years before coming up with ANY plan to avenge her dad... why????

How long do you think an invention like that takes, again it was said the project was shut down for years because it could be weaponised, and again it goes with my statement of how plan making actually works, one important point to take into account, technology advancement. And again, how do you know she didn't come with any plan, how do you know that like it's done in real life, plan after plan was made then scrapped.

Loki's motives in Thor are way more complicated than simple revenge—guy's got issues. The situation isn't really comparable at all.

Of course it's not and that's the point, how all revenges aren't the same and follow the same context, how destroying someone at their peak is not a necessity or even common.

You said, basically, the plot is the way it is because it's based on such and such comics. My response is: the plot has to make sense as the plot for this movie. Having it be inspired by various comics is wonderful, but that doesn't cover logical flaws and story weakness that the movie plot has.

How is batman being weaker after it was explained a logical flaw? Also I never even implied that this made the movie good as you said "The point I felt you were making was that the storyline was good because it was based on several important Batman storylines from the comics." after all, all 3 movies had been based on comic arcs to varying degrees. I explained the thought process and inspiration Nolan had to Tom.

But he has injuries (mainly the leg thing) that we NEVER SAW HIM GET. We're told he wasn't Batman anymore after TDK—so where did he get the injuries?

Without pointing out all the fights he got into TDK, didn't he fell from a height that killed Dent, then was wobbling to the bike almost falling when the police came.

MY point is that it makes Bane a less effective villain, since he is deprived of agency in the matter.

Why? what's so bad about being a Combat Pragmatist who doesn't have Honor Before Reason, in fact it's one of the Evil Overlord List mistakes.

What I meant was that he's not practicing combat techniques. He's getting into better shape, but we don't see him dusting off his fighting skills.

I never said he got new skills, I said he just trained, you were the one who said training and getting into shape are different things.

Ultimately Batman never incapacitates (I don't need him to kill him) Bane, only Catwoman did.

Didn't he had him subdued on the ground ready to take the button off since he knew he wouldn't give it to a normal citizen, Bane on the ground in a defeated state asking how he managed to escape, then Talia stabbing him.

And yes, I did feel cheated by the movie.

ok?...no one asked but alright.

In that very line, I was attempting to hide the spoiler. Unfortunately, I forgot the "s" and I can't edit the comment.

Exactly, you know how to use the spoilers function, so why didn't you use it later out of fear of spoiling, which inclines me to disbelieve your excuse.
comment #15671 marcellX 5th Aug 12
Now on to Tom

But here the city seemed quite a nice place, maybe a bit draconian, but it seemed that there were parallels drawn to most modern cities

The issue they had was with the way they did it, deceit. One of the views Ra's Al Ghul had was that the worst problems were the high class and authority (which in Begins were very corrupt) and their effect on society.

So why does Gotham need to be wiped out? Especially since the method involved turning everyone into criminals. There was signs of bad things happening at certain levels, orphans weren't being treated right etc, but killing all the orphans doesn't seem to be the right way out.

In Begins Ra's said that the league destroyed many civilizations over history mainly for the corruption of it's ruler class, even his plan for Gotham was to spread the gas to watch the city (innocent or not) destroy itself. They have a if a crops are a disease, burn the whole field mentality.

I loved that Bane was this inspirational person, but in the end it didn't follow with his plot

Two words, suicidal terrorists.

And then at the end they provide some decent motivation and all I can think is 'oh I wish I'd known that earlier' because then I wouldnt have blamed the film earlier on.

See that's what I don't understand quite well. The only difference the twist made was change the mastermind. We thought Bane was Ra's Al Ghul's child, we thought it was his plan, etc. we basically thought that he was Talia.

but it's being compared to some of the greatest films of all time (and not just TDK, I was holding it up to [[Memento]], [[Inception]] and The Following as well.

This one is not directed at you but more as a general thing. Could we please tone down our discontent with how things are perceived by other people, I for one didn't had a problem with all the Twilight fans.

I would table that describing him as Gotham's Dark Protector, the idea of him having to run (because if he just stops being Batman he doesn't need to run) and him being the hero Gotham deserves, all gave impressions that he would continue to be Batman rather than retire, but clearly not everyone thought that

What I was telling Starry Eyed is how that was a vague-ish ending, and how it still could had been taken that way and tie it with the film, I don't deny that it could had also been viewed that way and I myself can point out the reasons why, but that it was open enough that you would needed to see the next movie to know what actually happen.
comment #15672 marcellX 5th Aug 12
Okay I admit I step into fanon to justify this twist motivation business, but I hope you take that as a sign of how, justified or not, I was unhappy with the villain motivation in this film. The minute the Talia thing was revealed I chose to interpret it as Talia not really understanding/wanting destruction of Gotham as such, but more about her poor relationship with her father and unresolved issues and grief after his death causing her to become obsessed with carrying out his plans, thinking if she could complete his mission for him it would sort of make things right in a messed up way.

It's not necessarily canon but I believe that at least it was left up to interpretation and I'm going to enjoy the film more the second time I watch it because of it, but I just wasn't happy with the original/canon? motivation at all

On the suicidal terrorist front, the fact that terrorists kill themselves isn't interesting, but why, in modern times theirs cool issues of religion, cultural upbringing, world perception, twists on self-sacrifice etc. The film didn't do a bad job but there was space at least to explore this stuff more. Bane had clearly created a cult of personality from the down and outs of society, which is a lot more interesting than the previous League ninjas (so kudos to TDKR) but it wasnt taken on at the end of the film.

And the Twilight thing, just to make sure, when I said 'compared' I was talking about me comparing and because the director, the subject matter and the predecessor all meant that TDKR had that potential and unfortunately is the class of film I'd let myself expect.

And the ending of TDK. I agree it was vague enough to fit and I did manage to buy it, but because it was counter to expectations it meant I was spending 20 minutes trying to figure if I buyed it or not and how it fitted in which was detrimental to the enjoyment of the film. If Batman had faded away rather than abruptly disappearing I wouldn't have had the trouble either, so it was maybe a poor choice on choosing that option of the three because it is jarring if you hadn't thought that retiring was an option, although that depends how many other people had my expectations
comment #15678 Tomwithnonumbers 5th Aug 12
I feel like my fanon is sounding a little crazy. I guess it doesn't hinge on that quite as hard as I represent, but basically I can imagine Talia who has a tricky emotional connection to the motivation, wanting to do what she does a lot more than Bane wanting it. Bane was a very clinical sophisticated villain, it's the feature he had that I love is that he exudes this clinical professional competence (which is even better when it turns out he's The Dragon, just the right sort of role!) and I find it hard to connect that with a 'burn the field' policy. I accept that he'd be completely ruthless and that his plan would be powerful and devastating (like completely isolating Gotham from the rest of the world and turning the whole city on the rich) but not inefficient with a 'blow them all up' plan. I guess break them down and then kill them ties in with what he did to Batman (which I do buy) but I think the problem is the timing of the bomb is so indiscriminate, it's just a time limit without reflection on the process. I could see him breaking down the soul of Gotham and when it's on it back, finishing it off, but breaking down the soul and then having a bomb go off after a certain amount of days without relevance to the success of his other plan seems so lackadaisal
comment #15679 Tomwithnonumbers 5th Aug 12

So I still think the film was ultimately lacking a driving theme, but the test of time has showed that the idea of Batman hanging up his cape is a really interesting exploration in this film and fits really well with the trilogy as a whole.

The Dark Knight Rises has had me thinking about some of it's ideas when watching other films and Batman stuff, which is very much to its credit.
comment #24421 TomWithNoNumbers 19th May 14
In order to post comments, you need to Get Known
TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy