"The Dark Knight Rises" Review and Discussion Thread (spoilers)

[Emh]

Donald Draper wrote:

---

Maybe he will take over what is left of the League of Shadows and turn it in a better direction.

I very much doubt he would be able to do that even if he tried (which I don't think he would). I'm rewatching the entire trilogy today (I'm currently waiting for the next showing of The Dark Knight Rises this evening) and I was reminded that in Batman Begins Ra's al Ghul says the League of Shadows sacked Rome, burned London, and loaded rats on trade ships in order to restore balance in the world. The League is bigger than one man and seriously doubt they would listen to Bruce to do anything different, especially when he killed several important figures in their organization and foiled their plans.

[Dream]

Did anyone think putting Talia in this movie was a huge mistake?

The moment she appeared, Bane turned from evil mastermind into stupid minion. He really deserved a better death than getting shot by a rocket. Talia's slow death in the truck was pretty laughable as well. Nolan tried too hard to make this movie the perfect bookend to BB.

It also annoyed me how Nolan stole Bane's background from the comics and gave it to Talia in the movie.

[Kelthaz]

One major problem that I had with the ending, that I'm surprised wasn't brought up in this thread, is why Bruce Wayne faked his own death? No one, except his closest companions, knew that he was Batman. I understand faking Batman's death, but why fake Bruce's death? There's no reason for it.

Also, even if it was necessary for him to fake his own death, how does Bruce Wayne just disappear? He's a world famous billionaire in charge of Wayne Enterprises. That's like Bill Gates faking his own death and moving to Europe. Someone is going to recognize him.

And how long did Bruce and Selina wait at that cafe for Alfred to show up? Yes, they knew that Alfred goes there once a year, but they had no idea which day it would be. Did they simply sit at that table for 16 hours a day for months waiting for Alfred to take his vacation?

[Dream]

I'm surprised more people aren't upset at the whole Bruce gives up being Batman ending. Isn't that something he would NEVER do in the comics?

[Mike Farley]

But, as stated in this very thread, Movie Bruce isn't like Comic Bruce. The seeds for this ending have been sown all the way back in Batman Begins. He creates Batman, not as a disguise to beat up criminals, but as a symbol, larger than any one man. By the Dark Knight, he's already looking to pass Gotham's hero role to Harvey and quit to be with Rachel.

[Warped9]

Dream wrote:

---

I'm surprised more people aren't upset at the whole Bruce gives up being Batman ending. Isn't that something he would NEVER do in the comics?

Upset? No. Disappointed? Yes. But the groundwork for it had already been laid so in context of this story and Nolan's take on the character it wasn't a huge surprise.

Bruce and Selena only had to be aware of Alfred's arrival and to learn when he was headed for that cafe. Then they need only get there ahead of him.

[Captain Craig]

Dream wrote:

---

I'm surprised more people aren't upset at the whole Bruce gives up being Batman ending. Isn't that something he would NEVER do in the comics?

That & brooding over Rachel's death like a hermit for 8 years.

[DevilEyes]

Warped9 wrote:

---

What I do find sad, and this is about all superheroes, is that ever since the deconstruction of the superheroes got going in the '80s is the idea someone has to be psychologically flawed to even contemplate going beyond the norm to do something right.

No, people don't have to be psychologically flawed to do something right. But people definitely have to be psychologically flawed to dress in a funny costume and/or put on a mask and go and beat up the bad guys.

[Set Harth]

Kelthaz wrote:

---

No one, except his closest companions, knew that he was Batman.

And Bane & the LOS. And Blake.

Kelthaz wrote:

---

the Fueller cop

I have to agree that the Fueller cop was a useless character. However, since there was no such character in the film, its uselessness seems irrelevant.

[Warped9]

DevilEyes wrote:

---

No, people don't have to be psychologically flawed to do something right. But people definitely have to be psychologically flawed to dress in a funny costume and/or put on a mask and go and beat up the bad guys.

Well, of course, this is where the suspension of disbelief comes into play. But the Batman of the early '40s and 1970s was not portrayed as psychologically flawed and only tenuously stable. That Batman wore his suit with the same confidence as Superman wears his. And that's the Batman I really want to see.

It's a matter of perception. In the real world why can some actors pull it off and not others. George Reeves and Christopher Reeve wore the costume with confidence. Dean Cain not so much. If there really existed someone who could do what Superman does then I don't think too many people would be harping about his outfit. Olympic athletes sometimes wear attire that would look odd outside of a stadium, but when you see them in action it looks completely different. In particular speed skaters come to mind. Now if a guy could derail a train with one punch I don't think folks will be too bothered by him wearing red and blue and sporting a cape. And if a guy is so seriously badass the punks and crooks are afraid to walk the streets at night then they've likely gotten over thinking about the guy's outfit---they just don't wanna see that symbolic shadow on the walls as they skulk their way home.

We might laugh at theatricality yet we can also be moved or impressed by it.

Then again this doesn't work no matter how you think about it.



Regarding the film I'm reminded of the many Elseworlds versions of Batman I've read over the years. The Nolan trilogy does work if you can see it as yet another Elseworlds story.

[PsychoPere]

Captain Craig wrote:

---

That & brooding over Rachel's death like a hermit for 8 years.

I don't think Bruce had actually been a recluse for the entirety of that 8 years. 5 years into that timeframe, he was pouring money and resources into the fusion reactor project. Surely that would've required him to maintain at least some sort of public presence, at the very least at Wayne Enterprises if nowhere else. After a second viewing, my impression became that he was only a recluse during the last 3 years prior to TDKR, and that the need to shutter the reactor project compounded his grief over Rachel, driving him into seclusion.

I don't remember her exact dialogue now, but during the very first conversation between Bruce and Talia-as-Miranda, she made an observation about the reactor project and his seclusion that implied he didn't vanish until after the project had been shut down.

[LaxScrutiny]

Donald Draper wrote:

---

I believe Alfred did leave Bruce sometime after Knightfall. Becuase he saw that Bruce seemed to be disregarding his own health and safety. Which is how Bane defeated him in the comics.

While Bane attacked him in the Batcave by surprise. He was too stuburn to seek help with the escaped Arkham inmates. So he was in a weakened state when Batman struck.

The film is very similar to the comics.

Which doesn't mean that those stories are true to the characterizations throughout the decades of stories in the comics. Like Hank Pym as a wife-beater, most of us have problems with that.

[Set Harth]

I have to admit, Hank beating his wife was the part of the movie I enjoyed the least.

[LaxScrutiny]

PsychoPere wrote:

---

I don't think Bruce had actually been a recluse for the entirety of that 8 years. 5 years into that timeframe, he was pouring money and resources into the fusion reactor project. Surely that would've required him to maintain at least some sort of public presence, at the very least at Wayne Enterprises if nowhere else. After a second viewing, my impression became that he was only a recluse during the last 3 years prior to TDKR, and that the need to shutter the reactor project compounded his grief over Rachel, driving him into seclusion.

I don't remember her exact dialogue now, but during the very first conversation between Bruce and Talia-as-Miranda, she made an observation about the reactor project and his seclusion that implied he didn't vanish until after the project had been shut down.

The issue for me is that Bruce Wayne is a driven personality, he requires strength, conviction, AND obsession. He doesn't just stop being what he is (Batman, among other things.) The depiction in the Nolan films shows someone who used the Batman persona temporarily to make a point and then fucked off. Kind of like an internet message board identity. It's not who he is. For Bruce Wayne to be Bruce Wayne/Batman, he should be thoroughly committed.

I appreciate in the Nolan universe that Bruce Wayne essentially fell apart when he stopped being Batman. His psyche is intimately tied to Batman, and to Gotham. If Gotham ceases to be, or changes radically, so too does Bruce Wayne cease to be. This is a pretty clear portrait in the story and kudos all around. That said, Bruce Wayne exists because he has extreme personality disorders, just like the Joker, et al. He doesn't just happen to stop needing to have the Batman persona to be able to deal with his personality needs.

In saying this, I like the story, and I don't. It touches the reality of the obsession and need, then it backs away from it. I don't feel it totally works as a character study.

I don't like to compare this film to Avengers; Avengers was like a symphony - it isn't about logic, it is about a trip from start to finish that leaves us thrilled. Nothing wrong with that and it does what it sought to do. TDKR is a different intent and different process. Does it do what it intended? For me there is some mixup in there.

[LaxScrutiny]

Set Harth wrote:

---

I have to admit, Hank beating his wife was the part of the movie I enjoyed the least.

I could make a lot of money opening a skeet shooting range and letting my customers target everything that goes over your head.