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

[Gaith]

Jax wrote:

---

Just saw this and had to post it...

Awesome - I love me some badman. "I hadn't showered that day... and I fight crime in a rubber suit!" LOL!

Kegg wrote:

---

As far as belief goes, it's manifestly obvious that Ra's al Ghul believes that what he's doing is for the good of humanity, that corruption and decadence is a sin that needs to be purged.

I find it interesting that you use the term sin, an inescapably religious concept, for a group that appears not to have a theological dogma. Yes, their belief that Gotham is too corrupt to be kept alive is clear, but it's not at all clear why they feel that way. Imagine if Seven's John Doe hadn't had his Old Testament attitude - what would be left of him?

[Kegg]

I used that word deliberately, as al Ghul's condemnation of Gotham had a distinctly judgemental attitude. It's just a judgemental attitude rooted in secular notions of civilizational decay rather than religious ones.

And if you take away a character's life, obviously you're left with a very different character.

[Set Harth]

Gaith wrote:

---

Maybe not, but what about the planet's other cities? Joker would like to see the whole world burn, but I never got the sense that the LOS was intent on destroying, say Honolulu. Kinda makes a huge lot of difference if you happen to live in Honolulu.

If Heath Ledger had lived, do you think the third film would have been called Joker Does Honolulu?

Gaith wrote:

---

Agreed, but a movie with one-dimensional villains is rarely "deep" or "sophisticated".

How "deep" or "sophisticated" is a conflicted villain by virtue of being fashionable?

Gaith wrote:

---

I forgot about it because it wasn't important.

It suddenly becomes important again when you start talking about the character having no humanity.

Gaith wrote:

---

He proves to be a total monster, yet still comes across as more sympathetic than any of Nolan's big baddies, because, as monstrous as he may be, he at least believes in something[/URL] - a world free of human-on-mutant oppression.

If only Nolan's villains believed in something, such as a world free of corruption, or, failing that, free of Gotham.

[JD]

I'd never seen the Badman video before. Very funny stuff.

[Gaith]

I have no idea, and am genuinely curious, as to what Nolan would have done vis-a-vis Joker had Ledger lived. To me, the fact that he disappeared from TDK after saying that he and Bats would be "doing this dance forever" suggests that he might have been even more done with the character than he was with Dent.

Set Harth wrote:

---

It suddenly becomes important again when you start talking about the character having no humanity.

Eh, a tossed-off expository line about once having had a girlfriend doesn't strike me as compelling evidence that the character actually seen in the movie still retains any of that (alleged) humanity. And it's a lot less interesting, to my tastes, than Mask of Zorro's Montero wishing he didn't have to kill a large number of innocent workers to secure his personal wealth and status.

Set Harth wrote:

---

How "deep" or "sophisticated" is a conflicted villain by virtue of being fashionable?

I'm honestly befuddled by this question. You're saying that by not writing complex villains, the writers were bravely bucking trendiness? And that anyone who does try to write a nuanced villain only does so out of groupthink?

Set Harth wrote:

---

If only Nolan's villains believed in something, such as a world free of corruption, or, failing that, free of Gotham.

Here's the League's mission statement, if you will, from BB:

Gotham's time has come. Like Constantinople or Rome before it the city has become a breeding ground for suffering and injustice. It is beyond saving and must be allowed to die. This is the most important function of the League of Shadows. It is one we've performed for centuries. Gotham... must be destroyed.

[shrugs] ... I guess this line either strikes one as totally moronic, a screenwriter's overt refusal to offer anything but the flimsiest and most inane pretext for one-dimensional evil, or it doesn't.

Myself, I find the notion of a fanatical, millenium-old apparently secular organization devoted to mass murder to be utterly at odds with virtually all of human history, and thus about as sophisticated as a Power Rangers big bad. I'm curious as to why the League considers Gotham to be more full of "suffering and injustice" than any other of a number of cities, from Mexico City or Pyonyang to Moscow or Mogadishu. And I really don't understand why the League didn't attack Gotham several decades ago, when crime rates across the US were significantly higher than they are today, unless, of course, the Nolanverse's history of 20th-century America is intended to be utterly at odds with recent history as we know it, in which case it well and truly is a fable as devoid of sophistication and contemporary relevance.

[Captrek]

Gaith wrote:

---

Here's the League's mission statement, if you will, from BB:

Gotham's time has come. Like Constantinople or Rome before it the city has become a breeding ground for suffering and injustice. It is beyond saving and must be allowed to die. This is the most important function of the League of Shadows. It is one we've performed for centuries. Gotham... must be destroyed.

[shrugs] ... I guess this line either strikes one as totally moronic, a screenwriter's overt refusal to offer anything but the flimsiest and most inane pretext for one-dimensional evil, or it doesn't.

Myself, I find the notion of a fanatical, millenium-old apparently secular organization devoted to mass murder to be utterly at odds with virtually all of human history, and thus about as sophisticated as a Power Rangers big bad. I'm curious as to why the League considers Gotham to be more full of "suffering and injustice" than any other of a number of cities, from Mexico City or Pyonyang to Moscow or Mogadishu.

He compares Gotham to Rome and Constantinople. The issue is not just which city is the most corrupt. The role the city plays in the larger civilization is key. In the Batman universe, Gotham plays a central role in economics, culture, organized crime, etc.

And I really don't understand why the League didn't attack Gotham several decades ago, when crime rates across the US were significantly higher than they are today

Rome and Constantinople weren’t necessarily destroyed at the height of their decadence either. There are probably a lot of considerations that influence the timing of the attack.

In both BB and TDKR, the LOS’s agenda encompasses more than the destruction Gotham. Their purpose is to change civilization globally. In order to accomplish that, they plan to make the people of Gotham show the world why they deserve to be destroyed, and then destroy them. One possible reason for attacking now instead of several decades ago is that they believed the demonstration would be more effective in the internet age of 2005/2012 than in the less connected world of the 80’s.

Another possible reason is that they were waiting for circumstances to be right to advance their agenda. In 2005, they took advantage of the cutting-edge technology of the microwave emitter, and possibly the fear gas was a recent invention as well. In 2012, they took advantage of Wayne Enterprise’s nuclear reactor. Neither of these plans would have been available several decades ago.

[Gaith]

Magus on a Star Trek wrote:

---

One possible reason for attacking now instead of several decades ago is that they believed the demonstration would be more effective in the internet age of 2005/2012 than in the less connected world of the 80’s.

No offense, but sense none this makes. Are you saying the League predicted the rise of the Internet, and decided to hold off on their attack for that reason? If you are, then let me point out that absolutely nothing in the movies suggest anything of the sort. Such apologist explanations for why the League is anything more than a source of Eeeeeeee-vil are heavily steeped in pure speculation and extra-textual invention.

Magus on a Star Trek wrote:

---

In 2012, they took advantage of Wayne Enterprise’s nuclear reactor. Neither of these plans would have been available several decades ago.

Thousands of residents of 1945 Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably wouldn't agree with you there.

[lurok]

Apropos of nothing, I fell asleep during Batman Begins.

[Captrek]

Gaith wrote:

---

No offense, but sense none this makes. Are you saying the League predicted the rise of the Internet, and decided to hold off on their attack for that reason? If you are, then let me point out that absolutely nothing in the movies suggest anything of the sort. Such apologist explanations for why the League is anything more than a source of Eeeeeeee-vil are heavily steeped in pure speculation and extra-textual invention.

Of course it’s speculative. That’s what “one possible reason” means. I advanced a couple of plausible explanations. There are many more. We don’t know exactly what LOS’s thinking is, and since the story is told from Bruce Wayne’s perspective rather than the LOS’s perspective, we don’t have to know exactly what their reason is.

The general point — that LOS’s goal is not only to destroy Gotham but to teach the rest of the world a lesson in the process — is pretty clear.

It’s not at all implausible that the LOS could have foreseen the world becoming more connected. Considering that their purpose is influencing global civilization, it would naturally be a subject of interest for them, and they have some very smart people.

Even if they didn’t specifically foresee the rise of the internet, it seems to be the case that they are patient by nature and wait for the right time to strike, even without necessarily being able to predict exactly when that right time will be or what will make it right.

It seems that you have decided, solely on the basis of higher crime rates a few decades ago, that crime rates are the only factor that influence the decision of when and how to attack; that LOS could, should, and would have made their play when crime rates were at their highest; that any other story is implausible and that the story is “devoid of sophistication and contemporary relevance” because LOS’s attack isn’t synchronous with maximum crime rates. It’s ridiculous.

[Kegg]

Neither Rome nor Constantinople were 'destroyed.' Both have been sacked at different times in their history, and both have changed hands between differing national and cultural forces.

But both cities have been the focal point of a declining empire, whose desecration symbolically with the former and literally with the latter signalled an end to that empire. The fear of Gotham's decline is thus - intentionally or not - linked to the idea of an American decline, the city's endemic corruption and crime emblematic of the broken social contract.

Gaith wrote:

---

Myself, I find the notion of a fanatical, millenium-old apparently secular organization devoted to mass murder to be utterly at odds with virtually all of human history,

Yes, but this is a superhero movie. Thus, it's basically a pulp story. And this organization would have not been more believable if it had a religious origin, nor is it really much more preposterous than the ridiculous science or the idea that one man with unlimited funds could really turn himself into such an effortless one man army (and that this rich man's fantasy would seriously be the best way to combat crime).

[Gaith]

Kegg wrote:

---

this organization would have not been more believable if it had a religious origin

You make a strong case, and while I respectfully disagree on that point, I think we're getting into dead horse territory here.


... As I said before, some people think the LoS makes a lick of sense, and others, myself included, don't. Even if we do accept their basic premise, however, that mass murder is a coherent if misguided tool to promote justice and reduce suffering, is that agenda really any more compelling or intellectually stimulating than Sebastian Shaw's, or Whiplash's?

I don't think so, but a movie can have one-dimensional villains and still be deep and sophisticated. The Nazis in Casablanca, after all, didn't have any depth to speak of. Question is, then, is there anything really meaty going on elsewhere in TDKR, or is it all just pomp and atmosphere?

[Aeronef]

Kegg wrote:

---

Among other problems, the letters of transit are described as cosigned by General de Gaulle. And one can't treat the reality of Casablanca as quite as arbitrary as a genre film. They are a nonsense plot device, pure and simple, and the film works in spite of them being nonsense.

I'm very late to this party, and it's a very minor point. But the letters of transit are described as being signed by General Weygand, which Peter Lorre pronounces as "Vay-GON."

General Maxime Weygand was the Vichy Government's delegate-general to its North-African colonies. So, while they are indeed a highly convenient plot device, they're not quite as nonsensical as you indicate.

[Agent Richard07]

A few more observations after having seen the movie again…

- Fox couldn't have stopped Bane by flooding the area containing the bomb. Bane had already set everything up and just needed Fox's hand print.

- Batman diverted attention from Bane during the chase after the stock exchange incident. The ploice probably could have caught him if they hadn't decided to go after Batman.

- Kevin Smith discusses the movie here…



I disagree with one of his points. After having watched the trilogy all at once, I got the impression that Bruce hung up the cowl due to a combination of events in The Dark Knight, not just Rachel's death. Perhaps the "damage" done as Batman had gone far enough. And the job of rounding up the organized crime bosses was done anyway, so why not hang it all up.

[Captrek]

He talks for an hour and a half about the movie? Wow.

Batman is wanted for the murder of Harvey Dent and five others, including two cops. How did that happen? Jim Gordon said, “Batman killed these people” and everybody just accepted that? What was the supposed motive? What was the supposed evidence? Did Gordon claim to have witnessed all the killings?

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

If Bruce hung up the cowl after TDK, why build a Batcave?