I like how you say that with such certainty. But I just checked and it DOES!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP4KLs_1G6I
about 1 minute 33 sec mark
"The Dark Knight Rises" Review and Discussion Thread (spoilers)
- Thread starter JacksonArcher
- Start date
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP4KLs_1G6I
about 1 minute 33 sec mark
He rips it off and runs away with it. Then later that same night Gordon tells Bruce they got him. Which means they got him so fast he probably couldn't sell it, which means Bruce probably got it back. Probably, because we never see that.
I just replayed the scene. Chill reaches for them at the last second. He clearly tugs on them, and then you can clearly hear (just listen, it's apparent if you have a decent sound system) the jewels shower on the pavement. The iconic shot of the pearls scattering the air that was in the Burton film is not here. But if you look closely, you can see some of pearls near where he fell, and, in the next shot, the jewel's are no longer around his wife's neck. I don't think Chill actually took the necklace, so maybe Bruce repaired it.
If the necklace broke and the pearls scattered on the gound, all would have been collected by the police as crime scene evidence. At somepoint the pearls were returned to Alfred and Bruce. Who would of obvioulsy had the necklace repaired.
Its not that complicated.
Its not that complicated.
Yeah, repairing a necklace is not exactly rocket science. Why are you guys even arguing about that?
As fans frequenting a BBS geared toward genre material it's hardly surprising remarks and criticisms will be more specific than those of a broader and more general audience.
I like the film even though it's not a version of the character I'd rather see. Other criticisms cited do go beyond that and are in regard to elements of plot and story and other things. And they are mostly fair criticisms even if one doesn't agree.
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
I thought it was enough of a callback to Batman Begins that Selina stole the pearls. I didn't need them to be the exact same pearls Bruce's mom had on the night she was killed. Too, being that the Waynes were so fabulously wealthy, it is certainly within the realm of possibility that Mrs. Wayne had more than one pearl necklace in her jewelry box.
Cheap, uninspired potshots are still cheap uninspired potshots.
I guess that's par for the course though.
^^^
Watch it or the morality police from the recent BOTW threads will derail this topic also.
Cheap, uninspired potshots are still cheap uninspired potshots.
I guess that's par for the course though.
I'm simply saying what I think. I'm not going to lie just so that my opinion is in line with what I think the majority wants to hear to win some sort of favor. If I wanted to do that, I'd go into politics.
Opinions are subjective. There's no such thing as an objective opinion when it comes to entertainment. It either entertains you or it doesn't. The movie was also very depressing to watch and I thought it took the superhero concept way too seriously. As I said, I like TDK, but TDKR took it too far. Again, an opinion.
My father, who never read a Batman comic in his life, also didn't like the movie. He didn't like that Batman kept getting beat up and he said we should watch movies to get away from the problems of in the real world.
You don't have to read a comic to not like the movie. If the other people like The Dark Knight Rises then, like I said way up thread, more power to them.
I don't expect them to. Kindly put away your strawman.
EDIT:
One more thing:
TDKR was based on Knightfall (1993) and No Man's Land (1999). It's totally fair to compare how a film based on stories from the '90s compares to how Batman was portrayed in comics at that time.
And it's not that long ago. We're not talking about the Golden Age, or the Silver Age, or even the Bronze Age. We're talking about the '90s.
Last edited:
My impression is that most of the criticism is based on extremely high expectations after The Dark Knight, and on disappointment because it is very different from the comics. The latter is weird, because we already had two films that took that same approach regarding the source material. I still remember all that criticism against, for example, the Joker only wearing make up instead of having bleached skin like in the comics, etc... After two films it should have been clear that the third one would go down the same route.
I liked the movie (I'd give it a B+), but it wasn't quite perfect.
-I didn't like how the Matthew Modine character ordered all of the police after Batman when Bane had just taken the Stock exchange hostage and murdered several people. His interest in capturing Batman was understandable, but his behavior in this scene goes above and beyond the behavior of any rational policeman. The scene could have easily been played with him diverting some (or even most) of the officers to capture Batman, and then Bane (being an intelligent villain) being able to evade the smaller contingent of men.
-I found it hard to believe that the trades Bane made in Bruce's name would have been upheld for more than three seconds. First, Bruce wasn't there; security footage can confirm that and Alfred could provide an alibi about his whereabouts. Second, the trade happened after the exchange had been taken hostage and everything had stopped. Wouldn't that look suspicious to...well, anyone?
-The reveal that Harvey Dent wasn't the hero everyone had been saying he was didn't feel as big as the end of the last movie made it out to be. There's a small moment between Blake (who wasn't even around in the last movie) and Gordon and that's it.
-Bruce is surprised that a fusion reactor can be weaponized? And only one scientist in the world (who even published his findings!) can do this? The neutron bomb is probably the least silly of the sf tech to drive the third act of Nolan's Batman films, though.
-I liked having Liam Neeson back, but Bruce discovers a key piece of information about Bane in a dream sequence? (Though, I suppose this information later turns out to be wrong).
Those points make it sound like I didn't like it at all, but I did. It's the only superhero movie I've enjoyed that's been released in the past two years. It seems that a sequel featuring Robin won't be made, especially by Nolan, but considering the nature of these things, I wonder if Warner Bros. won't try to make it happen.
-I didn't like how the Matthew Modine character ordered all of the police after Batman when Bane had just taken the Stock exchange hostage and murdered several people. His interest in capturing Batman was understandable, but his behavior in this scene goes above and beyond the behavior of any rational policeman. The scene could have easily been played with him diverting some (or even most) of the officers to capture Batman, and then Bane (being an intelligent villain) being able to evade the smaller contingent of men.
-I found it hard to believe that the trades Bane made in Bruce's name would have been upheld for more than three seconds. First, Bruce wasn't there; security footage can confirm that and Alfred could provide an alibi about his whereabouts. Second, the trade happened after the exchange had been taken hostage and everything had stopped. Wouldn't that look suspicious to...well, anyone?
-The reveal that Harvey Dent wasn't the hero everyone had been saying he was didn't feel as big as the end of the last movie made it out to be. There's a small moment between Blake (who wasn't even around in the last movie) and Gordon and that's it.
-Bruce is surprised that a fusion reactor can be weaponized? And only one scientist in the world (who even published his findings!) can do this? The neutron bomb is probably the least silly of the sf tech to drive the third act of Nolan's Batman films, though.
-I liked having Liam Neeson back, but Bruce discovers a key piece of information about Bane in a dream sequence? (Though, I suppose this information later turns out to be wrong).
Those points make it sound like I didn't like it at all, but I did. It's the only superhero movie I've enjoyed that's been released in the past two years. It seems that a sequel featuring Robin won't be made, especially by Nolan, but considering the nature of these things, I wonder if Warner Bros. won't try to make it happen.
They address that. Fox says they can prove fraud but that would take time. Enough time for Bane to do what they wanted to do (which Bruce didn't know at that time). Wayne Enterprises was already in trouble anyway, and the weeks it takes to settle this are enough to destroy a company. So better to be safe than sorry, they gave the company to Miranda Tate.
The most likely scenario will be a soft reboot via the Justice League movie and Batman will be Bruce Wayne again, presumably a younger Bruce.
It might actually be very fast. Warners is not going to keep Batman on the back burner very long. In fact the producers of the new Green Arrow series hope to incorporate a Bruce Wayne/Batman cameo as soon as they're legally allowed to, now that the Dark Knight trilogy is done.
They may not have to worry about losing the rights, but given how much money the Batman series has made - in particular the last two movies, but even the 1989-1997 movies - I'd say they'll be anxious to get a new Batman movie into the cinemas as quickly as they can, without messing up the franchise.
With Superman Returns underperforming, Green Lantern flopping, Wonder Woman stuck in development hell, Batman has been the only surefire hit in WB/ DC's stable, though Man of Steel's performance will hopefully change that.
With Superman Returns underperforming, Green Lantern flopping, Wonder Woman stuck in development hell, Batman has been the only surefire hit in WB/ DC's stable, though Man of Steel's performance will hopefully change that.
Awesome pic, but with all that armor from the neck down, his head looks rather exposed, doesn't it.
Similar threads
