I didn't think so. It felt like he was a part of the plan and not just a henchman.
"The Dark Knight Rises" Review and Discussion Thread (spoilers)
- Thread starter JacksonArcher
- Start date
Not necessarily. It was left with a lot of threads closed, but with possibilities open if someone wanted to visit this universe again.
Not with Bruce as Batman, unless they're going to ruin Nolan's story, which they aren't.
He explained that pretty clearly to Bruce/the audience: he's going to slowly torture the city until it dies. Ra's always wanted the city's destruction to be a giant spectacle for the rest of the world.
^ Right. Break their spirit, then kill them. The same thing he was planning with Bruce, but on a larger scale. It's ridding the world of decadence and corruption as Ra's planned, but not before showing the victims their decadence and corruption first.
Yeah, I can see how this could be taken to a new level...maybe doing a Robin/Nightwing film but in the style of Batman Beyond, ala Blake as Nightwing and Bruce as Batman but in the cave like Terry and Bruce in the tv cartoon.
Well obviously people have debated the merits of Prometheus and defended its faults (it was right there in the thread), so what you mean is a convincing defence of them.
For example, Bane's plot at the start of the movie - it seems so monumentally stupid to so obviously risk his life like that. It's grand, theatrical, cool as hell, and don't start thinking about it for even a minute like maybe what would have happened if he'd been killed before it got off or if he was just demasked earlier than expected or whatever.
It seems to be in there largely to invoke the raid that introduced the Joker in the Dark Knight, only the Joker isn't meant to be a villain with some diabolical multi-stage plan of destruction, just a psychopath making it up as he goes along who's not particularly betting on his own survival to be all that important.
I'm sure someone can probably jump in with some elaborate argument defending this plot as making sense. But I'm less sure they could actually convince me of this being the case.
So some madman threatens to vaporize the entire city with a nuclear bomb, and the people decide "hey, let's go beat up some rich people and take all their stuff"?
Please. They'd be huddled at home with their families and freaking the hell out.And after watching this terrorist thug blow up parts of their city and kill a bunch of people, why would they take anything HE has to say to heart? No, I think they'd be like "Fuck you, we're not going to listen to anything this asshole has to say."
Last edited:
Its the end of the world lets do whatever we want. Its not far fetched at all. Without the constrants of civilization some people resort to primal behavior. This has happened through human history.
True, and we weren't really shown what the whole city was doing. Rather we saw a representative portion. I am quite sure that there were people who didn't join the "fun." Rather, what we're told is that Gotham had a Warlord (Bane), and the idea is that, while the city was closed to exits, people could enter - with food, for example. It runs contrary to Bane's plan to just let the city collapse into utter anarchy, rather, he was there managing the chaos the whole time. What we didn't see happen, and I think was missing, was an effort of the citizens to go looking for the citizen with the detonator - a faction that believed his rhetoric in the stadium. Amidst the restructuring of Gotham's "government" the one thing that is lacking is the presence of a movement to figure out who controls the bomb - although I think you'd have to be pretty damn stupid to believe anybody but Bane or someone close to him had it.
I was sentenced to exile.
I've seen the film twice now. I love it. I have to say, though, that watching the film in IMAX is the way to go. If you haven't seen the film, and you're planning to, you need to see it in IMAX. What a heck of a ride.
Rest assure, I'm compiling my thoughts and I'll have an extensive review soon. I want to watch it a couple more times before I definitively collect my thoughts.
Oh wow... Saw it on opening night, the best film in years. I didn't expect to go to watch a batman movie and cry twice. The scene with Alfred at the graves broke me. It was amazing.
Well it's not exactly news that there will be a group of rioters and looters during any catastrophe. But the movie makes it look like the entire freakin city just goes "Hey, this guy has a point! Let's all rise up and attack the rich and tear the place apart!!"
Which I just didn't buy for a second.
We saw a lot who did it. The movie never said everyone was giving into the chaos. We did see a number of characters against it.
Okay, I didn't get that impression. I assumed most of the looting was done by the 1,000-plus angry criminals Bane released from Blackgate, plus Bane's army of mercenaries, plus various other members of Gotham's surviving criminal class, who were doing what came naturally now the GCPD had been buried alive. I didn't see any middle-class Gotham shopowners joining in the looting. (Note that the judge at Bane's kangaroo court was noted psychopath Jonathan Crane, not some ordinary Gotham lawyer or legal assistant.)
Indeed, the movie made a point of showing Bane liberating and arming the felons at Blackgate, but conspicuously failed to include any scenes of regular Gothamites joining Bane's "revolution."
I imagine most ordinary Gothamites were doing what Foley was doing, huddling fearfully in their homes and trying to ride out the storm . . . .
Hey Greg I want to buy your novelization. Are there any major departures from the script you got and the finished film?
Congratulations on climbing out of the pit.
Similar threads
