|
Post by BackinBlack on Jul 24, 2012 20:45:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Spidey 1923 on Jul 24, 2012 23:25:03 GMT -5
Very nice of Bale to do that.
|
|
|
Post by Caveboy0 on Jul 25, 2012 1:12:24 GMT -5
yeah it was although i'm not sure how the conversation would go down.
------ okay i just have to vent something here for a moment.
So I've spent the last 4 years i guess really digging TDK. Well more than that I considered it my first definitive "favorite movie" I held a lot of it very high up and as of now still do, but I've been seeing a lot more criticisms pop up recently and it has had me rethinking some things. Most crucially for me is the ending. The very ending specifically. I've heard every which argument about every aspect of the film and 90% of the film still holds from my perspective, but I have recently hit something that I had honestly never heard criticisms about the TDK ending. The idea being that it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. This was actually rather tough for me to think about. Because I loved the ending. Thematically it fit with the film; Batman needed to become something more than a hero for Gotham and this case the villain so they can keep their real hope: Harvey Dent. Batman is the hero Gotham deserves in that he is twisted and beyond the law. Gotham created the Batman. Dent is the hero they did not deserve, one within the system. It felt right and still has that epic tragedy to it, but I got to give on this point. It does not hold up to scrutiny very well.
1. Batman leaves with Gordon dissenting. Batman is leaving him with the hard work. Actually covering it up and I think Gordon could do it… if his family wasn't involved. To go through with the cover up he would have to go up to his family still in shock from what Dent was going to do and say "Nobody can know what happened here tonight." That lie would eat him alive on the spot. His wife would spit at his face. Yeah she leaves him of course, but I have found it hard to believe that Gordon would have the guts to go through with this cover up.
2. The evidence doesn't exactly add up. Batman never used guns before they would know that. The gun used to kill Wartz, Maroni's driver, and knock out Ramirez with would have Dent's finger prints on them. Ramirez herself would know and have to be payed off if she is even willing.
3. Do we even know for sure that Gotham would never be able to recover, knowing their DA went bad? Honestly their mentality would probably be that everything is going wrong. Having their DA go off the deep end would almost seem expected.
Its easy to say you are going to take the fall, but when you think about the process of covering it up. that puts a ton of weight on Gordon's shoulders. I don't see him emotionally going through with the cover up. Not to mention what exactly is so bad about the alternative?
Dent is shamed sure, but I imagine the mobsters he managed to put away would still stand. People would lose hope, I wouldn't doubt that, but like i said they almost would expect it. What they could take away from all that tragedy is bitter vindication on Batman's part. He was proven right. Giving into the Joker wasn't going to solve anything and the role of Batman can afford to endure can afford to be this absolute be an ideal even if the man behind the mask has doubts. Gotham proved the Joker wrong and Batman remained incorruptible by not letting the Joker die. He won the ideological battle, but Joker still won. Batman's need to cover up Dent's crime to fake a win. To not let the Joker's victory be known is childish and cowardly in a way. Yes it is a sacrifice and yes it does give hope to Gotham I still believe in that, but it is built on a lie and the weight of that sacrifice is on Gordon's shoulders not Batman's.
I can still watch the film and watch the ending and go along with it because again it fits thematically and quite the epic speech by Gordon's part and gives the film that punch of an ending that slaps on the title of the film as if "yeah this was awesome." I could even except that this decision would be made, but in the end they are wrong to make it. it was a bad decision and TDKR kind of admits that.
I don't if i'm sounding goofy making a big deal about this. I just had to go on a bit of a rant after realizing something that meant something to me have some cracks in the foundation.
|
|
|
Post by Spidey 1923 on Jul 25, 2012 22:54:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Caveboy0 on Jul 25, 2012 23:35:16 GMT -5
interesting but never known too many official novel's being from the mind of the writers of the film.
|
|
|
Post by mr. excellent on Jul 26, 2012 18:55:05 GMT -5
I’ve been thinking it over for a while, and I’ve come to the conclusion that one of the biggest “issues” this movie has had with moviegoers is its decision to do something that services the series, rather than itself. The Dark Knight Rises as a film is a clear sequel, one in which you would need to watch the prior films in order to fully enjoy it. It’s not an entirely self-contained movie. Batman Begins is, of course, and to a lesser extent, The Dark Knight is as well. I mean, it’s probably safe to say that nobody is going to be lost while watching TDK having not first seen Batman Begins. So because TDKR's story requires one to have knowledge of its predecessors stories, it tends to feel a bit propped up.
That in and of itself isn’t necessarily a bad thing, “Return of the King” proves that. But the issue I’ve brought up in my opening sentence goes a little further than that. By servicing the series rather than itself, the final film doesn’t break the mold in any way, it doesn’t do away with the current conventions or reinvent the wheel. It doesn’t teach us something new, and that, coming away with a completely new look at superhero cinema, is what a lot of people got out of The Dark Knight. It’s what many were hoping to get again with Dark Knight Rises, but didn’t, and it has become the biggest, most recurring point of criticism that I’ve come across.
Personally, I don’t fault the movie for not breaking the mold again. There are several ways that a story can be good. Some stories keep us on our toes as they twist and turn and lead us toward the conclusion. Some give us new ways to look at a situation. Other stories give it to you straight. “Blue Valentine”, “(500) Days of Summer” (in this case, giving it to us straight is showing us that we really don’t know what we’re doing sometimes), “The Wrestler”, “Shame”… All of those are very good movies whose purposes are to show the audience the truth, in a very pure way, about people and their lives. That’s what I take from this one. Nolan based the story in an honest reflection of what would happen to a person who devoted himself to an ideal, so much so, that he failed to live outside of his vision. It wasn’t about teaching us something new about the human condition or society, it was about showing us how people stand up in the face of adversity, after having suffered crushing defeat. Of course the film covers other themes as well, but that's beside the point I'm trying to make. Now, I know TDKR is an odd choice to put in the “give it to you straight” category, especially because Nolan was a little more fantastical in this movie than in the other two. He also ended the story on a high note, which is something that “Blue Valentine”, “Shame”, and “The Wrestler” did not do.
Perhaps that’s where I would fault the movie. It goes so dark, that it compromises its stance as a film “grounded in reality” in the human drama department. Because it’s a Batman film, we’ll forgive it for the science fiction, but because it’s a Nolan film, we expect the human components to connect, and not all of them fit together so well. Regardless, I find Nolan’s choice to tell a story about Bruce and his way of coping with the decision to be Batman over the course of the first two films, to be as noble a focus as any. I don’t fault it for not teaching us something new or giving us a new perspective. He did right by the story of Bruce Wayne, and I don’t think we’ll see another film that looks as deeply into his humanity as TDKR does, for a long while. That, I respect.
|
|
|
Post by Caveboy0 on Jul 26, 2012 19:51:28 GMT -5
personally i don't think it has that many clear ideas or themes. It's pretty jumbled. Maybe its about the consequences of being Batman, but the fact is he quit for 8 years. physically he felt it but it was forgotten pretty quickly. emotionally yeah i concede that point. I always say that for Bruce to be Batman he can't be happy he can't be content and its made clear in a variety of Batman stories. If he is content and happy he no longer has his rage and determination. TDK established that he had no reason to not be Batman anymore. Rachel died, but TDKR goes back on that by having Batman quit. Alfred's lecture of sorts about Bruce staying away from Gotham, forgetting about it and moving on. It's a powerful scene and is the loudest theme that could be there, but it isn't fallowed through on. "Is Gotham worth saving" Interesting idea, but when an outside force attacks the city the point is kind of moot.
|
|
|
Post by brocksir on Jul 28, 2012 18:10:22 GMT -5
Just got back from seeing it, and I thought it was great. The acting was superb, by the returning cast, and by the newcomers to the franchise. I think it's definitely a tie with Batman Begins for me for the best of the series.
|
|
|
Post by Caveboy0 on Jul 29, 2012 1:15:55 GMT -5
saw it again recently. i liked it still. like i've been saying i came out of the theater happy. certain moments don't ring as strongly from the first viewing. the same flaws obviously still there.
i could think of a million ways this could have been better, but it would have all lowered the scope lowered the scale and even lowered the closure. this is an end to a trilogy. it felt like an end and it was an end. there could have been a better sequel to The Dark Knight but that would not have ended the story. There was rushed pacing, a lack of focus on Batman's journey, branches in logic and odd assumptions made by the film, clunky exposition beginning and end. Yet I'm satisfied… question mark. I'm not sure I am entirely perhaps I have just accepted this is what we got, but I can watch it. I can like it. May not have the strongest themes or the tightest narrative, but it was a film worth watching.
|
|
|
Post by brotherandbassist on Aug 4, 2012 21:23:45 GMT -5
I have mixed feelings about this film in terms of where it fits in terms of quality compared to Nolan's other two Batman flicks. I kinda wanna say in order from best to worst it's 2, 1, 3. But idk. Their all great films. I love that he gave Batman a grit and an edge that brought him closer to the comic books than any other attempt had brought him before. My biggest nit pick is they set for a sequel that won't happen. I just don't want some other director to get ahold of the franchise and make another Batman and Robin with diferent actors.
|
|
|
Post by BackinBlack on Sept 18, 2012 10:34:03 GMT -5
DVD and Blu-Ray will be out December 3rd.
|
|
|
Post by Spidey 1923 on Sept 26, 2012 17:37:21 GMT -5
|
|