True or False: The Dark Knight Rises (2012) was the last great comic book movie.
I personally think it was.
shareYeah sounds about right
share
MovieChat Forums > The Dark Knight Rises (2012) Discussion > True or False: The Dark Knight Rises (20...
Frankly i think Logan was better than Dark Knight and Dark Knight Rises. The more times i watch the Dark Knight. The more i think Heath Leger was best thing about it. Rises felt like a rehash of Batman Begins. And frankly i don't even know what that movie trying to say. That protesting wall street is the same as letting a bunch of murders out prison.
shareTruth right here. Logan is a far better film than Rises. They even are going for similar themes; the 'conclusion' of the hero. Both are broken and desperate and become more broken and desperate as the film progresses. Both 'go out' heroically giving that last final effort, "giving everything". The difference is in execution; Logan is almost perfectly executed and tightly edited. Rises has many times that drag and badly edited sequences (such as the montage of Gotham City during the 'Bomb threat"). Rises also has several glaring plot holes and some weak characterizations; and bad dialogue. As well as some really contrived plot lines (Blake just 'knowing' Bruce Wayne is Batmen "I just saw it in your eyes" that was just weak writing. Then Miranda was a poorly contrived villain and the last minute "twist" was basically telegraphed the entire film and not even 'revealed' in an interesting way, she just stabs him then starts a cliche villain monologue.
This is not even really addressing the plot holes.
Also much like A Tale of Two Cities it is about the clash between the wealthy and the non wealthy. If you’re going to read it though I’d suggest the illustrated 2nd grade picture book version, Dickens is definitely way too advanced for you.
share"I just know you're Batman."
"Ohhh! You got me! You clever little cop, you!"
100% agree with you there.
Watch the scene again they clearly explain how he figured out he was Batman
shareAlright, here's the dialogue:
Blake: They asked me if he saw any giant alligators. He needs you. He needs the Batman.
Bruce Wayne: If Commissioner Gordon thinks…
Blake: Oh, he doesn’t know or care who you are. But we’ve met before. It was a long time ago, I was a kid. Uh…St. Swithin’s, it used to be funded by the Wayne Foundation, it’s an orphanage. My mom died when I was small, it was a car accident, I don’t really remember it. But uh…my dad got shot a couple of years later over a gambling debt. And I remember that one just fine. Not a lot of people know what it feels like, do they? To be angry. In your bones. I mean, they understand. Foster parents, everybody, understands, for a while. But then they want the angry little kid to do something he knows he can’t do. To move on. So after a while they stop understanding and they send the angry kid to a boys home. I figured it out too late. You gotta learn to hide the anger, and practice smiling in the mirror. It’s like putting on a mask. So you showed up this one day in a cool car, pretty girl on your arm. We were so excited. Bruce Wayne, billionaire orphan! We used to make up stories about you, man. Legends. And you know, to the other kids that’s all it was, just stories. But, right when I saw you I knew who you really were. I’d seen that look on your face before. It’s the same one I taught myself. I don’t know why you took the fall for Dent’s murder, but I’m still a believer in the *Batman. Even if you’re not.
That's it. Wayne never denies it and Blake has no more concrete evidence than "you have that look". It's sloppy.
Where's that clear explanation?
He recognized that Bruce was doing the same thing he did which was put on a happy face to hide the pain he then did some investigating and came to the conclusion that Bruce was Batman . The point of that was to establish the similarities in their backgrounds and that Blake was in the same mindset as Bruce
shareYeah, but he doesn't say he investigated anything. He just says he knew as soon as he saw Bruce's face. A face that, by definition, would be shared by a LOT of people.
Somebody who's angry about their parents' deaths and is hiding it and burying it might look like, say, a partyboy millionaire who then breaks down and hides in his mansion.
Bruce never counters at all. Blake offers no additional explanation than "a look and a hunch", and that's BS and it's bad, sloppy writing.
It wasn’t sloppy writing at all, it was clever foreshadowing that Blake would one day take up the mantle of being the dark knight . He understood Bruce’s pain and tragedy because he had been through it himself and that’s how he figured it out. Blake’s character was really well done
shareThat's a reasonable setup, but a poor execution. I got that it was showing their parallel journeys, but that's a journey that takes time and care to pull off. Not one two-minute scene which is just a monologue from Blake about how he "just kinda knows" that Bruce Wayne is really Batman. That's malarkey.
shareIt was a great execution and the film fleshed out Blake's character very well so I totally bought the parallel's between Bruce and Blake.
shareI buy the parallels, that's not the problem. The problem is that they didn't have the time to build their relationship properly and they didn't spend *any* time explaining why Bruce just shrugs and lets this guy guess who he is. They didn't give a decent reason why Blake knew Wayne was Batman.
If nothing else, it was all tell, no show. That scene isn't a discovery, it's Blake doing an exposition dump and Wayne just going, "You got me!" If the movie wanted us to follow Blake so closely, maybe it should have started with Blake's first day on the force when Batman retires, then he sees Wayne go from playboy to recluse and he starts investigating. We follow his investigation and learn something things, then something jogs Blake's memory and we flashback to when he meets Bruce and something much more specific and conclusive is said or happens on that day.
But instead we get this weak tea, "I saw a look in your eye and I just 'know'..."
Blake already knew there wasn't much Bruce could have done, and the story is about Bruce not Blake, Blake is a supporting character and we don't need a super detailed flashback/backstory on him. It's not weak tea at all. Also keep in mind this film is really long and that's another bitchy nitpick haters love to point out, if they made it even longer then you'd just complain more. Your premise reminds me of The Count Of Monte Cristo, we get a 50 page backstory on a very minor character (Luigi Vampa) and it adds little to the narrative and there's even a backstory within the backstory, TDKR didn't need to do that, the relationship was firmly established in that scene and was only expanded on in further scenes.
shareYou're comparing The Dark Knight Rises to The Count of Monte Cristo and you're saying the latter is a bloated mess...? We are not on the same page at all.
The film isn't too long, but it is overstuffed. They have three movies (at least) worth of stuff in this one film and it's crammed in.
Yeah, I don't want a three-hour action movie, but I barely noticed those three hours in Lord of the Rings. Because the story was well-told.
Here we have the main storyline (Bruce v. League of Shadows) and Bruce recovering emotionally from his losses in The Dark Knight. Coolio. But, we also have them try to mash in Blake and Catwoman. There's not enough movie. They have scenes with Gordon, an arc for Alfred - don't forget Fox! And then he has to get his back broken and recovered all at once.
What I need is for a film to set things up and pay them off. I need the story told in a way that compels me to continue forward with it. I need to not be questioning the movie every six seconds, and if the movie wants a subplot, I need it well-done, not half-baked.
Like here where they don't have time to show Blake hunt this stuff down or establish a deep connection between Blake and Batman and/or Wayne by having them actually do something that brings them together. They just use a monologue to vomit exposition and then go on to something else.
You're right: the film was long. But that's why it didn't have time to dawdle around with a half-baked scene like this. They should have found a way to unfold this plot, relationship, discovery, and revelation into the main plot more organically.
Weak. Tea.
Wrong I never said it was a bloated mess, in fact the novel is great I just said that there was one chapter that wasn't necessary, you just strawmanned me which I don't appreciate.
If anything I wanted the film to go on for longer, when I saw it for the first time in theater I didn't want it to end, my point was one of the nit picky complaints seems to be its too long yet you seem to want it to be longer.
The Lord of the Rings book was well told, the movie was compete and utter garbage that took a giant sh!t on the source material.
Blake and Catwoman were necessary for the story and they were not mashed in. Blake was the one who took on Batman's mantle and was now looking after Gotham, which gave Bruce a justification for leaving. Selina on the other hand represented the life that Bruce got to have away from Gotham, his inner pain and Batman. Both were essential to the story.
There was plenty of setup and very satisfying pay off. All of the subplots were well done. Blake's monologue was very powerful and it did establish the connection between himself and Bruce.
I actually thought it was too short, it could have gone on for 3 and a half hours and I wouldn't have complained, I said one of the complaints that haters often put forth is that it's too long yet you wanted it to be longer. I was trying to understand your hypocritical double standard.
TDKR was well told, The Count Of Monte Cristo novel was well told (unabridged version), The Lord of the Rings novel was well told, The Lord of the Rings movie was cinematic garbage.
You said that The Count of Monte Cristo spent fifty pages on a backstory that added little the narrative. Maybe I was reading between the lines, but that sounds like you're saying it was bloated and messy. That's not a strawman argument either way.
I don't want it longer, I want it better written. I want the plot lines smoothed out and either fleshed out or cut. You misunderstood my point.
Lord of the Rings is 1,000x a better novel than movie. I still loved the films.
If TDKR didn't have Blake, they could have had other heroes "cover" his actions during the movie (his helping during action sequences, e.g.) and at the end they could have wrapped up that Gotham came together and became a better city thanks to the years under "the Bat" and Bruce brought the city to a place where it didn't need Batman at all anymore. For one example.
I disagree that the setup or pay-off were satisfying and well-done. It felt rushed and jumbled.
That's 50 pages out of a 1300 page book, hardly enough to make it "bloated", that was one chapter out of 110 that I didn't like, you're grasping very pathetically at straws here. I never once said it was bloated and messy I said that there was one chapter that didn't go anywhere so yes you did strawman me. The Count of Monte Cristo is one of my favorite novels of all time.
It was written very well and all of your complaints have been debunked, I would have loved it to go longer that is how engaged I was in the film.
The movie is a complete and utter anal rape of the novel, I will never forgive Jackson for what he did to Denethor, Merry, Pippin, Theoden, the Pirate Ghosts, etc.
Yes they easily could have picked someone else to take up his mantle but Blake was a good choice. Bruce did bring Gotham to a place where it didn't need Batman, at this point Blake does not need to go out and fight because there is legitimate peace that isn't based on a lie. For now he's just a watchful protector in case things go bad in Gotham again yet at this point there's no reason to think it will.
Wasn't rushed, wasn't jumbled it was well executed although it's clear many of the haters don't understand it, I had to explain a few days ago to someone on this thread why Bruce was able to make it out of the pit, he thought it was because the rope was weighing him down.
You were making an argument that TDKR was tightly written and used a counter-example of the digressions taken by The Count. You contrasted them, so I assumed your defense of one was an implicit criticism of the other one.
I understand why Bruce made it out of the pit. It was because he had to fall and learn to pick himself up. Also, every time he fell and got beaten up, his spine became stronger, because that's how spinal surgery works, as demonstrated by that guy punching it to better health earlier.
Not at all, I was just saying that going into a detailed backstory of a side character may not be a great approach yet that is what you advocated for then you strawmaned me by saying I said the TCOMC was a "bloated mess", which I didn't.
No, it was because he didn't have the rope, it was because he now valued his life and therefore he was going to have extra adrenaline to get him across the jump because he knew that if he fell he would die, this is his character arc, before he went into the Lazarus Pit he didn't care if he lived or died, now he cares about his life and is now the Batman character we are familiar with, he has been rejuvenated/reborn and that is what the pit sent back. Jeez dude I thought you were smarter than that but you don't get it either.
I'm going to say this one more time: based on what you were saying, I misunderstood you and thought you were criticising the Count of Monte Cristo.
Oh, like he "rose again". Like he rises. Like the DARK KNIGHT RISES!? I get it now, thank you for explaining that. That metaphor was unclear. I thought it was a whole thing where his spine was getting stronger by getting punched.
Remember when they punched his spine to fix it?
Glad you concede that you were wrong about the count of monte Cristo and about how Bruce made the jump. Maybe next time you should actually take the time to understand a film before you say it’s bad, you never once considered that you might be the problem and you clearly were
shareYou're right. Mea culpa. I just wanted to point out all the flaws in this film and they weren't flaws. They were really just things Nolan put in the movie to make me realise that I am a flawed and wretched person, wallowing in filth and fallacy.
I see the light! I see the light! It's clear to me now that Blake has psychic powers and that's how he could know who Batman was! It's clear to me that Batman was an idea, not a man, so he could astral project that fire bat on the building! It's clear to me that the healer in the pit also has magic hands and healed Batman of his spinal injuries with magic powers!
They aren't plot holes! It's not sloppy writing! It's wizards! Wizards did it all!
Next time, I will carefully ask myself if my willful lack of explaoning everything with wizards is the problem and I'm sure in the future, as here, I will be shown the error of my non-wizard-seeing ways.
Seriously man that was like the central theme to the whole film and it flew right over your head
shareIt flew over my head like a bat flies! Oh, and now I'm "rising" out of my previous torpor! Oh, this film works on so many levels! I can't believe I missed all of it!
You know what else I just realised! Hey, maybe you missed this! I just realised that Blake's real name was ROBIN and ROBIN was that kid that used to pal around with Batman in the comics! So, it's like...Batman and ROBIN! I GET IT NOW!
Are you even going to attempt or pretend to have a serious conversation because now you’re trolling me which I don’t appreciate
shareI'm sarcastically pointing out that stuff like his resurrection and rising again were quite obvious. I got it when I watched it, I just didn't care because I wasn't buying the movie.
shareYet you didn't understand the symbolism of him rising out of the pit which is basically what the entire franchise had been building up to which proves my point that you just don't get it. That's fine if you don't, I didn't fully get The Godfather Part II the first time I saw it but I didn't sit there acting like it was a problem with the film, I just watched it again and after the second viewing I did get it. Again the problem isn't the film it's you.
shareThat was sarcasm. I understood it on my first viewing.
shareWell that wasn't what you said.
shareHence sarcasm.
shareYou said that he was able to get out of the pit because he built himself up after he fell, that is not right, he made it out because he rediscovered his fear of death and because he now valued his life and was afraid to die he was to make it across the pit. Therefore when he came out of the pit he was rejuvenated/reborn and was now the Batman character we know of. That was the symbolism of the pit, that is how Nolan made the Lazarus Pit in the real world, the pit sent Bruce back and now he valued his life. That is the character arc that the entire franchise was building up to and again you missed it that is unless you were lying to me when you made that post.
shareIt was sarcasm. I was being sarcastic. It was an ironic mode of speech where my meaning was different than the literal words. I don't know how else to say this; if you can't parse the difference between sarcasm and lying, I can't help you.
shareRight because of course I can detect your "mode of speech" through the internet. Grow up kid.
shareYeah, that is not the only moment of weak writing; but it is probably the most glaring in how contrived and nonsensical it was. Still not as bad as having a lower lumbar dislocation and having someone punch it back in the middle of nowhere and then you do a few months of 'push ups' (not even the right physical therapy for a lower back injury, in fact that will likely make your lower back worse) then you 'walk' back to civilization and manage to get back in better fighting condition then before the injury all in under 1 year. This hurts my head with how nonsensical and divorce from logic this was. For a series that attempted to base itself in realism it really shit the bed into fantasy with this last film.
shareBATMAN: Let's stop that nuclear bomb from killing everyone in Gotham! We only have, like, an hour.
GORDON: (muttering) I mean, we'd have a lot more than that if you hadn't spent twelve hours painting a fire-bat on a skyscraper across the river...
BATMAN: What was that?
GORDON: Nothing. Nevermind. Yeah! Let's go stop that bomb! (muttering) Jackass...
First of all we have no idea when he painting the gasoline bat symbol secondly that was needed to rally the people of Gotham against Bane and finally he probably couldn’t have reduced Gordon until that time because he was being kept inside surrounded by Banes army and the occupy Wall Street gang
shareGORDON: When did you paint that bat symbol thing up there, anyway!?
BATMAN: You were inside Gotham, protected by Bane's men. I can't siege the city. I was killing time until you were on the ice flow. I just got bored.
GORDON: Oh, okay. Well, if you couldn't get in, you couldn't get in. What can we do about the bomb now?
BATMAN: We stop Bane and the bomb! Let's go break into Gotham! There isn't a moment to lose!
You also have no idea how much time it took him to paint it, for a guy like Batman it probably wouldn't take that long so your complaint is still unwarranted.
shareGORDON: How long did it take you to paint that thing?
BATMAN: Not too long...
GORDON: There's a nuclear bomb in an island-city garrisoned by Bane and his men. A NUCLEAR BOMB could go off at any minute. How much time can you justify?
BATMAN: Three hours...
GORDON: Oh good. I'm soooo glad we have three hours less than we otherwise would have to stop a nuclear bomb, a roided up psychopath, and his army of fanatical ninjas.
BATMAN: Don't worry. I have a jewel thief in there. Plus Blake will probably have some good stuff planned. He's really good at guessing things with literally no evidence. Thank goodness the screenwriter wants him to be awesome.
You also have no idea how long Bruce had been back, for all you know he could have been investigating Bane's army and doing detective work for a day or so before he met Selina, during that time he could have spent 30 minutes or so painting the batsymbol, you are grasping at straws very pathetically and you have no justification for the poorly conceived scenario you just presented.
shareBATMAN: I don't care for these insinuations, Commissioner! I've been doing recon all day and figuring out patrols and stuff!
GORDON: So...you've been here for hours, you know the patrol routes, *then* you went outside and painted that bat up there and waited for us to get executed on the ice before lighting it up? When the whole time you could have used your knowledge of the city, the patrol patterns, and your superior fighting skills to free us *inside* the city and we'd be that much closer to the bomb?
BATMAN: ...shut up.
The batsymbol wouldn't have taken that much time and again you have no idea how long he had been back, I see no reason why him meeting with Selina is him just arriving, he most certainly would have done his homework on Bane's army it's well within his character. Overall you have no justification for your complaint.
shareGORDON: Okay, I'm still not clear on the timeline. Maybe you got here hours ago, found out about the army, then painted the bat-symbol, maybe you painted it first, then came over to help. What was it?
BATMAN: Nevermind. We have a nuclear bomb to dismantle!
GORDON: Yeah, I'd hate to WASTE TIME ON SOME FRIVOLOUS CRAP!
lol; yeah that was comical it was so poorly conceived. Something out of College Humor's Badman series.
Funny how some rapid toxic fans though defend this utter garbage; or is it that we "just don't get it" it is "far to brilliant for our small minds to comprehend". Just because The Dark Knight is a nearly perfect film doesn't mean that Rises is by default great or even good. Rises is a hot mess for anyone that is paying attention to anything even resembling logic and objectivity.
I mean, I can understand where somebody could dig the film and have enjoyed it. I don't get the fanaticism, though, and the insistence that the huge gaps - like Blake's guesswork on Batman's identity, the giant fire-bat, or the stock exchange mystery transactions being honoured - aren't a problem and the movie is perfect. It's not perfect! It has some cool action scenes! It also has plot holes and too many plot threads (Blake, Catwoman, Bane, Talia!) and a timeline that makes no sense (back broken - back fixed!) and that's okay. It's an action movie. It didn't live up to the promise of its predecessors. Let it go.
shareNo fanaticism, just debunking the idiotic, poorly thought out, bitchy nitpicks that the haters have pulled out of their anus's for the past 8 years.
shareMultiple plot holes about the stock exchange (central to Bane's plan), the character development (rushed exposition scenes), how Blake knows stuff (???), and how anatomy works (spine punch!) isn't "nitpicking".
"That's not how you spell anuses," is a nitpick.
No plot holes at all, Bane didn't need the stock exchange to work long term and it was never going to, just long enough for Bruce to tell Talia where the reactor was. No rushed character development, well executed and I have explained to you how Blake new stuff. Bruce only had a dislocated vertebrae and he did everything you are supposed to in order to heal, you also have no idea the extent of the damage so your premise is dismissed. I couldn't care less if I misspelled something as well, get over it.
shareYou might think you explained Blake's ESP, but it still seems like a kid saw Bruce Wayne once and immediately figured out in six seconds what every news outlet, detective, cop, mafioso, and mask wearing psycho in Gotham couldn't figure out for years.
As for the spine, Dr. Coleman here seems to know what he's talking about:
http://www.thegeektwins.com/2012/08/is-dark-knight-rises-broken-back.html
They clearly explained it you idiot and ESP was never even brought up nor was it needed, what you mean that a comic book movie isn’t 100 percent realistic , well that is something new to me because people certainly can fly into outerspace, become massively strong and green in a matter of seconds and shoot fire from their fingertips , you’re grasping very very desperately kid
shareWhat I mean is that there wasn't enough explanation that makes sense in the world established by Nolan's previous two films - which always touted their realism - as to how many, many things in this film could come about. I didn't find the characters to be written terribly well or the plot executed in such a way to explain certain circumstances or reactions (Bruce denying nothing to Blake, Blake knowing too much and acting on no evidence despite being a cop, what would realistically happen in a terrorist attack on the stock exchange, and what the US government would do in a seizure of a major city).
I don't need a movie (comic book or not) to be "realistic", but I need a fictional universe to set up rules and then obey them. I don't think this one did.
On top of that, I thought that, in and of itself, the film didn't make logical sense and had writing inadequacies like Blake's exposition-dump monologue to wand-wave a plot point through. Most writers don't do stuff like that because it isn't usually good writing practice (there are probably exceptions; this isn't one of them).
It was enough for it to make sense, you just don't seem to get it. TDKR was just as realistic as the other two films were, you complain and moan about the broken back yet in the first film he falls off of like a 4 story building and has no injuries. Blake was well written and I think you just want to hate on this movie so you can validate yourself. All rules established in this universe were obeyed and the film as a whole was well written.
shareHow would disliking this film but liking the other two bring me any kind of validation?
shareHaters were sad and bitter because the movie was great despite not having the Joker and for having themes and ideas that went way over their heads. They ignored the deep psychological battles going on inside of Bruce and instead chose to complain about there not being enough Batsuit scenes. You seem to be one of these individuals.
shareI didn't mind that the Joker wasn't going to be in the movie, and in fact, I was looking forward to it. I was disappointed by the film. I liked the setup for the psychological battle, I thought it got bogged down by incomprehensible logic and extraneous, half-baked plots. I have never complained about a lack of batsuit scenes here or elsewhere.
sharePlenty of people have complained about the lack of Batsuits and I'm trying to take you seriously but you keep demonstrating that you don't get it.
shareFeeling's pretty mutual. You ignore anything I say and just keep going back to the same points over and over. It doesn't matter how many times I try to explain myself, you just ignore it, often choosing to insult me. Is this being willfully obtuse? I can't tell.
This whole thing is pretty futile, though, so I'm signing off here. I'm done.
I've read everything you say and you've not really demonstrated you're capable of presenting a logical case.
shareExactly. It is an okay-ish movie. there are some redeeming qualities; but at best it is about average for superhero films and totally underwhelming (and poorly written) compared to the first 2. Such as DK is close to 10/10. Begins is around 8/10; solid action film but feels more like a long introduction and leaves something to be desired; feels like a prologue to DK. by that measure, Rises would be somewhere between 5 to 6/10. Which means it is not very good. the fanatic fans of this film are almost as bad as the TFA defenders.
Don't forgot the magic kneebrace that vanishes 1/3 into the movie and then somehow having his back broken magically replaced all the cartilage in his knee; if only I had known the cure to my knee problems was a broken back.
And the most frustrating part he heals his back, somehow gets back to Gothem from the middle of nowhere with no ID and no resources all in Under 1 year. The fanatics will tell you this is not a flaw (basically because "he's BATMAN!") but any measure of realism tells you this would not be possible in under a year (and The Dark Knight series billed itself as being based in realism). The frustrating thing about this is: There was no real reason to set a time limit of 1 year. That plot element didn't add anything; it just restricted the characters movements and amount of time they had (which I guess was supposed to up the stakes but it doesn't). If they gave Bruce an undisclosed amount of time to heal and get back to Gothem then there is no problem. And another thing; it does not feel like a year had gone by within Gothem; at best it looks like only a couple of months; that was also poorly executed.
And how about the last battle scene where everyone seemed to forget they had guns and tanks and shit. They fire about 10 shots then get into a huge fist fight. It was absolutely hilarious in a bad way.
Bruce wore long pants throughout the rest of the film, you have no way of knowing he didn't have the knee brace.
Bruce got around the world very well with no resources IN THE FIRST MOVIE!!! THAT'S BEFORE HIS LOS TRAINING! All he had to do was make it to the nearest embassy (there was a village nearby he very easily could have gotten a ride) and they would have made sure he got back to the US. This isn't a plot hole, getting back to Gotham is well within his character which you would know if you actually paid attention.
Bane's army kept fighting until the police reached them and then it became a brawl. Also you seem to forget that they threw tear gas at them meaning the mercenaries now wouldn't have know where to fire.
YOu seriously need to watch simpler movies to follow, it's beyond obvious you just don't get it.
You pretty much nailed it with that first paragraph: first two were great, third didn't live up to their promise. I think it's a testament to the first two films' execution that they are so well-received, too. They have their flaws and plotholes, but it's easier to overlook them because the movies are just better.
Ah, the kneebrace...kicks through brick walls. Use it against Bane? Nope.
You're bullseye again with the stuff about realism. One of the reasons I still prefer the Burton Batman films is because those have all the dark, brooding, psychological stuff, but he makes his world follow comic book rules. In Batman '89, the Joker shoots down the Batwing with a pants pistol. Do I question it? Nope. It's a comic book. In The Dark Knight Rises, I need more of an explanation for why he's got a firebat ready to go. It doesn't seem realistic. Batman Begins, I thought, actually did the best out of the trilogy for keeping it grounded (with the exception of the water-vaporiser), since some of the Joker stuff in The Dark Knight seemed less "realistic". Then TDKR went off the deep end...
Also: one year under martial law by a foreign power and the military have done nothing? One week and there'd be commando guys and CIA operatives swarming that place. You're right: it doesn't look like that long has passed.
Honestly, with some of the other plot points, the fistfight at the end didn't seem like that big of a deal. But, yeah, they should have done better there. They should have had Batman come up with a plan using all the nooks and crannies of the city to the cops' advantage. Batman knows Gotham. When he breathes, the city gets oxygen. His tactical know-how should have been what allowed them to get close enough to neutralise the arsenal Bane and the L of S had.
Dark knight does not have many plot holes, it is nearly perfect. I have tried really hard to point out flaws of this film and could not do it. For example 1 could say Joker's being 3 steps ahead of everyone is ridiculous because he is not psychic but then his plan fails at the end the people do not blow up the boats; so it demonstrates hubris on his part so his previous success rate is no longer a flaw because of this. I am biased too because I really preferred Jack Nicholson's Joker and really had a fondess for the 1989 Batman so I tried really hard to find flaws with Dark Knight; and there are not many. It is very tightly edited, pacing is almost perfect, the action sequences are great and intense, the performances across the board are great from everyone; it properly covers its themes without becoming self indulgent. It really is as close to filmmaking perfection as you can get.
Exactly; Batman 1989 you don't care about realism because it never tries to 'sell' realism. The Dark Knight series basically depends on the realism (it is part of the its fundamentals) so when it starts to become very fantastical it is much harder to tolerate it.
Yeah the one year under bomb threat was a total piece of contrived garbage; people would be going crazy, the entire city wouldn't been burned to the ground and the military would have invaded sent Seal Team in or something. Not just a few under covering FBI guys to get killed.
It was not the biggest plot hole, true; but oh man did it create a silly visual for the finale. All those guns and tanks and people start fist fighting like a bunch of jackasses; I laughed out loud in the theater, "use your guns you freaking morons". They're all just standing there in a column formation. you can easily kill 5 people with 1 bullet.
I think the Joker's plan is far-fetched, and it doesn't make any sense when you map it out. He would have to be psychic long before the boats didn't blow up. But Ledger rocked out hard (as did Nicholson (and now Phoenix!)) as the Joker and it was entertaining from moment to moment, so I give it a pass.
Yup. Bane would have had to deal with SEALs. I'm not saying he *couldn't*, just that he'd have to. If the SEALs failed, they would have absolutely sent in the army, though, and unless Bane has literally millions of guys...
Now, okay, maybe Bane would have just blown up the bomb at that point, but then that's the movie. One of my biggest problems with movies or TV shows is when characters aren't behaving in patterns established by the world of the film/TV show. So, when the US doesn't respond to Gotham being held hostage, you question the world of the film.
Yeah, it was like the quicksand in Star Wars. You have telekinesis, just pull out of the quicksand. It's not a huge deal, but it has you yelling at the screen (not literally, though; I wouldn't want to wreck the moviegoing experience for others).
That is what I mean though; it is not really a movie flaw (far fetched sure) but it is done for a story telling reason (it is hubris that defeats the joker) his successes went to his head at that point he thought he had it all figured out and he didn't. However you can make an argument it stretched the realism believably. His plan execution was just too perfect until that point for it to be 'realistic'; but as I said it served a purpose and actually the perfection and successes of his plans is what actually causes his ultimate failure.
Exactly; there is nothing to say that Bane wouldn't still have succeeded in his efforts against the US government but there would have been more aggressive moves made against him over a 1 year period. Can you imagine if terrorist somehow took over Manhattan how long they would be able to maintain control of it. A week? maybe a month at best if they were really talented and really resourceful? A year is about as believable as a flying space man with superhero strength. Might as well have thrown in Superman at that point, with out fantastical it has become. Like we said, that is not a problem if the trilogy was building itself in realism.
Exactly, as the writer you have control of what you characters are doing. Bane could not actually blow up the city before batman could get back to stop him but you can write out ways in which he is able to maintain control and prevent military engagement. Certainly not holding kangaroo courts that result in people marching on thin ice to their deaths. No government would tolerate that. So yeah it calls into question the believably of the universe they are in. Rises would work in the Man of Steel universe, it did not fit with the Dark Knight series.
Yeah, not really plot breaking but so silly it completely breaks immersion.
It would work in the Man of Steel universe, except that you would start to wonder why Wonder Woman didn't show up. Or the Flash. Or, heck, Superman himself.
I think that's precisely the difference between TDKR and BB/TDK: Rises breaks its own rules. The other two establish and adhere to the rules of their universes. So, The Joker can have a small amount of leeway with an unbelievably perfect plan because that's not less believable than a weaponized water vaporizer or childhood trauma victim becoming a ninja. But in the world of Batman where Bruce is as resourceful as he is, it's strange that he can't defend against the stock exchange thing. In a world where there are physical limitations to heroes, how his spine is healed is a mystery. In a world where they explain his gadgets, they don't explain how he paints that bat up there.
Well, I mean that argument can be made for almost all comics and comic book films; why didn't ironman and hulk come to help in winter soldier? Where was Hawke-eye? if you want to tolerate the stupidity of captain Marvel where was she for the majority of Phase 1 2 and 3? And Marvel was actually pretty good about these discrepancies, usually coming up with good excuses for the absences of the characters.
But yes, exactly; the rules are established a certain way by the first film and then reinforced throughout the 2nd. The 3rd basically shits the bed on these rules. Joker's seemingly brilliantly planned out schemes are no more 'rule breaking' than a weaponized steam hallucinogen. But yea, I didn't know that banks and stock brokers recognized and honor fraudulent transaction made under terrorist threats. The way they went about him 'losing everything' was fairly ridiculous. There had to be a more believable way to do that; and also, isn't Bruce only able to do the batman thing because of his nearly unlimited resources? You take that away how does he manage. For example the fuel for his jet alone would cost a fortune then getting the supply of it into the bat cat under discretion would be even more costly. How does he refuel that thing? There was just so much that hurts your brain with accepting the illogicality nature of things in this film if you actually think about them. I expect more from Nolan.
You clearly didn't pick up on the part where there was a nuclear bomb inside of Gotham and all the anonymous person had to do was push the trigger and 12 million people would have been dead, that's why the government didn't move in they couldn't risk all of those lives and they didn't know that the bomb was going to go off anyways. They delayed blowing up the city because they wanted Bruce to watch the city burn and sink into decay, Bane clearly explained this.
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
shareLmao you nailed it dude. There's no point arguing with MovieChatUser497, he's a fanatical TDKR fangirl. It doesn't matter how legit and fleshed out your criticisms are, he will just stick his fingers in his ears.
shareI know there's no point. I'm just kinda having fun. Especially writing new scenes.
shareHe is more than fanatical; I don't care if people call each other idiots; or they swear but you start making passive aggressive threats by asking for people personal information or address that is crossing the line for any type of internet discussion; if they don't know that (which I am sure they knew what they were doing) they don't belong in civilized internet discussion. I have them ignored now but I really think that is grounds for having their account permanently suspended. I have received warnings from the moderators for just calling people "assholes"; threatening someone is way, way over the line.
shareAgreed. Threatening people is not cool (even if it is just internet bluster).
shareexactly; I would never no matter how irritated I am without someone ask for their address; that is like basically saying "I am going to harm you if you know where you are". Totally inappropriate. It is the internet, there are so many weirdos and crazies out there, there is no way you can know what type of person you are dealing with on an anonymous discussion site; and when someone is acting like a fanatical zealot, it heightens ones sense of caution. You don't ask for people's PII on the internet, so incredibly inappropriate. That is the equivalent of you having an argument with a co-worker and them saying "where do you live". You do that you get fired real fast.
shareI never once threatened him, I made a joke that he should send me his address and I'll mail him my VHS of Batman Forever, I never expected him to comply. Even if I did that wasn't a threat, I never once said I had any intention to do him harm. It was just a harmless jab at him, he on the other hand has used profanity against me and I normally wouldn't care but since he wants to play the victim he needs to take a good hard look at himself.
shareI finally bowed out of the conversation (although I'm not sure it really was much of a conversation). I got well bored of it. It crossed the threshold between amusing and tiring.
shareIt's fun dismantling his arguments for a little bit but then you realize you're arguing with a brick wall. Apparently he's on the spectrum so that might explain the constant repetition.
shareOh, really? If that's true, I feel a little bad. Although it does explain why I found myself trying desperately to spell out what sarcasm meant.
shareThere's no way to detect sarcasm by reading genius. Talking to you is like talking to my hand, no matter how much logic and reason I through at you it doesn't seem to matter as you are obsessed with your flawed reasoning.
shareYep, he admitted it to me in a previous post after I had to explain the same thing to him several times. I also felt sorry for him at first but being autistic is not an excuse for being an aggressive asshole and refusing to concede logical points.
shareTDKR was about Bruce letting go of his pain and anger and being able to move beyond Batman and have a life for himself just like Alfred wanted him to. It’s what the whole franchise was building up to. Pay attention next time. This clearly went right over your head.
There are no plot holes either in TDKR, that’s just a code name haters give to anything they don’t like or are too stupid to figure out.
I would ignore MovieChatUser497; look at the other discussion I had with them; immediate ad hominem attacks and flaming followed up by them asking for my personal address (which is a from of threat in online discussion). I have ignored them and asked the moderators to look into their account. Totally inappropriate behavior. This person should be removed from the site.
shareLol for liking this movie? You have issues. Grow a pair and get over it I didn’t threaten you and it was clearly a joke, anyone with a halfway functioning brain could have understood that but if it bothers so you much I’ll delete the comment.
shareNo not for liking a movie; for not being able to maintain a simple argument without flaming and insulting; resorting immediately to ad hominems; then when called out on the poor argumentation and dumb points you become inflamed increasing the insults and then going in for actual threats. It doesn't matter if you are joking, I have no way of knowing if your asking for my address is joke; there is no way for such a thing to be clear to me; though I seem to be in your head I don't actually know your thoughts or your state of mind.
you want to see me "grow a pair" you should see what I would do to you if I thought you actually did pose a threat to me or my family.
"but if it bothers so you much I’ll delete the comment."
you are not deleting it because it bothers me, you know that the moderators will see it as a threat too so you are deleting it before they see it. Damn I wish I would have taken a screenshot of it. now let's get you back on my ignore list.
I thought you blocked me? Oh well and no you are just getting pissy because I like the movie and am willing to call you out for not understanding it, I have demonstrated repeatedly that you don’t get it so my point is valid. You are just pitching a fit over that joke because you know you can’t debate the facts and you have to deflect to something else, it’s very pathetic on your part , how is mailing someone a vhs a threat ? Explain that one to me?
TDKR is a great film and you're just bitter because you don't get it yet it got great reviews.
Don't worry, MovieChatUser497 has a history of insulting people when they expose the shitty plot and flaws of TDKR. He likes to pretend that TDKR has depth when the movie is actually made for the average schmo hence the lazy script writing. It's chock full of plot-holes and bad dialogue.
shareI don’t know if there’s ever been a ‘great’ comic book movie. The Dark Knight was pretty good but I’ve enjoyed several over the years since about as much.
shareIt depends on what you mean by "Great" movie. There have been some Comic book movies that even if they weren't comic book movies are damn near perfect action films; The Dark Knight and Captain America Winter Soldier are legitimately great action films even if looked at independently of the comic book background. The pacing, the editing, the action sequences, the plot, editing, villains and intrigue topped of with some unexpected twists and turns and meaningful reveals. Logan I don't know if is fully an action film; but it is also a great film.
I would say there are some Great comic book movies, Dark Knight Rises is NOT one of them though. It is the button 50 percentile (at best).
It's not even close to the bottom 50 percentile.
shareIt would be interesting to try to rank them fully. I am not even sure how many CB films there are in total. Dark Knight Rises is clearly better than Justice League or BvS or Suicide Squad or Superman 3 and 4 or Blade 2 and 4. But it is also way worse than Guardians of the galaxy, Batman Begins and Dark knight; Avengers and infinity war, Xmen 1, 2, Days of Future. It is maybe on par with Black panther, Xmen First Class, Man of Steel or The Shadow (but all of these are near the center). Which are not very good films but they have some redeeming qualities. The Dark Knight Rises by my best guess among the button half. But if I took the time to rate ALL of the comic book films it might be in top 50 but I don't suspect it would be much better than the 60 percentile. It is a very overrated film and a very weak follow up/conclusion for the Dark Knight Trilogy.
if I had more time I would put an entire list together and rank them and sort them. I am fairly certain if I listed it out Rises would fall closer to the bottom than the top.
Here is an interesting statistic. Lets take the top ten rated comic book films by people vs critics.
Top 10 among people. I used imdb since it is the largest user based voting website. Top ten greatest to least.
The Dark Knight 9.0/10 2,219,416 votes https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/
Joker 8.5/10 811,185 votes https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7286456/
Avengers Infinity War 8.5/10 781,070 votes https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4154756/
The Dark Knight Rises 8.4/10 1,467,166 votes https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1345836/
Avengers Endgame 8.4/10 729,627 votes https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4154796/
Spider-man Into the Spider-verse 8.4/10 322,847 votes https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4633694/
V For Vendetta 8.2/10 1,000,423 votes https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0434409/
Batman Begins 8.2/10 1,266,171 votes https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372784/
Logan 8.1/10 619,092 votes https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3315342/
This last spot is a tie. Sin City, Guardians of he Galaxy, The Avengers, X-men Days of Future Past all with an 8.0/10 Sin City has 730,817 votes, Avengers has 1,234,265 votes, Guardians of the Galaxy has 1,015,463 votes, and X-men Days of Future Past has 646,338 votes.
Now we will do the critics list. To be continued.
I included Rottentomatoes and metacritic in no particular order.
Superman the movie Tomato meter 94% average score 8.0/10 top critics 7.6/10 metacritic 80/100
Spider-man 2 Tomato meter 93% average score 8.3/10 top critics 8.3/10 metacritic 83/100
The Dark Knight Tomato meter 94% average score 8.5/10 top critics 8.1/10 metacritic 84/100
The Avengers Tomato meter 92% average score 8.0/10 top critics 7.5/10 metacritic 69/100
The Dark Knight Rises Tomato meter 87% average score 7.9/10 top critics 7.6/10 metacritic 78/100
Black Panther Tomato meter 97% average score 8.2/10 top critics 8.7/10 metacritic 88/100
Logan 93% average score 7.9/10 top critics 7.7/10 metacritic 77/100
Spider-man Into the Spider-verse tomato meter 97% average score 8.7/10 top critics 8.2/10 metacritic 87/100
Avengers Endgame 94% average score 8.2/10 top critics 7.7/10 metacritic 78/100
This last spot is a tough one much like the user list.
Superman 2, Iron Man, Captain America Winter Soldier, Guardians of the Galaxy, X-men Days of Future Past, Captain america civil war, and Avengers Infinity war are almost identical in both Rottentomatoes and metacritic scores. I mean give or take but all these films are in the same ballpark is why I could not really dwindle it down.
With that said looks a bit different either when factoring both groups in. Anyways your lumping of Man of Steel and The Dark Knight Rises together I found puzzling. Man of Steel comes nowhere close to any of the films listed above whether it be by users or critics. It got slammed by critics and only decently received by users albeit nowhere close to being top ten critically or by the mass majority. The Dark Knight Rises checks out on the top 10 with both groups. Man of Steel, X-men, X-men 2, The Shadow do not check out on the top 10 with any group.
For your first polling from imdb that is 100% not valid data to use for determination of quality. The mass polling and numbers have all sorts of factors that inflate or deflate a score.
For the 2nd group of poles if you break down all of them and then average the scores between audience and critical rating Dark Knight rises comes in right around x men and x 2 and under Days of future pass. I do not think those are considered the best CB films. So maybe those are say the 80th percentile range. If Rises comes in under those it puts it in the 70th percentile range. Now remove the inflation from mindless Nolan Fan boys that rate anything he does 10/10 then you get a more realistic number putting it somewhere in the 60%. I would have to do a full list; there are literally hundreds of comic book films; many of which are better than rises (and many are worse). The problem I have with Rises is the rating is obviously being inflated and the massive gaping flaws of the film are being overlooked or too quickly forgiven. This means that the rating of the film is not accurate to the actual quality of the film.
First I was using imdb because it has the largest amounts of votes for users. However if we want to break it down to users on Rottentomatoes and metacritic I can do that as well. Also no X-men Days of Future Past is considered a very good comic book film top 5? No but it could make the bottom half of a top ten comic book film. It checks out both by users and by critics.
The Dark Knight Rottentomatoes users 4.4/5 1831566 ratings metacritic user score 9.0/10 5784 ratings
Joker Rottentomatoes users 4.4/5 66291 ratings metacritic users 9.0/10 66291 ratings
Spider-man into the Spider-verse Rottentomatoes users 4.5/10 19713 ratings metacritic 8.7/10 1512 ratings
Avengers Infinity War Rottentomatoes users 4.4/10 58319 ratings metacritic 8.7/10 3695 ratings
Batman Begins Rottentomatoes users 4.3/10 1114870 ratings metacritic 8.6/10 2331 ratings
Captain America Winter Solider Rottentomatoes users 4.3/10 282137 ratings metacritic 8.5/10 2314 ratings
Logan Rottentomatoes users 4.3/5 92615 ratings metacritic 8.4/10 2414 ratings
Guardians of the Galaxy Rottentomatoes users 4.4/10 255387 ratings metacritic 8.5/10 3184 ratings
X-men Days of Future Past Rottentomatoes users 4.3/5 276984 ratings metacritic 8.3/10 2162 ratings
Iron Man Rottentomatoes users 4.2/10 1082779 ratings metacritic 8.5/10 2158 ratings
X-men Days of Future Past is actually considered a very solid comic book film. It is definitely on the bottom tier of the top ten but as you can see it is possible for it to make the top ten. TDKR beats X-men, the Shadow and Man of Steel by a rather considerable margin. Also technically it really is neck and neck with the Avengers which often gets touted as one of THE go to comic book films.
The Dark Knight Rises Rottentomatoes users 4.3/5 1211592 ratings metacritic 8.2/10 4215 ratings
The Avengers Rottentomatoes users 4.4/5 1135724 ratings metacritic 8.0/10 4042 ratings
As you can see it is basically a tie. TDKR might have a slight marginal edge. So close I can call it a tie.
X-men 2 only beats TDKR and Avengers in user score on Metacritic. To be continued.
Avengers can be argued as being in the top 10. It checks out critically and by users. Thing is so does TDKR. Even if you omit imdb. So as I said before I do believe it would fall into top 10 far before the bottom 50 percent.
When it came to measuring Rottentomatoes I go by the average score by critics or users rather than the tomato meter. It to me is a much better indicator of quality than the tomato meter. For instance Spy Kids is not better than Terminator 2, Blade Runner or Heat but it has a higher tomato meter. However when checking average scores the result is flipped. Spy Kids has nowhere close to the average score those films have, whether it be be the audience/users or the critics.
The point I am making is that the audience scores for big blockbusters like this are always inflated. Especially when there is a lot hype and dedicated (fanatic) fanbase. The Nolan fanboys on Imdb were getting banned for having dozens of sock accounts they were using to inflate the score. Any audience score giving it 10/10 has to be called into question. It not even close to justified getting a perfect score, one could make an argument no film should get a perfect score, but IMO Dark Knight was at least close to deserving it. Rises was not even in the same universe of quality of Dark Knight.
So my issue with these scores is they are obviously inflated and not a true indication of where the film falls. I might be biased in saying it belongs in the bottom 50 percentile but any objective view of the film itself would it does not belong too far away from the 50th percentile; maybe slightly above it; maybe if really generous you can push it to 70th percentile. But even Batman 1989 and the first Blade film are better films (yet have lower audience ratings, why? because of the hype crowd that didn't exist in the 80's and 90's, and no internet). So the scores when compared to pre-internet films are not good measures at all.
Superman the movie, Spider-man 2, Sin City, Batman Begins, the dark Knight and Logan are great. There are several great comic book films outside of those also.
shareFunny, I agree on all except Spider-man 2; I hated that film. I think I hated that film more than Rises. So much sappy and boring shit and that movie, the pacing is terrible (at a snail pace until the last 30 minutes, then it is at sonic speed). The villain wasn't very compelling; they did not show nearly enough of his struggle with control or demonstrate that the reason he lost control to the arms was because part of him wanted it (no dissection of his obsession) so he ended up being underwhelming. Then there is just way too much time spent on Peter Parker/Mary Jane romance, Peter Parker not wanting to be spider man (after only being spider man for like a couple of years at best, not even equivalent of an active duty contract) and then not nearly enough time on Harry Osborne's growing obsession with revenge (it took up a grand total of 10 to 15 minutes of screen time in a nearly 2.5 hour long film).
Maybe what I find frustrating about is, with the elements they were working with there was a lot of potential but they choose to focus on sappy melodrama instead of compelling suspense.
I disagree completely about Spider-man 2. I like the fact that it showcases the true struggles of dealing with the burden of being a hero. Yes he has not been Spider-man long but that is part of the charm of seeing him man up to the responsibilities. Becoming a hero often times is so glamorized it makes it seem like it is a cake walk. Everyone is human and wants their needs met but taking on such responsibility it is hard to strike the balance between the two. This was not Harry's story really. I get the fact that you wanted more of his revenge story but why not judge what was there as opposed to what you prefer happen? The sequence where Doc Ock wakes up in the hospital is truly amazing and terrifying. Raimi's evil dead roots on full display in that scene. Elfman's score I love as well. I don't know I like superhero films that have magic and heart in them. In my book this is the closest magical cinematic feeling we got from a superhero since the Donner era. Actually maybe I enjoy that Superman 2 and Spider-man 2 deal with very similar story themes and blueprints.
share"showcases the true struggles of dealing with the burden of being a hero."
That is just way too melodramatic for me and IMO does not reflect real people's struggles. There are real hero's in life, law enforcement, military etc; they serve for much longer periods of time and don't have this "my life is so hard" type of melodrama. I think it is a cliche plot device to create artificial drama in a story.
"This was not Harry's story really. I get the fact that you wanted more of his revenge story but why not judge what was there as opposed to what you prefer happen?"
Yes, but what I mean is; they spent about 3/4 of the film on the Peter Parker/Spiderman responsibility and the Mary Jane romance melodrama and then 1/4 on action and villains. It made the film drag in its pacing and nothing really interesting was happening very often. Then they dramatically change the pacing for the last 30 minutes and it turns into super action. Jarring to say the least. I wish they divided the time more evenly is all I am saying.
"The sequence where Doc Ock wakes up in the hospital is truly amazing and terrifying. "
Agreed, that was a really good scene. Spiderman 2 does have some really good scenes in it. Especially when Doc Ock and spiderman are fighting. Very well done, it is a shame there was not a little more of that.
"Actually maybe I enjoy that Superman 2 and Spider-man 2 deal with very similar story themes and blueprints."
You know I will say this, Superman 2 and Spider-man 2 do deal with a similar theme; but IMO Superman 2 balances it soooo much better and has much better pacing. Spider-man 2 I think 'indulges' in the drama too much, if that makes sense.
There are heroes in real life but how many people are heroes? You measured it statistically? Some people do not have the melodrama of my life is hard but there are those of us that do struggle with that. It is a very relatable thing actually. Superman 2 deals with this theme, even The Dark Knight deals with it as well. Not wanting to carry on being the hero, the burden is too much, putting their life and romance life on hold etc. I think you just do not like how long this took up of the film. To say it is unrealistic puzzles me.
Hmm well to be honest I kind of like the slower pace to make you care about the action scenes. Honestly it is one thing I am tired of about the MCU. A lot of the films have break neck pacing. Often times without any memorable scenes to boot. It did not bother me but I can see you wanting it more even.
I guess I feel like we got plenty of action throughout the film. The Doc Ock hospital scene, the bank heist, the train sequence with dock ock all filled my cup of action needs up just fine.
I get you there. Superman 2 is not quite as schmaltzy about it.
I have many friends and family in Military, Law enforcement and first responders. I myself was in the military (long time ago). I have never known any of them to struggle with this idea of "life is so hard to be a hero" not in this melodramatic way, this idea of not wanting to carry on just does not apply to 'real' heroes(who treat it more almost desensitized like its just a job) and it comes across as sappy and difficult to watch for 2 and half hours. It is not just that it took but too much of the film; I think it really hinders the pacing as well. But you might be right; I might have just so 'annoyed' by the melodrama and how much of it there was that I view the film extra harshly; objectively it may be better than I think or remember (i did only watch it one time when it came out in theaters so that was a while ago). BTW I disagree with The Dark Knight being about not wanting to carry on, he did want/need to carry on (as proved by Rachel's letter to him) He was not struggling with being a hero and not wanting to carry on; the violence and people dying was pushing him to his limits, that is different from wanting to quite
I don't mind slower pace building to action; but it is what they are doing in Spiderman 2 that causes the slower pace, spending so much time on the 2 topics of him not wanting to carry on and his interest in romance is all that was happening to cause the pacing to slow to a crawl, IMO that is not a good justification for slowing the pace that much.
I would agree if the film was an hour and half long; the action was very good and satisfying; the film though should have kept those and cut down the run time and better edit the 'drama' so it was not so self indulgent. At least that is IMO; I can't honestly say if I am objectively right or if this was just a subjective preference.
Yeah; Superman 2 handles the drama better and it does not feel melodramatic. I think you get why I didn't like Spiderman 2 but it is totally cool that you did.
Okay one that is anecdotal, second he kind of felt like he owed it to his Uncle Ben to be a hero. A way to make up for past sins so to speak. It was not exactly the job he did completely by his own free will. I mean he did make the decision but only after a tragic event. Then why did Bruce say to Rachael you remember that day you told me about where Gotham would no longer need Batman it is coming? He also said you said that when the day came when I was finished we would be together did you mean it? He was wanting to give up being Batman. In the end of course he didn't and we saw he needed to be the hero but that dialogue illustrates he did not want to continue doing it. He wanted to stop asap. It is not as drawn out as Spider-man 2 but it is still there. So while I get your beef with it I disagree there.
Okay I get you there.
Subjectively I totally can see cutting down the time.
I can agree here I actually really like Superman 2. Even though we do not fully agree I can respect your view nice points.
Point one is not a great counter to my point. If I have known literally hundreds of military and law enforcement and none of them experience this 'struggle with carry on' that is not anecdotal that is a sample size. Of that sample size, literally zero people I have know suffer from this type of 'I just can't carry on' attitude. Because we look at it as "it is our job" attitude so it is NOT optional.
Your 2nd point is much better; I can see that he did not actually want to be a hero based on that but did it out of guilt and that could lead to a struggle to carry on. If that was the case though I wish they would have explored it more in the movie. Instead they focus on his wanting a romance with Mary Jane (which is melodramatic) and his personal difficulty (the job's too hard) with it (which is also pretty melodramatic). If they would have taken some of the (extremely long) runtime for him to explore the idea of 'have I done enough to earn my repentance' sort of idea now that would be interesting. But as I remember it, they did not explore that.
Or instead of cutting down the time, explore some more deeper themed concepts like the idea of earning repentance. If they would have been exploring that the runtime could have been justified; but IMO not with the 2 things they did focused on. IMO it was just to melodramatic and sappy (and self indulgent).
I think spiderman 2 I am a little too harsh on; I just really had a bad experience watching it. I rolled my eyes too much, sort of speak, and had this "okay I get, now let's move one" type of response to most of the scenes which I felt where dragging. I get where you are coming from and it is cool that you get me too; I think this is a good respectful disagreement. :)
The Dark Knight Rises isn't even a good comic book movie let alone a great one. So, the answer to your question is no before you even asked it.
shareBy who's standard is it not good? Do you determine that all by yourself?
shareTotally wrong it’s one of the greatest films ever made. You just want to hate it because it didn’t have the Joker yet was still great and it’s the cool thing to do
shareUgh...please let them all die.
shareLogan is the best comic book movie, and it came out after Dark Knight Roses. So
sharefalse
It was a terrible movie. One of the worst CBMs.
Not even close, in my opinion it is the greatest comic book movie ever followed closely by The Dark Knight and then Batman Begins.
shareMy opinion isn't even close?
Were you young enough to own action figures when it came out?
You said it was a terrible movie and I said not even close. It's a great movie, it was deep, thought provoking and ending the trilogy in a very satisfying manner. It is definitely the greatest conclusion to any trilogy and the greatest comic book movie ever.
LOL you still play with action figures.
I find your opinion to be the exact opposite of mine.
I wish I still had my action figures. I'm sure that if I was 10 when TDKR came out, I would have had the figures, played with them, and loved this garbage movie. Nostalgia is powerful. Look at how many younger people like the SW prequels.
First of all the SW prequels are the Godfather compared to the trash Disney has put out and they really aren't that bad, secondly TDKR is great even beyond the nostalgia. TDKR relied on it's story and it's characters, not a bunch of quips and references to what came before it. It was a great conclusion to one of the greatest trilogies ever made (and in my opinion the GREATEST trilogy ever made)
shareI don't feel bad about thinking the opposite. I had a feeling about you and the preqs.
One more thing ... Do you think that it was a great conclusion to one of the greatest trilogies ever made?
I never said the prequels were great, they are not as good as the OT but they aren't horrible , the Disney films are horrible.
Yes I do, it was definitely the best theater experience I ever had, when I got home that night I didn't fall asleep until 5AM because I couldn't stop thinking about how amazing TDKR was.