I personally think it was.
shareFalse. It's chock full of plot-holes and bad dialogue. And Bale absolutely sucked as Batman with that stupid throat cancer voice. One of the worst conclusions to a trilogy. Ever.
shareFALSE...ITS NOT GREAT AND THERE HAVE BEEN SOME GREAT ONES SINCE.
shareLogan - personally this is my favourite all-time superhero film, if not comic book movie.
Deadpool
Joker
Nope.
In fact...I don't even think TDKR was a great comic book movie in and of itself. I thought it had a strong start and a fun finish but a sloppy second act.
We're up to 10-2 against. Plus one person who said that comic book movies just need to go away, which isn't really in either camp, although he clearly disagrees with the statement that TDKR is a great comic book movie.
shareIt was a flavor of the month movie. It rode on the coattails of The Dark Knight, but now everyone sees it for what it is - an overrated mess with plot-holes you can drive a prince truck through.
shareI didn't really like it the first time I saw it. It felt rushed and directionless. It made me honestly wonder if Nolan had a plan that involved the Joker and he tried to stick to the plan anyway even after Ledger's death, resulting in this muddled mess. I did really like the first scenes setting up recluse Wayne and this sorrow in Gotham, but after that it turned to junk.
share^This, I too picked up on the directionless-ness of the plot the first time I saw it in theaters. I think Ledger's death and Nolan not being 'able' to recast it really screwed with his vision for the way the series would be completed. It will always be one of those things: "What if?"
shareLedger's loss was huge. For this series and for the amazing places he was clearly going. RIP.
shareYeah, I try not to hype him up too much because he really only had 2 or 3 good roles and 1 great role before he departed; but in those good roles he showed a lot of promise. I didn't like him at first, in things like 10 things I hate about you, knight's tale or The Patriot. But he started to come around; he was great in The Brother's Grimm (terrible movie but what an interesting performance he gave), and then of course he blew us all away with The Joker performance. So it is tragic we will never really know what could have been.
shareHave you seen The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus? I'm a big Gilliam fan and that one reminded me (overall) of The Adventures of Baron Munchhausen, and I think it's a fine performance by Ledger as a leading man, but with a twist.
Yeah, Brothers Grimm was all sorts of mixed bag. I loved the lead performances and it made a lot of sense when I found out that they were cast in the opposite roles and each asked Gilliam if they could switch; he went against type and rolled with it and the results were one of that movie's only grace points.
I liked those three films a lot, but yeah, there wasn't anything exceptional about his performance in them (maybe in 10 Things), but to be fair, A Knight's Tale was (I thought) an awesome sports movie/ parody of a sports movie and Ledger's role didn't "require" anything special of him - the supporting cast were the stars, if you take my meaning.
Yes, he was okay in it but a little too over the then combine that with the oddity of the way they filled in the gaps caused by his scenes not being complete; maybe it could have been much better; but instead it kind of came off incoherently.
Yes, the film itself was a flimsy one to say the least; but Ledger's performance not only stole the show but is one of the only reasons the film is even watchable.
That is true; you can say that they were 'dull' roles to begin with; he didn't have any real material to excel with; but that is IMO what separates a great actor from a good actor. A Great actor can take a role or movie that is bad and really make something of it; the example that comes to mind is Hopkins in Meet Joe Black; can you imagine how dull and uninteresting the film and role of William Parrish would be if Hopkins was not just a wonder of an actor? If Ledger was a great actor he would take roles that weren't very good and make them great. However in his defense he was just starting to 'come into his own' so he had potential.
My concern is that he gets additional recognition only because of his untimely tragic death. Dying tragically does not mean someone was great at their job by default. But people have a tendency to think that way. he was good, had potential to be great but it was unfulfilled because of his passing.
It's certainly the case that he gets extra cred because of his tragic death. I feel this way about Kurt Cobain. I respect Cobain and Nirvana for what they were, but Cobain regularly makes top guitarist lists. Top 100 Guitarists Ever! says Rolling Stone. Meanwhile Django Reinhardt didn't make the cut. What?
So, yes, I'd say Ledger got extra points for that.
Those actors who can take "ordinary" roles and make them sing are almost all found in stuff like Coen Brothers films or other indie stuff. John Turturro, for instance, or Steve Buscemi. Or how about Sam Rockwell? I hear what you're saying. Yeah, if Ledger were the real god, he would have stolen A Knight's Tale out from under everybody even though they got all the funny lines.
that is a good comparison with Kurt Cobain; he wasn't even a good guitar player honestly; his stuff is fundamentally rudimentary; I play guitar and the stuff I come up with is way more complex. He gets too much credit for dying young and also creating a very unique sound (grunge rock). He was talented don't get me wrong; but he was not a strong guitar player.
True on those counts Turturro, Buscemi and Rockwell (although the latter is a bit of a type cast today) have proved they can do more with less then Ledgar could, then again I just watched Mr. Right and found it unbearable (not even Rockwell could save that one. But yes, I think get my point; if Ledger was as great an actor as he has been hyped up to have been he would have 'owned' A Knight's Tale instead of being an after thought of the film. But then he was still coming into his own he had potential to be great but he was not quite there yet.
Yup. Like, as a player, he's fine, he holds his end of the trio down, he makes it do what it needs to, but he didn't demonstrate something special, like something that Carlos Santana has where the whole instrument is just lit up.
Yeah, a great actor can be in a bad movie, but the actor's always good. I maintain that proof of Jeremy Irons' skill need be looked for in Dungeons & Dragons. Only a true champs knows how to eat that much scenery.
That waste of potential was what made Ledger's death so tragic. He was given "pretty boy" roles for most of his life, then he started to push with Brothers Grimm, Doctor Parnassus, The Dark Knight...heck, even I'm Not There was a riskier project than some might have tried, even if his role wasn't that far outside of "heartthrob". He was taking chances and rolling dice and it would have been exciting to watch him continue.
Anton Yelchin, too. That guy was magic in everything. Have you seen Thoroughbreds? Or Green Room?
Oh yes; Santana is easily a top 5 of all time players; Cobain I wouldn't even count in the top 500; from what I have seen of him I can play better than him and I am not a professional. But he did have a unique sound and was creative I will give him that; he knew how to put the music together; he just was not an impressive guitar player. Not even really a good singer either he just had a very unique voice.
Yup exactly. Iron's is a great actor; I have not seen D & D but I did watch Assassin's Creed; Fassbender and Iron's (even Gleeson) are actually great in it despite it being an absolutely mind numbingly stupid film.
I did watch I'm Not There very strange film; but in that role he was basically the "pretty boy" as you said. again the actors that were impressive in that film were Blanchett and Whishaw; everyone else was more or less 'doing what they always do' if that makes sense.
Honestly I have not seen Anton Yelchin in much but I have heard he was really good in many of the "non-blockbuster" franchise films he was in. I'll have to get around to more of his stuff eventually so I can assess for myself. Still he was an even more tragic death; younger and such a freak horrific accident.
Check out Green Room and Thoroughbreds for sure. Yelchin's great in those. Charlie Bartlett was pretty good, too.
shareI will try but man I am struggling to make time to watch a whole movie. I only get about 10 to 15 minutes uninterrupted at time for years now, and it will likely remain like this for years to come. I don't like watching movies in 10 to 15 minute segments; I want to watch the whole thing; and there is just not too many realistic times where I have 2 hours straight I can spare
shareI feel ya. It's hard to carve out the time. I don't like watching films in increments, either, unless it's only a mediocre movie (in which case, I don't bother - time's too precious).
There are rare exceptions. Inglourious Basterds, for example, is best when viewed in one go, but because of its "Chapter 1" stuff, it kinda plays okay in installments. But those are rare.
If you're fighting for time, I'm not sure I would prioritize Green Room and Thoroughbreds.
Right now I am trying to show my wife the Mad Max films (we are about halfway through the Road Warrior) she never seen them. It took 3 settings to get through Mad max and likely 2 to get through the road warrior. I hate having to do it this way but we just don't have time to dedicate 2 hours to any one thing.
I am also playing Oblivion occasionally right now; hard to play an immersive game like that when you get interrupted every 10 minutes.
Yeah, Elder Scrolls, Fallout, and games like that are long time investments. That sucks.
shareIt is alright; I have 3 kids now so the trade off is worth it. I love being parent and having fun with the kids; but it also means (for a gamer) you have to sort of minimize doing some of the gaming you like.
shareThat is complete and total speculation not based in any kind of reality. After TDK ended he was focused on Inception and not a sequel, it wasn't until years after Ledger's death that he decided to make a sequel. I highly doubt the Joker ever would have played a major role even if Ledger hadn't died, TDK didn't depend on the success of Batman Begins, it stood on its own, TDKR stood on its own without the Joker and I fully believe it would have even if Ledger were still alive. It wasn't directionless, it was constantly building towards the pay off at the end, I'm happy to educate you and explain the movie to you but you're going to have to have an open mind and not automatically hate the movie just to hate it. Also it's very obvious now that you just wanted to see the Joker again and that's why you hate on TDKR, you're not being objective.
shareYou see, now I am torn; you have been such an unreasonable ass in this conversation I don't know if it is even worth attempting to discuss anything with you.
BTW, I don't care about Ledger's joker; I still prefer Nicholson. But even Nolan himself admitted that he intended on having the Joker in part 3 and he was a central figure to the original plan and that Nolan had change alot around to 'cut' the joker out. And it shows in the product. My take on TDKR is very objective leaning (I make a real effort to separate my subjective take and my objective review). Objectively TDKR is serviceable a solid 6/10; maybe 7/10 if I want to be generous; there are some real bad hiccups in the writing (as I and others have pointed out multiple times ie the magical knee brace that vanishes halfway through the film; the magical healing back ( it take more than a few months of physical therapy to heal a lower lumbar dislocation) etc. On their own these poorly executed writing hiccups would not 'break' the film but they certainly cause a problem with continuity of our willing suspension of belief as established by the first 2 films. In short they mess with immersion into the story which can be detrimental to the enjoyment and appreciation of the things it does well.
Now subjectively; the film was utterly disappointing and not a 'worthy' successor to TDK. My subjective enjoyment would lower my 'objective' score to about a 4 or 5 out of 10. So it is a film I did not like at all.
Or a way of saying it; it was a serviceable enough film that I really didn't like.
Link to the interview where he said that, because everything I've read said that he had no plans to make a 3rd film until after he was done with Inception and by that point Ledger had been dead for years. I see no evidence that the Joker was ever supposed to play any part in TDKR. Objectively it's a 6/10??? Irony alert as that is your subjective opinion, I think it's a 10/10. I'd like you to prove there is an objective formula to determine the scale of a film and I'd like to know how that was determined. Until you can do that all you have is subjectivity.
Also the knee brace didn't vanish, Bruce had long pants on the remainder of the film it's within reason he is still wearing the knee brace, for your point to be valid you'd have to demonstrate he didn't have it on which you can't.
It took several months for his back to heal, and he popped it back into place and then had plenty of rest which is what you're supposed to do.
TDKR did not require any more of a suspension of disbelief than the other two films (heck Bruce dives off of like a 4 story building in the first one and doesn't get injured at all), it's perfectly consistent.
So yeah your complaints have been debunked once again and FYI flaming is against group rules
I'll probably regret this but lets humor; first all I will admit I was wrong it was not Nolan that 'planned' joker being in the 3rd film it was Goyer (the writer, I confused his statements with Nolan's). Here are a few articles that discuss this:
https://www.cbr.com/movie-legends-revealed-did-ledgers-death-alter-plans-for-joker-in-dark-knight-rises/
https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a859065/heath-ledger-joker-batman-sequel-dark-knight-rises/
https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/little-known-sci-fi-fact-heres-what-nolan-originally-planned-his-batman-trilogy
There are more; search google a bit; by all account and 'inside info' it was expected Joker would be back in the 3rd film. That changed and with it the entire plot of Rises changed from what was 'planned' at the start.
Now on objectivity; before I break down the merit based criteria of writing, pacing, character development, direction, cinematography, choreography, continuity, consistency, music, framing, editing, acting, production value, set design, special effects etc (and how each is criteria is weighted) I would like to understand your contention. Is it your belief that there is NO objectivity in determination of quality of art (film)? Is it 100% subjective?
On the knee brace; so Bane removed literally all pieces of his armor but left his super magic knee brace? is that your argument? do you realize how utterly ridiculous that sounds. If Bane did then why break his back and leave him in the pit? was he planning on Bruce healing enough rise out? Wow he has more forward thinking than even joker had.
Lol, let us see how fast you are back in fighting condition after a lower lumbar spinal dislocation (which most likely will herniate the spinal disk). My Father had a similar injury in his 30'(mid back for him) it took him almost 10 years of physical therapy before he was declared fully healed. You are clearly not a doctor. out of space to be continued...
Read your article again it makes it quite clear that in 2008 there were no plans for a 3rd movie, the quote you are probably referring to was just speculation back in 2005 if they ever made it to a 3rd movie. Your second article is based on a quote from Ledger's sister saying he would have liked to have appeared in a 3rd movie but that doesn't mean there were plans for him to. Your third article again is based on what Goyer said in 2005 when there wasn't even a 2nd film, that isn't a definite plan that's just speculation on how they could take the franchise if they ever were able to make sequels. There was never a script for the third film that had the Joker in it, Nolan was focused on Inception after TDK was finished.
"writing, pacing, character development, direction, cinematography, choreography, continuity, consistency, music, framing, editing, acting, production value, set design, special effects etc (and how each is criteria is weighted)"
Explain how you objectively measure them, what is the mathematical formula??? You still have not provided anything that isn't subjective. Sorry kid.
Strawman I didn't say that, I said that you can't prove the knee brace was off therefore you aren't justified in saying it just disappeared. That isn't my burden of proof son. However there was no reason to remove the brace, as far as Bane was concerned Bruce wasn't going anywhere.
Your last paragraph is dismissed since you don't know the extent of the damage, also I think you missed the part about how Bruce was going to fight harder and longer now that he regained his fear of death. Him being able to fight through the pain is perfectly consistent in what we saw in the first two movies, like how he dove out of a 5 story building on fire and was drugged and then was fine 2 days later. You're showing selective nitpicking because you're dishonest and you're just deflecting from the fact that the deep psychological themes of the film flew right over your head.
You read articles and commented on them in under 2 minutes? yeah I call B.S. There are more too; but I am done humoring you:
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
You have not provided any proof there was ever a legit plan to factor the Joker into the script, I'm glad you are conceding thus the reason why you didn't even try to debate me. You're a coward.
shareThey don't release the script drafts hardly ever; the discussions articles all suggest it was assumed and planned that Ledger would be back. This means it was at least in the development story treatments. You are just straight up ignorant (or playing dumb) (or not playing maybe) on how script and in development and preproduction works.
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
That comment was made back in 2005 and they made it quite clear that was speculation, they had no idea where the story was going to go after the 2nd film so you don’t have any basis for that assertion. All evidence says there was never a plan for ledger to come back. Goyer was just talking about how he saw a potential trilogy at the time which was a good five years before the script was written. My advice is drop this talking point it’s a losing argument
shareOne of the comments was made in 2005 another again in 2008 and then shortly after they started to change their comments and speculation. then the last comments were made in 2013 and then 2014. So you read the articles did you? And the evidence is Ledger and his family and stated the expected he would be back. That is a pretty damn good indication it was at least discussed with him; which means they were at minimum tentatively planning it. You know this is the case because it took them until 2010 before they decided on the villains of the story; that was just a few months before principle production started. That is cutting it even close than TFA did with its finalized scripts.
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
The comment from 2008 is from Ledger's sister, she's not on the writing staff you imbecile. She just said Ledger would have loved to have come back, that didn't mean he was in the script. His family wanting him to come back is irrelevant, I'm sure Liam Nesson wanted to come back for the 2nd film but he didn't end up in the film now did he? You aren't too smart are you? It took them until 2010 because Nolan was focused on Inception, he stated quite clearly he had no plans for a 3rd film and would only do one if the script was at least as good as the second.
Also speaking of TFA, that's a movie you would love, it's very easy to follow and doesn't require thinking or understanding the characters internal emotions like TDKR does.
We have been over this already; TFA is far, far worse than Rises the fact you are not repeating the same argument is yet another sign of:
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
You would love TFA and TLJ
shareWell because you said it; how about go look at my discussions on those boards.
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
Just trying to help you and show you a movie that you'd probably like a lot more.
shareBut we have been over this; I love Rises compared to TFA. I hated that movie with literally ever cell in my body. So maybe you should not make such assumption and maybe concede that your blind devotion and fanaticism in support of Rises is borderline insane.
It is fine to like the and even love the film; but it is delusional to pretend it is without fault and to argue against the reality of the faults existing.
And your hatred isn't rational, it's right on your intelligence level.
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
shareTranslation: No intelligent response
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
shareThen stop replying genius.
shareThen stop replying genius. isn't obvious yet I am doing this to annoy you since you are utter flamer and the moderators are doing nothing to stop you?
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
You have also yet to present to me a legit flaw with TDKR. They have all either been assumptions or faults on your part.
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
shareTranslation: No intelligent response
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
shareThen stop replying. Or Just admit that you enjoy me owning you.
shareI admit it, I am so owned by you mister genius; I am actually blind now, you owned me so good, now then:
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
"Goyer said in 2005 when there wasn't even a 2nd film, that isn't a definite plan that's just speculation on how they could take the franchise if they ever were able to make sequels. There was never a script for the third film that had the Joker in it, Nolan was focused on Inception after TDK was finished."
Nolan did not write the story Goyer did. I want to take a moment to dissect this statement because it shows just an incredible amount of ignorance on how script writing works. scripts, story treatments and drafts are in development for literally years before a film ever even reaches pre-production. There are often 2nd and 3rd drafts sure but they rarely deviate far from the first draft and the original story treatments. When scripts are put together rapidly within a year or 2 of the films release (like TFA) or if the final drafts are forced to go through significant re-visioning the final writing of the product suffers greatly; as is evident in a film like Dark Knight Rises. I mean you do not have to compare something too far away compare the tight writing of Dark knight with Rises. One is great the other is mediocre at best and riddled with logic inconsistencies and lore breaking continuity issues.
There wasn’t even a second movie at that point there is no way they even were thinking of a third this was just what Goyer at the time thought would be ideal but obviously he didn’t have any concrete plans at that time, Nolan was moving onto The Prestige in 2005 and there’s no way he was even thinking about TDK. Nolan wasn’t even thinking about the third film until long after ledger had passed all you have is speculation and assumptions
shareOf course they were; you know movies don't just pop up the year they are made; that are in development for years . Or is it your contention that Nolan was not even thinking about Rises until after Inception came out in 2010? So he only started working on the story with Goyer just a few months before principle photography of Rises began in 2011? WTF are you serious?
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
Nolan does one film at a time, he's been very clear on that, and they aren't going to greenlight a sequel until they are sure that there will be a demand for one and they certainly aren't going to start making plans for a third movie before production for the 2nd has even started.
"So he only started working on the story with Goyer just a few months before principle photography of Rises began in 2011? WTF are you serious?"
Didn't say that, another strawman, I said that in 2008 he was only thinking about Inception, Ledger had long since passed before he signed on to direct a third movie and I think that was in 2010.
That is not a strawman; that is pointing out you attempt at proof of a negative. You said we are not shown the brace being removed and therefor it 'could' still be on. But the evidence is to teh contrary because all other batman related gear was removed and Bane's intent was shown that he be immobilized while watching Gotham burn down. Leaving the brace on would work counter to those purposes. If you are going to try to call out logical fallacies it might help if you actually understood them and applied them correct. But you are just so much smarter than me I guess; my little wee size bwain just cant comporhend just how superor youre intewigence is (not) and me jus 2 dub to get Dark night rises.
Yeah I straw-maned you; a$$h0le your ENTIRE DEFENSE OF THIS FILM IS ONE BIG NON SEQUITAR. Your claim is anyone that 'hates' on this film just doesn't get it; that is a textbook FALLACY ARGUMENT. accuse them that which you are guilty of.
Show me the proof the knee brace was off? If not then your premise is dismissed, however since we never see Bruce again without long pants on and the fact that he's able to walk it's within reason Bane just didn't take the knee brace off, heck he probably didn't even know what that was. When he left him he had a dislocated vertebrae and knew Bruce had a death wish, there was no reason to think he was going anywhere. You are attempting to shift your burden of proof which is a cowardly thing to do, either prove it wasn't on without using assumptions or your premise is dismissed.
Also learn what a fallacy and a non sequitur are because you misused both of those terms.
The proof the rest of his gear was off; where is your counter evidence to this proof? Bane doesn't know what a knee brace is? So now he is a moron? that is your argument? jesus
Fallacy: a failure in reasoning which renders an argument invalid.
faulty reasoning; misleading or unsound argument.
non sequitar: a fallacy resulting from a simple 'conversion of a universal affirmative proposition' or from the 'transposition of a condition' and its consequent
I used both terms perfectly. but You are the smart one?
That's an assumption kid. And I don't need to prove anything, you are the one who made the claim Bane took the brace off and yet you can't prove it so therefore I am justified in not accepting it. DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW A BURDEN OF PROOF WORKS???
Yes a fallacy is exactly how you are debating as you are clearly strawmanning me here, I never once said he had the knee brace on, I rejected your premise that it was off and you can't prove it was off because he had long pants on the entire time. Therefore you don't have a legitimate criticism. Do you understand or do I need to dumb this down some more????
No it is an observation; bane removed ALL of his gear. you are so smart you can't even tell the difference between assumption, observation and inference.
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
That is an assumption, you can't point to a single scene confirming that his brace was off. You assumed he took it, you tried very pathetically to shift your BOP to me which is cowardly.
The movie provides no justification for your assertion, you are just inventing whatever you have to so you can hate on the film.
the fact that all of his gear was removed IS AN OBSERVATION your freaking moron.
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
SHOW ME WHERE THEY CONFIRMED THEY REMOVED THE KNEE BRACE!!! IF YOU CAN'T THEN YOU ARE ASSUMING AND JUST MAKING STUFF UP!!!
shareDID THEY OR DID THEY NOT REMOVE ALL OF HIS GEAR AND PUT HIM IN RATTY PRISON CLOTHES? IF SO WHY WOULD THEY LEAVE A HIGH TECH KNEE BRACE THAT ENABLES THE VICTIM THEY WANT IMMOBILIZED TO WALK?
Either they removed it or they are dumb; characters being inexplicably dumb for plot convenience is shitty writing
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
WE DON'T KNOW BECAUSE WE NEVER SEE BRUCE WITHOUT LONG PANTS!!!
PROVE TO ME IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO HAVE LEFT IT ON???
Bruce had a death wish and a dislocated vertebrae, Bane probably didn't think it was necessary to remove it and he probably didn't know that Bruce wouldn't be able to walk without it.
You are making assumptions and attempting to shift your BOP because you lack a basic understanding of common sense and logic.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense.
it is a safe and reasonable assumption that if they removed all his batman high tech gear and put him in prison clothes and wanted him immobilized it would be illogical to leave the knee brace; it would need to be explained or it is lazy bad writing.
IF they did leave it on it is a plot inconsistency and characters behaving irrationally and counter to their own objective. Your only defense of the bad writing it other bad writing.
The burden of proof is equally on you. YOu are making a claim as well. I provided REASON AND EVIDENCE FOR MY CLAIM you did NOT.
Yet I don't have to prove anything because it's your assertion. If you don't prove your claim then I'm justified in rejecting it and I do.
There you go you admitted it was an assumption and that you don't have evidence. It's not lazy writing at all, you again are either not paying attention or making up whatever you have to so you can hate on the film.
It's not a plot inconsistency at all, Bruce had a death wish and a dislocated vertebrae, no one would ever think he was going anyways. It's not a fault of the film because the characters don't act the way you want them to. That's a fault on you.
Not at all, this is all you, this is your complaint, I don't have a BOP to debunk your complaint, if you can't prove it then I'm justified in rejecting it. You seriously need to go back and take some kind of logic 101 class, I am so glad you're not a lawyer, your poor clients would be totally screwed.
But you make an assertion as well; your assertion is "it can be assumed it was left on". That assertion requires as much evidence as the assertion "it was removed and his knee magically healed".
It is a reasonable assumption based on the evidence presented. An unreasonable assumption is that it was left on based on literally no evidence other than 'Bane was careless' if that is the case it is still BAD WRITING.
"logic 101 class"
can you find me the college or university that offers a course called "logic 101"?
I am glad you are not a physical therapist; your patients would be cripples.
That's not my assertion, that's me injecting reasonable doubt into your flawed premise. You said he had to have taken it off and I provided a reason why they wouldn't have.
Again you concede it's just an assumption, that's all it is and it's not based on anything in the film. Again it's not BAD WRITING and it's not the fault of the filmmakers that the characters don't act the way you want them to, that's a fault on you.
I'll see if I can find you one although I wasn't being literal.
My patients also wouldn't have been stuck in a hole halfway around the world having to get back to the US in order to stop a nuclear bomb. If that was the situation I would do the best I could with what I had but my main priority would be saving 12 million lives, not making sure that my patient felt OK. It's called priorities kid. Also him being able to heal his back first of all took months, secondly it was consistent with the universe that had been established in the first two films, again remember he was lit on fire, dove out of a 5 story building, landed on a car and was fine 2 days later and he had been drugged with a toxin no one had ever seen before.
It is an assertion that attempting obsecurity; not injecting reasonable doubt; it is actually the opposite of reasonable as evident by the fact ALL OTHER GEAR WAS REMOVED.
It is not characters not acting the way I want them to; it is bad writing because it is characters who previously demonstrated high competence and careful planning suddenly being careless. But i thought you weren't making an argument they left the brace on; but here you try to justify that very assertion as character decisions.
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
SHOW ME THE PROOF HIS KNEE BRACE WAS REMOVED!!! Just saying "well they removed the batsuit it's obvious they removed the knee brace" is an assumption that is not supported by anything in the film. It is not my BOP to prove that the knee brace was still on, I never said I knew it was on, however you are not justified in saying it was off, DO YOU UNDERSTAND OR DO I NEED TO SPOON FEED THIS EVEN EASIER TO YOU??? I'm starting to think you're trolling me, any two year old would be able to understand what I'm telling you.
It is not bad writing at all, Bane had no reason to think Bruce was going anywhere and yes you are trying to say that just because they don't act the way you want them to that's bad writing, it isn't that's just you being a blind hater and looking for things to complain about.
I however do have evidence that they didn't take the knee brace off because 1) They had no way of knowing Bruce wouldn't be able to walk without it 2) Bruce is able to walk later in the movie and we know the knee brace helps him walk 3) He is wearing long pants the rest of the film so therefore there is no evidence that it's off and it would explain how he's able to walk.
This is something that even most TDKR haters have stopped arguing because it's a failed debunked nit pick. Even people on your side don't even bother with this one anymore.
You are the one who claimed the knee brace disappeared, you have to prove he didn't have it on. You have provided ZERO evidence that his knee brace "disappeared", all you have are assumptions your premise is dismissed.
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
shareI see you've stopped debating the facts, your concession is accepted.
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
shareI see you've stopped arguing the facts, I accept your concession.
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
shareI accept your concession and if I bother you that badly don't respond, it's easy.
shareI accept you surrender; feel free to not respond:
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Thank you for admitting your defeat; NOW, PLEASE STOP REPLYING TO ME. I DO NOT WISH TO TALK TO YOU.
LOL what surrender? I'm not the one complaining about you not leaving me alone, you're the one doing that. Maybe when you take that Logic 101 course I linked to you you'll understand.
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Thank you for admitting your defeat, I accept your surrender; NOW, PLEASE STOP REPLYING TO ME. I DO NOT WISH TO TALK TO YOU.
shareSpamming the board is against group rules.
shareSo is flaming; but no one enforces it unless profanity is used
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Thank you for admitting your defeat, I accept your surrender; NOW, PLEASE STOP REPLYING TO ME. I DO NOT WISH TO TALK TO YOU.
I didn't flame you, you're the one who flamed me because I dared to have a different opinion than you. If I'm bothering you that bad then stop replying but I'm guessing you won't because you need the attention.
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
shareAlso here you go this looks pretty good: http://gametheory101.com/courses/logic-101/
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
shareYou're welcome
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
shareLearn how to take good advice when it's given.
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
shareI see you've stopped arguing the facts, I accept your concession.
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
shareThen stop replying, I know you won't though.
shareI know you won't either:
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Thank you for admitting your defeat, I accept your surrender; NOW, PLEASE STOP REPLYING TO ME. I DO NOT WISH TO TALK TO YOU.
I'm not the one complaining and playing the victim. You can't just tell me that I need to stop replying and then pretend that you have the high ground. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Thank you for admitting your defeat, I accept your surrender; NOW, PLEASE STOP REPLYING TO ME. I DO NOT WISH TO TALK TO YOU.
shareYour concession is noted and appreciated.
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Thank you for admitting your defeat, I accept your surrender; NOW, PLEASE STOP REPLYING TO ME. I DO NOT WISH TO TALK TO YOU.
shareYour concession is still accepted. IF YOU DON'T WANT ME TO TALK TO YOU THEN STOP REPLYING OR PUT ME ON IGNORE. I REFUSE TO PITY ANYONE WHO WON'T USE THE IGNORE BUTTON. IF YOU FEEL I AM FLAMING YOU THEN YOU HAVE JUST AS MUCH OWNERSHIP IN THIS AS I DO.
shareYour surrender is still accepted.
I tried putting you on ignore and you purposefully replied to me anyway blocking my conversations with others. which is flaming and harrasment. but since the moderators did nothing. I'll continue to annoy you until you:
STOP MESSAGING ME, I DO NOT WISH TO TALK TO YOU ANYMORE
LOL I can reply to whoever I want, just replying to someone doesn't mean I'm flaming you. And I don't believe you put me on ignore, you wouldn't have been able to read my messages.
If I bother you that badly then just stop replying or use the ignore button, if you do neither then you aren't worthy of any sympathy.
I can reply to whoever I want; and just because the message is repetive doesnt make it troling:
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
Good, since you can reply to whoever you want I can do the same and that doesn't mean you are a victim or being flamed. Quit playing the victim and get over yourself. You're not that important.
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
shareGood then stop replying, no one is twisting your arms forcing you to talk to me. Get over yourself.
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
shareYet you reply to me just as much as I do to you so you have just as much ownership in this if not more.
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you
shareThen stop replying
shareI don't have to if I don't want to. I just want you to stop replying:
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you
Then stop complaining
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you
shareIf you don’t want to talk to me then why do you always respond?
sharebecause you keep responding to me. anytime I see your replies no matter where they are I will reply with this message: You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you
shareThe back injury Bruce had is often life changing. Not a few punches to the spine and then a couple of months of push up. another time I will ask; do you have any idea just how ridiculous you sound?
Sure it requires more; just the stuff with Blake (i just knew you were batman); Gordon sending literally every police office into the sewers, Bruce losing all his money based on fraudulent stock exchanges made under terrorist threat (they really would honor those deals?) , Bruce getting healed and back to gotham able to fight with no resources, no ID and no assistance? Again, do you have any idea how ridiculous this sounds.
You have not debunked a single thing. you have wait for it:
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
You also have no idea the extent of the damage and him being able to recover is perfectly consistent with what we saw in the previous 2 films, like him being drugged, lit on fire and dove out of a 5 story building only to be fine two days later.
They clearly explained how Blake put the pieces together, pay attention next time
That's because Gordon understood the threat of Bane, he saw the guy's army and knew they meant business, how was he supposed to know that Bane lined the city with explosive concrete? And they tried to pull them out as soon as they figured that out. Also in the previous 2 movies "every available unit" was also sent to a particular location (Arkham, hospitals)
I have debunked your entire premise, your premise is based on nothing more than subjectivity, bitterness and an inability to understand this film.
There is no way you could have processed and commented on my posts this fast. You answers here are pre-set up. This means you are not arguing or discussing you are:
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
Naw I'm just a lot smarter than you are. I'm glad you had the courage to concede.
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
shareAlso people that are smarter than others don't go around say "i'm a lot smarter than you". That is the sign of mental weakness, not strength.
shareJust pointing out how I was able to read faster than you thought I should have been, you brought that comment on yourself
shareYou didn't read the 3 articles in under a minuted and then type up the reply altogether in under 3 minutes. That is the time form when I posted it to the time your replied. You are full of crap; you didn't read them. Go google this shit yourself. I am done with your B.S.
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
I did read them, the fact that you can't read that fast is irrelevant. Also you might want to watch the language, that's what got you in trouble the first time.
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
shareTranslation: No intelligent argument
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
shareTranslation: No intelligent argument
sharesure you keep assuming that probably makes you feel superior; the only place were you can get that feeling
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
I don't need to do anything to be superior to you, it just comes naturally.
shareView from fantasy land that nice? It is gonna suck when you get hit with reality.
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
Naw I'm living in reality, you're stuck in limbo in your own deluded fantasy that you're just making up as you go. I am trying to get you to come back to reality but you're so confused that your altered fantasy is reality.
sharehahaha; so you're gonna try to usurp my sarcasm and then try to apply it back at me? this is basically "i know you are but what am I" lol wow, and you claim we are immature.
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
Just calling it like it is and you can quit patting yourself on the back you're not that clever.
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
shareTranslation: No intelligent response
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
shareI see you've stopped arguing the facts, I accept your concession.
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Thank you for admitting your defeat, I accept your surrender; NOW, PLEASE STOP REPLYING TO ME. I DO NOT WISH TO TALK TO YOU.
shareThen stop replying.
shareYou first:
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Thank you for admitting your defeat, I accept your surrender; NOW, PLEASE STOP REPLYING TO ME. I DO NOT WISH TO TALK TO YOU.
LOL more delusions I see. And no I am not going to stop posting just because you tell me to, I couldn't care less what you want me to do.
share I am not going to stop posting just because you tell me to, I couldn't care less what you want me to do.
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Thank you for admitting your defeat, I accept your surrender; NOW, PLEASE STOP REPLYING TO ME. I DO NOT WISH TO TALK TO YOU.
Good then stop complaining that I am flaming and harassing you. Either learn how to take it or stop dishing it out. You can't have it both ways kid.
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Thank you for admitting your defeat, I accept your surrender; NOW, PLEASE STOP REPLYING TO ME. I DO NOT WISH TO TALK TO YOU.
shareQuit playing the victim card and grow up.
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Thank you for admitting your defeat, I accept your surrender; NOW, PLEASE STOP REPLYING TO ME. I DO NOT WISH TO TALK TO YOU.
shareIf I bother you so much then either A) Put me on ignore, or B) Stop replying
This isn't rocket science. It's common sense.
We have been over this already
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Thank you for admitting your defeat, I accept your surrender; NOW, PLEASE STOP REPLYING TO ME. I DO NOT WISH TO TALK TO YOU.
This guy is a known ignorant deluded person on here. Here is a list of his sock accounts.
https://moviechat.org/tt1345836/The-Dark-Knight-Rises/5d13f23472edd059c0d437c6/A-Tale-of-Two-Cities
https://moviechat.org/tt1345836/The-Dark-Knight-Rises/5bb2aa8a3e3d17001402d406/Greatest-line-ever
https://moviechat.org/tt1345836/The-Dark-Knight-Rises/5a11bab539d0810012ca0e9c/Why-are-haters-so-stupid
https://moviechat.org/tt0903747/Breaking-Bad/5e71cb658396c32c28e7c8e3/Why-do-people-blame-Walt-for-Janes-death?reply=5ec21f7fc0a9d8349066244f
Pretty pathetic moviechatuser497 has that many sock accounts.
If you want to go back even further just look here. He has been doing this since the imdb days.
https://filmboards.com/board/p/167931/
Thank you for the warning and the heads up on the sock account. I will keep note of those. that is pretty pathetic. moviechatuser497 doesn't even do a good job of trying to change the words and tones. Especially on TheUltimateHippo account; same B.S. "it is just too complicated for the haters to understand" non sequitar. Yeah right, anyone that criticizes the film it is because we are just oh so dumb dumb wow what a joke.
My goodness is this guy a rabid Nolanite. One of those that probably created a hundred IMDB accounts just to give Rises 10/10 but then still bitches about the 'haters that rated it 1/10 just to bring the score down'. They were just trying to counter the jackass nolanites that were crazed about inflating the score.
Those accounts are gone, this is the only one I have and I never even attempted to hide it. I was very open about it but nice try kid.
shareYou are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
shareTranslation: No intelligent argument and your concession is noted and appreciated.
shareI love it; you just like have conversations with yourself and seem to always win. Congratulations.
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
You aren't too smart are you, I was responding to you and translating your last message.
shareNope I am just big old dumb dumb and yours is the 'superior intellect'. how is the view from fantasy land?
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
It's clear you didn't understand what I was saying even though a preschooler could have figured it out. You are so proving my point, thanks kid.
sharethanks for explaining to me again just dumb I am Mr. Kid; what would I do without you?
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
You'd be lost in your deluded fantasy. No problem, any time you need help you know where to find me.
sharehahaha my sarcasm must have been good since you are trying to steal it now.
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
LOL more delusions I see, you can quit patting yourself on the back you're not that clever.
shareCan you please explain the entire movie, scene by scene? I need the education. It confuses and bewilders me. I need your insights to guide me.
shareLet's start with you telling me where you're confused and then we'll go from there.
shareI am like 100% sure the person is being sarcastic to your B.S. " hater just don't get it " routine. But then you are just oh so smart, mature and enlightened; i am sure you got that and you are just trying to troll them back.
Seriously how are you not flagged for trolling and flaming constantly. I got flagged just for calling someone an "asshole"
How am I trolling? Just having a different opinion than you isn’t trolling genius
shareconstant mass replying and purposefully making obescure non arguments or twisting things around different from post to port is a form of Trolling.
Constant character attacks, insults (whether overt or passive) and name calling is FLAMING.
Now that I have explained the definitions:
You are flaming, totally immature and relying on ad hominems instead of arguments. Stop messaging me I do not wish to talk to you.
Replying to you is trolling? Disagreeing with you is trolling? Sorry but anyone who isn't a blind Nolan hater isn't going to see it like that.
Character attacks and insults? You have cussed me out repeatedly so don't dish it out if youc an't take it.
You are the one flaming and spamming.
I'm confused by the very beginning and then every few minutes or so. Can you explain the whole thing?
shareStart with something specific, then we'll go from there, what is the first thing that happened that you were confused on?
shareCan't you just type a wall of thorough wisdom and insights? I want scene by scene analysis.
shareIt’ll be easier if we go over the parts you’re confused on. If you don’t get any aspect of the film then I can’t help you over the internet, id have to sit down with you, watch it with you and spoon feed you as the film progresses
shareYou should actually write a book. Think of the millions who would wake up to how brilliant this movie is after they read your reasoned dissection.
shareThese guys have you covered:
https://www.the-editing-room.com/the-dark-knight-rises.html
Excellent! They answered most of my questions but I still have many. Like how do you save friends on thin ice by setting it on fire?
shareThe fire was going in the opposite direction of his friends and they hadn't really walked that far out and if the ice cracked then at the very worst they would have had cold ankles, not a big deal.
shareThey were sentenced to "possible cold ankles?"
I think Ace knows better than you about this. Batman was creating a science cycle of fire to water to ice again to make it safer for his friends (and him too! He was on that ice too)
They were going to make them walk further out genius, like they did with Stryver, Batman stopped them before they were forced to walk too far out. Pay attention next time.
shareI wish I knew stuff like that.
shareYou would have if you paid attention.
shareBut YOU payed attention. You should stop being so stingy with your deft grasp of high art. Share!
What are the top ten most perfect things that happen in TDKR? It will make me a better person the next time I watch this flick.
Off the top of my head: The characters, the story, the deep psychological themes about pain, tragedy and Bruce regaining his fear of death and will to live, the score, the villains, the plot, the direction, the action sequences, etc.
shareToo vague. Can you be more specific?
shareYou asked and I told.
shareI asked for THINGS THAT HAPPENED. Not "the score" and "the directing." Pay attention.
share- The plane heist
- The bar shootout
- The scene between Bruce and Blake
- The scene between Bruce and Gordon in the hospital
- The scene where Alfred tries to convince Bruce not to go out
- Batman's first appearance- my audience applauded so loudly when that happened
- The scene where Alfred leaves Bruce
- The fight between Bane and Batman
- The scene where Bane takes Bruce to the pit
- The stadium implosion
- Bane's blackgate speech
- Bruce escaping from the pit
- Bruce finding Selina in her neighborhood (that was freaking epic)
- Batman saving Gordon/Flaming batsymbol
- The attack on Bane's army
- Talia's backstory
- Batman sacrificing himself
- The entire last 5 minutes
The parallel's/homages to A Tale Of Two Cities also get the film multiple bonus points, very well done.
I barely remember any of those things. Must not have made an impression on me. I guess I need to watch it again with someone smart enough to explain things to me minute by minute.
You read/enjoyed A Tale of Two Cities?
Yeah that’s probably a good idea.
shareYou know, you could learn a lot from Lhkjjl57688. He knows way more about TDKR than you. Smarter too. He might teach you as much as you are teaching me.
Maybe you should sit with him and rewatch this before you write your book. Think about how much more you could get out of this classic.
I would like to watch a video of you watching TDKR with Lhkjjl57688 and having a minute-by-minute breakdown of the movie.
shareI don't know him.
shareI don't know him, either, but AnuisRaydeen there says he's guru dynamite!
share[deleted]
Me too!
shareWas it ever a flavor of the month movie? I remember people picking it apart when it was in theaters. I think the only people who praise this film are Nolanites who are... a special bunch.
shareIt still holds a high popular score; that is because of the extremely high inflation of the popular rating when it was first released. hundreds of thousands of people rated it 9/10 or higher. Only after years of people giving more objective reviews has it come down a bit. So yes, there were some that tore it apart open release but most people were caught up in the hype and didn't come down for years.
Not as bad as the high many are still riding from TFA but close to it.
But yes, the Nolanites have something seriously wrong with them; they are almost as (if not more) venomous than TFA defenders.
The ratings that are found around the internet mostly come from Nolanites who made sock accounts so they can boost Dark Knight movies. When it came out, I remember people making fun of Bane’s voice, Blake’s middle name, how Batman teleported, etc.
shareThat might be true; but I do find it somewhat hard to believe that many people are that dedicated to just inflate a pointless rating on the internet. Maybe I am too optimistic about people though. I also remember people making fun of Bane's voice but no more than people made fun of Batman's voice in Dark Knight. But yes their was some bashing of it; but it still rated high and most people mostly spoke highly of it despite admitting its weakness. Only ravenous crazed Nolanites praised it as the thing ever.
shareNot for nothing, some Nolanites admitted to having sock accounts. I remember back in the IMDb board days, a bunch of them got banned and they were whining about how they had multiple accounts banned at once. They are a crazy bunch.
shareThat does sound crazy; the imdb score doesn't even really count for anything; it is just a mass poll number and only by people that have imdb account. Such strange thing to do.
shareNope, Green Lantern.
shareThat movie sucked lol the f are you yammering on about?
shareAvengers End Game was the last great comic book movie
shareFalse, I'd say Logan was the last great comic book movie.
share