The Dark Knight Rises (2012) (1 Viewer)

[Brent M]

Originally Posted by Brian Borst /forum/thread/300246/batman-part-iii-directed-by-christopher-nolan-july-20-2012#post_3687141
Sure, the movies are riddled with plot holes, if you think about those situations realistically. The thing you have to ask yourself is: am I bothered by it that much that it destroys the movie for me? You can ask that about every movie, and everyone will react differently to a movie.

Exactly. I don't care that everything that happened in the movie isn't 100% realistic.....it's a comic book movie for crap's sake! All I want is to be entertained for 2+ hours and both of Nolan's Batman films have done that in spades!

 

[Edwin-S]

Is there actually any movie where you couldn't find some sort of lapse in logic or characters acting illogically for the purposes of creating drama? Furthermore, holding a superhero fantasy to the same standards of "realism" as a "real world" drama seems illogical to begin with. Also, why does a fictional film world always have to obey the logicality of the real world? Part of the power of films, books or any other creative pursuit is the ability to create a framework with its own set of rules. The creation shouldn't always have to fit into the operational rules of our world.

The Joker's escape during the bank robbery may be illogical and unrealistic in our real world, but did anyone ever hear Nolan say that he was creating a film world that was supposed to be100% analogous to our own? I can't remember him ever claiming that he was trying to make a film where we could believe that a vigilante in an armored suit could logically exist in the "real world". I think he was just trying to make an entertaining film with a take on the characters that made them darker and less comical within their fictional world, than in any previous incarnations.

 

[Paul_Scott]

Originally Posted by JonZ
Even when youre dealing with a superhero - which requires suspension of disbelief - real world setting or not.
I think it was pointed in the Begins thread by someone that the film is hard to take seriously as happening in "reality" when we're watching the Tumbler jumping rooftops and driving on the roof of the church.

That bit didn't bother me at all. I could suspend disbelief for that part if the reaction to it had been realistic or logical. The word 'reaction' here meaning the actions that follow.
What is impossible for me to reconcile is
1) that he finally evades an aerial pursuit by turning off his head/running lights and going 'off road'.
2) that a guy using an armored tank, who's shooting off the equivilent of RPG's in the city, and who 'with depraved indifference' is responsible for the destruction of several police vehicles as well as imperiling the operators lives, is not the subject of an INTENSIVE 24/7 manhunt/investigation until he is captured.
It would be one thing if Nolan showed him performing some super duper sleight of hand to trick them, but it is in fact just the opposite. He busts through barriers and goes through a cleared path in the woods. He leaves a trail that is clear and obvious right up to the waterfall along with plenty of motivation for a concentrated effort for his capture.
I actually like Begins because I enjoy the characters arc and satisfaction of seeing him more or less logically piece together the various aspects of an iconic persona. But it's funny how much the movie aggressively forces me to not pay close attention once he actually becomes Batman. Too many illogical concessions have to be made too often. Once you get into TDK, which is now all Batman, similar concessions have to be made consistently all the way through, from the opening reel to the end credits.

The Joker's escape during the bank robbery may be illogical and unrealistic in our real world, but did anyone ever hear Nolan say that he was creating a film world that was supposed to be100% analogous to our own? I can't remember him ever claiming that he was trying to make a film where we could believe that a vigilante in an armored suit could logically exist in the "real world". I think he was just trying to make an entertaining film with a take on the characters that made them darker and less comical within their fictional world, than in any previous incarnations.

All stories need to hew to their own internal logic or they elicit a response of "Bullshit!"
If, at the end of the story, Batman can take advantage of millions of cell phones in the city to accomplish one specific goal, then it follows that on a busy urban street you can not slam a bus into a building, let it idle there for a little while, and then slowly pull out and make an escape into slow moving traffic without a few of those millions of people with cell phones making note of it- from their cars, from the sidewalk, etc etc. It's a cute gag, and more witty than anything the character was involved with in the Burton film. But when you give it any real thought at all, it's really not that far removed from something that could have been dropped into the TV series. You wouldn't necessarily have seen it, but I could easily see Neil Hamilton describing the event afterward to Batman in his office- "and he got away in slow moving traffic, you say? The fiend!" "Holy diabolical field trip, Batman!"

Exactly. I don't care that everything that happened in the movie isn't 100% realistic.....it's a comic book movie for crap's sake!

/img/vbsmilies/htf/confused.gif
I don't think any of my criticisms are going to make much of a difference to anyone. But I'm waiting for the Red Letter Media guy to start tackling these. I said this in another thread awhile ago, but I think the guy has a lot of material to work with here, and I don't expect people to see just how poorly thought out this stuff is until it is fully illustrated for them. What is really disheartening to me, besides seeing so many people easily give this material a pass while ripping others left and right, is that just a few more passes at the script stage could have alleviated quite a few of my complaints. The weaknesses in the two films are not insurmountable, but they are very, very sloppy.
And for Pete's sake, if you are going to be so forgiving of oodles of illogical motivation and logistics, do we really need to experience such a foolish and goofy looking costume and voice on the character? Why does that aspect have to be so rigidly grounded in logic when so much else isn't?

 

[JonZ]

Originally Posted by Paul_Scott /forum/thread/300246/batman-part-iii-directed-by-christopher-nolan-july-20-2012#post_3687769
What is really disheartening to me, besides seeing so many people easily give this material a pass while ripping others left and right

Thats how I felt about JJ Abrams Star Trek. I said pretty much those exact words in that discussion thread.
About Batmans escape in Begins, I found the use of the word Palisades in describing where Bruce Wayne lives during dinner with Dent and Rachel in TDK very interesting. The NY/NJ Palisades in how I get to NYC. A long dark road, no lights, lots of woods surrounding the road during the entire length of the drive, and small dark roads, alot of rocky terrain especially on the NY side, etc. Still the Palisades goes through both a huge rural and suburban population. It was kind of brilliant in that that single word immedately described to me what Batmans drive back and forth to Gotham would be like and yes even how the Tumbler might be difficult to track.
While I do have a problem with the overdesigned suit, I dont with Batmans growl. Again going back to the discussion thread I remember someone making a comment about when Batman is taking to Lucius in the cellphone tracking scene, hes talking in the growl and it seemed odd - but Bruce Wayne also growls at Rachel when the Joker crashes the party "Theyre coming for him!".
Batman isnt Spiderman. Theres alot of psychological baggage to the character. The idea of Batman actually growling and snarling was put into my mind way back when I read Frank Millers Year One in the late 80s...."I come in close on the one who looks the strongest... throw him a growl Ive brought all the way from africa".

 

[Chad R]

I find this discussion interesting. But what I think people miss when they bring up these issues characterized as plot holes is that what they are actually pointing out is one of the film's biggest themes.
It's easy to say what people would do in a situation. We'd like to think that the police would have an interest in bringing down a vigilante who's taking over their job and blowing stuff up, it would be nice to think that every citizen who witnessed that bus back into the bank would call the police, but that's not the world we live in. What we think we'll do in a situation and what we really do are often two things. And that's one of the film's biggest themes, don't ever underestimate people's desire to not get involved.
Just recently in New York a man who saved a woman from being attacked was stabbed and bled to death on the sidewalk for over an hour as person after person walked by. And it's established that the Gotham Batman lives in is much worse than this reality, and that's what he's trying to change by "inspiring" people to act.
But before he can do that he has to fight the mob. To accomplish that goal, he has to intimidate them, which involves bigger guns and firing off rockets in the middle of downtown. Because of that, he's not embraced as the savior of Gotham like he wants to be. That's his hope for Harvey, to inspire the city to do good where he can't. This is Batman's world view. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, or if the city is inspired or not, but it's what he believes. It's his motivation to do what he does.
Remember, don't confuse what you would do with what others would do. The Gotham City Nolan built is far more a dangerous place than the world your or I live in, so the people's decisions will be different than ours. You can't really say what they would do because you're not them. Nolan and Nolan and Goyer did think about how these people would react to these situations. And even in the real world people don't always do the right thing when their survival is involved. The citizens of Gotham have learned to not cross the mob lest they wind up dead. The police have learned to not do more than they need to so they can go home to their families every night. It's easier to let the Batman do their job. Not to mention, it was established in "Batman Begins" that most of them were on the take, and they fear that taking down Batman could expose them, especially since he allied himself with the one known honest cop in the city.

 

[JonZ]

Seems Tom Hardy has been cast in "a lead role".

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

He'd make a good Riddler.

 

[Steve Christou]

Interesting. I like Tom Hardy, charismatic in Inception and RocknRolla, superb in Bronson. He wasn't one of the best Star Trek villains but could be a memorable Batman villain if he has been cast as such.


../../../image/id/383514/width/1000/height/800

 

[ThomasC]

Title: The Dark Knight Rises

Also, no Riddler.

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2010/10/27/christopher-nolan-reveals-title-of-third-batman-film-and-that-it-wont-be-the-riddler/

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Now "Batman Begins" feels really out of place.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Don't like the title at all. I guess they were too gunshy to use "The Dark Knight Returns" after the "Superman Returns" legacy.

 

[JonZ]

I liked Return of the Dark Knight. (The Dark Knight Rising, possibly featuring with Catwoman, seems a bit... well..... )

Or The Batman would be fitting if Bruce Wayne finally embraces his role as Batman.

No Riddler is a suprise to me really as I thought he made alot of sense, especially with Catwoman.

My guesses at this point would be Black Mask, Catwoman, Penguin or maybe Hugo Strange.

Not having the Riddler is a bit disappointing to me, as I was looking foward to what Nolan would do with him.

Alot of people are guessing that Hardy is coming in to play not a villian, but...

Harvey Bullock

 

[David Deeb]

Originally Posted by Patrick Sun
Don't like the title at all. I guess they were too gunshy to use "The Dark Knight Returns" after the "Superman Returns" legacy.

Plus, Batman has already "returned" with Michael Keaton and maybe it would just be too similar.

 

[Zack Gibbs]

The title is poor and reeks of studio meddling. It was a stretch that they would let TDK go without the 'Batman' branding, but after its success "The Dark Knight" is the brand, and it's about the biggest one around.

Meh.

 

[TravisR]

Man, this movie is going to be crucified when it comes out.

 

[Edwin-S]

The title lends itself to too many off colour jokes, especially if Catwoman ends up being the villain Batman goes up against. I still think that is exactly who is going to show up in this third installment.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Catwoman would actually fit pretty well, if it's Batman trapped between a tenacious Gotham City PD and the criminal underlord, since she'd be prowling the same rooftops as him.

Something tells me we're going to get a more substantial villain, though. The title of the Nolan Batman films are all designed to serve as an old school title card just before the end credits. Batman Begins ended with the Batman character we all know fully established and doing his thing as Batman. The Dark Knight ended with Batman taking up the mantle of the Dark Knight, Gotham's scapegoat and silent protector. The Dark Knight Rises will end with Batman rising, which implies that he will face the cloud placed over his head at the end of The Dark Knight and come through the other side triumphant. In order to be triumphant, he has to do something that allows him to fill the role that Harvey Dent should have filled. Catwoman is a personal threat, not a threat to Gotham City as a whole. If Catwoman's in it, she's probably Rachel's replacement as the main love interest.

 

[Ron-P]

I sure hope we get to see Robin in this film.

 

[Brent M]

Originally Posted by Ron-P
I sure hope we get to see Robin in this film.

I hope you were saying that with sarcasm.

As for the title, a big "who cares" on my end. As long as the movie itself is one half as good as Batman Begins or The Dark Knight I'll be a happy camper. Christopher Nolan is about the only director in Hollywood I have 100% faith in these days so I'm not expecting him to blow this one.

 

[Steve_Tk]

I agree. I could care less what the title is, and I'm certainly not going to try and analyze a whole movie from that.