Just thought this'd be fun. What ideas would have have to fix the film (if you find it frustratingly close to great as I do), but keep in mind you basically have to do another 'draft,' meaning that you can't do an entirely different film. You have to work within most of the existing framework of the film. And it has to be a sequel to the TDK and BB we did get.
1. I would have named John Blake Jean-Paul Valley instead, simply so we wouldn't have to have the silly 'reveal.' Real fans would know.
2. I would give Bane a better mask, something closer to the comics. I'm fine with the depiction as it is sans mask and funny voice. Not the Bane I'd like to have but with those fixes it would have been good enough for me.
3. I'd have The Bat look more like a traditional Batwing, dammit!
4. Have Bruce be much more severely disabled so it gives some more tension to the story instead of the hurt leg that miraculously heals itself later in the movie without the brace device... Basically, Bruce is in good enough shape to handle regular crooks, but it makes Bane more deadly in that he's better than Batman can be at this point in time, so akin to Knightfall, Batman's at a disadvantage from the get-go.
5. Move up Bane revealing the bomb in the stadium to before Batman gets taken out, so it not only comes out of left field for Batman, but it also puts serious pressure on him to go after Bane before he's prepared, making it more heart-wrenching/tense when Bane defeats him.
6. Don't have Batman fight like an idiot in the first encounter. Throwing those smoke bombs at Bane when he clearly isn't superstitious/cowardly/dumb, for example, is the dumbest thing I've seen Batman do in a movie. Period. He also is fighting completely like an idiot, leaving himself open for hits and also swinging punches wildly with no control.
7. When Bane has the speech outside Blackgate, I would totally pay homage to the opening moment of 'Tec #664 where Bane publically announces Batman's defeat. I'd have him reveal Batman's innocence with Dent first, and then I'd show the citizens watching getting their hopes up that, since they saw Batman back in action, he will save them again... only to have Bane hold up the broken mask and announce that "their savior" is broken and defeated, and nothing can save them now. I get chills just thinking about that!
8. I actually would have Lucius out of town on business so that he can meet up with Alfred outside Gotham once the city goes No Man's Land, and I would have them deduce Bruce's location and resuce him from the prison.
9. Now here's something of a big change, but one that fixes some major problems for me and adds more tension to the finale. I would have Lucius reveal something he'd been woking up for Bruce: a full-body version of the brace that he used on his leg (no prison chiropractory!), so that he can come back to Gotham and defeat Bane, but the catch is that it requires such huge amounts of electricity to run, and it's a prototype, so at most Bruce can only get like 72 hours out of it before it's out of commission. So Bruce has only 72 hours left to ever be Batman again, during which he must defeat Bane and save Gotham one last time. This would fix the stupid back repair, but also be an homage to the full body brace Bruce wears in Kingdom Come. Also, this would give more resonance to his line to Catwoman: "[I haven't given them] everything. Not yet." Because he really wouldn't have.
10. His return, I would have be announced to Gotham with the actual Bat Signal, not an improbably flame bat. It'd be more symbolic and heroic if you ask me.
11. Thus, since he's wheelchair bound for life, it makes perfect sense for him to: a) find a replacement and b) retire from being Batman. If he's still able, he should keep being Batman. That's how I see the character. I'd also probably imply that he'd be there to coach/train his replacement, sort of like the end of the other DKR.
Quote from: DocLathropBrown on Wed, 17 Jul 2013, 04:531. I would have named John Blake Jean-Paul Valley instead, simply so we wouldn't have to have the silly 'reveal.' Real fans would know.
Why not Terry McGinnis?
Quote from: DocLathropBrown on Wed, 17 Jul 2013, 04:532. I would give Bane a better mask, something closer to the comics. I'm fine with the depiction as it is sans mask and funny voice. Not the Bane I'd like to have but with those fixes it would have been good enough for me.
Lose the mask, change the name to "Ubu".
Quote from: DocLathropBrown on Wed, 17 Jul 2013, 04:533. I'd have The Bat look more like a traditional Batwing, dammit!
Can we change the name to this too? Batwing, Batcopter, Batwtfthatsuckerishuge, whatever you want, but not just "the Bat". Ugh...
Quote from: DocLathropBrown on Wed, 17 Jul 2013, 04:535. Move up Bane revealing the bomb in the stadium to before Batman gets taken out, so it not only comes out of left field for Batman, but it also puts serious pressure on him to go after Bane before he's prepared, making it more heart-wrenching/tense when Bane defeats him.
My name is thecolorsblend and I approve this message.
Quote from: DocLathropBrown on Wed, 17 Jul 2013, 04:538. I actually would have Lucius out of town on business so that he can meet up with Alfred outside Gotham once the city goes No Man's Land, and I would have them deduce Bruce's location and resuce him from the prison.
This would add some much-needed plausibility to Bruce's return to Gotham.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 17 Jul 2013, 05:09
Why not Terry McGinnis?
So a
Batman Beyond movie could still be made. If you named him Terry, then the property would be off limits because Warners would be afraid of 'confusing' the general populace. Since TDKR already adapts "Knightfall," it's not like you'll have another chance to see Jean-Paul.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 17 Jul 2013, 05:09Lose the mask, change the name to "Ubu".
Hell naw. Ubu defeating Batman? I disapprove. Besides, I accept the idea of Bane leading the League because that's a deliberate yank from the storyline "Bane of the Demon." So it counts as genuine comic inspiration to me.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 17 Jul 2013, 05:09Can we change the name to this too? Batwing, Batcopter, Batwtfthatsuckerishuge, whatever you want, but not just "the Bat". Ugh...
I'm okay with the name, and it'd fit Nolan's asthetic more for it to have a nickname like that. My problem is it looks more like a cockroach than a bat.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 17 Jul 2013, 05:09This would add some much-needed plausibility to Bruce's return to Gotham.
Indeed! And make both characters more useful than they are in the final film. It would also raise a point about how it was wrong of Bruce to give up on life because others hadn't given up on him.... whoa. I just blew my own mind. It'd be a perfect callback to
Begins. When Alfred and Lucius raid the cell, Bruce could say "You still haven't given up on me?" and Alfred could again say "Nevah!"
Quote from: DocLathropBrown on Wed, 17 Jul 2013, 05:20So a Batman Beyond movie could still be made. If you named him Terry, then the property would be off limits because Warners would be afraid of 'confusing' the general populace. Since TDKR already adapts "Knightfall," it's not like you'll have another chance to see Jean-Paul.
Wow, aren't you optimistic? :)
Quote from: DocLathropBrown on Wed, 17 Jul 2013, 05:20Hell naw. Ubu defeating Batman? I disapprove.
I could buy Ubu defeating a rusty, chewed up, out of shape Batman. You don't have to reach quite as much for the League of Assassins connection and I could see Ubu wanting to fulfill Ra's al-Ghul's destiny. Plus, he's a stumpy bald dude who wears the same kind of fatigues. It looks like the connection is already there; Nolan just wanted a marquee "name" as the villain rather than close the loop on it in a logical way.
Ubu FTW!
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 17 Jul 2013, 05:30
Wow, aren't you optimistic? :)
I'm
realistic. WB is the company who dictated that none of Batman's villains could appear on
Justice League because
The Batman was on at the same time, and kids would be confused!
And besides, it's kind of an unwritten rule of Hollywood that you gotta wait a while before reusing ideas. I'll bet that I'm right. We don't see a Batman film that attempts to reuse story elements from "Knightfall" again until we're all old and gray, if at all. Because if you don't wait long enough before reusing an idea, audiences will opt out of seeing it, citing "they just did that!" as a reason.
Bane should have venom.
Selina should be reffred to as Catwoman (that didn't happen even once in the film dammit).
Drop John Blake.
Not have Batman quit at the end.
Quote7. When Bane has the speech outside Blackgate, I would totally pay homage to the opening moment of 'Tec #664 where Bane publically announces Batman's defeat. I'd have him reveal Batman's innocence with Dent first, and then I'd show the citizens watching getting their hopes up that, since they saw Batman back in action, he will save them again... only to have Bane hold up the broken mask and announce that "their savior" is broken and defeated, and nothing can save them now. I get chills just thinking about that!
Love this idea, Doc. To add to that, in my version, Bane doesn't read off from a letter-conveniently-found-in-Gordon's-coat to Gotham. Instead, he brings out the captured, beaten Gordon and makes HIM confess the truth about Harvey Dent. This gives some actual weight to that scene, especially with Gordon built up as a hero to the city in the previous scenes. It's big for Gordon's character since he couldn't bring himself to confess during Harvey Dent Day and now he HAS to do it. Plus, on a believability scale, Gordon's words would be much more trusted by the people than Bane reading off a piece of paper.
This is when Gotham truly loses hope, as Gordon warned Batman at the end of TDK. Its previous savior was actually a murderer who lost his sanity, its current hero lied to all of them and is in Bane's custody, and the man who COULD be their remaining hope out of all this- a man they've turned into a pariah after all this time- has been broken by Bane.
Some of my other ideas:
- An easy fix to the oft-complained John Blake scene in Wayne Manor: to have his discovery of Bruce Wayne as Batman make more sense, I'd clarify that Blake only deduced that Bruce Wayne was putting on an act when he saw him at the orphanage, but that's it.
He only figured out that Bruce was Batman through his own detective work- Bruce Wayne returns from the dead after seven years right around the time that Batman first appeared, Bruce Wayne disappears in the middle of a campaign party for Harvey Dent right when Batman appears to stop Joker, Bruce Wayne's reclusiveness since Harvey Dent's death, etc. This keeps the character smart, but makes his big deduction feel organic to what we've seen in the previous films.
- Catwoman doesn't kill Bane. Batman
breaks Bane in the rematch, done in the spirit of Jean Paul Valley's victory over him in Knightquest or Batman's rematch with the Mutant Leader- "This isn't a mudhole, it's an operation table" in The Dark Knight Returns.
He leaves the broken Bane to be thrown in prison for life (which, in my opinion, would be a more fitting fate for him than his movie death, since the guy spent almost all of his life behind bars).
- My take on a cleaner version of Bruce's arc for the movie that would've retained its intentions, while sticking closer to the character in both the source material and the characterization of the previous movies:
Bruce would still be Batman at the start of the film ("because he can take it," remember?), fighting crime while evading from the cops. This may seem like a huge change, going outside Doc's parameters of sticking to the real film's framework, but in my mind, it's not. The character would still be reclusive as Bruce Wayne like in the movie, He's barely showing up to his own parties and letting funding for the orphanages go. Essentially, he's become Batman 24/7- with Rachel and Harvey's deaths from TDK actually pushing him further into stopping everything from carjackings to pickpockets- and this puts him in much of the same conflicts as the movie's first act anyway. Wayne Enterprises is in trouble, Alfred's upset with his actions, etc. all due to him ignoring his life as Bruce Wayne.
So no limp. No magic leg brace.
When Batman encounters Bane, then, much like in the Knightfall comic, he's worn out.
Bane breaking his back shows him that he's not invincible. He can't keep doing this forever. It's a reminder of his own mortality and makes him face the question of what he wants to leave behind as his legacy (since legacy's already a theme of the film). As Bruce Wayne, he'll be remembered as the playboy douche who turned into a recluse and contributed little to society. As Batman, he's remembered as a murderer. Is this how the Wayne family legacy ends? It's here, injured in the Pit and faced with these questions, that Bruce fears that his life has been in vain and it's this fear that pushes him to break out and restore himself both as a Wayne and as Gotham's guardian.
At the end, he still fakes Batman's death, but NOT Bruce Wayne's. Bruce regains his fortune, his mansion, Alfred, etc. and uses his resources to help rebuild Gotham City. Since he's not Batman anymore, he no longer needs to put on the playboy act anymore and becomes a full-fledged philanthropist. Everyone who knows that he was Batman keeps his secret while the rest of Gotham remembers Batman's sacrifice and, inspired by his actions (as well as Bruce Wayne "turning over a new leaf"), do their part in getting the city back together.
Thus, Bruce brings honor back to the Wayne family legacy and, as foreshadowed in Batman Begins, the trilogy ends with us finally getting to see the day that Gotham no longer needs Batman.
But... but I like the "Dark Knight Returns" element of him coming back to Batman! ??? :(
:D
That would have been a lot more true to the character Batm, but let's face it--that's not what Nolan was going for. Although now that I think about it... Batman retiring at all tends to go against his characteristics. That makes me re-evaluate that aspect of "Dark Knight Returns...."
I love your idea of adding a captive Gordon being forced to spill.... that would just have been way more powerful! And you additions of Blake detectiving Bruce's identity Tim Drake style would have just been friggin' perfect. Or better yet instead of calling him Jean-Paul, he should have been named Tim Drake, so it's even more resemblant of the comics.
I enjoy Catwoman killing Bane for two reasons. One, because he's Nolan's Bane and he deserves it for being lame, and two because it makes perfect sense to just kill him easily. He's done horrendous things and he deserves it, and also there's no time to "tie him up," the city's gonna blow. Kill any crook you have to to save the city, I say! The fact that Batman blows the driver of the truck up with The Bat in the following chase sequence cements that idea. But that doesn't mean I'd keep her killing him, I'd like your idea better. Especially if the earlier half of the movie was the way I envisioned, you'd want to see Batman get through revenge on Bane for earlier.
As it stands, I like Bale flipping his "permission to die" line on him. The only badass Batman moment in the film. Partially spoilt by the fact that he doesn't deserve to deliver it since he lost against Bane so easily in the first act because he fought like an idiot. ;D
Haha, my issue with the Dark Knight Returns element in the film is that I didn't think it was needed for the story. With Bruce quitting at the end anyway, it feels redundant to me and turns the film into The Dark Knight Quits Twice in The Same Movie. I think there's much more impact to a "retirement" ending if Bruce is still Batman in the beginning (just like how, in my opinion, The Dark Knight Returns' ending works since he goes from being Bruce Wayne 24/7 in the beginning to being Batman 24/7 at the end).
I felt that all of the major plot points in the first act, regarding the orphanage, Daggett, and the takeover of Wayne Enterprises, stem more from Bruce Wayne being a recluse than from Batman coming out of retirement anyway. Plus, Batman gets taken out of the picture for a good chunk of the movie anyway by Bane breaking him. The "Batman's older now" aspect doesn't really get exploited much either. And the one line they took from the comic- "You're in for a show tonight, son"- doesn't make much sense in context since the cops are supposed to hate Batman for Dent's murder, so the old cop shouldn't be thrilled at all that Batman's returned to help out.
So, as it stands, Bruce starts off retired and injured.
Then heals his leg and gets out of retirement.
Then gets injured again and can't be Batman again.
Then gets healed again and goes back to being Batman again.
Then retires again. The End.
QuoteOr better yet instead of calling him Jean-Paul, he should have been named Tim Drake, so it's even more resemblant of the comics.
That's my feeling, too. If I had to rename Blake with a comic book character's name, he'd have been Drake throughout. No obfuscation from the fans. They'd know going into the movie that he was a reimagining of Robin.
And if I had to bring the general non-comic-reading audience in on the plan, then, instead of the end reveal of "Robin" being his real name, I'd have "Robin" be some kind of codename he uses in communicating with the other cops (and Batman) during Bane's takeover of Gotham, in case Bane and company are tapping into their communications. Audience still gets the idea that he's Robin and the name "Robin" still gets to be some kind of disguise that the character uses when fighting crime.
QuoteAs it stands, I like Bale flipping his "permission to die" line on him. The only badass Batman moment in the film
If I had to pick an alternate line for him to reuse on Bane, it would've been some paraphrase of "I was wondering what would break first. Your spirit? Or your body?" (more appropriate for my version of him breaking Bane than for the final film).
Batman beats Bane's ass. Then calls back the line before knocking Bane the !@#$ out. Audience cheers.
If I could alter one thing about The Dark Knight Rises, I'd change the spelling of "hiest" to "heist", thereby convincing the audience that the filmmakers weren't totally illiterate.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.badtaste.it%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Fvarie%2F2012-2%2Fhiest.png&hash=0b587780b5b99844d30023bca2446d8e88a510bb)
You guys are awesome to come up with these ideas, I for one really enjoyed the film, I thought it was a solid end to the trilogy and it had strong emotional resonance and it was truly Bruce's story as Nolan stated. Great performances and very formidable villains. Funny thing is I'm thinking of Bane and actually quoting Bane more than Ledger's Joker, he was very memorable with a wonderful performance behind the mask by Hardy.
Here's hoping the reboot is excellent!
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 17 Jul 2013, 19:51
If I could alter one thing about The Dark Knight Rises, I'd change the spelling of "hiest" to "heist", thereby convincing the audience that the filmmakers weren't totally illiterate.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.badtaste.it%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Fvarie%2F2012-2%2Fhiest.png&hash=0b587780b5b99844d30023bca2446d8e88a510bb)
How no one involved in the production caught this before it made it in is beyond me...
Some other ideas:
- Cut Alfred being an exposition machine in the Batcave about Bane's background. Alfred already has the "he's more dangerous than the ordinary criminal" beat when overlooking the security footage from the stock exchange heist later. This also avoids the awkwardness of Alfred conveniently finding out such information and it makes Bane more mysterious for the first act.
It also makes the first fight between Batman and Bane more dramatic as Batman will discover here, instead, that Bane was part of the League when Bane says, "Theatricality and deception are powerful agents to the uninitiated. But we are initiated." That line would hit a lot harder, in my opinion, as a dramatic reveal and not just Bane paraphrasing what Ra's said in the first movie.
- A small thing in the scheme of things, but it'd be nice if Gordon reunited with his family at the end. To me, it's implied that a huge part of the falling out between him and his wife was over him covering up for Dent's crimes, since the man who nearly killed his family. So, with Gordon being the one confessing the truth (and shown beaten and in danger on live television) in my version, that would change the game and his wife and children would naturally be frightened for him. When the bridges to Gotham get repaired, his family's able to return to the city and we see hope that he'll be able to reconcile with them.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 17 Jul 2013, 19:51
If I could alter one thing about The Dark Knight Rises, I'd change the spelling of "hiest" to "heist", thereby convincing the audience that the filmmakers weren't totally illiterate.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.badtaste.it%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Fvarie%2F2012-2%2Fhiest.png&hash=0b587780b5b99844d30023bca2446d8e88a510bb)
This is genius. I thought this was meant to be the 'realistic' Batman. No way would a paper allow such a mistake in the 'real world'.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu, 18 Jul 2013, 05:51This is genius. I thought this was meant to be the 'realistic' Batman. No way would a paper allow such a mistake in the 'real world'.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.tvtropes.org%2Fpmwiki%2Fpub%2Fimages%2Ftruey.jpg&hash=7be0b8a56434425dc7fd1c1297638cb824420331)
Harry truman really human serves two terms and when he's done it's Eisenhower who's got the power from '53 to '61 :P
One fix I'd like to throw in is that idiotic "anybody can be Batman" stuff. Nolan himself doesn't even believe that and neither does Bruce.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNAIxLetnS8
Reading all these comments just goes to show that Nolan isn't anywhere near as good as people make him out to be. Far from it actually.
I've found his trilogy to be marred with too many out of character moments because of a lack of character development, awkward acting and action (the fight scenes, specifically) and being a case of 'having your cake and eating it too' as far trying to be realistic and being a comic book movie at the same time. It's one to make changes for trying something different and not copying what came before, but Nolan's sense of realism makes me question his logic. I mean, it's apparently too unrealistic for Batman to become part-detective, part-scientist, all-round genius...but it's okay for him to become a member of a ninja terrorist clan who were responsible for the destruction of many civilizations for centuries? The Joker resembling anything like an actual clown or have bleached white skin with green hair is too unrealistic. But not only can Two-Face survive a deadly burn disfigurement, he can still talk, see and move his head without any discomfort despite the gaping wounds on the left of his face are so severe to the point that his teeth, eyeball and parts of his jaw are fully exposed. ::) And yet in the third film, it only takes a rope, a punch in the vertebra and some exercises to get back to peak health again? ???
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Wed, 17 Jul 2013, 07:00
Love this idea, Doc. To add to that, in my version, Bane doesn't read off from a letter-conveniently-found-in-Gordon's-coat to Gotham. Instead, he brings out the captured, beaten Gordon and makes HIM confess the truth about Harvey Dent. This gives some actual weight to that scene, especially with Gordon built up as a hero to the city in the previous scenes. It's big for Gordon's character since he couldn't bring himself to confess during Harvey Dent Day and now he HAS to do it. Plus, on a believability scale, Gordon's words would be much more trusted by the people than Bane reading off a piece of paper.
I'd say Batman covering up the deaths and taking the blame for them is just as unbelievable and just as flawed to begin with. I know that I always comment about Batman's reckless approach to human life (which is similar for many people complaining about Man of Steel), but it was common knowledge in the movies that he was fighting crime. I mean, if everybody knew that he saved the city at the end of the first film, spends his time fighting criminals which includes fighting the psychotic Joker and saving Rachel in public - and most importantly - saved Dent from being killed twice (not to mention bringing back an accountant from Asia which helped Dent's case against the mob) - then why the hell would anybody believe that Batman suddenly became cold-blooded murderer?
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu, 18 Jul 2013, 05:51
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 17 Jul 2013, 19:51
If I could alter one thing about The Dark Knight Rises, I'd change the spelling of "hiest" to "heist", thereby convincing the audience that the filmmakers weren't totally illiterate.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.badtaste.it%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Fvarie%2F2012-2%2Fhiest.png&hash=0b587780b5b99844d30023bca2446d8e88a510bb)
This is genius. I thought this was meant to be the 'realistic' Batman. No way would a paper allow such a mistake in the 'real world'.
I work in the newspaper industry...I've seen worse mistakes than that :-)
One brave soul has dared to tackle some things that he thought didn't make sense about the trilogy. There is one I think applies to the complaints about Batman's existence was influenced by his love for Rachel, and his moping over her death for years:
QuoteAs a character, Rachel just doesn't make sense to me, and no it isn't just because Katie Holmes was awful, and then they necessarily replaced her a little bit too late, which in itself was a little jarring, even if Nolan dealt with the situation as best as could be expected.
It is the very foundation of the character that vexes me the most. She was created by Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer specifically for these movies, and she was pretty much only used as a moralizer and an extremely blatant Bruce-change-your-views-and-life plot device. She's not a real character, and worse, what she represents turns the very notion of Batman away from what he ought to be.
Because of Rachel's influence over Bruce, her demise (and other tragic events relating to her up to that point) turn the trilogy into a story not of vengeance against murderous criminals, but of tragic love, in which one person dies, and the other must endure the horrible reality of life without them. It's a cable TV movie with a major budget and a big rubber suit.
If you look at the trilogy from this point of view, it becomes clear that Batman's is not a story of a man who wanted to make the world and his city a better place, instead it's the tale of a man who did most of his good deeds to please a woman and prove that he's still that good sincere boy who was once scared of bats. It all feels like a marketing ploy to appeal to the cash-rich and spend-happy female audiences, who like their brooding single guys, whether they wear a cape or not.
Source: http://whatculture.com/film/the-dark-knight-trilogy-10-moments-that-make-no-damn-sense.php/3 (http://whatculture.com/film/the-dark-knight-trilogy-10-moments-that-make-no-damn-sense.php/3)
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 19 Jul 2013, 02:31
One fix I'd like to throw in is that idiotic "anybody can be Batman" stuff. Nolan himself doesn't even believe that and neither does Bruce.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNAIxLetnS8
I think it would've made a huge difference if they cut, or altered, the "Batman could be anyone" line in the car scene between Bruce and Blake. When I heard that in the theater, followed by Bruce saying, "That was the point," I thought, "No, it wasn't. In the first movie, you said it was about inspiring people and in the second, you specifically said you didn't have copycats/other Batmen in mind and that you were working toward a day when Gotham didn't need Batman..."
To me, there's a difference between that line and the "hero can be anyone" line at the end. The latter is a nice message and speaks to how Bruce wanted to use Batman as a symbol to inspire people to fight for themselves (and, in a way, speaks to how Gordon inspired him through a small act of kindness years ago).
The "Batman" line in the car feels like it's hitting you on the head with foreshadowing that, if you didn't guess already, JGL is going to take on the mantle by the end of this movie...
QuoteI'd say Batman covering up the deaths and taking the blame for them is just as unbelievable and just as flawed to begin with. I know that I always comment about Batman's reckless approach to human life (which is similar for many people complaining about Man of Steel), but it was common knowledge in the movies that he was fighting crime. I mean, if everybody knew that he saved the city at the end of the first film, spends his time fighting criminals which includes fighting the psychotic Joker and saving Rachel in public - and most importantly - saved Dent from being killed twice (not to mention bringing back an accountant from Asia which helped Dent's case against the mob) - then why the hell would anybody believe that Batman suddenly became cold-blooded murderer?
I wouldn't have ended the previous movie like that either, partially for the reasons you said. Since Doc set the parameters that BB and TDK are to remain intact, I thought the third movie could've at least played with that decision dramatically and in a big way. Let's actually see the truth come out from Gordon. Let's see that cause people to lose hope, as he had predicted, at a time when they needed it most, etc. I would've given the TDK ending a lot more slack if it had lead to something actually interesting, powerful, and/or emotional in the third film. Instead, all we got was the following:
- the "Harvey Dent Act," which is never specified and seems to magically clean up the streets of Gotham in between movies, so I didn't buy it
- Bane conveniently finding the truth via paper in Gordon's pocket
- Bane reading off said paper to the people...at a time when a) nobody really has a reason to believe Bane 'cause he's taken their city hostage and b) nobody really gives a crap about Harvey Dent at this point 'cause the man's been dead for 8 years and, again, the whole city's been taken hostage!
- JGL shaking his head at Gordon in a living room.
Anticlimactic.
Also, they swept under the rug the fact that Batman took the blame for Two-Face's crimes. I would've liked a powerful scene with Gordon and Batman revealing the truth about that night to Gotham.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sat, 20 Jul 2013, 11:49
Also, they swept under the rug the fact that Batman took the blame for Two-Face's crimes. I would've liked a powerful scene with Gordon and Batman revealing the truth about that night to Gotham.
Bane revealed the truth about Dent during his speech outside Blackgate Prison.
He did but I wanted Batman and Gordon to do it.
I think this may break the rules of the thread but I'd have removed the whole 'injury' aspect; it creates more plot holes and pointless plot than positive aspects; he showed no signs of injury in the previous film, nor did he show signs of injury once he decided he wanted to become batman again. Also are we to believe all this corruption in gotham shown in the first two films simply evaporated once Dent died and Batman left? I get that Nolan tried to make everything peaceful before Bane showed up but what exactly created all this peace?
I guess to somewhat keep in line with the tone of the film, I'd have had Batman 'retired' for a bit with Bane terrorizing Gotham calling him out. Also I'd have had the Dent murders a topic of debate in Gotham. Everyone just assumes it was all Batman despite there being no evidence. Gordon could have simply left the scene for someone else to find Dent or even done something with the body. It wasn't well known by the public that Dent survived the attack on the hospital so if he was simply never heard from again, it would have been assumed he died there.
And yeah i'd have done something about both vehicles. I hate that Nolan had too much pride to use a proper batmobile. Similar to how the tank transforms into the bat pod in the previous film, I'd have had his vehicle transform again into a flying object with a better name than 'the bat'
Didn't like the ending either. Why is Nolan so high and mighty that he is the only director allowed to end a superhero's career?
I'd have changed Blake's last name to O'Hara, give a nod to the TV show.
Riddler, I think that the city became so peaceful because The Dent Act was a law passed that made crime illegal.
Seriously. Think about it. That's all it was. Basically The Dent Act is detailed to be a repeal of parole to organized criminals. Keeping them in jail and making them easier to target or something.
So basically, it's a law that made crime a jailable offense. ::)
Nice to know all Gotham had to do, instead of giving rise to a vigilante, was just be vigilant. Suddenly the 60s Gotham City is looking less inept. ???
Quote from: DocLathropBrown on Sat, 10 Aug 2013, 06:04
Riddler, I think that the city became so peaceful because The Dent Act was a law passed that made crime illegal.
Seriously. Think about it. That's all it was. Basically The Dent Act is detailed to be a repeal of parole to organized criminals. Keeping them in jail and making them easier to target or something.
So basically, it's a law that made crime a jailable offense. ::)
Nice to know all Gotham had to do, instead of giving rise to a vigilante, was just be vigilant. Suddenly the 60s Gotham City is looking less inept. ???
Yeah, I like the film but the Dent Act is a ridiculous contrivance. In my experience, few electorates have to be convinced to push through more draconian, reactionary laws on crime. Often its much harder to convince the public to go more liberal on the issue of criminal justice. Why Dent's death had to occur for the city to give its approval to a law that removed parole for any criminal who commits a crime as part of a larger criminal enterprise I don't know: http://batman.wikia.com/wiki/Dent_Act?file=The_Harvey_Dent_Act.jpg (http://batman.wikia.com/wiki/Dent_Act?file=The_Harvey_Dent_Act.jpg)
But apart from that one aspect of the Dent Act I don't see what else this piece of legislation does. It all seems to be very vague for filmmakers who supposedly pride themselves on detail. It also subscribes to the flawed notion that tougher jail sentences, as opposed to more effective detection, result in lower crime rates, but perhaps one shouldn't be surprised in view of how reactionary TDK series is as a whole with its castigation of the 99%, its belief that society's ills can be only be saved by a small, wealthy, patrician elite and its endorsement of extreme surveillance methods as the sonar device Batman uses to defat the Joker (heck, even the bad guy Harvey Dent was seen as a representation of Obama). In fact, it surprises me that the more conservative members off this forum aren't bigger fans of this post-9/11 Bush era superhero franchise.
I take issue personally with TDKRises for its "rich people are bad" slant... when the film is being made by a bunch of rich people.
Quote from: DocLathropBrown on Sun, 11 Aug 2013, 21:23
I take issue personally with TDKRises for its "rich people are bad" slant... when the film is being made by a bunch of rich people.
What's the alternative? Films that tell us how fantastic rich people are? Personally I thought that's what 'TDKR' was. Apart from the one rich guy (Daggett) Bane kills the film seems to be anti-Occupy and pro-the 1%. Even if Bane's ultimate agenda is nothing like the Occupy Movement's he still uses anti-elitism as a means of achieving his aims and thus the film seems to imply that the Occupy Movement is a false prophet.
Since the B&R thread has many people cutting Batgirl and/or Bane from the movie, I think there's a version of this film that cuts Miranda/Talia out entirely.
This would reduce several problems with the film- the underdeveloped character, the poor representation of the comic book character, the underdeveloped "romance" with her and Bruce, a twist that's a complete repeat of the Ra's al Ghul one in Batman Begins, making Bane seem like a lackey (and from a purist's standpoint, giving Bane's origin to Talia), the random love scene (and the fact she could've easily killed or captured Bruce at Wayne Manor or at any point when they were alone), and, of course, Cotillard's infamous death performance.
Daggett is already used to get in cahoots with Bane and could easily have fulfilled his perfunctory role of getting Bane access to Wayne Enterprises before Bane takes him out.
And I think the finale could've easily been changed around without her- Batman was already planning war against Bane, so he didn't need the extra motivation of needing to rescue "Miranda" at City Hall on top of it. Bane could've fulfilled Talia's role of trying to ensure the bomb went off. All they'd have to do is switch the order of the final scenes, with the big chase scene happening before the Batman-Bane fight.
Bane could take off during the storming of City Hall to get to the bomb. Batman goes after him. Then, we could've gotten the BatWING chase against Bane in the Tumblers. Batman causes Bane to crash. Batman and Bane then have the rematch we've been waiting for, mano a mano, with the ticking bomb at stake. Bane gets defeated the way I described earlier, but it's already too late. The bomb will go off, etc.
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Sun, 11 Aug 2013, 22:51Since the B&R thread has many people cutting Batgirl and/or Bane from the movie, I think there's a version of this film that cuts Miranda/Talia out entirely.
I could live with deleting the revelation that she's Talia. I think it'd be easy up to a point to even do it with the existing cut. It'd get tricky after Batman defeats Bane but I think it could be doable.
But a change I'd like is for Bane's name to be switched to Ubu. It wouldn't change much of anything to simply call that character Ubu as nothing in the movie requires him to be Bane but Ubu just might be so determined to see Ra's al-Ghul's plan through (and not much of a creative thinker in his own right) that he'd destroy Gotham even though Gotham had cleaned up its act with the Dent Act that made crime illegal.
I shouldn't have got sarky with you. I was just wondering whether you were trying to rub me up the wrong way with that comment about 'TDKR. Anyway, my beef isn't with you personally although it's safe to say we probably view our so-called elite slightly differently. If it's any consolation I have pretty much the same feelings about the 'liberal elite' as I do about the 'conservative elite'. Sure, some people are rich, some people are poor. It'll always be that way and to be honest, I don't have a problem with that (although I do think the disparity shouldn't be as great as it is - studies even demonstrate that those countries with a smaller disparity between rich and poor, such as some of the Scandinavian nations, tend to have a higher degree of well-being all round). My problem is with the idea that being born with a silver spoon, or even for that matter being a self-made millionaire, automatically makes you a superior human-being. It doesn't. Not all of us are driven by money and those of us who weren't born rich aren't de facto lesser human beings.
That's part of the reason I like 'Batman Returns' so much. It hints that Batman/Bruce Wayne may be as much a liability to the city as a saviour, an angle 'TDK' franchise always dismissed with its un-ironic hero-worship of the main character. In 'Batman Returns' the streets are free from crime but they're also a sense that Batman's daily patrol is oppressive and the streets aren't just empty of criminals. They're empty period. Plus, 'Batman Returns' is the one live-action Batman film that suggests the real villains may be the corporate big-wigs who have as much money and power as Bruce Wayne, not necessarily the kooks and crazies who operate on the fringes of society.
Nice GIF by the way. ;D
BatmAngelus, your ideas about Bane and Miranda Tate would have fixed most of my major gripes with this film. I like The Dark Knight Rises a lot more than most people on this site, but the plot twist in the final act still bothers me. It was so unnecessary and predictable. It actually detracted from the characterisation and devalued the film in terms of comic book accuracy. While I've advocated a more comic-accurate direction for future Batman films, I'm by no means a purest, and I certainly don't mind changes from the source material as long as they work within the context of the film. But the twist at the end of TDKR
didn't work. At least not in my opinion.
Removing Miranda and using Daggett to fulfil her role in the Wayne Enterprises subplot would also help shorten the runtime, which in turn would improve the film's overall pacing. So those are all good ideas.
QuoteMy problem is with the idea that being born with a silver spoon, or even for that matter being a self-made millionaire, automatically makes you a superior human-being. It doesn't. Not all of us are driven by money and those of us who weren't born rich aren't de facto lesser human beings.
Gobbs, did you ever read Hamm's original script for Batman 2? If I recall correctly, it features a subplot about homeless people massing on the streets of Gotham. Vicki encourages Bruce to start using his wealth to affect positive change, pointing out that his public persona can do just as much good for Gotham as his costumed persona. It was a nice little character arc for Bruce and one that would've shown him evolving from the introverted recluse of Batman 89 into the more familiar philanthropist/playboy Wayne from the comics. I wish they'd included something like that in the finished film.
QuoteIn 'Batman Returns' the streets are free from crime but they're also a sense that Batman's daily patrol is oppressive and the streets aren't just empty of criminals. They're empty period.
I've always felt the neo-fascist architecture in Batman Returns was a deliberate expression of Batman's presence ruling over the city. In Batman 89 Gotham is chaotic and disorderly. In Batman Returns it's filled with weeping statues and harsh, angular skyscrapers that dwarf the people with their oppressive size; a cold, unwelcoming nightmare city ruled over by the Dark Knight. The emptiness of the streets and the angularity of the buildings reflect Batman's imposed order. And it's every bit as oppressive as the Gotham that was ruled over by the Joker.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 12 Aug 2013, 21:27
I shouldn't have got sarky with you. I was just wondering whether you were trying to rub me up the wrong way with that comment about 'TDKR. Anyway, my beef isn't with you personally although it's safe to say we probably view our so-called elite slightly differently. If it's any consolation I have pretty much the same feelings about the 'liberal elite' as I do about the 'conservative elite'. Sure, some people are rich, some people are poor. It'll always be that way and to be honest, I don't have a problem with that (although I do think the disparity shouldn't be as great as it is - studies even demonstrate that those countries with a smaller disparity between rich and poor, such as some of the Scandinavian nations, tend to have a higher degree of well-being all round). My problem is with the idea that being born with a silver spoon, or even for that matter being a self-made millionaire, automatically makes you a superior human-being. It doesn't. Not all of us are driven by money and those of us who weren't born rich aren't de facto lesser human beings.
Some people make vital contributions to society without which society either would not exist at all or else would not exist in its current state.
Such people are more worthy of praise and high esteem than someone who contributes absolutely nothing and does absolutely nothing to better himself.
True, some people are not motivated by money. Artists,
real artists, are generally not motivated by money but unlike the slacker contingent they still do contribute to the soceity in their own way. But too often people (usually underachievers) equate laziness with an equal but opposite aptitude for other things which simply doesn't exist.
Another thing about the disparity between rich and poor is that it implicitly assumes that a median income for all is not only fair and just, but imminently desirable. It also ignores the fact that the disparity fluctuating upward likely reflects growth in the lower and middle income brackets. Instead, the assumption is that those at the top are somehow victimizing those on the bottom, which requires the critic to ignore the fact that "the top" is a virtual revolving door of up-and-comers and has-beens. "The top" is constantly in flux as far as membership is concerned.
The goal of any society should be to move those at the bottom up rather than bring those at the top down. No society has cracked the code on how to do this across the board but there are certain ideologies guaranteed to keep a certain segment of society perpetually on the bottom while other ideologies offer the opportunity for those on the bottom to excel and move up. In spite of verifiable, demonstrable results, however, all too often true economic success and upward-mobility promulgated by successful ideologies can be derailed with three simple words- "it's not fair". But to make a long post shorter, I'll skip that diatribe.
In the final analysis, most people are merely average in their personal/artistic/professional accomplishments and utterly forgettable in their personalities.What bothers me about the notion of equality is that at some point the word started to mean "the same". "Hey man, I'm just as good as you are. We're equal!" Uh, no you're not and no we're not. Still, it's an easy sell to a not-as-well-educated-as-they-think, low-information American public who are determined to find validation for their mediocrity anywhere they can. This mentality is a snowflake in a blizzard of reasons why I don't think just anybody should have the right to vote.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 12 Aug 2013, 21:27That's part of the reason I like 'Batman Returns' so much. It hints that Batman/Bruce Wayne may be as much a liability to the city as a saviour, an angle 'TDK' franchise always dismissed with its un-ironic hero-worship of the main character. In 'Batman Returns' the streets are free from crime but they're also a sense that Batman's daily patrol is oppressive and the streets aren't just empty of criminals. They're empty period. Plus, 'Batman Returns' is the one live-action Batman film that suggests the real villains may be the corporate big-wigs who have as much money and power as Bruce Wayne, not necessarily the kooks and crazies who operate on the fringes of society.
Nice GIF by the way. ;D
I've long doubted Batman as a "hero" in the virtuous sense of the word. He's a maverick vigilante who may achieve good short term results but the outcome of his existence is an invisible, benign local totalitarianism. He uses nothing but illegal means and bypasses democratically-elected and accountable public officials and deputized law enforcement officers to impose his definition of Order upon society.
I can think of a lot of things to call someone like that but "hero" in the traditional sense isn't really one of them.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 13 Aug 2013, 00:18
I've long doubted Batman as a "hero" in the virtuous sense of the word. He's a maverick vigilante who may achieve good short term results but the outcome of his existence is an invisible, benign local totalitarianism. He uses nothing but illegal means and bypasses democratically-elected and accountable public officials and deputized law enforcement officers to impose his definition of Order upon society.
I can think of a lot of things to call someone like that but "hero" in the traditional sense isn't really one of them.
That's it. Batman is not a hero. His parents always come first. Truth is, he never ever wants to get over that moment. If the comic version entertained the idea he would view it as a gross betrayal to their memory. The Joker said it best in ROTJ – "Behind all the sturm and bat-o-rangs, you're just a little boy in a playsuit, crying for mommy and daddy."
From his point of view, it's his duty and right to take police evidence and examine it himself. He lives alone and his best friend is an elderly butler. The guy has elements of depression but manages to function, mainly because it's all he knows. The Joker cannot function without Batman, but Batman can function without The Joker. Or anyone else for that matter. The more people die, or the more alone he becomes, the sterner he becomes. "I believe you enjoy the loneliness."
Melancholy personalities.
This is one of the reasons why, push comes to shove, I prefer The Shadow to Batman. The things that separate them are degrees rather than differences. The Shadow is a lot like Batman; only more so.
At the same time though, he has no illusions that his real war is on evil. Not just crime and not necessarily just one city. He has a bit more of an organized idea. By shooting some crime lord in some country straight to hell, he's relieving local tensions and thereby preventing full scale civil war. And he's sending somebody to hell, which is it's own reward... but, by itself, not the end goal.
It would take me a week to write everything that I want to say.
I'll just pick two things I would change
1) Don't have the movie start off with Batman as a cripple:
It's not consistent with how the last film ended and it creates a redundancy in the storyline.
Batman is hurt. But he's back! Oh wait, he's hurt again. But now he's back! And now he's dead. Or is he?
2) The whole stock exchange scene. If ever there was a financial transaction that would be easily reversible it would be one created by an internationally-known terrorist in front of thousands of witnesses (including half the GPD). The notion that this would bankrupt Bruce Wayne (even temporarily) is absurd.
Quote from: phantom stranger on Wed, 14 Aug 2013, 01:53
It would take me a week to write everything that I want to say.
I'll just pick two things I would change
1) Don't have the movie start off with Batman as a cripple:
It's not consistent with how the last film ended and it creates a redundancy in the storyline.
Batman is hurt. But he's back! Oh wait, he's hurt again. But now he's back! And now he's dead. Or is he?
2) The whole stock exchange scene. If ever there was a financial transaction that would be easily reversible it would be one created by an internationally-known terrorist in front of thousands of witnesses (including half the GPD). The notion that this would bankrupt Bruce Wayne (even temporarily) is absurd.
Agreed, I hated every aspect of the injury; it wasn't there during the previous film, it was totally inconsistent (he recovered once he wanted to). The Bane back breaking was a great plotline to use but the earlier injury took away from that.... pretend how youd' feel if you had no clue it was a homage to the comics; you'd be thinking "oh look he's hurt again". If they had to keep the plot point of Bruce being away for 8 years (which I also didn't like), why not simply having him hide from authorities due to the dent murder (or not being needed due to the peace aspect) and have Bruce depressed and blaming himself over Rachel?