The Dark Knight Rises: Articles, Analyses, Notable reviews etc.

[The Dark Knight]

There's believing in good, and then there's being threatened with a nuclear bomb with freed dangerous criminals roaming around on an island cut off from the mainland. So there's going to be an element of survival instincts coming to the fore for some people. But the guys with the guns and tanks and going to be at the top of the food chain. If some of the working class got involved, I don't see them making up the majority of the army. In TDK we saw people attempt to kill Reese as per Joker's demand, but again, those people are shown to be in the minority. Nolan, via the film, says the majority of citizens aren't curruptible by refusing to blow up the other ferry. I maintain the majority of people in TDKR weren't into Bane's forced revolution.

[Dagenspear]

Like I said, the action movie trope of villains not killing heroes when they have the chance is commonplace, but I found that these films, mainly TDK and TDKR, bit more than they could chew, so to speak. Yes, I can buy one moment of that trope happening, but not to have it stretched and repeated so often throughout the film.

I think it reaches a point when it comes to subjective taste, rather one being locked in a particular mindset (I know you weren't accusing me of being negative TDK, I was just making a point). Even if these films weren't put on a pedestal, I'd still hold that opinion.

Then it's not something that's an issue with the film. Which is fine. But directing it at the film is a little unnecessary.

The only superhero film that sticks out in my mind that may compare to TDKR is Iron Man 3, when Alrich Killian explains his plot to Tony Stark once he had him captured. But I can tolerate that much better because Killian tried to kill Tony at his mansion in Malibu, and Tony found where the Mandarin was supposedly hiding on his own and uncovered the conspiracy before getting captured. But most importantly, it can be argued that Tony surprised everybody when he used his Extremis armor to make his escape. That, and I think Killian's plot to use Extremis to profit on wars against terrorism by creating a fictional terror threat to cover up his tracks made his motives work. I won't go far to say that this thought-provoking stuff, but in my opinion, Killian's agenda is much better than anything I saw in Nolan's films here.

He wants to make money. How is that interesting? The plan is something sure, but his agenda is lame. Tony uncovered it by the power of plot contrivance, same way everything happens in most movies. There was also very little reason why Aldrich set out to kill Tony when Tony was the one who could help him. He also says that he's not interested in revenge so it isn't that, and why does Maya show up at that point? Why not sooner? And why did Aldrich use missles to attack him like that? Tony has a flying suit of armor. How does Aldrich think this is going to work? The fact that it nearly works is a contrivance in itself. jarvis just happens to not be able to function the security, Tony just happens, for some reason to be wearing an inefficient suit when he's attacked and for some reason Tony didn't activate all the other suits he had for protection. And he crashes in the place he set a flight plan for because he's unconscious for some reason as jarvis is flying and jarvis, an extremely advanced ai, doesn't understand that after an attack that maybe his previous flight plan might not be the issue now. Then jarvis shuts down because he lost power and Tony's reactor doesn't power this suit even though that was established to be the way his suits are powered, and jarvis shuts down, he's not cut off from Tony, he shuts down, how does that happen? Is jarvis in Tony's suit? That kinda goes against previously established information of jarvis being jacked into all of Tony's stuff. With jarvis being jacked into everything the logical assumption is that he has a core, I assumed in Tony's house and when jarvis shut down I thought that was because the house had been destroyed and jarvis' power was draining or something, but no, jarvis is functioning fine at the end. These are all contrivances.

I'll admit that you make a valid point by looking at it from that perspective. But my problem with that scene has everything to do with Lucius Fox. He's the same guy who supports Bruce Wayne by giving him the equipment that causes collateral damage e.g. the armored vehicles, gives him the tools to attack and kidnap people (i.e. using sonar during the Lau incident in Hong Kong, which was Fox's idea) and does so without any reservations. He's perfectly okay with enabling a vigilante that puts the entire town at risk and one who doesn't have to worry about things like jurisdictions, accountability, due processes and so on, but he thinks taking desperate measures to find a dangerous perpetrator is going too far? It's something that really annoys me and I just can't ignore. These films don't really explore how Batman impacts on the wider public like Frank Miller does in Dark Knight Returns, yet we're supposed to analyse the political undertones in that sonar scene? I think that I'd appreciate the scene a lot more if Batman called out on Fox's hypocrisy, but as it stands, I just can't help but feel it was disingenuous. I honestly think Nolan would be much better off if were to direct movies that are better suited for the themes he was going for, i.e. based on actual events. Putting them in a Batman movie just makes them too vague, in my opinion.

Political undertones don't have to be about how batman effects the people, but we do see reactions in criminals and in a few of the general public in tdk. But Bruce being batman doesn't actively violate people's privacy, regular people's privacy, not just the privacy of criminals, in particular. Accepting one doesn't necessarily contradict the other.

That's fine. But for me personally, I prefer a Batman adaptation that stays true to the character: a driven and dedicated crimefigher. And that doesn't necessarily mean he can't have flaws either. Keaton's Batman is unable to have a close relationship with someone like Vicki or have any close friends because of his secret life. TNBA's Batman became so driven and intense that he became distant to Robin, and it led to a falling out that never quite healed. These are flaws, but they keep in line with the nature of the character. If Nolan's point was Batman to becoming a symbol and wanted somebody else to take over the mantle, then he executed it poorly because that point gets contradicted in all three films. I just can't accept that, and it's simply not a Batman that I admire.

It isn't contradicted. But what version of the character you like is your opinion and your entitled to that.

Be though as it may, I find it ridiculous that Gotham is surprisingly quiet and empty after that little montage sequence. I think a lot of that has to do with the PG-13 rating hold back on the violence. I just the find the villains to be too ridiculous for my liking that I just can't their plot seriously. I just don't think it was very well executed. Once again, that's just my subjective opinion. Though I do find Tom Hardy's Bane as entertaining out of all the villains here.

You not taking it seriously doesn't mean that it can't be.

It's one thing to know what to expect from a dumb action movie, but when a director as hyped as Nolan gets especially put on a pedestal as being better than your average filmmaker, I think it's fair to scrutinise his work to see if it lives up to those standards. Personally, not only do they not hold up to those standards, I don't even think his take on Batman holds up as typical action movies.

It's unfair to judge a director based off of how he's view by other people. He's not the people that praise him. Their reaction isn't his fault.

God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!

[The Laughing Fish]

There's believing in good, and then there's being threatened with a nuclear bomb with freed dangerous criminals roaming around on an island cut off from the mainland. So there's going to be an element of survival instincts coming to the fore for some people. But the guys with the guns and tanks and going to be at the top of the food chain. If some of the working class got involved, I don't see them making up the majority of the army. In TDK we saw people attempt to kill Reese as per Joker's demand, but again, those people are shown to be in the minority. Nolan, via the film, says the majority of citizens aren't curruptible by refusing to blow up the other ferry. I maintain the majority of people in TDKR weren't into Bane's forced revolution.

Don't take this as a personal attack or anything, but you once agreed back in 'Your version of The Dark Knight' thread that the boat scene was rubbish and didn't buy the message that Nolan was going for. You thought it was unbelievable and called it a token 'feel-good' scene, and agreed that it was contradictory to have Reese threatened by those people. But now you're willing to justify this as those actions belonged to the "minority"?

Look, I'm not that cynical. I would've been perfectly fine with that message...if Batman actually told the truth about Two-Face's crimes and not go against his belief that people can persevere anything. This is why I think Spider-Man 2 dealt with the public faith WAY better than this. A cynic may laugh at the people promising to keep Peter Parker's identity a secret, but it goes to show how grateful they are that he saved their lives despite his lengthy absence.

Sorry, but I just don't buy that rationale, and I certainly do not buy the way Nolan tries to present the message.

[The Dark Knight]

Don't mistake me for completely liking what is presented. But I think that's what Nolan intended, such as the ferry scene. I still don't find that believable either. I think in reality the detonator button would have beenpushed by one of the ferries, if not both. But importantly, it's about what is shown in the film. I'm also mentally trying to understand the films, piece together some coherence in the hope I can enjoy them a little more.

[Dagenspear]

Don't take this as a personal attack or anything, but you once agreed back in 'Your version of The Dark Knight' thread that the boat scene was rubbish and didn't buy the message that Nolan was going for. You thought it was unbelievable and called it a token 'feel-good' scene, and agreed that it was contradictory to have Reese threatened by those people. But now you're willing to justify this as those actions belonged to the "minority"?

That is the case. It's not a justification. It's what happens in the film. If Coleman Reese was being attacked by everyone that had someone in the hospital and with the amount of conviction one would give if they wanted to do something, nothing anybody did could've saved him. But that isn't what happened. A lot of people were yelling for him, two people tried to shoot him and one person tried to hit him with their car. That isn't everything everyone has to throw at this situation.

Look, I'm not that cynical. I would've been perfectly fine with that message...if Batman actually told the truth about Two-Face's crimes and not go against his belief that people can persevere anything. This is why I think Spider-Man 2 dealt with the public faith WAY better than this. A cynic may laugh at the people promising to keep Peter Parker's identity a secret, but it goes to show how grateful they are that he saved their lives despite his lengthy absence.

batman's belief or disbelief in the people don't define their goodness. What batman thinks doesn't matter in that regard. More than anything it shows that Bruce has lost belief in himself. spiderman 2's way of dealing with it was good, but it wasn't done for the same reason as it was in tdk. In spiderman 2 it was about showing Peter that he's appreciated for what he does in some way. In tdk it was about defeating the joker and having batman say that people are ready to believe in good. That's what batman says. That's his perception. That people don't simply believe in good, that they are ready to believe in good. It shows his perception of how he doesn't believe batman as doing real good, but seeing that goodness being something Harvey inspired and that it's just started, which is shown in the film.

Sorry, but I just don't buy that rationale, and I certainly do not buy the way Nolan tries to present the message.

You not buying it doesn't make it something that can't be bought.

God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!

[The Laughing Fish]

Don't mistake me for completely liking what is presented. But I think that's what Nolan intended, such as the ferry scene. I still don't find that believable either. I think in reality the detonator button would have beenpushed by one of the ferries, if not both. But importantly, it's about what is shown in the film. I'm also mentally trying to understand the films, piece together some coherence in the hope I can enjoy them a little more.

I understand what you're saying. But, let's say for a second that you may be right about the people who threatened Reese were only a minority, whereas the majority of citizens are naturally good. That would've been fine, except the problem is that Bruce taking the fall for Dent still betrayed his belief about people were ready to believe in good, because he kept saying that the citizens of Gotham AND the prisoners wouldn't kill each other. That is amazingly rich for him to have faith in criminals, because they are the reason why he became Batman in the first place.

So if the message from that boat scene was supposed to mean that even convicts are capable of goodness regardless of whatever crimes they may have committed, then that gets totally flushed down the toilet when the truth comes out in TDKR. And you're okay with this?

TDK's ending is a huge catalyst for the Dent Act in TDKR, and Batman's decision to frame himself left an extremely bad taste in my mouth. Would Gotham have had eight years of peace if Batman and Gordon didn't lie to the public? Maybe not. But the disastrous consequences that happened once the lie was exposed by Bane only prove that it wasn't worth it.

I can appreciate a flawed film that has good intentions like Batman Forever, which had admirable plot points of Batman overcoming his guilt and makes his identity a choice rather than a burden, and ensuring that Robin doesn't make the same self-destructive mistake by seeking revenge for his parents' murders. But sadly, not only I'm not too keen on Nolan's ideas, I find his execution for them extremely shoddy.

[thecolorsblend]

I'll admit that you make a valid point by looking at it from that perspective. But my problem with that scene has everything to do with Lucius Fox. He's the same guy who supports Bruce Wayne by giving him the equipment that causes collateral damage e.g. the armored vehicles, gives him the tools to attack and kidnap people (i.e. using sonar during the Lau incident in Hong Kong, which was Fox's idea) and does so without any reservations. He's perfectly okay with enabling a vigilante that puts the entire town at risk and one who doesn't have to worry about things like jurisdictions, accountability, due processes and so on, but he thinks taking desperate measures to find a dangerous perpetrator is going too far?

Again, there isn't really a rational argument to get you to change your mind on this.

That said, my reading of Fox is that he's a man of principle. On some level, I believe he's okay with Bruce's activities as Batman because he's essentially breaking the law in order to enforce justice in a corrupt, imperfect system. There's an ideal being carried out there even if Bruce is wiping his butt with the law.

Brother Eye is different in that Bruce is now treading on what Fox at least believes is dangerous social and philosophical grounds in robbing people of their civil liberties. Yes, there's an ideal he's carrying out. But for the first time Fox sees Batman violating other ideals (due process, right to privacy, unauthorized surveillance) to accomplish it. Notice Fox doesn't disown Batman; he simply disowns using Brother Eye.

For a man of principle that I interpret Fox as being, it's one thing to ask him to design a new suit in order to build a better Batman. It's quite another, though, to expect him to indiscriminately spy on an entire city to capture one man. He wants to help... but he doesn't want to betray his own conscience in order to do it.

It's something that really annoys me and I just can't ignore. These films don't really explore how Batman impacts on the wider public like Frank Miller does in Dark Knight Returns, yet we're supposed to analyse the political undertones in that sonar scene?

I don't think Nolan intended to explore how Batman's actions affect the public. His interest has been on how Batman, as an abstract concept, affects primarily Bruce and, secondarily, his circle of friends and associates. The conflict in the Brother Eye scene revolves around Batman's willingness to go to any lengths to catch the Joker and Fox's revulsion at the basic underpinnings of a democratic society getting jettisoned in the process. In any case it's not the movie's focal point so it seems unnecessary to analyze the scene too much. Suffice it to say that nothing seems out of character for Batman or Fox in that scene.

I think that I'd appreciate the scene a lot more if Batman called out on Fox's hypocrisy, but as it stands, I just can't help but feel it was disingenuous. I honestly think Nolan would be much better off if were to direct movies that are better suited for the themes he was going for, i.e. based on actual events. Putting them in a Batman movie just makes them too vague, in my opinion.

Don't take this the wrong way but I haven't heard very many people comment on the political subtext of Nolan's Batman films who didn't see the war on terror metaphor in Batman Begins, the Patriot Act in TDK and that strange Ayn Randian Ideal vs. Occupy Wall St rant in TDKRises. If you don't see the arguments made in those films, no offense, but that may actually be a good thing. I say this as someone who's sick of being politicked in entertainment media, btw.

This is why I'm really hoping that Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice does a much better job at exploring how superheroes affect the public. It may focus Superman as a plot point, but don't be surprised if Superman himself questions Batman's methods as we may have heard in the trailer i.e. "This bat-vigilante is like a one man reign of terror". Whether it will be executed successfully is something that remains to be seen.

Obviously the jury is still out on that. I, for one, am just happy to finally be getting a Superman/Batman team-up movie, especially one created by people who appear to love the characters so much.

[The Laughing Fish]

That said, my reading of Fox is that he's a man of principle. On some level, I believe he's okay with Bruce's activities as Batman because he's essentially breaking the law in order to enforce justice in a corrupt, imperfect system. There's an ideal being carried out there even if Bruce is wiping his butt with the law.

The issue I take with that is Batman takes a rather devil-may-care approach to doing things i.e. using Fox's Tumbler that endangers bystanders and miraculously didn't kill anyone during that chase sequence in BB. Unlike Alfred, we don't see Fox's reaction to that, as if he has no reservations towards it. If he didn't begin to question Batman's methods until that sonar scene, then quite frankly, Fox's head is in the clouds. I don't see how the Tumbler's collateral damage is less unethical.

I reckon Captain America: The Winter Soldier's surveillance debate between Cap and Nick Fury handled this better. Cap, a war veteran and Avenger, has issues with SHIELD taking drastic measures to prevent terrorism because he feels it's fear-mongering rather than liberating, whereas Fury justifies the agency needing to take measures according to how dangerous the world is. Especially following the Battle of New York.

I don't think Nolan intended to explore how Batman's actions affect the public. His interest has been on how Batman, as an abstract concepts, affects primarily Bruce and, secondarily, his circle of friends and associates.

That's too bad, because it makes the whole talk about 'symbolism' even more hollow. If movies like this want to talk about the protagonist being a symbol that aspires people, then at least have the wider public take a position. Same thing goes for Harvey Dent. Otherwise, it's just tell, don't show.

Anyway, we both agree that Nolan's Batman is far from our preferred screen interpretation, so I have no issues with disagreeing on some aspects.

Don't take this the wrong way but I haven't heard very many people comment on the political subtext of Nolan's Batman films who didn't see the war on terror metaphor in Batman Begins, the Patriot Act in TDK and that strange Ayn Randian Ideal vs. Occupy Wall St rant in TDKRises. If you don't see the arguments made in those films, no offense, but that may actually be a good thing. I say this as someone who's sick of being politicked in entertainment media, btw.

Don't worry, I'm definitely sick of it too. For me, my lack of tolerance is based on getting tired of the hype surrounding Nolan's villains and whatever subtext they bring, because in my opinion, they come across as even more cartoonish and silly than the Marvel villains, despite all the criticism about how jokey the latter are.

Obviously the jury is still out on that. I, for one, am just happy to finally be getting a Superman/Batman team-up movie, especially one created by people who appear to love the characters so much.

Fingers crossed it turns out good.

[Dagenspear]

I understand what you're saying. But, let's say for a second that you may be right about the people who threatened Reese were only a minority, whereas the majority of citizens are naturally good. That would've been fine, except the problem is that Bruce taking the fall for Dent still betrayed his belief about people were ready to believe in good, because he kept saying that the citizens of Gotham AND the prisoners wouldn't kill each other. That is amazingly rich for him to have faith in criminals, because they are the reason why he became Batman in the first place.

His belief that people were ready to believe in good was about Harvey. Bruce thought of batman at that point as an inspiration for madness. That's what he says to Alfred. I don't know how a criminal being the reason for him becoming batman means that Bruce should automatically believe that criminals aren't capable of doing the right thing, but Bruce knew that the boat had guards with weapons.

So if the message from that boat scene was supposed to mean that even convicts are capable of goodness regardless of whatever crimes they may have committed, then that gets totally flushed down the toilet when the truth comes out in TDKR. And you're okay with this?

I don't see how it gets flushed down the toilet. It shows those criminals being bad guys. While tdk shows a single criminal deciding to do the right thing. The other criminals stay down. When people vote on the boats, there are people who want to save themselves. But either the criminals and civilians aren't willing to do it or the criminals are afraid of being shot by the guards. Everyone, in some way, does have good in them, but that doesn't mean that they'll do the right thing all the time. The film sends a message, but it also says that people can and do do bad things. The joker, Harvey, that russian guy and Lau are examples.

TDK's ending is a huge catalyst for the Dent Act in TDKR, and Batman's decision to frame himself left an extremely bad taste in my mouth. Would Gotham have had eight years of peace if Batman and Gordon didn't lie to the public? Maybe not. But the disastrous consequences that happened once the lie was exposed by Bane only prove that it wasn't worth it.

It leaving a bad taste in your mouth doesn't make it bad. I could be wrong, but I think that the lie not being a good idea was the point.

I can appreciate a flawed film that has good intentions like Batman Forever, which had admirable plot points of Batman overcoming his guilt and makes his identity a choice rather than a burden, and ensuring that Robin doesn't make the same self-destructive mistake by seeking revenge for his parents' murders. But sadly, not only I'm not too keen on Nolan's ideas, I find his execution for them extremely shoddy.

It's your right to not like the ideas, but most of the examples you've presented as shoddy don't appear to be that.

God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!

[thecolorsblend]

Just rewatched the first 40'ish minutes of TDKRises. I'd like to reassert my affection for how Bruce is portrayed in that part of the film.

For starters, he's physically debilitated. Now, to start with, I wasn't sure I completely bought the concept that about a year of being Batman would inflict that much damage on him. But then I remember that, altogether, I only played competitive tennis for three years as a kid. And today I've got poppy elbows and rly weak knees. Let me just say that my workouts weren't even remotely close to as high-impact as Bruce's single year'ish of being Batman, not to mention his many years of training and conditioning. So I now concede that I might've spoken prematurely when it comes to Bruce's many injuries and physical infirmities in TDKRises.

As I've said, I very much enjoy the story trope of the once mighty hero brought low and driven into solitude. Partly it's because that's very human and partly it's because you know it's just a matter of time until the hero take up his mantle once again. The lower you bring the hero, the greater his triumph when he eventually returns.

But for seconders, time has obviously done nothing to dull Bruce's mind. Whatever his physical frailties might be at the start of TDKRises, he's as mentally sharp as he ever was. He's able to detect Selina's presence in the drawing room, get the drop on her, identify her in the Batcave's computer, track her down in the city, concoct a ruse to visit Gordon in the hospital while concealing his identity and other things.

Batman's strongest asset has always been his mind. That was true from Day One and I appreciate the fact that Nolan keyed in on that early on. Yes, Batman is an ass-kicker for sure. But his mind has always been his most powerful weapon and Nolan never forgot that.

I'm not saying TDKRises is perfect. I see the argument that the movie is a little bloated. But I have nary a criticism of the film for the first 40 or so minutes.