An indepth response to KnightofPhoenix's response to
The Dark Knight Rises.
Spoilers.
[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I am disappointed. It is a great movie, but I expected much more, which I guess is the bane, no pun intended, of any successful series.[/quote]
I'll start off by saying that, while I tend to agree to some extent with many of your points (more on that later), I think I'm more comfortable with the movie as a final product. This is mostly due to some nuance in our opinions.
[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
- While Anne Hathaway portrayed catwoman well, I do not see the point of why she was there. She fulfilled no crucial role to the story or to Batman's development as a character. The chemistry between the cat and the bat is almost non-existent, let alone any well written romance between the two. All in all she felt pointless.[/quote]
I'll disagree on the chemistry between Hathaway and Bale - I thought the two played well off of one another, and the relationship built up from small quips to moral posturing, culminating in Catwoman developing into the reluctanct hero she is so often portrayed as. More time could have been spent on the relationship, sure, but that could also effect the generally fast and furious pacing of the narrative.
[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
- Batman and Bruce received poor characterization, again. Only BB managed to capture at least some of the complexity of Batman (I am an exception here in that I like BB the more times I see it), TDK and TDKR did not.[/quote]
Hmm. I think a distinction needs to be made between complex and interesting, in this case. I don't think Nolan's Batman has ever been a complex character. He is an emotionally disturbed individual who has lashed out against those he feels have wronged him. He creates rules, an identity, and a purpose. Nolan's trilogy tests those fundamental creations - his identity in BB, his rules in DK, and his purpose in DKR.
Honestly, his simplicity is what makes him fascinating. It's the idea that, if the circumstances were right, anyone broken enough might make the same choices (or, perhaps more believably, they might turn out as one of the villains).
[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
- Plotholes like how Batman got back to Gotham. [/quote]
This bothered me to no end. Clearly the imaginary prison was located in an imaginary desert nation (inhabited by Eastern Europeans who speak a fake language) that was located FAIRLY close to Gotham (it takes Bane maybe, um, twelve movie hours to get him there?). I just don't like how this apparently makes sense in-universe. While Gotham is clearly a parallel to real-life New York (but much larger and more decadent), we have no reason to believe that it is even necessarily located on the continental US.
It seems like we're just supposed accept that he's Batman, and Batman can do anything, darn it!
[quote]Knight of Phoenix wrote...
Why was his leg broken in the beginning? What the **** was Ra's al Ghul's apparition? Stupidity like an all out charge and brawl at the end instead of people taking cover and using their guns.[/quote]
His leg was broken at the end of the Dark Knight, when he falls after tackling Dent. I think it may have been beneficial to replay the ending of DK so that we can see Batman limping away, being hunted down, etc, and then cut to Dent Day eight years later.
I think Ra's al Ghul was just Bruce's inner fear and doubt. Nothing more.
Yes. Gotham has REALLY bad police officers. Not 'bad' as in morally corrupt, but 'bad' as in, "We lack a basic understanding of combat tactics, rules of engagement, and gun shooting."
[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
- Alfred. Not only because he talked a lot, again, but because he ****ing abandoned Bruce in his time of need? What? What was the point? That's incredibly OOC. [/quote]
Well, Alfred has always been something of a father figure. The difference here, however, is that he recognizes that Batman faces a very real chance of losing. He knows Batman. He knows how he fights, what he is capable of...and he sees Bane as completely superior.
Remember in
The Dark Knight? "Know your limits, Master Wayne."? Alfred sees a man who has no knowledge of what he can and cannot do. At the moment, he is scared that he cannot do anything against Bane. He is scared that his adopted son will die for nothing. He is scared, and he runs. Perhaps a tad cowardly and unsupportive? Sure. I, however, felt that it was in-character, and that it made sense if you took into account the relationship between the two men. Alfred has never been a simple yesman in the Nolan-verse. He's just as munch a mentor as al Ghul ever was.
Referring back to the "simplicity" of Batman, it is Alfred who is pushing Bruce to break out of his self-constructed shell. He wants him to grow. He wants him to be a person. Until the last act of DKR, Bruce sees himself as Batman. Only Batman. Nothing more. He defines himself by a mask and a cape. Unlike most comics, the movie explores how dangerously unhealthy it would be if a person DID devote themselves completely to an idea and they made room for nothing else in their lives. Alfred sees how dangerous it is (though he himself had a large hand in creating Batman).
[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
- Stop trying to make us give **** about Rachel. Begins failed in the romance department, Dark Knight failed even more. We are not going to relate to Bruce's pain if the romance was not done well. [/quote]
Okay, yeah. Rachel was always a bit of a dunce. Heck, I think she should have been done with after Holmes left. Instead, they found the character so compelling that they gave her role to Gyllenhal. I mean, what? Really? You have a chance to start with a clean slate and you choose to keep the same dopey character?
[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
- Way too much Robin Black. We get it, he's the successor of batman, we don't need that much time on him, time that could have been used for far more important things. [/quote]
I think the successor to Batman needs to be shown as a capable individual. Robin (John?) Blake (what an awful name) showed a willingness to go against authority figures in the police deparment, natural detective abilities, impressive unarmed combat abilities, and a fear of bats. He was also quite central to several plot developments. Could they have written some of his actions for Gordon, or that other cop guy? Sure.
Think of the alternative, though - what if Blake was underdeveloped? We would get a pretty underwhelming succesor to the cowl. Yes, he takes away from established characters, but I think he has an interesting arc (unlike SOME characters...).
[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
- Bane. Now I found him great throughout most of it. He was intimidating and impressive, both physically and mentally. At one point his manner of speech made me chuckle ("Impossible!"), but in general I liked both the voice and how he talks a lot. BUT his end was horrible and extremely anti-climatic. Very poorly done.[/quote]
Yes, the reverb on "ImPAAAAssible!" made him sound like he was rather bored in an oddly high-pitched voice. However, the effect was largely well done throughout the film - it allowed him to be eloquent and intelligent in his speech patterns while still appearing to be menacing and mysterious.
Bane's defeat was...unfortunate. I understand that it was to give Catwoman a crowning moment where she showed up the man who had been threatening her, keeping her in the seedy underworld, but rea;;y it was an awful way to give closure to Batman and Bane's rivalry.
[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I liked his motivation somewhat, but the part about having the bomb detonate after 5 months FOR NO REASON AT ALL barring the typical stupid villain lulz moment. Ra's al Ghul operated with deadly efficiency and didn't give a damn about giving people false hope (how is what bane doing giving hope anyways? We don't even see if the people like it)[/quote]
Bane seemed to be one for the dramatic. He instituted a false trial system run by a criminally insane psychologist that was all show (you get to die...or die a little bit later!).
I did not understand why he thought he could ally himself with the common folke after threatening to incinerate them in a nuclear explosion. That was odd. He was always portrayed as a calculating and logical man. That one moment seemed very out of character. "Hope for stuff! Also, I might blow you all up. Wheeee!"
It's truly very bizarre, and it seems like it may have been remnants of a different variant of the character. Perhaps in early drafts Bane used to be infected with more of the cray-cray?
[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
- Talia. I saw it coming but that's not the problem. The problem is that she is very under-developped. Why is she so obsessed with her father's work? We never got to see the relationship between the two. A simple flashback could have added a lot to her motivation. The chemistry between her and batman was non-existent so the shock of betrayal didn't really have an impact (they just ****ed for no reason). Also, why the hell is she so obsessed that she and Bane want to die in Gotham? What's the point of the League if it's going to be destroyed with Gotham? Talia's weakness in character and motivation axiomatically weakens Bane. Talia was just a much less developed and much less impactful Ra's al Ghul 2.0. [/quote]
It would have been better if they kept Bane as al Ghul's son, IMO. Yes, I know Talia is canonically the daughter of Ras, but this is not the comic continuity. Take the risk of alienating some people who CANNOT have it anyway but the comic way (although the likely already know that you tend to deviate from the source material, Mr. Nolan).
[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrot
How the story could have been much better:
[/quote]
I have a simpler suggestion.
Remove Talia/Tate entirely. She is a minor character who gives us little insight into the villainous ambitions of Bane as Talia, and fails as Tate to bring gravitas to the failings of Wayne Enterprises.
In the film, Fox was always more authoritative as a source of knowledge. We know him. He is an established character. Tate is this newcomer who we are supposed to put support in. Why? Because she betrays Batman? Her entire arc is silly and bizarre as Tate.
Talia only acts to upstage Bane, and she retroactively makes Bane a less compelling villain. Giving Talia's screen time to Bane would have helped to flesh out Bane's ambitions. I honestly think he could have surpassed the Joker in many ways had he been given the proper care and attention.
In short, I just can't find a reason for Talia to be in the movie. She does not have enough time to develop as a character, and the time devoted to her takes away from those who are far more interesting.
(She is, however, very attractive.
)
Retour en haut
