The Dark Knight Rises

[Zook]

The countdown thing didn't bother me. EVERY movie does that. While in the theater I noticed that when they showed the time at like 11:46 and then a minute or so passes by and when they show it again only 10 seconds counted down. Oh well.

[Adami]

The countdown thing didn't bother me. EVERY movie does that. While in the theater I noticed that when they showed the time at like 11:46 and then a minute or so passes by and when they show it again only 10 seconds counted down. Oh well.

Well a minute of viewer time can be anything in movie time. I mean were you shocked when the movie said 5 months passed but only like 1 minute passed for you?

I can't blame you if you were. I get confused by that stuff too. When Benjamin Button ended, I was like "WHAT YEAR IS IT?!?"

[Zook]

The countdown thing didn't bother me. EVERY movie does that. While in the theater I noticed that when they showed the time at like 11:46 and then a minute or so passes by and when they show it again only 10 seconds counted down. Oh well.

Well a minute of viewer time can be anything in movie time. I mean were you shocked when the movie said 5 months passed but only like 1 minute passed for you?

I can't blame you if you were. I get confused by that stuff too. When Benjamin Button ended, I was like "WHAT YEAR IS IT?!?"

I remember seeing the TV and it showing Day 84 and thinking whoa, but that's understandable. I don't expect them to show 5 months of him healing his back. But then, after 5 months of being locked up with a broken back with bone protruding from his back and no medical help, he shouldn't have been able to move at all. So yeah I guess I was a bit shocked when he started trying to do push ups. The bomb counter is a bit different than that though.

[Adami]

I meant that 11 minutes or whatever could have happened between cuts. It's weirder when you experience MORE time than the characters. Like if the bomb showed 11 minutes, and then 55 minutes later it reached 2 minutes.



Also I really think the movie should have been a 2 parter split when he goes into that jail. That 5 month gap was a bit much to take cause it felt like a week at most.

[Zook]

I meant that 11 minutes or whatever could have happened between cuts. It's weirder when you experience MORE time than the characters. Like if the bomb showed 11 minutes, and then 55 minutes later it reached 2 minutes.



Also I really think the movie should have been a 2 parter split when he goes into that jail. That 5 month gap was a bit much to take cause it felt like a week at most.

That wouldn't have worked though and would have pissed off a bunch of people. Batman gets captured and the movie's over. LAME.

It just goes to show: Jack Bauer > Batman

[Nic35]

SPOILER

Batman could've just killed Bane with his flying gadget when he saved Catwoman on the roof.

[The King in Crimson]

Batman doesn't kill or use guns.

[Adami]

SPOILER

Batman could've just killed Bane with his flying gadget when he saved Catwoman on the roof.

Batman could have killed most of his bad guys lots of times.

But Batman doesn't kill anyone.

I meant that 11 minutes or whatever could have happened between cuts. It's weirder when you experience MORE time than the characters. Like if the bomb showed 11 minutes, and then 55 minutes later it reached 2 minutes.



Also I really think the movie should have been a 2 parter split when he goes into that jail. That 5 month gap was a bit much to take cause it felt like a week at most.

That wouldn't have worked though and would have pissed off a bunch of people. Batman gets captured and the movie's over. LAME.

Not END, but TO BE CONTINUED. How does a Bruce Wayne with a broken back get out of a inescapable jail while Gotham has officially fallen into chaos? It keeps you interested. Then in 2013, they could have released the 2nd part, expanded on a bit more and concluded it.

1. More story
2. More Batman
3. Makes the story more real
4. More money for the studios
5. More Anne Hathaway
6. 
7. Profit


It's a good idea. Sucks they didn't do it honestly. But I can't blame them since Harry Potter and Twilight already did the same thing.

[Super Dude]

I don't know if it was said already in the thread, but I get the feeling Nolan wanted to just end it. I don't think he would've wanted to do a fourth movie, even as a part 2 to TDKR's part 1.

[Nic35]

SPOILER

Batman could've just killed Bane with his flying gadget when he saved Catwoman on the roof.

Batman could have killed most of his bad guys lots of times.

But Batman doesn't kill anyone.

Yeah I know.

[Adami]

SPOILER

Batman could've just killed Bane with his flying gadget when he saved Catwoman on the roof.

Batman could have killed most of his bad guys lots of times.

But Batman doesn't kill anyone.

Yeah I know.

So was your comment in jest? Or what?

[GuineaPig]

"Batman doesn't kill anyone"

Except for when he fired a missile into the truck carrying the nuke, killing the driver and Talia.

[Zook]

SPOILER

Batman could've just killed Bane with his flying gadget when he saved Catwoman on the roof.

Batman could have killed most of his bad guys lots of times.

But Batman doesn't kill anyone.

I meant that 11 minutes or whatever could have happened between cuts. It's weirder when you experience MORE time than the characters. Like if the bomb showed 11 minutes, and then 55 minutes later it reached 2 minutes.



Also I really think the movie should have been a 2 parter split when he goes into that jail. That 5 month gap was a bit much to take cause it felt like a week at most.

That wouldn't have worked though and would have pissed off a bunch of people. Batman gets captured and the movie's over. LAME.

Not END, but TO BE CONTINUED. How does a Bruce Wayne with a broken back get out of a inescapable jail while Gotham has officially fallen into chaos? It keeps you interested. Then in 2013, they could have released the 2nd part, expanded on a bit more and concluded it.

1. More story
2. More Batman
3. Makes the story more real
4. More money for the studios
5. More Anne Hathaway
6. 
7. Profit


It's a good idea. Sucks they didn't do it honestly. But I can't blame them since Harry Potter and Twilight already did the same thing.

Not to mention LOTR. But I knew what you meant. I still think it wouldn't work though.

Well, with all the plot holes mentioned, I guess they could have filled the time to fix it all to make the first part full length, cause, you know he gets his back broken, what, like an hour or so into the movie? Although the almost 3 hours passed by pretty quickly, I don't want to watch a bunch of political crap mixed in with my Batman movie. It would end up boring.

[The King in Crimson]

"Batman doesn't kill anyone"

Except for when he fired a missile into the truck carrying the nuke, killing the driver and Talia.

Didn't you see them parachute out at the last minute?

Or was I watching an old episode of GI-Joe?

[Super Dude]

 

On the subject of not killing, didn't he say something to Selina that the reason he didn't kill the dudes on the rooftop was because they were unarmed or something?

[Nic35]

SPOILER

Batman could've just killed Bane with his flying gadget when he saved Catwoman on the roof.

Batman could have killed most of his bad guys lots of times.

But Batman doesn't kill anyone.

Yeah I know.

So was your comment in jest? Or what?

Just a random thought I had. I'm not that much of a fan, so my first reaction was : He could've explode the shit out of him

[Adami]

Yea, but if you know he doesn't kill, then why were you perplexed?

[GuineaPig]

Yea, but if you know he doesn't kill, then why were you perplexed?

Well, he kills the other villain with a missile fired from his Batcopter.

[Adami]

On the subject of not killing, didn't he say something to Selina that the reason he didn't kill the dudes on the rooftop was because they were unarmed or something?

No, I think he said it was against his rules or something. He didn't give a specific reason like them being unnarmed. Plus they were armed at the end when Bat and Cat ran away.

[Adami]

Yea, but if you know he doesn't kill, then why were you perplexed?

Well, he kills the other villain with a missile fired from his Batcopter.

A screw up in the script doesn't quite account for batman's moral codes in this case.


It's like in Star Trek TNG. Data shouldn't be able to use contractions. However he does from time to time. This oversight doesn't make his character able to do it.

[Super Dude]

Guess I need to watch it again. Y'know honestly, I think TDK way, way overinflated everyone's expectations about this film. Not that I disliked it, but everyone was expecting this to surpass a movie whose quality I myself think was overblown.

[RuRoRul]

The splitting one film story into two films (e.g. Deathly Hallows) isn't so great. It's not really the same as LOTR or anything either, and if Batman had did it (even if it did choose to do it for legitimate reasons), it would have seemed like a lame, fad following, cash grabbing move following in the footsteps of Deathly Hallows. And none of the films in Nolan's Batman ever carried over into other films - the fully story was told in each film, and the next film was something completely different. I feel it would have been a bit strange if suddenly they decided to split Bane and his plan into two films, when The Joker / Harvey Two Face were contained to one. And a lot more would have been required to make each part feel like a full film (especially for the first part, which I felt was a bit lacking anyway). Not saying it couldn't have been done, just that I never once felt like it really called for it, or that I find myself wishing it had been done. And while there's a very small chance it could have been an improvement, it just seems much more likely it'd have been detrimental.

[GuineaPig]

There are a number of advantages to a longer run time; more themes can be explored, characters can be more fully fleshed out, nuance and subtlety dabbled in.  I think most TV dramas are more compelling than dramatic films as a result. 

The amount of stuff Nolan wanted to put into every Batman film meant that the dialogue was mostly reduced  to exposition, lines meant to be very significant, and the occasional joke.  With the amount of themes and characters that were stuffed into TDKR, a 13 episode season of television would've been able to handle the load a lot better. 

[Adami]

There are a number of advantages to a longer run time; more themes can be explored, characters can be more fully fleshed out, nuance and subtlety dabbled in.  I think most TV dramas are more compelling than dramatic films as a result. 

The amount of stuff Nolan wanted to put into every Batman film meant that the dialogue was mostly reduced  to exposition, lines meant to be very significant, and the occasional joke.  With the amount of themes and characters that were stuffed into TDKR, a 13 episode season of television would've been able to handle the load a lot better.

It's a real shame that shows can never be of the same cinematic quality as big movies for the basic reason of a lack of budget. Imagine if a 22  episode season was able to produce the cinematic quality of a Nolan film for every episode? Imagine the worlds that could be explored or stories told? Damn shame indeed.

[Super Dude]

Hey guys, turns out I wasn't just blowing hot air (well, mostly): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Knight_Rises#Commentary

[Adami]

Hey guys, turns out I wasn't just blowing hot air (well, mostly): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Knight_Rises#Commentary

Yea, but it said Nolan himself denied all of the things you're saying.

[GuineaPig]

There are a number of advantages to a longer run time; more themes can be explored, characters can be more fully fleshed out, nuance and subtlety dabbled in.  I think most TV dramas are more compelling than dramatic films as a result. 

The amount of stuff Nolan wanted to put into every Batman film meant that the dialogue was mostly reduced  to exposition, lines meant to be very significant, and the occasional joke.  With the amount of themes and characters that were stuffed into TDKR, a 13 episode season of television would've been able to handle the load a lot better.

It's a real shame that shows can never be of the same cinematic quality as big movies for the basic reason of a lack of budget. Imagine if a 22  episode season was able to produce the cinematic quality of a Nolan film for every episode? Imagine the worlds that could be explored or stories told? Damn shame indeed.

Cinematic?  I think digital photography has erased the differences between film and TV in terms of the way the picture looks.  Your average episode of Mad Men, Breaking Bad, or other top dramas (most of which have each assembled unique stylings of their own, something films have trouble establishing in a short runtime) looks just as good as a film.

But yeah, when it comes to budget for stuff like big CGI showcases, or hundreds of extras, or lots of on location work, etc. the pursestrings are fairly tight, varying from network to network (HBO being the biggest hitter).  There are examples of big budget TV productions: The Pacific had for 10 episodes roughly the same budget as TDKR (~$250 million), but that's about as big as it gets.

[Fluffy Lothario]

Saw it last night. I had set myself up to like it, but not remotely as much as Dark Knight, both because there was no talk of a performance like Ledger's and because it featured Catwoman, a character I couldn't see fitting into this universe in a way I liked.

I honestly can't tell you if I think TDK or TDKR was better. I'd need to see it more times. But it's on that level, so I thought it was brilliant, possibly the best of the three.

(MAJOR SPOILERS, IN CASE I STILL HAVE TO SAY THAT)

It was interesting that Batman is removed from the film for such a long stretch, so we see the systems that were there to support him trying to keep it together and respond to the Bane threat themselves until he pulls his shit together.

Here are my nitpick-y points, which in no way harmed my impression of the film, but were in my mind when I saw it:
- Some people say they were bothered by no mention of the Joker at the beginning. That was no problem for me. But wasn't the Joker in the prison Bane emptied? So in theory, he should've been out there on the streets during the film too?

- The ending is still a disaster. Okay, the bomb doesn't explode ON the city. It's still a fucking atomic bomb that blew up, what, six miles from a city of twelve million people.

Also, on the soundtrack: I saw this group, the Master Drummers of Burundi (or Royal Drummers) in March, and I got serious vibes of them during the film.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAgzvKBWD7c

[MetalJunkie]

I read that they didn't mention the Joker out of respect for Heath Ledger.

I believe, while in the stadium, Bane mentioned the blast radius of the bomb. Seems like it was six miles exactly? I don't really remember.

[theseoafs]

Yes, the blast radius was six miles.

[Fluffy Lothario]

That doesn't stop the nuclear fallout spreading for hundreds of miles, and Gotham, being just onshore, almost certainly being exposed to massive radiation levels.

[MetalJunkie]

I think Batman preventing people from getting charred took priority over worrying about whatever mutations or sicknesses Gothamites might incur. Maybe they'll be fortunate enough to evolve into a species that doesn't nitpick action blockbusters.

[Fluffy Lothario]

I wouldn't count on it.

[Ħ]

I'm not sure how Batman got out of the blast radius in 5 seconds.

[MetalJunkie]

I'm not sure how Batman got out of the blast radius in 5 seconds.

SPOILER

He didn't. Lucius took apart the "Bat" and noted that the autopilot was fixed six months prior. He bat-bailed.