Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Corpsesarefun wrote:Batman begins was the same.

I'd argue that The Dark Knight was so good because Batman was the main character rather than Bruce Wayne.

Y'know, I think you hit the nail on the head there. Honestly, I was bored to tears for the first solid hour of TDKR because I was just waiting for something actiony to happen. While I feel that Ledger's Joker was a big part of why The Dark Knight was so good, the fact that the whole movie was an epic duel between Batman and Joker made it a masterpiece in my eyes.

I'd almost like to see something along the lines of the Arkham Asylum and Arkham City games in cinematic form - a whole movie about Batman being Batman, fighting criminals and tracking down supervillains as the world's greatest detective. I loved Nolan's trilogy, especially The Dark Knight, but it was just too...talky, something I never thought I'd say about a superhero movie. I mean, I'm all for having a deep, intricate story, but I'm honestly someone who likes going to see superhero movies (mostly) to see the superhero doing his thing.

Also, random thought I had, is anyone else almost a little stunned that The Dark Knight Rises is officially the eighth live-action Batman movie? Even if it is set across three very different continuities. I just find it kind of amazing that a series of movies about one character has been so good, even after two reboots and a variety of directors. Hell, of the eight, only one of them was honestly terrible.

What the *bleep*, I actually CORRECTLY predicted what the plot of Dark Knight rises would be, just off the trailer and from my limited knowledge of Batman.

Doctadeth wrote:What the *bleep*, I actually CORRECTLY predicted what the plot of Dark Knight rises would be, just off the trailer and from my limited knowledge of Batman.

Congratulations, you're just like... the rest of us!

Movie trailers don't exactly just tease anymore, they reveal - and most times, too much!

It has been that way for a long time now...

The scene were they blow up the Stadium would have been SO much cooler if it wasn't in every single trailer for the past two years....

I thoroughly enjoyed it. While I picked up on most of the final plot twists early due to foreshadowing I was cool with it because it felt like there was a reason for most of the things that happened in the movie.

I felt it was the best end to a trilogy in a long, long time. I'm glad they ended and I hope they don't try to reboot for at least 5 years. I think this trilogy is how you tell a hero's story.

I also love that Nolan stuck with everyone are normal people approach. No silly "super" human engineering accidents. I though they handled the ending well. I love that it tied in with the new Batman Rising. The fact that the bat signal got fixed is a sure sign of no robin, just batman number 2. And while I don't read the comics and am unfamiliar having an orphanage over the cave set the future well for a new batman every generation.

I loved catwoman's portrayal in this. Anne Hathaway did a great job. Gordon Levitt (or whatever) was also really solid. Overall, enjoyed the hell out of it. Nolan knows how to tell a story.

Oh, and as for the batman vs. bruce as the main character I felt that the series portrayed it well. The first movie was about the birth of batman from bruce and so featured bruce heavily. The second movie was batman in his prime and so featured him heavily. The last was batman aging and moving forward and so featured bruce heavily as he was transitioning away from that life. I think as a whole it's one of the best trilogies out there.

Batman begins was a great beginning, The Dark Knight was a great middle and The Dark Knight Rises was a great ending.

My only complaint is I wish there was more middle.

Loved it. I found TDKR to be a fitting end to the Nolan trilogy. The cast, both costumed and non-costumed, were excellent.

However, I found the conclusion of the film to be ultimately cheap, the 'plot-twist' not very 'twisty' at all and not one that left anything to be desired. The premise of the film, as far as I have interpreted the trilogy, was to be 'pain'. Batman Begins revolved around fear, The Dark Knight around Chaos. Where we have the character of Bane, we have pain. It took the best part of an hour for the Batman to appear. Boy, when he did, it felt good. Nolan really knows how to apply the suspense; the dimming of the lights in the underpass was a wonderful touch. The sewer-fight scene between Batman and Bane was something I had been looking forward to for a long, long time. Here, we have Batman, the Bat-fuckin'-man, having his back broken over the knee of a giant of a man. It's been written into comic-lore for a long time, finally it was on the big screen.

Bruce's return was well wrought, Bane's take-over of Gotham wonderful. I could really feel the 'warlord' in Bane, presiding over a terrified populace. When the time came for the Batman and Bane to come to blows again, I was fully expecting a brawl of such epic proportions it would put every Rocky, Rambo and Arnie film to shame. The Batman has a debt to repay, vengeance to reap. Unfortunately, it never came. We are given something relatively weak, a few punches traded, the Batman breaks open part of Bane's mask. It was here that I was expecting Tom Hardy to unleash pain and really go ape-gak on everything. Bruce Wayne would have to fight for his life, use the fear of death to his advantage [instead of simply being unafraid of death], he has everything to lose, make every punch, parry and kick count. Yet it doesn't arrive... the Cat woman dispatches Bane with a well-placed gunshot. Really? Did that really just happen? The final end-scene between Batman and Bane, of the whole trilogy, ends with a cheesy one-liner quip from the Cat woman. I felt really cheated out of the climax of TDKR.

I think most fans knew that Ra's al Ghul and his daughter would make an appearance again. I didn't however expect Talia to be so weak in character and motive. Her origin in TDKR is weak-sauce all over. For the best part of the film, I was loving Bane. The idea of him being the only one to ever escape the prison [if only that was a Lazarus Pit?] was turned into a pithy excuse for Talia and flipped totally. Weak. Whilst I admire and welcome any introduction of human emotion to Bane [Hardy is a stellar actor capable of pulling it off], I found this plot-twist to be predictable from the moment the knife was plunged.

BAH!

This film has really torn me. I love, love, love the characters and the cast. All of them have solidified themselves in my heart as the representation of the characters. However, I was really quite disappointed with the over-ruling plot. TDKR doesn't touch upon the TDK at all, for me. I feel that time will be less forgiving on TDKR as it was upon TDK.

Conclusion: Not enough Batman. Not enough Bane. Too much flash.

---

And for a quick summary of a few other things....

- Cillian Murphy appearing as the judge in the kangaroo court? Loved it! The Scarecrow has long been a favourite of mine, I only wish he perhaps had a larger part to play. The annexation of Gotham through Bane's actions would be the perfect playground for the Scarecrow to come bounding out in full glory. Given the number of convicts released, why did we not see more scenes similar to those found in Batman Begins?

- Joseph Gordon-Levitt, awesome. The small name-revelation at the end was a lovely little twist. Robin! A Robin who isn't dressed like a small child gimp. Bale has previously expressed dislike at the introduction of 'Robin', fair enough - the sidekick idea is pretty twee and outdated. However, I could really see J G-L doing something brilliant with the character.

- The Cat Woman. You know what? I actually enjoyed Hathaway's performance. It really took me by surprise.

I think there is way to much emphasis being put on the 'twist', which I don't think is supposed to be that much of a twist to begin with.

I've also seen other posts criticizing Bane's ending, but I don't really get it. It doesn't really come out of nowhere, and follows an epic brawl between the cops and the criminals, and Batman and Bane, where Batman defeated the physically superior Bane. I'm not sure having another drawn out confrontation at that point would have served much purpose. It also showed that Bane wasn't subservient to Talia, as the moment she walked out he was going to shoot Batman in the face.

Which goes to another odd point I have seen raised where people complain that they were disappointed that Bane was just a bodyguard, but all evidence seems to show that there was more to their relationship than him being a puppet to Talia. She insinuated herself into Gotham City on the outside while Bane lead all those men for 8 years, he was the face on the TV, and he was the one that defeated Batman. Having a partner doesn't diminish his accomplishments anymore than Darth Vader being the Emperor's apprentice suddenly made him a lesser villain.

The one thing that really bothered me was that the LoS seemed intent on dieing in the bomb. The (possible) answer struck me when I remembered something I mentioned earlier that Bane was Bruce if he had killed that criminal at the end of his training in Batman Begins. Until he rises out of the [Lazarus] Pit with a sense of purpose and wanting to live, he was suicidal, as Alfred had pointed out and was trying to get him to understand. The organization was broken and left shattered, so the remnants of the LoS executing this plan are akin to Bruce going into the arena with Bane: they wanted to go out in figurative, and literal, bang. A lot of people I talked to didn't seem to pick up on the suicide-by-Batman angle that was presented in the film. Remember, Bruce's first words when he wakes up in the Pit are "Why didn't you just let me die?" He never got over Rachael and Harvey's deaths, or his parents, and as a consequence was reckless and overconfident. It isn't a coincidence that the only pictures he had in his house were all of dead people.

Ahtman wrote:Having a partner doesn't diminish his accomplishments anymore than Darth Vader being the Emperor's apprentice suddenly made him a lesser villain.

Wait what? That's exactly what introducing the Emperor was supposed to do and did do. Once there was an Emperor, Vader could be Luke's dad, and Luke could perceive good in Vader so that the story could be resolved. What happened in DKR is that Bane is completely overshadowed by Talia. The moment Bruce looks at her knife in his kidney, Bane becomes Talia's favorite childhood teddy bear. He loses all threat at that moment. He even seems to loose control, which he has been built to represent from the first frame. His mistress tells him to stay put and he disobeys her out of pride -- and immediately, literally in seconds, is completely demolished by Selena on the Bat Bike. Over two hours of setting this dude up as the mastermind comes to a ridiculously abrupt yet casual halt before he can even finish another of his pompous, nonsensical sentences. In the wake: a joke about murder from Catwoman.

Manchu wrote:Wait what? That's exactly what introducing the Emperor was supposed to do and did do.

So it turns out because their is an Emperor that Darth Vader suddenly didn't kill all those kids, rebels, or Jedi? Phew, I guess he really was just a sweetie after all, and everyone that feared him didn't understand that he really wasn't a threat to anyone, or that he had never really accomplished anything.

I find your 'teddy bear' analysis and interpretation of his reason for ignoring her request less than compelling.

Manchu wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Having a partner doesn't diminish his accomplishments anymore than Darth Vader being the Emperor's apprentice suddenly made him a lesser villain.

Wait what? That's exactly what introducing the Emperor was supposed to do and did do. Once there was an Emperor, Vader could be Luke's dad, and Luke could perceive good in Vader so that the story could be resolved. What happened in DKR is that Bane is completely overshadowed by Talia. The moment Bruce looks at her knife in his kidney, Bane becomes Talia's favorite childhood teddy bear. He loses all threat at that moment. He even seems to loose control, which he has been built to represent from the first frame. His mistress tells him to stay put and he disobeys her out of pride -- and immediately, literally in seconds, is completely demolished by Selena on the Bat Bike. Over two hours of setting this dude up as the mastermind comes to a ridiculously abrupt yet casual halt before he can even finish another of his pompous, nonsensical sentences. In the wake: a joke about murder from Catwoman.

This.

I can see your point Ahtman, I understand where you're coming from. Personally; I felt that the film was dedicating two hours of plot and drama towards a final clash between Batman and Bane - something biblical. This was the last Batman film directed by Nolan, it ended like a wet firework on a rainy Bonfires Eve.

I've also seen other posts criticizing Bane's ending, but I don't really get it. It doesn't really come out of nowhere, and follows an epic brawl between the cops and the criminals, and Batman and Bane, where Batman defeated the physically superior Bane. I'm not sure having another drawn out confrontation at that point would have served much purpose. It also showed that Bane wasn't subservient to Talia, as the moment she walked out he was going to shoot Batman in the face.

If there was to be no smack down at the end, to what purpose was the previous 90 minutes worth of film? Bane breaks Batman. Batman is interred. Bane is jolly. Batman wants revenge. Bane is jolly. Batman returns. Bane is gaking himself in wonder. Alfred gives Bruce a wonderful little speech prior to the back-breaking regarding Bane's speed, prowess and his desire to have it all. Unfortunately, Bruce doesn't have much of this and sees himself broken. As far as I could tell, the following hour was setting up Bruce for a glorious return against Bane - to wreak his vengeance upon him, to become that which Bane mocked him, to become, in effect, Bane.

I'll reiterate again; Tom Hardy was fuckin' brutal as Bane. I just wished Nolan dedicated more to him and the Batman than to anything else. What should have been the last film in the trilogy went, as I said, with a relatively meek pop instead of the bang. Coincidently, I did enjoy the very last couple of scenes with Bruce, Alfred and Selina Kyle, as well as the revelation of Robin.

Ahtman wrote:So it turns out because their is an Emperor that Darth Vader suddenly didn't kill all those kids, rebels, or Jedi?

Actually, it turns out that killing nameless rebels isn't as important to the story as being the slave to the real mastermind. Even the whole thing about torturing Leia is out of the window by the brother-sister scene on Endor in RotJ.

Ahtman wrote:I find your 'teddy bear' analysis and interpretation of his reason for ignoring her request less than compelling.

And I find your misunderstanding of Star Wars shocking. I mean, I can understand that you haven't had a lot of time to think about DKR -- but Star Wars??

Manchu wrote:And I find your misunderstanding of Star Wars shocking.

Darth Vader actually did turn against the Jedi and kill a bunch of people as well as lead troops into battle; he was a formidable opponent for the Republic and the rebellion; one not need to be alone to be a threat, or competent. Bane actually lead men in daring raids, coordinated a shadow infiltration of Gotham's underworld, was on camera to the world leading the takeover of a major US city, and personally broke the Batman. The fact that he had a partner in crime doesn't mean he wasn't a threat or that he accomplished nothing.

I think the issue here we are talking about two different things here. You are talking about storytelling elements and infrastructure, whereas I am referring to events within the diegesis of the film. Within the story Bane still had many accomplishments and wasn't just some random thug.

Ahtman wrote:Within the story Bane still had many accomplishments and wasn't just some random thug.

I absolutely agree. That's exactly what makes the Talia "twist" (literal and figurative) and Bane's final scenes so silly. The film does a good job of establishing Bane as something comepletely different from the thug he ends up being.

In the end, maybe that's all he was, or what his fate was going to be?

That seems to have been Nolan's take home for us, notwithstanding over two hours of development.

I enjoyed the film anyways

JohnnoM wrote:

Alpharius wrote:

JohnnoM wrote:I thought it was an alright movie overall however, the ending really, REALLY made me crack the feths. Thats all im gonna say.

You're probably going to have to same more, because I have no idea what you're talking about.

Anyway - I like the movie, and I liked the ending too.

Though I think that

Spoiler:

when there's another Batman movie, it is probably going to be a total reboot ala The Amazing Spider-Man.

The ending is completely ridiculous:

Spoiler:

Reason 1: The Bomb. I actually thought it was a really great, and touching moment for Batman to go and sacrifice his life to save the city. But then we find out that he survived. That made me rage.

Reason 2: Robin. The last bit is the most blatant attempt at setting up a sequel that I have ever seen, and I'm sick of hollywood movies doing this over and over again.

Reason 3: The Lady being the child. I thought that was just bloody ridiculous, as my friend put it: " They had a even more ridiculous answer for every ridiculous question."

However, this is just my two cents.

My brother still maintains that your first point is wrong because the bomb exploded

AegisGrimm wrote:Overall, My buddies and I liked the movie.

Spoiler:

I still think they should have introduced the name of "Robin" at the end by having the lady with his bags go, "Don't forget your bag, Mr Grayson." Having his name be literally "Robin" is just another issue of movies being written for the absolute dumbest guy in the audience to understand.

I think a continuation with him becoming "Nightwing" would be awesome. Or even better, mix Dick Grayson and Terry McGuiness together, and have the next movie be about Bruce Wayne behind the scenes directing the new Batman in protecting Gotham.

I saw it and loved it

But:



Here's hoping Nightwing rather than Batman #2 although either would be fantastic. Just a shame Nolan won't do anymore.

I thought the reveal of Robin worked even though it was obvious from the movie. I don't really know anything about the Batman mythos apart from Justice League, the previous movies, Adam West, and what TVTropes has to say

Manchu wrote:That's a great contrasting example. And it could apply to Batman, too. Not every incarnation of Batman focuses so heavily on the death of his parents. The 40s serial and the 60s TV show never even mentioned them. And yet we still had a resourceful, costumed detective in both cases. Since the mid-70s, Batman has been trending dark. The current touchstones are Batman Year One and The Dark Knight Returns, both written by unabashed fascist libertarian Frank Miller. And those were the key texts for Nolan.

Sorry to throw a correction your way, but if by 60's Batman you mean the Adam West version, yes he does mention his parents being murdered. It was in one of the first six episodes, forget which exactly-I just started watching again and he got kind of sad and distant when he mentioned it. Don't know if it was ever addressed after that, but it did happen once. Know your bat!!

I liked a whole lot about this movie. The idea of Bruce Wayne as a fallen character, not because of his time as Batman but because of his failure as a billionaire to develop a new technology was terrific. Bane, Catwoman and pre-Robin were all well written, and well executed by their stars, and the supporting cast of high quality actors were as exceptional as they’ve been throughout the series. Having Cillian Murphy back for another little cameo was just great. ‘Death by exile’ indeed.

It also ended rather nicely, I thought, both in terms of ending this film, and ending the trilogy as a whole.

But despite all the good points, there was a really big structural problem at the heart of the script, that just made me realize how good The Dark Knight was. See, from the very beginning of The Dark Knight you had Batman and the Joker working towards their individual aims. They were active, characters in motion, either building their plans or doing what they can to figure out what’s going on.

That’s what a great action screenplay has, and while The Dark Knight Rises had excellent flourishes, the characters were largely passive. Bane started strongly, and continued to execute his plan right up until the moment he seized the city… and then what? He just screwed around, driving some trucks around the city until the timer ran out. There was some idea that he wanted the people of the city to scramble over each other to flee the city, but they never did he seemed unwilling to do anything about that. Basically he reaches that part of his plan then becomes inert. So passive, in fact, that I’m not even sure what the League of Shadows was hoping to do between capturing the city and finally trying to blow it up.

Batman ‘s passivity is a little more understandable, given he starts in retirement. Unfortunately his return to active duty isn’t well handled, he is robbed and then a police rookie turns up and begs him to become Batman again. From there he does very little as Batman, a police chase, beating up some hoodlums alongside Catwoman, a fight with Bane, another fight with Bane, and a chase to get the bomb. He is completely oblivious of Bane’s plan until he is tricked, and then completely outside of the main story until the very end of the film.

The result is that this film lacks the cat and mouse dynamic of Batman and the Joker that made that film so engrossing.

The other basic problem with this movie was the lack of effective action scenes. While robbery that opened The Dark Knight was matched, more or less, by the inventiveness of the plane scene that opens The Dark Knight Rises, after that the third film fell away. The Dark Knight had the Joker’s attack on Harvey Dent’s police escort at its core, and built brilliantly to this moment, had an audacious execution, and even managed to use it as a springboard to take the story to a whole other level. But The Dark Knight Rises had nothing to match that scene, as Batman and Bane’s fight was unremarkable, and then all we had was skirmishes involving minor characters until the final police/League of Shadows battle at the end, and that scene was, unfortunately, incredibly poorly handled (we finally had a superhero trilogy that acknowledged guns worked properly, and they end it with a contrived melee).

It’s a real shame because the attention to detail in the action scenes is exceptional, the sound of gunfire is perfectly, precisely captured, and I really wanted to these action scenes to be as relevant as they were perfectly executed.

All in all I enjoyed it, but ultimately it didn’t hold up to the standard set by the second movie.

Crablezworth wrote:My thoughts:

Spoiler:

What's missing for me (IE what makes it hard to suspend disbelief) is how does the league of shadows/bane recruit so many damn loyal people. The opening scene displays how loyal banes followers are, but not necessarily why. They refer to them often as mercenaries but that's problematic because mercenaries aren't exactly willing to lay down theier lives for a cause, they just want money. Look at the scene at the cement plant they were using to make explosives, you've got these two blue collar guys who are apparently just.. evil?

In the plane at the beginning of the movie Bane tells one of his henchmen he has to die with the plane, and the henchman willingly accepts it. So right from the opening they showed there's a commitment to the cause beyond money or anything like that.

As you said, they ran with the same trick in The Dark Knight, though at least in that case you had the residual effect of the Scarecrow's gas to justify the crazies.

I think basically they need some way to justify all these people following supervillains, and 'he's charismatic' is a reason that needs little on-screen explanation. It isn't great, but given the general implausibility of overtly evil, downright anarchic and self-destructive supervillains gathering small armies, it isn't too unreasonable a justification.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:When they are referred to as mercs it is either from people who don't know what the LoS is, or Batman under the assumption that the LoS dispersed after he defeated Ra's. It actually is explicitly stated at one point if I recall. Alfred shows Batman footage of Bane attacking security gaurds and says "I see obsession, I see training, I see the the League of Shadows" and Wayne responds the the LoS is gone. Of course we know it is the LoS and later when Batman confronts Bane he finds out that it is the LoS and Bane claims leadership. These men aren't just mercs, and like the members of the LoS in Batman Begins, they are most certainly zealots for the cause.

They establish this in the opening scene of the movie. Bane tells one of his fellow 'captives' that in order for the plane crash to be believed they have to find one of their bodies, and the guy willingly stays behind to die.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:I liked a lot about the movie but I didn't like the movie itself. Sloppy, long-winded narrative with no real justification plus overwhelming everything action plus frenetic editing ... ugh, I just walked out of the theater feeling beaten up. The villains' plans are either nonsensical or absurd -- I mean, either what they're doing just doesn't make any sense or it's just such a narrow, vindictive matter that I'm left wondering why I should care about these small-minded antagonists. Nolan's Bat-films are widely thought to be topical but this film lacked any kind of moral compass. It's treatment of real-world themes lacked reflection and responsibility. My review can be summed up as : this was the film we deserved but not the one we needed.

Yeah, I liked a lot of how they touched on various parts of modern society, like the two brokers on Wall Street (paraphrasing) 'is batman good or bad news, I flipped a coin'. And actually I like that, like the previous film, it touches on topical issues without coming down definitively one way or the other - when the rich are so well off are the poor justified in taking illegal actions?

Unfortunately this film didn't just fail to come down on one side or the other, it pretty much forgot to address the issue once Bane took over the city. Exactly how people survived wasn't addressed, and outside of some brief looting all we saw was the people's court, which was the loonies passing judgement, and had nothing to do with the actual oppressed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Corpsesarefun wrote:Batman begins was the same.

I'd argue that The Dark Knight was so good because Batman was the main character rather than Bruce Wayne.

This thing about Batman and Bruce Wayne is a red herring. They're the same person, acting towards the same aims. When circumstance dictates that he wears a suit or a suit of armour, it's still the same guy.

The issue really is about Batman/Wayne having no real impetus in this movie. In The Dark Knight he begins with a goal - shut down the mob. He is an active force, planning to track the mob through the laundered money, laying a trap for Lau in Gotham, and eventually following him back to Shanghai to capture him. When the Joker begins to attack the police to disrupt the trial Batman then turns his attention to the Joker.

In comparison, in this film Batman spends the opening of the film being sad and being unwilling to do anything to change that. It's only when a policeman comes to him to directly beg him to be Batman again that he changes, and then all he manages to do is lurch right into Bane's trap.

He then spends most of the movie in a prison, being drip fed exposition before climbing out of the pit, to return at the very end.

It isn't about whether he's Batman or Wayne, it's about whether he's written as an active character with his own plans and ideas, or as a passive/reactive character that merely fits into a plot driven by someone else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Doctadeth wrote:What the *bleep*, I actually CORRECTLY predicted what the plot of Dark Knight rises would be, just off the trailer and from my limited knowledge of Batman.

Meh, the idea that movie should be completely unpredictable and full of twists is mistaken.

Knowing how a thing will play out and then seeing it happen isn't such a bad thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:I think there is way to much emphasis being put on the 'twist', which I don't think is supposed to be that much of a twist to begin with.

I'm really puzzled that so many people kept thinking it was a twist. First time we saw Coutillard on screen I figured it was a chance she was the real villain, as what point was there in the film otherwise. Then when she mentioned her family wasn't always wealthy, and then it showed she had scars it was obvious she was a villain. What point did any of that have, unless she was?

Now, whether it was her or Bane who was the real top level villain is much of a muchness, but her being revealed as a villain wasn't really very surprising.


What was more of a shock was Wayne climbing out of the pit, and it showing him just outside of Jodhpur. I was like 'dammit, I went to that city and no-one told me Batman's jail was just outside of the city. That would have been awesome to see.'

The Villain twist was foreshadowed through the entire movie. IT did seem like Bane instead of staying in the city to ensure his plan goes through was n ow just staying in the city because he was told to. They way she was in command over bane took away from his character somewhat.

carlos13th wrote:The Villain twist was foreshadowed through the entire movie. IT did seem like Bane instead of staying in the city to ensure his plan goes through was n ow just staying in the city because he was told to. They way she was in command over bane took away from his character somewhat.

I think people are feeling that Bane seemed kind of neutered in the last part, and seem to focussing in on the revelation that Thalia, and not Bane was the real top dog. I think the real problem is that after siezing the bomb and cutting off the city, they just kind of fethed about for a month while Batman got better and climbed out of the pit.

If they just wanted to blow up the city, well then they could have done that at any time. If they wanted to make Gotham turn on itself, then maybe the movie should have showed them actually doing that.

The problem is more that appeared to be a big step missing in Bane/Thalia's plan Everyone is going to seem a bit weaker when they've been directionless like that for about a third of the movie.

I thought the point of not blowing up the city right away was to make the people think that things were going to get better over time, and force Bruce to watch it knowing that it was all a sham, then just laugh and blow it up anyway. They didn't blow up the city right away for the same reason that the Sheriff of Nottingham uses a spoon to cut out a man's heart, and not a knife. I'm not saying that they pulled it off perfectly, but I believe that was the intent.

I didn't get the impression Bane wanted people to try and flee the city, since they went to trouble to ensure that people wouldn't.

Exactly how people survived wasn't addressed

The movie did show them receiving aid shipments from the US. and in fact a special forces team was smuggled in with one.

I think Bane was somewhat inert after capturing the city because there was no longer any real threat for him, and a villain without a threat tends to be boring. The should have had more for Gordon/Blake's resistance to keep him active while Bruce was finding his happy place.

The funniest part of the movie was the part when the Police got released from 90 days in a hole, and rather than go see the kids, run into a barrage of gunfire.

Considering policemen cite health and safety do get out of doing anything even remotely dangerous, refuse to do pretty much anything unless they are getting overtime, and have the union the rattle its sabre every chance they get..

Well, I vote for Gotham's public sector to get a well deserved raise!

Manchu wrote:That seems to have been Nolan's take home for us, notwithstanding over two hours of development.

Maybe. But I took it as an excellent example for why Bane was kicked out of the Secret Society of Whisperers. At the end of the day, Bane was still a thug and Talia was still refusing to see that he was the thug that her father said he was.

Was it ever mentioned in the film why he was thrown out? I mean, besides what Alfred heard (which I cannot even remember). Was that confirmed as the real reason or was there another reason or was he never actually in the LoS or was he never actually kicked out?

Manchu wrote:Was it ever mentioned in the film why he was thrown out? I mean, besides what Alfred heard (which I cannot even remember). Was that confirmed as the real reason or was there another reason or was he never actually in the LoS or was he never actually kicked out?

He was kicked out by Ra's because he was a constant reminder of the hell hole he left his wife and unborn child in.

Manchu wrote:Was it ever mentioned in the film why he was thrown out? I mean, besides what Alfred heard (which I cannot even remember). Was that confirmed as the real reason or was there another reason or was he never actually in the LoS or was he never actually kicked out?

Talia said it quite explicitly, Bane reminded Ra's of the hell he left his lover and daughter in.

Okay, so nothing ideological really. That's kind of lame, honestly.