How would you have changed "The Dark Knight Rises"?

[TheNaut131]

Agreement in better Bane backstory, like for instance including the mention of the venom steroid since... hey, the first movie had the fear gas. Why can't we add another made up chemical? It's kind pivotal to Bane's character, at least initially.

There's a difference between including a psychotropic hallucinogen in the movie and including a formula that causes you to become absurdly large and powerful. Venom would be retarded in the Nolan setting, end of story.

You know, I'm getting sick of hearing that. "It wouldn't work in Nolan style movie, it would seem dumb in this setting." I mean c'mon, Nolan has already re-worked a lot of the Batman mythos to avoid campiness, he could've just re-worked that too. Venom doesn't need to turn him into the fucking Hulk, it could just make him slightly more muscly and perhaps a bit stronger.

 

[SeeIn2D]

I hated the way Bane died and I thought it was uncharacteristically lazy of Christopher Nolan to have him die that way. He was the main antagonist of the movie until literally the last 20 minutes or so, and he died in the most convenient "Hey I'm here to save the day!" way ever. After his death he wasn't mentioned anymore either. Very lazy and disappointing.

 

[Fappy]

Rachael comes back as Harley Quinn. I wanted this to happen so bad

 

[shrekfan246]

Not a single goddamn way.

All right, I thought Batman as Batman might not have gotten enough screen-time, but other than that I thought the movie was great. I was surprised by how well Tom Hardy portrayed Bane, and the portrayal of Bane himself considering how ridiculous he is in the comics and how badly Batman & Robin butchered his character.

Rachael comes back as Harley Quinn. I wanted this to happen so bad

I don't think they could bring Rachael back... but Harley Quinn would've been pretty neat and a nice way to bridge the gap between why The Joker is suddenly not in Gotham anymore eight years later. Too bad they didn't have a character to fit that role introduced in The Dark Knight. Even a throwaway 'Harleen' character while Joker was being kept in lockup would've been enough to set that groundwork. I guess they couldn't predict that Ledger would pass away and they wouldn't be able to use The Joker for Rises, though.

 

[The Heik]

How would you have changed The Dark Knight Rises?

Hoo boy, this is going to be a big list. Well, here goes:

SPOILERS

1)Change the reactor/ bomb thing into something non-nuclear (a la Arc Reactor) so that Gotham doesn't get turned into an irradiated wasteland by the 30-mile radius of fallout

2)Drop Talia as a character as well as all plot points linking to her (aka the detonator). She actually damages Bane's character and doesn't really add anything of use to the story (aside from the obligatory reveal of the reactor, which could have been done in so many other ways). Anyways, it would be more interesting if the bomb never had a detonator and Bane just said that to mislead everyone into going on a wild goose chase for something that didn't exist. He still wanted to destroy Gotham like the League of Shadows, it's simply that his methods (ie the takeover of Gotham) were too ostentatious, which is why he got thrown out of the League.

Aside: The lack of a detonator would also explain why Bane's forces got shellacked by Gotham's cops. They were in the process of bugging out, and they weren't prepared for or well situated enough to properly face the attack.

3)Rework a bit of Bane's backstory and actions in the film. First, change the painkiller mask, as not only does it weaken Bane's character physically, but it doesn't match Bane's original idea. Seriously, why call him Bane if he's nothing like what he's supposed to be? Second, give some explanation as to why he seems to know everything about the city and more specifically where and what Batman's arsenal is. All that would need is a couple shots with some Gotham city structural blueprints and sewer maps, just so we get a hint of how the hell he manages to pull off all that so perfectly.

4)Drop some of the useless characters. The film could have been way shorter and more cohesive if they had gotten rid of some individuals. For example, the detective who worked with Robin could have been dropped off with pretty much no loss to story. Same can be said of that one merc dude with the .50 cal bullets on his chest. All in all, if all those characters were axed (Talia included), the film could either have been a half hour shorter or that time could have been used to strengthen the main characters

OR

5)Rework the film's flow. For the supposed 5 months the film spans, very little of that is shown. Based on the majority of the film's indications, Bane's rule of Gotham seemed to last a total of 1 week, not 5 months. Spacing out the events and adding 15 minutes worth of showing Gotham being turned into what it becomes would have helped the flow immensely, as well as give a little bit of breathing room for the viewer after the mini-climax of Bane declaring martial law. Also, certain parts of the film just need a bit of re-cutting. For example, Batman's first appearance in the film has a bit of a disjoint, where it seems several hours have passed from the daylight raid of the stock exchange to nighttime scene of Batman coming in to capture them. It's an example of bad cinematography, and really should have been caught in the storyboards.

6)Make Batman Die! Now I know that the end scene with Michael Caine is an incredibly touching thing for a lot of people, but the problem lies that it has almost nothing to do with any of the main plot. It's a subplot that pops up in the first 15 minutes of the film then disappears for 2 & 1/2 hours before popping right back out for a cop-out twist. It ruins Batman's sacrifice for the viewer, and it raises questions as to why he's with Selina Kyle, despite them having fewer romantic moments than Bruce Wayne and Talia (that is to say ZERO!)

Whew.... that was lengthy.

So yeah, pretty much the whole film needed an overhaul to make it anywhere near good in my eyes. For all the supposed talent Nolan North has, he did not bring his A game for this one.

 

[Veylon]

The plot point I couldn't stand once the movie started wrapping up was that the villains' plan was apparently to stay in the same city as the fusion bomb until it went off, thus killing themselves in the hope that Batman is watching TV at the time and hasn't died of his injuries or of trying to climb out. I mean, seriously, it's not like they need to die to prove a point or anything. Batman suffers just as much if Gotham blows up without them as with them. It's also worth remembering that he makes his un-roped leap to freedom before the bomb goes off. If he'd fallen to his splattery death (without permission) instead, they'd be committing elaborate suicide over nothing. And wasn't Bane intending to come back after Gotham was destroyed to put Bats out of his misery? That's hard to do when you're dead.

On a related note: where are the guards in this prison. You know, the guys whose job it is to keep people from escaping? Like Batman did? If there aren't any, why is the prison still full of people following a silly ritual? Surely there has to be some way to hook a rope to the top and have everyone climb out. Or get a ladder or plank to cross the leap of death. If there are people enforcing it, and they let Batman go ahead and climb out, why did Bane trust them to keep him in? Nothing about that place made any sense.

 

[Souplex]

I would have made Batman fun, avoiding the unnecessary grit route.
Captcha: END OF STORY

 

[BehattedWanderer]

How would you have changed The Dark Knight Rises?

Personally, I would've killed off Batman at the end, but made it ambiguous (so I'd have the movie end at Alfred in the restaurant nodding, and then cutting to black and the credits roll). Blake wouldn't inherit the Batcave and take up Batman's mantle.

I'd give Selina Kyle more of a backstory and build her up as a character, rather than more of a plot device. There'd be no love interest this time, so no sexy time with either Talia al Ghul or Selina Kyle. And I'd have a better explanation for Bane's mask, as well as make his voice less muffled and tone down the exaggerated posh accent.

I'd also at least mention the Joker and give the Scarecrow a slightly bigger role, with his mask on too.

But that's the thing--Batman did die. They even made a heroic-looking statue of him. Whoever the man behind the scowlcowl was doesn't matter. Though, since they have the magic device that erases people and allows them to start anew, both Batman and Bruce Wayne can be dead, allowing Not-Bruce-Wayne to go lead his normal boring life, like he's been wanting to do for two movies, since being Batman got in the way of said normal boring life. They didn't mention the Joker out of respect to Heath Ledger and his family, and Crane's role of surprise at the end was suitably fun.

Me, I'd start it out with him never having stopped being Batman, but he didn't stop being Bruce Wayne either. Billionaire and playboy any other time, but he isn't a billionaire if he doesn't run his company, and he can't be a playboy because he's hiding? Are we still talking about Bruce Wayne, here? Nope. Dude let his goal to have a normal boring life interfere with being the Goddam Batman.

 

[Vigilante 989]

First, I would have had Bane be a regular dude who was also a badass mercenary with a loyal group of men. The League of Shadows saw how badass he was and decided to kill two birds with one stone by taking him and the scientist guy. After they got him, The League hooked him up with the venom steroids.

They should have kept Gordon's son in in Gotham just to show that 8 years did pass from the last film and not a year and a half, that the film unintentionally conveyed. It would have made sense for him to stay in Gotham and the rest of the family move to Cleveland (although it would've been cooler if the said they moved to Metropolis) since he admired Batman so much.

Give more of a back story for Selena Kyle, or have Bruce mention something from her pass while he was doing research on her to tell the audience that she can selfless/heroic in unique circumstances.

When John Blake is telling Bruce his past, I would've liked it to be while living with is father who was a thief and overall bad guy, involved John in most of is criminal deeds. When John witness his father getting shoot, it's not to long before John's crimes catch up with him and is sent to juvenile detention. After a short stint, he decides to become a better person, changes his name to John Blake (from Jason Todd) and wants to become a cop.
And that whole "I knew you were Batman when I looked in your eyes when I was a kid" was so fucking stupid.

The first fight scene between Bane and Batman was good. I liked it, but could have been better. If Bane was actually rockin' the steroids it would have made the fight (and the next fight between Bane and Batman) more epic in my opinion. I would've liked to see Batman use more gadgets to fight Bane, most notably THE FUCKING GRAPPLING HOOK! It's nowhere to be seen not only in the fight scene, but in the entire movie. What the hell? A piece of equipment that was used well in the first two movies and is essential in Batman's arsenal is just sitting on the shelve collecting dust. And also, I didn't understand why Batman didn't throw a batarang or two at Bane.

Selena should have told Blake that Bruce was Batman in order to get out of going to jail. That would have been a perfect time for Blake to know the true identity of Batman.

The death scene with Talia could have used a few more takes.

 

[The Heik]

So yeah, pretty much the whole film needed an overhaul to make it anywhere near good in my eyes. For all the supposed talent Nolan North has, he did not bring his A game for this one.

You do know that almost all of your complaints ARE addressed in the film and even given answers to? And that the entire "batman must die" argument is going against the theme of the series?

And that Nolan pretty much, by almost all critics (you know, the people that watch and understand movies for a living?) brought his a-game, not bowing to public pressure and made the movie be the conclusion it deserved to be.

Wow, you really ended on a Batman quote? We trying to be all philosophical, because that doesn't really work when I'm talking about technical issues.

OT: What are you talking about ""almost all"? The reviews I've seen have bounced back and forth from "it's perfect" to "it's a mess", which though reviews are subjective in nature, that amount of mixed feedback is usually a good indication that SOMETHING has gone wrong with the product.

And as for my points, no most of them did not get answered (or at least did not get answered correctly).

The bomb's fallout radius is far too big for Batman to fly the bomb out of the city, resulting in Gotham NOT being saved. That is an objective problem with the script

Talia serves no purpose in the film except to show the reactor/bomb and to pull a twist that M. Night Shaymalan would be ashamed at. That is objectively bad storytelling

Bane's character is nothing like the basic idea of Bane. Nolan could have just as easily called the dude the Riddler and it would have been just as accurate a character as the one we got. That is objectively misleading character design.

A lot of the characters do serve no purpose in the film (aforementioned detective and merc mook being the figureheads of this). If they were dropped out of the film it would not only have been shorter but would have given more time to flesh out other plot points and more important characters (the aforementioned clairvoyance of Bane and his goon, and trust me I checked, there's no reasonable way they knew exactly where and what was in Batman's secret arsenal. Even Ra's al Ghul didn't know where it was. That is an objectively contrived plot point)

As for Batman's "death" the entire Alfred plotline could have been scrapped and it would not have made any difference to the overall themes of the film. Bruce learned about sacrifice and being Batman for himself long before having to "kill" himself off, and considering Alfred's only appearances were in the beginning and end of the film, they have little to do with the rest of the film. There is also the issue that with Bruce surviving his sacrifice loses impact to the viewer (the only important person when it comes to imparting meaning to), as well as creating an emotional dissonance of positive feelings mixing with a melancholy atmosphere. Slice that any way you want to, that's still objectively shoddy work

This is not the ending the series deserved. Heck it's not even the ending Batman in general deserved. What ever interesting (though already done by both Batman the Animated Series AND the 1989 Batman film) ideas it had cannot wash out the objectively bad execution it had.

Now if you wish to dispute my statements, first of all let me state that if you like the film that fine. Personal feelings trump technical issues when it comes to one's personal take on something, and I would not wish to slander anyone simply because I disagree with them

Second though I refer you to this thread

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.382690-I-hate-Dark-Knight-Rises-SPOILERS?page=1

where I and so many others have discussed the various issues with series. Pretty much any issue you have with what I've said has probably been explained and discussed there, and I'd rather not go over the same ground again as I tends to put people into recurring cycles of pointless discussion.

So I bid you adieu, as I will not be replying to any of your posts in regards to DKR, for I am now done with that film, and wish never to clap eyes upon it or it's ilk again.

 

[2HF]

missing the point

You're missing the point, of the thread and of my original post. I'll make it as clear as possible. I didn't care about anything else apart from this one thing. I didn't care what Nolan was trying to do or say or anything like that. If he wants his films to have meaning that's all on him, whatever. I don't care. I didn't miss the point, I simply did not care.

I'm not saying he should change it. I'm not saying he should "fix" it. I'm saying that it's what I would change because that's what this thread is about. The question was asked and I answered it how I wanted. I don't understand your problem with this.

 

[Deathmageddon]

Anne Hathaway as Catwoman made no impression on me at all. She's a competent actress, but- and this is going to sound sexist, sorry- I don't think she's hot enough to pull off Catwoman. I was dissapointed with Talia's character, too. Not badass or crazy enough.

 

[twohundredpercent]

Have Nolan declare in public that it's okay to say you didn't care for the trilogy without having hordes of neckbeards trying to discredit you with almost religious fervor.

And maybe have more of the prison stuff.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

I would have made it a bit longer. Some parts felt a bit rushed but overall I thought it was a pretty fantastic movie to end one of my favorite trilogies with.

Yeah, a few more scenes, a little better paced... that would have made it nearly perfect. I agree it was a great movie, but it did feel a little clumsy... or clunky, rather. I'm not sure if it's because of the way it was edited or just because the script was a little weak, but certainly made the film worse than it could have been. Luckily this could very well be fixed like how Watchmen was, in some kind of extended super cut. Hey, it could happen!

I think it would have been great if it was two movies. End movie one as the Gotham brides get blown out.

 

[Innegativeion]

I hated Talia, and I fucking hated the way Bane just got reduced to a henchman straight afterward. And he got killed in the stupidest way possible.

This is exactly my biggest problem with the movie word for word. Especially considering how the movie was pretty much entirely driven by equal parts Bruce Wayne and Bane's character up to that point, or moreover, the relationship between the two.

 

[Radelaide]

1. Pronunciation of Ra's Al Ghul's name. It's not Raz (he's not a Psychonaut), it's Rache. Although, I've had that gripe since Batman Begins.

2. Talia Al Ghul's part in the story. You don't fuck with the universe that badly.

3. Bane.

4. Everything else.

Seriously? How has it not gotten more nerd rage? I understand that it's meant to be some kind of re-interpretation of the Batman universe, but Jesus, keep some kind of faith to the original content.

Captcha: Hamburger bun. lolwut?

Edit: The goddamn ending. What a stupid fucking way to end a film. So lazy on Nolan's part.

 

[Innegativeion]

Agreement in better Bane backstory, like for instance including the mention of the venom steroid since... hey, the first movie had the fear gas. Why can't we add another made up chemical? It's kind pivotal to Bane's character, at least initially.

There's a difference between including a psychotropic hallucinogen in the movie and including a formula that causes you to become absurdly large and powerful. Venom would be retarded in the Nolan setting, end of story.

You know, I'm getting sick of hearing that. "It wouldn't work in Nolan style movie, it would seem dumb in this setting." I mean c'mon, Nolan has already re-worked a lot of the Batman mythos to avoid campiness, he could've just re-worked that too. Venom doesn't need to turn him into the fucking Hulk, it could just make him slightly more muscly and perhaps a bit stronger.

Venom doesn't make Bane any stronger than he was in the movie. I mean, he beat up Batman and punched through a fucking concrete pillar. If fear gas is just a hallucinogen turned up to 11, venom is just a steroid turned up to 11. Makes about as much sense as Bane having to dress up like darth vader to "suppress the pain" of a facial reconstruction.

And I call horse shit on Nolan's movies not having fantastical elements from the comics.

-League of shadows, aka a guild of ninjas that try to destroy a specific city in America

-broken backs can be fixed via deathpunch

-Fusion reactors

In fact one of the trilogy's most fantastical elements, aka the fusion reactor, is one of the pivotal plot points of the 3rd movie.

Another thing; Talia/Bane's plan makes no goddamn sense.

If they knew the bomb would go off that day, why were they still on the island hours before its destruction? Wouldn't they have planned to leave prior?

 

[Sexy Devil]

The main problem I had with the film is that the last part of the film takes place in 5 months, but it never really felt like 5 months.

As for the ending, I liked it. It gave closure. In Inception, the ending was left ambiguous, you don't know if he's still in a dream or not. So that "cut to black thing" was well placed.
Having Alfred nod to the camera then cut it to black wouldn't make any sense, because you KNOW that Alfred nodding means he saw Bruce Wayne. Using that cut to black thing here would make it feel cheep.

Also, and maybe it's just me, but the first 2 films had distinct key words like "fear" for batman Begins and " Chaos" for The Dark Knight. Couldn't really figure that key word in Rises (though that's just nitpicking on my part).

Considering it's in the title, in the majority of the music, is chanted constantly and was used by characters like Afred a few times, I'd say it would probably be "Rise".

But yeah the Inception thing worked because it was showing that Cobb just didn't give a shit anymore and he'd be happy to accept this as his reality even if it was a dream. It falls apart when you realise that he's going to walk past that table again at some point in the near future but it made the point clear. The ambiguous endings are always there for a reason in Nolan films, and in TDKR it just wouldn't fit thematically to have it cut off.

 

[aba1]

How would you have changed The Dark Knight Rises?

Personally, I would've killed off Batman at the end, but made it ambiguous (so I'd have the movie end at Alfred in the restaurant nodding, and then cutting to black and the credits roll). Blake wouldn't inherit the Batcave and take up Batman's mantle.

I'd give Selina Kyle more of a backstory and build her up as a character, rather than more of a plot device. There'd be no love interest this time, so no sexy time with either Talia al Ghul or Selina Kyle. And I'd have a better explanation for Bane's mask, as well as make his voice less muffled and tone down the exaggerated posh accent.

I'd also at least mention the Joker and give the Scarecrow a slightly bigger role, with his mask on too.

I didn't mind both bruce surviving or Blake taking over however both seemed like a bit much choosing one or the other I think would have felt to be a nicer fit.

Also I gotta say this since it has been driving me nuts. In Batman Begins when Bruce gets his suit Lucious tells him a knife won't penetrate it but Talia stabs him in the end of Rises. Only Batman would get stabbed in a knife proof suit.

 

[Kilo24]

Hmm... the biggest one is to either flesh the whole "People's Revolution" thing out or drop it. It feels like it's not taken seriously by anyone, including Catwoman who seemed like she was supposed to. It's not that it's not foreshadowed - there's a lot of posturing about it in the film, most of which felt forced because it didn't exist in the prequels - it's that when it's first mentioned by its architect Bane he tells the audience it's full of crap. Short of a vague conversation between Catwoman and Bruce Wayne upon his return to Gotham, the actual implications aren't really explored. The biggest message that you could get from it is "Revolutions aren't all they're cracked up to be" or "The 99% is a load of impressionable morons."

Frankly, there was enough content in the film already so it wouldn't be missed if it were dropped and replaced with something okay, but I'd be tempted to make Bane into a sincere leader of the whole movement being played by Talia instead of the hypocritical League of Shadows mastermind without much of an agenda beyond "let's kill Gotham." Extra complexity in a film that already has quite a bit, but given that it help separates the work and motivations of Talia and Bane and thereby validate her existence in the plot, it could be better.

Talia's not completely without a purpose in the plot as it stands, but her reveal was clumsy. "I'm the traitor! The villain from the first movie had a daughter! I'm that daughter! Bane wasn't the kid escaping from the pit, I was!" all within the span of a minute or two. It's not an elegant revelation connecting everything together when half of the things being revealed didn't exist in the movie up until that point. More hints should have been dropped about her. If, as I suggested before, she was the mastermind behind the sincere Bane's Gotham Revolution, then her influence could have served as an interesting reason for why the People's Revolution didn't really do anything coherent for the people.

As other people said, time should have felt like it was passing while Bane was in control. Show a few projects the people built and ruined, or half built, or something like that. I will say that the Special Forces scene did help to suggest the passage of time, and also worked to feel like everyone wasn't just sitting around waiting for Batman to save them.

Hmm... beyond that, the League of Shadows was too big of a factor to let the audience's memory be the main method of recalling their motivations. As it stands right now, Bane's motivation is pretty much summarized within the final movie as "Let's blow up Gotham because it sucks. And because I want to see them suffer with false hope." The second main villain has pretty much the same idea, just with "and because Daddy wanted to and you killed him." The League of Shadows's inclusion probably was intended to make it feel like a coherent trilogy, but since they were completely missing in the second movie it really didn't work.

The pit was also an unnecessarily complex extra in my opinion. I think, that rather than having him locked up in a pit summoned into existence for this movie, leaving him helpless with his broken back in Wayne Manor without Alfred would have been more poignant. He could have been under heavy guard, and all the power and communications could be cut to avoid it being a pretty stupid move by Bane. There could be some spinal-damage-healing handwavium there too, to make the damage be more significant. It would prevent Bruce's curiously quick transport from the pit to Gotham without any finances from being a minor plot hole.

I felt like I should have felt that the ending was a cop-out, but upon reflection I don't really think it was. Ambiguous deaths rightly deserve their title as a crappy comic book trope, but this ambiguous death wasn't so that dramatic tension could be ratcheted up but still Batman could be revived for a sequel. Rather, it was because Bruce Wayne needed to shed the unhealthy addiction, and fully abandon the persona. That idea wasn't pulled out of thin air, it was repeated to him constantly by his closest friends throughout the whole trilogy. It cost him Rachel and Alfred, and he finally decided to abandon it once and for all. Since this is the end of the reboot, it has a tone of finality that the comics simply can't manage any more because they've retconned so much to keep characters in.

I also liked the reference back to The Dark Knight in that the film ended with a lie to the people. As it was with the previous movie, it's not so much that I like the message itself, but that I like that a superhero movie didn't just regurgitate a heavy-handed moral like "Never lie" in the style of Saturday-morning cartoons. And the fact that the lie at the end last movie blew up in Gordon's and Batman's face in this one suggests that maybe the lie at the end of this one might not result in the wonderfully happy ending for Bruce and Selina that they seemed to have.

So, the ending was good, I think. Ideas that aren't communicated by somebody getting blown up are something that superhero movies are often lacking.