Is the ending of The Dark Knight stupid?

[romxxii]

I'm one of the few people who preferred Batman Begins over TDK. I can appreciate Heath Ledger's turn as the Joker, which reminded me a lot of Alan Moore's Joker from the Killing Joke. Unfortunately, everything Two-Face related was totally retarded: from the skeletal CGI face, to his hackneyed face-heel turn, to his eventual death and how he's propped up as the martyr, none of it makes sense. The first is obviously the FX team's fault--or the director for approving it--but the latter two, I can't even decide if it's the actor's fault or the script's.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Well like Honest Trailers (and you) pointed out, why couldn't they just blame The Joker for all those deaths? Nobody would really question it after all he'd been killing people the entire movie.

Because that would mean nothing symbolically.

The joker is in prison, he's an example of how evil the "free man" can be to society, his actions serve as a reminder. Harvey Dent served many purposes in death but one purpose was to demonize the batman. It's not that he had to blame it on himself, it's that he needed to demonize his batman persona and Harvey Dent was a nice little opportunity.

Remember the movie starts with a subplot involving amateur vigilantes trying to emulate batman. Batman makes it pretty obvious (he flat out says it actually) that he doesn't want this.

We don't see any copycats in dark knight rises.

I don't remember that subplot. It still doesn't make sense, if the whole point was to save Harvey Dent's rep, just blame The Joker for the people Dent killed.

 

[rob_simple]

Did you just get a boxset for your birthday or something? This is the OP's second thread in as many days about why Nolan's Batman was dumb and stupid and awful; I'm starting to wonder if he was an extra that never got paid.

OT: Maybe if you didn't apply real-world logic to it and realised there is such a thing as artistic license you'd understand that the reason they went with the contrived ending over the 'lol Joker kills everyone' ending is because Nolan was working towards a specific outcome and needed Batman to become an outcast.

So much of The Dark Knight Rises is based around Batman being a controversial figure and questioning his own sense of duty to Gotham that if you remove the themes established in The Dark Knight the movie would have been about twenty minutes long.

 

[senordesol]

Remember: Batman's ultimate goal was to see a Gotham that didn't need Batman. He fought the fights no one else would and traveled to corners that no one else could. Wayne wanted Batman to be the Boogeyman of the criminal underworld, less a symbol of hope for the common man.

"I'm the hero Gotham deserves, he's the hero Gotham needs." Here, I think, Batman was saying that he is -essentially- just as lawless as the people he pursues. He has his 'one rule', sure, but he always meant to be perceived as a crazy asshole in a bat suit --not a paragon of justice.

With Dent, however, Batman felt that it was finally time for him to step aside -the city had its problems still, sure, but they were finally being addressed by public figures; not by a silent avenger of the night.

Further, it was symbolic of his rekindled trust in the people of Gotham; by rejecting the mob *AND* Batman, the Gothamites were finally taking responsibility for their own destiny. No longer would they be governed by the criminal, the corrupt, or unanswerable. By turning against Batman *and* the Joker, they had secured their own liberation.

That makes it a pretty beautiful ending, to a very compelling movie.

...until DKR ruined everything.

 

[Warachia]

At least that's how I saw it. If Batman just told the public "Move out of this city, it's really crappy because super villains spawn here every god dang second. I'm surprised the military hasn't nuked us yet." Seriously if you read the comics, it's the worst place in the world to live in Lol.

I remember hearing people say that Bludhaven was much worse, only difference was that city actually was destroyed by a chemical bomb.

 

[Carpenter]

I loved all three films when I saw them the first time but after a second viewing, I spotted all the flaws. No logic and kind of a disregard for the source material. My main problem throughout the franchise was the melodrama and use of music, though. Plus the fact that Batman's a pretty shitty detective and isn't really all that devoted to being Batman. Dark Knight is pretty awful in that Joker was reduced to a pretty simple "chaos rules" generic bad guy. But, thinking about it, it kind of contrasts the comics pretty well. In the comics Batman is incredibly smart and the Joker has the intelligence to match his. In the movies Batman solves his problems by shouting and moping and Joker blows stuff up. All intelligence and subtlety (and now to wait for someone to tell me there is no intelligence or subtlety in their relationship) is lost and reduced to a simple brawl with a dude in make up. Pretty sure Nolan has no idea how to write Batman. Don't know if he's even read the comics.

Edit: More on the actual subject, though; the ending was just plain stupid which is on par with the entire franchise.

I've always thought Nolan was an overrated hack, though. Bullshit within bullshit within bullshit. I have to kind of respect him for being the only one who didn't want the ending of Man of Steel to go the way it did, though. Still... He's all about the melodrama and it sucks ass.

No logic? Did you seriously say the movie had no logic?

As in nothing at all was logical?

I am fine with some hyperbole but you pretty much embody everything wrong with this generation of film viewers. To say a movie (even a david lynch movie) has "no logic" is really making it obvious that you don't understand how film works and how film or story logic works.

The film has it's own logic if that makes it easier to understand.

But it's kind of cute that you are going off on the "cynical film reviewer" rant. Maybe one day you can get sort of famous making youtube videos too.

Wow... You're a hostile person, it seems. I'm everything wrong with film viewers and know nothing about movies? My experience in film school and my grades would beg to differ but I'm not going to reduce this into a "I know more than you do" petty argument filled with insults because I'm sure we both know equal amounts in different areas. And you kinda handled the petty insults on your own.

You know as well as I do that by "no logic" I meant less logic than there should be. Of course there is logic, I think you're just trying to use choice words to suit your own argument. The logic thing wasn't even the main part of my argument.

And no, I'm not a cynical reviewer. The majority of reviews I have written tend to be positive because I'm surprisingly optimistic. No need to assume and insult.

Hostile? I'll show you hostile!

Sorry, I thought this was a thread for presenting and debating opinions. I'll keep my "hostility" away from you in that case.

Enjoy stating your opinion, I'm sure it's very rewarding without the challenge of defending it or debating another.


EDIT: Ok sorry but how much logic "should" a movie have then? First you say it had "no logic" now you are saying it just had less logic than it should have. You said it devolved into guys in costumes fighting, are you aware that this movie is the only reason you and everyone else expects more from superhero movies?
Just saying, food for thought.

 

[Carpenter]

Well like Honest Trailers (and you) pointed out, why couldn't they just blame The Joker for all those deaths? Nobody would really question it after all he'd been killing people the entire movie.

Because that would mean nothing symbolically.

The joker is in prison, he's an example of how evil the "free man" can be to society, his actions serve as a reminder. Harvey Dent served many purposes in death but one purpose was to demonize the batman. It's not that he had to blame it on himself, it's that he needed to demonize his batman persona and Harvey Dent was a nice little opportunity.

Remember the movie starts with a subplot involving amateur vigilantes trying to emulate batman. Batman makes it pretty obvious (he flat out says it actually) that he doesn't want this.

We don't see any copycats in dark knight rises.

I don't remember that subplot. It still doesn't make sense, if the whole point was to save Harvey Dent's rep, just blame The Joker for the people Dent killed.

You may not remember it but it was a pretty prominent part of the first half.

Yes if the only reason was to save Harvey's rep, just blame it on the joker. Problem is I just explained that it was not the only reason and was in fact not the real reason for saying batman did it at all.

Add to that the fact that the Joker was doing a completely unrelated hostage terrorist thing during that time but that's not really an issue since people tend to believe all kinds of silly things if they see it on the news.

Blaming it on himself was a way to demonize batman and defuse the situation of his "symbol" becoming less about fear and more about heroism, which leads to the copycats.

Remember it's the copycat that says "batman is a symbol, a sign that we don't have to be afraid of people like you" but batman has never once said that it's a symbol for the good people, he said it was a symbol to strike fear into the hearts of his enemies.

A guy that dresses in leather and kills cops is a little scarier.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

It's... a bit contrived.

But it by no way ruins the movie. It's still one of the best movies I've ever seen.

 

[Carpenter]

Remember: Batman's ultimate goal was to see a Gotham that didn't need Batman. He fought the fights no one else would and traveled to corners that no one else could. Wayne wanted Batman to be the Boogeyman of the criminal underworld, less a symbol of hope for the common man.

"I'm the hero Gotham deserves, he's the hero Gotham needs." Here, I think, Batman was saying that he is -essentially- just as lawless as the people he pursues. He has his 'one rule', sure, but he always meant to be perceived as a crazy asshole in a bat suit --not a paragon of justice.

With Dent, however, Batman felt that it was finally time for him to step aside -the city had its problems still, sure, but they were finally being addressed by public figures; not by a silent avenger of the night.

Further, it was symbolic of his rekindled trust in the people of Gotham; by rejecting the mob *AND* Batman, the Gothamites were finally taking responsibility for their own destiny. No longer would they be governed by the criminal, the corrupt, or unanswerable. By turning against Batman *and* the Joker, they had secured their own liberation.

That makes it a pretty beautiful ending, to a very compelling movie.

...until DKR ruined everything.

You beat me to it and said it better than I could.

Yes, the people started seeing him as a symbol of hope for the common man but Bruce Wayne never wanted that, he needed it to be a terrifying symbol.
Remember what the mob boss says even after being dropped off a building? "The secrets out, you got rules" basically saying I'm not scared of you, I know your limits.

Now people are lead to believe that he has no limits. God if he was willing to straight up murder cops, what will he do to me?


On that note I have to respectfully disagree, DKR didn't ruin everything but carried that idea through to it's logical conclusion. Gotham had not taken things into it's own hands, it just had new leaders that didn't wear masks dealing with the issues.

Bane was brilliant in every way. Everything he does basically mirrors a dictator except this dictator is dropped into an American city which has now been cut off from society. Basically he's Big Jim in Under the Dome (The book, not the TV show where they made him into another normal guy) and what makes it all the more real is that he isn't just using force to get what he wants, he's speaking to the hearts of the people, he's using their desire to rebel to further his own agenda.

I wish more people would think about that in a real world context. It's a little like how advertisers often use our desire for rebellion and turn it into a desire to buy, which doesn't quench our thirst for the destruction or remaking of a system but rather confuses it and leads to aimless aggression and violence.

There are so many layers to TDKR but I can't go through it all right now, still an amazing movie at least symbolically.

 

[ninjaRiv]

Hostile? I'll show you hostile!

Sorry, I thought this was a thread for presenting and debating opinions. I'll keep my "hostility" away from you in that case.

Enjoy stating your opinion, I'm sure it's very rewarding without the challenge of defending it or debating another.


EDIT: Ok sorry but how much logic "should" a movie have then? First you say it had "no logic" now you are saying it just had less logic than it should have. You said it devolved into guys in costumes fighting, are you aware that this movie is the only reason you and everyone else expects more from superhero movies?
Just saying, food for thought.

Good lord... Ok, first of all; you didn't challenge my opinion you just insulted me. I am open to debate, go ahead and debate with me. I see no reason you can't be civil about it, though. In fact, the debate would go a heck of a lot smoother if you weren't so insulting.

Can you debate my opinions without trying to call me out on my misspeaking? That would forward our conversation and maybe we can gain a mutual understanding of each other and perhaps a bit of respect.

I like the kind of logic that doesn't make a film seem like it's pretending to be smart, which is what I feel this film did. I like the idea of DK, just no the execution. Yes, Batman as an outcast and an enemy of Gotham is an awesome idea. Very awesome. But I feel it was written badly. Batman's the world's greatest detective and I feel nothing about these movies showed that. At all.

Actually, no it's not the reason I expect more from Superhero movies. At all. Because I don't expect more from superhero movies. Avengers was pretty great because it was big action scenes and fun characters. If I want intelligence, there's no shortage of that in the movie industry. But to pretend to be intelligent just doesn't work for me. I'm not saying the people involved in making the movie were intentionally pretending they're clever; in fact, I'm sure they're very clever. I just don't feel this movie has anything substantial to offer the genre. This is just how I feel about the movie. The joy of movies is they're very subjective. This is why I love watching movies. Just because I dislike a movie and think it's cliché and boring, filled with faux intelligence, doesn't mean I'm right at all. Just like you believing the opposite doesn't make you right. Hence why the debates on these subjects should be civil and not full of insults.

 

[Carpenter]

Hostile? I'll show you hostile!

Sorry, I thought this was a thread for presenting and debating opinions. I'll keep my "hostility" away from you in that case.

Enjoy stating your opinion, I'm sure it's very rewarding without the challenge of defending it or debating another.


EDIT: Ok sorry but how much logic "should" a movie have then? First you say it had "no logic" now you are saying it just had less logic than it should have. You said it devolved into guys in costumes fighting, are you aware that this movie is the only reason you and everyone else expects more from superhero movies?
Just saying, food for thought.

Good lord... Ok, first of all; you didn't challenge my opinion you just insulted me. I am open to debate, go ahead and debate with me. I see no reason you can't be civil about it, though. In fact, the debate would go a heck of a lot smoother if you weren't so insulting.

Can you debate my opinions without trying to call me out on my misspeaking? That would forward our conversation and maybe we can gain a mutual understanding of each other and perhaps a bit of respect.

I like the kind of logic that doesn't make a film seem like it's pretending to be smart, which is what I feel this film did. I like the idea of DK, just no the execution. Yes, Batman as an outcast and an enemy of Gotham is an awesome idea. Very awesome. But I feel it was written badly. Batman's the world's greatest detective and I feel nothing about these movies showed that. At all.

Actually, no it's not the reason I expect more from Superhero movies. At all. Because I don't expect more from superhero movies. Avengers was pretty great because it was big action scenes and fun characters. If I want intelligence, there's no shortage of that in the movie industry. But to pretend to be intelligent just doesn't work for me. I'm not saying the people involved in making the movie were intentionally pretending they're clever; in fact, I'm sure they're very clever. I just don't feel this movie has anything substantial to offer the genre. This is just how I feel about the movie. The joy of movies is they're very subjective. This is why I love watching movies. Just because I dislike a movie and think it's cliché and boring, filled with faux intelligence, doesn't mean I'm right at all. Just like you believing the opposite doesn't make you right. Hence why the debates on these subjects should be civil and not full of insults.

I insulted you? Are we playing that game now? In that case, didn't you insult mr.Nolan? Is his feelings not as important as yours?

I jest. If you want to debate, go ahead but I'm not going to do so with you if you insist on starting every response with whining about how mean or unfair I am being. You have a choice to stop replying if my comments are really so hurtful, this will be the last reply I make towards you if you don't reply to me.


EDIT: BTW a movie "seeming more smart than it is" is the kind of comment that leads to a few jabs in your direction. It's a really silly thing to say. Movies have no intelligence, movies are not stupid or smart, filmmakers are. To say the people that worked on this movie were stupid would be something I would disagree with but at least it's a valid opinion. Saying the movie itself is stupid makes about as much sense as calling a statue gay or a chair racist.

 

[ninjaRiv]

Hostile? I'll show you hostile!

Sorry, I thought this was a thread for presenting and debating opinions. I'll keep my "hostility" away from you in that case.

Enjoy stating your opinion, I'm sure it's very rewarding without the challenge of defending it or debating another.


EDIT: Ok sorry but how much logic "should" a movie have then? First you say it had "no logic" now you are saying it just had less logic than it should have. You said it devolved into guys in costumes fighting, are you aware that this movie is the only reason you and everyone else expects more from superhero movies?
Just saying, food for thought.

Good lord... Ok, first of all; you didn't challenge my opinion you just insulted me. I am open to debate, go ahead and debate with me. I see no reason you can't be civil about it, though. In fact, the debate would go a heck of a lot smoother if you weren't so insulting.

Can you debate my opinions without trying to call me out on my misspeaking? That would forward our conversation and maybe we can gain a mutual understanding of each other and perhaps a bit of respect.

I like the kind of logic that doesn't make a film seem like it's pretending to be smart, which is what I feel this film did. I like the idea of DK, just no the execution. Yes, Batman as an outcast and an enemy of Gotham is an awesome idea. Very awesome. But I feel it was written badly. Batman's the world's greatest detective and I feel nothing about these movies showed that. At all.

Actually, no it's not the reason I expect more from Superhero movies. At all. Because I don't expect more from superhero movies. Avengers was pretty great because it was big action scenes and fun characters. If I want intelligence, there's no shortage of that in the movie industry. But to pretend to be intelligent just doesn't work for me. I'm not saying the people involved in making the movie were intentionally pretending they're clever; in fact, I'm sure they're very clever. I just don't feel this movie has anything substantial to offer the genre. This is just how I feel about the movie. The joy of movies is they're very subjective. This is why I love watching movies. Just because I dislike a movie and think it's cliché and boring, filled with faux intelligence, doesn't mean I'm right at all. Just like you believing the opposite doesn't make you right. Hence why the debates on these subjects should be civil and not full of insults.

I insulted you? Are we playing that game now? In that case, didn't you insult mr.Nolan? Is his feelings not as important as yours?

I jest. If you want to debate, go ahead but I'm not going to do so with you if you insist on starting every response with whining about how mean or unfair I am being. You have a choice to stop replying if my comments are really so hurtful, this will be the last reply I make towards you if you don't reply to me.


EDIT: BTW a movie "seeming more smart than it is" is the kind of comment that leads to a few jabs in your direction. It's a really silly thing to say. Movies have no intelligence, movies are not stupid or smart, filmmakers are. To say the people that worked on this movie were stupid would be something I would disagree with but at least it's a valid opinion. Saying the movie itself is stupid makes about as much sense as calling a statue gay or a chair racist.

I disagree with your interpretation of movies. I agree, film makers can be very smart; that doesn't stop them making a stupid movie. I also didn't call the people behind the movie stupid, I just said this movie was stupid. I feel most of your disagreements with me stems from our differing definitions.

Fair enough, I did insult Nolan. That's a good point. I retract my insults but I still believe he's a terrible director who overuses melodrama and music.

I don't care if you're "mean" or "unfair." I only care that it seemed to be the basis of your argument.

 

[Something Amyss]

I retroactively dislike the ending more after watching Rises, because of the needless time jump eight years forward. Any interesting ideas they could have done with Batman being hunted are washed away because he immediately hung up his cowl and stopped doing crime fighting.

Yyyyyyyeah, that was so jarring I think I actually got whiplash from it.

 

[senordesol]

Remember: Batman's ultimate goal was to see a Gotham that didn't need Batman. He fought the fights no one else would and traveled to corners that no one else could. Wayne wanted Batman to be the Boogeyman of the criminal underworld, less a symbol of hope for the common man.

"I'm the hero Gotham deserves, he's the hero Gotham needs." Here, I think, Batman was saying that he is -essentially- just as lawless as the people he pursues. He has his 'one rule', sure, but he always meant to be perceived as a crazy asshole in a bat suit --not a paragon of justice.

With Dent, however, Batman felt that it was finally time for him to step aside -the city had its problems still, sure, but they were finally being addressed by public figures; not by a silent avenger of the night.

Further, it was symbolic of his rekindled trust in the people of Gotham; by rejecting the mob *AND* Batman, the Gothamites were finally taking responsibility for their own destiny. No longer would they be governed by the criminal, the corrupt, or unanswerable. By turning against Batman *and* the Joker, they had secured their own liberation.

That makes it a pretty beautiful ending, to a very compelling movie.

...until DKR ruined everything.

You beat me to it and said it better than I could.

Yes, the people started seeing him as a symbol of hope for the common man but Bruce Wayne never wanted that, he needed it to be a terrifying symbol.
Remember what the mob boss says even after being dropped off a building? "The secrets out, you got rules" basically saying I'm not scared of you, I know your limits.

Now people are lead to believe that he has no limits. God if he was willing to straight up murder cops, what will he do to me?


On that note I have to respectfully disagree, DKR didn't ruin everything but carried that idea through to it's logical conclusion. Gotham had not taken things into it's own hands, it just had new leaders that didn't wear masks dealing with the issues.

Bane was brilliant in every way. Everything he does basically mirrors a dictator except this dictator is dropped into an American city which has now been cut off from society. Basically he's Big Jim in Under the Dome (The book, not the TV show where they made him into another normal guy) and what makes it all the more real is that he isn't just using force to get what he wants, he's speaking to the hearts of the people, he's using their desire to rebel to further his own agenda.

I wish more people would think about that in a real world context. It's a little like how advertisers often use our desire for rebellion and turn it into a desire to buy, which doesn't quench our thirst for the destruction or remaking of a system but rather confuses it and leads to aimless aggression and violence.

There are so many layers to TDKR but I can't go through it all right now, still an amazing movie at least symbolically.

Can't got with you there...not all the way. What I liked about Joker in DKR was summed up in basically one line "Look at what all I've done with just a few bullets and a couple of gallons of gasoline". The entire plot revolved around exploring what would happen if all the social niceties went out the window and we were grabbed by the hand and taken to a very dark place.

What would you do if killing one man meant saving a sick family member?
What would you do if it came down to letting yourself blow up, or destroying a boatload of cons?
How far would you go to catch the man who set all of this in motion?
What would you give up to have peace? Peace based on a lie -- but peace all the same?

I didn't get any of that with DKR and, in a few places, I felt it went backward. Now I really liked Bane as a character in DKR (I had absolutely no problem with his posh accent). But everyone's motivations and reasonings were such a mess that it was tough for me to stay invested.

You say he spoke to the 'hearts of the people', but I think that's debatable. He blows up or otherwise removes everyone in authority, he gives assault rifles to prison inmates, and he threatens the use of a nuclear bomb if anyone tries to intervene or leave.

I don't remember ever getting *that scene* (like the ferry scene in TDK) either leading in or during where the average Joe Gothamite is asking for or is excited about this...particularly since things seem to be pretty peachy in Gotham before Bane shows.

Then, of course, there was the 'Rise' scene...where I had to bite my tongue in the theater to keep from screaming at the screen. Teamwork! Why the hell doesn't Wayne rally everyone in the prison (foreshadowing his rallying of Gotham, and following thematically with the public's rejection of evil) to get out together!? (Also, this would lend better credence to how he was able to get half-way across the world overnight). Why does he have to pass a test of physical strength when his character should be beyond that?

 

[Carpenter]

Hostile? I'll show you hostile!

Sorry, I thought this was a thread for presenting and debating opinions. I'll keep my "hostility" away from you in that case.

Enjoy stating your opinion, I'm sure it's very rewarding without the challenge of defending it or debating another.


EDIT: Ok sorry but how much logic "should" a movie have then? First you say it had "no logic" now you are saying it just had less logic than it should have. You said it devolved into guys in costumes fighting, are you aware that this movie is the only reason you and everyone else expects more from superhero movies?
Just saying, food for thought.

Good lord... Ok, first of all; you didn't challenge my opinion you just insulted me. I am open to debate, go ahead and debate with me. I see no reason you can't be civil about it, though. In fact, the debate would go a heck of a lot smoother if you weren't so insulting.

Can you debate my opinions without trying to call me out on my misspeaking? That would forward our conversation and maybe we can gain a mutual understanding of each other and perhaps a bit of respect.

I like the kind of logic that doesn't make a film seem like it's pretending to be smart, which is what I feel this film did. I like the idea of DK, just no the execution. Yes, Batman as an outcast and an enemy of Gotham is an awesome idea. Very awesome. But I feel it was written badly. Batman's the world's greatest detective and I feel nothing about these movies showed that. At all.

Actually, no it's not the reason I expect more from Superhero movies. At all. Because I don't expect more from superhero movies. Avengers was pretty great because it was big action scenes and fun characters. If I want intelligence, there's no shortage of that in the movie industry. But to pretend to be intelligent just doesn't work for me. I'm not saying the people involved in making the movie were intentionally pretending they're clever; in fact, I'm sure they're very clever. I just don't feel this movie has anything substantial to offer the genre. This is just how I feel about the movie. The joy of movies is they're very subjective. This is why I love watching movies. Just because I dislike a movie and think it's cliché and boring, filled with faux intelligence, doesn't mean I'm right at all. Just like you believing the opposite doesn't make you right. Hence why the debates on these subjects should be civil and not full of insults.

I insulted you? Are we playing that game now? In that case, didn't you insult mr.Nolan? Is his feelings not as important as yours?

I jest. If you want to debate, go ahead but I'm not going to do so with you if you insist on starting every response with whining about how mean or unfair I am being. You have a choice to stop replying if my comments are really so hurtful, this will be the last reply I make towards you if you don't reply to me.


EDIT: BTW a movie "seeming more smart than it is" is the kind of comment that leads to a few jabs in your direction. It's a really silly thing to say. Movies have no intelligence, movies are not stupid or smart, filmmakers are. To say the people that worked on this movie were stupid would be something I would disagree with but at least it's a valid opinion. Saying the movie itself is stupid makes about as much sense as calling a statue gay or a chair racist.

I disagree with your interpretation of movies. I agree, film makers can be very smart; that doesn't stop them making a stupid movie. I also didn't call the people behind the movie stupid, I just said this movie was stupid. I feel most of your disagreements with me stems from our differing definitions.

Fair enough, I did insult Nolan. That's a good point. I retract my insults but I still believe he's a terrible director who overuses melodrama and music.

I don't care if you're "mean" or "unfair." I only care that it seemed to be the basis of your argument.

The "basis of my argument" are the bits you seemed to ignore and instead focus on the "mean" bits.

But you are right, it was a miscommunication and nothing more.

Now please explain to me how a movie can be stupid. Do you mean the characters are stupid or that it has things that wouldn't work in real life? Please help me understand that concept because I really don't.

Can you explain to me how the "melodrama" in the dark knight differs from "drama" in other movies?
Is it possible that the only difference is how you view one of them?

And maybe YOU don't view comic book movies differently after the dark knight but society sure does. Keep in mind that spiderman was the superhero movie before batman begins. Try to understand that the only reason people hate on "Green Lantern" is because it's a superhero movie made for a pre batman movie going audience. Watch it next to the spiderman movie (the Ramey one) and it makes a lot of sense.

The batman trilogy raised the standard of storytelling in superhero movies but because it still has "super heroes" the drama is seen as silly by those that are not use to comics which commonly feature drama along with costumed characters.

 

[ninjaRiv]

But you are right, it was a miscommunication and nothing more.

Now please explain to me how a movie can be stupid. Do you mean the characters are stupid or that it has things that wouldn't work in real life? Please help me understand that concept because I really don't.

I'll see if I can put it into words...

It's a general judgement of a movie. This forum is not the place for me to write a detailed essay on everything I thought was wrong with a movie. But if I thought it was just one aspect, I would say so.

So, when I say the movie was stupid, I am referring to several aspects; writing, acting and directing being the major ones.

In the case of DK, it's pretty much those three. The big ones. I had a problem with Joker's make up but not to the point where it ruined anything, I didn't think much of the way Two Face looked (although, it was a great idea) but it was mostly writing, directing and acting.

Writing: I understand what the film was going for, I just don't think it was written very well. David S Goyer is a decently intelligent writer and I know he can handle Batman, to a point. But I feel like the script for this movie lacked his understanding of the character and the ability to write a decent plot. It could have been written in a way that showcased Batman's "World's Greatest Detective" reputation but, at the end of the day, batman came off as kind of an idiot with a silly plan.

Directing: As you can tell, I don't like Nolan's directing. I kind of liked The Prestige but not much. I feel he relies too heavily on melodrama. Characters mope and whine more than they should and they come up with silly ways to go about things. An example I frequently use is the part of Batman Begins, where the monorail is heading for Wayne Towers and, between shots of the monorail, you have the old guy recapping things that we already knew while out of place music played over it.

Acting and characters: I like pretty much all the actors in this film and I feel the acting problem I have here is mostly due to directing but, still. Batman (constantly using Batman voice around people who know who he is. What's up with that?) is not as smart or interesting as he should be and, like I mentioned before, comes off as silly. The Batman voice kind of sounds more like he's drunk, than anything. Ledger did that Joker fine, but I just didn't like that Joker. I mentioned before how, in contrast to the comic books and animation, the relationship between Batman and Joker was not as complex as it SHOULD have been and their interactions seemed to be mostly beatings. I also always had a problem with Oldman as Gordon; I always viewed Gordon as more competent and confrontational while Oldman's take seemed too obedient.

All of these elements come together to make a movie stupid. It's a general term used by a lot of people to basically just say they think a lot of aspects were stupid. Who's got time to read the shit I just wrote? "Movie is stupid" tends to be enough for most people, I find. I mean, I'm happy to write lengthy shit to back up my claims, people only need to ask (nicely lol).

So, yeah. I thought it was a stupid movie. Actually, I kind of find that calling the movie stupid is better than calling the people behind it stupid. Calling the people stupid is too much generalisation and suggests they can never make anything good. So yeah, definitely take back the insults towards Nolan. That was uncalled for on my part.

I hope that helps you understand my position on the movie a bit better.

 

[Carpenter]

Remember: Batman's ultimate goal was to see a Gotham that didn't need Batman. He fought the fights no one else would and traveled to corners that no one else could. Wayne wanted Batman to be the Boogeyman of the criminal underworld, less a symbol of hope for the common man.

"I'm the hero Gotham deserves, he's the hero Gotham needs." Here, I think, Batman was saying that he is -essentially- just as lawless as the people he pursues. He has his 'one rule', sure, but he always meant to be perceived as a crazy asshole in a bat suit --not a paragon of justice.

With Dent, however, Batman felt that it was finally time for him to step aside -the city had its problems still, sure, but they were finally being addressed by public figures; not by a silent avenger of the night.

Further, it was symbolic of his rekindled trust in the people of Gotham; by rejecting the mob *AND* Batman, the Gothamites were finally taking responsibility for their own destiny. No longer would they be governed by the criminal, the corrupt, or unanswerable. By turning against Batman *and* the Joker, they had secured their own liberation.

That makes it a pretty beautiful ending, to a very compelling movie.

...until DKR ruined everything.

You beat me to it and said it better than I could.

Yes, the people started seeing him as a symbol of hope for the common man but Bruce Wayne never wanted that, he needed it to be a terrifying symbol.
Remember what the mob boss says even after being dropped off a building? "The secrets out, you got rules" basically saying I'm not scared of you, I know your limits.

Now people are lead to believe that he has no limits. God if he was willing to straight up murder cops, what will he do to me?


On that note I have to respectfully disagree, DKR didn't ruin everything but carried that idea through to it's logical conclusion. Gotham had not taken things into it's own hands, it just had new leaders that didn't wear masks dealing with the issues.

Bane was brilliant in every way. Everything he does basically mirrors a dictator except this dictator is dropped into an American city which has now been cut off from society. Basically he's Big Jim in Under the Dome (The book, not the TV show where they made him into another normal guy) and what makes it all the more real is that he isn't just using force to get what he wants, he's speaking to the hearts of the people, he's using their desire to rebel to further his own agenda.

I wish more people would think about that in a real world context. It's a little like how advertisers often use our desire for rebellion and turn it into a desire to buy, which doesn't quench our thirst for the destruction or remaking of a system but rather confuses it and leads to aimless aggression and violence.

There are so many layers to TDKR but I can't go through it all right now, still an amazing movie at least symbolically.

Can't got with you there...not all the way. What I liked about Joker in DKR was summed up in basically one line "Look at what all I've done with just a few bullets and a couple of gallons of gasoline". The entire plot revolved around exploring what would happen if all the social niceties went out the window and we were grabbed by the hand and taken to a very dark place.

What would you do if killing one man meant saving a sick family member?
What would you do if it came down to letting yourself blow up, or destroying a boatload of cons?
How far would you go to catch the man who set all of this in motion?
What would you give up to have peace? Peace based on a lie -- but peace all the same?

I didn't get any of that with DKR and, in a few places, I felt it went backward. Now I really liked Bane as a character in DKR (I had absolutely no problem with his posh accent). But everyone's motivations and reasonings were such a mess that it was tough for me to stay invested.

You say he spoke to the 'hearts of the people', but I think that's debatable. He blows up or otherwise removes everyone in authority, he gives assault rifles to prison inmates, and he threatens the use of a nuclear bomb if anyone tries to intervene or leave.

I don't remember ever getting *that scene* (like the ferry scene in TDK) either leading in or during where the average Joe Gothamite is asking for or is excited about this...particularly since things seem to be pretty peachy in Gotham before Bane shows.

Then, of course, there was the 'Rise' scene...where I had to bite my tongue in the theater to keep from screaming at the screen. Teamwork! Why the hell doesn't Wayne rally everyone in the prison (foreshadowing his rallying of Gotham, and following thematically with the public's rejection of evil) to get out together!? (Also, this would lend better credence to how he was able to get half-way across the world overnight). Why does he have to pass a test of physical strength when his character should be beyond that?

Yeah that's all really cool but that was tdk.
Yes the joker was brilliant, I loved it.

Bane had conviction, he had dedication. He is batman had Bruce wayne stayed with the league of shadows just like Joker is batman had he given in to the depraved nature of his city and given up his morals.

Would you shoot a person to save a family member is not a deep moral issue, it's messed up but it's simple, family comes first. Bane presents an even more chilling idea, one that can't be summed up in one sentence but rather visuals. What happens when that "peace built on a lie" finally crumbles as it was always going to?
What happens when a real dictator is dropped into an american city? We love to think we are so much smarter than "third world" countries but at the end of the day the only advantage we have is comfort and technology, both things that are easily turned against us.


You didn't get any of what you got from TDK because they are telling very different stories and presenting different ideas. The trilogy is really three acts of one massive movie. Batman begins is act one, batman in his prime.
The dark knight is act two, a challenge is presented throughout the movie and he does something to solve it that makes the problem much worse in the third act

The third act is batman attempting and eventually reaching the point he was at act 1 but improving himself even further throughout the journey.

The motivations are actually pretty easy to understand once you consider that the league of shadows, while fictional, is based on very real organizations and don't go thinking I only mean some scary foreigners in some other country, there are groups within this country that want to see society crumble so it can be rebuilt. That's something they only ever talk about in the movies, the rebuilding. The destruction is the plot of the movie but it's only a small part of their plan.


Bane is a martyr, plain and simple. He never planned nor wanted to leave gotham before destroying it. It may seem "two dimensional" because they are following a master plan to the point where they sacrifice their own lives in seemingly illogical circumstances, but given some real world events and groups, is that so hard to believe?

The goals of these people are not hard to understand, they want to destroy the old world piece by piece to create a new and in their view, better world. Corruption is viewed like a disease, that's why they believe the city itself and all of it's people must be destroyed.

Yes he spoke to the hearts of the people. He convinced them that the bomb was only being used to prevent outside interference. Please don't think for a moment that prisoners are not people. He gave them freedom and power after the old system imprisoned them unlawfully.
"Gotham is yours. Do as you please, nobody will stop you"

That right there is speaking the the hearts of the people. If you feel the need to list all the "bad stuff" he did, you are missing the point. I never said he was a good guy or doing good things, I'm saying he knows how to manipulate people into thinking this is their revolution and not an invasion.

Does that not sound a bit familiar, invading a country while pretending to liberate it?

It's not likable but it's certainly not unreal, just dressed up a bit.

 

[ninjaRiv]

Can you explain to me how the "melodrama" in the dark knight differs from "drama" in other movies?
Is it possible that the only difference is how you view one of them?

And maybe YOU don't view comic book movies differently after the dark knight but society sure does. Keep in mind that spiderman was the superhero movie before batman begins. Try to understand that the only reason people hate on "Green Lantern" is because it's a superhero movie made for a pre batman movie going audience. Watch it next to the spiderman movie (the Ramey one) and it makes a lot of sense.

The batman trilogy raised the standard of storytelling in superhero movies but because it still has "super heroes" the drama is seen as silly by those that are not use to comics which commonly feature drama along with costumed characters.

I see you added more.

Melodrama is exaggerated emotion and drama. Drama is one thing but I feel Nolan takes it too a whole new level. But melodrama is, of course, something an individual interprets which is why I never presented it as a fact. What may seem melodramatic to me could be perfectly reasonable drama to another.

I don't know that society on a whole views them differently after DK but I agree, a lot of people use it as the standard to compare everything else to. Your comment was that I view these movies differently now, which I don't. I understand that others do.

I am VERY used to comics so I see your point, I just disagree. I don't feel that DK was close to the comics at all. Perhaps the sort of Batman stories a person prefers factors into this.

 

[Carpenter]

But you are right, it was a miscommunication and nothing more.

Now please explain to me how a movie can be stupid. Do you mean the characters are stupid or that it has things that wouldn't work in real life? Please help me understand that concept because I really don't.

I'll see if I can put it into words...

It's a general judgement of a movie. This forum is not the place for me to write a detailed essay on everything I thought was wrong with a movie. But if I thought it was just one aspect, I would say so.

So, when I say the movie was stupid, I am referring to several aspects; writing, acting and directing being the major ones.

In the case of DK, it's pretty much those three. The big ones. I had a problem with Joker's make up but not to the point where it ruined anything, I didn't think much of the way Two Face looked (although, it was a great idea) but it was mostly writing, directing and acting.

Writing: I understand what the film was going for, I just don't think it was written very well. David S Goyer is a decently intelligent writer and I know he can handle Batman, to a point. But I feel like the script for this movie lacked his understanding of the character and the ability to write a decent plot. It could have been written in a way that showcased Batman's "World's Greatest Detective" reputation but, at the end of the day, batman came off as kind of an idiot with a silly plan.

Directing: As you can tell, I don't like Nolan's directing. I kind of liked The Prestige but not much. I feel he relies too heavily on melodrama. Characters mope and whine more than they should and they come up with silly ways to go about things. An example I frequently use is the part of Batman Begins, where the monorail is heading for Wayne Towers and, between shots of the monorail, you have the old guy recapping things that we already knew while out of place music played over it.

Acting and characters: I like pretty much all the actors in this film and I feel the acting problem I have here is mostly due to directing but, still. Batman (constantly using Batman voice around people who know who he is. What's up with that?) is not as smart or interesting as he should be and, like I mentioned before, comes off as silly. The Batman voice kind of sounds more like he's drunk, than anything. Ledger did that Joker fine, but I just didn't like that Joker. I mentioned before how, in contrast to the comic books and animation, the relationship between Batman and Joker was not as complex as it SHOULD have been and their interactions seemed to be mostly beatings. I also always had a problem with Oldman as Gordon; I always viewed Gordon as more competent and confrontational while Oldman's take seemed too obedient.

All of these elements come together to make a movie stupid. It's a general term used by a lot of people to basically just say they think a lot of aspects were stupid. Who's got time to read the shit I just wrote? "Movie is stupid" tends to be enough for most people, I find. I mean, I'm happy to write lengthy shit to back up my claims, people only need to ask (nicely lol).

So, yeah. I thought it was a stupid movie. Actually, I kind of find that calling the movie stupid is better than calling the people behind it stupid. Calling the people stupid is too much generalisation and suggests they can never make anything good. So yeah, definitely take back the insults towards Nolan. That was uncalled for on my part.

I hope that helps you understand my position on the movie a bit better.

You have presented a nice list of things you thought were wrong with the movie, the problem is they are not flaws but opinions. Saying it relied on melodrama is an opinion without basis in fact, there's no distinction between melodrama or drama except the way we view it.
You say it had no logic or not as much as it should have but that's like saying the movie didn't have as many horses as it should have. It's an opinion with no logical grounds.

Oldman seemed to obedient? So were the scenes of him arguing with authority not confrontational enough? The movie was never meant to be a direct remake of the comic characters, so complaining that the characters are not exactly the same is just kind of silly. Might as well complain about the absence of robin.

The "old guy recapping things we already knew" while the monorail goes is a vital part of the movie. Not every line is meant to simply state a fact you need to know, it's meant to link ideas to the symbolism presented. You say the movie relied on "melodrama" but you still don't say how that differs from regular drama. Characters don't just mope and whine in any Nolan movie I have seen, especially the prestige, so I don't get where you are going with that. Did you see the movie or just the trailers?

Yes some characters get sad or angry, that's because those are human emotions that most humans experience in times of trial. Some people get something out of watching characters go through those struggles. It's not like the movies are nothing but people whining and moping.

Everything you list is either just a scene from a movie (with no real flaw presented) or a strange opinion like "too much melodrama" or "not enough cowbell" which there's no point in debating because it's like saying the sky is too blue. If it's too dramatic for you, don't watch dramatic movies.

I'm glad you liked the avengers, maybe that's more your speed. None of that human emotion stuff, just big green guy and metal man beating up aliens and eachother. Hey it's a fun movie but there's nothing more going on, no reason for me to watch it again or even the first time.
The Avengers was even more "illogical" had far more "plot holes" and the moping in that movie (From the two useless human characters) bored me to no end because I can care less how these action figure models feel when neither one seems human in the slightest.
The Avengers was basically a Michal Bay movie that has a huge fanbase and a lot of praise because it's made by the guy that writes great stories. It's sappy, pro establishment, needlessly patriotic, slug fest. It's a Michael Bay movie through and through.

Even if you hated the dark knight trilogy, at least it had something to cause a debate, at least it could incite real discussion. Nobody is going to get into a thought provoking ideological debate over the Avengers.

But hey, at least it wasn't as "illogical" as an old man explaining things we already know, because pointless exposition is certainly not present in the Avengers.


Sorry, I just had to, you didn't answer any of my questions and only presented baseless opinion so I really had nothing to debate there. The movie was too dramatic, too dramatic for whom?
The movie was stupid, again how is a movie stupid? You never explained that, how can a movie be stupid? Can a movie be smart? Can a movie be strong or tall too?

 

[Carpenter]

Can you explain to me how the "melodrama" in the dark knight differs from "drama" in other movies?
Is it possible that the only difference is how you view one of them?

And maybe YOU don't view comic book movies differently after the dark knight but society sure does. Keep in mind that spiderman was the superhero movie before batman begins. Try to understand that the only reason people hate on "Green Lantern" is because it's a superhero movie made for a pre batman movie going audience. Watch it next to the spiderman movie (the Ramey one) and it makes a lot of sense.

The batman trilogy raised the standard of storytelling in superhero movies but because it still has "super heroes" the drama is seen as silly by those that are not use to comics which commonly feature drama along with costumed characters.

I see you added more.

Melodrama is exaggerated emotion and drama. Drama is one thing but I feel Nolan takes it too a whole new level. But melodrama is, of course, something an individual interprets which is why I never presented it as a fact. What may seem melodramatic to me could be perfectly reasonable drama to another.

I don't know that society on a whole views them differently after DK but I agree, a lot of people use it as the standard to compare everything else to. Your comment was that I view these movies differently now, which I don't. I understand that others do.

I am VERY used to comics so I see your point, I just disagree. I don't feel that DK was close to the comics at all. Perhaps the sort of Batman stories a person prefers factors into this.

I am not saying it is close to your batman comics, I am saying it better represents what is found in most modern comics as opposed to a movie like spiderman which was basically a movie version of the cartoons and not much else.

Nothing about the emotion in DK was exaggerated in fact in most if not all cases it's dampened. The only strong emotion we see is from harvey dent and even then it seems a little too light for a guy that just lost his loved one and at the same time became disfigured for life.

What about the emotions were exaggerated? Did bruce wayne crack a bit of a frown after his girlfriend died? I mean a real person might start breaking things and shouting.