Knightfail

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Gunnyboy said:
More nonsense. I wonder where's the article of Bob trying to explain how all the Chituauri magically died at the same time when their ship blows up.
The Chitauri are established (without a word of dialogue, incidentally) as being both bio-mechanical in nature both by their basic design and by their interactions with eachother and the surrounding area: Portions of their "armor" are hooked-in to pre-set spaces on their physical bodies, they manipulate their weapons and vehicles partially by inserting their limbs into them (we also see that they are "hooked up" to their aerial "bikes" by cords similar to the Na'Vi when Black Widow severs one.) They are also "connected" to the huge whale-monster guys for transport, and when one of them crashes through the train station it's "death" is signaled by it's eyeball "shorting out" with electricity and exploding like blown fuse.

Given all that, plus the fact that they generally behave like "hive" creatures (re: drones driven by a central intelligence, hence why they make such a great rent-an-army) it's not too far of a reach that when said central controlling intelligence is destroyed/cut-off their function (and possibly power-source?) ceases.
 

PsychedelicDiamond

Wild at Heart and weird on top
Legacy
Jan 30, 2011
2,067
918
118
You know, there's that one thing that bothers me. So.. here be Spoilers:

Am i the only one who thinks that it wasn't actually Nolans intention to let Batman survive at the end but rather that he was pressured by the studio into doing so? I mean, that rather awkward foreshadowing at the beginning, the fact that we are given no explanation of how he survived the explosion... i don't know, something about it seems off.
 

Dashiva

New member
Jul 29, 2012
32
0
0
I found a lot of the twists predictable, but mostly because they were ripped straight out of the comics verbatim - the Talia twist in particular was telegraphed way too early on for me.
 

HitcH55

New member
Mar 28, 2010
24
0
0
I hate film critics who think people give a toss about their thoughts on the film - i thought this film was a great end to the Nolan trilogy, and it was executed perfectly in every form - cast, character, story, environment, music et al. Nolan is a genius, do you really think he gives a toss that you're too dumb to understand his film(s)?!

If it was such a bad film, explain why, really, after only 5 films he is being inducted into the hall of fame.

Dumbass, try watching it again with a more open mind!
 

Trishbot

New member
May 10, 2011
1,318
0
0
HitcH55 said:
I hate film critics who think people give a toss about their thoughts on the film - i thought this film was a great end to the Nolan trilogy, and it was executed perfectly in every form - cast, character, story, environment, music et al. Nolan is a genius, do you really think he gives a toss that you're too dumb to understand his film(s)?!

If it was such a bad film, explain why, really, after only 5 films he is being inducted into the hall of fame.

Dumbass, try watching it again with a more open mind!
You obviously give a toss about Bob's thoughts on the film... enough to listen to his opinion, read his follow-up, and post your response and opinion here on the thread.

Besides, this may come as a supreme shock to you, but Christopher Nolan is actually not a perfect film director and Dark Knight Rises was not, in fact, a perfect film. I love Nolan's films, I love his Batman films, and I even enjoyed Dark Knight Rises, but a week after seeing it and I have a laundry list of plotholes, implausibilities, characters behaving out-of-character, and narrative impossibilities. The film is good, yes, but it is far from a perfect film. It's actually a mess of a film that has enough talent backing it up to surpass it's huge problems to end up being enjoyable, but that does not mean the problems don't exist.

And the logic that a bad film negates years of prior work means nothing. Directors like Nolan aren't god-like. They're human. They make mistakes. All the great directors of film have their ups and downs, no matter how many great films they've done.

Director Neill Blomkamp was nominated for Best Picture on his very first movie. I don't see what the number of films means for anything. Spielberg's first major motion picture was the enduring JAWS and George Lucas directed Star Wars and then nothing else for 30 years while Godfather director Francis Ford Coppola made "Jack". The quality of their work has varied widely from film to film, crew to crew.

Ultimately, it doesn't make someone a "dumbass" to question the dumb logic of a dumb, if entertaining, movie. And trust me, Dark Knight Rises is just as dumb as the Transformers movie plots are, even if they're a bit more professional about it. The more I think about Dark Knight Rises, the more plotholes and inconsistencies pop up. If anything, I'd say the "dumbasses" are the people so close-minded in their worship of Nolan and his "genius" that they refuse to acknowledge any problems that exist in any of his films, such as Dark Knight Rises.

Dark Knight Rises is still a good film. It is. But it has its problems, BIG ones, and plugging your ears and drowning out the complaints with cries of "Nolan is a genius" doesn't make those problems go away.
 

Abyss

New member
Apr 21, 2012
22
0
0
I do feel that MovieBob misses the point of TDKR, even though I am a huge fan of all of his critiques. I can understand where he's coming from, and this film is very unpolished in its length, plot, and structure. However, even with all of it's complications, it worked for me. It's kind of rare for a film, with bunch of problems which would nag the most critical or intelligent of film goers, would work despite these problems in the eyes of someone like me. Yes, it does things which Nolan should have maybe second guessed, but it still works, and more effectively than the most nagging of critics realize.

Just to clarify the whole pit escape thing. The reason why others didn't escape is because that damn rope was preventing them from leaping far enough, and it was necessary to discard the rope in order to make that leap. There's a chance you could die, but unless you get rid of the safety harness, you'll never escape. It's logical to me, and I think that the purpose of this method was to show that in a situation like this, it is pure will and not safety precautions which enable escape. It definitely makes Batman more badass by proving himself as the second person ever to really escape that pit (though his badassness does get ruined when Talia stabs him after his temporary defeat of Bain).

I've noticed that fans complained about Talia's motives being petty and flimsy. At first glance, she seems more irrational than the Joker, by claiming that she wants to destroy Gotham to make ammends with her father after his death. Learning that she was the whole brains behind the operation, with an equally capable and intelligent steroid pumper as her lackey, she's scarier and colder than Ra'as Al Ghul, Bain, and even the Joker combined. She was inaccurate when she claimed Bruce "murdered" her father. She's got her facts wrong, or maybe she's deliberately loose on her facts. Bruce first saved her father's life after destroying the League's temple, then when they fought each other again, he merely abandoned Ra'as to safe himself on a train that was on collision course. From I understand, Ra'as seemed prepared to die, even though Bruce didn't directly kill him, Ra'as wanted him to kill him, that way Bruce would learn to be unmerciful to his emenies and succeed as a worthy heir to the leader of the League of Shadows.

Considering these bits from the first movie, I'm guessing that either Talia's warped interpretation of the facts and her movtivations are the result of some heavy duty father-daughter issues (as well as from the fact that she was born in hell on earth), or because she's just messing with Bruce's head. Think of it. She's the only woman Bruce is seen having sex with in the entire trilogy, he gains her trust, is given his company, and after he recovers from a broken back and defeats Bain she stabs him right in the abdomen. I think that Talia wanted to twist the knife deeper into his conscience by reminding him of his betrayal of Ra'as and the League, laced with the fact that her childhood was more traumatizing than his. I think her reasons for breaking Bruce and destroying Gotham are deliberate bullshit. She was indocrinated under the League of Shadows to kill traitors and destroy cities which they don't like. Her daughter-father falling out explanation feels rather like a subtle ode to the Joker's inconsistent explanation for how he got his scars. You don't buy it, and there's probably much more to the story than you're led to believe, or that the story is much simpler than previously thought.

I do think that it would have been smarter for Talia to recruit Bruce back to the League, after proving his escape from the pit and defeating Bain, rather than wound him again and discard him as worthless. I mean, the relationship between Talia and Bruce in the comics was much more complex, that you would expect her feelings for Bruce to be mixed in the film rather than purely black and white.

Even if Ra'as and Talia appear to have died in their films, what if they didn't die? What if they are just monitoring Bruce's progress after being defeated by him, and still considering him to be a part of the League? Remember, that Bruce and Talia had sex. What if she is alive, and bearing his child, who becomes the murderous Robin in BATMAN AND SON? I wish.

This film provokes a lot of questions in me, and it makes wonder where all the other BATMAN crazies are waiting for while the Joker, Scarecrow, Bane, and the League of Shadows are screwing up Gotham.
 

Squaseghost

New member
Jan 25, 2010
86
0
0
Tayh said:
Does nobody else have issue with having all the policemen escape from their 5-month long confinement looking no worse for wear than they day they were trapped?
-And how they then proceeded to charge 3 of those light tank vehicles and Bane's mob armed with assault rifles... And all the police had was small-arms guns.
-And then they proceeded to get into a huge, melee brawl instead of actually using their weapons.
When I saw the difference in firepower I thought "they're gonna get smoked, why are they charging?" Upon reflection I think that's the only way they could have a chance; close the distance render the increased firepower moot, and overwhelm them with your numbers.
 

Awexsome

Were it so easy
Mar 25, 2009
1,549
0
0
The only moments out of those that really annoyed me much were the twist demoting Bane from main villain to glorified henchman in favor of the one lady being the big bad all along and the loss of the sense of time with the 5 months Wayne had spent in that pit.

Although that first one is only because I loved so much of what the movie did with Bane in the first place.

Still a great movie though. I still put Dark Knight and Avengers ahead of Rises, but not by much. I will watch all of them plenty more times.
 

Dirzzit

New member
Apr 16, 2009
309
0
0
SonicWaffle said:
What I found particularly odd was that Bane never used venom to enhance himself or any of that, when that's pretty much the central aspect of the character; his power, his weak nature that drives him to "prove" himself by beating Batman, his battles with addiction, all of it.

I've heard claims that it wouldn't fit in Nolan's more realistic adaptation, but why not? Venom isn't magical in nature, it's not an alien substance or the jizz of a dead Lovecraftian god. It's just a chemical compound with some funky properties, much like Scarecrow's fear gas in the first movie. How does that break the gritty realism angle?

Also, it would have given us a way more awesome third act if they'd switched the venom story around (in the comics, Batman became an addict first to enhance his power, and then broke the addiction when he realised what it was doing to him) to Batman powering-up on the stuff in order to defeat Bane, and then the whole learning-to-be-Batman-again angle could have worked the second time as him weaning himself off an addictive and dangerous drug. Then you could make Talia more impressive as a last-act twist villain, with some plotline about how she'd engineered the whole thing somehow.
It kind of acted reverse in the movie. When venom (pain killer) was in his body he was strong and smart. When his mask was damaged he was super strong (smashing the pillar and Bat) but not very clear minded. Small set of scenes Ill admit.
 

UberNoodle

New member
Apr 6, 2010
865
0
0
Trishbot said:
My questions (WITH SPOILERS):

1) How does Batman survive the fusion bomb at the end? He was shown to be in the cockpit of his plane mere seconds before detonation, and the blast radius was at least 6 miles. They said "autopilot", but I didn't see him eject in time. Also, he would then land in the icy water, in full body-armor, and either sink like a rock or freeze to death in minutes. Plus, if he swam to shore, someone would've spotted him.

2) How did Batman get INTO Gotham in the first place? He was stripped of all his gear and belongings and Gotham was entirely cut off from the rest of the world. How'd he get into the city?

3) The giant, flaming bat-signal on the bridge. Yeah, it's cool and all, but when did Bruce get the time to climb the bridge (monitored by both police and criminals) and prep it with gasoline all over... and then calmly wait at the bottom for Gordon's execution to spring the signal?

4) If the goal of the League of Shadows with Ra's Al Ghul was to eliminate the problems of Gotham by destroying the city, and 8 years later Gotham is practically crime-free, citizens are living peacefully, and Batman himself is retired, why on earth would they attack? Gotham HAD peace. They're the ones that caused all the problems.

5) If the true aim of the League, Talia, and Bane was to dupe Bruce into giving them the bomb, why did they jeopardize their plan by staging massive terrorist attacks that served no real purpose other than to get their men killed and put their plan at risk?

6) How did they know where Batman's armory was? The only ones that knew were both Bruce and Lucius Fox.

7) Batman's plane seriously was just camped out at the top of a building for nearly a year? He didn't even take it back to the cave. He just left it out in the open under a suspicious looking tarp and nobody found it?

8) It may not be a plothole, but does the movie seriously expect me to think that a 10 year old girl has the strength and will to crawl out of a hole in the ground, but none of these strong, full-grown men could do it? Or, for that matter, they couldn't just build a ladder or something out?

9) People know who Bruce Wayne is. He's a rich, famous billionaire playboy. If Bill Gates faked his death and was then spotted in public, you'd think someone would notice.

10) "You won't give up on me, will you Alfred?" "Never." -Batman Begins. Alfred totally gives up on him. Dammit, Alfred!
1) Movie magic, I guess. It's possible that he ejected while still in Gotham. There was plenty of cover for him to do so. Auto poilot would have done the rest.

2) He was trained by the League of Shadows and was already shown have been quite proficient before Gul found him. I don't think it's too hard to imagine how he good back into the city. He is Batman after all, suit or no suit.

3) Movie magic, yet again. But during the night, he may have had a chance to do it. Otherwise, it's not plot essential and I'm willing to just accept it as movie magic.

4) Talia was doing it to avenge her father. She was no longer part of the League anyway. Her goal was the complete her father's plan, even it was irrational. Obviously punishing Wayne was a big part of that.

5) Their attack on the stock exchange was the collapse Wayne Enterprises. The land developer character helped make that possible. Talia was undercover, so he was not aware that he'd already been double crossed when she stepped in to take over the company. He thought he was going to get the company. It was only going to happen if the shareholders and board demanded the change. The only real 'terror' attack was part of the master plan which would have climaxed with the bomb. The relative insanity of that master plan is fully in keeping with the superhero genre.

6) In Dark Knight a member of the staff at Wayne Enterprises worked out that 'RnD' was producing the same weapons and devices that Batman uses. He was never dealt with, but perhaps he is part of the reason Talia knew where the armoury was. The armoury was below the Wayne building however, am I right? Putting two and two together wouldn't have been impossible.

Also, this is effectively the League of Shadows, so I expect that they have the means to track Wayne or Fox's movements, or the movements of various parts shipments and so on. Honestly, there are many ways they could have found the armoury, and none of them are exciting to watch outside a detective movie.

Finally, the film was from Wayne's POV so in order to show the process of finding the armoury, it would have reveal the enemy and remove the surprise. Bane or Talia could have laughed maniacally and told Wayne how they located the armoury, but it was clear that they in fact DID find it, so why would Wayne ask?

8) Talia escape the pit because she didn't fear death. That's the core of it. She was prepared to commit to her escape completely because she was not affraid of losing her life. The other inmates were not so, which is why they used the rope. However, the rope was probably what truly held them back from making that jump. Consider the leap of faith required to climb that high (falling from even half way would be fatal) and then making the jump. Such a test is exactly something the League would appreciate. Regardless, the whole concept is a poetic one and not intended for such a mechanical analysis.

9) Well, many people claimed that Elvis Presley didn't really die, and how does society and media treat those people? That's what would happen to anybody claiming to have seen Wayne. The man died somehow, probably in the terrorist attack, and he his grave is there for all to see. There'd be all manner of tributes and monuments made for the months to come. Biographies, television specials. The whole world would be well and truly sold on his death. Imagine if you saw Steve Jobs tomorrow at a cafe. Who would believe you?

And if you are talking about the end restaurant epilogue, bear in mind they were in a foreign county and to be honest, Wayne was well known for sure, but not a media personality. He was a household name, perhaps, but not a household face. And arguably, France (that was were the end scene was, right?) has its own billionaires, who are still alive and not bankrupt.

10) Alfred didn't give up on Wayne. Wayne kicked him out. Alfred sacrificed his friendship with Wayne so as to try to save him from his pain. That's not giving up. That's beautiful. Wayne eventually realised that, thankfully.
 

UberNoodle

New member
Apr 6, 2010
865
0
0
Awexsome said:
The only moments out of those that really annoyed me much were the twist demoting Bane from main villain to glorified henchman in favor of the one lady being the big bad all along and the loss of the sense of time with the 5 months Wayne had spent in that pit.

Although that first one is only because I loved so much of what the movie did with Bane in the first place.

Still a great movie though. I still put Dark Knight and Avengers ahead of Rises, but not by much. I will watch all of them plenty more times.
The revelation at the end was beautiful. It showed Bane as a human being who loved this woman, as a surrogate father to her, as a friend, possibly he loved her more than that. He was doing all this for her, yet when she told him NOT to kill Wayne, he disobeys. Why? Was it jealousy? Revenge? Anger? TO say that he was reduced to a 'glorified henchman' is an overly mechanistic and cynical interpretation of a revelation which made the man suddenly sympathetic and human. There was even an element of the sinister, as certainly, Talia was manipulating the man's love and devotion for her.
 

spwatkins

New member
Nov 11, 2009
108
0
0
The thing that's bothered me since I saw the movie is that the whole Batman arc is a ripoff of Rocky III (the Mr. T one).
* Aging warrior confronts dangerous new nemesis after a long hiatus
* Trounced with ease
* Recovers and trains for a new bout in a filthy pit (boxing gym)
* Handily defeats nemesis

The only thing that was missing was the prison doctor saying "eye of the tiger, man".
 

Random Argument Man

New member
May 21, 2008
6,011
0
0
The pacing felt very quick. I'll wait for a director'c cut on dvd.

Twist no.1: I wasn't suprise by the Talia twist. I was just suprised by the fact that Marion Cotillard didn't finish has a love interest in a movie.
Twist no.2: That was a joke?
 

HitcH55

New member
Mar 28, 2010
24
0
0
Trishbot said:
HitcH55 said:
I hate film critics who think people give a toss about their thoughts on the film - i thought this film was a great end to the Nolan trilogy, and it was executed perfectly in every form - cast, character, story, environment, music et al. Nolan is a genius, do you really think he gives a toss that you're too dumb to understand his film(s)?!

If it was such a bad film, explain why, really, after only 5 films he is being inducted into the hall of fame.

Dumbass, try watching it again with a more open mind!
You obviously give a toss about Bob's thoughts on the film... enough to listen to his opinion, read his follow-up, and post your response and opinion here on the thread.

Besides, this may come as a supreme shock to you, but Christopher Nolan is actually not a perfect film director and Dark Knight Rises was not, in fact, a perfect film. I love Nolan's films, I love his Batman films, and I even enjoyed Dark Knight Rises, but a week after seeing it and I have a laundry list of plotholes, implausibilities, characters behaving out-of-character, and narrative impossibilities. The film is good, yes, but it is far from a perfect film. It's actually a mess of a film that has enough talent backing it up to surpass it's huge problems to end up being enjoyable, but that does not mean the problems don't exist.

And the logic that a bad film negates years of prior work means nothing. Directors like Nolan aren't god-like. They're human. They make mistakes. All the great directors of film have their ups and downs, no matter how many great films they've done.

Director Neill Blomkamp was nominated for Best Picture on his very first movie. I don't see what the number of films means for anything. Spielberg's first major motion picture was the enduring JAWS and George Lucas directed Star Wars and then nothing else for 30 years while Godfather director Francis Ford Coppola made "Jack". The quality of their work has varied widely from film to film, crew to crew.

Ultimately, it doesn't make someone a "dumbass" to question the dumb logic of a dumb, if entertaining, movie. And trust me, Dark Knight Rises is just as dumb as the Transformers movie plots are, even if they're a bit more professional about it. The more I think about Dark Knight Rises, the more plotholes and inconsistencies pop up. If anything, I'd say the "dumbasses" are the people so close-minded in their worship of Nolan and his "genius" that they refuse to acknowledge any problems that exist in any of his films, such as Dark Knight Rises.

Dark Knight Rises is still a good film. It is. But it has its problems, BIG ones, and plugging your ears and drowning out the complaints with cries of "Nolan is a genius" doesn't make those problems go away.
Ive never heard of this bob guy before, i was jut clicking through the site. TBH I gave up trying to read your response, I gave it a curious glance and saw you started whistling dixie about jaws or some shit (Way over-rated film).

Yawn
 

teebeeohh

New member
Jun 17, 2009
2,896
0
0
spwatkins said:
The thing that's bothered me since I saw the movie is that the whole Batman arc is a ripoff of Rocky III (the Mr. T one).
* Aging warrior confronts dangerous new nemesis after a long hiatus
* Trounced with ease
* Recovers and trains for a new bout in a filthy pit (boxing gym)
* Handily defeats nemesis

The only thing that was missing was the prison doctor saying "eye of the tiger, man".
and i am sure that this novel concept was first explored in rocky III.

i really liked bane and hated the twist that made him a henchman. and i also saw the twist coming from a mile away because of the whole child of ras's al ghul thing but i thought that bane masterminded the destruction was gotham as a gift to her but making him just a henchman is just dumb
 

faefrost

New member
Jun 2, 2010
1,280
0
0
Dashiva said:
I found a lot of the twists predictable, but mostly because they were ripped straight out of the comics verbatim - the Talia twist in particular was telegraphed way too early on for me.
Nah! Let's just say that it is quite apparent from the beginning and the ending that Chris Nolan read Miller's "The Dar Knight Returns". This movie ended almost exactly where Millers book did. Batman having killed off not Batman, but Bruce Wayne, and assembling his forces in the shadows.
 

Dashiva

New member
Jul 29, 2012
32
0
0
Combine Rustler said:
Yup, agreed.
Also, on the ending part where we see Bats and Cats at the café.
I interpreted it as something symbolic: Batman's found his peace, in a manner of speaking (he seems rather okay with getting annihilated at the end). And Alfred realises this, which is visualized by that quite ambiguous little scene.

Also, I still really liked the movie. Probably because I expected to get something completely shitty. Ah, the wonder of low expectations.
Sounds like you're taking a Yahtzee approach to movies.