The Dark Knight Rises

[Skummy]

No, I didn't hate every little thing about it. I thought Christian Bale, Michael Caine and Gary Oldman all put in fantastic performances. The effects were great, the sets were fantastic, and there were actually some pretty good set-pieces here and there. Bruce Wayne as a Howard Hughes-like billionaire recluse was an interesting idea. But the good was massively outweighed by the bad.

I think that this is why we are arguing in the first place. There is no doubt that there are flaws in this film. But maybe we seem to like it more because we can overlook the flaws but you just can't ignore them. For me, I can easily ignore the minor plot holes due to the great acting and great set pieces

See, this is a bizarre logic to me. Why am I at fault for not being able to "overlook" the flaws of a movie? If I complained that I was served a shit sandwich, I wouldn't expect the waiter to accuse me of "overlooking" the bread and focusing on the shit. If it's a bad film, that's the fault of the film-makers, not the fault of the audience for recognising it's flaws. Fuck, any film is a masterpiece if you "overlook the flaws".

I just didn't feel the need to put down everyone who thinks differently to me in making my feelings known

The way you made your feelings known was done in a very aggressive way. You started your post with "This is bloody awful" what other response did you expect to get.

And if I'd opened with "THIS IS FUCKING AWESOME", would that have been deemed as "aggressive" too? Because plenty of people have done that, or close enough to it, and I don't see any of them being asked to justify themselves, only those of us who didn't enjoy the movie.

Oh, and one more thing - while admittedly this is perhaps a necessary evil of the superhero genre, but nobody batting an eyelid that Batman returns after an eight year absence at almost exactly the same time Bruce Wayne comes out of hiding after eight months is hilarious.

If your are a comic book fan you know that stuff like this exists a lot in comic books. In superman returns Clark Kent's face looks EXACTLY THE SAME AS SUPERMAN'S BUT WITH GLASSES. its not that much of a big deal

Again, I said in my very first line there - it's a necessary evil of the superhero genre. But it is silly. I'm willing to let that one slide a little, because it comes with the territory.

But, again, because I don't like something it's because I'm trying not to, obviously. It doesn't matter how well thought out and well reasoned by argument, if I disagree, it's because for some reason I just love not enjoying movies that other people like, and I'm actively looking for flaws in it (believe me, they're self-evident, if I'd wanted to I wouldn't have had to look too hard). But if someone liked the movie? Well, of course they did, because Batman.

Once again you complain about people criticizing your post. But if you say shit like this you are not exactly helping yourself. You're also under the assumption that because we don't hate the movie like you do we must blindly love it. Not the case, earlier in the thread we all stated our issues with the film. So don't think that we're blind fanboys just because we don't hate a movie with all our breath and attack anyone else who disagrees.

I've never accused anyone of "blindly loving" it, but I've seen a whole bunch of people accusing me of blindly hating it. Like you, just then, in the very same post that you criticised me for accusing people of "blindly loving" it. Funny that. Again, those of who didn't like the film aren't the ones criticising the ones who did - yet apparently we're the bad guys here. I've criticised the film, in a well-reasoned, honest and reasonably well thought-out manner. You, however, have criticised me.

[deli]

No, I didn't hate every little thing about it. I thought Christian Bale, Michael Caine and Gary Oldman all put in fantastic performances. The effects were great, the sets were fantastic, and there were actually some pretty good set-pieces here and there. Bruce Wayne as a Howard Hughes-like billionaire recluse was an interesting idea. But the good was massively outweighed by the bad.

I think that this is why we are arguing in the first place. There is no doubt that there are flaws in this film. But maybe we seem to like it more because we can overlook the flaws but you just can't ignore them. For me, I can easily ignore the minor plot holes due to the great acting and great set pieces

See, this is a bizarre logic to me. Why am I at fault for not being able to "overlook" the flaws of a movie? If I complained that I was served a shit sandwich, I wouldn't expect the waiter to accuse me of "overlooking" the bread and focusing on the shit. If it's a bad film, that's the fault of the film-makers, not the fault of the audience for recognising it's flaws. Fuck, any film is a masterpiece if you "overlook the flaws".

I NEVER SAID THAT YOU WERE AT FAULT FOR BEING LIKE THAT.

I've never accused anyone of "blindly loving" it, but I've seen a whole bunch of people accusing me of blindly hating it. Like you, just then, in the very same post that you criticised me for accusing people of "blindly loving" it. Funny that. Again, those of who didn't like the film aren't the ones criticising the ones who did - yet apparently we're the bad guys here. I've criticised the film, in a well-reasoned, honest and reasonably well thought-out manner. You, however, have criticised me.

I also never said you were blindly hating it in this post. I said that you were being agressive about it. which you were. We made our points abour why we liked the film, you made yours about why you didn't, we managed to have a healthy discussion about the flaws in the film which you have blatently ignored.

Edited July 31, 2012 by deli2000

[TKz]

I think when your counter argument is just typing in all caps, it's time to let it die, Deli.

Skummy had problems with the film. Those problems didn't really bother others. Doesn't mean the problems don't exist. I loved the film but even I can admit it was way goofier than the other two and riddled with plot holes.

[Dingle]

On the flip side, I'm going watching it again tomorrow because THIS FILM IS FUCKING AWESOME!

Oh and the food metaphor was so rubbish skummy . You don't pay to have shit food, and when you do, you generally complain and get something better - at least, I do, I know plenty of us English just do it under our breath. However, a film is a lot more of an unknown entity, you pay for the experience of finding out if it's good or bad. I've never heard of getting refunds for shit films, or I'd have been all over that every time I watched a film my girlfriend chose.

I'll probably be able to ignore the plot holes that don't concern Talia, although I seriously wish she had just been given something else. She was my only dislike in the film, and she's the one I'm not looking forward to seeing this time. Although her awful death-acting may be worth another laugh.

[TKz]

Looking back, Talia is my biggest problem with the film. I just feel like outside of the inital "Holy shit!" moment that I got from it, on repeat viewings it's going to be a lot more obviously pointless and less interesting. I'd rather they just kept Bane as the villain and the son of R'as Al Ghul. I loved Bane, really felt like a fun way to play the character. Marion Cotillard really does nothing for me as an actress, though. She didn't impress me in Inception and she didn't impress me in this.

[Liam]

But she's pretty.

[Jimmy]

I think her character had her effect though. A lot of people I've spoken to really didn't call the twist, which really boosted their enjoyment of the end. I'll agree about her death scene being weak - and her character being a bit meh, especially when there was such clear chemistry between Batman and Catwoman, but I thought the twist was pretty cool and shocked a lot of people, giving the ending an extra little something.

[Summers]

i think that twist added so much depth to the Bane behind the mask, to be honest.

[Liam]

I didn't see the twist coming with that, and it was a legit 'wow, that was cool' moment, for me at least.

Plus, as Summers said, it added a lot to the Bane character, personally.

[Skummy]

I can see how it could have added to the Bane character, but to me it was too little too late. I don't think it ever works to give a character's backstory right at the end of his run - if he'd gone on to do anything else then it might have added to him in my eyes, but instead he was just made utterly redundant at that point. The plot no longer required him, and the focus was suddenly, and rather awkwardly, shifted elsewhere.

[Summers]

at that point Bane's main focus was on Batman, so it made sense that the bomb-focus was elsewhere. adding backstory doesn't need to effect the future, because it can change everything you've just seen. one extra piece of information near the end of a show/film/book can completely change perceptions and feelings on what you've just witnessed.

[Dingle]

I can see how it could have added to the Bane character, but to me it was too little too late. I don't think it ever works to give a character's backstory right at the end of his run - if he'd gone on to do anything else then it might have added to him in my eyes, but instead he was just made utterly redundant at that point. The plot no longer required him, and the focus was suddenly, and rather awkwardly, shifted elsewhere.

This. The film didn't need her because they wrote her in such a way that she was secondary ALL film, the twist didn't affect me in the slightest (I think I rolled my eyes that they went that way with the story). Also, the fact he then tried to kill Batman after she was all "don't" made her even more pointless. It added nothing to the character of Bane for me, I'd have preferred if he was the child that escaped instead of them trying to shoe-horn some reason we should feel sorry for him because of everything he did for Talia.

Giving a character the motivation of 'love' right at the end of his life could work if he wasn't trying to blow up a city for...wait, what was his actual reason? Just Ra Al Ghul's destiny?

[deli]

I can see how it could have added to the Bane character, but to me it was too little too late. I don't think it ever works to give a character's backstory right at the end of his run - if he'd gone on to do anything else then it might have added to him in my eyes, but instead he was just made utterly redundant at that point. The plot no longer required him, and the focus was suddenly, and rather awkwardly, shifted elsewhere.

I think the nuclear bomb plot was still the major plot point even before the twist.

[Skummy]

at that point Bane's main focus was on Batman, so it made sense that the bomb-focus was elsewhere. adding backstory doesn't need to effect the future, because it can change everything you've just seen. one extra piece of information near the end of a show/film/book can completely change perceptions and feelings on what you've just witnessed.

You're right, I can definitely see that, and I can see how it casts Bane in a completely different light, too. I'd never really looked at in terms of Bane being more focused on Batman than his previous objective, and that makes a lot of sense. To me, though, it was all kind of overshadowed by a plot twist that felt pretty forced and un-necessary, and relied an awful lot on the audience caring about the motivations of a character who, I felt, we hadn't been given nearly enough reason to care about.

Giving a character the motivation of 'love' right at the end of his life could work if he wasn't trying to blow up a city for...wait, what was his actual reason? Just Ra Al Ghul's destiny?

Oh God, this. One scene in which I actually laughed out loud was when Talia said "his only crime was to love", or something equally asinine. He's murdered thousands, crashed a plane, been a notorious mercenary for (presumably) some years, has been responsible for the deaths of thousands of citizens of Gotham, has caused billions of dollars worth of property damage, illegally obtained a nuclear bomb, forced a prison break, and is holding what is presumably one of the largest city's in the country hostage, plus whatever he did to get him thrown into the "hell" prison in the first place. HIS ONLY CRIME WAS LOVE! IT'S SOCIETY'S CRIME, NOT BANE'S!

Everyone's motivation in this thing was all out of wack.

[Summers]

him as the child would have been horribly bland. him being her protector when she was a child added much more to him than him being the child would have.

she was secondary all film because she wanted to be - until the time she wanted to reveal herself. make her stand out more and the twist and whole point of her secret identity is gone.

[Summers]

You're right, I can definitely see that, and I can see how it casts Bane in a completely different light, too. I'd never really looked at in terms of Bane being more focused on Batman than his previous objective, and that makes a lot of sense. To me, though, it was all kind of overshadowed by a plot twist that felt pretty forced and un-necessary, and relied an awful lot on the audience caring about the motivations of a character who, I felt, we hadn't been given nearly enough reason to care about.

it was meant to be a conflicting feeling. instead of just all feeling sorry for him i think you're meant to see him as what he was - and what he became. the single shot of his face was who he was before the attack/the prison/being shunned by Ra turned him into the monster that is Bane. it's hard to feel any real emotion for Bane the monster, but it's just like a little window into what he was before - a man, and a good man too.

[Maxx]

I really hate the complain that he's not in the movie enough as Batman. First of all, if he's dressed as Batman, then he'll be doing the Batman voice. You know the Batman voice, right? That thing everyone bitched about in The Dark Knight, claiming that he shouldn't be using it while delivering long lines of dialouge? But now we don't have enough of that?

You also had people clamoring for Bane to break the Bat, and if he hadn't everyone would have been pissed. If he's going to break him, shouldn't you anticipate that there's going to be a decent stretch of time in the movie where you don't see Batman? Isn't that just common sense at that point?

I had my minor gripes with the film too; The Bat was used far too much for my taste. Not only did he get back into the city mysteriously, he also managed to get completely up to speed about what was going on, despite not speaking with anyone and Lucious being held captive.

But I still enjoyed the film, immensely.

[Summers]

Giving a character the motivation of 'love' right at the end of his life could work if he wasn't trying to blow up a city for...wait, what was his actual reason? Just Ra Al Ghul's destiny?

Oh God, this. One scene in which I actually laughed out loud was when Talia said "his only crime was to love", or something equally asinine. He's murdered thousands, crashed a plane, been a notorious mercenary for (presumably) some years, has been responsible for the deaths of thousands of citizens of Gotham, has caused billions of dollars worth of property damage, illegally obtained a nuclear bomb, forced a prison break, and is holding what is presumably one of the largest city's in the country hostage, plus whatever he did to get him thrown into the "hell" prison in the first place. HIS ONLY CRIME WAS LOVE! IT'S SOCIETY'S CRIME, NOT BANE'S!

Everyone's motivation in this thing was all out of wack.

as for this, you're genuinely surprised that she - the mastermind evil behind the whole plot and lover of Bane - would defend Bane and his actions and see that he's done no wrong? in her head, she was doing what was right too.

[Dingle]

Giving a character the motivation of 'love' right at the end of his life could work if he wasn't trying to blow up a city for...wait, what was his actual reason? Just Ra Al Ghul's destiny?

Oh God, this. One scene in which I actually laughed out loud was when Talia said "his only crime was to love", or something equally asinine. He's murdered thousands, crashed a plane, been a notorious mercenary for (presumably) some years, has been responsible for the deaths of thousands of citizens of Gotham, has caused billions of dollars worth of property damage, illegally obtained a nuclear bomb, forced a prison break, and is holding what is presumably one of the largest city's in the country hostage, plus whatever he did to get him thrown into the "hell" prison in the first place. HIS ONLY CRIME WAS LOVE! IT'S SOCIETY'S CRIME, NOT BANE'S!

Everyone's motivation in this thing was all out of wack.

as for this, you're genuinely surprised that she - the mastermind evil behind the whole plot and lover of Bane - would defend Bane and his actions and see that he's done no wrong? in her head, she was doing what was right too.

She shouldn't be cheating on Bane with bats then, the dirty slut. Did sleeping with Bruce even change anything in the story? Just because people think the end goal is worth fighting for, doesn't mean they have to automatically excuse everything someone does. I'm still waiting for an explanation on what the intended goal was here too, just blowing up Gotham? I mean, Joker was already in Gotham and was loving life when he could fuck with everybody. But what is Talia's objective? Is it purely this "destiny" they discussed? I'll probably have a better idea after I rewatch it tomorrow, but it just seems so god damn sketchy.

[Summers]

she's a villain. why would she say "you know what, Batman, actually we've been pretty bad. you should arrest us. sorry."

and the plan was to complete her father's goal.