SpiderJerusalem said:
The Heik said:
Talia serves no purpose in the film except to show the reactor/bomb and to pull a twist that M. Night Shaymalan would be ashamed at. That is objectively bad storytelling
Talia serves as a major plot point running constantly in the background. She's been spying on Bruce for years, driving him in the direction to make the reactor functional, finding out everything there is to know about Wayne enterprises and making sure that Daggett is kept on a leash. She even expressly states it in the script, "a slow knife takes it's time", for the revenge and plan to be perfect, they needed Bruce to trust her implicitly.
And yet she only has any impact for 3 scenes. The reactor scene which is used to set up the bomb, the contrived love scene, and the transparent twist that destroyed the character of Bane. So we've got one plot exposition, one frankly out of nowhere romance to set up a twist that everyone I've talked to who watched the film saw it coming, and one scene that actively hinders the more prominent villain.
This is not good narrative. If they had given more time to flesh out her character in the first half, maybe it might have worked (as she pretty much disappears for all narrative purposes until the last few scene of the climax), but given all the supposed importance of her character she's pretty forced into the whole story. If it had just been about Bane versus Batman, it would have been far cleaner plot and would have had some more interesting twists (again, the whole detonator thing would have been very interesting if they had played it as a hoax to screw with authorities as the bomb was set to blow anyways, forcing Batman to have to do what must be done to save the city, rather than Talia somehow learning to "hack" a bomb). Besides having a new villain pop up clutters up the cast and weakens the impact of the other characters, as they now have to fight for screen time (Batman Arkham City being a great "in theme" example of this)
SpiderJerusalem said:
Bane's character is nothing like the basic idea of Bane. Nolan could have just as easily called the dude the Riddler and it would have been just as accurate a character as the one we got. That is objectively misleading character design.
It's called a re-imagining. It's also very much in the idea of Bane: a highly skilled, extremely smart hulking mountain of power that can match the Dark Knight in strength and mind. Those are the things that matter with Bane, everything else is just cosmetic.
Except he wasn't as smart as Batman. Talia did all the planning, hence she's the supposed intelligent one. Bane was just the figurehead so that the "Talia twist" could be pulled. He's a thug who could be replaced with anyone else who looked remotely imposing and they would have fulfilled the role perfectly. As for strong, the man has crippling chronic pain so much so that he literally keels over in agony if the very fragile mask he wears (seriously, it took one hit to bust it) is damaged in any way. Venom on the other hand was a compound that when took increases the physical capabilities of the user to superhuman levels. Venom empowers the user, while the frankly silly system that DKR used merely mitigates a pretty huge weakness. Seriously the more I analyze Bane in the film the more he seems like one of those sub-boss fights with the big lad with a glowing weak point on his head.
Matt Hardy did not play Bane in this film. He played your average Big Mook, an obstacle to be beat down rather than the most capable enemy of Batman and arguably one of the biggest and most integral villains in the Batman mythos.
This is why Talia should not have been in the film. Bane was an active part of the majority of the film and by having Talia take all the wind out of his sails it destroys the threat of the villain the audience is used to and suddenly (though in this case not unexpectedly) adds a whole new villain to the mix. That's almost as bad as the incredibly tough "final" boss fight that is Sin in Final Fantasy X, only for the real final boss to be a fight with an floating tick and you can't die when fighting him. It's confusing, it's disjointed, and any media worker in their right mind wouldn't do it because it's a lazy shitty plot device.
SpiderJerusalem said:
and trust me I checked, there's no reasonable way they knew exactly where and what was in Batman's secret arsenal. Even Ra's al Ghul didn't know where it was. That is an objectively contrived plot point)
Well you checked pretty poorly. The film states on no less than four occasions that a) Bane and his army have been living in the sewers for years, b) that Daggett has been getting more and more permits to do extensive work down there, allowing for almost complete access anywhere they want, c) Talia has been in Bruce's company for 8 years, more than enough time for someone as smart as her to find out where everything is hidden.
Ok first, Talia only became a part of the company somewhere in the first third of the film (about around the contrived romance). Prior to that she was only a backer for the project (hence the whole locational reveal of the Reactor), as such she would not have been inside the building or had enough time to find the arsenal, categorize it, and set up the training manuals needed by Bane's troops to use the high tech arsenal properly, which I remind pretty much no one of the company except Bruce and Mr. Fox knew about even remotely.
Second, Bane's forces were not down there for 8 years. There's no way hundreds of soldiers could have hidden themselves and all their equipment in the sewers (not to mention the thousand of pounds of explosive needed to blow over a hundred tunnels and a dozen bridges) and remain hidden for that long in a city without being detected by cops, public sewage, or any other number of people who have to walk around in the city sewage system or anywhere near it. Bane would have been detected, people would have gone missing and a search would have gone out for them, more people would be killed, and the military or some such would be called in to clear them out. The whole plot would have been found out and quashed years before the plan came to fruition.
SpiderJerusalem said:
As for Batman's "death" the entire Alfred plotline could have been scrapped and it would not have made any difference to the overall themes of the film. Bruce learned about sacrifice and being Batman for himself long before having to "kill" himself off, and considering Alfred's only appearances were in the beginning and end of the film, they have little to do with the rest of the film. There is also the issue that with Bruce surviving his sacrifice loses impact to the viewer (the only important person when it comes to imparting meaning to), as well as creating an emotional dissonance of positive feelings mixing with a melancholy atmosphere. Slice that any way you want to, that's still objectively shoddy work
No, again, like the rest of your complaints, this is subjective and mostly you missing the point of the film you're watching. Alfred leaving was a major impact on Bruce, he had no one to look to for help. Alfred knew that Bruce saw no other way to end his quest than to die and the entire movie was building towards Bruce understanding and learning how to rid himself of Batman and become truly a full human being again.
It was never about him killing himself, nor was it about sacrifice in that manner, it's all stated in the film and in the trilogy - which Nolan refers back to subtly, without underlining everything.
Then why Have Batman "rise" in the film twice? Alfred had no part in the second rising in the pit prison, and that one where one had to let go of fear and hope to truly become free which actually empowered Bruce to finally fight the good fight the right way. That was the more threaded in and explored theme in the film, while Alfred end scene seems tacked on and dissonant to the whole sacrifice entailed in the trilogy.
The best description I've seen of this is from WhiteTigerShiro in post #87 of the thread I linked (I'm not directly quoting him because that thread is already over and I don't want to drag another poor soul into this one)
I think the biggest thing that killed it though (and I'm not gonna bother marking spoilers since it's been made abundantly clear that this topic has spoilers) is that they completely cheapened Batman's sacrifice. Okay, so at first I was kind of taken aback by the idea of Batman dying, but it's the last movie, so whatever. He goes down heroically, saving millions of lives, and the people remembered him for it. I can dig that; kinda even justifies all the inconsistencies in the plot leading up to- oh, what's that random tech guy? The auto pilot that Batman himself said didn't work was actually fixed ages ago? So he lied to everyone important to him about his own death? And it's not like people didn't know who he was; everyone knew he was Bruce Wayne, he even dropped an obvious hint so that Gordon could figure it out.
The worst part? No one gave a fuck. If a close friend of mine went speeding down the road and slammed into a wall right in front of my eyes, I'd be devastated. I'd be crushed. If, a few weeks down the road, he suddenly pops into my living room and says "lawl cruise control, I dived out and have been just fine all this time". I'd fucking jump up and punch in him the face. How fucking dare he put me through all that for absolutely no reason; especially if you're gonna make it known that you're still alive. No, fuck that, you're dead to me; I've already gotten over my mourning phase, and fuck you if you expect me to have to deal with it all over again at some point in the future.
But when Batman does it, not only does Selina decide "Yeah sure, you're husband material", but Alfred, who had an entire scene dedicated to showing how crushed he was over this just kinda smiles when he sees that all that grief was for nothing. "Oh that Bruce, what a kidder". No, fuck that, I don't buy it. No one would mourn that hard and then just shrug it off when he sees that the person has been alive this whole time. Especially when the way he found out was from Bruce being in the exact place that he told him about earlier; like he's specifically saying "btw I'm not dead, good thing you were so crushed by what you thought was my sacrifice, right?"
Don't get me wrong, I get the intended symbolism of it. "Batman" is dead, so now he's quit for real and is just gonna live his life with Selina, but it still doesn't change the fact that he bold-facedly lied to everyone important to him - all of whom knew his identity - about him sacrificing himself, and no one was bothered when they found out it was all a lie? He couldn't just be straight with these people who have already been keeping the secret of his identity with the secret of "I'm not really dead, I'm just letting Batman be dead"?
Just... sorry, you had a fantastic "Hero sacrifices himself for the greater good" ending, Nolan; then you just kinda pissed all over it for the sake of trying to give the movie a "happy ending".
So yeah, the film is sending some mixed signals with that ending. And here's the thing: While the general population in the film might not know Bruce alive, but the only person to whom the lessons behind the story matter (the viewer) sees that the sacrifice was hollow. Nothing was lost, so either the death scene or Bruce's survival meant nothing to the overarching themes, or at worst actually contradict each other.
SpiderJerusalem said:
Now if you wish to dispute my statements, first of all let me state that if you like the film that fine. Personal feelings trump technical issues when it comes to one's personal take on something, and I would not wish to slander anyone simply because I disagree with them
That's funny, coming from the person who's spouting "objectively" constantly when speaking of his own, highly subjective points of view.
And I find it funny that you say this in the exact same post that somehow managed to drop the Bomb problem, the biggest and best example of how the film's plot has measurably large plot holes
Tell you what. You find a good explanation as to why Gotham isn't an irradiated wasteland at the end of the film or how they managed to make a bomb from a reactor type defined by the fact that it is non-self sustaining and as such
can't blow up, and maybe then I'll consider if my points are just subjective blather.
SpiderJerusalem said:
Second though I refer you to this thread
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.382690-I-hate-Dark-Knight-Rises-SPOILERS?page=1
where I and so many others have discussed the various issues with series. Pretty much any issue you have with what I've said has probably been explained and discussed there, and I'd rather not go over the same ground again as I tends to put people into recurring cycles of pointless discussion.
I remember this thread. Founded on the very same idea that you didn't watch the movie yet decided to take offense to it nonetheless.
And yet so many people agreed with my points. So either a very large chunk of people on this site suffer from an eerily similar delusion, or
maybe we might be onto something.
SpiderJerusalem said:
So I bid you adieu, as I will not be replying to any of your posts in regards to DKR, for I am now done with that film, and wish never to clap eyes upon it or it's ilk again.
Always a healthy attitude when first starting a debate and then running away from it.
Running away? HA! Not bloody likely. Frankly I tend to enjoy a good discussion, it's simply that I've already discussed pretty much every aspect of this film with my friends and the Escapist crowd that literally no argument you have or will provide will add anything at all new to me at this point. It's running over old ground that serves no purpose nor enlightens anyone on new aspects of the film. You're lucky I even bothered with this post, but I simply can't pass up on debate, especially when I'm being called out so vehemently.
Oh and this my be a bit of an aside, but technically you started the debate. Prior to your inclusion in the thread, my post was simply a standalone statement that required no answer or discussion. This only became a debate after you decided to try and refute my claims, as the very existence of a debate depends on having two contrasting viewpoints on a matter.
Just so you know. ;D
