My biggest problem with The Dark Knight Rises... [spoilers ahead]

Recommended Videos

lord.jeff

New member
Oct 27, 2010
1,468
0
0
Why did the bomb have a count down on it? It wasn't built as a time bomb it was a time bomb because it was unstable and how did it get predicted to the second when it would go off. Also wasn't the fail safe while the reactor in the chamber flooding it, why did Batman need to fly it so far out when he could of just dropped it in the bay?
 

TheTurtleMan

New member
Mar 2, 2010
467
0
0
Did anyone else hate the whole Talia being the child that escaped from hell twist? I was okay with the twist itself but the delivery was so obvious. They said that Bane got fucked up in the face while in the prison, and during most of the movie they implied it was him that escaped. Although in all the flashbacks, the kid's face was fine during the escape.

What da hell? It was just too damn obvious to take seriously.
 

Aarowbeatsdragon

New member
Jan 27, 2012
284
0
0
Its actually quite simple to be honest, the dark knight's ending made batman have to kill Two face to save gordons kid. It made batman break his one rule and realise that sometimes it is NECESARY to kill, and i dont get why people are complaining when there have been comics where batmans killed people!
 

Ledan

New member
Apr 15, 2009
798
0
0
Another question, the bomb had a blast radius of 10 kilometers. He only had a minute left. He would have to move at 600km/h to get the bomb clear. He doesn't seem to move at that speed in the beginning, and to give perspective 600km/h is about half of the speed of sound. That's pretty fast.....
 

Keltrick

New member
Jun 7, 2010
108
0
0
TheFederation said:
what i want to know is how batman could walk on the ice with all his heavy armour, and set the ice on fire, and have time to plan and burn his symbol on the bridge when anyone other 'normal' people almost immediately fell in.
I assume, that since it was on such a huge scale, it might have involved machinery. He had the batwing (did they call it that?) that late in the movie. It could theoretically spray it onto the ice without landing. If he's going to waste that much fuel on painting the bridge with fire ... yeah it still doesn't make any more sense, but I guess it COULD happen.

Now its just a question of being seen and not interfered with while he's doing all this. Eh, Ill just go with 'he has a bat stencil' and that's how he saved time. He would have that, right?
 

The_Waspman

New member
Sep 14, 2011
569
0
0
Since this has turned into a minor nitpicking thread, I'd like to throw mine in.

During the death by exile scene, Batman takes all the guards out using darts shaped like bats. Well, good for you Bruce, taking the time to make them bat shaped, but if you'd spent less time doing that, then maybe you could have saved those cops that got blown up when Blake was helping them out of the sewers.

Bat tranquelizer darts? I mean, its not exactly bat shark repellent or bat credit card, but its not far off

Anyway, yes, there are lots of flaws with this film, but its not a bad ride. I enjoyed it. My friends enjoyed it. And we enjoyed ripping it to shreds after the fact.

Also. Anne Hathaway. Catsuit. That makes up for everything.

Captcha: dollar signs. Well of course Captcha. Just not as many as DK
 

Hero in a half shell

It's not easy being green
Dec 30, 2009
4,286
0
0
rob_simple said:
I really hoped that

as Batman was flying off with the bomb, just before it detonated, his Sat-nav (or Bat-nav, if you will) would say 'you are now arriving at Metropolis.'
Didn't you wait to see the after credits clip? The batcopter (clearly unmanned) is flying at tremendous speed, but getting closer and closer to the ocean; catching the surf of the waves, bouncing through the crests, and you can see it flying towards an object in the water. At the last second you realise the object is actually a man, and then he hears the noise, turns around and sees the bomb swinging straight at him and...

 

Lovely Mixture

New member
Jul 12, 2011
1,474
0
0
The_Waspman said:
Since this has turned into a minor nitpicking thread, I'd like to throw mine in.

During the death by exile scene, Batman takes all the guards out using darts shaped like bats. Well, good for you Bruce, taking the time to make them bat shaped, but if you'd spent less time doing that, then maybe you could have saved those cops that got blown up when Blake was helping them out of the sewers.

Bat tranquelizer darts? I mean, its not exactly bat shark repellent or bat credit card, but its not far off
That seems a bit far in my opinion, he already made all his bat-gear long ago in Batman Begins. He made his gear that way to make sure people know that it was him.
 

The Heik

King of the Nael
Oct 12, 2008
1,568
0
0
Darks63 said:
BlueberryMUNCH said:
Nah there has been a lot of pisstaking about that, actually. But hey, it had to be done (?).

I tell you what ruined the ending for me-
Sure, it was meant to be a 'happy ending', but the radiation from that bomb will still drift over Gotham and fuck up most of the population. The water will also be polluted. I could be wrong, I'm not a physicist, but yeah, pretty sure that a lot of people will be getting cancer and whatnot. How sad:(.

What did you think of the film? Enjoy it?
It was a fusion bomb and unless im thinking of it wrong a fusion bomb is a "clean bomb" meaning it has no fallout like Fission bombs have.
No, they aren't. Fusion and Fission are different sides of the same coin. Both are nuclear power. The "clean" part of fusion comes from the fact that fusion reactors are pretty much 100% incapable of blowing up, as they're not self-sustaining reactions. The fuel used in fusion reactors in used it only tiny amounts at a time and needs to be fed into the primary reaction chamber at a constant and precise rate in order to create energy. If something were to go wrong there wouldn't be enough live material to make any significant or dangerous explosion (let alone a 4 megaton one)

And it is this which is ultimately my biggest issue with the film. The entire takeover of the city revolves around the the fusion reactor being turned into a bomb, something that fusion reactors by design are physically incapable of doing without completely overhauling the thing (by which I mean effectively starting over from scratch and making a bomb from the ground up, not just by a little bit of rewiring that the film did). So the primary threat in the film would not have even gotten close to functioning as the film portrayed it, ergo Bane and his men wouldn't have been able to hold Gotham hostage and the US military would have swiftly come in and turned them into swiss cheese.

The thing that bothers me most about this is that they could have literally called the reactor anything other than a fusion reactor, and there would have been no issue (as they didn't explain how it works besides saying it was a fusion reactor). But Nolan and his team of writers managed to pick the one type of energy generator out of all the large energy generators available (including fictional ones) that directly conflicts with their story's narrative needs for it.

That's just inexcusable.


Redingold said:
Yeah, but in a purified hydrogen bomb, only neutrons and gamma rays are produced, which don't hang around. There is no fallout to speak of with pure hydrogen bombs.
You're only partly right there Redingold. While Hydrogen bombs do have short-lived radiation, that's only if it stays in the atmosphere and doesn't come into contact with such things such as water or land, where they'd combine with that matter. If the bomb had blown up in an airburst, then a lot of the radiation would be in the atmosphere and reduce the fallout of the explosion. But in DKR the bomb was a surface explosion. A LOT of that radiation is going to be in the water and the soil, so Gotham will still resemble Chernobyl at the end, no matter what type of nuclear bomb was used.
 

Headdrivehardscrew

New member
Aug 22, 2011
1,660
0
0
Aye, it's very unlike Batman, but since Nolan and folks messed up really bad on pretty much all fronts with this uninspired, odd-one-out kind of sequel and left-over bottom scrapings of an end to the trilogy, I just don't know if it's sloppy or if they only made it because of contractual obligations.

I'm still not over being genuinely underwhelmed and greatly disappointed.

Just going back to the Bane promo shot from earlier, that's where the WTF-ery starts. Bane looks like a mutant beast, as he's supposed to. In the movie, he's just a very muscular Mr. Hardy. Tom Hardy is scarier and more physically present in Bronson, and I don't get it. The story is severely messed up, plotholes galore and then Nolan even goes Shamalamadingdong on his old tricks and plays with time once more, only this time it's so half-assed none of it actually makes sense. I don't get why it has to be eight years later, I don't get why two main actors need to be crippled for stretches of the movie, I don't get how time seemingly gets stretched and condensed at leisure, I don't get why crippled Bruce Wayne needs to get thrown into a hole at the other end of the world, I don't get how he gets back, I don't get why major plot points and important developments get sort of condensed into some seconds of exposure or some throw-away lines that you'd miss if you were to attempt to process and make sense of most of what gets thrown your way.

Also, damn I loved that "tumbler" car/tank/vehicle monster thing. I know there were many of it built for different bits, but at least they built some - very uncomfy ones - that could actually drive and look badass. Why anyone would want to ruin that with going batshit Power Rangers on us and pretty much make an armored car fly is beyond me. I also don't get how sticking some very obvious prop 'guns' on top of some of those other tumblers could have been considered a good idea by anyone who ever looked at the first camera footage. It's all just pretty chaotic, random and half-hearted, as if the Joker had won and everyone got quite a bit insane in the process.

The whole bomb plot, the trucks, the final confrontation and the whole extended ending arc - it's at least three digits below its budget, really. As I said - I don't get how one can mess up a story, a franchise, a trilogy that bad. The fact that Batman shoots a guy dead and it doesn't mess with his whole alignment and philosophy and whatnot - I don't get that, either. But then again, he's the guy that starts out walking on a cane, doesn't have his gadgets or tingling batsense alarm him as he gets stabbed from behind or when he's about to enter a fight with muscleman Hardy that simply defies logic and the laws of physics by just being very muscular and wearing a mask he obviously doesn't have attached to any form of tank or container.

Actually, I felt like systematically trying to make sense of everything that is wrong with this movie, but as I went on taking notes of what is wrong, I decided just not to bother, as it's actually easier to make sense of Memento or Inception and get away feeling some sort of satisfaction.
 

Keltrick

New member
Jun 7, 2010
108
0
0
Mr. Omega said:
I enjoyed the film. I never noticed that, but yeah, that does sound bad. But to add to the discussion, I'll just add my biggest issue with the film:

My biggest issue was Bane. Not because he was bad, but because he was just SOOOO close to being even better than the Joker. He was big, he was intimidating, the camera work and music worked flawlessly to make him appear even moreso, and he was intelligent. But two things ruined it. One of which is spoiler-free, but a nitpick, and the other is spoiler-tastic and completey ruined him.

1: Like I said, the physical performance, dialogue and camera/music work made him seem menacing... And then he starts taking. You just can't take him seriously. It takes you out of it. And sometimes you might not understand.

The reveal of Talia. This completely changed the character of Bane. And not in a good way.

Think about it. Why was the Batman and Robin version of Bane so stupid and hated? Simple:
He was just a big, dumb grunt.

Dark Knight Rises was having him a lot closer to his comics version: Big and powerful, but also cunning and intelligent. A diabolical mastermind who could also throw a damn hard punch. And then they reveal Talia. That she was the mastermind. That she found out who Batman was, and that this was all her plan, and that she was the child who managed to escape the inescapable prison. .

So if Talia was the cunning, tortured, vengeful criminal mastermind, what does that make Bane? Simple:
A big, dumb grunt.

Sure, he's not as stupid as he was in B&R, and he certainly had charisma. But he's not a mastermind. He's not able to figure out Batman's identity. He was not able to break Batman mentally, he was just the tool, and the one who breaks him physically. Not only that, but the reveal messed up his origin, which until then, was almost completely right.

And to top it all off, he's taken out rather unceremoniously, right after what was until then a good fight.
I both disagree and agree. I found his voice somewhat infectious, to where when I hear a quote of his now, it kind of makes me shiver. I say to myself "That was a memorable voice." I think it was a startling change from what I was expecting when the accent first came out, but over all I think it was a nice contrast to his appearance. You don't expect that voice, being pretty intelligent sounding, to come from someone who looks like him. It probably reinforced that too, in a lot of people who don't know who bane is, and I think that was successful. I can only speak for myself though.

On the second point, I agree completely and utterly. It was a sharp downfall for how much I was enjoying the character. In that last bit we have to completely re imagine what Bane is and has been presented as up until now, and that would be fine if it wasn't... a real let down. I'm glad there is something kind of noble in it, I guess, but he just feels like a babysitter turned figurehead. It really deflated his menace in my eyes.
 

lord.jeff

New member
Oct 27, 2010
1,468
0
0
CriticKitten said:
I think people are being much too critical on a film that really isn't that bad.

Yes, it was no Dark Knight, but it was still a hell of a lot better film than the old ones. Stop nostalgia-tinting your googles and think for a second.

----- THE BAD COMPLAINTS -----

"Batman walked on ice in heavy armor!": There was an entire sequence in Batman Begins in which he walked on ice during his training. It's not as implausible as you want to make it sound.

"Batman killed a guy!": Batman killed guys all the time in the much-beloved Burton Batman films, hell, in the second movie he did it with almost a sick sense of glee. In this film he killed the driver mostly incidentally. He was shooting to try to stop the truck, and the driver was killed as a result.

"How did he light that big flaming Bat signal?": How did the Punisher arrange cars to explode in such a way that they formed his symbol? How did V have time to arrange dominoes to spell out his insignia? And why does nobody seem to care about how corny those are, but suddenly this one is just way too far? The Bat Signal was a rallying symbol for Gotham's people to take their city back, and it achieves that effect well. I think it can be readily dismissed as "he's the goddamn Batman so he can probably set that up just fine".

"The bomb would still have destroyed Gotham!": They establish in the opening portions of the film that this fission reactor could be neutralized by water, which is why they built it in a large chamber that can be easily flooded. It therefore follows that the "radiation" (if there even was any) does not dissipate through water, else they wouldn't have let Wayne build the damn thing in the city to start with. If you seriously have a complaint about this part of the movie, you just weren't paying attention. The only legit complaint to come from this is that I find it hard to believe that a fission reactor's core is so unstable that it effectively becomes a bomb just by removing it from the reactor....but I don't know enough about reactors to comment there.
The first two are fine complaints; Batman several times during this trilogy said he wouldn't kill anyone it was his one rule, even earlier in this movie he stops Catwoman from using a gun when they're outnumbered against armed opponents, it goes against the character as well as against Batman as he's known today.

The second one I forgive a bit but it' stills very weird to have the movie creating a sense of urgency and Batman's wasting his time trying to look cool, if it wasn't for the time bomb then it would of been fine.

I agree the last one is a stupid complaint, it's comic book/movie logic it doesn't need to follow reality, you know the same place where the same bomb could be used to give everyone super powers.
 

DeadlyYellow

New member
Jun 18, 2008
5,141
0
0
Thinking of it, murdering people is the less morally fucked up option.

Is your life worth being spent as a quadriplegic after encountering the big bad Bat? Is spending your remaining days trapped in a prison that is your body worth fulfilling some sociopath's sense of justice and morality?
 

lord.jeff

New member
Oct 27, 2010
1,468
0
0
CriticKitten said:
lord.jeff said:
The first two are fine complaints; Batman several times during this trilogy said he wouldn't kill anyone it was his one rule, even earlier in this movie he stops Catwoman from using a gun when they're outnumbered against armed opponents, it goes against the character as well as against Batman as he's known today.
Then why is no one complaining that Batman killed Ra's Al Ghul in the first movie? Just because he said "I don't have to save you" so that makes it okay? It's still effectively the same damn thing! It's his duty as a superhero to save the villain and let him be arrested and locked up, remember? Why do people pretend that death doesn't count then, when it's totally on his hands (something this third movie made a point of emphasizing, what with Talia's whole "revenge" plot)?

And I'm fairly certain that some of the members of the League of Shadows died in the explosion of the train, or in the explosion of their lair in that movie. I do believe various henchmen are likely killed throughout the events of the three films if you go through and look at things with an honest mind. Batman doesn't seem too shaken up when Catwoman busts through the doorway in the third movie and guns down Bane, either. All those deaths don't count though, right? Just this one?

Why does this really matter so much? It's an incidental death. He shot at the truck to stop it, he wasn't trying to kill the driver. And even if he was, who cares? Most of the folks complaining about this don't seem aware of the fact that Batman has incidentally killed in the previous movies, too. And he did it in the Burton films. AND he did it a few times in the comics, too, as I recall. People are trying to write this revisionist history of Batman that simply doesn't exist, and I haven't the foggiest clue why they care so much.
I'll try to address the questions in order. The train I'll give you that went against alot of what Batman was in the movies but the lair accord before the moment when Bruce confronted his parents killer which I think is the point he really commits to his no kill policy, I don't know of any moments of other henchmen dying by his hands but it could of happened. Batman didn't preform the killing that time it was Catwoman and he had no way to stop her. I'm not sure I'm going to shoot a bunch of bullets in your direction and hope you don't die can be called "an incidental death" by any means, truthfully I find it weird that a guy who never uses guns, has them attached and uses them in every vehicle he owns is just foolish, that goes for the earlier movies too. The Burton films is a different Batman same as the comics and has no bearing in this debate.
 

Sexy Devil

New member
Jul 12, 2010
701
0
0
Thespian said:
If I sounded overly harsh I guess I was just trying to condense my opinion. But I do think that that moment should have been the pinnacle of Bane's character, revealing and affirming things about him that would add some depth and understanding to his character. Instead, it needlessly over-complicated things. I have no idea what Bane's motivation actually was. I find it really hard to believe that he cares for Tali so much that he's willing to let her kill herself, and Bane, to accomplish the goal of her father who not only condemned Talia and her mother to the Pit but exiled Bane after he saved Talia's life. But that is what Bane is doing. For anyone to do that, they'd have to be some sort of automaton.
He always believed in the cause of the League of Shadows, but was excommunicated for the whole being a monster thing. Being in love with Talia wasn't his sole motivation, it was also finishing the job that Ra's started. I mean I know everyone retorts this with "Gotham was fine until he showed up though" but was it really? The Dent act was just a new form of evil in which the government had the control, and the League needed to make an example of it. I mean the whole drawing it out thing was definitely just to fuck with Bruce for Talia, but he definitely believed in the cause of the League of Shadows. You need to read between the lines but it's all there.

I also don't think the pit at all invalidates Bane's character. Judging by Talia's general attitude of being a revenge-obsessed ***** it seems like Bane was the one who came up with most of the plan and raised the army. It's not made explicit who did all the planning but given that Bane has been established as the bad-ass while Talia was just sort of yanking at Bruce's chain for a while I have no doubt in my mind that it was almost all Bane.

I don't agree here at all. I cringed when it looked like Bane would be Ra's son, that'd be rather weak. And I just think that Talia should have been properly built up as a villain from the start. I found it really flow-breaking when I suddenly had to forget about the villain who had been developed from the beginning, watch him get discarded like any random grunt, and then rapidly get invested in this new villain so close to the end. It sucks because Talia is a cool character, and Marion Cotillard is a great actress. I just feel like the character's potential was wasted.
To be fair, I didn't see that twist coming. I think it was pretty cheap, but still. I totally should have seen it coming, too.
The whole point of Talia's character was that she became so obsessed with revenge that she lost her own identity and became her mask. This is meant to contrast with Bruce and show him where and inability to get over the death of his parents will get him. Definitely wasn't a cool way for Bane to go down but Talia's meaning was pretty clear and strong imo. Fitting villain for what the trilogy was really all about, which leads us to the next thing...

Well yes, that's what I'm saying. I know it was established in Batman Begins and TDK. And I really, really don't like it. I'm not saying that it's an internal inconsistency on Nolan's part, I'm saying that I think it's a crappy choice for the character and I don't like the direction it goes in. Though, I guess you're right - It's not a flaw in the movie so much as just being something about the series I don't like.
Go watch the trilogy again. Go on, I'll wait.

*waits 7ish hours*

The psychosis was there throughout all three. First let's go through Batman begins. Bruce likes to tell himself and Alfred and Ra's that the reason for the Batman is to fight injustice, but under that it is made explicit that it's really because he can't move on from the death of his parents. In scenes like this it's made clear.

Note how outright pissed he gets as soon as Ra's starts talking about his parents. Hence we see that the reason for his hatred of injustice is because of his own helplessness in front of Chill. Also note the "you have learned to bury your anger, we will teach you to confront it" line. This makes it clear that the Batman, while a symbol, is really a means of expressing his own emotions. And at the end of the movie it's clear through talking about the mansion that he has learned how to confront it, though the anger is certainly not gone.

Then there's the car chase after the asylum. Note how the maneuvers he's doing could have easily killed a bunch of cops (yet he somehow didn't). The significance of this was that it showed Batman really was originally about thrill seeking to him. As soon as he is faced with the last bastion of his humanity (Rachel) being threatened he drops all pretenses of his code of ethics and does whatever is necessary for her to not die. Meaning that his identity and Batman begin to converge. Take note of that because it becomes a big thing in TDK.

Anyway this post is getting a bit long so I'm going to condense the other two movies a bit. The most important part of TDK is Rachel's death.
Note how he's wearing his batsuit during the day in his armchair. That's emblematic of Bruce becoming completely losing himself and only really being able to define himself as Batman. Rachel was his last tie to humanity and with her gone he is just Batman. Hence we see that these anger and psychological issues become the sole defining characteristics of Bruce Wayne.

Then in TDKR we see Bruce finally get over all of this. The most important scene was climbing out of the pit. Prior to it we hear Bruce say "I fear dying in here while my city burns." This shows that he's totally cool with death, but only if he dies as Batman. So basically he's still only Batman, cool. But the significance of climbing without the rope is not only rediscovering what it means to be Batman, but also that he has his own life outside Batman. With that jump he was humanised again - he finally accepted that he can't change his parents' or Rachel's death and just needs to move on. Then Selina gives him an out and he finally goes to live his normal life. Then he leaves the identity of Batman to John Blake in hopes that he'll embrace his issues and eventually overcome them, in addition to bringing hope to the city.

I could write pages upon pages about this, but literally the entire theme of the trilogy is Bruce overcoming his deep psychological issues. Batman wasn't just some day job, it was who he was, which was why he became a recluse for 8 years after not being able to be Batman anymore. But the idea of the trilogy is that despite how far gone he is, he can still come back and live a normal life (why do we fall?). So yeah, no idea how you missed all this.

I know, right? I mean, Bane kept giving out about upper class corruption and stuff but he didn't seem to care much about it personally. Shrug.
The class struggle thing was a front to torture Bruce for Talia and fulfill the goals of the League of Shadows. If he was really trying to make Gotham take back their city then he wouldn't have killed the one guy who knows how to disarm the bomb which was invariably going to blow up.
Thank god, that could have been so bad >_<

Though I woooould like to see Robin in a movie at some point. If done well. Jason Todd is a story begging to be told on the big screen.
Think the Robin thing was thrown in so that the normies would recognise the reference.
 

Eppy (Bored)

Crazed Organist
Jan 7, 2009
149
0
0
The Heik said:
You're only partly right there Redingold. While Hydrogen bombs do have short-lived radiation, that's only if it stays in the atmosphere and doesn't come into contact with such things such as water or land, where they'd combine with that matter. If the bomb had blown up in an airburst, then a lot of the radiation would be in the atmosphere and reduce the fallout of the explosion. But in DKR the bomb was a surface explosion. A LOT of that radiation is going to be in the water and the soil, so Gotham will still resemble Chernobyl at the end, no matter what type of nuclear bomb was used.
I'm not sure about Gotham necessarily being Chernobyl. The movie said that it was a 'four-megaton bomb' but the visual appearance of the explosion suggests a much smaller device than that. I also recall something about it being 'six miles out to sea,' though that could be my imagination. If we accept the four-megaton figure Gotham is still pretty screwed, but if we dial it back to the submegaton range (one wonders, are Nolanverse fusion reactors dial-a-yield? XD) I think Gotham is safe, especially since it was essentially a surface burst, and even moreso if the wind was blowing the other way. Granted, no swimming in the ocean, and there will definitely be cleanup, but I don't think Gotham would be ghosted based on a single detonation; on that note, while the detonation would certainly induce radioactivity in the water supply it wouldn't be the same mechanism as Chernobyl anyways; as a fusion 'reactor' it IS essentially a 'clean' bomb, whereas Chernobyl was a rather large uncontained graphite-moderated uranium reactor exposed to open air and doused in thousands of gallons of water. Honestly, I'd rather go with the fusion bomb.

Also, what the hell is a four-megaton neutron bomb? NEUTRON BOMBS ARE GENERALY NOT FOUR MEGATONS, MR. NOLAN. :mad:

To an earlier poster concerned with tidal waves from nuclear explosions(who I am too lazy and tired to go quote) I would direct you to Operation Crossroads [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crossroads].