73 replies to this topic

[Slug]

You could drive plenty of trucks through plot holes on the first two films. The Joker's whole plan with Rachel and Harvey defies any logical semblance of working in reality - not showing Bruce Wayne sit around hiding on a cargo barge pales in comparison.

The difference between the two is that we were emotionally engaged in Batman's predicament in TDK. Once he chose to save Harvey, we had a bad feeling in our stomachs about Rachel. And it's not really that we even cared about Rachel, but we knew that Bruce did, and we care about Bruce. We weren't sitting there going "wait a minute... how did the Joker make it so that...." We were like "omg he just chose to save Harvey instead of Rachel, do you think she'd actually die? etc."

In this movie, I submit that we weren't always as engaged emotionally - it's the biggest drawback that I think this film had, and that has to do with the lopsided love triangle between Bruce, Selina and Talia. I posit that we wouldn't have been as focused on what or wasn't shown in the timeline if Talia's betrayal of Bruce was a really hurtful one, to suddenly be redeemed by Selina coming to his rescue. I think that was kind of the intent - Selina betrayed Bruce at first while Talia was acting loving and sweet, but in the end it turned out that Talia stabbed him in the back (literally) while Selina ended up being loyal. But because this didn't impact us like it should have, we naturally stay focused on plot holes that we'd otherwise gloss over (i.e. The Dark Knight).

It's still an awesome movie, and I don't think the previous films were as amazing as they were because of their realism - but because of how they were able to connect us to the characters.

And this movie still did do that - I loved Blake/Robin's character, he is the first "Robin" I think is cool in the movies. Selina's character was completely three-dimensional, her remorse seeing Bane beat the crap out of Batman was moving. We've been invested in Bruce Wayne and Alfred for 3 films now, Natalie was crying when they edited it to have no doubt that Batman blew up and when Alfred was crying at their graves. It still did a lot right.

But I really think that dropping the ball on the relationship between Talia and Bruce exposed the flaws that the first two films were able to rise above.

We can poke plot holes in just about any movie out there, that's not how they live or die.

Ha! You used too many words.

[josh24601]

I didn't read that whole thing but Bats didn't choose to save Harvey over Rachel. He chose to save Rachel and the Joker "swapped" the addresses he gave Batman. Bats chose Rachel ended up with Harvey.

Ohh yeah. Even more to my point...

[Slug]

Can't wait for the extended director's cut that will answer all the plot holes. Like, why is Batman wearing a fucking velvet cape!?

[S.Bones]

Two comments before moving on to what I really want to talk about.

1. Sure, movies in a series can count on the viewer/reader to know something from the previous films. And that worked well here. Nolan didn't have to develop Wayne's relationship with Alfred, or Batman's relationship with Gordon, or the meaning of putting on the suit. But he went just as fast with Miranda/Talia, without any of the previous development. And Alfred's challenge to Bruce seemed unlinked to their already well-developed relationship. The plot turns heavily on both of these relationships, and neither were well enough developed to carry the weight. And no, I don't find the "Dude, she was hot" argument compelling.

2. The critical line of judgement is not whether there were any plot howlers in the previous films. Every film has them. The question is whether there too many or whether they're too critical for the story to hold together.


So here's what I really want to ask: What was this movie about?

I thought the first two had some really smart things to say about the utility of violence and fear, and the morality of power and change. I'm still struggling to see what this one was about.

I think the theme of the utility of fear was picked up again, especially when Bruce was in the Pit of Despair (I know, wrong movie, but whatever it was called). I think the revolution from the streets/social inequality theme was largely window dressing. Also in the first film, Ra's al Ghul says the LOS initial plan for destroying Gotham was economic and social inequality.

So, what was this about?

[dirtyboy]

So let me get this straight, this thread has went from 'deserving of Oscars' to 'steaming pile of shit'. Correct?

[Slug]

So, what was this about?

Just like the lesson in Moby Dick, be yourself.

[projectx]

Two comments before moving on to what I really want to talk about.

1. Sure, movies in a series can count on the viewer/reader to know something from the previous films. And that worked well here. Nolan didn't have to develop Wayne's relationship with Alfred, or Batman's relationship with Gordon, or the meaning of putting on the suit. But he went just as fast with Miranda/Talia, without any of the previous development. And Alfred's challenge to Bruce seemed unlinked to their already well-developed relationship. The plot turns heavily on both of these relationships, and neither were well enough developed to carry the weight. And no, I don't find the "Dude, she was hot" argument compelling.

It's nice to see you glanced at my previous comment, but "Dude, she was hot" wasn't all I said. I agree that the situation with Alfred seemed awkward and didn't fit the way it was intended. However, I don't feel Talia's involvement with Bruce merited any further development. He was a recluse for a time where many of his relationships would have been strained. He and her had a partnership going with each other, and his two confidants make mention of how awesome Ms. Tate is. Obviously there was a chemistry seen by his allies, and he acted upon it in the blackout scene. What more did you want to happen?

2. The critical line of judgement is not whether there were any plot howlers in the previous films. Every film has them. The question is whether there too many or whether they're too critical for the story to hold together.

Aside from Alfred leaving in a way that didn't have the effect intended, I don't really see anything that was too critical for the story being missed. Could they have develop Talia's relationship to be a bigger betrayal? Yes, but I don't think it was necessary. I felt that Selina's betrayal and redemption were more important.

So here's what I really want to ask: What was this movie about?

Redemption.

EDIT: I don't want to be told my answer was too vague, or simple. Pick any definition:

1. an act of redeeming or the state of being redeemed.
After taking the blame for Dent, Batman proves he's good

2. deliverance; rescue.
Of Gotham City

3. Theology . deliverance from sin; salvation.
Has been the LoS missions, with Batman trying to do it in a different way

4. atonement for guilt.
Alfred felt guilty of allowing Bruce to become what he had become, but in the end he gets his wish at the cafe

5. repurchase, as of something sold.
Again Gotham City

[American Beer]

So let me get this straight, this thread has went from 'deserving of Oscars' to 'steaming pile of shit'. Correct?

Are you new here?

[josh24601]

He and her had a partnership going with each other, and his two confidants make mention of how awesome Ms. Tate is. Obviously there was a chemistry seen by his allies, and he acted upon it in the blackout scene. What more did you want to happen?

The first basic rule of filmmaking: Show, don't tell.

Aside from Alfred leaving in a way that didn't have the effect intended, I don't really see anything that was too critical for the story being missed. Could they have develop Talia's relationship to be a bigger betrayal? Yes, but I don't think it was necessary. I felt that Selina's betrayal and redemption were more important.

Selina's betrayal and redemption worked because they had emotional weight to them. Talia's betrayal had no weight to it. Why is that important? Because it makes one of the pivotal points in the film half as effective as it should have been - and the story was counting on it to have that weight.

I do think this film had plenty to say, however.

I think the question of how one processes trauma is brought to the front - it was in the first film but again is re-examined, in light of Robin's shared experience with Bruce and his decision to work outside the law, as Bruce did.

But it was "about" what Morgan Freeman said best in a different film - It comes down to a simple choice, get busy living or get busy dying. Bruce spent the beginning of the film dead in all but the body. Alfred opposed him being Batman again because he rightly saw that Bruce saw it as an opportunity to finally die, rather than for any positive motivation - fighting crime was just the excuse. Bruce wanted to die as Batman, and Alfred would have none of it. When he told Bruce about the letter, it was an attempt to get Bruce to want to live - Bruce used the letter as justification for his life having ended with Rachel. Bruce reacted the way he did because that knowledge changed everything about how he viewed his life. Bane recognized this too, and that's why he didn't kill Bruce, it's what Bruce wanted and Bane would not let him have it so easy.

When Bruce was in the prison, he had to make a choice - was he going to be like he was in the beginning of the film (in his own self-imposed prison) or was he going to decide to climb out and truly live? The old blind man at the bottom raised those stakes even further: Bruce wasn't successful climbing out because he wasn't afraid of dying - he had the rope around his waist. It wasn't enough to drop the death wish, but he had to *fear* it, in order to embrace life again. That is when Bruce truly changed. After his jump and escape out of the hole, he not only lost his death wish, he regained a fear of death, which allowed him to truly live again. Once he was flying out over the ocean, he was given the opportunity to put this decision to a test with no consequences to anyone but himself. Climbing out of the prison, he had to save Gotham. Flying over the ocean, Gotham would be saved regardless. Did he still want to die? Or had he gained a healthy fear of death and a will to live? Bruce at the beginning of the movie wanted to die, Bruce at the end of the movie wanted to live.

[Slug]

[projectx]

The first basic rule of filmmaking: Show, don't tell.

Actually... First Rule of Filmmaking: There are no rules

the rest

Definitions 2 and 5, rescued himself and brought back his spirit/soul/what have you.

[josh24601]

Actually... First Rule of Filmmaking: There are no rules

Go ahead and try it and see what happens. What you probably mean is "You have to know the rules before you can break them." Big difference.

Definitions 2 and 5, rescued himself and brought back his spirit/soul/what have you.

A bit of a stretch from "redemption of Gotham City" to what I said, but it's along the same lines. I think I just explored the concept in a different way, it's not so much redemption as it is his own personal desire to live rather than die, and the motivations of each. Bruce was never interested in redemption for Batman (or if he did, it is a secondary motivation), it was a question of whether he wanted to live or die.

But regardless of that distinction whether we agree on the details or not, I think we both agree that it was "about" plenty. I just think it could have been executed a bit better. And it's worth pointing out that even so, it's better than 95% of the other stuff out there.

[American Beer]

[projectx]

Go ahead and try it and see what happens. What you probably mean is "You have to know the rules before you can break them." Big difference.

Not at all. That "rule" is used to express the fact that every new project is a blank canvas to be painted the way you want. That you don't have to do anything based on anyone else's rules. Obviously if someone else is paying you to do it you have to do it their way or by their guidelines, but in general the first rule of filmmaking, is that there are no rules. You do what you want, because it's your artwork, be it seen by the world or just yourself, you decide what goes into to it and how it is done.

[andric]

Catwoman getting on the bike, best part of the whole movie.