The Dark Knight Rises

[Mal12345]

I just made up a plot-summary of the movie.

Bane punches Batman until he falls down.
Batman eventually gets back up and punches Bane until he falls down.
Batman saves Gotham City.

The end.

 

[Mal12345]

Batman will die, but Bruce Wayne will live.

[MENTION=7]Jennifer[/MENTION], what do you think of this idea now that you've seen the movie?

 

[Mal12345]

I disagree. Fables is damned good, and there's others out there nowadays.

Not sure about Batman, though.

This scene is really, REALLY out of character for both of them. Is it that comics are out of fresh ideas so they have to revert to silliness?

I'll admit that I'm taking it to seriously. And it is a funny scene. It's just so out of place.

 

[Poindexter Arachnid]

This scene is really, REALLY out of character for both of them. Is it that comics are out of fresh ideas so they have to revert to silliness?

I'll admit that I'm taking it to seriously. And it is a funny scene. It's just so out of place.

Dude, that's one of the greatest Batman stories ever told. Have you ever read it?
And the final page was what made it so great. There was no other way to end the tale.

Within the context, it works better than any other interaction the two characters have ever had.
The Killing Joke suggested that both Batman and The Joker were on a destructive collision course where only one could survive.

The final panels are deliberately ambiguous, suggesting that Batman finally crossed the line.
There is a lot of gravitas with this one. I'd suggest reading it (but beware--it is shockingly violent).

 

[Mal12345]

Dude, that's one of the greatest Batman stories ever told. Have you ever read it?
And the final page was what made it so great. There was no other way to end the tale.

Within the context, it works better than any other interaction the two characters have ever had.
The Killing Joke suggested that both Batman and The Joker were on a destructive collision course where only one could survive.

The final panels are deliberately ambiguous, suggesting that Batman finally crossed the line.
There is a lot of gravitas with this one. I'd suggest reading it (but beware--it is shockingly violent).

I'll rest satisfied with your kind explanation, thanks.

 

[Totenkindly]

, what do you think of this idea now that you've seen the movie?

I think I already gave my opinion of the ending elsewhere in this thread.

I'll admit that I'm taking it to seriously. And it is a funny scene. It's just so out of place.

Funny, when I read it in my early 20's for the first time, it seemed like the inevitable closing to the story. I didn't find it out of place at all.

I just made up a plot-summary of the movie.

Bane punches Batman until he falls down.
Batman eventually gets back up and punches Bane until he falls down.
Batman saves Gotham City.

The end.

Of course.
It's in the title, after all: "The dark Knight Rises"
And why do we fall down after Bane beats the snot out of us?
So that we can learn to stand back up and beat the snot out of Bane.

 

[Mal12345]

I think I already gave my opinion of the ending elsewhere in this thread.



Funny, when I read it in my early 20's for the first time, it seemed like the inevitable closing to the story. I didn't find it out of place at all.



Of course.
It's in the title, after all: "The dark Knight Rises"
And why do we fall down after Bane beats the snot out of us?
So that we can learn to stand back up and beat the snot out of Bane.

Ohhh, so he's like an older brother to Batman. Younger brother eventually grows up and gets back at older brother for the years of abuse.

I've just read a plot synopsis of "The Killing Joke." Perhaps it didn't do the tale justice? I'm just saying that it's out of character for Batman to laugh, ever, at least when in crusader form. Or maybe I'm still not getting it.

 

[Mal12345]

I think I already gave my opinion of the ending elsewhere in this thread.

But does it have anything to do with my prediction?

 

[Poindexter Arachnid]

I've just read a plot synopsis of "The Killing Joke." Perhaps it didn't do the tale justice? I'm just saying that it's out of character for Batman to laugh, ever, at least when in crusader form. Or maybe I'm still not getting it.

You'll have to read the story to get it.

 

[Totenkindly]

But does it have anything to do with my prediction?

what are you fishing for? That I think you should write horoscopes? the "prediction" was one of a few expected scenarios. (Batman and Bruce die, Batman lives and Bruce lives, Batman lives and Bruce dies, Bruce lives and Batman dies.) Would you like a medal?

The first few days of discussion covered whether the ending as written made sense and/or was consistent with the established character.

 

[Mal12345]

what are you fishing for? That I think you should write horoscopes? the "prediction" was one of a few expected scenarios. (Batman and Bruce die, Batman lives and Bruce lives, Batman lives and Bruce dies, Bruce lives and Batman dies.) Would you like a medal?

It wouldn't hurt.

The first few days of discussion covered whether the ending as written made sense and/or was consistent with the established character.

I haven't read all 23 pages of this thread, obviously. But then I have my own concerns about the ending. Mainly: why was there a timer on the bomb but no tension build-up leading to it's detonation? Why did that entire last scene have to feel like they were just wrapping up the movie. Ok, they got Bane packaged up - but don't forget to put a bow on! The bomb, as it turns out, was just a MacGuffin. It gives the villain something to do. This is made obvious just before the final fight, where Bane says something like "did you come to save your city?" and Batman replies, "no, I came to stop you."

 

[MacGuffin]

It was part of the plot. Why did the story include that element? You can make some educated guesses, I'm sure.

But honestly, the kids were symbolic. The movie pov was Cobb.

No, why was that element so badly done? The fact you basically never see them and only hear them on the phone makes one (in a movie where you question reality) wildly speculate as to the reasons it was done that way. And then it turns out there was no real reason to do it like that. Cobb had plenty of scenes with Mal before her death, why not the kids? WHAT IS NOLAN HIDING FROM US??? Oh wait, nothing.

 

[Totenkindly]

No, why was that element so badly done? The fact you basically never see them and only hear them on the phone makes one (in a movie where you question reality) wildly speculate as to the reasons it was done that way. And then it turns out there was no real reason to do it like that. Cobb had plenty of scenes with Mal before her death, why not the kids? WHAT IS NOLAN HIDING FROM US??? Oh wait, nothing.

I didn't think it was badly done at all, and I just rewatched the movie this morning. I still don't really understand what your objection is.

1. The kids are a great visual indicator of when Cobb finally makes his decision as to what particular level he is accepting as 'reality'. This is a movie, it's a wonderful way to clearly denote to the viewer what Cobb's decision is. He also actively avoids seeing their faces otherwise, because he knows once he sees them, his resolve will be broken.

2. This also does add to the uncertainty of what is "real" versus "what Cobb chooses to be real." We never get a clear idea of whether the ending is real, we just know it's what Cobb has chosen to be real.

3. Cobb's obsession is about Mal and then the notion of "I have to get back to my kids." The latter is a thought, but Mal and his guilt over her death which he blames himself for is his main, "in front of his face" obsession. Mal wasn't the "carrot" being held out to entice Cobb to accept a particular version of reality in the same way as the kids -- in fact, we had to see that Mal, so that we could see she was only a reflection of his dead wife.

4. The emotional impact of when his kids finally turn... and he sees their face at the end -- well, that one image has more emotional wallop and impact than any scene that might have been included earlier where you just see their faces. He has been waiting to see their faces for the entire movie. I found the phone conversation very poignant -- you could tell Cobb was dying to see his kids, it was even more frustrating that the best he could get was a phone call. You don't really need to see any flashbacks with the kids; it highlights the reality that Cobb has been reduced to phone conversations cut short by his mother-in-law, who sounds like she doesn't much approve of her son who led their daughter into an untimely demise by their choice to explore dream space. The anticipation is building the entire movie -- and the very last sequence only accentuates it, where there is this steady driving slow progression of him getting off the plane and going home; you can tell he wants to run, but he has to walk within the time stream and and so keep reining in his anticipation, and then wham, the music cuts out, and there are his kids, and it's an overwhelming moment. I think the moment would have been severely damaged/reduced if we had not been sucked into that anticipation with him -- we are DYING for him to see his kids' faces at that point. Nolan is making us want that moment just as much as Cobb does, and this is a typical technique for him, where he puts us into the protagonist's experience -- in Memento, we are forced to live backwards with Lenny, in Insomnia we are forced into sensory distortion experienced by Dormer. Here was are forced into Cobb's head and see how subjective it all is, and experience how all of his questions no longer matter in that second when he sees his children's faces.

 

[MacGuffin]

Because it is the whole setup: they are things, MacGuffins if you will, which robs them of any emotional resonance.

 

[Totenkindly]

Because it is the whole setup: they are things, MacGuffins if you will, which robs them of any emotional resonance.

Sorry it didn't work for you; i found it very powerful, emotionally.

 

[MacGuffin]

Sorry it didn't work for you; i found it very powerful, emotionally.

Kids and animals are cheap manipulations, if a filmmaker wishes to use them (and some have effectively) I require more effort than Nolan gave.

 

[Totenkindly]

I think I've adequately explained why he did what he did, and why i think your approach simply wasnt the movie he was making. If it ruined the movie for you, that's disappointing; but like you suggested regarding two recent movies i disliked because i thought they should have been different movies, that's just life.

 

[MacGuffin]

I believe there is a difference between disagreeing with the movie made, and thinking a movie had the right idea but failed in execution.

 

[Poindexter Arachnid]

Inception sucked.
Leonardo DiCaprio sucks.
The kid from 30 Rock needs to go away.

And fuck Nolan while I'm at it.

Darren Aronofsky and PT Anderson wipe the floor with that overhyped hack.

 

[MacGuffin]

I wrote this elsewhere:

Two of my favorite contemporary directors are Christopher Nolan and David Fincher. They both suffer from the same flaw, they sometimes neglect characterization. Nolan gets lost in intricate plots, Fincher leans on style/atmosphere. When they do that, I get annoyed!