??? You think that script was bad?? It was all brilliantly wrote to lead up to the drastic ending...after watching it for the second time you appreciate the little things.
Idk if I'd say the whole thing was bad but there's certainly a lot of shotty moments in it. Talia Al Ghul was especially brutal every time she talked. I did watch it twice.
Only thing that threw me a little was Banes voice and he wasn't the quiet assassin I had assumed he would be. But other than that amazing movie. Catwoman especially and John Blake did a great job.
Catwoman was hit and miss for me. Spoiler For someone who set him up to be killed, Batman sure forgives her awful fast, no? That and the scene w/the kid and the apple and obviously Bane's death were very weak, imo
Loved the movie. All the new characters were great. Though I did want to see more Catwoman. She had most of the best lines. I wonder if they will spin-off the franchise. Nolan mentioned he would like to see a Catwoman spin-off (Prequel I guess). I doubt they'd make a new franchice with JGL as the new Robin/Nightwing/Whatever version of Batman...but could be interesting. Maybe if Jonathan Nolan wants to do one of them.
The third movie was a real disappointment for me. Nowhere near up to Chris Nolan's standard for a script. The movie was easily a half hour too long, and Bane sounded like Sean Connery in Celebrity Jeopardy. Also ... Spoiler The Robin reveal was telegraphed from the character's first appearance on stage. Anne Hathaway was the best thing about this movie, IMO, and that's not a good sign for a Batman movie.
Spoiler To be honest I think that fits in Batman's character. However I didn't really understand her turn around. I also did not understand her underling. Was she dating her or was that just her protege? Also, what happened to her? I thought Bane's death sucked. I think that was poor pacing. At that point I started to feel sorry for Bane and then BAMN he gets shot.
I agree. I just don't understand where the almost 3hrs went. Bane's character and background could of been carved out a lot better. The other thing that really annoyed me about him. Spoiler Batman's punching him square in the face in their first fight and getting nowhere. All of a sudden in the 2nd time they fight, he's able to start breaking Bane's mask? (not that we see any of it actually falling apart)
Spoiler Which makes little sense since they say the whole reason he got out of the pit wasn't bc of his training but bc of his will, according to that prisoner. Still thought that was really weak
I am really disappointed in this one. Easily the weakest of the trilogy. I think it might be because none of the other characters took over their scenes the way the Joker did. It just felt rushed and was somewhat predictable. First time Nolan has let me down. Bummer.
I have to agree. Heath did an awesome job as the Joker, but his performance is exaggerated, IMO. People had such low expectations from the guy who starred in a knights tale, 10things I hate about you, and shocked a lot of people with his darker portrayal of a characters who's last appearance was campy. Then he dies, there is a huge media circus, everyone involved in TDK talks him up, and now he's GOAT or something. He's not the end all be all of actors or actors who could play the joker amazingly. I wish they would of just re-cast the part, tbh. Anyway, onto TDKR. I saw it earlier today and was impressed. Not exactly what I thought it would be, but still a fun and exciting conclusion to the story. That isn't to say there are now flaws, but overall, a great ending to a great trilogy. Hopefully Nolan spruces up Superman the way he did with Batman. Off the top of my head, without having read too far back in this thread... Spoiler The first scene of Batman on his bike was sick. The music starts blaring and everyone at the theater starting cheering. I kinda of liked the slow burn of getting Batman back. Although I wish there had been more once we got him back. I liked the story concluding with Ra's Al Ghul/League of shadow storyline. It finished where it started. Something satisfying with that. However, I'm not sure whether or not I liked Talia just popping up like that. She is a poor substitution for Ra's/Liam. Would of liked to see Liam back. Given the Ra's character, I think they could of come up with something clever and just had him show up. Bane was a good villain. Wasn't sure how good he would be, but I enjoyed him. That first fight with Batman was incredible. The emotion of seeing broken down Bruce Wayne go all-out on a superior specimen was tough to watch. That scene (and the few leading up to it) was excellent. That voice though... At times, his bellowing is terrible, especially when trying to speak up. Could of gone with a darker Darth Vader type of voice. Speaking of Vader, why did Tom Hardy need to be cast in this? Might as well have gotten a bodybuilder and dubbed a voice over from someone in post production. Also, I hated him being the big bad and then at the end being shown as Talia's *****... Kind of cut his balls off the character and everything we saw of him. Then the way he died. Horrible... Batman should of finished it. John Blake was stupid as ****. No reason to be in there. He just knows Bruce is Batman? Weak sauce. I also hated him getting to become Robin/Nightwing/Batman 2.0. Batman isn't some guy who took some self-defense classes and can throw a punch... He's a full fledged ninja with cutting edge technology at his disposal. Huge waste of time. Gordon should of been doing most of Blake's role. Gordon needed a bigger role. Kind of a waste of Gary Oldman tbh. Anne Hathaway was good. Surprised since I hate her as an actress. Catwomen was good. Surprised since I thought she would interfere with the real story. Bruce should of died though. I honestly felt it was a cop out that he lived given the nature of Wayne and the trilogy itself. My guess is WB was like "faukkkk no." All i got for now.
The only criticism I'm hearing that I find compelling is Spoiler whether or not Bruce should have really died or not. They kind of have it both ways with the way they ended it, which I can understand not liking. But I like it. It shows how smart Bruce is to be able to fix the autopilot and that he had finally grown emotionally to the point where he didn't need Batman anymore. Other than that I'm hearing a lot of nitpicking that didn't really have that much effect on the plot as a whole, or especially on the themes.
I know some of the criticisms are nitpicks, however I do not agree about not having much plot effect on the whole. There are some decently sized plot holes and WTF moments. In fact the crticism you find complelling is one I find as a small nitpick.
TDRK was pretty good. I think despite being such a long movie it tended to jerk around and didn't feel fully fleshed out, but it was a great ride and a good conclusion to the Nolan trilogy. I also think some elements of the ending were put in there through demands by DC. For example, Bruce Wayne surviving; that smells like something DC wanted so they can include Batman in the JLA movie. I doubt they want filmgoers saying "But Batman died at the end of TDRK, what's he doing here?" Not possible. Ledger died after primary production wrapped up. Re-shooting everything involving the Joker would have taken months. And Heath Ledger was great as the Joker not because he died, but because he was genuinely great in the role.
When I say recast, I meant recast in the dark Knight rises, not the dark Knight. So much of the movie is about symbolism. Anyone can be Batman. So anyone can be any othere character. I would of loved to see Daniel day Lewis cast to bring the character back. And to be clear, I think Health was a fantastic joker. I do think his death added to the aura of the part. Like when a musician dies they become beloved and record sales go through the roof. Like Michael Jackson. Nobody was really listening to him anymore. His career lost relevance. He dies, thriller is playing on the radio on every station. People loved him again. See what I'm getting at?
Not really. That's really only meant for Batman. Nobody mentioned him in The Patriot? I don't think his career lost relevance at all.
Couple of things: - Heath ledger had already shot to the head of the class in terms of critical success for Brokeback Mountain. - Yes, the phenomenon you speak of exists and everyone knows about it...that doesn't mean it automatically applies to every case of a dead performer. Dead or alive, Heath Ledger was going to win the Oscar and reinvent the character of Joker.
Reinvent? That word is a little grand for what he did. Gave a great interpretation of the Joker, however he really didn't bring anything new. Took the character from various sources and made his own.
Sigh. The character of the Joker has never been played that way ever. Not even close. Reinvent is not too strong a word at all.
Im still not being clear. I think joker should of been recast for TDKR. Regardless of Ledgers death the character is important. In the end, I think the metaphor should of been applied literally. A new actor to play the joker. Heath isn't the joker. Just someone who played the role. No one has to agree with me that his death added gravitas to the role. I just feel his death made the portrayl absolute.
Sigh. That is not what the word "reinvent" means. His character was a little of The Animated Series, a little from the 1989 series, then taken from various graphic novels such as the Killing Joke, mixed in with his personal style with Nolan's tone and an irritation from the make up. He didn't completely make over the character. Batman the Animated Series reinvented the character Mr. Freeze. Heath Ledger added to the character, however he didn't create a whole new Joker that was unlike any other.
Sooooooooooooooooo, according to you playing the character a way its never been portrayed before isn't reinventing a character, but doing it completely different is.......mmmmokay. How do i get the rep of arguing just to argue when there's clearly better candidates than me?
According to the definition of the word reinvent playing a character a way its never been portrayed before isn't reinventing a character. I am arguing because I disagree with the idea that Ledger reinvented a character, he didn't reinvent. If that is the criteria then the term reinvent is useless and not even a good thing. Plus the fact that his Joker was a lot like other Jokers.
re·in·vent [ree-in-vent] Show IPA verb (used with object) 1. to invent again or anew, especially without knowing that the invention already exists. 2. to remake or make over, as in a different form: At 60, he reinvented himself as a volunteer. We have an opportunity to reinvent government. 3. to bring back; revive: to reinvent trust and accountability.
1. he knew the invention already existed. He named his source 2. He made over, however in pretty much the same form. 3. He didn't bring back or revive the Joker. The Joker has been around.
No he didn't. I 1000% disagree with your stance this was an amalgamation of various Jokers. This is why I said the Joker has never been portrayed this way and why (as the definition proves) that does in fact classify as a reinvention. Now you obviously disagree that this was a unique portrayal, but if I think it is was unique at the very least I'm in the right to use the phrase reinvention. I know it stings when you're wrong, but walk it off.
That is what he said he based his character on. A lot of his character was based on the Graphic Novel The Killing Joke. Which is one of the best Joker stories out there. Just becuase you disagree to an impossible percent, doesn't make your stance true at all. In fact it is very wrong. Thus proving that it wasn't an reinvention. Other than make up and scars, what did he bring that hasn't been done before? Unless all he needs is make up and scars smiles to reinvent a character.
We can discuss the uniqueness of the character after you admit, reinvent does in fact equal never portrayed that way before. if you aren't willing to admit you were wrong about that there's no point in going on.
I'm not surprised at the above argument, particularly one of the participants. I'll say this, though: the Joker wasn't exactly menacing in previous movie incarnations, though it's debatable which had more influence, the Batman TAS/Arkham Asylum/Arkham City Joker, or the TDK Joker. That would have been in extremely poor taste, IMO. Maybe DDL can be the Joker in 10 years when the inevitable reboot happens.
