The Dark Knight Rises

[-Whiplash-]

@Velox

How can you say that Batman could easily best the Joker? The genius of the Dark Knight was its writing; how the Joker always had a plan and that plan led to his victory no matter what happened. Batman beating Joker to a pulp means Harvey and Rachel die, or boats get blown up. The Joker would've lost the battle but won the war.I think that's why Rises wasn't as good- simply overpowering Batman isn't that interesting. Bane gave him a physical challenge but the Joker challenged him mentally, which was much more interesting.Also, the final fight scene I thought was very anti-climactic. Batman is a creature of shadows, who uses fear. Him and Bane just wrestling in the street was everything that Nolan's Batman wasn't.

@WhiplashYou're just complaining for the sake of complaining xP

nah. I geniunly thought it was stupid.you're defending for the sake of defending. Edited July 25, 2012 by -Whiplash-

[Wyrd Bid Ful Araed]

@ManYou're not a very dramatic person, are you.

I value pragmatism. Its why I liked the villains from the first film; Scarecrow's ways of dealing with Batman were to set him on fire and call the police, both simple and very effective, Ra's al Ghul had Batman slowed down by mooks so he could load the microwave emitter then sabotaged the controls so the train couldn't be stopped even if Batman beat him (yeah, alright that came back to bite him but its the thought that counts). Sensible villains are scary villains

[Archer Vonn]

Sense usually doesn't work with emotion, which was Talia's driving motivation. She wanted revenge at Bruce for killing her father, so she wanted to torture him.

@ Whiplash: Oh don't be mad, now.

Edited July 26, 2012 by ~JC~

[Visaru]

Oh, and I have this big elaborate theory that Batman really does die in the end instead of faking his death (because come on, that bomb had a blast radius of six miles and we saw him directly piloting it over the ocean) but the entire thing falls apart when you realize that they recovered the Bat in one piece at the end. Did he just lob the bomb and run or what?

Batman installed autopilot onto the plane. He wasn't ever on it. The thing flew itself over the ocean and blew up, while Bruce was safely back in Gotham.

[BenLuke]

Oh, and I have this big elaborate theory that Batman really does die in the end instead of faking his death (because come on, that bomb had a blast radius of six miles and we saw him directly piloting it over the ocean) but the entire thing falls apart when you realize that they recovered the Bat in one piece at the end. Did he just lob the bomb and run or what?yes most people disagree because happy ending blah blah

Obviously, his appearance at the end was actually a robot.

[Wotz]

Oh, and I have this big elaborate theory that Batman really does die in the end instead of faking his death (because come on, that bomb had a blast radius of six miles and we saw him directly piloting it over the ocean) but the entire thing falls apart when you realize that they recovered the Bat in one piece at the end. Did he just lob the bomb and run or what?yes most people disagree because happy ending blah blah

A wizard did it.

[Jean Valjean]

I believe there was a practical benefit to not detonating the bomb right away. They were terrorists, and by drawing it out they were more effective at spreading terror. First the United States experiences the morbid reality that one of its great cities is being held hostage, then the city gets blown up anyway, leading the government and army to feel a deep sense of failure. By drawing it out like that it became September 11 times a thousand.

Merida

[Grey Snow]

Ok, a few notes, not sure if people have covered any of it:Bat:

Regarding the Bat surviving, it's not the same Bat. The color scheme is different. Presumably Bruce fixed the autopilot on all of the Bat models that they had.

Bane:

Seriously? Shot by missiles from a few feet away, when they were capable of blowing away piles of cars, and people think he survived? I can see that it's up for interpretation, but think about the power behind it, and that Bane is just a heavily muscled man, not some hulking Venom-powered beast of a man. Little doubt in my mind that he's dead, especially since these films took more towards realism.

Ending:

Fan made, but deserves to be shown.

Edited July 27, 2012 by Lord Koji

[Tilius]

.

Edited April 27, 2021 by Tilius

[Visaru]

Bane:

Seriously? Shot by missiles from a few feet away, when they were capable of blowing away piles of cars, and people think he survived? I can see that it's up for interpretation, but think about the power behind it, and that Bane is just a heavily muscled man, not some hulking Venom-powered beast of a man. Little doubt in my mind that he's dead, especially since these films took more towards realism.

Well, the Batpod might have other, less powerful guns on it, which he could have survived.

- Tilius

But honestly, why would Bane survive? It doesn't add anything to the story, and Nolan isn't making a sequel or anything. And he was knocked through a wall. And why would Selina hit him with a gun that might not of killed him, anyway? She's smarter than that.

[Tilius]

.

Edited April 27, 2021 by Tilius

[Grey Snow]

Batman did have to tell Selina "No guns", so she probably doesn't have problems using them. In at least one of her promtional images, what does she have in hand? A gun. Sure, that's kind of weak, but still, it makes a point. And Bane is a terrorist, so I'm not sure why she would care about sparing him. After everything he did, why let him live? Some people just have to be taken out.I'm a Christian, going into the police. If I ever had the option to kill somebody, or not, and risk others dying, would I kill? Of course; protect, shoot to kill. Selina clearly, based on the ending, cares about Bruce, so protect him. Kill Bane, don't let him potentially live and maybe track them down in the future. Even if she doesn't want to kill, for the clean slate thing, she kind of had to to ensure safety, which is what I was getting at at the start of the paragraph. I wouldn't want to kill, but would I to protect people, especially someone I care about? Of course. I'm sure she would too.

[Archer Vonn]

Even if he pulled a Spartan and survived, he'd be weak to the point where subduing and arresting him would be easy for the police that would inevitably show up.

[Shadow Kurahk]

Soooo this seems to be a topic of major debate, but how do you guys think "Ra's al-Ghul" is pronounced?People seem to think "Raysh" because of the cartoon or "Raaz" form the Batman Begins, but it's Arabic, and "Ra's al-Ghul" translates to "Head of the Demon."And the pronunciation for it is "RAH-uss" (the "a" like the "a" in "black") "ull-Ghool."

-SK

Edited July 30, 2012 by XII. Larxene

[Tilius]

.

Edited April 27, 2021 by Tilius

[Visaru]

I think you're missing the point of that twist at the end. Nolan wanted to say 'No, guess what? Bane isn't the real villain, he's just a henchman. It's Talia who is the enemy here. You don't need to worry about Bane anymore.' So Bane was pushed off to the sidelines. Besides, Bane was already defeated by batman- he was beaten senseless. That was really where he was defeated. The getting hit with a missile part was not really that important.The ending makes a lot of sense for Bane. It didn't seem out of character for catwoman, either. In the movie, she was able to do darker things than Bruce was.Besides, it's not like it'll ever be revealed that Bane didn't die. The story's over, and the story made it seem like Bane died- so he probably did. There's no reason that it would ever be revealed otherwise.

[Tilius]

.

Edited April 27, 2021 by Tilius

[Flex Lord Splash]

I really enjoyed the movie, so much in fact that I've already seen it twice, the first time in imax, the second time in normal. Of course it can't beat The Dark Knight, but in my opinion it was much better then the first film. I like how they portrayed Bane, and I thought Tom Hardy did an excellent job playing him. Now about Talia, I thought her twist was very cool, I remember her character from the Animated Cartoon, and when I saw that actrist going to be in the movie, I guessed that she might be the daughter, but I wasn't sure. Though I think how she died was kind of lame, I mean what killed her? She didn't have any shrapenl sticking out of her chest or anything, and Gorden was in the back of the truck, with a massive metal bomb, rolling around which probably shoulf of crushed him, but yet he survived. I actually think she might of ate a cyanide capsule after the crash or something, because she knew the blast would kill her anyway, and thought it would be less painful.About Bane's death, I did think it was kind of an anti-climatic way to kill him off, but yes, I do think he's dead. After the Dark Knight I thought that maybe Two-Face had survived, but that wans't the case. I also guessed that Lovett would be Robin the night before I saw the movie, I saw the trailer and I thought, "Why is he getting so much screentime in the trailer? Is he going to be Robin or something? I'm pretty sure they are going to continue the series now, but with Nightwing as the main character, and maybe Batman as a side character. Nightwing fits much better into the feel of the story, and I saw something on the web, that if you turn the chalk Bats he was writing on walls upside down it looks similar to the Nightwing bird.

[Visaru]

Bane 'just a henchman'? I think NOT. And you are meant to care about him at that point, as the whole thing with Talia makes you start to feel a slight bit of sympathy and realise he's more than just a brute, and more than just a henchman. To see that twist and take from it that Bane is weak and insignificant and not the villain of the piece is silly. Bane is essential, and he's not to be completely ignored after that twist. Nolan sure as heck wouldn't do that, that's just awful storytelling. It's like a twist means you can disregard an essential piece of the plot. For example, if the twist of Bruce surviving was not preceded by the scene where Lucius tells him to fix the autopilot etc, it'd be a bad twist because it wouldn't make sense. There being a twist doesn't mean you can completely ignore everything preceding it, that's all.And I know Catwoman does 'bad' stuff during the movie, but by the end she's settled down with Bruce - so I wouldn't expect her to act in the same way towards the end of the movie as she did at the start.And the story didn't make it seem like he died, really. And true, we won't know - so we might as well accept that it's open to interpretation. There's no solid proof he died, and it wouldn't make any sense for him to die like that anyway.

- Tilius

You don't have to ignore the beginning of the movie to realize that Bane isn't plot important after that point anymore. He's not weak and insignificant- he's just not a part of the story anymore. I felt that story wise, he was already defeated by Batman. Bruce climbed out of the pit, went to Gotham, and defeated Bane. Then the focus shifted to Talia. Bruce had conquered Bane, and now his focus, and the story's was on Talia and the bomb.I don't really see how Talia being in charge of Bane disregarded anything established earlier in the movie. Fiction is full of moments when the central villain is revealed to be working for another enemy. Talia a behind the scenes controller. The twist made sense- it shifted the focus from Bane to Talia.Just because Catwoman settled down with Bruce at the end didn't really mean she wouldn't have shot someone trying to kill Bruce.I think the movie made it very clear that Bane was dead. He was shot with a missle and flew through a wall. Then we see nothing more of him. I could definitely see him coming back if there was going to be another batman movie, but there isn't. In my opinion, it was clear that he was dead at the end.

I'm pretty sure they are going to continue the series now, but with Nightwing as the main character, and maybe Batman as a side character.

Oh no, I hope not. That would be terrible. Nolan said this would be the end to the series, and it was a spectacular end. It wrapped up everything. Anything after it would feel added on. If some other producer made a fourth movie, I would not see it.

Edited July 28, 2012 by Visaru

[Wyrd Bid Ful Araed]

I don't think the death of Bane was too misplaced. His character was centred around belief/faith being his driving force. To be killed by Catwoman it shows that she's found something to believe in herself, instead of being a materialistic burglar, and rewards Batman's faith in her

[Jean Valjean]

I think that by clarifying their differences in opinion to the very end it shows that they balance each other out, and I was perfectly happy with Bane ending with Selena appearing and shooting him. If she was going to have that different policy from Batman and she was going to be a prominent character, she might as well put that policy to use for a major plot point or two. So why not shoot Bane a few minutes before the city wa about to go up in flames?If anyone had an anti-climactic death, it was Talia al-Ghul.

Merida

[Archer Vonn]

I'm with Tilius on this one- Bane's death is a loose end, and loose ends aren't what you want in a last movie of a trilogy.

[Jean Valjean]

In the Dark Knight movies there has been very little blood and gore, and all that tends to take place off screen. I thought we were accustomed to the style of the series by now. Given the circumstances, only people who over-think the death are going to think of it as a loose end, and if you over-analyze it you're going to realize that it would have been impossible for him to survive.The thing about these films is that Christopher Nolan seems to hate exposition like a bad in-law. There was no way he was going to distrupt the flow of the movie just to say "oh look at his clearly dead body". He's the type of director who expects viewers to read between the lines, and in this case, given that this is the final film where everything is resolved, Nolan expected the audience to understand that as a death scene.

Merida

Edited July 29, 2012 by Merida

[Tilius]

.

Edited April 27, 2021 by Tilius

[Visaru]

It's funny that what you state as fact I heavily disagree with. :PI think I'll just leave it be. I think Bane's death makes perfect sense based on the movie, you don't.

[Makuta DUSt]

I found the reveal of Talia as the villain quite underwhelming, as she loves Bruce and even MARRIED him.Also, what killed her? Plot convenience?Tom Hardy (in my opinion) is great as Bane, and Anne Hathaway gave a great performance as Selina.But for God's sake, what's with Batman's voice? I could swear, he's doing it on purpose now.

[Visaru]

No, Talia didn't marry him.She didn't love him either. She was manipulating Bruce to continue work on that clean energy source. Which she planned to turn into a bomb. She was killed by driving a truck through into that underground parking garage. It was a big fall, and there were no airbags. That crash was more than enough to kill someone. I didn't think her death was that bad, but many people agree with you and think it was weak.

And what is with Batman's voice? He talks low to disguise himself. No worse than the first two movies.

[Makuta DUSt]

No, Talia didn't marry him.She didn't love him either. She was manipulating Bruce to continue work on that clean energy source. Which she planned to turn into a bomb. She was killed by driving a truck through into that underground parking garage. It was a big fall, and there were no airbags. That crash was more than enough to kill someone. I didn't think her death was that bad, but many people agree with you and think it was weak.

And what is with Batman's voice? He talks low to disguise himself. No worse than the first two movies.

I meant in the comics, Talia loved him.

Then again, Nolan did say the comics were irrelevant, so my complaints are irrelevant as well and nothing more than pointless nitpicking over change to the source material.

Edited July 29, 2012 by Toa of the Nova Corps

[Archer Vonn]

I'm surprised you're nitpicking the comics and you're fine with Bane.

[Zulu Yankee Kilo Echo]

It was cool. I liked Bane's characterization, even if it is quite different from his other depictions.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Zyke the destroyer

[Shadow Kurahk]

I always disliked the way Bale did Batman's voice in these movies.You could alter your voice without having to growl like a madman.-SK

[Wotz]

I always disliked the way Bale did Batman's voice in these movies.You could alter your voice without having to growl like a madman.-SK

Well at least it's memorable

[Makuta DUSt]

I'm surprised you're nitpicking the comics and you're fine with Bane.

I was quite uneasy at first, with all the buildup. I don't like overhyping things after being disappointed with Drawn To Life: The Next Chapter. Did TDKR look good? Yes. But I didn't think it looked like "OH MY GOD, Dis is the GREATEST movie I've seen in my entire LIFE without even seeing it!".However, when I sat down and watched the film, I was surprised by Tom Hardy's performance. I grew accustomed to his Bane (please note I have never read Knightfall so I'm not sure wether Bane acted like that or not.)However my problem with Talia is how her twist came right out of nowhere, and she was killed off as quick as she was revealed.Again, My complaints are just nitpicks, as the director claimed that the comics are irrelevant.

[Axilus Prime]

I saw the movie a few days ago, (HA.) and it was sheer awesomeness. Not the greatest movie in the world, but then again, it's impossible to pick a "greatest movie in the world." Definitely one of my high-up favorites, and the best of the trilogy.I think his Batman voice in all the movies was awesome. Sounded almost robotic or bestial, the way he growled to disguise his voice. And yet there was no trace of evil in the voice.Now Bane's voice was so awesome I couldn't resist doing impressions of it at times after seeing the movie. (It actually sounded 80% right)And there were no times at all when I found the voices odd or incomprehensible. Watching Transformers a lot will do that to you.The twist at the end didn't feel rushed to me, since it was the only way to keep it utterly shocking. (You all know what I'm talking about. I don't know how to use spoiler tags, so I had to write it that way)Overall, I can't really find anything I didn't like. (And, I wrote a quick review with no spoilers whatsoever! )

Edited July 30, 2012 by TNG Prime

[Jean Valjean]

In the Dark Knight movies there has been very little blood and gore, and all that tends to take place off screen. I thought we were accustomed to the style of the series by now. Given the circumstances, only people who over-think the death are going to think of it as a loose end, and if you over-analyze it you're going to realize that it would have been impossible for him to survive.The thing about these films is that Christopher Nolan seems to hate exposition like a bad in-law. There was no way he was going to distrupt the flow of the movie just to say "oh look at his clearly dead body". He's the type of director who expects viewers to read between the lines, and in this case, given that this is the final film where everything is resolved, Nolan expected the audience to understand that as a death scene.

Merida

Very little blood and gore, except for that bit where the Joker stabs someone in the head with a pencil? And the bit where Harvey Dent got half his face burnt off? And those bits in TDKR where Batman was beating the ###### out of Bane? As we've said, it's not impossible for him to survive, given that he's a tough cookie as it is, and the Batpod likely has other weaponry on it, and Catwoman probably isn't going to murder someone and then make a quip about it. And Nolan certainly wouldn't make that his death scene. And not showing a dead body is not encouraging us to 'read between the lines' at all, there's no point in doing something like that. If Nolan wanted Bane to be clearly dead, there could have been a mention later on - you don't need to show a corpse to let people know he's dead. As has been said, his death might be considered irrelevant at this point, but really I think every part of these films has been carefully calculated to all slot in, so I'd say it's left open-ended rather than being labelled irrelevant and ignored. That'd be like saying what happens to Joker by the end of TDK is irrelevant, when it totally isn't.Villains in this series just don't die. THAT is the style of the series. Joker didn't die, Scarecrow didn't die, Two-Face died because that's what made sense to his story, Ras died but not through a direct killing, Zsasz didn't die. If Nolan was going to kill off Bane, he'd have made it clear. Instead, his fate is left as open-ended as Joker or Scarecrow's. It's up for interpretation anyway.But this whole discussion is pointless exactly because of that. I just don't think killing Bane in that way made sense for his character, given how him and Batman are full-on fighting in these mental choreographed fights. It doesn't make sense for Catwoman to kill him and then make a joke of it at that point of the film. Stun him though, yes, that would fit a character who is after a new start and to leave their life of crime. It doesn't make sense for the story in general - to take such a big threat down like that - and, given the patterns of previous films, the likelihood is that he didn't die. And whilst, like I say, this is all down to interpretation, the best anyone else has is 'oh but he got shot', disregarding what ending would actually make sense for the character, given the preceding two and a half hours.And I'm getting PASSIONATE about this now, lol, even though this whole discussion has just snowballed pointlessly.

- Tilius

Compared to other action movies, the amount of blood and gore is certainly at a minimum. I don't know what you've been watching lately, but I've been around the block a few times and the graphics of The Dark Knight trilogy were pretty tame. Batman got the pulp beat out of him, sure, but all we ever saw of that were a few cuts and bruises. There was technically blood, but that wasn't "blood and gore". Neither was the pencil trick, because you never actually saw the pencil end up in the grunt's eye and never god a clos-up. When the Joker stuck the dagger on the mouth of that one mob boss, you saw the back of the boss's head when he actually cut him, avoiding any sight of blood. Two-Face was an intriguing visual effect, but you know as well as i do that it wasn't "blood and gore".Meanwhile, killing off bane offscreen is exactly what Nolan would do because that's exactly what he did every time he killed off a major actor. Liam Neeson died off-screen. Aaron Eckhart died off-screen. Gyllenhaal died off-screen. The only real exception was the slow death of Talia al-Ghul, but that was the type of death where she just closed her eyes and went slack. Contrary to what you say, villains do die in this series. It's just that all too often Batman sends them off to prison instead of killing them, to the point where he even saved the Joker's life.They're not going to take a moment to mention Bane died, of course, because in all the films Nolan clearly demonstrated that he hates exposition. The most exposition he ever gave in a film was when Dom Cobb explained the rules of dream-spelunking to Ariadne in Inception.Now meanwhile, I didn't think that Catwoman was joking. She got sick and tired of Batman telling her not to use guns, since in her mind they were practical, and shooting a villain in defense made sense for her understanding of ethics. The purpose was to demonstrate a distinct difference between Batman and Catwoman's codes and explore the effect, and it came out with Catwoman's willingness to use guns helped save the day. More serious comic books tend to have a cauldron full of conflicting points of view, where each point has its say, and the story resolves with a conclusion that lets the reader make up his own mind. If Catwoman hadn't shot to kill, it would have disrupted the point to having a character that was willing to use guns. Meanwhile, Batman uses non-lethal guns, too, and uses them, but when she said "I don't feel as strongly as you do about guns", she was intending do point out a distinct difference betweem them.

Merida

[Brickeens]

Just saw the film today. There's one bit I didn't get - back in the plane, Bane stick's a needle in that guy's arm and takes some blood. What was that for?

[Stryker055]

Just saw the film today. There's one bit I didn't get - back in the plane, Bane stick's a needle in that guy's arm and takes some blood. What was that for?

IIRC, it was Dr. Pavel's blood he was pumping into the corpse, so when the crash was found, the body itself would must likely be mangled beyond recognition, but the DNA in the blood would confirm it. Thus, faking his death (they mentioned at one point that Pavel was confirmed dead).I could be missing some details, but that's how I understood it on my second viewing.

[Eyru]

Saw the movie yesterday, and was blown away. There are a few things that bugged me, but it really was amazing.

Although, Bane's voice was annoying, occasionally difficult to understand, and sounded too Darth Vader-y to be menacing. Also, his face mask was never explained. Overall, a weaker villain than the Joker, especially after all his background was thrown away after the Talia twist. The parallels between him and Batman were so cool... and then they were discarded.Speaking of the twist, it came out of the blue and felt rushed and unnatural, as did Bane's death (I'm not getting into that debate ).The ending was perfect, however, and I wouldn't change a thing. Overall, an exceptional movie.

[Velox]

Although, Bane's voice was annoying, occasionally difficult to understand, and sounded too Darth Vader-y to be menacing. Also, his face mask was never explained.

It wasn't necessarily meant to be menacing -- Tom Hardy modeled it after a specific person -- Bartley Gorman. And the face mask was explained -- he was beaten so hard when he was younger that they put the mask on him to ease his pain.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Velox

[Brickeens]

Just saw the film today. There's one bit I didn't get - back in the plane, Bane stick's a needle in that guy's arm and takes some blood. What was that for?

IIRC, it was Dr. Pavel's blood he was pumping into the corpse, so when the crash was found, the body itself would must likely be mangled beyond recognition, but the DNA in the blood would confirm it. Thus, faking his death (they mentioned at one point that Pavel was confirmed dead).I could be missing some details, but that's how I understood it on my second viewing.

Would they not also find the other guy's DNA too, though?

Edited July 31, 2012 by Brickeens