The Dark Knight Rises (Spoilers)

[JLTucker]

Come to think of it, why WERE there so many mentally ill people on the streets of Gotham in TDK for the Joker to recruit?

If nothing else, the plot of the first movie exposed at least part of the population to a chemical weapon intended specifically to cause mental illness.

And many were let out of Arkham too. It stands to reason that many were not caught and put back in.

[Vaporous]

They didn't sell the class warfare/ utopia is built on a lie angle well enough to make their faux french revolution/occupy gotham work for me. and the robin thing caused audible groans in the theater I went to. But all in all, it was a decent flick, just not a great one.

[2000AD]

The downside to playing Bane:



I wonder how long it takes tanlines to fade.

[Pendleton]

Ha, that's something I didn't think about.

If anyone's interested, the interview with Chris Nolan and review of TDKR by Mark Kermode is worth listening to. I also have to appreciate Wally Pfister's work as Nolan's cinematographer. It truly is art what he managed. They are, in essence, long art films on a franchise most people wouldn't expect such work dedicated to.

[RogueIce]

So I have an Amazon MP3 credit I got from...somewhere. I don't really know. But apparently it's going to expire at the end of the month, and it's good for one track so why not?

So I was going to get something from TDKR. But which track should I buy?

[JLTucker]

"Gotham's Reckoning."

[JME2]

I'd recommend "Gotham's Reckoning" for the full intensity of Bane's theme or especially "Rise", which is the film's closing suite.

[JLTucker]

Ha, that's something I didn't think about.

If anyone's interested, the interview with Chris Nolan and review of TDKR by Mark Kermode is worth listening to. I also have to appreciate Wally Pfister's work as Nolan's cinematographer. It truly is art what he managed. They are, in essence, long art films on a franchise most people wouldn't expect such work dedicated to.

[JLTucker]

I think Kermode is wrong about the blacks because they aren't that deep in many places. They are inconsistent. I saw it in IMAX, the 15/70 shit, not the fake stuff. When Gordon is down in the sewer, it's grey as hell. Also, IMAX sucks for 35mm. It's blown up and looks awful. It is worth it for the 60+ minutes in 70mm, though.

[JME2]

For the Stargate SG-1 fans, was anyone else amused to see William Devane playing the US President again or have trouble taking Christopher Judge's mook role seriously due to a lack of a golden Apophis symbol on his forehead?

[FaxModem1]

Where was Chris Judge in the movie?

[RogueIce]

Where was Chris Judge in the movie?

I think he was the leader of the thugs that cornered Blake just before Batman revealed himself again towards the end.

[Skylon]

For the Stargate SG-1 fans, was anyone else amused to see William Devane playing the US President again or have trouble taking Christopher Judge's mook role seriously due to a lack of a golden Apophis symbol on his forehead?

Clearly Nolan-verse Gotham exists in the Stargate SG-1 world. Hayes would be in his final year of his second term in office if my math is right.

I missed Christopher Judge, I'd forgotten reading months ago that he had a bit part in the film. I'll look for him when I watch the DVD.

[InnerBrat]

I generally feel that this movie held up a long standing tradition of Nolan taking some of my favorite Batman stories (Knightfall and No Man's Land, in this case) and completely missing the fucking point. The very idea that Bruce Wayne would lose someone he loved and spend 8 years in a sulk about it misses the fundamental essence of Bruce Wayne so wildly that I'm not even sure it can count as a Batman movie, even if this is the only one of the three in which Batman doesn't actually kill someone, which should count as a plus. It's a shame, because Bale finally manged to get a voice that didn't hurt to listen to.

I also wonder what was going on in the collective heads of DC/WB when they're all "WE MUST SIMPLIFY CONTINUITY. NO MORE LEGACY HEROES. ONE FLASH, ONE BATGIRL. NO SIDEKICKS. ...oh, you want to introduce an eighth Robin? Well go ahead then!"

Anne Hathaway's Catwoman, however, hit it out of the park. Would see the Catwoman edit over and over again.

[JLTucker]

Wow. Not adhering to the comics' vision of Bruce and coming up with your own is a negative. God forbid a director wanting to forsake the picture books and come up with something that works on a dramatic and thematic level. It's a different medium. Get over it.

[JLTucker]

I generally feel that this movie held up a long standing tradition of Nolan taking some of my favorite Batman stories (Knightfall and No Man's Land, in this case) and completely missing the fucking point. The very idea that Bruce Wayne would lose someone he loved and spend 8 years in a sulk about it misses the fundamental essence of Bruce Wayne so wildly that I'm not even sure it can count as a Batman movie, even if this is the only one of the three in which Batman doesn't actually kill someone, which should count as a plus. It's a shame, because Bale finally manged to get a voice that didn't hurt to listen to.

I also wonder what was going on in the collective heads of DC/WB when they're all "WE MUST SIMPLIFY CONTINUITY. NO MORE LEGACY HEROES. ONE FLASH, ONE BATGIRL. NO SIDEKICKS. ...oh, you want to introduce an eighth Robin? Well go ahead then!"

Anne Hathaway's Catwoman, however, hit it out of the park. Would see the Catwoman edit over and over again.

I guess you forgot that he was no longer needed because of the lie built on Harvey's demise? What about the fact that he would be chased by police, hindering his ability to fight crime? Saying it was all about Rachel is a simplification. She played a part, but it wasn't all about her.

[Havok]

Losing Rachel only gave him cause to not move on with his life as Bruce Wayne. It had nothing to do with him ceasing to be the Batman.

And InnerBrat, I am going to have to say that you may be the dumbest fucking person on the planet for saying it is out of character for Bruce Wayne to sulk for 8 years about losing a loved one.

[InnerBrat]

I guess you forgot that he was no longer needed because of the lie built on Harvey's demise? What about the fact that he would be chased by police, hindering his ability to fight crime?

What about them? The idea that the one law can eliminate all crime in any city is a suspension of disbelief too far for me, just like the idea that being chased by the police would be an effective deterrent to the Bruce who went up the mountain in Begins (Or, you know, any interpretation of Bruce at all.)

[JLTucker]

I guess you forgot that he was no longer needed because of the lie built on Harvey's demise? What about the fact that he would be chased by police, hindering his ability to fight crime?

What about them? The idea that the one law can eliminate all crime in any city is a suspension of disbelief too far for me, just like the idea that being chased by the police would be an effective deterrent to the Bruce who went up the mountain in Begins (Or, you know, any interpretation of Bruce at all.)

It';s your problem and not mine that you can't suspend your disbelief for the law getting rid of the Mob, which were the main criminals Batman went after. It is an adequate rebuttal, however.

I don't read comics, so I don't care about how you interpret the character from them. As for your other part, victory has defeated Bruce, as Bane says. he may have gone up a mountain in Begins, but he lost the drive and reason to fight after the Joker defeated him and the city. The reason he became Batman in the first place is no longer there. So, what good is it appealing to that portion in Begins?

[InnerBrat]

It';s your problem and not mine that you can't suspend your disbelief for the law getting rid of the Mob, which were the main criminals Batman went after. It is an adequate rebuttal, however.

... I wasn't aware that me not liking a movie was supposed to be your problem. I'll try and make my opinions more about you in future.

[JLTucker]

It';s your problem and not mine that you can't suspend your disbelief for the law getting rid of the Mob, which were the main criminals Batman went after. It is an adequate rebuttal, however.

... I wasn't aware that me not liking a movie was supposed to be your problem. I'll try and make my opinions more about you in future.

It appears that my point sailed over your head.

[Havok]

How is it hard to suspend disbelief that a law could clean up organized crime in one city after 8 years when the law itself may be unjustly harsh and as a byproduct, very effective.

If RICO worked the way it was supposed to, that is pretty much what it would do.

[JME2]

Also keep in mind that the Dent Act's job was made easier by the state the mob was in by the end of TDK.

Falcone was still incarcerated in Arkham. The Joker killed Gambol and the Cechnen and indirectly killed Maroni by unleashing Two-Face. He also burned their last major money launderer and life savings.

Gordon's men had also rounded up the syndicates' mid-level management, who as Harvey pointed out to Mayor Garcia, couldn't make bail and would cut deals.

The groundwork had already been laid and organized crime seriously weakened by the time the civic government passed the legislation. I have no problem seeing it do its job.

[Coop D'etat]

Also keep in mind that the Dent Act's job was made easier by the state the mob was in by the end of TDK.

Falcone was still incarcerated in Arkham. The Joker killed Gambol and the Cechnen and indirectly killed Maroni by unleashing Two-Face. He also burned their last major money launderer and life savings.

Gordon's men had also rounded up the syndicates' mid-level management, who as Harvey pointed out to Mayor Garcia, couldn't make bail and would cut deals.

The groundwork had already been laid and organized crime seriously weakened by the time the civic government passed the legislation. I have no problem seeing it do its job.

I think if we put together a bunch of things in TDK and TDKR it makes some degree of sense. In TDK a large fraction of the mid-level mob was taken in by Dent's RICO gambit, the top guys were all killed off by the Joker's purge as he took over. I think we're supposed to believe that towards the end of TDK the Joker has basically absorbed the majority of organized crime under him by the same process we saw parts of in the dead Joker-pool cue scene and the burning money-how loyal your dogs really are scene.

This is a pretty good explanation of the Joker's much derided omni-effectiveness in TDK. Its not that he's superhuman or that his small personal organization can do everything but that he's using the full resources and contacts of Gotham's organized crime, which was pretty well established as having infiltrated basically all of Gotham's public institutions (both by dialogue in BB and TDK and seeing directly how many tendrils they had in GPD). Smuggling explosives everywhere and knowing everyones movements makes sense if you own people everywhere because the mob as a collective had people everywhere. Joker has access to these resources in the middle of the film because the mob is cooperating with him as he's their point man for taking on the Batman and in the final act because he's taken over all the remaining organizations.

So what could be the key part of the Dent act and part of why its controversial could be that a large swath of people were taken in during and in the aftermath of TDK who took deals with prison sentences. It would makes sense that they are structured with the cliche of take X years in plea, with the expectation that they get out in X-Y years because of parole. The Dent Act gets past right afterward when all these guys are sentenced and changes the rules on the convicts. So lets say they took 7 years and expected to only serve something like 4 (asspull numbers) and the Dent act effectively changes the rules on them and they all have to serve the full sentence. Kind of a grand "bait and switch" move.

But if sort of thing was the case it would have been preferable if the film explained it better.

[RogueIce]

Coop sums up the mob bits well. As far as Batman not 'fighting crime' well sure there's crime still in Gotham, but it'd be the routine "everyday" crime that any city faces, which the GCPD is perfectly capable of taking care of - especially now that they seem to be far, far less corrupt than in Batman Begins or even The Dark Knight. And while Batman can obviously handle it if the cops chase him (which we see to grand effect in the movie) at some point it doubtless would have hit a point of diminishing returns. Sure, he could beat up muggers, but if the GCPD is mostly on the up and level, and he'd risk a police chase any time he got spotted, well... Why bother? Plus the danger of what we saw in the film: gloryhounds literally ignoring the actual criminals just to "Bring in the Bat".

So he's basically lost his purpose as Batman, which puts him in a rut. Further his inability to move on past Rachel means he can't go forward as Bruce Wayne, either. Which is why we see him the way he is at the start of the movie.