The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

[hyl]

While in a way understandable why Nolan did that out of respect for Ledger, but i also agree with James0246 that it made the 2nd movie inconsequential except for the parts with Harvey Dent and Rachel. (and even that was questionable, because this movie didn't need to mention their deaths if it weren't for the 2nd movie)

[Haladflire65]

I don't think it made TDK inconsequential since so many major events in TDKR were influenced by what the Joker did, such as the whole Dent conspiracy and Batman being out of action for so long; the whole "peace time" thing. We all know who was responsible for all these, but in the movieverse, no one really clearly does except for Bruce and Gordon, because everything happened in such chaos - so why would it be essential to mention the Joker's name? It's not like Bruce or Jim would suddenly feel like bringing him up again (Gordon doesn't even have anyone to talk to about it). Why, actually, is it so important to TDKR's plot for the Joker to be mentioned? I personally don't get a lot of people's sentiments towards this, although I do respect that they can have their own opinions. I just got annoyed when rabid Joker fanboys went crazy over the issue, and how so many negative reviews for TDKR pretty much say "the Joker's not in it, so it's not as good as TDK, therefore it's not a very good movie".

[hyl]

Originally Posted by Haladflire65

I don't think it made TDK inconsequential since so many major events in TDKR were influenced by what the Joker did, such as the whole Dent conspiracy and Batman being out of action for so long; the whole "peace time" thing. We all know who was responsible for all these, but in the movieverse, no one really clearly does except for Bruce and Gordon, because everything happened in such chaos - so why would it be essential to mention the Joker's name? It's not like Bruce or Jim would suddenly feel like bringing him up again (Gordon doesn't even have anyone to talk to about it). Why, actually, is it so important to TDKR's plot for the Joker to be mentioned? I personally don't get a lot of people's sentiments towards this, although I do respect that they can have their own opinions. I just got annoyed when rabid Joker fanboys went crazy over the issue, and how so many negative reviews for TDKR pretty much say "the Joker's not in it, so it's not as good as TDK, therefore it's not a very good movie".

I disagree that the joker was not known in Gotham. Asides from being responsible for many terroristic acts, he openly broadcasted his actions on tv several times (like executing one of those vigilantes that dressed up like batman) or let not forget his "social experiment" at the climax/end of the movie.

[MakubeX2]

The 3 movie is filmed in such a way that the viewers can choose to deem each title is it's own stand alone story since Nolan didn't planned to make a trilogy out of them.

For example, there's already a plot hole concerning The Joker in Begins as Gordon states explictly that The Joker had a record of conviction when he shows Batman the calling card at the end. But in TDK, the police had no idea who The Joker truly is as they had no records whatsoever on him. So does this means Begins has no links to TDK ?

[hyl]

Originally Posted by MakubeX2

The 3 movie is filmed in such a way that the viewers can choose to deem each title is it's own stand alone story since Nolan didn't planned to make a trilogy out of them.

For example, there's already a plot hole conerning The Joker in Begins as Gordon states explictly that The Joker had a record of conviction when he shows Batman the calling card at the end. But in TDK, the police had no idea who The Joker truly is as they had no records whatsoever on him. So does this means Begins has no links to TDK ?

The third movie does not stand on it's own very well.
Especially at the beginning, when there are details like for example these that you actually need to know from the previous movies
-Why Bruce Wayne stopped being batman for 8 years.
-Rachel's death (or who she even is, if you haven't watched the previous 2 movies)
-the supposedly death of Harvey Dent caused by batman. (the letter made by Gordon was hardly detailed enough to know the actual reasons)
-what the league of shadows is and who Ra's al Ghul is.

[MakubeX2]

Originally Posted by hyl

The third movie does not stand on it's own very well.
Especially at the beginning, when there are details like for example these that you actually need to know from the previous movies.

But do you really need to know what transpassed ? Hints are dropped by the characters throughout and one could figured things out.

To say watching TDK is essential to TDKR is likes saying you need to read every Batman Comics from the past 70 years to catchup on currrent events in recent issues.

And in a way, TDKR might be better without knowing events in TDK because one will avoid the disappointment with the disappearance of The Joker.

[hyl]

Originally Posted by MakubeX2

But do you really need to know what transpassed ? Hints are dropped by the characters throughout and one could figured things out.

As if these "hints" in this movie explain anything?
-No explanation why Harvey Dent was supposed to be hero, the only thing mentioned in Gordon's letter was that he was not as good as people believed him to be and batman killed Dent because he endangered the live of Gordon's son.
-Why batman took the blame for Dent's death
- The scene in which Alfred said that he burned rachel's letter 8 years ago, doesn't explain anything between Bruce, Rachel and Harvey.
- The only thing said about Ra's al Ghul was that he was the leader of the league of shadows and that's it. It was never mentioned why Ra's al Ghul wanted to destroy Gotham and the entire point of this movie was that Bane and

Spoiler for spoiler:

Talia

wanted to finish what Ra's has started.

These socalled hints are in my opinion references to the previous movies

Originally Posted by MakubeX2

To say watching TDK is essential to TDKR is likes saying you need to read every Batman Comics from the past 70 years to catchup on currrent events in recent issues.

And in a way, TDKR might be better without knowing events in TDK because one will avoid the disappointment with the disappearance of The Joker.

You don't need any comic book knowledge for the Nolan movies because it is in fact it's own continuum. The characters are similar to their comic counter parts but not the same.

[MakubeX2]

Originally Posted by hyl

As if these "hints" in this movie explain anything?

But does the first-time viewers really needs to know everything ?

You don't need any comic book knowledge for the Nolan movies because it is in fact it's own continuum. The characters are similar to their comic counter parts but not the same.

I'm saying that do you really need to read all 70 years of comic materials just so you can see for yourself and understand why in the current comics Dick Grayson is Batman and how did Bruce had a son that is the current Robin and what the hell had Bruce Wayne done as Batman is everywhere now ?

[hyl]

Originally Posted by MakubeX2

But does the first-time viewers really needs to know everything ?

A newcomer doesn't usually start with the finale of a movie serie. Like for example "the return of the jedi" doesn't make too much sense without having watched "a new hope" and "the empire strikes back"

Originally Posted by MakubeX2

I'm saying that do you really need to read all 70 years of comic materials just so you can see for yourself and understand why in the current comics Dick Grayson is Batman and how did Bruce had a son that is the current Robin and what the hell had Bruce Wayne done as Batman is everywhere now ?

I only gave my opinion why i disagreed with you by saying that the 3rd movie of the Nolan trilogy does not stand on it's own. I never drew the comparison with the Nolan movies continuity with the entire comic book history of batman.

As for understanding the current story of the batman comics, you really don't need 70 years of history to understand it. You only need knowledge from a select few arcs from roughly the last 5 years.

[MakubeX2]

Originally Posted by hyl

A newcomer doesn't usually start with the finale of a movie series. Like for example "the return of the jedi" doesn't make too much sense without having watched "a new hope" and "the empire strikes back"

In this case, it's back to the point that the argument that Nolan didn't plan to make a Trilogy in the first place. And each movie is fine on it's own.

To counter your argument now without knowing the events in TDK.

1)Dent is shown as a hero because an Act was passed in his name that allows criminals to be put away. But we are shown that Dent was not a saint by the flashbacks. It's also mentioned that Batman "killed" him and took the blame just so Dent can be kept "clean" in the Public eye.

2) Was it ever mentioned that Rachel was in a relationship with Dent in TDKR ? We only need to know that she was a former love and wanted Bruce to retire as Batman, but everything is pointless now as she is "gone"

3) We only need to know the League of Shadow is a dangerous organisation and that Ra's is it's leader. We know Bruce killed him when he explicitly mentioned it and that is reason enough that a certain someone wanted revenge and did it doing Ra's dying wish.

I only gave my opinion why i disagreed with you that the 3rd movie of the Nolan trilogy does not stand on it's own. I never drew the comparison with the Nolan movies continuity with the comic book history

The comic mentions is just to illustrate my point.

As for understanding the current story of the batman comics, you really don't need 70 years of history to understand it. You only need knowledge from a select few arcs from roughly the last 5 years

Hence the point, you just need to listen closely and you get an idea of the previous events.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by MakubeX2

In this case, it's back to the point that the argument that Nolan didn't plan to make a Trilogy in the first place. And each movie is fine on it's own.

Even if he may not have intended to do so from the beginning, it's obvious that by the time he was working on the second one, that he had the third in mind. Considering he wanted to use the Joker in it and all, and Heath died before Dark Knight was released, it'd be kind of hard to have not planned the third one already.

[Ithekro]

I can say that I managed to watch this film without having seen the previous two. There was enough backstory provided that it didn't matter...mostly.

Having watched a lot of the Animated Batman series helped as I could easily pickup on certain names and knew certain connections already.

[hyl]

Originally Posted by MakubeX2

In this case, it's back to the point that the argument that Nolan didn't plan to make a Trilogy in the first place. And each movie is fine on it's own.

It doesn't matter that he never planned to make it a trilogy back then. In the end he did make a 3rd movie now and because Nolan made so many references to the previous 2 movies, it does not stand on it's own.

Originally Posted by MakubeX2

To counter your argument now without knowing the events in TDK.

1)Dent is shown as a hero because an Act was passed in his name that allows criminals to be put away. But we are shown that Dent was not a saint by the flashbacks. It's also mentioned that Batman "killed" him and took the blame just so Dent can be kept "clean" in the Public eye.

The movie only depicted him as a hero by his act (in which he wasn't around when it was passed) and him being two-face in the really short flashback of a few seconds. It does not exlain who Dent was (as if someone who has never seen TDK knows that he is supposed to be an attorny) has done and why became evil (corruption in the police which lead to the death of Rachel and he was mentally wrecked even more by the Joker)was never mentioned. And Dent kept clean doesn't make much sense unless you know the context why he needed to kept clean.

Originally Posted by MakubeX2

2) Was it ever mentioned that Rachel was in a relationship with Dent in TDKR ? We only need to know that she was a former love and wanted Bruce to retire as Batman, but everything is pointless now as she is "gone"

Yes, by Alfred. In the scene in which he confessed about burning Rachel's letter he did say something like (forgot the exact lines) "and what if Rachel didn't choose you". Also how can you know who she even was without knowing the previous 2 movies? (childhood friend, first love interest , knows about Bruce's identity etc. )

Originally Posted by MakubeX2

3) We only need to know the League of Shadow is a dangerous organisation and that Ra's is it's leader. We know Bruce killed him when he explicitly mentioned it and that is reason enough that a certain someone wanted revenge and did it doing Ra's dying wish.

I don't think the word "revenge" was ever used in this movie (and i doubt they did it for revenge, because the both of them didn't exactly like Ra's because he banished Bane (Talia's protector when she was a child) from the LoS ). The only thing Bane and Talia wanted was to accomplish the thing what Ra's failed.
And you actually know nothing about why Ra's wanted to destroy Gotham in this movie.

Originally Posted by MakubeX2

Hence the point, you just need to listen closely and you get an idea of the previous events.

Actually i don't get your point.
I only said you needed knowledge about the previous 2 movies, but you are using something majors as the history of batman (doesn't matter if it's the entire 70 years or a few years, it does not compare with 2 movies that doesn't even last 5 hours in total )

[MakubeX2]

We could argue to kingdom come on the points here, but it does not matter now because we have found one who acknowledged that it's alright to watch TDKR without knowing the events in Begins and TDK.

[hyl]

Originally Posted by MakubeX2

We could argue to kingdom come on the points here, but it does not matter now because we have found one who acknowledged that it's alright to watch TDKR without knowing the events in Begins and TDK.

And finding one person is enough to make you believe that this movie can generally stand on his own without any knowledge about the previous 2 movies?

[GDB]

Originally Posted by MakubeX2

We could argue to kingdom come on the points here, but it does not matter now because we have found one who acknowledged that it's alright to watch TDKR without knowing the events in Begins and TDK.

To be fair, he also said he watched a lot of the animated series and had background information for existing plot (connections). That's not really the same as someone walking in blindly.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by james0246

I am unsure where you are getting this from. I do not "hate" Nolan as a director or a screenwriter. In fact, I think he is one of the better technical directors in Hollywood (he's not that great with action sequences, and he let's exposition control much of his story, but he has amazing staging capabilities and he is leagues ahead of almost everyone on IMAX technology (both the DK and the DKR are quite beautiful films)).

Please do not dismiss criticism as "jealousy". That is pointless and does nothing for discussion.

None the less, one should never declare that a person should suppress their own feeling when it comes to doing good quality work. A good movie needs passion to make; it is more than just a technical matter that TDKR got made.The Joker can't get mentioned anymore because the Director isn't willing to do it. It is pointless to push that matter further when one had to trust the Director that he is making the right decision.

[SoldierOfDarkness]

When people start talking about feelings and how Nolan sucks this and that and that he should've done what you've done, it sounds a lot like jealousy to me. Especially when it's made personal and I was merely pointing it out in general as I've noticed a lot of this since Batman Begins.

It is pointless to push that matter further when one had to trust the Director that he is making the right decision.

And in the end the movie didn't suffer either as the Joker was never a huge part of that portion to begin with. Dent died and went crazy over Rachel's death. That was all that was needed to know.

[wingdarkness]

Well finally saw it and it was pretty good…Not phenomenal, not transcending by any stretch just good, so I guess that’s a tad bit disappointing but I still had fun for the most part….

Spoiler for Pros::

•Bane’s voice was dope, some will and have argued it was too cartooney or what have you, but like many anime fans I am a huge fan of voice acting and hearing that eerie narcoleptic Scottish-latin voice was cool

•Bane’s Knightfall comic storyline (Break the bat) was basically achieved. If you are a fan of that saga like I am, not much to complain about in that aspect, although dying to a Catwoman motorcycle gun kinda sux T_T…

• Catwoman didn’t suck – Anne Hathaway still didn’t impress me, but she wasn’t the clusterfukk many thought she would be in this role…Actually she was really innocuous like Channing Tatum in 21 Jumpstreet^^

•Talia Reveal – He got me on that one. Ras AlGhul’s storylines are some of my favorite in all of Batman, and many of them revolve around Talia’s pursuit of Bruce, so while I suspected that chick was up to something, I thought Nolan was going all Nolanverse by revealing Bane was Ra’s’s’s’s’s’s’s’s son, which combined with the misdirection of Bane’s backstory (get it “BACK-story^^) the reveal made me wanna punch myself for excluding the obvious…

Spoiler for Cons::

•Lots of dull spots in the first half of the film. Matthew Modine’s character (The pu$$y cop) WAS NOT NEEDED and could have been replaced with a Levitra commercial

•Not much development for Bruce/Talia or Bruce/Catwoman – Just seemed quite forced, both of those love situation. Show him and Talia go out on a date, don’t just let Alfred infer he should be with her

•Time – Simply everything from the takeover of Gotham, to Bruce in the cell training, to the bomb going off, there was no real sense of TIME… No way did it feel like 5 months had taken place during Batman’s exit

•“Robin” Blake - Yeah I’m on the bandwagon with those who are like WTFBBQ at that. I get what Nolan was trying to do, but sometimes a simple bridge is the one that gets you across. Me and my GF were pretty incensed at that. Name that kid Tim Drake, and we’re good to go…

Overall like I said, despite these gripes it was still good film…As a standalone not as much, but as a close to a trilogy absolutely. And while I do take issue with Nolan’s Batman being a quitter who retires every 5 mins it is refreshing to see one elsewhere Bat tale where the maniac psychopath hero known as the Dark Knight actually has a somewhat favorable ending that isn’t someone prying that suit from his cold dead hands.

At the end of the day, I still feel like Batman Begins is the best of the 3 films personally. The origin story was the best ever, and it used its villains well. But most importantly it FOCUSED ON BATMAN, unlike DK (which was honestly Harvey Dent’s Downfall the movie) and DKNR (Which was more capsulating than it was heart-wrenching excitement)… Batman in the Tumbler for the first time jumping buildings in Gotham was more exciting than anything in the next two flicks to me (The Joker truck chase a close second if we’re talking big action pieces)…

What I will give Nolan props on (besides making Batman tangible in a real world setting) is that he gave the world Batman’s most publicly unknown and real #1 Villain Ra’s AlGhul…While certainly not as antagonistic as the Joker, he has always been my favorite Batman villain and to have a trilogy where he basically serves as the overarching cloud to Batman’s creation, fall, and undying symbolization, was truly a treat for those familiar with how great this character is…He also clearly banged some hot assassin a$$ that gave him Talia…

Laz-pit hot tub ladies^^…

Anyways DKNR: 7.26 outta 10…

[Haladflire65]

^ Yay, I'm not the only one who still likes Begins the most! I just thought it was more tightly plotted and I have a lot of favourite moments in it, that still hold up after repeat viewings.

To hyl though - is it really that important that TDKR is standalone? I know people who went and watched the first two in preparation for it because they were curious; they could also have checked out plot summariea beforehand, or watch the other two aftwerwards if they liked TDKR enough. I don't think it's something that really mars the quality of the film or anything. Also, I just know a lot of people that saw TDK (although I'd argue that Begins might be just as important to know before TDKR...)