Dark Knight Rises - Now that we know the cast — Page 22

doubleofive said:

Bane was unintelligible most of the time, and the Wayne/Tate romance came out of nowhere, but other than those details I found it to be great.

[Thar bee spoilers in dese 'ere waters]

I've heard others complain about not being able to understand Bane. I found him really easy to understand. I wonder if the quality of the sound system at the theater plays a role in this?

I actually really loved his voice and found it somewhat soothing. On the way home from the theater my friend and I were talking about how much we loved the voice and I commented that I honestly wish I could get audiobooks read by that voice. Something about it is very pleasant, I just want to listen to it carry on long conversations.

I agree with the Tate romance, it happened very abruptly and came off as more of a convenient sexual exchange than a real connection between the characters. After it was revealed that she was Talia al Ghul, it made sense why they haphazardly shoved a wee bit of affection between the two in there, as the character is a long running love interest of Bruce Wayne/Batman in the comics. I don't think they succeeded in that so well, I never got the impression either one cared much for the other before or after their exchange.

Part of me really wishes they had just called the character Talia Head which is her alias in the comics, instead of Miranda Tate, in order be slightly more true to the source material. But I am pretty sure they did that in order for it to be a shocking twist even for those with a good deal of knowledge of Batman lore.

I'd also wished John Blake had been named Dick Grayson or Tim Drake, IF they felt the need to make him Robin (groaner moment for me). None of the Robins ever actually had the name Robin. Again, like with Miranda Tate, I am sure this was done merely to make it a twist moment even for those who'd recognize the name otherwise. I think naming him Officer Timothy (Something) then revealing that his birth father's last name was Drake (or the same with Richard and Grayson) would have been a slicker reveal to me.

He did become Batman. His name being Robin was just a fun little easter egg. There is nothing anywhere to imply he became Robin because obviously he would not and that would make no sense. Never before have I seen a simple easter egg be so harshly criticized...

DominicCobb said:

He did become Batman. His name being Robin was just a fun little easter egg. There is nothing anywhere to imply he became Robin because obviously he would not and that would make no sense. Never before have I seen a simple easter egg be so harshly criticized...

That does not fit the definition of easter egg by any stretch of any imagination. An easter egg is a hidden joke or references, this wasn't hidden it was out there and in your face. 

Also, I never got the slightest impression that it was trying to imply Blake was to become the new Batman. If that was the implication, his name being Robin was all the dumber and more nonsensical. I think there was far more to imply he was to become Robin than to imply he was to become Batman. We discover his first name is Robin, we discover Bruce is alive and well, and we see him making his way to the batcave. This spells out new sidekick to me more than it does successor.

Nin jah!!!

Reflecting on it more, if the Robin name thing hadn't been revealed and Bruce hadn't been shown to be alive, along with all the rest of the scenes at the end being the same, I probably would have taken it to mean John Blake was going to take up the cowl. As it is, the film practically roundhouse kicks you in the jaw and shouts, "Haha! Take that! He's ROBIN, MOTHER F******!!!" in an annoying cheesy falsetto while you are lying on the ground dazed and agitated having been blissfully enjoying yourself up until that point. From then on, it is kind of hard to forget the fact that the movie just violently assaulted you and forcefully informed you that he is Robin.

Okay, I'm just going to throw a big NO out there. 

This is the scene we're talking about: a woman says Blake should go by his legal name - Robin. THAT'S IT. I realize that the common form of the word easter egg is that is hidden, but I think the main definition I'm trying to use is that it's a little in-joke that is of no consequence to the film. 

Okay, I'm trying to calm myself down because what you're saying is so wrong it just makes me want to put everything in caps, but then you probably wouldn't read it. 

There is absolutely nothing to imply that he is Robin. If you watch all three films, everything is built from the ground up. Never is the audience forced to go off prior knowledge. In other Batman films you know why Bruce Wayne is Batman. But in Batman Begins, they tell you why. Why did they do this? Because this is a self-contained trilogy. It tells its own tale. So when the lady says his real name is Robin, first of all she is NOT knocking you over the head with this fact AT ALL (I know you're trying to be funny here but I saw absolutely zero cheesy falsetto "He's Robin Motherf*****!!!" or anything that even remotely resembled that), what is happening is nothing more than a joke for those in the know. As this is a self-contained trilogy, that has never relied on information not shown, there is nothing ANYWHERE TO TELL YOU THAT THIS MAN WILL BECOME BATMAN'S SIDEKICK, AND THAT HIS NAME WILL BE ROBIN. 

What they DO show, is that Bruce Wayne has made it very clear that it doesn't matter who's behind the mask. They also show that Gordon was given a new BATSIGNAL. And that Blake was given the BATCAVE, and when he goes in, BATS swirl around him just like they did to Bruce in Batman Begins. If you paid attention, it is very, very obvious that he becomes Batman.

So, in conclusion, there is nothing anywhere to imply that Blake would become Robin (he already is!), and there is no reason to think this this is a legitimate complaint about the film. As is, it's a JOKE that probably shouldn't have been included because clearly people don't understand the point of in-jokes, and they let them get in the way over their film-watching because they must not not how to watch films.

Good day to you, sir.

(sorry in advance for my attitude)

DominicCobb said:

What they DO show, is that Bruce Wayne has made it very clear that it doesn't matter who's behind the mask. They also show that Gordon was given a new BATSIGNAL. And that Blake was given the BATCAVE, and when he goes in, BATS swirl around him just like they did to Bruce in Batman Begins. If you paid attention, it is very, very obvious that he becomes Batman.

except they never should him putting on the Bat suit.  So for all we know, he becomes Nightwing or maybe Red Robin or something else.  

DominicCobb said:

There is absolutely nothing to imply that he is Robin. If you watch all three films, everything is built from the ground up. Never is the audience forced to go off prior knowledge. In other Batman films you know why Bruce Wayne is Batman. But in Batman Begins, they tell you why. Why did they do this? Because this is a self-contained trilogy.

but it is still based on the comics and closely resembles the comics in many ways.   Heck in this movie,  Bane breaks Batman over knee exactly like he did in the comics.   Also I think Alfred left Bruce for while in the comics and it had something to do with the Knightfall storyline. 

Yes, everybody knows the name Robin. That's why they had the joke. You see, he was Robin the whole time. That's the joke. What I'm trying to say is if they wanted to imply that he became Robin, they wouldn't have done it that way. It would have actually explained it, because in that case it would have been a significant character development. As is, the character development that they do explain is that Blake becomes Batman. 

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

What they DO show, is that Bruce Wayne has made it very clear that it doesn't matter who's behind the mask. They also show that Gordon was given a new BATSIGNAL. And that Blake was given the BATCAVE, and when he goes in, BATS swirl around him just like they did to Bruce in Batman Begins. If you paid attention, it is very, very obvious that he becomes Batman.

except they never should him putting on the Bat suit.  So for all we know, he becomes Nightwing or maybe Red Robin or something else.  

Yes, for all we know he could of, but the clear implication here is that he becomes Batman. 

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

What they DO show, is that Bruce Wayne has made it very clear that it doesn't matter who's behind the mask. They also show that Gordon was given a new BATSIGNAL. And that Blake was given the BATCAVE, and when he goes in, BATS swirl around him just like they did to Bruce in Batman Begins. If you paid attention, it is very, very obvious that he becomes Batman.

except they never should him putting on the Bat suit.  So for all we know, he becomes Nightwing or maybe Red Robin or something else.  

Yes, for all we know he could of, but the clear implication here is that he becomes Batman. 

no, the clear implication is that he takes over Bruce's role in fighting crime in Gotham.   We have no idea if he actually becomes Batman or decides to create his own persona.  

This is why it would have made more sense to have Blake's real name be Terry McGinnis.    Terry actually took over the role of Batman(granted it was tv series and not the comics),  Dick Grayson and Tim Drake did not.   Well ok, Dick did become Batman for a little bit, but it was only after years of being Robin and then years after being Nightwing(and I think Dick is back to being Nightwing now). 

Also Terry McGinnis would have been much more of an Easter Egg, as his name is less well known.    Everyone knows about Robin, but only those that know about Batman Beyond know about Terry.   It would have been more obscure, in other words: hidden(which is what an Easter Egg is supposed to be.

Gaffer Tape said:

Wait... what?  So he doesn't become Robin... but he was Robin the whole time?  But he becomes Batman?

Can't you see how counter-intuitive that is?  The movie is setting him up to be Batman but attaching the name of Robin to him.  So, yes, you and I are apparently in agreement that he was very obviously set up to become Batman.  CP3S didn't get that, though.  Calling him Robin threw him for a loop (and rightfully so) because bringing up that name pulled him in a different direction simply by word association.  And right above you, Warbler is saying that he could have become Nightwing or Red Robin.  Would you have thought that, Warbler, that it's likely he would take on Robin-related aliases had he not been given the name Robin as a reference to the Robin character?  (Granted, if he became Robin or Red Robin when his name is Robin, he must be an idiot, but that's beside the point)  The point is is that if you don't get the reference, it pulls you out of the film, something a good in-joke shouldn't do.  And if you do get it, it pulls you in a different direction than the film intends you to.

That he was Robin the whole time is a joke. His name is Robin, therefore throughout the movie he was Robin. Get it? It's just a joke.

I understand what your saying and I agree that it was a mistake. When I first saw it I thought it was a joke, but I do understand how people could be confused.

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

What they DO show, is that Bruce Wayne has made it very clear that it doesn't matter who's behind the mask. They also show that Gordon was given a new BATSIGNAL. And that Blake was given the BATCAVE, and when he goes in, BATS swirl around him just like they did to Bruce in Batman Begins. If you paid attention, it is very, very obvious that he becomes Batman.

except they never should him putting on the Bat suit.  So for all we know, he becomes Nightwing or maybe Red Robin or something else.  

Yes, for all we know he could of, but the clear implication here is that he becomes Batman. 

no, the clear implication is that he takes over Bruce's role in fighting crime in Gotham.   We have no idea if he actually becomes Batman or decides to create his own persona.  

Well the implication that he becomes Batman is there.

you sure?   I actually walked out of the theater confused as to what persona he was going to take on.   I knew he was going to wear a costume and go out and fight crime, but was it going to be the same one Bruce wore or a creation all his own?   With the fact that the character's real name was Robin, I thought maybe he was going to become Nightwing.  Again this is what I actually thought as I was leaving the theater. 

Gaffer Tape said:

Damnit!  Why did you take the part I was responding to out of your post and rewrite it below mine?  That makes no sense!  All that said, though...

Oops, that part was originally an edit, and while I was still editing it, you posted your response, so I figured you didn't read that part and that I might as well cut it out of the post and make it into a new one.

DominicCobb said:

(sorry in advance for my attitude)

Yeah, your attitude fucking sucks. Get a grip.

I highly doubt this conversation can continue in any sort of a civilized capacity, so it is with a good deal of hesitation that I write the following. However, I am really enjoying hearing what Gaff and Warb have to say about things that I am just going to take my chances and do it anyway. 

Apparently, I do not know how to watch movies, so my opinion shouldn't count anyway... I haven't seen The Dark Knight since I first saw it in theaters. I've never felt it was worthy of a second go. So I don't remember a bunch of stuff about Bruce not wanting to be Batman, and it has been well over a year or more since I have seen Begins, and much, much longer than that since I watched it and actually paid attention to it.

I guess at the beginning of TDKR, Bruce is no longer Batman, so I suppose that gives an indication that he doesn't exactly want to be Batman. I felt like that was cleanly explained by the fact that Gotham had been a pretty peaceful city since the last film and no longer needed a Dark Knight. I am used to the Batman character being very obsessive and attached to his vigilante persona. This was even shown in the film when we see a broken and determined Bruce giving everything he has to get back to Gotham and save it. I've always felt the Batman character was one that would fight until his last breath, even when he is old and broken (we see this in The Dark Knight Returns, and in the cartoon series). It is hard for me to buy into a Batman who would hand over the cowl and retire at a relatively young age. It just isn't very true to his character. You're right, the movies are to be taken on their own without any outside knowledge of Batman influencing them, but it is something I have always felt is a deeply intertwined part of his character.

The playboy Bruce Wayne is suppose to be a disguise for Batman. To think of Batman giving up being Batman to retire and become the playboy sipping drinks in Europe is a less than satisfying turn for the character. You guys have convinced me this was clearly the intention, as opposed to Batman planning an eventual comeback with a few crime fighting buddies at his side, but I must say it definitely brings down the entire series several notches in my eyes.

CP3S said:

DominicCobb said:

(sorry in advance for my attitude)

Yeah, your attitude fucking sucks. Get a grip.

 

(I hope this is a joke)