Dark Knight Rises - Now that we know the cast — Page 23

Gaffer Tape said:

See, this is part of the problem I was talking about.  The name Robin has connotations to people who know the Batman mythos.  They know the relation that the character Robin has to the character Batman, so attaching that name to a character instantly creates a connotation.  And if you're attempting to make a character into a new Batman, then attaching the name Robin to him, in any context, muddies that.  In fact, it's probably the worst thing you could do, short of revealing that his real name is Oswald Cobblepot.

But still, I thought it was quite obvious that he was supposed to be the new Batman, not only with the quite transparent visual references when he reaches the Batcave, but also his obsession and idolatry of Batman throughout as well as the ever-present theme of Batman being a symbol that can exist without Bruce Wayne.  If Blake becomes anything other than Batman, then that point is left unresolved.  So I thought that was told quite well, barring the unnecessary bit of fan-service that threatened to destabilize that message.

EDIT:  Oh, I almost forgot one more opinion.  See, I like that they didn't name him Terry McGinnis or anything else like that because it seemed they were going for subtlety in regards to his role.  Yes, I had a feeling he was in there to be a Batman successor before I even saw the movie, but with an innocuous name like John Blake, I couldn't be sure.  And I liked that.  The movie throughout gave just enough clues that he COULD be something like that, but he didn't necessarily have to be.  You name him Dick Grayson, Tim Drake, or Terry McGinnis, and you're kinda locked into that, and so is the audience.  That could be another reason I find naming him Robin such a mistake, because in a way it kinda undoes that concept, even though it was thankfully not there until the end.

I pretty much agree with everything you say here. To end my argument for good now, I would like to say a few things. I firmly believe my interpretation of the Robin name drop is exactly what Nolan was trying to do with it. Having said that, even after I came out of the theater the first time, I knew the joke was a mistake. It is easy to get confused by it. The argument I'm trying to make is, even if you were confused by it, it's clear that it wasn't meant to confuse you in that way, and, bottom line is, this is not a legitimate criticism of the film. If it negatively affected your enjoyment of the film, that is your fault, and I feel sorry for you.

No, it really wasn't. It is just a discussion about a damn movie. Calm the fuck down and play nice.

That is kind of like saying that Ang Lee's Incredible Hulk film sucking isn't a legitimate complaint about the film, and that you feel sorry for them if it ruined the enjoyment of the film for them.

By those standards, there is no such thing as a legitimate complaint, ever, and everything is awesome.

I doubt Warbler and I are the only ones who were thrown off by the films silly little in your face "easter egg", it clearly muddled things. Perhaps only for a very stupid portion of the population who have never clearly been able to get a grasp on the proper way of movie watching, but it is still a large enough number for that joke to have been a legitimately godawful, absolutely stupid idea of a joke. I fail to see how that makes it an illegitimate complaint. 

Gaffer Tape said:

EDIT:  Oh, I almost forgot one more opinion.  See, I like that they didn't name him Terry McGinnis or anything else like that because it seemed they were going for subtlety in regards to his role.  Yes, I had a feeling he was in there to be a Batman successor before I even saw the movie, but with an innocuous name like John Blake, I couldn't be sure.  And I liked that.  The movie throughout gave just enough clues that he COULD be something like that, but he didn't necessarily have to be.  You name him Dick Grayson, Tim Drake, or Terry McGinnis, and you're kinda locked into that, and so is the audience.  That could be another reason I find naming him Robin such a mistake, because in a way it kinda undoes that concept, even though it was thankfully not there until the end.

I think you misunderstood me.   I was not saying he should have been called Terry McGinnis for the whole movie.   What I mean was that instead of it turning out that John Blake's real name was Robin,  have it turn out that John Blake's real name was Terry McGinnis.   

DominicCobb said:Having said that, even after I came out of the theater the first time, I knew the joke was a mistake. It is easy to get confused by it. The argument I'm trying to make is, even if you were confused by it, it's clear that it wasn't meant to confuse you in that way, and, bottom line is, this is not a legitimate criticism of the film. If it negatively affected your enjoyment of the film, that is your fault, and I feel sorry for you.

huh?

CP3S said:

No, it really wasn't. It is just a discussion about a damn movie. Calm the fuck down and play nice.

(I hope this is a joke)

No, it really wasn't. You seem to be having a hard time getting that...

CP3S said:

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.

I agree, even though it is clear in The Dark Knight that Wayne does want to retire from being Batman at some point.

Here is why the idea of Bruce Wayne retiring as Batman bothers me:

read the oath that he takes.   It says "spending the rest of my life . . .".    I just somehow it think it is wrong when a movie depicts Bruce as not following that oath.  

Gaffer Tape said:

I agree with you up to a point. It's not a movie-breaker.  It's a relatively minor point, one that just happens to attach itself to a major point.  However, the point to which I disagree with you comes at the end.  "I knew the joke was a mistake.  It is easy to get confused by it," but, "this is not a legitimate criticism of the film.  If it negatively affected your enjoyment of the film, that is your fault."  So it's a mistake, it's confusing, but if it bothers someone, it's their own fault?  That's something I can't get behind.

Okay I'm sorry if my wording wasn't clear. I thought it was a mistake because it might confuse people. But it's not a real criticism because it's not a real problem. Those who think it was a problem are the ones that were confused by it. Because what it really was was a simple joke. Criticizing a film for a simple joke is not really legitimate.

What I'm trying to say is yes it's partly the film's fault for confusing them. I think it was wrong for me to say that it's entirely their own fault. But, if they were to look closely, they would see the Robin thing is no more than a joke, something that shouldn't affect their view of the film.

I'm not trying to crazily apologize for the film's mistakes here. I'm just trying to explain how little things like the Robin joke are nothing to get worked up about. If you don't want to listen to me, fine. I don't care. Your loss. I'm just trying to help people enjoy this fantastic film.

Warbler said:

CP3S said:

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.

I agree, even though it is clear in The Dark Knight that Wayne does want to retire from being Batman at some point.

 

Here is why the idea of Bruce Wayne retiring as Batman bothers me:

read the oath that he takes.   It says "speeding the rest of my life . . .".    I just somehow it think it is wrong when a movie depicts Bruce as not following that oath.  

Take it up with Batman Begins. In it he explicitly states Batman is temporary. If you don't like films betraying the source material, okay. I personally don't think you can criticize a movie on those grounds. The thing is, TDKR was completely faithful to the Bruce Wayne that was created for these films. And that is why there is nothing wrong with this film's ending.

CP3S said:

No, it really wasn't. You seem to be having a hard time getting that...

Well I was hoping it was because you're being really hypocritical. Your attitude is way out of line. 

DominicCobb said:

CP3S said:

No, it really wasn't. You seem to be having a hard time getting that...

Well I was hoping it was because you're being really hypocritical. Your attitude is way out of line. 

How do I have a bad attitude? Because I told you to get over yours? Or because I am expressing criticism you deem illegitimate?

CP3S said:

DominicCobb said:

CP3S said:

No, it really wasn't. You seem to be having a hard time getting that...

Well I was hoping it was because you're being really hypocritical. Your attitude is way out of line. 

How do I have a bad attitude? Because I told you to get over yours? Or because I am expressing criticism you deem illegitimate?

 

Well there it is again. You can't just tell someone their "attitude fucking sucks. Get a grip," and not realize that you yourself have an attitude. And you can't say "it's just a damn movie" and then go on long rants about it and not think that's hypocritical.

And as for my attitude, it was one that was in a flurry of writing. I apologized for it. I didn't want anyone to think that I had personally offended them. I had hoped the apology would let you know that I was sorry for it, and that I had gotten over it. That's why I hoped you were joking. My apology was to show my attitude was in jest. I had hoped yours was too.

Anyways I still hope you're messing with me, because it seems like you're just not listening to anything that I have to say. I never said your comlaint was illegitimate, on the contrary, I think it's a perfectly legitimate complaint. I just don't think you can say one little joke is a legitimate problem in a 165 minute film.

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

CP3S said:

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.

I agree, even though it is clear in The Dark Knight that Wayne does want to retire from being Batman at some point.

 

Here is why the idea of Bruce Wayne retiring as Batman bothers me:

read the oath that he takes.   It says "speeding the rest of my life . . .".    I just somehow it think it is wrong when a movie depicts Bruce as not following that oath.  

Take it up with Batman Begins. In it he explicitly states Batman is temporary.

I agree.   It is a problem with Batman Begins.  It is just that it is in TDKR that he actually gives up being Batman. 

DominicCobb said:

If you don't like films betraying the source material, okay. I personally don't think you can criticize a movie on those grounds.

why? 

DominicCobb said:

The thing is, TDKR was completely faithful to the Bruce Wayne that was created for these films. And that is why there is nothing wrong with this film's ending.

yes, I agree TDKR was faithful to the Bruce Wayne in this film trilogy.   But the Bruce Wayne in this film trilogy was not faithful to the Bruce Wayne of the comics which is THE Bruce Wayne and that is wrong.    I could put up with it when Wayne was just saying that Batman was temporary and was saying he would retire when Gotham got better.  But when he actually did retire, and to go away with Catwoman no less,  that crossed the line for me.     

DominicCobb said:

CP3S said:

DominicCobb said:

CP3S said:

No, it really wasn't. You seem to be having a hard time getting that...

Well I was hoping it was because you're being really hypocritical. Your attitude is way out of line. 

How do I have a bad attitude? Because I told you to get over yours? Or because I am expressing criticism you deem illegitimate?

 

Well there it is again. You can't just tell someone their "attitude fucking sucks. Get a grip," and not realize that you yourself have an attitude. And you can't say "it's just a damn movie" and then go on long rants about it and not think that's hypocritical.

You can't do something and apologize for it in the same action and have it be a legit apology.

Just because it is "just a damn movie", doesn't mean discussing it makes me hypocritical. I wasn't the one freaking out that other people interpreted things differently than me. I have plenty of respect for your views, and don't feel the fact that I interpreted things differently than you means you don't know how to watch movies. Nor does it make me want to post in all caps, or even get my blood pressure up in the slightest.

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

If you don't like films betraying the source material, okay. I personally don't think you can criticize a movie on those grounds.

why? 

Agree to disagree I guess. Whenever I watch a film I make sure to judge it solely on its own quality. For me, I like to give each film its fair chance. It's adherence to source material doesn't factor into my view of it.

The animated series is the Batman I am the most familiar with, though I have dabbled in the comics quite a bit.

I think the animated series Batman is a great example of what Warbler and I are talking about. It does portray Bruce taking an active interest in the on goings of his company, but I have always seen that as a means to achieve his agenda as Batman. Wayne Enterprises provides Batman with wealth, influence, and resources out of the range of a normal man. His wealth and affluence are, in effect, Batman's superpowers. His social status plays a large role in his detective work at times, as does the far reaches of his company's influence, and the technology he develops through it. That was actually another thing I didn't care for about TDKR, not only does he give up on Batman and become a recluse, he let's his fortunes fall to ruin and his company sink.

I don't think you could argue that the animated series Bruce Wayne was depicted as someone who could ever retire from being Batman and be content with it. I've actually never watched Batman Beyond, other than The Return of the Joker movie and the first few episodes. Just didn't interest me that much, but I did love how the first episode depicts a much older Bruce Wayne still fighting crime, being over powered by a thug and resorting to grabbing for a gun. After the confrontation he looks down at the gun in disgust and declares "Never again!" Only resolving to give up on Batman when he realizes he can no longer fight without resorting to the use of a firearm. But then proceeds to put a lot of effort into finding and training a protege to do what he'd still be doing, if only his failing body permitted it.

bkev said:

Warb, what do you think of the Animated Series then where Bruce is shown to take an active interest in business - and be competent at it to boot? Sounds to me that would be unfaithful by your definition. Only curious is all.

was he depicted in the comics as being incompetent in his business and not giving a damn about the business the funds all his Batman stuff(not to mention that Wayne foundation is supposed to be a a charitable organization and it is hard to do that without funds)? 

I don't remember in the comics, the Wayne foundation ever going bankrupt.  

bkev said:

^For the record, Beyond as a series i just okay. I hope you enjoyed ROTJ, though (GET IT? GET IT?!?)

I don't get it.   : ( 

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

If you don't like films betraying the source material, okay. I personally don't think you can criticize a movie on those grounds.

why? 

Agree to disagree I guess. Whenever I watch a film I make sure to judge it solely on its own quality. For me, I like to give each film its fair chance. It's adherence to source material doesn't factor into my view of it.

So if I am watching a movie based on a book, it is invalid of me to criticize when it differs from the Book?