Many of your points are valid. I don't know that I'll have a response for everything, and I do not presume that all my responses will sufficiently rebut your critiques, nor that the story conveyed the point well enough on screen. However, some of it may stick, and you may enjoy the film better in future viewings.
xhonzi said:
I didn’t hate this movie, but I certainly am having a hard time saying I liked it.
It’s a lot like Prometheus where anything good is pulled down by all of the bad... but in this case I don’t think the good is as good.
A lot of it came down to the accumulation of little things which all added up to a big negative:
1. The plane hijacking was cool. But the CIA guy was really dumb and incompetent to be taken in that way. Also, whoever investigated the crash... The wings and tail were pulled off but the plane didn’t crash for another couple of miles? And a guy (still in a body bag? I don’t remember) whose bloodtype (some of it, anyways) matches a wanted physicis must be the physicist in a plane crash that doesn’t look accidental and probably wasnt’? And no one looks into this?
Wings problem occurred to me immediately as well. My rationale: the larger plane is moving slowly and the crashed plane dropped straight to the ground. If the wings were really torn off the plane, then it would hurl a short distance like a missile before crashing. Not adequate, but it was not a distracting enough point for me. Re: the body bag guy...they probably did an actual genetic test (not blood type test) on his blood, but his body was mangled enough that it was not recognizable. A serious investigation would likely recognize that other DNA (i.e. skin) did not match and the problems with the crash altogether, but this did not bother me as far as the movie went.
2. How cowardly/stupid the physicist must have been to willingly go along with the plot, knowing that they would kill him. If he was trying to preserve his own life, he only deferred his execution. Way to go bud, not only do you die but your actions ensure that you take 8 million of your closest friends with you.
Definitely a stupid physicist, but this is not unrealistic. Many people do stupid things and risk countless other lives to save their own.
3. Let’s talk about the reactor/bomb some more. So, without the core, it will become unstable to the point that it will explode. I’m not a nuclear physicist (but I did stay in a Holiday express last night) but wouldn’t an instability make it more and more likely everyday that it will go off, but with no degree of certainty when that will be? Isn’t that the definition of instability? Is it like a non-licensed electrician putting some faulty wiring in my house that will, without a doubt, someday, given enough time, burn my house down... and then putting a digital countdown timer to the exact second that it will light up? I think a 5 month calculation is fine, but I think you would have a margin of error of no less than a month. Certainly not down to the second. And when you’re getting close to that margin, I think driving it around on a truck would probably be the last thing you’d want to do with it. Strike that... the last thing you’d want to do is detonate an explosive right next to said truck, causing it to violently vere into the railing and drop 30 feet to the street below... with the police commissioner in the trunk with it.
Agreed. I felt this way watching the film, though I still suspended disbelief for this one.
4. Did Talia still have the clicker? Did Batman tape the jammer to the bomb when he flew off with it? I hope against the former, but in its event I hope in favor of the latter.
I believe Gordon attached the jammer, and I think Talia died before the bomb went off anyway, didn't she?
5. What is Talia’s motivation exactly? She is trying to fulfill her father’s mission or not? Is Gotham still the festering cesspool that concerned the league of shadows? Didn’t Batman/Dent/Gordon clean it up almost completely? Did Talia want revenge on her father’s killer? She said that was just a bonus. Was she concerned about the organized crime and corrupt cops? Or capitalism run wild?
Same argument I presented against Ra's himself. They were convinced Gotham was corrupt, so they corrupted it as much as possible to justify their actions. Talia also simply had a desire to finish what Daddy started. But also, I suspect they felt the rich were corrupt for remaining rich...the OWS argument.
6. I thought Bane was really interesting and scary until Talia appeared holding his leash. This turned him into a petty thug in my mind.
Agreed, this made him weaker, almost like the Poison Ivy/Bane relationship. I wish that more Talia had been revealed, and that Bane maintained more of a mutual partnership than a subservient loyalty. But it didn't destroy it for me.
7. How did the Daggett/Bane/Talia thing work anyways. Before the ending, I thought Daggett hired Bane because he was a skilled mercenary, didn’t realize he bit off more than he could chew... and actually thought that Bane would just disappear once the job was done. However Bane saw an opportunity and didn’t want to let it go, so he took advantage of it. Once we learn that Bane and Talia have been working together all along... where does Daggett come in? Did Talia manipulate Daggett to do what he did? How did she put Bane in contact with Daggett? Outwardly Talia and Daggett appear to be bitter rivals. Was this simply a show?
I admit, on one viewing, I was confused by this whole interwoven relationship. But in the end, I think I'd answer your last question: yes.
8. If Talia/Bane knew the bomb was going to go off, and this was allegedly what they wanted all along, why give Batman, the cops the chance to stop it? Just click the Button as soon as Batman shows up/the cops riot and make sure your 5 month siege ends with an earth-shattering-kaboom even if it is 10 hours premature.
Agreed. But that's Hollywood for ya. It's not like this is the first time this plot hole emerges in a film. In fact, when has it ever been otherwise?
9. Batman hid “The Bat” on top of a skyscraper with a camo net for six months?
Yeah. Don't know what to say there. Only possible explanation: he owned the building and no one messed with it, but without explaining that on film, that's not clear. I was surprised and simply expected him to head out of town to Wayne Manor and pick it up really quickly.
10. How did the occupation work, exactly? Did people still go to work? I don’t think there are any farms in Gotham, so food supplies on the island would be gone within 2-3 days. I saw trucks taking GD Twinkies and pop-tarts to a convenience store... how could a couple hundred thugs manage the herculean effort of feeding 8 million Gothamites everyday. I didn’t see a lot of people in the streets... how were people getting food? How could a single organization provide for that many shut ins? This is something that takes a million people to do, each pursuing their own employment, all day everyday to do, and that’s when people come into their shops with money and trucks bring whatever the people want to buy?
Like I said, I believe a system was worked out with the outside world. Your point is valid, that feeding that many people would be really difficult. Foodinsurance.com maybe? ;)
11. John Blake figured Bruce was Batman because he was faking being happy? I think that’s a bridge too far. I think you could fix this with. Blake: All of the orphans idolized you. The Billionaire orphan! We’d come up with elaborate fantasies about you. And what could be better than a billionaire orphan playboy, than a billionaire orphan playboy who was also the Batman? It was ridiculous to be sure, but then it started to make sense. Bruce Wayne came to Gotham the same time Batman did. Batman went into hiding the same time Bruce Wayne became a recluse. Of course, I wasn’t totally sure, until you let me in today.
I agreed and didn't like this explanation. Yours is much better.
12. “Did you come back to die with your city?” “No! I came back... to stop... you!” Really?
Agreed completely. I laughed to myself as I tried to anticipate some iconic line and then...wut?
13. I know Batman hates guns. But how many innocent lives is he willing to spend to keep this ideal? He fights Bane mano-e-mano and almost loses (twice!) when a well placed bullet to the head could have ended things pretty quickly. 8 million lives are on the line, but Batman still refuses to use a gun. [JohnAdams]Incredible.[/JohnAdams] Henry Jones, Jr. could have ended that fight a lot sooner and wouldn’t have put so many innocent lives on the line.
Agreed in the real world. It is a movie, though, and he's an overly-principled character. I don't imagine they'd depart that much from his comic book origins. But think about the projectiles he launches from his Batmobile, Batpod, and Bat. All of them have guns of some sort. I guess he's just against handguns. As humorous as it is, it doesn't bother me because it's an integral part of an 80 year-old character.
14. Blake, a trained cop, uses his gun once, looks at it in disgust and then throws it away? I know killing a perp can be very difficult for the most seasoned officers to cope with... but this seemed like a cheap moment to try to make Blake seem like the perfect Batman replacement.
Yeah, probably. Didn't bug me too much considering that was obviously what they were going for.
15. I have to agree with Warb- Batman seems to trust Selina much more than he should/would. She was directly responsible, several times over, for what was going on. Once she and Batman established some kind of working relationship, she betrayed him and caused the people of Gotham to suffer for 5 months. If she had a change of heart, she should have had to work much harder to earn Batman's trust back. She should have been trying to convince him... not he her.
Agreed. But he is apparently a brilliant psychologist and perceived her good. In the end, even if she did turn out to be good, I don't think he should have ended up with her. She's still a treacherous feline fatale and I'd only trust her as a temporary business partner in defeating a common enemy. But again, that relationship is a pretty integral part of the comic book Batman/Catwoman relationship. She's been a traitor for however long her character has existed. I don't think it could be easily changed for this film.
16. Bruce is still broken up about Rachel 8 years later? Truth be told, I think Harvey in TDK acts a little too over the top at her passing. Maybe my wife of 10 years, but not a girl I had been dating long enough to be quasi-engaged. Rachel must be some girl that both Harvey and Bruce can't live without her.
I think Cobb answered this one very well...Rachel was more than just a woman to him; she was sanity, she was the life after Batman, and he knew her since childhood.
17. But then he sleeps with Talia.
No argument there. If they'd developed this further, it'd be more believable as he tried to finally let Rachel go, but instead it comes off as a high school rebound when he finds out about the letter. Besides, I imagine most know about my distaste for sex outside of marriage in films anyway. They could have simply shown Talia and Bruce kissing in the room with the sheets covering all the furniture, then let people draw their own conclusions. I suspect this was to make her treachery more painful for the viewer, but that didn't work for me. We needed to see a relationship more than [JohnAdams]sexual combustability[/JohnAdams].
18. Why did Bane totally wreck Batman when they first fight, but Batman can easily take him on after a couple months of recovering from a broken back? Was he in better fighting shape after being in the jail.
It didn't seem easy to me. He just decided to focus on breaking the mask with the anesthetic, as he'd learned its function in the prison. Plus, he had some serious righteous anger fueling him.
19. Two minutes until a nuke goes off in downtown Gotham, but Batman stops to makeout with Catwoman, and then give a cryptic hint to Gordon about his real identity (does he think he's the Riddler?). Really? Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb!
I laughed at that too. Again, not like it's the first time a Hollywood film did this. But remember, "It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me." Not Bruce's first cryptic reminder during a time when he needs to get his butt moving. It's typical of films, I'm afraid.
20. Gordon says "Bruce wayne?!?" to make sure that no one in the audience is thinking, "What is that Bat-Man talking about?!?" after the clue and the flashback. Maybe test audiences still didn't know Bruce's secret identity until they added this clever bit of exposition in.
Rachel Dawes said:
Bruce?
Who cares? I don't think the audience needed help with that. I think they wanted a confirmation that Gordon figured out Riddler's Batman's clue.
21. Not that Bruce seemed very concerned about hiding his secret identity in this movie. Again, Bruce and Batman return to the scene on the same day. He shaves the beard and loses the cane (wouldn't these have been good disguises) and expects no one (except John Blake, whose expertly honed orphan skills can't be fooled!) to figure out he's Batman?
Just like the first time he does so in Begins. Again, a typical movie problem that doesn't bother me.
22. Wayne Manor was rebuilt and already looked 100 years old and somehow they got the exact same Bed? Hmm... smells more like they just returned to location.
He rebuilt it, brick for brick. Didn't you know they have a Ye Olde Bricks and Mortar Co.? No, I agree with you. I didn't care, but I had the same thought.
23. I agree with Gaffer that the OWS/99% thing was laid on too thick. Dude, I got it.
I believe it was pointed out that the script written a movie filmed prior to OWS. However, I don't think they're painting the OWS-ites as the good guys necessarily. It seems to me that they are shown to be like the French revolutionaries, and Batman is the Scarlet Pimpernel rescuing the aristocrats. I did not feel that Christopher Nolan (enjoying his millions, I'm sure) was painting the rich as evil, but merely as the target of an unhappy populace.
24. For the first time, the Batman growl-voice annoyed me. Perhaps everything else above had suspended my suspension of disbelief... Perhaps I have heard too many spoofs of the voice... that Bale's voice sounded a lot like in this movie.
No argument there, though actually I found it more tolerable in this film than TDK. FYI, not a rebuttal, but his voice was altered in post-production.
25. Batman's first night back in Gotham- he has about 20 hours to stop the bomb from killing everyone- and he spends the entire night rigging skyscraper windows and the bridge supports to burn a Bat signal when he pushes a button? Was that really the best use of his time? How many people (besides Bane) even saw them? I heard the Bale voice spoof growling- "Look! I... spent all night... rigging those fires... because fires are cool... bats are cool... bats on fire are super cool... except that they're hot... because they're on... fire."
ALLOL. That's very funny, I'll be honest. But I imagine he spent time getting his plans together. But this was also a moment to inspire hope in those he would need as allies, while placing some dread into the hearts of his enemies.
26. I thought the ending was a total cheat. I am so sick of fake deaths in films, and superhero films are some of the worst. I thought Nolan might have been above it. Guess not.
Again, I agree. Wholeheartedly in fact. If they had to do anything, I would have cut all allusions to his surviving except the fixed up autopilot and Alfred looking at the camera and nodding. Even then, how did he get the bomb far away enough from Gotham, then get himself far away enough from the bomb, all without being noticed? Did he have a jet powered Bat-glider? Did he get off before it got very far, just as it passed behind a building?
27. Why was this even a Batman movie? He's hardly in it. It's more about Bane and John Blake. Why not just make that movie. It's almost like Nolan made a Batman movie under duress. He was contractually obligated to put Batman in at least 15% of the movie, so he did... but that didn't stop him from making 3 or 4 other characters be more interesting and have more screen time.
We're talking about TDKR, not TDK. Oh, wait, you meant TDKR. I feel it was a focus on Bruce, not Batman. I felt that the only time we were taken too far from him was while he was in prison.
28. WaitforthetwisthereitcomesJohnBlake'sfullnameiswaitforitwaitforitwaitforROBINJohnBlake
holycarpyoudidn'tseethatonecomingisn'tthatawesomewetotallyfooledyouandwe'reawesome
becausehisfirstnameisfrinkinROBINhowawesomeisthatitissoawesomeIbetyoycan'tbelievehowawesomeitis
Oh yeah, well...okay, I got nothing on this one. Should have called him Richard or Dick or Tim or Jason or Terry or even...Jean-Paul! That would have been interesting, and would have made sense if a certain John Blake were trying to alter his name to fit in better. But it did make me think that a Nightwing spinoff might be interesting, as it could easily tie in or be left out of people's Batman canon if they desired.
And this is probably the final kicker for me: Bruce was Batman for how long before the end of TDK? 2 years? Can it be that long? Could it be as short as a couple of months? And then he goes into 8 years of retirement. He reappears for a couple of nights and then disappears for 5 months... and is back for one more day before he's "dead" again. There’s no room for any more Batman stories. No other villains. Nothing. I understand that Nolan and company wanted to tell the end of the Batman story
Of course there was plenty of room, but I think Nolan's justification for not leaving this one open for a sequel was quite reasonable...better to end on a high note than to have a final, franchise-crushing failure like Spider-man 3. I think the greatest error in the three films that led to your complaint was the timeframe between the first and second film (6 months later), which left little room for imagined in-between stuff (or that horrible Gotham Knight interquel, if you accept that). Fix that 6 month gap, make it like 3 years, and it'd be better pacing for the whole arc.
I forgot to mention another Batman Begins critique I meant to include in my earlier list. Consider this a replacement for the errant point about the toxin: how could a man, clinging to a snowy cliff by nothing more than his sweet gauntlets, manage to curl a 200+ lb, 6'4" man in armor in order to save him? Even with all his training, I find it hard to believe anyone could be that strong.
And as a final note, for those offended by my comment on armchair critics, forget not that I said I'd like to do my own review of all three films, which means I'm an armchair critic too. I'm just saying that we expose ourselves to too much film analysis here, either by the pure hatred most have of the prequels and SEs, or by fanediting ourselves which leads us to be "oversaturated" (my reason for choosing that word) with too much knowledge about every insignificant part of the films we touch. Fortunately I suck and fanediting and I don't hate the prequels, so I'm above all of you in that regard. ;)
