Gaffer Tape

Damnit.  CP3S ninja'd my edit.  But, yeah, I call foul on the use of the term "Easter Egg" too if you look above his post.

See, I think it would have been a fun little Easter Egg had it been implemented a little more subtly, rather than just throwing it up there like that.  It's so in your face it feels distracting.

As for my other complaint, that's really less of the movie than it is towards the fans.  Everywhere I've read, including here, seem to treat him as a Robin, simply due to his name.  If you go to the Wikipedia page on "Robin," John Blake is listed as a Robin.  Which, as you just said, makes no sense.  So, because of this stupid little Easter Egg, everyone suddenly believes he's Robin, which overshadows his actual purpose of becoming Batman.  And since the whole theme of the movie, or, hell, the trilogy, is that Batman is a symbol that can be carried on, that's no small point to miss.  So I just think Nolan shot himself in the foot by putting in this over the top, pointlessly silly Easter Egg.

EDIT:  Come to think of it, though, calling it an Easter Egg is really a misnomer.  An Easter Egg is called that because it's hidden.  Not everyone is going to see it.  It takes attention to detail or an especially honed knowledge of the fictional world to even pick up on it.  When you take something as well-known as the name Robin and stop your film just so a character can say it, that's not an Easter Egg.  You might as well be winking at the camera at that point.

I pretty much agree with all of that.  Granted, I did have some trouble understanding Bane, but when I didn't, I loved his voice, and I agree that it's rather soothing.  The distortion made it even moreso.

The Robin thing is groan-inducing.  I'm a bit of the opposite mind, though, in that I don't think he needed to be named Robin because he never was "Robin."  Like you said, none of the Robins were NAMED Robin.  That would be as if we had a character named Batman Wayne who decided to become a masked hero named Batman. =P 

And, like I've said before, he seemed much more set-up to become a new Batman, so calling him Robin just seemed not only way over the top but inaccurate and misleading.  THAT would be like if the Joker card at the end of Begins were to set up Mr. Freeze in The Dark Knight.  I mean, I get it that he serves in a protege-like role for most of the movie, but even that's not in a direct way, since they barely have any screentime together, and their plots are rather separate.  I just felt it needed more subtlety, and that what was there was already enough.  His name was John Blake, which to me seems very similar to Tim Drake, and like Tim Drake, he deduced Batman's identity on his own (although Tim was actually given a legitimate reason, while John just... did, somehow).

Yeah, I wouldn't want several of this guy in charge of my Olympic coverage either.

Some things are timeless.

Red. Lamp. On. Table. Ate. Cat. At. Midnight. Squeaky.

Yes!  After over a year, Victoria's Secret finally let me record the telephone greeting.  So now dozens, if not hundreds, of people will get to hear my sexy voice coerce them into buying our new bra!

TV's Frink said:

 

Gaffer Tape said:

Hmm.  The 22nd from the left.

???

 

As kev asked, I was guessing which one was his.

Hmm.  The 22nd from the left.

5. Why was Batman unaffected by the toxin when he turned it on Crane?  He was right next to him.

Because he'd already been inoculated. It's the same reason why he, Rachel, and Gordon were unaffected when the fighting in the Narrows occurred.

Honestly, ender, I think your list is much nit-pickier than a lot of the problems people have been talking about with this movie.  Not to mention that, and I can't speak for everyone, but most of the my own problems didn't seriously affect my enjoyment.  Some were more damning than others.  Others were just slightly silly.

I do find it odd, though, that in that whole big list of yours, you didn't mention the one glaring problem I had with BB:  the whole first scene where Bruce declares his intentions not to kill.  He tells the League of Shadows to stuff it.  He will not kill people.  Then he blows the whole place up, most likely killing everybody except for Ducard.  That prisoner didn't seem in any shape to escape the blast.  I mean, he was tied up, so he probably died anyway.  So instead of killing one man because it's morally wrong, he ends up killing everybody except one man, and it's not even the man he was trying to stop from killing!

In your scene where you're trying to express the thematic importance of not killing people, it really hurts to punctuate that point with a big explosion showing bodies flailing through the air.  At least with the Batmobile and train sequences, while it's implausible no one was killed, it's not impossible.  In this sequence, it's like they went out of their way to show as many people die as possible.

zombie84 said:

Just saw TDKR again. Noticed a lot of humour that I didn't walk away with the first time, because of the general brutality of the film.

Bruce goes to doctor.

Doctor: I haven't seen worse cartiledge in your knees.

Bruce: That's good!

Doctor: No. That's because there is NO cartiledge left in your knees.

Classic Batman joke.

Yeah, I thought that was hilarious too.  And at the very last second, I realized that the doctor was Thomas Lennon (Dangle from Reno 911) doing a cameo.  Made it more hilarious. =P

Ah.  Well, then.  Hehe, I guess it would take quite a bit then.  I'm sure you've probably explained why before, but, if not, I am curious to know why you hate this series so much.

Not all those hospitalized were kids. If I were in that hospital I would MUCH rather see normal old Christian Bale. If he dressed up like Batman it would kind of trivialize it and might seem kind of degrading.

Now, see, that's an argument I find much more valid and makes much more sense.

Just out of genuine curiosity, what would it take to make you excited about this film?

Granted, after I wrote this, I checked facebook and saw pictures and links to articles that state that Christian Bale has indeed visited victims in Aurora.  Not in costume, which I guess isn't terribly surprising.  But good for him!  And I doubt anyone visited has been traumatized by it.

Bingowings said:

American Judges are almost as funny as ours.

Honestly, I don't see what the fuss is about.  If I was a kid, and I was in the hospital, fuck yeah, I'd want Batman to visit me!  As for the point about Bale's Batman looking scary, um... these are the same children who were in a theatre to see a movie starring him.  I think they would know what to expect.  There's being concerned for the well-being and sensitivities of victims, and then there's just being an oversensitive worry wart.  All I can say is that if I was a kid wounded in that attack, and I'd heard that it might cause me to get to meet the actor who plays Batman in costume in person, I'd be thinking, "Okay, here's one bright spot in all this."  But then if I found out that that chance was snatched out from under me by a bunch of meddling nannies, I'd be super pissed.

bkev said:

I'm disappointed Anchorhead thinks this is a movie that can wait til the home release, I usually really enjoy hearing his perspective on movies.

I saw it, and might have rebuttals for both Gaff and Warb at one point. I mostly agreed with Gaff, but I was a little less critical than he was.

I can't wait to hear your thoughts, kev.  I can't wring enough discussion out of this film!

Warbler said:

I'll have to go back and watch that scene. 

Yeah, I actually find Alfred's thing entirely plausible here, based mostly on Begins.  There was the scene Tobar mentioned as well as that exchange about, "When you came back and told me about this, the only thing that kept me from calling the men in the white coats was when you said this was not about thrill seeking."  And, of course, the scene in this film where Alfred freaks out is another Batman leads the police on a merry chase scene.  Also, Alfred's desire for Bruce not to come back was before he even knew anything about a Batman or a mission.  All he knew was that Bruce disappeared one day and never came back.  So, yeah, he is certainly supportive of Batman and even strongly believes in Batman, but his primary goal is to see Bruce happy.  And for him to do the Batman thing for a few years, followed by eight years of depressed seclusion, I can definitely see Alfred going, "Yeah, you've done your share.  It's time for you to think about you now," especially given that he believes that Bruce is only going back into the fight to die in a blaze of glory.

I can see where you're coming from on the ending, and the logistics of it you bring up are spot on.  This movie certainly took a lot more liberties with the mythos than we probably expected when Begins came out, and that was a bit jarring.  But like I said in my above thoughts, I'm okay with there being a Batman who can actually end.  Who can complete his mission in his own mind.  I guess that has a lot to do with my feelings of comic books, where Batman has been doing his same Batman thing unceasingly for over 70 years, with only the partial reboot ever 25 years or so to almost shake things up.  So I was excited to see some closure.  Also, it makes sense in this continuity because it had been set up since at least The Dark Knight.  That was all about the fact that he didn't want to be Batman anymore, he wanted to settle down with Rachel, and that he was hoping Harvey Dent would become his successor.

And, yeah, I agree with you about the Catwoman thing.  Also like I'd said, I wish her character had been explored more.  Because there's really no reason given that Bruce would respect her and not any other talented criminal besides, "Dur hur, you're purty!"  But then again, there's the Golden Age continuity that eventually has them settling down together, so I guess it's not entirely without precedent.  I suppose that's one of those things where an emotional payoff is more important than a logical one.

Sheesh, again?

TV's Frink said:

Gaff, when was Robin ever in a Burton Batman?

In early versions of the scripts.  Both times they tried to incorporate a Robin character before ultimately giving up (and then eventually going a more traditional route in Batman Forever).

The Batman DVD contains a storyboard (voiced by Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill) of a proposed scene of The Joker and Batman fighting in a circus, ultimately killing Dick Grayson's parents.  And like I said, in Batman Returns, they had cast Damon Wayans as a streetwise mechanic named Robin who was supposed to help Batman out.

I posted this over in the TDKR thread, but I wanted to repost it here.  To ender and anyone else reading who hasn't seen it and doesn't want to know what happens, my review is full of spoilers. 

I repeat.  It's full of *SPOILERS*.

And it also contains quite a bit more criticism than DominicCobb's review.  That doesn't mean I don't love it.  Like him, I've been thinking about it pretty much non-stop since I saw it and can't wait to see it again.  Anyway, here it is.

*SPOILERS*

Did I mention there were *SPOILERS*?

After having had a little over twelve hours to digest (and have nightmares of Bane murdering people), I have to say that it was really good, but I don't think it was as good as the previous two.  Does it break the trend of the third film in a trilogy being a huge drop in quality?  Actually, it probably does, but it does have hints of that bloated quality that, for example, Spider-Man 3 had.

Some new characters (Bane, John Drake, Selina Kyle) were great additions, but some just seemed to come out of nowhere and either served no purpose but to have one more character (Deputy Commissioner Foley) or just bombard you with "What the hell are you even doing in this movie"itis (Miranda Tate).  The latter is particularly bad.  I mean, she's of course accompanied by the obviously going to be appropriated into a doomsday device a la the water vaporizer in Batman Begins fusion reactor plot point, but then, hey, suddenly she's having sex with Bruce and is now the love interest.  Well, that was certainly... completely random.  And it's made even worse when it turns out that she's actually Talia al Ghul and the mastermind behind the whole plot.  I mean, I barely knew who she was at all up to that point.  There's a difference between a twist and just purposely obfuscating things so much that your big reveal is a complete ass pull.  However, as someone who is knowledgeable of the comics, I did find myself thinking at the fake Bane parentage reveal, "Ra's al Ghul doesn't have a son.  He has a daughter," so the real reveal was exciting on that basis.  But it also fooled me enough just because this series, and this movie in particular, takes such deviation from the source material that for a while I believed that Bane could have been his son.

Anne Hathaway was amazing as Selina.  I love how her retractable goggles doubled as cat ears, and it doesn't surprise me that the moniker of Catwoman was completely absent.  Part of me wishes she had been explored a little bit more, particularly the whole motivation about this "clean slate" technology.  But, while making substantial use of a power I detest, feminine wiles, she still comes across as wonderfully cunning and able.  Her "Han Solo" turn at the end was, of course, predictable.

Has anyone noticed that every single movie in this trilogy has its final act centered around trapping people in Gotham or a part of Gotham?  Not saying it's necessarily ineffective, but it does seem to have been done a bit too much.  At least they actually gave a reason this time as to why the bridges and tunnels weren't an option, and pretty damn good reasons they were, particularly turning the military and cops against each other.

I wish Alfred's role had been bigger, but every scene he was in was gold, from his vacation monologue to his admission of the letter burning.  He really stole the show, but I found myself really longing for his return.  They really took him out of the movie too soon, in my opinion.

Batman coming back after eight years of seclusion and depression seemed extremely random and staged.  That is, the motivations weren't there, and it seemed to exist only because this is the point of the movie where Batman is supposed to come back.  Yes, Bane is discovered to be in Gotham, but it seemed more realistic in The Dark Knight where Batman considers The Joker to be beneath his time and energy until he makes Batman take notice.  Here it was just a botched rescue attempt of a congressman ending in Gordon being hospitalized (big whoop... he got "killed" in the last film), and Bruce gets a pep talk from a random cop he's never met, and all of a sudden, Mr. "The World No Longer Needs Batman" just up and decides to be Batman again.  Hardly seems proper motivation given how deeply entrenched Bruce was at that point.

What I thought was silly but ultimately didn't bother me is some of the stuff with Gordon.  Like how he really needed to write out a big long speech admitting the truth about Harvey.  Was it really that hard to remember?  And, of course, it just happened to be grabbed by Bane who reads it aloud to incite the citizens to riot.  But then again, no one seems to question its legitimacy.  Didn't it occur to anyone that the terrorist who just blew up a stadium might not be telling the truth?  Bane could have pulled out a blank sheet of paper and "read," "My name is Jim Gordon.  And I am gay.  Also, Bane is a really cool guy, and you should all listen to him."  Apparently that would have worked just as well.  It also seemed a bit iffy that Gordon picked up on Batman's admission that he's Bruce Wayne.  Surely in his career he's comforted more than one grieving child.  But like I said, those don't really bother me.

There was one moment that really broke the reality for me.  And when it happened, I immediately thought back to an interview with Michael Keaton I saw, where he admitted that, several times on the set of Batman, he and Jack Nicholson would be looking at each other and just crack up when they realized that here they were grown men, dressed like that, and taking each other so seriously when, in fact, it was really completely ridiculous.  And that moment for me was when they unveiled the Batman statue at the end.  And suddenly it all just cracked when I realized these people were making this solemn, somber, completely unironic gesture to a huge statue of a man dressed up as a giant bat.  It just doesn't work.  It's impossible to take seriously.  Granted, it was slightly better than what I initially expected would be under the curtain:  a framed portrait of Batman made in the same "I'm sitting in a photo shoot for my official government portrait" vein as Harvey's from the previous film.  That cracks me up just imagining it.

Finally, I loved the ending.  We all suspected they'd do something quite final with Batman, much more so than had ever been seen in any other continuity.  They had some pretty big bat balls here.  It does lead you to believe that Bruce has died, although it turns out to not be true.  And the way they did it, I think, was ultimately better than if he had died.  I can't see comic book Batman ever retiring in this way, but it works for this continuity.  I love that Blake is set up to become Bruce's successor, but I wish they'd left out the "reveal" that his real first name is Robin.  That was just a bit too much, especially considering he's primed to become a new Batman, not a sidekick to Batman.  Honestly, that one little moment ended up reminding me of the ways the Tim Burton films had tried to incorporate a completely nontraditional Robin character into those films, like Damon Wayans as a garage mechanic named Robin.  But aside from that slightly *wink wink* moment, he seemed like the perfect successor.  And it was just highly satisfying to finally see Alfred's fantasy come true, and for Bruce's character arc to finally resolve itself.  Because that's the problem with a comic book character like Batman.  He's designed to evolve to a certain degree and then just stagnate, because they need him to keep being Batman and doing Batman things.  In fact, it's part of his legacy that he will be relentless and never find closure.  But it's nice to finally see a Bruce that comes full circle, one who never needed to be Batman forever.

There was only one moment when I thought the movie's "Occupy Wall Street" politics were groan-worthy, and that was during the stock exchange heist, the total cartoon of a stockbroker whining about his money, and the cop making the statement about his money being under his mattress.  I wanted to yell, "Movie, you're being too subtle!  Please make it clear what you're trying to tell me!"

Ultimately, I'd almost say this movie was unnecessary.  It could have ended with The Dark Knight, and I would have been totally satisfied.  But Nolan did pull out a third installment that seemed, for the most part, necessary and well-done.  I can't wait to see it again.  Because I'll definitely see it again.

TV's Frink said:

Gaff, when was Robin ever in a Burton Batman?

In early versions of the scripts.  Both times they tried to incorporate a Robin character before ultimately giving up (and then eventually going a more traditional route in Batman Forever).

The Batman DVD contains a storyboard (voiced by Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill) of a proposed scene of The Joker and Batman fighting in a circus, ultimately killing Dick Grayson's parents.  And like I said, in Batman Returns, they had cast Damon Wayans as a streetwise mechanic named Robin who was supposed to help Batman out.

Since I don't really have anything to add about the horrific shootings that hasn't been contributed by everyone else, aside from expressing my own dismay and my feelings of sympathy to 005's friend, I'm just going to go ahead and talk about the movie.

*SPOILERS*

After having had a little over twelve hours to digest (and have nightmares of Bane murdering people), I have to say that it was really good, but I don't think it was as good as the previous two.  Does it break the trend of the third film in a trilogy being a huge drop in quality?  Actually, it probably does, but it does have hints of that bloated quality that, for example, Spider-Man 3 had.

Some new characters (Bane, John Drake, Selina Kyle) were great additions, but some just seemed to come out of nowhere and either served no purpose but to have one more character (Deputy Commissioner Foley) or just bombard you with "What the hell are you even doing in this movie"itis (Miranda Tate).  The latter is particularly bad.  I mean, she's of course accompanied by the obviously going to be appropriated into a doomsday device a la the water vaporizer in Batman Begins fusion reactor plot point, but then, hey, suddenly she's having sex with Bruce and is now the love interest.  Well, that was certainly... completely random.  And it's made even worse when it turns out that she's actually Talia al Ghul and the mastermind behind the whole plot.  I mean, I barely knew who she was at all up to that point.  There's a difference between a twist and just purposely obfuscating things so much that your big reveal is a complete ass pull.  However, as someone who is knowledgeable of the comics, I did find myself thinking at the fake Bane parentage reveal, "Ra's al Ghul doesn't have a son.  He has a daughter," so the real reveal was exciting on that basis.  But it also fooled me enough just because this series, and this movie in particular, takes such deviation from the source material that for a while I believed that Bane could have been his son.

Anne Hathaway was amazing as Selina.  I love how her retractable goggles doubled as cat ears, and it doesn't surprise me that the moniker of Catwoman was completely absent.  Part of me wishes she had been explored a little bit more, particularly the whole motivation about this "clean slate" technology.  But, while making substantial use of a power I detest, feminine wiles, she still comes across as wonderfully cunning and able.  Her "Han Solo" turn at the end was, of course, predictable.

Has anyone noticed that every single movie in this trilogy has its final act centered around trapping people in Gotham or a part of Gotham?  Not saying it's necessarily ineffective, but it does seem to have been done a bit too much.  At least they actually gave a reason this time as to why the bridges and tunnels weren't an option, and pretty damn good reasons they were, particularly turning the military and cops against each other.

I wish Alfred's role had been bigger, but every scene he was in was gold, from his vacation monologue to his admission of the letter burning.  He really stole the show, but I found myself really longing for his return.  They really took him out of the movie too soon, in my opinion.

Batman coming back after eight years of seclusion and depression seemed extremely random and staged.  That is, the motivations weren't there, and it seemed to exist only because this is the point of the movie where Batman is supposed to come back.  Yes, Bane is discovered to be in Gotham, but it seemed more realistic in The Dark Knight where Batman considers The Joker to be beneath his time and energy until he makes Batman take notice.  Here it was just a botched rescue attempt of a congressman ending in Gordon being hospitalized (big whoop... he got "killed" in the last film), and Bruce gets a pep talk from a random cop he's never met, and all of a sudden, Mr. "The World No Longer Needs Batman" just up and decides to be Batman again.  Hardly seems proper motivation given how deeply entrenched Bruce was at that point.

What I thought was silly but ultimately didn't bother me is some of the stuff with Gordon.  Like how he really needed to write out a big long speech admitting the truth about Harvey.  Was it really that hard to remember?  And, of course, it just happened to be grabbed by Bane who reads it aloud to incite the citizens to riot.  But then again, no one seems to question its legitimacy.  Didn't it occur to anyone that the terrorist who just blew up a stadium might not be telling the truth?  Bane could have pulled out a blank sheet of paper and "read," "My name is Jim Gordon.  And I am gay.  Also, Bane is a really cool guy, and you should all listen to him."  Apparently that would have worked just as well.  It also seemed a bit iffy that Gordon picked up on Batman's admission that he's Bruce Wayne.  Surely in his career he's comforted more than one grieving child.  But like I said, those don't really bother me.

There was one moment that really broke the reality for me.  And when it happened, I immediately thought back to an interview with Michael Keaton I saw, where he admitted that, several times on the set of Batman, he and Jack Nickelson would be looking at each other and just crack up when they realized that here they were grown men, dressed like that, and taking each other so seriously when, in fact, it was really completely ridiculous.  And that moment for me was when they unveiled the Batman statue at the end.  And suddenly it all just cracked when I realized these people were making this solemn, somber, completely unironic gesture to a huge statue of a man dressed up as a giant bat.  It just doesn't work.  It's impossible to take seriously.  Granted, it was slightly better than what I initially expected would be under the curtain:  a framed portrait of Batman made in the same "I'm sitting in a photo shoot for my official government portrait" vein as Harvey's from the previous film.  That cracks me up just imagining it.

Finally, I loved the ending.  We all suspected they'd do something quite final with Batman, much more so than had ever been seen in any other continuity.  They had some pretty big bat balls here.  It does lead you to believe that Bruce has died, although it turns out to not be true.  And the way they did it, I think, was ultimately better than if he had died.  I can't see comic book Batman ever retiring in this way, but it works for this continuity.  I love that Blake is set up to become Bruce's successor, but I wish they'd left out the "reveal" that his real first name is Robin.  That was just a bit too much, especially considering he's primed to become a new Batman, not a sidekick to Batman.  Honestly, that one little moment ended up reminding me of the ways the Tim Burton films had tried to incorporate a completely nontraditional Robin character into those films, like Damon Wayans as a garage mechanic named Robin.  But aside from that slightly *wink wink* moment, he seemed like the perfect successor.  And it was just highly satisfying to finally see Alfred's fantasy come true, and for Bruce's character arc to finally resolve itself.  Because that's the problem with a comic book character like Batman.  He's designed to evolve to a certain degree and then just stagnate, because they need him to keep being Batman and doing Batman things.  In fact, it's part of his legacy that he will be relentless and never find closure.  But it's nice to finally see a Bruce that comes full circle, one who never needed to be Batman forever.

There was only one moment when I thought the movie's "Occupy Wall Street" politics were groan-worthy, and that was during the stock exchange heist, the total cartoon of a stockbroker whining about his money, and the cop making the statement about his money being under his mattress.  I wanted to yell, "Movie, you're being too subtle!  Please make it clear what you're trying to tell me!"

Ultimately, I'd almost say this movie was unnecessary.  It could have ended with The Dark Knight, and I would have been totally satisfied.  But Nolan did pull out a third installment that seemed, for the most part, necessary and well-done.  I can't wait to see it again.  Because I'll definitely see it again.

Wait, what?  If the whole issue in regards to having to redo the effects is that they were all done at 480i, how could the same shot have possibly passed muster on a feature film?

Yeah, that one I never noticed before.  I'm definitely going to have to look for that next time I watch it.

Also, in the shot where they first enter the bunker, you can see him, in Imperial Scout uniform, turning around to stand guard.