KeithM
Posts: 862
Joined: 31/7/2008
|
This is a minor point that's getting undue attention, but I maintain that it WAS important to the story to see how Wayne coped with getting back to Gotham without all his 'toys' and showing him getting back could have been part of that journey, part of his own Rise that the climb out of the Pit itself didn't adequately illustrate - mainly due to the fact that his fellow inmates were very supportive, and any emotional veracity the scene was going for was kind of ruined by the unbelievability of his recovery from major back injury, and the subsequent lack of consequence from two falls from his failed attempts. His trials and tribulations may even have made for good cinema. Or god forbid, been exciting even.
Imagine the dramatic impact of him having come through a private hell, showing us some of that resourcefulness that we otherwise just have to assume he still has - it's a Batman movie, let's see some Batskillz ffs -, sometimes literally crawling on his hands and knees to make it (echoing his journey in the first movie), rising from a sewer (in the lowest pits of Gotham perhaps) to finally face Bane forged anew...
But meh.
In other words, make the Pit just the start of his Rise, not the end of it - implying that he has further to climb than Talia did (not Bane who had to be helped out, making all his pontification earlier empty and hollow, which may well have been intentional, but still felt cheaty and contrived at the reveal).
What he did was just too neat and convenient - "right, that's him Risen, let's get back to Gotham quick sharp." Which is not something I'd expect from a Nolan film. It was disconnected from events where I think it should have segued more smoothly - making his Rise and return to Gotham more organic than treated as separate events, one of which was skimmed over.
But I reiterate, this is not even a major problem with the film, just one of the many minor ones that illustrate the lack of focus this time around, for me.
A degree of assumed knowledge on our part is fine with me, but sometimes it smacks of laziness on the part of the filmmaker ('this doesn't need explaining because it's only there to progress the plot...'), but when it's something the characters do then that's definitely a writer thing - in that they sometimes forget the difference between what WE know and what the characters do. For example, there were no witnesses to what happened between Ras and Batman, not even the ninjas, and yet the characters show a degree of knowledge that makes it seem like they were there and know every little detail of what went down (e.g. accusing Batman of her father's murder - no way could she have possibly known that). So the villains entire motivation was based on assumed knowledge they couldn't have. Watch BB again and think about who would know the details about what happens in those final moments. Then tell me how she knows all this.
In fact, the most logical assumption for them to make is that although Ras died that time, his former protege eventually DID clean up Gomorrah using the very techniques the League advocated - the power of a symbol (both Dent and the Batman), theatricality and deception. Their rogue who had been excommunicated just like Bane, came good and did the undoable... if anything he should be seen as Ras' successor (and/or Bane's rival) - there's still plenty of conflict there, but it actually makes sense, unlike the motivations here, which are rather cliche and based on knowledge they couldn't have (and we could even have had the emotional sucker punch for Talia and her subsequent reaction, when she finally does learn the truth).
Blake's 'explanation' of how he knew Wayne was Batman was ludicrous too. Just say you figured it out when Wayne and Batman went missing (and then returned) at the same time ffs. Or that you're a cop and you detected shit, like Batman used to do.
This is the thing, it's not the small things that 'ruin' the film, it's just that they end up becoming 'oh and another thing...' and you end up focusing on them more than proportionally necessary. I didn't care about the plot holes in the Dark Knight, certainly not when watching it for the first time, because what was happening was told well enough, made enough sense, and was interesting enough to focus my attention where it should be - on the screen, not on any potential inconsistencies and flaws. That's something that TDKR just didn't achieve. It just didn't gel for me in in the main story and character beats to the degree that the minor details and 'nitpicks' only become exaggerated in the overall picture. If none of it does for you then that's great and I envy the fact you can enjoy the film more than I can. Not sarcasm. That's why I'm so disappointed.
< Message edited by KeithM -- 25/7/2012 3:39:26 AM >
|
Printable Version
RE: Could I just point out... - 
Again, this is the sort of "logic" that suggests that scriptwriters are at fault if characters are not both infallible and totally honest (Bane's plan had a flaw! The scriptwriters suck! Gordon didn't realise that the a secret underground army had the potential to trap every one who went down there! What idiots write this garbage?!) 
) Look at what he achieved with BB. That was only meant to be a one-off movie which led into Burtons Batman. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread