RKMBs Forums .::Robegories::. Media The Dark Knight Rises

I think that just about sums up my feelings on the movie.

No big surprise. I knew this movie was gonna suck.

No big suprise. We knew you would say it sucked.

Then again, no one could have known exactly how much it was going to bomb. I mean, it was so bad that someone actually started shooting during the premiere.

Death it is...by exile!

yeah that was a good one

This movie turned out to be so bad that 12 people died while watching it. How much worse can it possible get?

It can only get worse if you actually like it.

The real clue that the shooting was staged is that no real Batman fan would say call himself the Joker after dying his hair red.

Also, there's photos of James Holmes floating around on Facebook showing him being dragged away by the police in one of the Occupy rallies.

On the other hand, there's also facebook posts saying that he's a tea partier. It's like the RKMBs' politics section in there right now.

So without too many spoilers was the movie about Cialis or Viagra?

The 'tea partier' thing is because some idiot at ABC news did a google search and found out that there was James Holmes who was a tea partier...but missed the part where that James Holmes was also a 52 year old hispanic male.

Beyond that, it's pretty obvious that this was about a guy being crazy, not political.

I wonder if anybody dressed as Batman in the theater tried to stop him?

saw it thursday at midnight (duh)
thought it was awesome (duh)

i honestly think the only real negative about the film is that i can't talk about it with anyone until they've seen it, because its almost entirely spoilerific from start to finish.

but yeah, friggin amazing movie. perfect finale to a perfect three-part story.

Maybe, but an overweight 30 year old in fake body armor isn't going to be very effective.

I've seen plenty of people on other sites bitching about the

I don't get why people always have this need for every movie to have a big reveal or a massive plot twist.

It was such an embarassing speculation on their part that they later were forced to apologize for it.

But it was a rather small and obscure retraction. And pretty much the only place the wild speculation and retraction got any coverage was by Breitbart and other conservative media.

Just pointing out:

1) The Tea Party began 3 years ago, the liberal media immediately began speculating that they were crazy and violent, going out of their way to find the 1 in 10,000 protestors that had a questionable sign that could be interpreted (not actually) to be racist or inciting violence.

2) Two years later when the Occupy Wall Street movement began, the same liberal media went out of their way to avoid reporting, excuse and downplay ACTUAL violence on the part of OWS. While still demonizing the Tea Party that in four years now has committeed absolutely no violence.

3) When Jared Loughner shot Rep. Giffords and many others in Arizona, the liberal media viciously and factlessly blamed the shooting on the Tea Party. Despite that friends and fellow students of Loughner described him as a "liberal pothead" and there was absolutely no evidence of him ever visiting a conservative/Tea Party website or physical meeting. But the media slanders on, and as if Loughner being a Tea Party member was not in complete contradiction of the facts.

4) Likewise, when the Trayvon Martin shooting occurred, they were quick to similarly label George Zimmerman as a white racist predator of an innocent black kid. And was somehow typical of the white racist Tea Party right to bear arms gun-toting mentality. Except --OH NO!!-- Zimmerman turned out to be racially and culturally hispanic, and even a registered Democrat, so that liberal-media slander didn't hold up to scrutiny either.

5) Now we have this nut-job cutting loose in an Aurora, Colorado movie theatre and killing 12 people and wounding 59. And --what a shock!!-- the media once again tried to smear the Tea Party as somehow responsible for the crime, despite the evidence for that assertion quickly falling apart.


Would that the liberal media were held accountable for their consistent lies, over a four- year period. And counting.

Damnit, you guys just had to have wondy post in here. Now this thread is ruined. Ruined!

BOO!

started slow
got better
overhaul a good movie


After the credits there was a scene where Sam Jackson asked Bats to join the Justice League initiative.


spoilers

Dude.

It was great! I liked that they made a heavy movie out of two shameless 90s crossovers. Now I wanna see Doomsday/Electric Superman.

Dude.

whoops.


the movie was still awesome

What does mine say?

Just saw it in IMAX, fuck yeah! Great movie. This one was a bit more 'comicbookish' than the others, but it was still enjoyable. Best of all, it didn't feel like a 3 hour movie. Well paced. Plus, there's plenty of stuff in there that'll piss Pariah off. Who can ask for anything more? (Toyota!) I really like how the Catwoman cat ears were played off. Really makes everyone who bitched about them look like tards.

Just got back from seeing it. Good movie, but flawed in ways that made me feel like it wasn't a real Batman movie.

I liked the nods to Frank Miller. I thought all of the main actors except Hardy did a good job. Hardy's a good actor but given the mask and the dubbed in voice, he was wasted in the part. Anne Hathaway was a great "Batman Year One" style Catwoman. Definitely the best Catwoman since Julie Newmar. Bale didn't overdue the "frog throat" voice this time around. Oldman is always good.

The action scenes were very good.

Mxy is correct when he points out that Nolan did a good job of turning two or three crossover stories (that weren't that great to begin with) into an actual coherent and compelling story.

And I loved that the whole subtext of movie was basically "Batman vs Occupy Wall Street."

As for the flaws, the biggest was that it didn't have enough actual Batman in it.

First off, you had the whole "he retired eight years ago after his girlfriend and Harvey were killed" thing. They hinted his injuries were also to blame but that wasn't really established in the prior film (and his injuries were obviously not that bad if he could overcome them-and the broken back-while in the League of Shadows prison). Furthermore, if I recall correctly, the whole point of the last movie being called "the Dark Knight" was the idea that Batman would now, after being framed for Dent's death, continue to guard Gotham as its hated protector. Instead, he retired. That contradicted the prior movie. Furthermore, it contradicts a pretty basic idea of Batman: when he loved ones get killed by criminals he goes for revenge.

Then, they never adequately explained why Bruce suddenly decided to come back.

This meant the first 45 minutes of the movie wasn't about Batman. It was about Bane and Catwoman and Bruce being a recluse.
The would have been better off just having him still operating as Batman the whole time after the last movie.

Similarly, while I understood WHY Nolan did it, the film spent too much time on "fake Robin."

As for why it didn't always feel like a proper Batman movie, Nolan missed the essential component of Bruce Wayne's psyche. Whether Adam West or Frank Miller, "real" Batman is not about "cleaning up Gotham," or saving it. He knows that will never happen. As Gordon mentioned, even a perfect city has crime. Bruce Wayne is Batman because his parents were murdered and now he is obsessed with fighting criminals. If there's even one criminal left in Gotham, Batman is going to be after him. And Batman isn't Bruce's idea of a symbol to inspire people. Batman is supposed to scare them. So having Bruce "retire" twice: first after Dent's death and then at the end of the movie is not Batman. Even at the end of "the Dark Knight Return" comic book, Bruce didn't really retire, he just changed his method of operation. And, yes, there were hints of this in the prior Nolan films, but at the end of TDK it seemed as if Batman had given up this whole idea of retiring in order to be Gotham's "Dark Knight" forever.

Again, I liked the movie. I just think it missed the mark on that one aspect of Bruce Wayne's persona.

Yeah, I didn't like the idea of a retired Batman at the beginning of the film either.

To me Bruce Wayne was much too driven for that.

I can see him retiring in the Batman Beyond fashion where he just gets to the point that due to his age he is more of a danger operating as Batman than a help.

I do have to say Nolan's Batman was always a bit lazy.

Presactly. If anything, they should have started the movie with Bruce still in action and at his physical peak. Then have Bane break him, which requires him to use Waynetech to compensate for his deteriorating condition (basically, the climb out of the prison sapping the last bit of natural strength out his body). Then, you could have still had him fake his death at the end but when Alfred sees Bruce with Selina in Italy that's when he has the cane, etc.

Maybe he just didn't want Robin getting in his light.

On the contrary, it fits perfectly with Nolan's vision thus far since IT'S NOT BASED OFF THE ACTUAL BATMAN ORIGIN!!

Seriously, I don't know why I keep hearing people complain about this. If you were happy with the first film, then you were approving of the whole 'Bruce Wayne in a mask' origin as opposed to 'Batman the Ego'. Nolan said specifically that he wanted to concentrate on portraying a "person" dressing up and playing vigilante. i.e. Not a driven lunatic who literally perceives himself as the amalgamation of man and bat. As such, he's not going to have the same drive.

Buyer's remorse much?

Batman is open to many interpretations. However, going back to Bob Kane and Bill Finger, continuing through Adam West, Denny O'Neill and Steve Englehart and up to Frank Miller and others, it was always "Bruce Wayne in a mask." Bruce Wayne just happens to be obsessed with avenging his parents' murder by warring upon criminals while wearing a mask.

Lothar's ass is open to many interpretations!

gay sex interpretations!