I definitely think TDKR is better than TDK as well as Batman Begins. When I think of the Dark Knight all I remember is the Joker. The only good scenes in the movie were about him. TDKR on the other hand had so many good characters and stories. And the fight scenes were way better than the previous two movies. I bet if Heath Ledger hadn't died and the joker was in TDKR you guys would feel the same way. This is all my opinion, of course. I also saw The Big Lebowski later that night for the first time. It was pretty good.
the joker wouldnt have been in dkr for more than 10 minutes if he was still alive. and i thought one of the problems with dkr was that there were too many characters, so they couldnt be fully developed, like bane. and some completely unnecessary characters that contributed nothing and had no point being in the movie, like that annoying police chief guy and selina kyle's friend. also the fight scenes in dkr were just as underwhelming as in the previous films.
I agree that the movie did suffer from character bloat, and Banes' development was hindered somewhat, but characters like the "police chief guy", who I'm assuming you mean is Matthew Modine, or Foley in the movie, and Selina Kyles' friend were necessary evils for development of the main characters. Spoiler If Joseph Gordon Levitt didn't have Matthew Modine to bounce off of as a "hot-head officer", he wouldn't have had anything to challenge him to be better, and it would have been harder for Gary Oldman to see him rise to the challenge. And Selinas' friend was necessary to show that she was a reluctant anti-hero, not a villain. Because villains don't need other people, or "friends", to reveal their soft sides. If villains do have friends though, they're a device to later show that said villain is doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons, as what happened with Bane.
My real gripe with the film was how long it was. It suffered more from the 2003 rendition of the Incredible Hulk. Too much time spent in building up batman only for more time spent later building up batman. I think the senator was necessary. It shows that selina uses her brains to get out bad situations rather than her finesse in combat. Bane was well developed pretty well. He may not be the anti-thesis of Batman like the Joker was, nor as entertaining a villain as the Joker. He's methodic and cruel and in the worst way possible because he's not after money or destruction for destruction's sake. Misery does not amuse Bane, although he seems to enjoy. He trys to kill 6 million people because he loves a woman. WTF. But I think the biggest downfall of the movie was the lack of focus on one main hero. I think they gave Robin too much screen time. It was cool to see 'the resistance' in action but it took away from the main conflict between Batman and Bane.
i do agree with "building up batman and then doing the same thing again" part. i feel like it may have benefited from a part 1 and part 2 deathly hallows style, released about 6 months apart, the first one ending when Spoiler bane breaks the bat and takes him to the pit prison. then they could have gone into more detail with some things, like the whole bane revolution thing that took 10 minutes of screen time but spanned like 3-4 months time, and still not have the movie drag on. btw, does anyone else that pit was a nolan real-world interpretation of the ra's al ghul lazarus pit stuff? and i was referring to the police chief guy that tried to hide towards the end but then came out. and bane is a great villain in terms of his characteristics, but within the movie i just thought the character was underdeveloped. i thought things were starting to get better when it was revealed that Spoiler he was the son and legacy of ra's. but then they ruined it with that twist at the end, which i didnt like very much. i mean yeah, having talia al ghul in the movie is a nice nod to all the comic book fans, but it made bane just some random dude that fell in love with a small child and was just executing this elaborate plot as her lackey. i thought blake was actually more the main protagonist than batman himself, which i didnt think was necessarily bad. it sort of seems like nolan doesnt really like the character and persona of "batman", and he would have rather made a movie called "bruce wayne".
Actually, Nolan's iteration of Bane is probably the truest to the original iteration; perhaps not in appearance but certainly in presence. Also, this isn't exactly a major spoiler but when I made this association earlier I found it very enticing, so I'm gonna spoiler it anyway: Spoiler In ancient times, the Pit Prisons, like the one Bruce is thrown in to, were used to contain lepers and other plague victims and were nicknamed Lazerettes (think that's how it is spelled). The whole theme of the movie revolved around the notion of 'rising'. Then Talia and Bruce 'rise' out of the pit which tips to the idea of the pit being the "Lazerus Pit" (hence Lazerette). If you know anything about the Batman universe then you would know the Lazerus Pit was what Ras al Ghul bathed in to maintain his immortality. The only thing wrong with this concept is that Ras al Ghul never actually descends in to the Lazerus Pit being forced to rise out of it himself. Instead his own daughter and Bruce Wayne ascend out of the pit. Perhaps they don't achieve literal immortality from the Lazerus Pit, but even Ras al Ghul said that there are many forms of immortality, and I'm sure that the few who ever make it out of the Pit alive are known in the hearts of its residents forever... That in and of itself is a certain brand of immortality. So while Nolan's vision of the Lazerus Pit may not be as literal as it was in the original Batman universe I definitely appreciate Nolan's adamance of sticking with a more realistic view of Gotham and its inhabitants while straying away from the more magical and supernatural aspects present in other iterations and characters (i.e. Poison Ivy, Killer Croc, Soluman Grundy, etc.).
I know what you mean. I remember watching "Transformers 3". At the end Megatron saves Optimus Prime from an enemy, but then Optimus just kills Megatron like a selfish bastard. The first movie is always better.
I heard about that last night. I don't think it's necessary but Jackson will rake in a ton more cash for it. I can understand the Lord of the Rings being three movies because it was three books, but to turn one book into three movies is kinda like turning the last Twilight book into two movies...
it's a trend that's both awesome and terrible. im being optimistic about it, there isnt going to be a thing left out of that book, no rushing anything like they did in the LOTR movies, specifically Fellowship.
No it's not. There's a ton of material in the appendices of LOTR that was meant to be in the restructuring of the Hobbit that Tolkien planned (since he wanted it to tie into LOTR a little more directly) and never got to. They filmed all that material, making the movies more than just an adaptation of The Hobbit. As it stands now, it's like The Hobbit 1.5, but it's definitely canon and it's not stretching the movies out beyond what was originally intended by Tolkien for the book and by Jackson for the movies. We're essentially getting an extended edition of the original films. By the way, I've never read any of the books, I just got this from Jackson's words on possibly making it a three parter before it was officially so.
Imagine if each part had a special extended edition like LOTR. 11 hours of pure Hobbit. But it will probably be a standard 6-8 hour affair.
It was good. Not genius, but good. I liked it, and am looking forward to Django Unchained. That's a pretty good comparison. It proves that Nolan wants to make his own mark on the Batman franchise, yet is clearly a fan and wants to pay homage in any way he can.