The Dark Knight Rises - Brilliant film!!! (Spoiler alert)
The start of the film was quite good, it's a shame the ending was quite poor. 
Are you alright, John?
Yes thanks. I was merely hissing at Simon for suggesting that the end of TDKR is poor, because I disagree strongly...
Good oh.
I thought the whole thing was poor, and that death scene was shameful.
I was unimpressed by ending for two reasons.
1) It suggested unbridled capitalism fosters altruism and that all is therefore right with Western society (an insultingly utopian position). Despite the vicarious pleasures of watching Bane tear the system down, the film ended by affirming a remarkably conservative world view.
2) If Nolan and co. are so certain this is the last Batman film they'll make, why leave an opening for future instalments? A film providing genuine closure would have been more courageous. I'm sure someone will suggest that corporate philistines forced their demands on filmmakers, but really, if Nolan and his DP stood their ground on not shooting in 3D, this seems an unlikely circumstance.
If Nolan and co. are so certain this is the last Batman film they'll make, why leave an opening for future instalments? A film providing genuine closure would have been more courageous. I'm sure someone will suggest that corporate philistines forced their demands on filmmakers, but really, if Nolan and his DP stood their ground on not shooting in 3D, this seems an unlikely circumstance.
It may be Nolan's last Batman film, not Warner's. Why will Warner kill off a cash cow? Look what happened to Spiderman. Warner may agree to Nolan's demands of not shooting in 3D, but will not allow Nolan to put a full stop to the franchise.
1) It suggested unbridled capitalism fosters altruism and that all is therefore right with Western society (an insultingly utopian position). Despite the vicarious pleasures of watching Bane tear the system down, the film ended by affirming a remarkably conservative world view.
Did it? I kind of just went "ooo COOL".
If Nolan and co. are so certain this is the last Batman film they'll make, why leave an opening for future instalments? A film providing genuine closure would have been more courageous. I'm sure someone will suggest that corporate philistines forced their demands on filmmakers, but really, if Nolan and his DP stood their ground on not shooting in 3D, this seems an unlikely circumstance.
It may be Nolan's last Batman film, not Warner's. Why will Warner kill off a cash cow? Look what happened to Spiderman. Warner may agree to Nolan's demands of not shooting in 3D, but will not allow Nolan to put a full stop to the franchise.
Well, it's supposedly Nolan and Bale's last Batman film. If so, any future films in the franchise would be markedly different, so why not simply reboot the franchise? It could start anew without any problems, which is precisely what happens with tedious regularity now anyway.
It's not only Spider Man. Numerous filmmakers have "re-imagined" (to use a Burtonism) an array of comic book characters in recent years.
If Nolan, Bale, and other cast and crew wanted to make more Batman films, the ending would perhaps be more excusable. However, as they say they otherwise, why not sign off on a trilogy in conclusive and satisfying manner? You say look at what happened to Spider Man. I say look at what happened to the Batman franchise last time round after Burton signed off. There's every chance post-Nolan Batman films would be awful with new personnel involved.
I'm not stating the ending has nothing to do with the studio. I'm not privy to boardroom discussions, so how would I know. However, Nolan reportedly had free rein when it came to TDK and TDKR (both were scripted by his brother, after all).
When we lionise a particular filmmaker or filmmakers, it's easy to blame corporate philistines when we're less satisfied with how a film turns out. I was merely trying to complicate such assumptions.
1) It suggested unbridled capitalism fosters altruism and that all is therefore right with Western society (an insultingly utopian position). Despite the vicarious pleasures of watching Bane tear the system down, the film ended by affirming a remarkably conservative world view.
Did it? I kind of just went "ooo COOL".
That's another, equally valid response.
Some film makers purposefully leave a few loose ends at the end of the film (like Prometheus) for people to speculate. I suspect that's what Nolan has done. John Blake called himself Robin, but there were references in the film pointing him to be the next Batman. 
Some film makers purposefully leave a few loose ends at the end of the film (like Prometheus) for people to speculate. I suspect that's what Nolan has done. John Blake called himself Robin, but there were references in the film pointing him to be the next Batman.
Sure, but Promtheus was an attempt to boot up a new franchise, with Ridley Scott set to script and helm future instalments.
TDKR was explicitly sold as Nolan et al.'s conclusion to a trilogy of films. In this regard it was an unsatisfying ending, for me at least, irrespective of who made narrative and scripting decisions.
Is this still about a rich bloke who dresses up as a bat and fights crime?
- Login to post comments
Sweet. Jesus.
CA StreamMagic 6 | CA 751BD | CA 651A | PMC DB1i
Moderator. mail: john.duncan.whf at the mail of g dot com