Why do people dislike TDKR?

[CloneWars]

Here is the biggest reason TDKR was a disappointment to me. Nolan tried to tell two Batman Returns storylinesBatman being beaten up, old and whatnot is The Dark Knight Returns. it is clear that Nolan wanted to go this route but after Ledger's death, he had to come up with a plan B which was Knightfall.Here's the thing, you either do Knightfall or you do The Dark Knight Returns. Not both. Returns worked well because the villain in the comic was the Joker and not Bane.If they went the Returns route, I think the beginning works fine, but obviously the Bane stuff would be turned into some sort of Joker story line.The biggest sin TDKR makes is having Batman come back not once, but twice after a long absence. I think if they went pure Knightfall, Batman should have still been in his prime. The police are chasing him and that chase scene with the cops should have happened earlier. At most, the movie would only take a place a year after TDK. Then, after we see Batman kick ass and take some numbers Bane shows up and breaks Batman's back. I think this would have been more epic if he were in his prime.Then, the whole thing with him being in the prison would work since this was the first time in the film he is gone for a long period of time and then we he finally shows up we are excited to see him again.Essentially, Nolan should have picked The Dark Knight Rises or Knightfall, but not both. There are other flaws, but to me, this was the biggest problem with TDKR.

[Phil in the Blank]

I partly agree with you CloneWars. Certainly having 'Batman' rising twice in the movie does make it somewhat clunky IMO. However when I broke it down I realised that the two 'rising's' are completely different and both needed to be told for Bruce Wayne's story to be complete.When we first see Bruce Wayne, he is a depressed man because he was forced to give up being Batman against his will. Bruce needs Batman because it is the only way he can deal with the death of his parents and the trauma that inflicted upon him. When there is a sniff of a new super villan on the move he leaps into action, not caring how out of touch he is. He does this, not out of a sense of duty to Gotham, but out of selfish need. In this instance his 'rising' was a false rising built on a house of cards and mirrors 'Gotham's' rising that was built on the house of cards known as the Dent Act. He is doomed to fail.His second rising however is a true rising. He learns that fear is necessary and he rises not for his own sake, but for Gotham's. And when that nuclear bomb goes off Batman does 'die'. Bruce no longer needs that persona to deal with his childhood trauma. He is able to move on and live a happy and normal life (as the last shot shows us). Bruce's character arc as far as Nolan is concerned is now complete.I agree that the two rising's make the movie seem clunky, but it is such an ambitious and epic attempt at true character development I can't help but love the film.

Edited December 27, 2012 by Phil in the Hobbit

[dashrendar44]

The "false" rising is unnecessary and introduced too much redundancy. He could have learn all of this in one long rise to the top after being broken in the beginning of the movie when you can still show he's cocky even if his bruised body shows otherwise (No need of mopey and recluse Wayne for 40 minutes). Even the part of "necessary fear" can be shown in various attempts at succeed and failures while learning when he's training (Hell, that's what happened inside the pit!). As Clone has said, Nolan had to choose between Knightfall storyline or Dark Knight Returns one. The two of them don't blend very well as it's repetitive.

Edited December 27, 2012 by dashrendar44

[CloneWars]

I partly agree with you CloneWars. Certainly having 'Batman' rising twice in the movie does make it somewhat clunky IMO. However when I broke it down I realised that the two 'rising's' are completely different and both needed to be told for Bruce Wayne's story to be complete.When we first see Bruce Wayne, he is a depressed man because he was forced to give up being Batman against his will. Bruce needs Batman because it is the only way he can deal with the death of his parents and the trauma that inflicted upon him. When there is a sniff of a new super villan on the move he leaps into action, not caring how out of touch he is. He does this, not out of a sense of duty to Gotham, but out of selfish need. In this instance his 'rising' was a false rising built on a house of cards and mirrors 'Gotham's' rising that was built on the house of cards known as the Dent Act. He is doomed to fail.His second rising however is a true rising. He learns that fear is necessary and he rises not for his own sake, but for Gotham's. And when that nuclear bomb goes off Batman does 'die'. Bruce no longer needs that persona to deal with his childhood trauma. He is able to move on and live a happy and normal life (as the last shot shows us). Bruce's character arc as far as Nolan is concerned is now complete.I agree that the two rising's make the movie seem clunky, but it is such an ambitious and epic attempt at true character development I can't help but love the film.

I have to disagree. The same thing could have been shown with just the second rising, You could show at the beginning that Bruce can't move past Batman but as him still as Batman, forget about him already being broken. That is what Bane is for. You can still have the scene of Alfred leaving to reinforce that Bruce can't move on. Really, that is all that is needed for the audience to see Bruce is too much attached to Batman. Really, the story shouldn't be Bruce is a broken Batman, fights Bane and becomes even more broken. It would have been so much more effective if Bruce was in his prime, gets broken, maybe makes some revelations about himself while in jail and then save the day and move on from being Batman and live his life out. Same movie, but less clunky.

[Lordmandeep]

As I said Nolan took a good storyline and likely felt the pressure and made it even more complicated..He thought it would just blow audiences away with all the plot twists like Inception, but in the end it just made people go WTF?

[Alpha]

As I said Nolan took a good storyline and likely felt the pressure and made it even more complicated..He thought it would just blow audiences away with all the plot twists like Inception, but in the end it just made people go WTF?

Let's agree to disagree.I honestly thought TDKR wasn't too complicated. The storyline right here: Bane wants to destroy and rebuild Gotham as an anarchist society. Bruce Wayne loses his company and goes from billionaire to bum. Has a fight with Bane and is paralyzed. Somehow is healed by some guard (by only pressing the veterbrae into his back ), learns about how Bane and goes back to Gotham. Bane sets a time bomb and Bruce Wayne (now Batman) drags the bomb to sea using the Bat. Bomb explodes, everyone thinks Batman is dead, but really Bruce Wayne is living peacefully with Selina Kyle, never to become Batman again.Oh, yes, a city cop is the successor of Batman.

[YoursTruly]

Let's agree to disagree.I honestly thought TDKR wasn't too complicated. The storyline right here:Bane wants to destroy and rebuild Gotham as an anarchist society. Bruce Wayne loses his company and goes from billionaire to bum. Has a fight with Bane and is paralyzed. Somehow is healed by some guard (by only pressing the veterbrae into his back ), learns about how Bane and goes back to Gotham. Bane sets a time bomb and Bruce Wayne (now Batman) drags the bomb to sea using the Bat. Bomb explodes, everyone thinks Batman is dead, but really Bruce Wayne is living peacefully with Selina Kyle, never to become Batman again.Oh, yes, a city cop is the successor of Batman.

That's the plot? Yuck. I was on the fence about renting it, but I think I'll pass.

[Michael Gary Scott]

I dont dislike it my number one film of the year

[Michael Gary Scott]

I have seen about 80 films this year and i have avengers in my top 10 so i have no dc/marvel bias

[Lordmandeep]

"Bane wants to destroy and rebuild Gotham as an anarchist society."And then you forget that he is simply a pawn and actually some other lady comes out of nowhere and becomes like the lamest villian ever and that she just wants to destroy the city...

[Phil in the Blank]

RE: CloneWars and dashrender44. Your ideas simply don't work for me sorry. If we see Batman in his prime getting broken by Bane, then we don't see this as a problem with Bruce needing Batman, we see this as Batman getting his ass kicked by a total badass. Not to mention that a cocky batman makes zero sense after his loss of his loved one and failure with Harvey Dent.And with batman defeated, obviously Bane was going to terrorise Gotham which would provide Bruce with the motivation to get his ass back into gear. It would be completely out of Alfred's character to tell Bruce that he needs to let Batman go at this point when Gotham so clearly needs him. You, imo, streamline the story and the cost of making the character development much clunkier and lacking sense. You also miss out on the nice bookend of seeing Wayne without Batman at the beginning of the movie vs Wayne without Batman at the end of the movie.I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one

[Phil in the Blank]

And I've never understood why people feel Bane is a pawn. On a conceptual level, we have two villains....One who is manipulating Batman and the other who is manipulating Bruce Wayne. Both are needed to take him down. Besides, the only time we see Bane being given an order by her he promptly ignores her and does his own thing. Pawns do not do that.

[Michael Gary Scott]

Yep nobody is never going to get me to say tdkr wasnt a great movie. And BKB ive seen 80-90 fims and avengers was #10 on my top 10 list so i have no dc/marvel bias not everyone hates this movie like you do

[dashrendar44]

RE: CloneWars and dashrender44. Your ideas simply don't work for me sorry. If we see Batman in his prime getting broken by Bane, then we don't see this as a problem with Bruce needing Batman, we see this as Batman getting his ass kicked by a total badass. Not to mention that a cocky batman makes zero sense after his loss of his loved one and failure with Harvey Dent.

I thought the main reason he became Batman was the loss of his loved ones, his beloved parents. That main reason that drives his thirst of justice. Now you tell me the loss of a woman (who didn't even love him but the guy who got on psychotic rampage) caused him to quit and mope during 8 years.

It would be completely out of Alfred's character to tell Bruce that he needs to let Batman go at this point when Gotham so clearly needs him.

I could do without Alfred's whining but his "Letting go of Batman" happened as Bane is already on the loose to take over Gotham so Batman is needed at this point. So I don't know what you're talking about when you say "it would be completely out of character".

Bane is very much a pawn indeed, he's manipulated by Talia.

For me, Bruce Wayne IS Batman. He's nothing but a cypher without him. That's his true self, the very meaning of his life and dedicated his all for him. So that's why I disagree about the "happy end" when Bruce Wayne just leaves out the cowl to some rookie cop to live La Dolce Vita with a former cat burglar. IMO, that's completely out of character.

Edited December 28, 2012 by dashrendar44

[CloneWars]

RE: CloneWars and dashrender44. Your ideas simply don't work for me sorry. If we see Batman in his prime getting broken by Bane, then we don't see this as a problem with Bruce needing Batman, we see this as Batman getting his ass kicked by a total badass. Not to mention that a cocky batman makes zero sense after his loss of his loved one and failure with Harvey Dent.And with batman defeated, obviously Bane was going to terrorise Gotham which would provide Bruce with the motivation to get his ass back into gear. It would be completely out of Alfred's character to tell Bruce that he needs to let Batman go at this point when Gotham so clearly needs him. You, imo, streamline the story and the cost of making the character development much clunkier and lacking sense. You also miss out on the nice bookend of seeing Wayne without Batman at the beginning of the movie vs Wayne without Batman at the end of the movie.I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one

Alfred's speech would have worked just as well if Bruce was in his prime and Alfred could have left. If say, Batman is being chased by cops and won't stop even after the city is safe, Alfred is like too much is too much and walk out on him. Anyway, either we get Bane and Batman in his prime or some other villain to deal with an already broken down Batman. If Nolan decided to go straight with The Dark Knight Returns then he should have chosen either the Mad Hatter or the Riddler to be the villian. But instead he combines The Dark Knight Returns and Knightfall and those two storylines just don't go well together. Also, some No Man's Land is thrown in, but that actually works.Anyway, to have Batman absent for half the film and then come back for a scene and then leave until the last ten minutes just doesn't work for me. I understand this is Bruce's journey and Nolan could have achieved the same character development of Bruce's arc by not doing both storylines in one movie.

[Lordmandeep]

However the whole plot about Gotham still makes no sense.

[#ED]

Seriously, in what universe do you inhabit where you think TDKR was crapped on?It has an 87% critics approval at Rotten TomatoesIt has a 92% audience approval at Rotten TomatoesIt has a 78% metacritic approal ratingIt has an 8.5 user score at metacriticIt has an 8.7 score at imdbIt recieved an A CinemaScoreIt was in the top 10 of AFI 2012 moviesIt is the 7th highest grossing movie of All Time DomesticallyIt is the 7th highest grossing movie of All Time InternationallySeriously man, you have smoked waaaaaaaaay too much pot if you think TDKR is being 'crapped' on by the vast majority of people. Throw out the bong and please join us back in reality and stop derailing threads so Shawn has to archive them!

This thread ended on page 2 fellas.

[Lordmandeep]

Those were all to be expected and even critically it was a big step down from TDK... The audience ratings have gone down over the months and will continue to do...Unlike TDK where they stayed mostly the same... Not being a hater and TDKR was well liked but its a big step down from TDK and over time this will become more clear.

[DAR]

The fact you made this your #1 film of the year shows me you don't watch many movies then... And again, I love how this is the only thread responded to in this forum as though a large majority of this site has a guilty conscience over it, that maybe deep down you know it's not that good, otherwise, we wouldn't have this thread to begin with for something that's supposed to be so beloved by IMDB and critics in general like you all claim...

Oh for fuck's sake I loved both films.

[SilverShark]

For me TDK and TDKR are almost on the same level. TDK just one little little little bit better because it had the Joker (and an awesome performance).BB is still the best for me.BB 9.5/10TDK 9/10TDKR 8.9/10One of the best trilogies of alltime IMO.