The Dark Knight Rises ***USE SPOILER TAGS***

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Batman doesn't stick around long enough to hold too many conversations, with people that aren't closest to him anyway... or villains. >.>

And yet there are always several newspaper clippings of both him and Wayne to compare. :lol

Spoiler Spoiler:


Why are we still using spoiler tags? The movies been released now for over a week? If people haven't seen it by now, they should just stay out of the thread since it's on them. :huh :lol
 
Love that scene.

Makes you wonder though...

Spoiler Spoiler:

Does make you wonder. But I think, actually, when Catwoman tells Banes men to get Lucious and bruce and bring them to Bane, they could easily say he was exiled and went to his death.

Lucious would be in on the lie, knowing he 'died in the explosion'. With how things were in Gotham Bruce waynes death wouldnt come as a shock because of the large amount of the city's rich were exiled/death by exile.

Didnt the board get exiled too?
 
And it was completely killed by the flashback. I think Nolan insulted his audience by doing that. :lol

:goodpost:

There were far too many flashbacks used in this one to the point it seemed like desperation on Nolan's part. "Look! Look! see how this fits in with the previous films?!" The Gordon one was the most cringworthy, we get a flashback AND Gordon has to blurt out "BRUCE WAYNE?" All was needed was a knowing look imo.
It was just pandering to people who haven't bothered to watch the first two,and I don't think I've known anyone to watch the third part of a trilogy first.
 
People _____ing about the flashbacks is hilarious.

Yes it would have been better to leave them out, but Nolan has to appease the masses who may be seeing this without the two before it so that they can enjoy it also.


It does not always mean he is 'insulting his audience'. This is a director who almost always treats his audience as being as clever/up to speed as he is when it comes to his films.
 
From Dane Cook about the shooting in Aurora:

“So I heard that the guy came into the theater about 25 minutes into the movie. And I don’t know if you’ve seen the movie, but the movie is pretty much a piece of crap. Yea, spoiler alert.”
“I know that if none of that would have happened, pretty sure that somebody in that theater, about 25 minutes in, realizing it was a piece of crap, was probably like ‘ugh ____ing shoot me.’”
 
From Dane Cook about the shooting in Aurora:

“So I heard that the guy came into the theater about 25 minutes into the movie. And I don’t know if you’ve seen the movie, but the movie is pretty much a piece of crap. Yea, spoiler alert.”
“I know that if none of that would have happened, pretty sure that somebody in that theater, about 25 minutes in, realizing it was a piece of crap, was probably like ‘ugh ____ing shoot me.’”

That is some of the most insensitive nonsense i've ever read.

What exactly was the point of posting this?
 
Dane 'my fifteen minutes of fame are over' Cook trying to be relevant again. Only thing worse than his stand up was his acting. Never understood his appeal. Meh...
 
I think it's hilarious that Dave doesn't like political threads due to insults being slung around. Yet there are more in here versus any other political type thread I've been in. Thanks a lot Batman! :lol
 
Dane Cook is one of the worst comedians of all time. He's right up there with Carlos Mencia the joke thief.
 
People _____ing about the flashbacks is hilarious.

Yes it would have been better to leave them out, but Nolan has to appease the masses who may be seeing this without the two before it so that they can enjoy it also.


It does not always mean he is 'insulting his audience'. This is a director who almost always treats his audience as being as clever/up to speed as he is when it comes to his films.

Wasn't it mentioned somewhere that Nolan had always wanted each of the movies to be stand-alone movies? Maybe these flashback scenes were for this purpose specifically - for people who haven't seen the previous 2 movies.

IIRC, it was mentioned way back when Batman Begins was released, especially talking about the end scene when the Joker card was shown by Gordon.
 
Wasn't it mentioned somewhere that Nolan had always wanted each of the movies to be stand-alone movies? Maybe these flashback scenes were for this purpose specifically - for people who haven't seen the previous 2 movies.

IIRC, it was mentioned way back when Batman Begins was released, especially talking about the end scene when the Joker card was shown by Gordon.

With the exception of the Joker being completely removed from TDKR, they rely a little heavy on eachother for that to be a possibility.
 
Dane 'my fifteen minutes of fame are over' Cook trying to be relevant again. Only thing worse than his stand up was his acting. Never understood his appeal. Meh...
Me either. He's a terrible comedian. I think I've laughed at one or two of his jokes tops.

Anyway, he knew good and well it was too insensitive to be cracking jokes about something like this. And I mean, it JUST happened for god's sakes. He knew what he was doing. His apology is as fake and insensitive as his joke, which he blurted out of his orifice simply because he wanted to be thrown in the spotlight for a few minutes again, be it negative or otherwise.
 
People shouldn't judge these as sequels, but as individual films. The way I see it, what Nolan did was the antithesis of what Sergio Leone did with his "Dollars" trilogy. Whereas, Leone told three different stories with different characters, but still retained the same overall tone in each film, Nolan has crafted a trilogy that, while it retains the core characters and interconnecting story elements, delivers vastly different thematic undertones in each subsequent installment.

To even compare them is asinine, and, what bugs me the most is when people say that they didn't like it because "it wasn't what they were expecting." What were you expecting, exactly? Open your mind and appreciate it for what it is.
 
People shouldn't judge these as sequels, but as individual films. The way I see it, what Nolan did was the antithesis of what Sergio Leone did with his "Dollars" trilogy. Whereas, Leone told three different stories with different characters, but still retained the same overall tone in each film, Nolan has crafted a trilogy that, while it retains the core characters and interconnecting story elements, delivers vastly different thematic undertones in each subsequent installment.

To even compare them is asinine, and, what bugs me the most is when people say that they didn't like it because "it wasn't what they were expecting." What were you expecting, exactly? Open your mind and appreciate it for what it is.

Oxymoronic. It's a sequel. TDKR is so dependent on what came before it, that judging it on it's own merits would be asinine and actually lower it's score.

And the "dollars trilogy" isn't a trilogy, that's just marketing that's lumped them together. It's three separate films. For being "the man with no name," Eastwood has a different name in each. :lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top