The Trouble City Forums
THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Post-release thread..... - Printable Version

+- The Trouble City Forums (http://citizens.trouble.city)
+-- Forum: Specific Cinema (http://citizens.trouble.city/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Films in Release or On Video (http://citizens.trouble.city/forumdisplay.php?fid=78)
+--- Thread: THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Post-release thread..... (/showthread.php?tid=144220)



- andrew merriweather - 08-10-2012

John C. Reilly. Before Oldman was cast he was my pick for BEGINS.




- Felix - 08-10-2012

RED LETTER MEDIA looks at Nolan.

I think i agree with a lot of stuff he's saying here. In some films, Plot Holes are forgivable. It's more about the presentation.




- workyticket - 08-10-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by felix View Post

RED LETTER MEDIA looks at Nolan.

I think i agree with a lot of stuff he's saying here. In some films, Plot Holes are forgivable. It's more about the presentation.

Yeah, I thought it was a nice breakdown. The whole thing's a dance between plot mechanics and an emotional/thematic core. and in any good story the former should match the step the latter leads with. Nolan gets that, but in these times where film criticism has become so codified where it's practically become its own pastime I think there's too many people who constantly need to prove themselves 'smarter' than the films they watch. But by doing so they get fixated with logic, which is only one aspect of effective storytelling.




- schwartz - 08-10-2012

I was on board with most of what they were saying until the part where they start going on about how Nolan makes "visceral, emotionally effective movies".  I like Nolan, but the big, huge, main thing about him is that his movies are cerebral to an (emotional) fault.

Also, if you're going to devote part of your review to a discussion of plotholes, make sure the example you use is an actual plothole.  Wayne showed up at the cafe by coincidence?  Really?




- Nooj - 08-10-2012

This movie was hardly visceral.  If constantly having the subwoofer booming through every scene is how you make a movie visceral?  Sure.

I love Nolan's 'cerebral' tone.  With its sloppy mish-mash of themes and ideas without much connection... this one didn't have the benefits of that 'cerebrality' either.  The movie mostly just felt noisy.

Considering the points through which Red Letter Media trashed on the prequels, I'm surprised he was as kind to TDKR as he was in that review.  But a lot of that has to do with the fact that he's not playing Plinkett in this, I'm sure.

Ooooh oooh ooh...  something I noticed the second time I saw the movie in 70mm IMAX:

So most of the establishing shots of the city are presented in that GLORIOUS format.  But there is one IMAX shot that gave me a chuckle.  It's after Bruce breaks up with Alfred.  The next morning, he wakes up in his bed to the sound of the doorbell.  Just that opening shot of Christian Bale in bed was in the 70mm IMAX format.  It's an establishing shot of Bale's glistening pecs!  And then when he's going, "Alfred?" it goes back to 35mm.

What an odd choice.  I'd like to think that Nolan was just having a bit of fun there.




- martin blank - 08-10-2012

Is this even still playing?

Seriously, not to derail or to demean the conversation, but does anyone else feel like this came and went about six months ago? It's weird. The hype was huge, and then Aurora happened and damped the hype right down and cast a pall over the event of the opening. Other than the occasional news item coming out of the trial, and the occasional idiot bringing a gun into a DKR showing, this doesn't seem like it's hit the zeitgeist nearly as much as TDK did. Bane definitely hasn't gone over like the Joker did, not that anyone expected him to. The wider conversation became about Aurora, not about the movie itself.




- Nooj - 08-10-2012

Honestly, I feel that way about most movies.  Big blockbusters, anyway.




- MichaelM - 08-10-2012

While I think Aurora definitely cast a pall over the film and, understandably, the cultural conversation was more about the shooting than a new film. The film is doing well - by any standards, other than perhaps against TDK, AVENGERS and AVATAR, it's doing very well - ubt it's not permeating the collective consciousness the way TDK seemed to do.

Not sure if that's a villain issue or something else.

For my part, I know some of it that the lead up to this film was, IMSNHO, done very, very poorly. The amazingly brilliant viral/ARG campaign for TDK was, for me, a huge part of the anticipation and sense of shared "ownership" of the story. WB seemed a lot more complacent with this one.

I also think the film's refusal to ape TDK's tone and villain confused audiences. While reactions, outside of this thread, have been pretty positive with Joe and Jane Six Packs, I tend to think the film's heavy reliance on knowledge of BEGINS has had a muting effect on awareness, as compared to the nearly standalone TDK.




- agracru - 08-10-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMcLargeHuge View Post

The thing is, I feel this film has the perfect tone for a comic book movie. It's begins fairly light, and there is comedy in the film, the characters just aren't the butt of the joke (i.e. Avengers). And the film only really goes dark during the second act, which it should. The stakes have been raised, and the hero is beaten. Which is why we feel the threat of Bane (Again, unlike the Skrull invasion). Even then, the film ends on a very hopeful note.

Actually, characters very much are the butt of some of the jokes here. What else do you call Bruce's line about "so that's what that feels like" ? Frankly, I loved those elements because they acknowledge the inherent comic book campiness that comes packaged with every superhero movie; they let the movie be what Nolan wants it to be without dampening connection to its roots. Hell, Selina spouts off one-liners even in the last act. She's great, and Hathaway plays her perfectly.

Batman isn't a character known for his sense of humor, but to me the humor here definitely speaks to Nolan embracing the idea of letting a comic book movie be a comic book movie. He still does his Christopher Nolan thing and goes very, very cerebral, and I think there's room in a film for him to do that while also acknowledging that he's making a movie about a man in tights who fights crime. I just think that no matter where his interests lie, he wound up failing in making a totally cohesive and successful movie.

It's been said many times but superhero/comic book movies can come in all shapes and sizes. I don't much care for arguments in favor of The Avengers that start with "this is better because it's fun and comic book movies are fun", much as I don't much care for arguments in favor of TDKR that work to the reverse effect.




- Nooj - 08-10-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by agracru View Post

 What else do you call Bruce's line about "so that's what that feels like" ?

The true theme of this film is: EMPATHY.

The new status quo: a Batman who doesn't silently leave a conversation like a jerk.

And everyone lived happily ever after!




- agracru - 08-10-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

The true theme of this film is: EMPATHY.

The new status quo: a Batman who doesn't silently leave a conversation like a jerk.

And everyone lived happily ever after!

"Wow, is that how I've been making people feel over the last decade of having the final word before disappearing quietly into the night? Man, I deserve to be on Gotham's most wanted list."




- harleyquinn22 - 08-10-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Blank View Post
 Other than the occasional news item coming out of the trial, and the occasional idiot bringing a gun into a DKR showing, this doesn't seem like it's hit the zeitgeist nearly as much as TDK did. 

No one in the cast died this time around.  And no, I'm not joking.




- jacknifejohnny - 08-11-2012

ATDKR is perfectly successful, but there's Aurora and no Joker. The latter is the rock star of supervillains irrespective of who plays him. Batman Returns made less than Batman and I would argue that it's not a lesser movie, the major difference is who the villain is *not*. It's not rocket science or proof against the film's quality, but more of a demonstration of one character's hold on the popular imagination. On another subject, I'm trying to decide if I'm shocked that so many people (fanboys specifically) seem to entirely misunderstand the point and ultimate destiny of John Blake. I've read all sorts of ridiculous ideas that miss the point so spectacularly that it's made my head spin.


- carnotaur3 - 08-11-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

TDKR is perfectly successful, but there's Aurora and no Joker. The latter is the rock star of supervillains irrespective of who plays him. Batman Returns made less than Batman and I would argue that it's not a lesser movie, the major difference is who the villain is *not*. It's not rocket science or proof against the film's quality, but more of a demonstration of one character's hold on the popular imagination. On another subject, I'm trying to decide if I'm shocked that so many people (fanboys specifically) seem to entirely misunderstand the point and ultimate destiny of John Blake. I've read all sorts of ridiculous ideas that miss the point so spectacularly that it's made my head spin.

I think one of their biggest arguments is Blake doesn't know martial arts!

The end isn't the start of his career as Batman but his beginning turn to vigilantism as a way of finding his identity in his world. The fact that Bruce/Batman gave him the way into it is where the comparisons stop. Sure, there are mirrors here and there, but simple ones; they are the usual suspects of how someone turns down a path few rarely follow. From this point on, Blake's journey will be his own and that's the fun part. We don't see it, we imagine it.




- daughters - 08-11-2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZW5qyc2g6U&feature=related

I am hoping to get a feature like this for the bluray.

Bane's voice is hilarious I guess he must of spent a good amount

of time in south africa during that coup.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNJVMJH5OhI

"No they expect one of us in the wreckage Brutha..."




- MichaelM - 08-11-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

On another subject, I'm trying to decide if I'm shocked that so many people (fanboys specifically) seem to entirely misunderstand the point and ultimate destiny of John Blake. I've read all sorts of ridiculous ideas that miss the point so spectacularly that it's made my head spin.

Now I'm starting to wonder if I'm being stupid or dull. My understanding of the ending was that Blake would - or at least could - take on the role of Batman, the city's protector. Not "Robin" or "Nightwing," but to keep the symbol of Batman going, to keep fear in the hearts of criminals, and to inspire the regular citizens. Or is that way off? (Not asking with snark - wondering if that's the take you meant.)




- Nooj - 08-11-2012

Yeah, I just saw Blake continuing as 'The Batman' within Nolan's take on the 'Batman world.'

With the fact that he isn't trained by the League of Shadows, I thought it would be much cooler to think of Blake actually playing up the 'Great Detective' aspect of the Batman persona.  Particularly since he seems particularly excited to be promoted to that role as a cop.

His special move can be Bullet Ricochet!!!  And then he can continue The Batman's legacy of morally grey killing!

"I didn't kill you, old chum.  The angle of reflection did!"




- waaaaaaaalt - 08-11-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Blank View Post

Is this even still playing?

Seriously, not to derail or to demean the conversation, but does anyone else feel like this came and went about six months ago? It's weird. The hype was huge, and then Aurora happened and damped the hype right down and cast a pall over the event of the opening. Other than the occasional news item coming out of the trial, and the occasional idiot bringing a gun into a DKR showing, this doesn't seem like it's hit the zeitgeist nearly as much as TDK did. Bane definitely hasn't gone over like the Joker did, not that anyone expected him to. The wider conversation became about Aurora, not about the movie itself.

Yeah I agree with all of that. It just kind of came and went. It made a shitload of money in the process though......but then just went.




- parker - 08-11-2012

Here's a really great discussion from MUBI on RISES and Nolan in general. Worth the read.




- untitled - 08-11-2012

I think in the end it just wasn't as good a movie as The Dark Knight or Inception. It lacked that staying power. The Avengeres had that sort of momentum too, the movie had people talking about it long past release. The only thing I see people talking about with The Dark Knight Rises is others asking if it's still worth seeing.




- workyticket - 08-11-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post

Now I'm starting to wonder if I'm being stupid or dull. My understanding of the ending was that Blake would - or at least could - take on the role of Batman, the city's protector. Not "Robin" or "Nightwing," but to keep the symbol of Batman going, to keep fear in the hearts of criminals, and to inspire the regular citizens. Or is that way off? (Not asking with snark - wondering if that's the take you meant.)

Yeah, I got pretty much the same out of it. That Blake's there as a failsafe to take up the mantle if and when Gotham needs him. Whether it's a good thing or bad is fairly moot, and up for interpretation; you could argue that it's whatever Blake makes of it. I think the point that the films ultimately make is that Wayne uses it as an extension of his own guilt over his parents' death, and something he realizes that has ultimately served its purpose (Really, he struggles with this from the point Dent appears on the scene). He reaches the point where he realizes he needs to walk away, and Blake is almost his final gift to Gotham: a future Batman who can fight the battle if it's ever needed.




- Nooj - 08-11-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post

Here's a really great discussion from MUBI on RISES and Nolan in general. Worth the read.

Thanks for this.

They're really going into one of the huge issues I had with the film: its editing.

And then YES to this:

Quote:
However, maybe it’s best to be done with all the bad and point out the one sequence I liked. Batman wants to confront Bane for the first time. He enlists Catwoman to help find him. They descend into the sewers. Only here, did I feel suspense. Like in the prior Batman films we see moments of the bad guys in fear, as Batman takes down minion after minion. In one great shot, we see Batman in a dark corridor, but he’s only visible when illuminated by the flashes of gunfire from the underling he’s rapidly approaching. It’s an exciting series of images in a moody, grungy setting.
Then in the ensuing fight with Bane, we get Nolan’s best—in a relative sense, of course—action scene, as Batman is pummeled into submission. Eventually, as our hero lies incapacitated, we get a POV shot of what he sees, and it’s an imperfectly framed composition of his dark surroundings, with sewage water pouring down from some pipe on the right side of the frame. For a brief instance, I clearly felt Batman’s defenselessness, his vulnerability as a man.
It’s an image usually too expressive and abstract for Nolan. It stands out amongst hundreds of other shots that come before and after it. An anomaly. I guess with a 165 minute running time, and 250 million dollars spent, even Christopher Nolan can create one image worth seeing.



- parker - 08-11-2012

I liked that section a lot too and agree with what they write about it. I don't think it's the one shot worth mentioning from the whole movie, as I liked a few more, but it adds to the reasons why I think the film is a fascinating, flawed misfire rather than a straight up disaster.

I'm also glad they dug into the editing. It's such a strangely edited movie, which is particularly odd given that Inception is brilliantly edited.




- Nooj - 08-11-2012

In Renn's piece about the possibility of deleted scenes of TDKR, he talked about how the film stepped right on the edge of the IMAX format's runtime limit.  The 70mm IMAX theaters couldn't even show any trailers with the movie (YES!!!) because of it.

I wondered if that runtime cap had anything to do with the approach Nolan took to cutting the movie.  It takes a style of editing that has power in the instances in which it's used.  How much effect can it have when it keeps on happening?

But another part of me concludes that it was pretty intentional... considering the way characters just teleport in from the side of the frame. 

BOOM

"Hi Bruce!"

BOOM

"Hi Batman!"

BOOM

"Yo, Selina."

BOOM

"Hi Dagget."

How special can Batman's ninja-style be when everyone does it???

Oh, speaking of Dagget... here's a photo I took recently that reminded me of a moment:

"Do you FEEL in control?"




- harleyquinn22 - 08-11-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

Oh, speaking of Dagget... here's a photo I took recently that reminded me of a moment:

"Do you FEEL in control?"

That dog looks suitably terrified.




- jacknifejohnny - 08-11-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post

Here's a really great discussion from MUBI on RISES and Nolan in general. Worth the read.

I can't escape the impression of this being a bit of a smirking circle-jerk of a discussion, due in part to the talk of the films politics and the casually dismissive tone of things I feel are actually perfectly strong about the film and Nolan's abilities as a filmmaker.

The emphasis on TDKR's political murk is a tired one, and I feel, a largely incorrect one. The fact that the main character in all these films is a masked billionaire thrashing the hell out of people in the dead of night is probably going to upset any attempt to graft a perfectly delineated political agenda upon, and the constant inference that Nolan is directly addressing and/or criticizing the Occupy movement is highly debatable, as it's been outright denied by the man himself (he could absolutely be bullshitting to protect himself, but again, it's debatable).

Concern over economic inequality and entropy has been woven throughout the series since the first film, so it's not like TDKR suddenly adopted a new subject. One character that always pops into my head from TDK is Ramirez. She's not joyfully corrupt like Flass from BB, she's found herself under the thumb of the mob because they found a weak point: her ailing mother and Ramirez's financial inability to keep up with her treatment. She's not just saying this to keep Two-Face from killing her, it's setup in the opening moments of the film in her brief rooftop discussion with Gordon. Then we have the ferry sequence, which makes a broad and hopeful statement about the inherent decency of people (insofar as one is able to buy that). Neither the average citizens or the prisoners are directly inspired by Batman, but it's held (or at least Batman holds it) as proof of concept, that people don't necessarily have to break when you tap dance on their fracture point.

It was a triumph he and Gordon undercut by deceiving the citizens with a false idol, something that was heavily criticized upon that film's initial release by people who rather ridiculously assumed that Nolan was holding up as a proper and moral decision, when his whole career thusfar has been about placing the audience in the subjective lens of his antagonists, who, wouldn't you know it, often suffer from a terribly fractured psychology and are prone to making morally gray decisions that they are on the face of it, certain is the right thing to do.

As Gordon says to Foley in the lead up to the climax of TDKR, "the problem only gets fixed from inside the city", there is no one, external miracle cure all that will save / sustain Gotham from falling apart, but a level of communication, understanding, commonality, and that inherent something, an almost ineffable thing that fear and practicality often keeps just outside of arms length.

I would also like to point out that it seems that the neutron bomb, as it is repeatedly described in the film, was referred to as a "capitalist bomb" by Leonid Brezhnev because while it would annihilate human life, it would leave property generally operable or preserved. In the film the scientist who turns the clean energy device into a bomb is a Russian scientist named Leonid Pavel. Coincidence? I suspect not.

I want to get around to addressing their more direct criticisms of the film and Nolan's skill as a director, but I might have to do that later today if I can.




- gabe t - 08-11-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Workyticket View Post

Yeah, I got pretty much the same out of it. That Blake's there as a failsafe to take up the mantle if and when Gotham needs him. Whether it's a good thing or bad is fairly moot, and up for interpretation; you could argue that it's whatever Blake makes of it. I think the point that the films ultimately make is that Wayne uses it as an extension of his own guilt over his parents' death, and something he realizes that has ultimately served its purpose (Really, he struggles with this from the point Dent appears on the scene). He reaches the point where he realizes he needs to walk away, and Blake is almost his final gift to Gotham: a future Batman who can fight the battle if it's ever needed.

Isn't it obvious? Blake's got an ARMY OF KIDS right above the Batcave. Spinoff: ROBIN AND THE BATBOYS.

Shit would be more adorable than kittens having a sleepover with squirrels.




- agracru - 08-11-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

I can't escape the impression of this being a bit of a smirking circle-jerk of a discussion, due in part to the talk of the films politics and the casually dismissive tone of things I feel are actually perfectly strong about the film and Nolan's abilities as a filmmaker.

If people are talking about the movie's politics, it's because the movie very much invites them to do so by putting matters of class inequality first and foremost in its plot (while they've merely hovered in the background for most of the rest of the series). And if it seems like people are trying to out-smart Nolan, it's because that's one very valid way of approaching the films of one of the day's most cerebral, thought-driven filmmakers.




- slim - 08-11-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

The emphasis on TDKR's political murk is a tired one, and I feel, a largely incorrect one. The fact that the main character in all these films is a masked billionaire thrashing the hell out of people in the dead of night is probably going to upset any attempt to graft a perfectly delineated political agenda upon...

.........

Concern over economic inequality and entropy has been woven throughout the series since the first film, so it's not like TDKR suddenly adopted a new subject...

.........

I made a similar point one or two times over in "The Avengers" thread. I think trying to apply a specific and temporal political state of affairs to superheroes is almost always folly. Whenever politics are addressed directly in the comics, they invariably come off as shitty and dated. They work better when they deal with bigger issues of humanity and heroism.

.........

And good point that economic issues have always been present in Nolan's trilogy. Consider the scene in "Begins" when Rachel drives Wayne down to show him all the people devastated by the "Depression". Joe Chill is a product of this environment, we're told-- not the faceless killer who drives the popular interpretation of Batman from the last couple of decades in the comics.

This was surely a deliberate choice on the part of Nolan and his writers. Nolan's Batman is attacking a larger societal problem-- organized crime, corrupt government-- not beating the shit out of muggers... I think you could probably square all that with the supposed "right-wing" bent of the other two films, but it isn't necessary.

ETA: By the way, I also look forward to a good examination of the way Nolan put this movie together as a whole, and what it says about him as a filmmaker. I really liked TDKR, but may be going under a reconsideration now... Not that I've turned on it, mind-- but minutiae aside, it might not be as good as I thought it was, walking out of the theater.




- carnotaur3 - 08-11-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

As Gordon says to Foley in the lead up to the climax of TDKR, "the problem only gets fixed from inside the city", there is no one, external miracle cure all that will save / sustain Gotham from falling apart, but a level of communication, understanding, commonality, and that inherent something, an almost ineffable thing that fear and practicality often keeps just outside of arms length.

You bring up some interesting points because another one of the main criticisms in the film is "where the hell are the citizens of Gotham in all of this? Aren't we supposed to see how they're inspired?" This criticism is a valid one, but up to a point.

If TDK was about the inherit good that is possible within a common citizen without any political gain, then TDKR is about why we look up to those who should be sustaining it. Up until the end, Batman is still considered Public Enemy Number 1 (at least number 2 by the time Bane took over) in Gotham. He and Gordon's questionable ethics at the end of TDK is brought to light, but by the same token, Batman is no longer responsible insofar as he really committed murder.

Normal citizens were not going to fight this war, because heroes have a place. This is where the film is asking you not to see it political at all. We know Batman's heart and intent. We know the cops are trying to bring order to a city that absolutely needs it because the past is the past, and heroes are needed. We know Bane and Talia are about to send Gotham to the stone age... and then completely obliterate it. And still heroes are needed and heroes are made through their wake.

In order for Batman to be the hero Gotham needs, Gotham will have to completely let him because this is outside anything their capable of winning.

If you look at it this way, Rises is the ultimate 9/11 movie. It's about how small people felt in New York on that day, but how fortunate they were to have the heroes be the heroes. A New York City cop you hated that one day because they decided to exceed their authority was now leading some men into a building to save people from certain doom.

The buildings were going to collapse. There were some that doubted it. There was no fail-safe. And in Gotham, there was no way anyone could transport the bomb away from the city and not have enormous casualties. It had to be Batman. Once that bomb went off everyone realized it. No matter what they felt of him before, nobody could deny the ultimate sacrifice.




- gabe t - 08-11-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slim View Post

And good point that economic issues have always been present in Nolan's trilogy. Consider the scene in "Begins" when Rachel drives Wayne down to show him all the people devastated by the "Depression". Joe Chill is a product of this environment, we're told-- not the faceless killer who drives the popular interpretation of Batman from the last couple of decades in the comics.

This was surely a deliberate choice on the part of Nolan and his writers. Nolan's Batman is attacking a larger societal problem-- organized crime, corrupt government-- not beating the shit out of muggers... I think you could probably square all that with the supposed "right-wing" bent of the other two films, but it isn't necessary.

Fortunately this is all solved by FLYING A NUKE AWAY FROM THE CITY. Easy peasy.

BTW, self-promotion, I wrote a bit about being disturbed by the violence in this film over here. Hope someone finds something relateable in all that chatter.




- slim - 08-11-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe T View Post

Fortunately this is all solved by FLYING A NUKE AWAY FROM THE CITY. Easy peasy.

BTW, self-promotion, I wrote a bit about being disturbed by the violence in this film over here. Hope someone finds something relateable in all that chatter.

Yes-- Saving a city from nuclear destruction earns a hero brownie points with everyone, regardless of his political orientation. Cf. Anthony Stark.




- carnotaur3 - 08-11-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slim View Post

Yes-- Saving a city from nuclear destruction earns a hero brownie points with everyone, regardless of his political orientation.

I think that's the whole point of the movie. The lower class people in the city and the villains stirring them up spend so much time trying to validate their ideologies and political stances that they loose sight of what their purpose is: Saving people.




- slim - 08-11-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post

I think that's the whole point of the movie. The lower class people in the city and the villains stirring them up spend so much time trying to validate their ideologies and political stances that they loose sight of what their purpose is: Saving people.

Bingo.

Jesus-- I hate that I keep comparing Nolan's Batman films to "The Wire", because they are clearly nowhere near as good. But in both pieces is this sense that institutions have failed us, become calcified and corrupt... and in both is the question: what are they all there for in the first fucking place, if not to do the right thing?

The response of characters in both cases is a highly-individualistic one. I reckon that could be read as a conservative stance... But no one's ever accused David Simon of being a conservative.

And again, I don't think that it's necessary to do so, because you're really dealing with bigger things.




- carnotaur3 - 08-11-2012

On an interesting note, I don't feel Bane was merely there for revenge nor for Talia. While he is deceiving the public for the plan to work, there's no way he doesn't believe in what he's saying to the public. He's speaking truthfully. He is upholding his standards, his ethics. He really is forming a revolution, and the ultimate expression of that is to die doing it.

"They expect one of us in the wreckage, brother." "Have we started a fire?" "Yes, the fire rises."

The selfishness in the part of Bane is that he commands others die by his hand to prove a point. He and his revolutionaries will become a symbol in the fire. If that isn't pure Islamic Terrorism at its core, I don't know what is. Batman's counter is one of selflessness.