The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

[hoops]

the same kind of character development is found in Lucius deciding to allow the Wayne money to disappear over eight years without even taking the time to visit Bruce or Alfred in person

Does it say he never visited? I can't recall...
Also, he's only one of a board of directors. The board was[spoiler] being manipulated by [/spoiler] old fella-my-lad (can't remember his name) who was [spoiler]in cahoots with Bane[/spoiler].

Not as far as i remember...he did say something along the lines of "if you don't read your emails, Mr Wayne" though.
Ah the board huh? Since when did the board ever stop Lucius doing anything before? I'm talking about the man...Lucius knows this guy is Batman, knows Alfred and the family well...and he relies on emails...? Well, of course he does..it's called development   

[Richmond Clements]

The board managed to get rid of him in the first movie - it was only the eventual intervention of Bruce Wayne, through duplicitous methods, that got him back in.

[hoops]

The board managed to get rid of him in the first movie - it was only the eventual intervention of Bruce Wayne, through duplicitous methods, that got him back in.

Certainly, although he was never really out was he...just shunted down to a lower divison... and it's Bruce Wayne who enables Lucius to get back into Wayne Industries once his security pass is revoked too, i take it...?
"Why, i wouldn't have thought that'd stop a man of your talents"

[Richmond Clements]

There's a difference between breaking into a building in which he (presumably) designed the security for, and buying enough shares to be a majority shareholder on the board of a multinational company.

[hoops]

There's a difference between breaking into a building in which he (presumably) designed the security for, and buying enough shares to be a majority shareholder on the board of a multinational company.

And visiting an old friend...?

My point being - Lucius shows over the first two films that he is no callous moron or anyone else's stooge...so why have him act like one all of a sudden.

[Richmond Clements]

There's a difference between breaking into a building in which he (presumably) designed the security for, and buying enough shares to be a majority shareholder on the board of a multinational company.

And visiting an old friend...?

My point being - Lucius shows over the first two films that he is no callous moron or anyone else's stooge...so why have him act like one all of a sudden.

I'll need to watch it again, but I certainly did not see his actions as callous or a stooge. He has, as you said, been trying to contact Wayne about the problems. Not stooge like behaviour, I think!

[Jim_Campbell]

I'll need to watch it again, but I certainly did not see his actions as callous or a stooge. He has, as you said, been trying to contact Wayne about the problems. Not stooge like behaviour, I think!

I got the impression that it was the focus on the [spoiler]reactor programme and its moth-balling[/spoiler] that crippled Wayne Industries' finances; that the [spoiler]diversion of funds absorbed profit in ways Lucius couldn't explain to the board[/spoiler] and I took the 'not answering your e-mails' line to be more of a refusal on Bruce's part to discuss [spoiler]the decision to mothball the reactor[/spoiler] than half-hearted attempt by Lucius to flag up an eight-year programme of mismanagement of the company.

That said, I've only seen the film once and this wasn't foremost in the things I was paying attention to, so I may have that wrong.

Cheers

Jim

[hoops]

There's a difference between breaking into a building in which he (presumably) designed the security for, and buying enough shares to be a majority shareholder on the board of a multinational company.

And visiting an old friend...?

My point being - Lucius shows over the first two films that he is no callous moron or anyone else's stooge...so why have him act like one all of a sudden.

I'll need to watch it again, but I certainly did not see his actions as callous or a stooge. He has, as you said, been trying to contact Wayne about the problems. Not stooge like behaviour, I think!

I'd be interested what you think when you do.
Because if he isn't a board under manipulation's stooge...then it does raise the question 'why would this guy, who knows Wayne is Batman and knows the family and Alfred well, just allow the money to disappear while he just sends some emails?' Seems pretty callous and moronic to me, mate

[hoops]

I'll need to watch it again, but I certainly did not see his actions as callous or a stooge. He has, as you said, been trying to contact Wayne about the problems. Not stooge like behaviour, I think!

I got the impression that it was the focus on the [spoiler]reactor programme and its moth-balling[/spoiler] that crippled Wayne Industries' finances; that the [spoiler]diversion of funds absorbed profit in ways Lucius couldn't explain to the board[/spoiler] and I took the 'not answering your e-mails' line to be more of a refusal on Bruce's part to discuss [spoiler]the decision to mothball the reactor[/spoiler] than half-hearted attempt by Lucius to flag up an eight-year programme of mismanagement of the company.

That said, I've only seen the film once and this wasn't foremost in the things I was paying attention to, so I may have that wrong.

See, this is where i get confused...i thought Bruce Wayne had been a recluse for eight years? But did he work on the reactor, have it moth-balled and then become a recluse while the emails piled up?
Shite, does this mean i'm going to have to watch it again now too?

[radiator]

I've kind of warmed to it having thought about it for a few days.

Perhaps my initial disappointment was due in part to just feeling utterly overwhelmed by the story - which is so insanely convoluted that even the most attentive viewer would miss a few key plot points. I remember being lukewarm on Batman Begins when I first watched it, partly for similar reasons - I love it now, though - and it's a rare film that I like more each time I watch it.

The realisation that the story of Rises is a blend of No Man's Land, Knightfall and The Dark Night Returns makes me appreciate what they were trying to do a bit more, but I still think that Bane's plan is ludicrously complicated and bonkers. Ra's Al Ghul wanted to destroy Gotham - plain and simple. He was a villain I could understand - he wasn't even really presented as a villain, just a more extreme version of Batman. The motivations and strategies of Bane and Talia just seemed so muddled and complicated, which combined with all the other ludicrous story elements ended up leaving me a little underwhelmed and disconnected from it. I also think the style of filmmaking hurts it - one major event after another fly by so fast in a montage-like blur that the gravity of the situation fails to register. Nothing has time to sink in before we're in the middle of the next big set-piece.

And I still can't believe that [spoiler]no one seems bothered that Batman murders two people at the end of this film (Talia and the driver).[/spoiler]

Though I came out of the cinema with no desire to watch The Dark Knight Rises again, perhaps I'll end up giving it another go on Blu Ray.

As for the big debate about the film - I really, really liked Bane's voice - so much cooler than the generic gravely voice most actors would have done - but just wish it would have been clearer. Weird how it seemed to be so much higher in the mix to the point it sounded like it wasn't part of the film, but still quite hard to understand.

[DeFuzzed]

I love complicated plots, twists and turns and details that become clearer on rewatch. Having said that, Rises didn't feel very convoluted at all. The reasons behind Bane seem perfectly clear and logical because Wayne is far from being an idiot with amazing tech capabilities and so they needed to hide everything they were doing in his city extremely well. And they nearly won. In fact, they did win, in a way, because Gotham definitely fell, it just didn't stay fallen.

The sound could have been better, definitely, and I'm looking forward to putting on subtitles when the dvd comes out, but it wasn't so bad as to hide the story.

[darnmarr]

In the history of 'films-that-ran-to-a-third-episode' it's really quite strong, and it did charm me in a desperat-to-entertain-and-bamboozle kind of way... just a few less speeches and a tad stronger narrative and I would've honestly found it truly amazing: I can forgive unrealistic voices and plot-holes, but boredom and disappointment rankle.

[radiator]

It felt convoluted in the sense that Bane's plan was very Bond villain, like the scene in his secret underground lair where he's killing his own henchmen - so cliched. There is a point where suspension of disbelief becomes a problem - even in a superhero film (and especially one pretending to be a 'serious' crime drama). The Joker's various plans in The Dark Knight came close to crossing the line, Bane's crossed it about twenty minutes into the film.

The League of Shadows members in Batman Begins struck me as loyal, but not the types to throw their lives away so willingly.

In the history of 'films-that-ran-to-a-third-episode' it's really quite strong, and it did charm me in a desperat-to-entertain-and-bamboozle kind of way... just a few less speeches and a tad stronger narrative and I would've honestly found it truly amazing: I can forgive unrealistic voices and plot-holes, but boredom and disappointment rankle.

Yeah. The Return of the Jedi comparison is one I made myself. It's not 'bad', just merely OK by the standards of the previous films. I still don't know how anyone could rate this above either of the previous movies.

[judgeblake]

Can anyone explain to what the point of the Dr. Crane cameo was?
The guy was in there for litteraly two minuets, we don't even find out what happened to him.
Now I love Cillien Murphy as Scarecrow but his appearence just felt shoehorned and phoned in.

Wha-? It was a cameo - that's why he was there for a couple of minutes. Otherwise it wouldn't be a cameo. And he was obviously [spoiler]one of the escapees from Blackgate.[/spoiler]

[spoiler]I agree - it was nothing more than a cameo - he had clearly escaped from arkham asylum and got himself appointed 'judge' of the people of Gotham brought before him whom he condemned to death basically (death by exile, or death) I agree it was unneeded, but I also feel talia al ghul's presence in the plot, as well as Liam Neeson's cameo are unneeded - but they are all part of Nolan's need to round off his trilogy.[/spoiler]

I think Nolan sacrificed having a decent plot just so he could tie everything up nicely.

I completely agree

Bruce Wayne: You still haven't given up on me?
Alfred Pennyworth: Never!

...well, until part three that is, when you really need me...[spoiler]and then i'll leave, and when you 'die'... i'll cry because i've let your father down.[/spoiler]

Because that's the faithful Alfred Pennyworth we all know and love.

[spoiler]This was one of many elements out of keeping with the trilogy thus far, that seemed to only serve the purpose of the script and the curtailing of the trilogy. But I think it's also likely that the movie was running far too long, and that Nolan may have cut alot of Alfred either out of the latter script or out of the movie print, sublimating this with a token speech from Alfred earlier on, and the finale linked to Alfred. We of course have to read into the character of Alfred here and interpret it for ourselves ; trying to make sense of Alfred's departure, I see it as both tough love towards Wayne, as well as Alfred foreseeing the inevitable and not wanting to bear witness to Wayne/Batman's demise. I still would have rather have had Alfred remain, maybe closely working with Lucius Fox, and remaining by Wayne's side (or certainly near it) - then maybe accepting John Blake into the house - maybe sharing a hinted conversation with Blake regarding 'sacrifice''gothams need for a knight''the existance of evil'etc before Blake breaks into the batcave for himself as we see him do whilst Alfred (and co) are in Venice/Florence. [/spoiler]

I'll need to watch it again, but I certainly did not see his actions as callous or a stooge. He has, as you said, been trying to contact Wayne about the problems. Not stooge like behaviour, I think!

I got the impression that it was the focus on the [spoiler]reactor programme and its moth-balling[/spoiler] that crippled Wayne Industries' finances; that the [spoiler]diversion of funds absorbed profit in ways Lucius couldn't explain to the board[/spoiler] and I took the 'not answering your e-mails' line to be more of a refusal on Bruce's part to discuss [spoiler]the decision to mothball the reactor[/spoiler] than half-hearted attempt by Lucius to flag up an eight-year programme of mismanagement of the company.

That said, I've only seen the film once and this wasn't foremost in the things I was paying attention to, so I may have that wrong.

See, this is where i get confused...i thought Bruce Wayne had been a recluse for eight years? But did he work on the reactor, have it moth-balled and then become a recluse while the emails piled up?
Shite, does this mean i'm going to have to watch it again now too?

I interpreted that as; [spoiler]Wayne had gone underground after TDK and recovering from his wounds he had put money into further saving gotham by developing several projects with Fox, including the sustainable energy project. I also thought maybe Wayne even continued his activities as batman on and off explaining his many injuries, frailties, lack of cartilage etc Being forced to stop activities as Batman due to his bodily injuries may have forced Wayne into a depression and period of prolongued reclusive behaviour and subsequent long term abandonment of the sustainable energy project - all stemming from his inability to act as batman on the streets of gotham fighting crime and evil and thus appeasing his guilt in the role he played in the death of Rachel.[/spoiler]

I could be reading too much into it all though lol

 

[Dandontdare]

As for the big debate about the film - I really, really liked Bane's voice - so much cooler than the generic gravely voice most actors would have done - but just wish it would have been clearer. Weird how it seemed to be so much higher in the mix to the point it sounded like it wasn't part of the film, but still quite hard to understand.

Agreee, I didn't find Bane's voice innapropriate, and could understand almost all of his speeches, it worked fine. Batman's silly voice however just made me cringe.