The Dark Knight Rises

[La Comédie Noire]

I know I shit on the Dark Knight a lot, but I actually am excited for the Dark Knight Rises. I think the Nolan series is a good action and (melo)drama.

The thing I'm really excited about is Bane as the main villain. If you've ever read the comics you'd know that when Bane was first introduced he broke batman's back and generally ruined his shit. I think it'd be interesting to see a spiritually broken batman in the Dark Knight then physically broken in the Dark Knight Rises.

The only thing I'd want fixed is the writing. The Dark Knight was over written, not in the woah man it's too complex way, but in the all the dialogue sounds like a campaign speech.

Thoughts?

[Mr. Gorilla]

As it's looking more and more like they're drawing inspiration from Knightfall, I'm hoping we see a tragic ending, with Bane (Who will hopefully be portrayed as intelligent, as opposed to the mindless brute he has been in previous non-comic media) breaking the Bat and all. It would be something a little different from the other superhero films out there (Not to mention that it would make the name of the film ironic, which would be amusing).

I'm certain it will deliver; I've yet to see a Nolan film that I haven't been thoroughly entertained by.

[Rakhmetov]

I know I shit on the Dark Knight a lot, but I actually am excited for the Dark Knight Rises. I think the Nolan series is a good action and (melo)drama.

The thing I'm really excited about is Bane as the main villain. If you've ever read the comics you'd know that when Bane was first introduced he broke batman's back and generally ruined his shit. I think it'd be interesting to see a spiritually broken batman in the Dark Knight then physically broken in the Dark Knight Rises.

The only thing I'd want fixed is the writing. The Dark Knight was over written, not in the woah man it's too complex way, but in the all the dialogue sounds like a campaign speech.

Thoughts?

Are you serious with this bourgeois bullshit????---- A billionaire vigilante who cares about his community??? Who ever heard of such drivel? Take Michael Parenti's book Make-Believe Media: The Politics of Entertainment. Open your eyes and don't be entertained by Hollywood and the corporate-elite.

[PhoenixAsh]

True; but that doesn't make it less entertaining. I like the batman series. I don't care its about a billionair. But I heard spiderman is a lot more prole ;-)

[Ele'ill]

Are you serious with this bourgeois bullshit????---- A billionaire vigilante who cares about his community??? Who ever heard of such drivel? Take Michael Parenti's book Make-Believe Media: The Politics of Entertainment. Open your eyes and don't be entertained by Hollywood and the corporate-elite.


Are you serious with this ultra-sensitive super-prol tirade?

[Rakhmetov]

Are you serious with this ultra-sensitive super-prol tirade?


You have to be careful. Propaganda is everywhere ... There are things that ARE propaganda, but of course they are not called propaganda; they're called ENTERTAINMENT. And it is a constant struggle each and every day to defend oneself from this constant bombardament by the corporate entertainment industry. When you consider that corporate America is conducting experiments and conducting research in order to manipulate little children to become junk food addicts and to pester their parents to buy them the latest expensive toys you have to empower yourself with intellectual self-desense.

[ZeroNowhere]

Please continue this argument. Please do.

[Pretty Flaco]

You have to be careful. Propaganda is everywhere ... There are things that ARE propaganda, but of course they are not called propaganda; they're called ENTERTAINMENT. And it is a constant struggle each and every day to defend oneself from this constant bombardament by the corporate entertainment industry. When you consider that corporate America is conducting experiments and conducting research in order to manipulate little children to become junk food addicts and to pester their parents to buy them the latest expensive toys you have to empower yourself with intellectual self-desense.

no one is propagandized by batman and superman. all they care about are the explosions. not to mention that most people's favorite character in the last batman movie was the joker, the main villain. the batman character was boring.

[Ele'ill]

You have to be careful. Propaganda is everywhere ... There are things that ARE propaganda, but of course they are not called propaganda; they're called ENTERTAINMENT. And it is a constant struggle each and every day to defend oneself from this constant bombardament by the corporate entertainment industry. When you consider that corporate America is conducting experiments and conducting research in order to manipulate little children to become junk food addicts and to pester their parents to buy them the latest expensive toys you have to empower yourself with intellectual self-desense.

There is propaganda- yes. There are well payed marketing teams that resort to really horrific tactics. There is also media as a product of the status quo that is not intended as propaganda but is instead the result of someone's creativity as a writer or artist.

You are blending the two.

With this said I fucking hate batman, superman, etc.. Never got involved in that.

A comic/movie series I did get involved with heavily as a kid was the Alien trilogy.

[La Comédie Noire]

I thought the reactionary nature of Hollywood films was a given? I didn't think anything needed to be said. I'm entertained by the Nolan seires, but in no way do I take it seriously or expect it to deliver a politically enlightening message. In fact if you do a close watching of it you actually find a very right wing message in it. Society is in a state of decadence, the people need a hero and a symbol to inspire them to be virtuous again. At the end of The Dark Knight Batman takes part in a noble lie, to protect people from the truth.

I just want to see Bane beat the shit out of Batman really. :sleep:

[Spawn of Stalin]

don't be entertained by Hollywood
This tells me everything I need to know about your position on Batman, who is a SUPERHERO by the way. Yes, propaganda is everywhere, I've seen my fair share of it in Superman and Cap America comics but rarely in Batman, and I've been reading for about twenty years now. Honestly, it's all pretty harmless, I like Batman, I like Bruce Wayne, I like the fact that he's a billionaire who profits from wage slavery, why? Well because it's not real. You know when Jason slashes up college girls in Friday 13th? That is awesome, and what makes it awesome is that it's not real. What about when blatant scumbags get tortured to death in Saw, that is pretty cool too right....you see what I'm saying? So yeah, this film is going to be cool. Watch what you want, we may be lefties but that doesn't mean the only films we are allowed to watch are La Commune and Reds.

[Mr. Gorilla]

So, vain attempts at looking for propaganda in pure escapist fiction aside ("Stop having fun, guys"), what does everyone think about the look of this film's version of Bane (I'd post the image, but apparently I don't have a high enough post count or something)?

[GPDP]

Are you serious with this bourgeois bullshit????---- A billionaire vigilante who cares about his community??? Who ever heard of such drivel? Take Michael Parenti's book Make-Believe Media: The Politics of Entertainment. Open your eyes and don't be entertained by Hollywood and the corporate-elite.


You have to be careful. Propaganda is everywhere ... There are things that ARE propaganda, but of course they are not called propaganda; they're called ENTERTAINMENT. And it is a constant struggle each and every day to defend oneself from this constant bombardament by the corporate entertainment industry. When you consider that corporate America is conducting experiments and conducting research in order to manipulate little children to become junk food addicts and to pester their parents to buy them the latest expensive toys you have to empower yourself with intellectual self-desense.

Christ, could you be any more patronizing?

Like, seriously, no offense, but you sound like a kid who just "saw the light" and now feels obligated to preach the Truth. It would be creepy enough when done to non-leftists, but when you're on a socialist forum, it just comes off as insulting.

[Communist MDMA parties]

The entire concept of 'superheroes' is distinctly american and reactionary. t almost always involves a 'hero' that is clearly way more powerful than normal people beating down on people that are supposedly just irrevocably evil, which is okay because the hero has an unshakeable moral superiority. The capitalist, exceptionalist ideology of the US is clearly very present in the very idea of superheroes.

That said, batman is cool, the new batman movies are cool, you should illegally download this movie and watch it while smokin weed with your friends

[pluckedflowers]

While I think it somewhat hyperbolic to claim that enjoying capitalist culture is tantamount to class betrayal, this discussion reminds me of an interesting (at times, at least) article (http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/film_salon/2010/12/03/assange_bond_villain) that pointed out the basic motif of series like James Bond and Batman:



Bond wouldn't have been able to do a damned thing without billions of pounds' worth of weaponry and gadgets and expense money and the implicit promise that if he got in over his head (which often happened), Her Majesty's government or its allies would airlift machine gun-wielding shock troops to his aid. What Bond represents is the authority of the state to further its own interests without public oversight or accountability. Although recent incarnations of Bond on film have injected political cynicism into their dialogue -- the Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig installments were especially brazen about this -- the audience's enjoyment of Bond's exploits has always been predicated on the idea that for all their myriad flaws, governments are ultimately looking out for us, the people; that they represent stability in a world that would be even more chaotic and vicious if the Ernst Stavro Blofeld types were allowed to operate with impunity, and that we should embrace the fantasy and root for Bond, the attack dog with a license to kill.

The conception of most Bond villains endorsed this government-as-protector idea. Not once in the entire run of James Bond movies was Bond sent into battle against another government and its armies. The enemy was never Russia or China or North Korea, although those nations and others sometimes appeared as incidental players, tormenting or obstructing or sometimes aiding Bond. Nor, for that matter, was the villain ever a traditional corporation; if the bad guy was a mogul of some sort, we were always told that he was crazy or had lost his moral compass, the better to distinguish him from "normal" businesspeople who have the public's best interest at heart and would never use their own connections to governments or criminals to bend or break laws, sow fear, and fatten their bank accounts.

No, the main villain was always a rogue operator -- an industrialist with a God complex, a crime boss with access to huge amounts of weaponry and capital, or some sort of hybrid businessman/criminal manipulating world politics, the media and the markets for profit. Sometimes the bad guys were truly independent operators; other times they were part of an international cartel of conscienceless, anything-for-a-buck villains: for example, S.P.E.C.T.R.E., a global terrorist organization "unaligned to any nation or political ideology," or The Union, "a mercenary organization, working for any third party that requires their help." "The Americans are fools," Dr. No declares. "I offered my services, they refused. So did the East. Now they can both pay for their mistake!"

[Rakhmetov]

Christ, could you be any more patronizing?

Like, seriously, no offense, but you sound like a kid who just "saw the light" and now feels obligated to preach the Truth. It would be creepy enough when done to non-leftists, but when you're on a socialist forum, it just comes off as insulting.

Then feel insulted. The whole economy is collapsing and you're just yawning like, "Well, big deal ... where is the next Dairy Queen?"

[GPDP]

Then feel insulted. The whole economy is collapsing and you're just yawning like, "Well, big deal ... where is the next Dairy Queen?"

Don't you even try to pull that shit. It's one thing to be concerned about the state of things, but you're not gonna make any friends by sounding like an alarmist douchebag who's prolier-than-thou.

You want some perspective? try being undocumented and barely eking out a decent living by working outside in 100-degree weather. God forbid I set aside a little entertainment time to maintain a little mental sanity instead of blasting everybody for being TEH BRAINWASHED BY HOLLYWOOD PROPAGANDA like some kind of street preacher.

[Delenda Carthago]

Α. Ι hate Batman with a passion. The idea of a billionare who instead of raising his wages, trys to fight crime a thug at the time is suitable for morons.

B. I love Jocker. I use to love him before, I adore him after Dark Knight.

C. Bane? Seriously, BANE? From all the characters in the Batman universe, BANE???? I hope Nolan knows his shit.

D. I petty on the guy who's gonna go after him
http://www.cinemanet.com.ar/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/joker2.jpg

Stakes are REALLY HIGH!

[Decommissioner]

Then feel insulted. The whole economy is collapsing and you're just yawning like, "Well, big deal ... where is the next Dairy Queen?"

And like going to the dairy queen would be contradictory to ones leftist beliefs?

It must be so nice to be able to pick and choose where your next meal comes from.

And as far as the bourgeois media statement, like others have said this is a given...we're on revleft for christs sakes. I think it's silly to not allow oneself to indulge in art and media that isn't "revolutionary"..it is just entertainment.

I always laugh about how batman is a billionaire, personally, but that doesn't mean I cant enjoy a batman movie. Or life in general.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Stakes are REALLY HIGH!
They can pull anything off after completely changing the Joker character. Tom Hardy is an awesome actor (much better than Heath Ledger imo) and Bane is an awesome character (better than Joker imo).

[Magón]

Are you serious with this bourgeois bullshit????---- A billionaire vigilante who cares about his community??? Who ever heard of such drivel? Take Michael Parenti's book Make-Believe Media: The Politics of Entertainment. Open your eyes and don't be entertained by Hollywood and the corporate-elite.


You have to be careful. Propaganda is everywhere ... There are things that ARE propaganda, but of course they are not called propaganda; they're called ENTERTAINMENT. And it is a constant struggle each and every day to defend oneself from this constant bombardament by the corporate entertainment industry. When you consider that corporate America is conducting experiments and conducting research in order to manipulate little children to become junk food addicts and to pester their parents to buy them the latest expensive toys you have to empower yourself with intellectual self-desense.

Step back, breath for a minute or two, get yourself some water and then go back to your padded anti-entertainment room where you belong, and can ramble on about how propaganda is "entertainment" all the time.

Seriously man, you're way out there if you can't see a movie or two because you're worried they're full of "propaganda". I would think that regardless of who the main character/protagonist, of a movie is, a real Communist would be able to handle it, because they're secure on their political stance, and what they really think of the REAL WORLD POLITICS, and not some fictional character's, in a fictional world, or even a fictional character placed in the real world. Take a prozac or something man, you sound like you need one.

[PhoenixAsh]

Lets tell him about Green Hornet...I like the movie...

[Rakhmetov]

Don't you even try to pull that shit. It's one thing to be concerned about the state of things, but you're not gonna make any friends by sounding like an alarmist douchebag who's prolier-than-thou.

You want some perspective? try being undocumented and barely eking out a decent living by working outside in 100-degree weather. God forbid I set aside a little entertainment time to maintain a little mental sanity instead of blasting everybody for being TEH BRAINWASHED BY HOLLYWOOD PROPAGANDA like some kind of street preacher.

I'm sure you loved the movie called The Sum of All Fears starring Ben Affleck, which in the end shows the good old CIA killing the Nazi terrorist leader ... very cute ... Welcome to La La Land ...

[Rss]

Superhero films always have the same problem. Main character sucks, but main villain or some other jerk completely steals the spotlight. In 1989 Batman Jack Nicholson as Joker was definitely the best part of the film, Iron Man had Jeff Bridges in it, Heath Ledger as Joker in Dark Knight stole the show and Spiderman films? Toby Maguire was boring, but JK Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson was perfect.

[Madvillainy]

I'm sure you loved the movie called The Sum of All Fears starring Ben Affleck, which in the end shows the good old CIA killing the Nazi terrorist leader ... very cute ... Welcome to La La Land ...

i bet ur lots of fun at parties.

[Kenco Smooth]

I'm sure you loved the movie called The Sum of All Fears starring Ben Affleck, which in the end shows the good old CIA killing the Nazi terrorist leader ... very cute ... Welcome to La La Land ...

I think la la land must be your permanent residence if you seriously have issues seperating political issues in fiction and reality.

Not sure how I feel about the idea of Batman getting his shit messed up and spine broken at the end of the film but one things for certain. It'd be worth it just to see the shitstorm that would inevitebly kick up after it.


JK Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson was perfect.

He really was. I'll be upset if anyone but him is cast as Jameson in the reboot.

[Rakhmetov]

This is why most people do not read now-a-days. They're too busy watching prolefeed that their minds have turned to gruel. :crying:

[Magón]

This is why most people do not read now-a-days. They're too busy watching prolefeed that their minds have turned to gruel. :crying:

Stop.

[Franz Fanonipants]

what the shit why is rakhmetov still posting

[Jose Gracchus]

Someone get this attention whore to shut the fuck up.

[W1N5T0N]

been reading some chomksy, have you?

[La Comédie Noire]

I know this is an old thread, but I'd like to discuss some of the serious leftist overtones in Nolan's final installment of his batman trilogy.

Here's the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x648eA9qgt8

And here's my thoughts on some of the themes that I think could possibly be explored in the movie.


My thoughts on the themes of TDKR (Note I speak here in a definitive manner for convenience, when in actuality it is all of a tentative nature having been garnered from set footage, pictures, trailers and clips)

I think that the plot of TDKR will focus on the social aspects of Gotham's decay. Here you have a city that has been at peace for 8 years, but in reality this is only a superficial calm. The Harvey Dent Act and Black Gate Prison has cleaned up the criminals, but it hasn't resolved the conditions that create crime in the first place (poverty, inequality ect.) In a way Wayne has only given a brief reprieve to Gotham's destruction, just like his parents did.

So you have this underlying tension between the haves and the have nots that batman and the police cannot really solve because they enforce the laws that govern society, they do not change the overall structure of society. Bane will exploit this tension to the fullest to achieve his goal of a more egalitarian society.

These themes will be explored in the contrast between Batman and Bane. Bruce Wayne grew up rich and well known, besides his parents death he has lived a charmed life. Batman is something he chose to do, he can take off his mask whenever he wants, which he does for 8 years. Bane on the other hand, has always been an outsider, he's grown up on the margins of society and has seen what it's like at the very bottom. He cannot escape that life, he cannot choose to stop being Bane and he can't take off his mask without causing great physical pain to himself and maybe even death. He also can't take off the mask because then he won't be known, he'll just be another face in the great unwashed mass created by society. As he says in the prologue, "no one cared who I was before I put on the mask." This is his bane, compelled by outside forces to become the man in the mask.

Now this is a part of the reading I don't agree with, but since it is a Hollywood movie it's politics will be very middle of the road. Bane will come to Gotham, the very heart of capitalism, as a Left wing populist and throw these contradictions, between rich and poor, right into the faces of Gotham's High society. He'll point out the hypocrisy of a city that has extremes of great wealth and poverty and present a radical solution, the redistribution of wealth for everyone. Of course civil liberties will suffer and the rule of law will break down as politicians and the wealthy are put on trial and jailed or executed. Basic items such as food, toliet paper, and even fuel (RememberJGL carrying a fuel can across a tank patrolled street?) become scarce due to a lack of supplies from the outside world.

I think the people of Gotham will figure into the plot of TDKR significantly. Here you have a group of people who have been swayed one way than another, and yet again another way by heroes and symbols. They have always been following, they have never lead. I don't know how Nolan will choose to end his trilogy, but it could possibly end with a rejection of heroes and symbols as the people of Gotham realize they must make decisions of their own volition and will. What this could mean for Batman as the man, the hero, and the symbol I have no clue.This line by Selina Kyle/ Catwoman is especially interesting:



You think this is going to last. There’s a storm coming, Mr. Wayne. You and your friends better batten down the hatches because when it hits, you’re all going to wonder how you ever thought how you could live so large and leave so little for the rest of us.

[Red Commissar]

I found that interesting too. I was invited by a friend of mine to see Mission Impossible (hey, it was free :laugh:) which carried that trailer. That line from Catwoman rung out to me too. I think particularly with the polarization over Occupy Wall Street's messages that theme has become apparent.

Then again, depending on how much of Miller's weird views Nolan decides to throw in there (It seems he won't, judging from him so far), it just might be a unpleasant depiction of 'rabble' being manipulated by a demagogue for his own purposes. Maybe not. Who knows. I've liked these seies of Batman movies so far though for the most part.

But at the very least- for me at least- this means we'll get a Bane that isn't a dumbass like he was as a mass of muscles in Batman and Robin.

[La Comédie Noire]

it just might be a unpleasant depiction of 'rabble' being manipulated by a demagogue for his own purposes.

That's what I fear is well. I think the character would be so much more interesting and dynamic if he was genuinely ideologically motivated.

[RadioRaheem84]

Bane seems like a rogue terrorist mercenary of the Contra stripe.

[RadioRaheem84]

Also did anyone notice Catwoman's little speech in the new trailer?

She sounded a bit "socialist/populist" by telling Bruce Wayne that he's been hoarding all of his wealth. Yet she is a thief in the film. Is Nolan trying to equate re-distribution with theft?

[Welshy]

Also did anyone notice Catwoman's little speech in the new trailer?

She sounded a bit "socialist/populist" by telling Bruce Wayne that he's been hoarding all of his wealth. Yet she is a thief in the film. Is Nolan trying to equate re-distribution with theft?

That's always a possibility, or depending what she does with what she steals he may be painting her as a stort of dark robin hood character. After seeing the trailer, it makes me want to see the movie just to see in what light Nolan puts these chaotic (in bane's case at least) most likely left wing (populist) characters. If he does it right, I will probably be cheering for the bad guys.

[ComradeGrant]

From the looks of the trailer, I'll be on the bad guy's side. Looks good. I really hope it's not a happy ending for Wayne.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Where can I watch the trailer?

[La Comédie Noire]

Where can I watch the trailer?

Post # 32 my good friend!

[RedSonRising]

Part of me wishes they kept Bane as the vengeful son of an assassinated Latin American Caribbean revolutionary.

[00000000000]

..quite perplexed by the assertions that Hollywood films should be avoided because of the power of their 'hidden' reactionary propoganda messages etc.
Seen plenty of Hollywood films in my life, some good, some awful, and none have affected my political outlook any more than simply re-enforcing my anti-capitalist views (Sex and the City 2 and any Michael Bay film, could be used as recruitment tools b/c of how they reflect so badly on bourgois values and society).
It's Batman, it's a giggle, I like the films and am looking forward to this one (think all the signs are that Bane is going to be more than just a muscle-bound slugger with no intellect, which will be great)

[Jimmie Higgins]

..quite perplexed by the assertions that Hollywood films should be avoided because of the power of their 'hidden' reactionary propoganda messages etc.
Seen plenty of Hollywood films in my life, some good, some awful, and none have affected my political outlook any more than simply re-enforcing my anti-capitalist views (Sex and the City 2 and any Michael Bay film, could be used as recruitment tools b/c of how they reflect so badly on bourgois values and society).
It's Batman, it's a giggle, I like the films and am looking forward to this one (think all the signs are that Bane is going to be more than just a muscle-bound slugger with no intellect, which will be great)

Hell I enjoyed the new James Bond movie and that's not secretly reactionary in many ways. I was bothered by some of the cynicism in the last Batman movie and I thought it was over-rated in the sense of being seen by viewers and critics as more than a somewhat above-average entertaining popcorn flick (in other words, some of the set pieces were entertaining and the Joker was well done and a very watchable villain compared to the standard heavies in most summer movies).

But the whole concept of superheros is reactionary to some degree - particularly the Batman stories - and particularly the 1980s Dirty Harry iteration of Batman. Superhero comics seem to tend to have a populist and a reactionary side - sometimes more distinct (some Marvel comics are very populist and then there's Frank Miller's comics...) but often mixed together.

[piet11111]

When it comes to utterly reactionary movies my greatest sin would be my love for the starship troopers movie.

A fascistic government resorting to total war against gigantic bugs using shoulder fired tactical nukes and all kinds of big guns along with loads of gore.
Yeah its a spectacle to watch especially the "would you like to know more" snippets throughout the movie where great fun.

But i am perfectly capable of seeing the movie for entertainment without somehow ending up supporting a similar government in real life.

[RedSonRising]

Hell I enjoyed the new James Bond movie and that's not secretly reactionary in many ways. I was bothered by some of the cynicism in the last Batman movie and I thought it was over-rated in the sense of being seen by viewers and critics as more than a somewhat above-average entertaining popcorn flick (in other words, some of the set pieces were entertaining and the Joker was well done and a very watchable villain compared to the standard heavies in most summer movies).

But the whole concept of superheros is reactionary to some degree - particularly the Batman stories - and particularly the 1980s Dirty Harry iteration of Batman. Superhero comics seem to tend to have a populist and a reactionary side - sometimes more distinct (some Marvel comics are very populist and then there's Frank Miller's comics...) but often mixed together.

You're right about the two sides, but I think DC also has its fair share of progressives. The Green Lantern/Green Arrow team-up series was extremely progressive and controversial, talking about drug abuse, racial inequality, environmental degradation, etc. GA has always been DC's token leftist.

I see Batman in the comics taking on villains and Organized Crime much more often than random criminals; one of my favorite panels by Alex Ross actually details a pretty hard-hitting sequence that points out the broader social issues of crime that Batman must be aware of:

http://blog.mlive.com/entertainmentnow_impact/2009/01/large_alex-ross.JPG

I hate when comics book writers try to get explicitly political. They had one issue where certain members of the Justice League had to put aside their own 'partisan preferences' to protect members of their opposing parties from assasination to "safeguard democracy." Please, Comic Book Industry, don't do that shit; let me sleep happily and pretend they're all revolutionary socialists deep down inside.

[Yu Ming Zai]

With the Dark Knight Rises coming to theaters in less than a week, is anyone here excited or interested in this movie? Politics seems to be more heavily imbedded in this movie more so than in its predecessor as seen in the trailers with Catwoman's dialogue suggesting occupy themes while Bane seems like a populist revolutionary. Plot details are heavily under wraps so its going to be interesting to see how the political aspect of this movie will play out.

[Jimmie Higgins]

With the Dark Knight Rises coming to theaters in less than a week, is anyone here excited or interested in this movie? Politics seems to be more heavily imbedded in this movie more so than in its predecessor as seen in the trailers with Catwoman's dialogue suggesting occupy themes while Bane seems like a populist revolutionary. Plot details are heavily under wraps so its going to be interesting to see how the political aspect of this movie will play out.

Considering that the non-Nolan writer of this movie also wrote Call of Duty II where the main villain was the "messiah of the 99%"... I wouldn't expect any sort of commentary on contemporary political developments to make many people on this website jump for joy.

[brigadista]

Trailer link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GokKUqLcvD8

not seen it-
feel indiffernt to christpher nolan films

only good resolution would be for richman Bruce Wayne/ Batman to turn and join up with the "villain" but i'm not a batman fan can take it or leave it but like the batmobile/batcycle etc

and

Catwoman

hope those who like the batman films enjoy this last one :):)

[Rafiq]

I always hated batman because the movies tend to lick cop ass.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Zav]

Superhero movies are almost always overwhelmingly bourgeois and ultra-nationalistic. This one is going to be especially bad if the trailer is any indication. It opens with The Star Spangled Banner, glorifies the role of the wealthy and the military, and the villains have prole leanings of some sort. Catwoman (I guess) says that Bruce Wayne can't live large while others are poor forever, and the word 'rise' chanted by the prisoners, normally a very empowering and inspirational word (what language?), is reminiscent of the way L'Internationale was played in Air Force One; it is intentionally off-putting. The trailer, and the whole movie as well, probably, is a big propaganda piece by the Bourgeoisie to keep the Proletariat looking to them for guidance and decision. It is utterly disgusting. That said I'm still going to give it a yo-ho-ho for the sake of better illustrating this point later.

[Will Scarlet]

With the Dark Knight Rises coming to theaters in less than a week, is anyone here excited or interested in this movie? Politics seems to be more heavily imbedded in this movie more so than in its predecessor as seen in the trailers with Catwoman's dialogue suggesting occupy themes while Bane seems like a populist revolutionary. Plot details are heavily under wraps so its going to be interesting to see how the political aspect of this movie will play out.
That first guy was a jackass about it but it's pretty weird that people on here of all places were making the argument that it's 'only entertainment', even if you believe that is true or possible this looks like the most clearly political blockbuster for a long while. The Dark Knight was a very political film and this one is even more blatant about it going by every trailer.

I think the role of Catwoman is telling about where this film's politics will lay, she starts off stealing from Bruce Wayne and lecturing him with Occupy style rhetoric, but ends up on his side because of the bad guy revolt. The writer Jonathan Nolan said A Tale Of Two Cities was a big influence on this film, if so it may be a bit less right wing than I expected :lol: Because at least in that, Dickens, of course, portrays the plight of the poor and makes it clear that this a problem and this is the cause of the revolution.

I'm looking forward to it anyway, a well told story is a well told story. Even if it's not 'just entertainment'. ;)

[#FF0000]

I always hated batman because the movies tend to lick cop ass.

Damn son sounds like someone's never read a batman comic

[eric922]

Damn son sounds like someone's never read a batman comic
Even ignoring the comics, which tend to portray the cops as corrupt or incompetent, I wouldn't say Batman Begins portrays the cops positively. Aside from Gordon, they are pretty much portrayed as corrupt to the core. On the payroll of the mob and as people who use their power to bully others as shown by the one cop who steals from the street vendor and then mocks him about not being able to feed his kids.

To talk about the nature of comic books themselves, well Green Arrow is pretty leftist, a modern Robin Hood figure. Even Bruce Wayne is portrayed as somewhat liberal in his role as head of Wayne Enterprises. Wayne Enterprise is union company, because I remember reading a comic where a labor strike is mentioned and Wayne mentions that when he was on the board they always had a good relationship with their workers and treated them well. Of course this was a Batman Beyond comic so he had been retired for many years.

Hell, even Superman in the current run of Action Comics comes off as a populist fighting for the poor and the little guy against the rich. In the first issue of the new Action Comics number 1 he almost throws some businessman out the window and basically tells the cops that if they won't punish the rich for their crimes, he will.

[Susurrus]

I hear that they actually filmed and recorded occupy protests for parts of this film, so it's definitely going to tie into the themes of occupy in some way or another. Definitely going to go see it, at least.

[Zav]

I hear that they actually filmed and recorded occupy protests for parts of this film, so it's definitely going to tie into the themes of occupy in some way or another. Definitely going to go see it, at least.
Prepare to rage at their use of the footage.

[Rafiq]

Even ignoring the comics, which tend to portray the cops as corrupt or incompetent, I wouldn't say Batman Begins portrays the cops positively. Aside from Gordon, they are pretty much portrayed as corrupt to the core. On the payroll of the mob and as people who use their power to bully others as shown by the one cop who steals from the street vendor and then mocks him about not being able to feed his kids.

To talk about the nature of comic books themselves, well Green Arrow is pretty leftist, a modern Robin Hood figure. Even Bruce Wayne is portrayed as somewhat liberal in his role as head of Wayne Enterprises. Wayne Enterprise is union company, because I remember reading a comic where a labor strike is mentioned and Wayne mentions that when he was on the board they always had a good relationship with their workers and treated them well. Of course this was a Batman Beyond comic so he had been retired for many years.

Hell, even Superman in the current run of Action Comics comes off as a populist fighting for the poor and the little guy against the rich. In the first issue of the new Action Comics number 1 he almost throws some businessman out the window and basically tells the cops that if they won't punish the rich for their crimes, he will.

The point is very simple: Whether the cops are portrayed as corrupt, or honest, it's irrelevant to the real use of the "batman". What this only reinforces is that Batman exists to replace the police, to take responsibility for their duties, and exist as a more efficient version of a cop, one that you can't corrupt, one that will carry out their duties in a preferable and more desirable way. But we as leftists should know better to recognize this as grade A ass kissing. The most pure and uncorruptable of cops, are, in themselves the worst of the cops. The very existence and function of a cop is in itself antithetical to any revolutionary. What we should be asking is simple: The cops in the Batman series are portrayed as incomplete. But incompetent in what tasks? Protecting the Bourgeois state? Having a superhero do this in a better fashion doesn't demonize cops, as a matter of fact, it exemplifies them and their role in society, and it praises their role, the role Batman for fills. That's why it licks cop ass. If Batman ever hurt a cop, it was for what? It was for the "good" of everyone, it was because "hey, sorry man, I have to do your job better than you can".

And in regards to Bruce Wayne, out of his sheer benevolence, treating his workers "kindly": There's an old saying. It's that the worst of the slave owners, were the ones that were kind to their slaves. I don't know where you're coming from here, but charity is counterrevolutionary.

[#FF0000]

Protecting the Bourgeois state?

Nah, the "citizens of gotham", generally. like everyone said, most of batman's villains are rich folks and often have a lot of power in Gotham. He's also more often than not on the bad side of the mayor (but the mayor changes so often it's inconsequential. But hey I'm not going to argue that Batman's a revolutionary socialist. Just that I don't think you know anything about Batman

[eric922]

The point is very simple: Whether the cops are portrayed as corrupt, or honest, it's irrelevant to the real use of the "batman". What this only reinforces is that Batman exists to replace the police, to take responsibility for their duties, and exist as a more efficient version of a cop, one that you can't corrupt, one that will carry out their duties in a preferable and more desirable way. But we as leftists should know better to recognize this as grade A ass kissing. The most pure and uncorruptable of cops, are, in themselves the worst of the cops. The very existence and function of a cop is in itself antithetical to any revolutionary. What we should be asking is simple: The cops in the Batman series are portrayed as incomplete. But incompetent in what tasks? Protecting the Bourgeois state? Having a superhero do this in a better fashion doesn't demonize cops, as a matter of fact, it exemplifies them and their role in society, and it praises their role, the role Batman for fills. That's why it licks cop ass. If Batman ever hurt a cop, it was for what? It was for the "good" of everyone, it was because "hey, sorry man, I have to do your job better than you can".

And in regards to Bruce Wayne, out of his sheer benevolence, treating his workers "kindly": There's an old saying. It's that the worst of the slave owners, were the ones that were kind to their slaves. I don't know where you're coming from here, but charity is counterrevolutionary.

It's clear you really don't know much about Batman comics at all. The State has little use for the man. A lot of the time he is treated as criminal by the police. There is a wide range of of books where he is hunted down as threat to order. Hell, in Dark Knight Returns the government sends Superman (He tends to vary from a "boy scout" government stooge, to a populist fighting for the little guy. The populist Superman was his original portrayal and is how Grant Morrison portrays him in the current run of Action Comics) to kill him. You are also ignoring the fact the cops are often portrayed as thugs themselves, preying on the weak and that the State really has no problem with this. The State doesn't suffer from the corruption in Gotham,the average person on the street does. That is the point of Batman's character.


He isn't protecting the State, he is protecting the average citizen. The vast majority of the people he fights are either insane such as the Joker or organized crime bosses like the Penguin. I've read very few stories where his main focus is average street crime. He is mostly doing with madmen who don't care for money such as Joker or Ra's, men who can't be reasoned with or people like the Penguin who is a crime lord. Hell, Catwoman is a thief who steals from the rich and he never bothers arresting her, because he doesn't think she is a threat. Though, I must say the fact that he still allows Damian to run loose with three murders on his hands is rather hypocritical That kid is nuts.

Charity is counter revolutionary? I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree. It isn't the solution to capitalism, of course, but it does help a lot of people. I really think you abuse that term a lot. Saying something is only a bandaid on the problem of capitalism, which is what charity or unions are, and calling it counter revolutionary are two completely different things. As was said in the above post, is he a socialist? No, of course not. But you still don't know a damn thing about the character.

[eric922]

Prepare to rage at their use of the footage.
I read that Nolan decided not to use that footage to avoid getting too political, but the article could have been wrong. It was Cracked, so who knows.

[#FF0000]

Though, I must say the fact that he still allows Damian to run loose with three murders on his hands is rather hypocritical That kid is nuts.

He is just misguided and had a rough upbringing what with his mom running the league of assassins instead of raising him.

[eric922]

He is just misguided and had a rough upbringing what with his mom running the league of assassins instead of raising him.
Yeah, I will admit the kid's growing on me. I hated him at first, but he is getting better. I was actually hoping Talia would show up in the movie, but I don't think she is, but at least Ra's is back for a small part.

[Rafiq]

Nah, the "citizens of gotham", generally. like everyone said, most of batman's villains are rich folks and often have a lot of power in Gotham. He's also more often than not on the bad side of the mayor (but the mayor changes so often it's inconsequential. But hey I'm not going to argue that Batman's a revolutionary socialist. Just that I don't think you know anything about Batman

Yeah but that's exactly what cops say they're doing in real life, no? Citizens of gotham = Bourgeois state and it's structure. They pressupose that the existence of the Bourgeois state is best for the Gotham citizens.

Though you're right, I don't know shit about Batman. I'm talking about superheros in general.

[Rafiq]

It's clear you really don't know much about Batman comics at all. The State has little use for the man. A lot of the time he is treated as criminal by the police. There is a wide range of of books where he is hunted down as threat to order. Hell, in Dark Knight Returns the government sends Superman (He tends to vary from a "boy scout" government stooge, to a populist fighting for the little guy. The populist Superman was his original portrayal and is how Grant Morrison portrays him in the current run of Action Comics) to kill him. You are also ignoring the fact the cops are often portrayed as thugs themselves, preying on the weak and that the State really has no problem with this. The State doesn't suffer from the corruption in Gotham,the average person on the street does. That is the point of Batman's character.


He isn't protecting the State, he is protecting the average citizen. The vast majority of the people he fights are either insane such as the Joker or organized crime bosses like the Penguin. I've read very few stories where his main focus is average street crime. He is mostly doing with madmen who don't care for money such as Joker or Ra's, men who can't be reasoned with or people like the Penguin who is a crime lord. Hell, Catwoman is a thief who steals from the rich and he never bothers arresting her, because he doesn't think she is a threat. Though, I must say the fact that he still allows Damian to run loose with three murders on his hands is rather hypocritical That kid is nuts.

Man, you're missing the whole point. The Bourgeois state no longer carried the mechanisms to protect it's own self, so Batman takes up the role to strengthen and carry out the tasks that the Bourgeois state would normally carry out, whether part of doing this means running from cops or breaking the law.

So, he's trying to save the system and social structure from itself.

Think of the guy who deprives his friend of Crystal meth, and sais "I'm doing this for your own good, whether I get in your way or not!"

Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So, we'll hunt him, because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian. A watchful protector. A Dark Knight.

I mean Jesus, it's not really hard to understand.


Charity is counter revolutionary? I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree. It isn't the solution to capitalism, of course, but it does help a lot of people. I really think you abuse that term a lot. Saying something is only a bandaid on the problem of capitalism, which is what charity or unions are, and calling it counter revolutionary are two completely different things. As was said in the above post, is he a socialist? No, of course not. But you still don't know a damn thing about the character.


Charity is members of the Bourgeoisie, the sole reason many are starving, throwing at them crumbs. Yes, it may prolong their suffering, but it still leaves them in the same conditions you yourself were responsible for in the first place. Charity is degrading. It's like the Slave Owner who is nice to his slaves. Yes, it improves their living conditions, etc. But it's more disgusting in that it justifies slavery. To think "Hey, charity isn't the solution, but we should all focus our efforts on helping out anyway", you automatically assume that the solution is a far off Utopia, or something. No, if we're going to focus our efforts on anything, it's destroying the conditions in which charity exists.

[#FF0000]

Yeah but that's exactly what cops say they're doing in real life, no?

It's what they say but not what they do. It's what Batman does, though.


Though you're right, I don't know shit about Batman. I'm talking about superheros in general.That's even worse tho especially when you have heroes like the Green Arrow who shot at a shopkeeper chasing a thief because "4 dollars for diapers? Who's really the thief there".

[eric922]

Yeah but that's exactly what cops say they're doing in real life, no? Citizens of gotham = Bourgeois state and it's structure. They pressupose that the existence of the Bourgeois state is best for the Gotham citizens.

Though you're right, I don't know shit about Batman. I'm talking about superheros in general.

I could point the example of Green Arrow, but FF0000 has already beaten me to to it.

Your argument about charity makes me wonder if you've ever been on it or benefited from it? A lot of the clothes I wore growing up came from charity, I may not have had them if it wasn't for stores like Goodwill, so I'm sorry but I have benefited from them. You're are sounding like those people who say we shouldn't care about any reforms that help people, but should wait for the revolution to fix the problems. Sorry, the facts are revolution is probably a long way off right now, and if I can help a single person live a little better by reform or charity in the meantime then so be it. If you want to call me a reformist or moralist, whatever, I really don't care. I don't think I could value anyone's opinion less than I do yours. My concern is that people are able to live better, but I'm really starting to get the feeling that leftism is some kind of game to you, that you don't actually care about the suffering of others, but you just want to be part of a movement for your own reasons.

[eric922]

It's what they say but not what they do. It's what Batman does, though.

That's even worse tho especially when you have heroes like the Green Arrow who shot at a shopkeeper chasing a thief because "4 dollars for diapers? Who's really the thief there".

Ahh Green Arrow. Now, he may actually be a socialist. I really hope the new TV show doesn't screw him up. With Occupy going on and other events like it, they could have a great opportunity on their hands if they keep the character true to the comics.

[Rafiq]

It's what they say but not what they do. It's what Batman does, though.

It doesn't matter. It's fiction. The point is what this actually represents in real life, in that it falsifies the real role of cops in real life.


That's even worse tho especially when you have heroes like the Green Arrow who shot at a shopkeeper chasing a thief because "4 dollars for diapers? Who's really the thief there".


Is there any other superhero besides the Green Arrow? Statistically, superheros are probably aren't like that as a majority. But even if the Green Arrow did that, he was playing as a more efficient cop, is all.

[Rafiq]

I could point the example of Green Arrow, but FF0000 has already beaten me to to it.

Your argument about charity makes me wonder if you've ever been on it or benefited from it? A lot of the clothes I wore growing up came from charity, I may not have had them if it wasn't for stores like Goodwill, so I'm sorry but I have benefited from them. You're are sounding like those people who say we shouldn't care about any reforms that help people, but should wait for the revolution to fix the problems. Sorry, the facts are revolution is probably a long way off right now, and if I can help a single person live a little better by reform or charity in the meantime then so be it. If you want to call me a reformist or moralist, whatever, I really don't care. I don't think I could value anyone's opinion less than I do yours. My concern is that people are able to live better, but I'm really starting to get the feeling that leftism is some kind of game to you, that you don't actually care about the suffering of others, but you just want to be part of a movement for your own reasons.

I don't, to be quite frank, give a shit about your emotionalist-esque nonsense. You haven't addressed what I said about slave owners who were kind to their slaves, so it doesn't surprise me you have to resort to overly emotional resorts like the one above, when you can't address my arguments. Indeed, what if I was a slave and said: "Have you ever benifited from a kind slave owner? I have. I grew up with a very kind slave owner!" and it would be exactly the same in terms of real meaning.

No, Leftism isn't an emotionally based, moralist re assurance for me, if that's what you're asking. Yeah, you're right, I am here for my own reasons. Before I am a revolutionary communist, I'm a Marxist, an adherer of a science. You don't value my opinion? Good. It'd be quite an awful day for me and my convictions if a Bourgeois-Liberal moralist valued my opinions.

[Revolution starts with U]

Science (according to Rafiq) = making unsubstantiated claims because they seem logical to him, and calling you a bourgeois moralist counterrevolutionary scum if you disagree.

You know as well as I that he cannot prove his assertion that a lack of charity fosters revolution more than a presence of it. Yet he continues to treat it as fact, because Marx might have agreed with him, therefore it's science, and you deserve to die because of it. Ya... "science." :rolleyes:

EDIT: The only question is how long will it take him to refute my claims by reminding us of the debates he "kicked my ass in," in which he actually just walked away from...


Anyway... I wouldn't take Bane being a "revolutionary" and the main bad guy as a refutation on the part of the writers of revolution. Bane is one of the most complex Batman villians, oftentimes even gaining the financial and moral support of the Bat.
Later in the story he ignites a democratic revolution in his home country, and when finding the elections rigged institutes martial law.

In short; Bane is a complex and enigmatic character who has almost always been shown as a victim lashing out, rather than a pure madman or self-grandizer.

[eric922]

I don't, to be quite frank, give a shit about your emotionalist-esque nonsense. You haven't addressed what I said about slave owners who were kind to their slaves, so it doesn't surprise me you have to resort to overly emotional resorts like the one above, when you can't address my arguments. Indeed, what if I was a slave and said: "Have you ever benifited from a kind slave owner? I have. I grew up with a very kind slave owner!" and it would be exactly the same in terms of real meaning.

No, Leftism isn't an emotionally based, moralist re assurance for me, if that's what you're asking. Yeah, you're right, I am here for my own reasons. Before I am a revolutionary communist, I'm a Marxist, an adherer of a science. You don't value my opinion? Good. It'd be quite an awful day for me and my convictions if a Bourgeois-Liberal moralist valued my opinions.

Science? Oh please, Rafiq. Do you even know what science is? Marxism may be logical, and it may make sense, it may be correct, but it is not science. The claims of science are testable and provable. Even the social sciences such as Sociology or Psychology have various tests and studies to back up their claims. This claim that Marxism is a form of science is simply not true, even if Marxism is true, it isn't a science.

Marxism, as you love to point out, is based on Materialism. Well you can't test materialism in a laboratory, you can't disprove idealism. You'll never be able to scientifically prove idealism or materialism.

As for your point about ethics, I won't argue it again. We've already had this debate several times and your argument still isn't convincing. Oh, and can you go a single debate without resorting to ad hominem attacks such as "liberal" or "moralist." It's really immature of you, but then again that may be part of our problem.

[eric922]

It doesn't matter. It's fiction. The point is what this actually represents in real life, in that it falsifies the real role of cops in real life.



Is there any other superhero besides the Green Arrow? Statistically, superheros are probably aren't like that as a majority. But even if the Green Arrow did that, he was playing as a more efficient cop, is all.

Really? A more efficient cop, for allowing a theft to get away and attacking the store owner trying to protect his property? If any cop did that, they would be fired and arrested.

[#FF0000]

Is there any other superhero besides the Green Arrow? Statistically, superheros are probably aren't like that as a majority. But even if the Green Arrow did that, he was playing as a more efficient cop, is all.

Sure. The X-men are pretty baller in the "progressive shit" category. There's also the early and the new Superman (In Action Comics #1 of the New 52, Batman (edit: SUPERMAN THAT IS) fights cops and puts himself infront of a tank to protect a building full of squatters after dropping a bank dude off a building only to catch him which is basically a mock-execution). And Grant Morrison's Animal Man worked directly with the ALF.

[eric922]

Sure. The X-men are pretty baller in the "progressive shit" category. There's also the early and the new Superman (In Action Comics #1 of the New 52, Batman fights cops and puts himself infront of a tank to protect a building full of squatters after dropping a bank dude off a building only to catch him which is all but literally a mock-execution). And Grant Morrison's Animal Man worked directly with the ALF.

Just a small correction and I know it's a typo, but it you put "Batman fights cops" when you meant to put Superman. Otherwise, good post. Especially regarding the X-Men, who if I recall were invented as a way to discuss discrimination faced by minorities.

[Yu Ming Zai]

Considering that the non-Nolan writer of this movie also wrote Call of Duty II where the main villain was the "messiah of the 99%"... I wouldn't expect any sort of commentary on contemporary political developments to make many people on this website jump for joy.

I think you may have confused one writer with another, Call of Duty II was set in World War II... the main villain was the Nazis. Not sure where this messiah of the 99% comes from. But anyway, I think this movie will do good for the people living in America as the story and plot of the movie is a reflection of the society that Americans are living in today. We shall see what the American [political] critics will say about this film soon.


What this only reinforces is that Batman exists to replace the police, to take responsibility for their duties, and exist as a more efficient version of a cop, one that you can't corrupt, one that will carry out their duties in a preferable and more desirable way. But we as leftists should know better to recognize this as grade A ass kissing. The most pure and uncorruptable of cops, are, in themselves the worst of the cops. The very existence and function of a cop is in itself antithetical to any revolutionary.

I would argue that Batman is more than a mere cop as he represents something more than the protection of the current state. In the first film, Batman Begins, we get to see how Bruce Wayne develops his ideology through his travels around the world where he lived among the poor and partake in criminality in order to understand why they do the things that they do. In some aspects, he was kind of like Che Guevara during his motorcycle trips across South America. But Bruce's motivation to do this comes firmly from his inner anger about the death of his parents. The guy who shot his parents was a product of desperation caused by economic hardships (allegory to capitalism?) that resulted in the mugging and killing of Bruce's parents to meet his ends need. Thus Batman's true allegiance is not to the state but to the people in which he hopes that no other person will have to go through the pain that he has gone through.

[eric922]

I think you may have confused one writer with another, Call of Duty II was set in World War II... the main villain was the Nazis. Not sure where this messiah of the 99% comes from. But anyway, I think this movie will do good for the people living in America as the story and plot of the movie is a reflection of the society that Americans are living in today. We shall see what the American [political] critics will say about this film soon.



I would argue that Batman is more than a mere cop as he represents something more than the protection of the current state. In the first film, Batman Begins, we get to see how Bruce Wayne develops his ideology through his travels around the world where he lived among the poor and partake in criminality in order to understand why they do the things that they do. In some aspects, he was kind of like Che Guevara during his motorcycle trips across South America. But Bruce's motivation to do this comes firmly from his inner anger about the death of his parents. The guy who shot his parents was a product of desperation caused by economic hardships (allegory to capitalism?) that resulted in the mugging and killing of Bruce's parents to meet his ends need. Thus Batman's true allegiance is not to the state but to the people in which he hopes that no other person will have to go through the pain that he has gone through.

Indeed if Bruce was loyal to the State, he would simply donate his money to the police department, but he isn't loyal to them. Hell, in Year One, we seem him break into the mayor's mansion when he is meeting with Carmine "The Roman" Falcone a mafia don and the police commissioner. They openly complain that Batman is costing them money, right before he busts into the mansion and threatens them all.

Hell, most of the time the police are trying to arrest him. In Dark Knight Returns, which Dark Knight Rises is partially inspired by as Year One inspired Begins, the president of the U.S. sends Superman to kill him.

Bruce is ultimately loyal to the people of Gotham. His goal is to create a world where no 8 year old boy will have to see his parents shot in front of him.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think you may have confused one writer with another, Call of Duty II was set in World War II... the main villain was the Nazis. Not sure where this messiah of the 99% comes from. But anyway, I think this movie will do good for the people living in America as the story and plot of the movie is a reflection of the society that Americans are living in today. We shall see what the American [political] critics will say about this film soon.
Oh, sorry, I don't know video games past Ms. Pac Man. It's not Call of Duty 2, it's CoD:Black Ops 2.

Latest Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 trailer features Raul Menendez, the “Messiah” of the 99%, and yet insidious mastermind hell bent on global insurrection.


Created in collaboration with David S. Goyer (co-writer of The Dark Knight Rises) and Trent Reznor (Academy Award-winning composer of The Social Network), Treyarch are looking to redefine storytelling in the franchise and where better to start than the bad guy of the piece?





I would argue that Batman is more than a mere cop as he represents something more than the protection of the current state. In the first film, Batman Begins, we get to see how Bruce Wayne develops his ideology through his travels around the world where he lived among the poor and partake in criminality in order to understand why they do the things that they do. In some aspects, he was kind of like Che Guevara during his motorcycle trips across South America. But Bruce's motivation to do this comes firmly from his inner anger about the death of his parents. The guy who shot his parents was a product of desperation caused by economic hardships (allegory to capitalism?) that resulted in the mugging and killing of Bruce's parents to meet his ends need. Thus Batman's true allegiance is not to the state but to the people in which he hopes that no other person will have to go through the pain that he has gone through.There are various interpretations of the story in the comics and other media over the years. Just like detective fiction, as in detective comics, there's both a kind of liberal "bourgoise making the world rational" side as well as a more right-wing and cynical, "people need to be controlled" or in modern terms "law and order" side.

Batman has always tended to be a little more on the reactionary side although there are iterations where he's sort of a liberal defender against insane supervillians who aren't really tied to crime exactly. This was especially true in the 1980s when he was much more of an explicitly Regan-era vigilante.

I personally think the movies have been overrated, but what the movie series has done well IMO is play on the tension between vigilante and terrorist... especially in the first movie. If there really is a 99%-plot-line I think what they may do with the 99% themes in the trailer is to flip the concept of crime and have "the villains" claim to be populist vigilantes against the rich. My suspicion is that they will attempt to "settle" this question of vigilantism, (in this series the tension seems to be presented as both the question of if vigilantes and terrorists are basically the same, but also that it is an unending battle which will cause Bruce/Batman to always have to battle someone leading to new battles and so on) by Batman being immobilized (or killed) but as a symbol he lives on and "regular people" in Gotham stand up for themselves in a "take back the streets" not revolutionary way.

[eric922]

Wait, they went to the guy who wrote the story for an FPS to help them write this? Why?! No one even plays Call of Duty for the story, they play it for the mutiplayer. The story is just there because single player is expected. If they are going to get a videogame writer, how about someone from Bioware who actually knows how to create and tell a good story?

[Red Commissar]

To be fair, David Goyer's been a writer with Nolan since Batman Begins back in 2006 and The Dark Knight in 2008, before he got tapped for "writing" the Black Ops plot. I don't really think he'd be factor in making the movie go either way, he's just there because he's been Nolan since all this started.

Edit:

I remember discussing in an earlier thread about this movie, since it's clear we'll see the underclasses of Gotham being "used" by Bane for his own purposes. Worse, we might see a power behind the throne nonsense.

I saw this article on the Guardian which kind of covers that, from a mainstream perspective. So it's not just the 'loony left' talking about this.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2012/jul/17/dark-knight-rises-capitalist-superhero


All superheroes are black sheep. But the Dark Knight has always been murkier than most. His superpowers are not an accident of birth, or of stumbling into the wrong lab at the wrong time. They're not powers at all, simply a simulation made possible by good fortune and the leisure that accompanies it. Bruce Wayne can splurge on the kit and cars to set himself up as a crime-fighting Christ substitute, plus power and glitter enough to hide his hobby. He's always been a curious idol: within aspiration because he's flesh and blood; beyond it because he's the lucky recipient of inherited wealth.

So it should be no surprise that The Dark Knight Rises (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/movie/141046/dark-knight-rises) so firmly upholds the financial status quo. Christopher Nolan (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/christopher-nolan)'s film indulges in much guttural talk of the gap between the 99% and the 1%, but it is the former who are demonised, whose revolting actions require curbing and mutinous squeals muting. Your average Joe, it turns out, requires a benevolent, bad-ass billionaire to set him straight, to knock him sideways, if necessary.

The Occupy Gotham movement, as organised by gargly terrorist Bane, is populated by anarchists without a cause, whose actions are fuelled by a lust for destruction, not as a corrective to an unjust world. Such self-made characters as we meet in the film are, by and large, fishy – power-grabbers hiding behind a fig-leaf of philanthropism. Even someone who earns their crust nicking other people's stuff looks agog when the masses storm posh apartments to try and redistribute a bit of bubbly.
Batman's butler-crush and bells and whistles feudalism is swallowable – it's a cartoon, right! Likewise the free pass that Wayne's Rowntree-ish gestures, disapproval of criminals and general tortured grizzling seems to allow him. But The Dark Knight Rises is a quite audaciously capitalist vision, radically conservative, radically vigilante, that advances a serious, stirring proposal that the wish-fulfilment of the wealthy is to be championed if they say they want to do good. Mitt Romney will be thrilled. What's strange is that quite so many of the rest of us seem to want to buy into it.

That being said I was not really expecting anything different from movies nowadays. TBH if I used a litmus test to watch movies (or books, games, music, literature, etc.) with political overtones friendly to mine, I wouldn't have much to watch, if at all. I'm waiting to see impressions from people whether or not the movie is watchable or is a muddled mess.

[Jimmie Higgins]

To be fair, David Goyer's been a writer with Nolan since Batman Begins back in 2006 and The Dark Knight in 2008, before he got tapped for "writing" the Black Ops plot. I don't really think he'd be factor in making the movie go either way, he's just there because he's been Nolan since all this started.I just read a review in Rolling Stone which said the movie was really good, but fans will complain about two things: the ending and the reactionary politics in the movie. The only thing they add is that Bane wants to attack the stock exchange.

I'm seeing spiderman this week, but maybe next week I'll check it out since it sounds like it's good as far as being a well-done movie at least as good as the previous.

[Ostrinski]

I'm going to see it on Sunday with my grandfather.

[Red Commissar]

I just read a review in Rolling Stone which said the movie was really good, but fans will complain about two things: the ending and the reactionary politics in the movie. The only thing they add is that Bane wants to attack the stock exchange.

I'm seeing spiderman this week, but maybe next week I'll check it out since it sounds like it's good as far as being a well-done movie at least as good as the previous.

Yeah, I got that impression from some reviews that've already come out. Considering the buildup for this movie being the "last" of Nolan trilogy as well as his need to get back some of the thunder that the Avengers movie stole from under him, there's probably going to be some stuff viewers will be disappointed with.

It is interesting though regarding the "reactionary" politics and how that factors into Hollywood as a whole. Even with Dark Knight I remember discussions about some of these subtle overtones, such as the sequence where Batman goes to China to abduct a foreign national after he fled from Gotham (extraordinary rendition, anyone?). In some cases I've seen people say that the Dark Knight had a lot of parallels to the war on terror in that,

-Batman "broke" laws and infringed on liberty (that whole sonar bit), but it's ok because he was fighting a big "evil".

-Batman is fighting an enemy who uses a lot of explosives, and even one that essentially blows himself up in the PD.

-Batman acknowledges that sometimes there are "necessary" sacrifices to be made, referring to the boundaries he will cross in order to do what is just. Like that one Dick Cheney quip

"We also have to work through, sort of, the dark side, if you will. We've got to spend time in the shadows in the intelligence world. A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion, using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies, if we're going to be successful."

I'm not sure if Nolan has ever expanded on his politics, if he has I haven't read it. But it's interesting in the context of conservatives always blasting "liberal" Hollywood, since I would say that Hollywood is much more of a mixed bag politically. Maybe that's because we're just so off the generic conservative-liberal divide on these forums that we can see it from the outside, but still I feel that there has been a lot of conservative-friendly messages in many movies I've seen recently.

It's interesting to me since I usually get the impression that most comic book fans are pretty "liberal", in the American sense. But the people that write and/or adapt them are a mixed bag. Kind of the same issue with Sci-Fi I think.


I'm going to see it on Sunday with my grandfather.

Be sure to post your impressions. I won't get a chance to do so this weekend because of work and such.

[eric922]

I'm going to see it this Thursday, I'll let you all know what I think.

I'm going to try my best to ignore the politics, because I don't want to get pissed off. Nolan has always stuck me as ab it of a conservative. Though, I'm not sure how accurate the comparison between Batman and Bush is, which is something I've heard a lot comparing the sonar spying to the Patriot Act. Bruce built the machine with a kill code and gave it to Lucius who outright told him to shut it or he would quit.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I would argue that Batman is more than a mere cop as he represents something more than the protection of the current state. In the first film, Batman Begins, we get to see how Bruce Wayne develops his ideology through his travels around the world where he lived among the poor and partake in criminality in order to understand why they do the things that they do. In some aspects, he was kind of like Che Guevara during his motorcycle trips across South America. But Bruce's motivation to do this comes firmly from his inner anger about the death of his parents. The guy who shot his parents was a product of desperation caused by economic hardships (allegory to capitalism?) that resulted in the mugging and killing of Bruce's parents to meet his ends need. Thus Batman's true allegiance is not to the state but to the people in which he hopes that no other person will have to go through the pain that he has gone through.

I think that's the real tragedy of Batman. Despite sincere motivations and genuine skill and ingenuity, his struggles will be always uphill as long as capitalism exists. Indeed, it was that very system which provided him with the wealth upon which his training and equipment was built from, as well as creating the conditions for his parents' murder.

[Red Commissar]

I'm going to try my best to ignore the politics, because I don't want to get pissed off. Nolan has always stuck me as ab it of a conservative. Though, I'm not sure how accurate the comparison between Batman and Bush is, which is something I've heard a lot comparing the sonar spying to the Patriot Act. Bruce built the machine with a kill code and gave it to Lucius who outright told him to shut it or he would quit.

The point was that he used it as a "necessary" evil in order to best his enemy, which is where a lot of that discussion came out of regarding Batman and the War on Terror. It's again just an interesting thing to talk about.

Personally I'm just thankful that more of Frank Miller didn't come out in these movies. Dark Knight's political overtones aren't obvious nor were they meant to be, but Miller is unabashed on this note as he showed when he wanted to get a Batman piece where he fought al-Qaeda stand-ins :laugh: before he decided to drop Batman from that.

But again regarding entertainment and politics, it's self-defeating to get too hung up over the latter. As I said before if I was to use this litmus test of finding what movies mesh with my communist views, I would have little to nothing to actually entertain myself with. Same thing with games, music, books, etc.

Related to the movie's reviews is a rather amusing incident over at rottentomatoes. Some of the few negative reviews that came out prompted a lot of rage from fanboys, which led the site to first monitor and then disable commenting on the reviews (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_dark_knight_rises/news/1925558/the_dark_knight_rises_--_this_is_why_we_cant_have_nice_things/). Heck, even one review was apparently tailored to be trollbait (http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/07/17/how-the-dark-knight-rises-got-a-critic-banned-from-rotten-tomatoes/), since the critic didn't see the movie and was trying to get website hits.

[eric922]

The point was that he used it as a "necessary" evil in order to best his enemy, which is where a lot of that discussion came out of regarding Batman and the War on Terror. It's again just an interesting thing to talk about.

Personally I'm just thankful that more of Frank Miller didn't come out in these movies. Dark Knight's political overtones aren't obvious nor were they meant to be, but Miller is unabashed on this note as he showed when he wanted to get a Batman piece where he fought al-Qaeda stand-ins :laugh: before he decided to drop Batman from that.

But again regarding entertainment and politics, it's self-defeating to get too hung up over the latter. As I said before if I was to use this litmus test of finding what movies mesh with my communist views, I would have little to nothing to actually entertain myself with. Same thing with games, music, books, etc.

Related to the movie's reviews is a rather amusing incident over at rottentomatoes. Some of the few negative reviews that came out prompted a lot of rage from fanboys, which led the site to first monitor and then disable commenting on the reviews (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_dark_knight_rises/news/1925558/the_dark_knight_rises_--_this_is_why_we_cant_have_nice_things/). Heck, even one review was apparently tailored to be trollbait (http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/07/17/how-the-dark-knight-rises-got-a-critic-banned-from-rotten-tomatoes/), since the critic didn't see the movie and was trying to get website hits.

Ugh Miller pisses me off so much. I've only read Dark Knight Returns once, because Miller is so right-wing and he doesn't even bother to hide it. Well that and I think the artwork is pretty bad.

[Comrades Unite!]

I'm going to go see it soon.

[Yu Ming Zai]

Oh, sorry, I don't know video games past Ms. Pac Man. It's not Call of Duty 2, it's CoD:Black Ops 2.

Ah, well that game hasn't come out yet so I can't really comment on that. But the script was written by three writers, David S. Goyer (the guy you were referring to), Christopher Nolan, and Jonathan Nolan who has stated that the story and plot is heavily influenced by Charles Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities which was about the French Revolution. There are talks about how some of the plot elements within the film are influence by several major events in the French Revolution such as the storming of the Bastille (Blackgate Prison) and even a Reign of Terror era perpetrated by a comic book version of Robespierre. So the film does have some historical qualities that provides a pretty solid foundation for the movie more so than any other films of the same genre.


If there really is a 99%-plot-line I think what they may do with the 99% themes in the trailer is to flip the concept of crime and have "the villains" claim to be populist vigilantes against the rich. My suspicion is that they will attempt to "settle" this question of vigilantism, (in this series the tension seems to be presented as both the question of if vigilantes and terrorists are basically the same, but also that it is an unending battle which will cause Bruce/Batman to always have to battle someone leading to new battles and so on) by Batman being immobilized (or killed) but as a symbol he lives on and "regular people" in Gotham stand up for themselves in a "take back the streets" not revolutionary way.

I am pretty sure there is going to be the theme in the movie revolving around the rich and the poor. I even read one review, which ironically was a negative one that talked about how Bane comes into Gotham City and target the financial sectors of the city in order to wipe out the rich and establishes a Gotham Commune. Interesting leftist element here. Though overall I think this idea of a flip is especially interesting to people who can relate to the villain as they themselves have suffered through some economic hardships. So it'll be really interesting to see how audience react to this film and how articles will talk about the politics of this film.

[eric922]

About the whole Bane being a hero of the 99% thing, according to Roger Ebert's review, Bane isn't portrayed as legitimate hero, but more of an opportunist. At least that was my impression of Ebert's review. Here it is if you want to read it: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120717/REVIEWS/120719981

[Rafiq]

Science (according to Rafiq) = making unsubstantiated claims because they seem logical to him, and calling you a bourgeois moralist counterrevolutionary scum if you disagree.

That's a bit blown over proportion, don't you think? I merely pointed out that to be a revolutionary communist solely for scientific reasons is indeed possible.

Would you agree that a systemic analysis of capitalism, rooting out it's contradictions, is scientific? Any sane person most certainly would to my knowledge. Never at all have I asserted that my analysis of charity was completely scientific, as it wasn't. But we can, of course, substantiate Marx's analysis of capitalism, we can see that in practice it has proven itself correct. Looking at the psychological dimensions of charity, and it's affiliation with the revolutionary movement, on the other hand, is not the same type of science. But in the end, perhaps it is.

I like how all you've done is resort to personal attacks, without (unlike when I do such a thing), actually making a decent argument. Please, piss off or contribute something of quality.


You know as well as I that he cannot prove his assertion that a lack of charity fosters revolution more than a presence of it.

Well, for one, that may be in correlation with the fact that never have I suggested such a thing. Yes, I said it was counter revolutionary, i.e. In the sense that by you, actually choosing to take action, only resorting to charity because "Hey man, it's realistic, you can save your revolution for later", it's counter revolutionary. Though, in the long term, it's not going to make a difference. It's just degrading and completely moralistic.


Yet he continues to treat it as fact, because Marx might have agreed with him, therefore it's science, and you deserve to die because of it. Ya... "science." :rolleyes:


What kind of idiot are you? Why do you always find it necessary to blow things out of proportion? Why can't you be mature for once and actually ahve a civilized conversation? You're older than me, and you're still making a fool out of yourself.

I mean, eric922 the Liberal was the one who got offended because I said charity was counterrevolutionary, and resorted to personal attacks, before I even said anything that could be considered an attack on him. Maybe it's just a sign that he doesn't know how to debate, i.e. He couldn't counter my claims, so he resorted to personal attacks without making a substantial argument, one devoid of emotional sensationalist nonsense.

Just remember, blowing things out of proportion is a major sign of intellectual insecurity. No post I've ever made on this forum could even lead to a joke-stereotypical embodiment of my response that would involve killing him. None. But apparently, it does, because your representation of me only exists in your head.


EDIT: The only question is how long will it take him to refute my claims by reminding us of the debates he "kicked my ass in," in which he actually just walked away from...


I've already refuted your claims numerous times over. When are you going to realize that unless you make new arguments, having the last post in a thread =/= winning the debate. I addressed all of your arguments, and you simply regurgitated them. For example, you'd response to whole paragraphs with a single, witty comment, maybe a sentence or two. I just feel like I'm wasting my time with someone who can't, for a second even attempt to be insightful. Especially when each post was unnecessarily long.

You want to know how to debate? Look at contemplativebaboon, all of his arguments are, although perhaps in disagreement with mine, very insightful and well written in addressing my claims. Look at long term users like here, just off the top of my head AugustWest, Yazman, Jimmie Higgens, etc. know how to debate properly. Sure, unlike them, I do resort to personal attacks sometimes, but at least behind the personal attacks, or before them, I actually make a substantial argument. Why can't people be more like them? It's beyond me. Immaturity? Who knows.

[Rafiq]

Science? Oh please, Rafiq. Do you even know what science is? Marxism may be logical, and it may make sense, it may be correct, but it is not science. The claims of science are testable and provable. Even the social sciences such as Sociology or Psychology have various tests and studies to back up their claims. This claim that Marxism is a form of science is simply not true, even if Marxism is true, it isn't a science.

Several aspects of Marxism, ranging from sociology to economics have been both testable and provable. Dialectical Materialism perhaps, may be an exception here, but as far as historical materialism goes, as far as Marx's analysis of political economy, all of those are 100% scientific and based off of the scientific method. You're an idiot if you think otherwise.


Marxism, as you love to point out, is based on Materialism. Well you can't test materialism in a laboratory, you can't disprove idealism. You'll never be able to scientifically prove idealism or materialism.


You can, though, prove Materialism through sociology, psychology, etc. And for the most part, it has been correct. You can't disprove Idealism in the same way you can't disprove the existence of a god, because those two concepts are one in the same and rely on the same mode of thought. Several studies... Most noticeably, Darwin's theory of evolution almost completely confirms materialism, that animals were not "created", they were not ideas, etc. I can go on, from anthropology to political economy. Should I? Marxism is a science, not an ideology. I know you, an Idealist, would love to make Marxism out as some sort of Utopian obscurity, so you can feel unrivaled with your Libertarian nonsense.


As for your point about ethics, I won't argue it again. We've already had this debate several times and your argument still isn't convincing. Oh, and can you go a single debate without resorting to ad hominem attacks such as "liberal" or "moralist." It's really immature of you, but then again that may be part of our problem.


Liberal or Moralist isn't an ad hominem attack, I'm seriously pointing out that your argument(s) were/are based on Liberalist pressuposions and moralism. How is that an ethical attack? Of course you won't argue with me about any of those things, it's because you can't. It's because your politically immature, just like RSWU, who every now and then makes absurd declarations leveled against me, and proceeds to make sure he has the last post in the thread, even though he may be simply recycling the same old arguments which I've denigrated.

[Rafiq]

Really? A more efficient cop, for allowing a theft to get away and attacking the store owner trying to protect his property? If any cop did that, they would be fired and arrested.

It's interesting, do you really think you can take me on? It's so cute how new users, when feeling confident, respond to a post they hold as completely unfalsiable, proceeding to respond to other posts made by that same user to ideologically secure themselves, well, sorry, it's not going to work this time. Not a "cop" as the cop you are thinking (A member of X police force being forced to abide by X police code), but a more efficient enforcer of the interests of the Bourgeois class. This is a stupid example, but if you watch Game of Thrones, Tyrion Lannister, interestingly enough, makes such sacrifices in order to preserve and protect the interests of his "house", i.e. He treats the masses kindly in order to win over their loyalty, but is still acting on behalf of the same house. In this same sense, the Green Arrow is protecting Bourgeois society from it's own products. It's not hard to understand.

You're so constrained by modern bourgeois society, it's laughable. Where's your imagination? Do you really think all cops have the same regulations across all Bourgeois states, or something? Do you think a more efficient cop means a cop who follows all of the rules, all of the rules, to which these superheros understand, are harmful in preserving Bourgeois society to some extent? No.

He's not only a more efficient cop, he's a more efficient version of a cop.

[Rafiq]

I would argue that Batman is more than a mere cop as he represents something more than the protection of the current state. In the first film, Batman Begins, we get to see how Bruce Wayne develops his ideology through his travels around the world where he lived among the poor and partake in criminality in order to understand why they do the things that they do. In some aspects, he was kind of like Che Guevara during his motorcycle trips across South America. But Bruce's motivation to do this comes firmly from his inner anger about the death of his parents. The guy who shot his parents was a product of desperation caused by economic hardships (allegory to capitalism?) that resulted in the mugging and killing of Bruce's parents to meet his ends need. Thus Batman's true allegiance is not to the state but to the people in which he hopes that no other person will have to go through the pain that he has gone through.

While I do agree there is a dimension in the Batman phenomena which seeks to understand the motivations of criminals, it's also important to note that unlike Che Guevara, Batman doesn't exist to destroy the whole social order, the same social order that killed his parents. He seeks to protect it from itself, protect the social order from it's own offspring.

[eric922]

It's interesting, do you really think you can take me on? It's so cute how new users, when feeling confident, respond to a post they hold as completely unfalsiable, proceeding to respond to other posts made by that same user to ideologically secure themselves, well, sorry, it's not going to work this time. Not a "cop" as the cop you are thinking (A member of X police force being forced to abide by X police code), but a more efficient enforcer of the interests of the Bourgeois class. This is a stupid example, but if you watch Game of Thrones, Tyrion Lannister, interestingly enough, makes such sacrifices in order to preserve and protect the interests of his "house", i.e. He treats the masses kindly in order to win over their loyalty, but is still acting on behalf of the same house. In this same sense, the Green Arrow is protecting Bourgeois society from it's own products. It's not hard to understand.

You're so constrained by modern bourgeois society, it's laughable. Where's your imagination? Do you really think all cops have the same regulations across all Bourgeois states, or something? Do you think a more efficient cop means a cop who follows all of the rules, all of the rules, to which these superheros understand, are harmful in preserving Bourgeois society to some extent? No.

He's not only a more efficient cop, he's a more efficient version of a cop.

First of all, it's completely clear you have no clue about Green Arrow or comics in general so just quit talking. This is really going to be my last post to you and I don't give a damn if you report me or not, or whatever.

As for taking you on. No, I cant' ever win an argument with you because you are like religious zealot. You have found the Truth you will damn anyone who disagrees with you. You're posting history here shows that very well as you constantly call people who disagree with you various types of scum. You aren't even worth arguing with because you know the Truth and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, just like at your interactions with Rev.startswityou or NGM85 to prove it, they've all beaten you before and what do you do? You call them various types of scum. That proves your immaturity right there, because only stupid or immature people respond to disagreements with insults.

Not to mention your violence fetish borders on the sociopathic. Anyone who can calmy call for the murder of as many people as you do is either too immature to grasp the concept of death or an utter sociopath who has no concept of empathy or conscience. I am seriously done replying to you, I don't have time to waste debating children who call people "scum" for disagreeing with them, especially children who claim to not believe in moralists, but can't see the irony in calling people "moralist scum."

Oh, and you have no fucking clue what science is by the way, so quit saying your various views are science. Marxism is at best a social science and that is debatable.

[Red Commissar]

Impression of the movie from the New York Times reviews.... gives some idea of the plot and such without outright spoiling it.



July 18, 2012
Movie Review
Ground Zero for the Caped Crusader
By MANOHLA DARGIS

After seven years and two films that have pushed Batman ever deeper into the dark, the director Christopher Nolan has completed his postmodern, post-Sept. 11 epic of ambivalent good versus multidimensional evil with a burst of light. As the title promises, day breaks in “The Dark Knight Rises,” the grave and satisfying finish to Mr. Nolan’s operatic bat-trilogy. His timing couldn’t be better. As the country enters its latest electoral brawl off screen, Batman (Christian Bale) hurtles into a parallel battle that booms with puppet-master anarchy, anti-government rhetoric and soundtrack drums of doom, entering the fray as another lone avenger and emerging as a defender of, well, what?

Truth, justice and the American way? No — and not only because that doctrine belongs to Superman, who was bequeathed that weighty motto on the radio in August 1942, eight months after the United States entered World War II and three years after Batman, Bob Kane’s comic creation, hit. Times change; superheroes and villains too. The enemy is now elusive and the home front as divided as the face of Harvey Dent, a vanquished Batman foe. The politics of partisanship rule and grass-roots movements have sprung up on the right and the left to occupy streets and legislative seats. It can look ugly, but as they like to say — and Dent says in “The Dark Knight,” the second part of the trilogy — the night is darkest before the dawn.

The legacy of Dent, an activist district attorney turned murderous lunatic, looms over this one, the literal and metaphysical personification of good intentions gone disastrously wrong. (He looms even more in Imax, which is the way to see the film.) Eight years later in story time, Batman, having taken the fall for Dent’s death, and mourning the woman both men loved, has retreated into the shadows. Dent has been enshrined as a martyr, held up as an immaculate defender of law-and-order absolutism. Gotham City is quiet and so too is life at Wayne Manor, where its master hobbles about with a cane while a prowler makes off with family jewels (the intensely serious Mr. Nolan isn’t wholly humorless) and Gotham sneers about the playboy who’s mutated into a Howard Hughes recluse.

Batman has always been a head case, of course: the billionaire orphan, a k a Bruce Wayne, who for assorted reasons — like witnessing the murder of his parents when he was a child — fights crime disguised as a big bat. Bruce’s initial metamorphosis, in “Batman Begins,” exacts a high price: by the end of the second film, along with losing the girl and being branded a vigilante, Bruce-Batman rides virtually alone, save for Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) and the Wayne family butler, Alfred (Michael Caine), a fussy uncle with a remarkable skill set. It’s central to where Mr. Nolan wants to take “The Dark Knight Rises” that Batman will be picking up new acquaintances, including a beat cop, John Blake (a charming Joseph Gordon-Levitt), and a philanthropist, Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard).

Mr. Nolan again sets his machine purring with two set pieces that initiate one of the story’s many dualities, in this case between large spectacle and humanizing intimacies: one, an outlandishly choreographed blowout that introduces a heavy, Bane (Tom Hardy); the other, a quieter cat-and-bat duet between Bruce and a burglar, Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway). After checking in with his personal armorer, Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), Bruce-Batman swoops into an intrigue that circles back to the first film and brings the series to a politically resonant conclusion that fans and op-ed bloviators will argue over long after this one leaves theaters. Once again, like his two-faced opponents and the country he’s come to represent, Batman begins, feared as a vigilante, revered as a hero.

Informed by Kane’s original comic and Frank Miller’s resuscitation of the character in the 1980s, Mr. Nolan’s Bruce-Batman has oscillated between seemingly opposite poles, even as he’s always come out a superhero. He is savior and destroyer, human and beast, the ultimate radical individualist and people’s protector. Yet as the series evolved, this binary opposition — echoed by Dent’s rived face — has grown progressively messier, less discrete. Much of the complexity has been directly written into the franchise’s overarching, seemingly blunt story of good versus evil. It’s an old, familiar tale that Mr. Nolan, in between juggling the cool bat toys, demure kisses, hard punches and loud bangs, has layered with open and barely veiled references to terrorism, the surveillance state and vengeance as a moral imperative.

In “The Dark Knight Rises” Mr. Nolan, working from a script he wrote with his brother Jonathan, further muddies the good-and-evil divide with Bane. A swaggering, overmuscled brute with a scar running down his back like a zipper and headgear that obscures his face and turns his cultivated voice into a strangulated wheeze, Bane comes at Batman and Gotham hard. Fortified by armed true believers, Bane first beats Batman in a punishingly visceral, intimate fist-to-foot fight and then commandeers the city with a massive assault that leaves it crippled and — because of the explosions, the dust, the panic and the sweeping aerial shots of a very real-looking New York City — invokes the Sept 11 attacks. It’s unsettling enough that some may find it tough going.

Watching a city collapse should be difficult, maybe especially in a comic-book movie. The specter of Sept. 11 and its aftermath haunt American movies often through their absence though also in action films, which adopt torture as an ineluctable necessity. Mr. Nolan, for his part, has been engaging Sept. 11 in his blockbuster behemoths, specifically in a vision of Batman who stands between right and wrong, principles and their perversions, because he himself incarnates both extremes.

Mr. Nolan has also taken the duality that made the first film into an existential drama and expanded that concept to encompass questions about power, the state and whether change is best effected from inside the system or outside it. Gordon believes in its structures; Bane wants to burn it all down. And Batman? Well, he needs to work it out.

So will viewers, explicitly given the grim, unsettling vision of a lawless city in which the structures of civil society have fallen, structures that Batman has fought outside of. In a formally bravura, disturbingly visceral sequence that clarifies the stakes, Bane stands before a prison and, in a film with several references to the brutal excesses of the French Revolution — including the suitably titled “A Tale of Two Cities” — delivers an apocalyptic speech worthy of Robespierre. Invoking myths of opportunism, Bane promises the Gotham citizenry that courts will be convened, spoils enjoyed. “Do as you please,” he says, as Mr. Nolan cuts to a well-heeled city stretch where women in furs and men in silk robes are attacked in what looks like a paroxysm of revolutionary bloodlust.

If this image of violent revolt resonates strongly, it’s due to Mr. Nolan’s kinetic filmmaking in a scene that pulses with realism and to the primal fear that the people could at any moment, as in the French Revolution, become the mob that drags the rest of us into chaos. Yet little is what it first seems in “The Dark Knight Rises,” whether masked men or raging rhetoric. Mr. Nolan isn’t overtly siding with or taking aim at any group (the wily Bane only talks a good people’s revolution), but as he has done before, he is suggesting a third way. Like Steven Soderbergh in “Contagion,” a science-fiction freak-out in which the heroes are government workers, Mr. Nolan doesn’t advocate burning down the world, but fixing it.

He also, it may be a relief to know, wants to entertain you. He does, for the most part effortlessly, in a Dark Knight saga that is at once lighter and darker than its antecedents. It’s also believable and preposterous, effective as a closing chapter and somewhat of a letdown if only because Mr. Nolan, who continues to refine his cinematic technique, hasn’t surmounted “The Dark Knight” or coaxed forth another performance as mesmerizingly vital as Heath Ledger’s Joker in that film. The ferocious, perversely uglified Mr. Hardy, unencumbered by Bane’s facial appliance, might have been able to dominate this one the way Mr. Ledger did the last, but that sort of monstrous, bigger-than-life turn would have been antithetical to this movie’s gestalt. The accomplished Mr. Bale continues to keep Batman at a remove with a tight performance that jibes with Mr. Nolan’s head-over-heart filmmaking.

After repeatedly sending Batman down Gotham’s mean streets, Mr. Nolan ends by taking him somewhere new. That’s precisely the point of a late sequence in which he shifts between a multitude of characters and as many locations without losing you, his narrative thread or momentum. His playfulness with the scenes-within-scenes in his last movie, “Inception,” has paid off here. The action interludes are more visually coherent than in his previous Batman films and, as in “Inception,” the controlled fragmentation works on a pleasurable, purely cinematic level. But it also serves Mr. Nolan’s larger meaning in “The Dark Knight Rises” and becomes his final say on superheroes and their uses because, as Gotham rages and all seems lost, the action shifts from a lone figure to a group, and hope springs not from one but many.

“The Dark Knight Rises” is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned). Violence.

The Dark Knight Rises

Opens on Friday nationwide.

Directed by Christopher Nolan; written by Christopher Nolan and Jonathan Nolan, based on a story by Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer; director of photography, Wally Pfister; edited by Lee Smith; music by Hans Zimmer; production design by Nathan Crowley and Kevin Kavanaugh; costumes by Lindy Hemming; produced by Christopher Nolan, Emma Thomas and Charles Rove; released by Warner Brothers Pictures. Running time: 2 hours 45 minutes.

WITH: Christian Bale (Bruce Wayne/Batman), Michael Caine (Alfred), Gary Oldman (Commissioner Gordon), Anne Hathaway (Selina Kyle), Tom Hardy (Bane), Marion Cotillard (Miranda Tate), Joseph Gordon-Levitt (John Blake) and Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox).

[Rafiq]

Sure. The X-men are pretty baller in the "progressive shit" category. There's also the early and the new Superman (In Action Comics #1 of the New 52, Batman (edit: SUPERMAN THAT IS) fights cops and puts himself infront of a tank to protect a building full of squatters after dropping a bank dude off a building only to catch him which is basically a mock-execution). And Grant Morrison's Animal Man worked directly with the ALF.

Is this Grant guy a mainstream comic book publisher?

Anyway, X men is probably the only exception I could think of, off the top of my head (judging just from the movies, that is).

[Rafiq]

First of all, it's completely clear you have no clue about Green Arrow or comics in general so just quit talking. This is really going to be my last post to you and I don't give a damn if you report me or not, or whatever.

I do, however, have some sort of a grasp on the purpose of superheros, or function of them in regards to propaganda.


As for taking you on. No, I cant' ever win an argument with you because you are like religious zealot. You have found the Truth you will damn anyone who disagrees with you. You're posting history here shows that very well as you constantly call people who disagree with you various types of scum. You aren't even worth arguing with because you know the Truth and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, just like at your interactions with Rev.startswityou or NGM85 to prove it, they've all beaten you before and what do you do? You call them various types of scum. That proves your immaturity right there, because only stupid or immature people respond to disagreements with insults.

There hasn't ever been a time where any of those two individuals "beat me". I dare you to try and link any sort of thread that would validate such a bizarre claim. Anyway, the rest of that post is full of emotionally based personal attacks, so I'll let you sit in a corner and cool off until you can put your big boy pants on and have a civilized discussion (:laugh:).

You can't link any posts that would substantiate your claims (that all I do is insult people, without making any sort of argument), and if you can, hell, I'd be surprised. Sure, I do call people scum at times, but I don't just say "You're a scum, though" and call it an argument. No, I actually engage in debates with people (like NGNM85) and usually justify why he's a scumbag by destroying his claims accordingly. You on the other hand, simply resort to personal attacks without making any sort of argument to back them up. That's the ultimate form of desperation on this forum, really.


Not to mention your violence fetish borders on the sociopathic. Anyone who can calmy call for the murder of as many people as you do is either too immature to grasp the concept of death or an utter sociopath who has no concept of empathy or conscience. I am seriously done replying to you, I don't have time to waste debating children who call people "scum" for disagreeing with them, especially children who claim to not believe in moralists, but can't see the irony in calling people "moralist scum."

Care to link any posts that I have ever made which would validate my so called violence fetish? I called out RSWU to do the same one time, and he couldn't. So I'll ask you again, care to link any sort of substantial evidence which would even allow any individual to come to a fraction of the conclusion that you come to, about me having a violence fetish? Go on, do it!

And, it's okay, you don't have to reply to me. Losing debates is part of growing up, and learning, you know. There's nothing wrong with the fact that you can't debate me properly, and there's no need in being a sore loser about it.


Oh, and you have no fucking clue what science is by the way, so quit saying your various views are science. Marxism is at best a social science and that is debatable.


Do you think science equates to people with British accents dressing up in lab coats and doing funny experiments or something? Are you ten years old? Do you even know the definition of science? Do you even know what the scientific method is?

Here's a very vague, mediocre definition that would be accepted by most of academia (Unless they're vulgar sociopaths as well):

The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural...


Was Marx's study of History and Capitalism a systemic study of the latter and former's structure and behavior (I doubt anyone would say otherwise!)

Was Marx a renounded intellectual? Check!

And (:laugh:) is capitalism or human history something we would regard as, perhaps, physical (or natural)? Perhaps, perhaps (:laugh:).

Oh, and finally, (I know this wasn't mentioned, but it's relevant) did Marx abide by the scientific method set forth during the age of enlightenment, when participating in his studies? Yes he fucking was!

So where's your argument? Why is it "debatable" that he was a scientist, and that Marxism is a science? You can't simply declare things without evidence! Make a fucking argument! Come on! This is too fucking easy, man!

[Book O'Dead]

In the history of movie and TV Batman, who's your favorite Joker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joker_%28comics%29)?

Excluding Cesar Romero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesar_Romero), who I think is the king of Jokers because he was the funniest, my personal favorite is....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heath_Ledger

[eric922]

In the history of movie and TV Batman, who's your favorite Joker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joker_%28comics%29)?

Excluding Cesar Romero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesar_Romero), who I think is the king of Jokers because he was the funniest, my personal favorite is....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heath_Ledger

Ledger was great in the role. Honestly, though my favorite was Mark Hamill's Joker from the TAS, he was both funny and kind of scary.

[Book O'Dead]

Ledger was great in the role. Honestly, though my favorite was Mark Hamill's Joker from the TAS, he was both funny and kind of scary.

What do you think of Nicholson's Joker? I liked it a lot until Heath Ledger did his version. Brilliant and a tough one to follow.

[eric922]

What do you think of Nicholson's Joker? I liked it a lot until Heath Ledger did his version. Brilliant and a tough one to follow.
It was really good, a completely different take than Ledger's. My only problem with it was, I kind of feel like a lot of Nicholson's roles are kind of similar. He is very good a playing a crazy person, but he plays them a lot. So I always knew I was watching Nicholson, whereas I forget Ledger's Joker was Ledger.

[Book O'Dead]

It was really good, a completely different take than Ledger's. My only problem with it was, I kind of feel like a lot of Nicholson's roles are kind of similar. He is very good a playing a crazy person, but he plays them a lot. So I always knew I was watching Nicholson, whereas I forget Ledger's Joker was Ledger.

I don't quite agree that Nicholson's been typecast as a nut.

Have you ever seen Nicholson in "Chinatown". To me, that's the Nicholson that will forever remain burned in memory.

Even after he played the wiseguy in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" or the shore patrol in "The Last Detail" or the homicidal psychopath in "The Shining" could I remove Nicholson's character in "Chinatown" from my visualization of him as a suave private eye ala Phillip Marlowe.

[Buttress]

Saw the movie last night. Spoilers follow:

Well, so much for a revolutionary climax to this trilogy. Bane is practically a side-kick by the end of the film and his motivations are basically just deranged. Bit disappointing that it's basically another Ra's al Ghul plot to destroy Gotham and everyone in it, which struck me as fairly flimsy motivation back when we saw it in Batman Begins. TDKR even has a similar bait-and-switch twisty moment.

Most disappointing was the fact that they could have made Bane a Lenin-like figure, leading the working class into revolutionary action but instead he turns out to be a brutish (albiet well-spoken) tyrant. Gotham and the status quo remains relatively unchanged (well, other than being physically battered).

[x359594]

Comrades,

Keep on topic and do not resort to personal insults otherwise this thread will be closed.

[Manic Impressive]

What do you think of Nicholson's Joker? I liked it a lot until Heath Ledger did his version. Brilliant and a tough one to follow.
Cesar Romero is the best Joker ever

[Book O'Dead]

Cesar Romero is the best Joker ever

In my mind Romero's is best because he had the best jokes. The Batman show with Adam West and Burt Ward as Robin was great also because it had great writing and superlative actors.

Imagine, Eartha Kitt as Catwoman, in the late Sixties, no less! An impossible act to follow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eartha_Kitt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXrLJEN0jAQ

[RedSonRising]

It was a well-made film, and I was entertained. But I think it's probably the worst out of the three. I liked it, but I was disappointed, not really because of the hype, but because the other two films were so good. Intriguing storylines, lots of entertaining themes, strong performances, but the balance of characters, pace, and plot focus were really bad at times and ruined what I thought could have been a real masterpiece.
These are my problems with it:



First off, we see Bruce Wayne donning the cowl for maybe 20-30 minutes in the whole movie (my calculations may be off, but in the end that's sure what it felt like). This felt less like a batman film and more like some odd social-apocalyptic time-bomb-thriller film with the focus on Bane for much of it. I understand the need to show him broken and unable, but I don’t understand the appeal of watching him languishing in a harness and doing pushups in a prison pit for half the film.

The fight scenes, despite my over-critical eye as a boxing fan and participant, were overall badly done. Wide looping punches and sluggish choreography by all, especially Bane and Bruce. Is that what a fight between gifted martial arts masters is supposed to look like, old or not?

The movie starts off well, giving lots of provocative background about Bruce's identity and place in Gotham as of late; his changing relationship with Alfred; the cool introduction to Catwoman; the scenes give a lot of emotional pull and excite you for what's going to happen as events unfold. The middle drags on forever though, making you wait in suspense for something without you even being sure of what that something is, and then the dramatic ending cuts seem too eager to satisfy you with neat and clever wrap-ups that feel anticlimactic.

You have to assume way too many things about the plot throughout. Why is Catwoman so desperate for a clean slate? Can't she just move to another continent or something? Why does Batman keep saying "there's more to you than that?" We barely know her; who is she and where did she come from? Hathaway does a great job in the role when given the opportunity, but it's not fleshed out enough for her. Why would Gordon getting on TV make that much of an impact? Why does Gordon Levitt chasing manholes to rescue these cops in the sewers require so much screen time (with so little explanation)? Where is this so-called orphan anger he masks? Why would the public believe Bane was reading a real letter by Jim Gordon to them?

The “Bat” (wing) was ugly. I get it; you’re going for modern and realistic and stylistically feasible. At least make it look like something other than a deformed flying rectangle with windows taped onto it.

Nolan also made a mistake making Bane seem like a secondary character by the end. They built him up to be a truly formidable villain, and then simply made him the babysitter of the true threat. The twist with Talia was pretty cool, but after that moment, Bane was nothing but a softie made no longer relevant to the plot he just spent 2 hours building.

Talia’s death was a bit awkward and poorly acted.

Why does the end battle scene have to be some sort of extended tank battle with Batman dodging heat-seeking missiles? He’s no stranger to heavy-duty artillery combat, but he’s not Ironman, nor does his training and essence encourage him to fight that way.

Hinting that Blake is a sort of “Robin” just doesn’t sit well with me. His name isn’t Dick, or Tim, or Jason, and so this is some random stranger with little depth of personality beyond blind heroism being arbitrarily attached to a super important role within the Batman mythos. I know some won’t care because they aren’t familiar with the background and it makes no difference who Robin is to them, and of course there is no actual Robin showed, but for me, that was a cheap crowd-pleasing tactic that disrespected the source material. It seemed at this point to me that Nolan was using Batman to make a movie he wanted to make, as opposed to bringing him and his universe to life through an artistic interpretation; it almost felt like “Inception in Gotham.”

Overall, I’d call it a good solid film that could have been much better. I’d recommend it, but I personally couldn’t imagine myself sitting through that huge sluggish middle portion of the film that brought me to a mediocre and somewhat predictable ending sequence.

[Ostrinski]

Just got back from seeing it. Bane definitely uses a lot of the rhetoric of the revolutionary left, and the message of "this is what worker rule looks like" certainly beats you over the head.

But overall I enjoyed it.

Long tho

[Die Neue Zeit]

Just got back from seeing it. Bane definitely uses a lot of the rhetoric of the revolutionary left, and the message of "this is what worker rule looks like" certainly beats you over the head.

But overall I enjoyed it.

Long tho

Was that quote used exactly in the film? :confused:

[eric922]

Was that quote used exactly in the film? :confused:
No it wasn't. Honestly, I didn't see any worker's rule or hints of it. I saw rule by rule by prisoners from Blackgate Prison and rule by members of the League of Shadow. The common people were under threat of a nuke.

[Philosopher Jay]

Charles Dickens was a reactionary and "Tale of Two Cities" a piece of reactionary crap.

[Philosopher Jay]

I think the show was poorly written and stupid, but at least it was campy. The movies have been reactionary and vicious. That is why vicious and reactionary little teenage boys like them.

[#FF0000]

I am v. glad I am not a person who lets politics get in the way of appreciating a thing.

The writing, I thought, was pretty weak at parts, though. That latter half, like I keep saying.

[Revolution starts with U]

Cut for forgetting spoiler tags

[Revolution starts with U]

Cut for forgetting spoiler tags

I can't make any snap judgement before seeing the movie. But it seems very poorly done from the reviews I can see.

Bane is supposed to be the Doomsday of the Batman series. Yet by the end it seems they just write him out. He's supposed to "break the bat" and instead just gets stabbed in the back and left for dead. He isn't even the one who escaped the prison as a child, which is like the foundation of the whole Bane story. It just seems like they could have done the whole movie without Bane at all.

I want to and am going to see it. But it seems as of now that I will continue calling the Avengers the best of the new Comic movies... other than Kick Ass and the Watchmen, which are in their own class imo.

[Kenco Smooth]

The fact people here seem to be genuinely upset that the film didn't end with workers taking control of the city in a glorious proletarian uprising is hilarious.

Definitely the weakest film of the trilogy in my mind but still head and shoulders above the vast majority of big summer action flicks.

[DrStrangelove]

Was that quote used exactly in the film? :confused:

Not Exactly

During the second half of the film when Bane takes over Gotham he starts using pseudo-leftist populist rhetoric, saying that he was "putting the power into the hands of the people." A major scene was when he got in front of the Gotham prison and started saying how it was a "symbol of the tyranny and oppression of the common people" and then he freed the prisoners.


The writing, I thought, was pretty weak at parts, though. That latter half, like I keep saying.

I agree. The second half of the film was basically just a retread of the first half, making the entire experience feel like wasted time. "Bruce is crippled, he has to get his groove back and learn to be Batman again so he can fight Bane!" Then Bane breaks the bat, and the entire second half of the film is just "Oh no! Bruce is crippled AGAIN, and he has to get his groove back and learn to be Batman again so he can fight Bane, but now he's gotta stop the nuke so there's a time limit this time!" The climax of the film feels very much like the ending of a Metroid game where you have to escape before the time runs out and everything goes kaboom.

[Princess Luna]

My only major criticism I have is I think Batman should have stayed dead at the end, it felt cheap that they go through all the emotional stuff with the burial and then SURPRISE! he isn't really dead and they should have had Blake take up Batman's place instead of becoming Robin, because assuming Bruce Wayne really is in retirement, then that means Robin is going to be out fighting crime by himself which defeats the whole point of the character.

[eric922]

My only major criticism I have is I think Batman should have stayed dead at the end, it felt cheap that they go through all the emotional stuff with the burial and then SURPRISE! he isn't really dead and they should have had Blake take up Batman's place instead of becoming Robin, because assuming Bruce Wayne really is in retirement, then that means Robin is going to be out fighting crime by himself which defeats the whole point of the character.

And plus: Damn it, Blake should have been named Dick Grayson! Oh,and I would have loved a scene at the end with Talia in the hospital months later holding Damian.

[#FF0000]

I agree. The second half of the film was basically just a retread of the first half, making the entire experience feel like wasted time. "Bruce is crippled, he has to get his groove back and learn to be Batman again so he can fight Bane!" Then Bane breaks the bat, and the entire second half of the film is just "Oh no! Bruce is crippled AGAIN, and he has to get his groove back and learn to be Batman again so he can fight Bane, but now he's gotta stop the nuke so there's a time limit this time!" The climax of the film feels very much like the ending of a Metroid game where you have to escape before the time runs out and everything goes kaboom.

I didn't really mind all that, aside from the fact that the details of the Pit were never really explained (who's jail is it, for who, who are the jailers, why is Bane still on speaking terms with the people who run it apparently). What I really didn't like was how the second fight with Bane was pretty much just like "I'm batman and I can punch better now" whereas in the first fight with Bane there were all these really baller thematic elements present, you know what I mean?

To it's credit though that second fight scene was v. nicely choreographed and Bane's punches were probably the most savage and weighty looking punches I've seen in a long time in a movie.

I don't like how Bane was basically tossed aside as a sidekick at the end, though, especially with how he was defeated by Catwoman in a gag entrance.

[#FF0000]

I want to and am going to see it. But it seems as of now that I will continue calling the Avengers the best of the new Comic movies

Grump-button activated. We are fighting now.

I wanted to like Avengers but the entire thing is based on a pretty huge plot hole. I mean

Loki and Hawkeye and the other guy just escapes? No one could scramble a couple jets in Arizona? Or stop them as they left the country? I mean, they are in a car driving through the desert at night. That's a huge signature for any sort of thermal imaging the military has. And what, Nick Fury couldn't have just kept following them instead of trying to take potshots at an armored SUV from a fuckin helicopter like that'd do anything?

And what the hell was with Loki's whole "plan" on the Helicarrier? I know they "explain" it but they don't, really. Loki just talks and then Black Widow says 'you want to use the hulk against us, got it' and it almost sounds like a non-sequitur. Not to mention that it wouldn't have helped anyway since the Hulk didn't nothing important and just smashed up some planes and chased Black Widow anyway. Besides, Loki wouldn't have had to do anything because the Avengers have the presence of mind of infant children, arguing among themselves instead of dealing with the, you know, massive alien invasion.

And then there's all the dumb one-liners that Joss Whedon just HAS to fuckin have.

"We need a plan of attack!"
"I have a plan: attack!"

Shut the fuck up, Joss.

I'm convinced that Firefly was ghost-written at this point.

[Revolution starts with U]

I think Loki's plan with Bruce was to have him go Hulk, and then the Avengers would be so busy fighting the big green monster that they wouldn't have the necessary resources to fight the invasion.

I think Fury's plan was to allow some of Loki's plan to go through, thinking that would be the necessary catylist to get the Avengers working together.

And also... comics are all about one-liners, and this is pretty much the reason I like the new Spiderman over the old ones (old ones? Is that appropriate to say about movies less than a decade old?)

[eric922]

I think Loki's plan with Bruce was to have him go Hulk, and then the Avengers would be so busy fighting the big green monster that they wouldn't have the necessary resources to fight the invasion.

I think Fury's plan was to allow some of Loki's plan to go through, thinking that would be the necessary catylist to get the Avengers working together.

And also... comics are all about one-liners, and this is pretty much the reason I like the new Spiderman over the old ones (old ones? Is that appropriate to say about movies less than a decade old?)

Amazing Spider-Man is so much better than Rami's. Andrew Garfield really seems to understand Peter Parker. Also, I loved the fighting in the movie. The way he used webs a lot and jumped around, he fought like Spider-Man. In the Rami trilogy, he fought more like a street brawler, just punches, mostly. Also, Rami's is just so campy, it annoys me. Oh, and Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy was amazing. She was smart, brave, useful, and was more than just someone for Peter to rescue. I'm going to hate when she dies.

[Revolution starts with U]

I agree with all that.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Damn that was predictable to the point of being nauseating.

[Ostrinski]

I liked dark knight way better

[#FF0000]

i didn't like the amazing spiderman much at all. the script was awful like they just tacked cliche onto cliche.

i also like how the whole movie is like Peter Parker is on a mission to let everyone in New York know that he's Spiderman.

[eric922]

You know speaking of heroes with working class sympathies how could I have forgotten to mention Anarky? He makes Green Arrow look like a conservative.

[Revolution starts with U]

Here's how it goes for me; I liked the first 3, just as good movies.

But this new one reminded more of Spiderman. Corny one liners as he's webbing everything... idk, it just seemed more natural. After watching it, I just feel like the first 3 were Emo-spiderman.

[Yu Ming Zai]

After pondering this film for quite some time, I have come to the conclusion that this film was the weakest of the three but it is still a great film nonetheless. The only major problems I have with this film is that the story they are trying to convey is so big that even for a 2 hour and 45 minute movie, it felt too short. Even then, some of the dialogues and editing felt rushed. It doesn't really give you any time to breath or to let the emotions sink in, which is especially problematic as this film is quite an emotional film. And also I was abit disappointed that there wasn't as much politics in this film as I was expecting, judging from the trailers and such. I wished they could have added another 30 or so minutes in the film to address how the people of Gotham are feeling about Bane taking over the city in the second act. I think that would have added more emotions into the storyline and would really resonate towards the end of the film where all the stakes are in. Overall I would give this film 8.5/10.

And I would like to address some of the questions and confusion regarding some of our comrades here:


Why is Catwoman so desperate for a clean slate? Can't she just move to another continent or something? Why does Batman keep saying "there's more to you than that?" We barely know her; who is she and where did she come from? Hathaway does a great job in the role when given the opportunity, but it's not fleshed out enough for her.

The exact history of what Selina Kyle has done for her to be that desperate for a clean slate is really not that important. You can just use your imagination for that. In the ballroom where Bruce Wayne and Selina is dancing, we get to know her alittle bit more and see why she can't just move to another continent because everything she did in the past, all her supposed crimes are tracked and quantified by the law enforcers. Even if she moves to a different country, the law enforcement there will know of her record as well and will continue to track her down. So theres really no point in her running. And the reason why Bruce keep saying to Selina that there is more to her is because of their conversation in the ballroom. He learns of her motives as she suggests to him that she is like a robin hood figure where she only robs the rich and won't stand on the shoulders of the poor. This makes her somewhat invested in Gotham to warrant her behavior to do the right thing in the eyes of Bruce.


Why would Gordon getting on TV make that much of an impact? Why does Gordon Levitt chasing manholes to rescue these cops in the sewers require so much screen time (with so little explanation)? Where is this so-called orphan anger he masks? Why would the public believe Bane was reading a real letter by Jim Gordon to them?

I suspect that Commissioner Gordon would try to contain the situation when going onto television. But you are right about the people believing that Bane was reading a real letter by Gordon, it felt too rush and not convincing enough that the people would believe it. Then again though, Bane is in procession of a nuclear bomb as well as a number of military equipments so I suspect that the people wouldn't think he was joking. Perhaps he also sent varies news agencies copies of the letter off screen. Who knows, I guess we have to use our imagination there as well. As for the John Blakes character, because the movie is primarily about Bruce Wayne, I think it wasn't necessary to show John's hidden anger. Beside that was in the past, he now knows how to and when to just smile. And Im not sure what you mean by John chasing down the manholes... do you mean the beginning when he was investigating the sewers or when the police force was trapped underground?


Hinting that Blake is a sort of “Robin” just doesn’t sit well with me. His name isn’t Dick, or Tim, or Jason, and so this is some random stranger with little depth of personality beyond blind heroism being arbitrarily attached to a super important role within the Batman mythos. I know some won’t care because they aren’t familiar with the background and it makes no difference who Robin is to them, and of course there is no actual Robin showed, but for me, that was a cheap crowd-pleasing tactic that disrespected the source material.

I didn't feel it was disrespectful to the source material at all, in fact I thought it was a nice touch to those fans that wanted to see a version of Robin in Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy. I was certainly one of those people that didn't want to see a Robin in Nolan's film but the reveal at the end didn't bother me that much. I also like how Nolan didn't particularly chose only one version of Robin over others to be depicted as John Blake's character is actually a mix of all three personality and background. The fact that John is an orphan alludes to Dick Grayson while the story of his inner anger and outer smile comes from Jason Todd's character and the hotheadedness that was reference in the movie refers to Tim Drakes personality. So in all it was a small token to fans alike.


I didn't really mind all that, aside from the fact that the details of the Pit were never really explained (who's jail is it, for who, who are the jailers, why is Bane still on speaking terms with the people who run it apparently). What I really didn't like was how the second fight with Bane was pretty much just like "I'm batman and I can punch better now" whereas in the first fight with Bane there were all these really baller thematic elements present, you know what I mean?

From the flashbacks, it is most likely that the Pit became part of the League of Shadows after Ra's al Ghul returned to punish all the prisoners there. Thus it can be assumed that the current prisoners in the Pit are enemies of the League of Shadows awaiting their execution or what not. That might explain as to why Bane has command of the Pit as he inherited the role of leader of the League of Shadows. As to the fight scenes, in the first fight Bruce was foremost not ready for the fight. He went in without thinking straight and lost because of it. Plus Bruce doesn't exactly knows what Bane's mask is for, it was only after he was defeated and transported to the Pit that one of the prisoners told him the story of how Bane was injured and that the mask was used to suppress the pain. Thus when Bruce returns for the second fight, he knows that the mask is Bane's weakness so he targets it with the majority of his hits in order to break it. And he was able to win this fight because of what he learn in the Pit. It was a sort of a resurrection of Batman symbolic of Bruce's childhood and him overcoming his struggles of the past and move on.

[RedSonRising]

After pondering this film for quite some time, I have come to the conclusion that this film was the weakest of the three but it is still a great film nonetheless. The only major problems I have with this film is that the story they are trying to convey is so big that even for a 2 hour and 45 minute movie, it felt too short. Even then, some of the dialogues and editing felt rushed. It doesn't really give you any time to breath or to let the emotions sink in, which is especially problematic as this film is quite an emotional film. And also I was abit disappointed that there wasn't as much politics in this film as I was expecting, judging from the trailers and such. I wished they could have added another 30 or so minutes in the film to address how the people of Gotham are feeling about Bane taking over the city in the second act. I think that would have added more emotions into the storyline and would really resonate towards the end of the film where all the stakes are in. Overall I would give this film 8.5/10.

And I would like to address some of the questions and confusion regarding some of our comrades here:



The exact history of what Selina Kyle has done for her to be that desperate for a clean slate is really not that important. You can just use your imagination for that. In the ballroom where Bruce Wayne and Selina is dancing, we get to know her alittle bit more and see why she can't just move to another continent because everything she did in the past, all her supposed crimes are tracked and quantified by the law enforcers. Even if she moves to a different country, the law enforcement there will know of her record as well and will continue to track her down. So theres really no point in her running. And the reason why Bruce keep saying to Selina that there is more to her is because of their conversation in the ballroom. He learns of her motives as she suggests to him that she is like a robin hood figure where she only robs the rich and won't stand on the shoulders of the poor. This makes her somewhat invested in Gotham to warrant her behavior to do the right thing in the eyes of Bruce.



I suspect that Commissioner Gordon would try to contain the situation when going onto television. But you are right about the people believing that Bane was reading a real letter by Gordon, it felt too rush and not convincing enough that the people would believe it. Then again though, Bane is in procession of a nuclear bomb as well as a number of military equipments so I suspect that the people wouldn't think he was joking. Perhaps he also sent varies news agencies copies of the letter off screen. Who knows, I guess we have to use our imagination there as well. As for the John Blakes character, because the movie is primarily about Bruce Wayne, I think it wasn't necessary to show John's hidden anger. Beside that was in the past, he now knows how to and when to just smile. And Im not sure what you mean by John chasing down the manholes... do you mean the beginning when he was investigating the sewers or when the police force was trapped underground?



I didn't feel it was disrespectful to the source material at all, in fact I thought it was a nice touch to those fans that wanted to see a version of Robin in Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy. I was certainly one of those people that didn't want to see a Robin in Nolan's film but the reveal at the end didn't bother me that much. I also like how Nolan didn't particularly chose only one version of Robin over others to be depicted as John Blake's character is actually a mix of all three personality and background. The fact that John is an orphan alludes to Dick Grayson while the story of his inner anger and outer smile comes from Jason Todd's character and the hotheadedness that was reference in the movie refers to Tim Drakes personality. So in all it was a small token to fans alike.



From the flashbacks, it is most likely that the Pit became part of the League of Shadows after Ra's al Ghul returned to punish all the prisoners there. Thus it can be assumed that the current prisoners in the Pit are enemies of the League of Shadows awaiting their execution or what not. That might explain as to why Bane has command of the Pit as he inherited the role of leader of the League of Shadows. As to the fight scenes, in the first fight Bruce was foremost not ready for the fight. He went in without thinking straight and lost because of it. Plus Bruce doesn't exactly knows what Bane's mask is for, it was only after he was defeated and transported to the Pit that one of the prisoners told him the story of how Bane was injured and that the mask was used to suppress the pain. Thus when Bruce returns for the second fight, he knows that the mask is Bane's weakness so he targets it with the majority of his hits in order to break it. And he was able to win this fight because of what he learn in the Pit. It was a sort of a resurrection of Batman symbolic of Bruce's childhood and him overcoming his struggles of the past and move on.

In the end comrade, I agree with basically all of your assertions. The answers you gave me are basically the ones I gave myself during and after the film upon reflecting. While I went on a tirade of criticism, I did not dislike the film, and my greivances were more annoyances than they were obstacles to my enjoyment and respect for the film. I just saw the potential for an even better film being disjointedly lost in the rush. I really like the way you described the film as being very emotional, but denying us certain spots of time and scenes that would have allowed a more proper and deserving emotional engagement.

(And the manholes-trapped police scenes both seemed same to me at the time. Just a little confusing; Nolan has a habit of making quick plot points that are explained just a little too quickly, much like the scene where the Chinese businessman saves all the Gotham underground's cash.)

[eric922]

I think one of the biggest problems with this film is one others have raised here. It felt rushed, despite being an almost 3 hour film. There wasn't enough time to develop things. I do have one complaint about the twist, that I'll put in spoilers:



I felt Talia was wasted. I like the reveal, but I would preferred she did more. Also, I really would have loved a scene set 9 months later with her in a hospital and telling the doctors to name the child Damian.

[#FF0000]

You know speaking of heroes with working class sympathies how could I have forgotten to mention Anarky? He makes Green Arrow look like a conservative.

Until he became some Randian nerd.

[eric922]

Until he became some Randian nerd.
I've only read the trade Batman: Anarky, but I've heard in his short lived ongoing Lonnie was replaced by some new guy or something. Anarky is supposed to be the main villain in the new TV show, they better return him to his anarchist roots.

[La Comédie Noire]

What to say about this movie? Well I feel if Nolan had scaled back a little and picked a few ideas to develop, it would have been a better use of the 2 hours and 45 minutes. Instead what we get is a pastiche of under developed ideas that end up taking away from more interesting ideas and already established characters, a few of which got cheated for time. (Read: Commissioner Gordon)

This really comes through in the editing. This movie is a sprawling mess that is full of awkward transitions and obviously hacked up scenes. You can tell there was a longer cut out there, but it had to be slimmed down for time reasons. So they went through the movie and took a little here and a little there, hoping no one would notice, but the editor is just one of those guys where you don't notice their presence unless they do something wrong.

Were there good things about the movie? Of course. Bane was an interesting choice of villain, but I feel if his political convictions had been more sincere it would have made for a better movie. Once again it's about the time constraints. Here you have this awesome villain with an interesting back story and obvious parallels to Bruce Wayne, but we don't have time for that because we have to hunt down a computer chip, incorporate Robin into the movie, and have Talia AL Ghul show up.

They hype up the fact that Bane was ex-communicated from the league of shadows and it got me so excited because I was like "Ahh man he's gonna actually have faith in the people of Gotham and believe in Socialism then Talia's gonna show up after Batman and Bane's second fight and want to destroy Gotham then we're gonna get this ending...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BOQI-LAEzM

But no, he gets blown away by Cat woman after being reduced to the role of a side kick.

So what would I have cut?

Start with Deputy Commissioner Foley, who had no purpose other than to spout one liners about "hot heads" which he says twice mind you. It really should have been Gordon who lead the charge against Bane's army.

Then cut out the John Blake/ Robin character entirely. A character whose story arch, contradicts the whole message of the second movie and honestly just wastes a lot of time. It's not even set up that well. He just knows Bruce Wayne is Batman because of a look on his face?" Then cue a few rushed scenes where Gordon and Batman give him unwarranted advice on being a hero outside the system. Then we have the shit eating reveal which everybody saw coming and everyone was content in not having.

Then cut out that goofy ass statue reveal, why not have the bat signal be the tribute to batman? It just makes more sense and is associated in the peoples' minds with Batman.

That would free up some time to develop the Bane/ Batman parallel and the contrasts between Miranda Tate and Selina Kyle and how they represent different aspects of Bruce's identity.

So in the end this is your typical Nolan movie, overlong yet somehow still coming up short. Nolan is like one of those ambitious cooking show contestants who never complete their dish in the time allotted because they don't effectively manage their time.

8/10

One point being solely awarded for the batman beat down which is the center piece of the film and an example of Nolan's brilliance shining through his poor movie making fundamentals.

[The Jay]

I found the best review of all: http://http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/la-times-believes-communism-is-portrayed-badly-in-new-film/ (http://http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/la-times-believes-communism-is-portrayed-badly-in-new-film/)

:laugh:

[Revolution starts with U]

I did like Bane's persona tho. He reminded me of Eckhart Tolle, unassuming conviction. He didn't get that loud or aggressive in demeanor at all throughout the movie, he just asserted the situation. That's more sinister than the Joker, imo. You're sure the Joker's crazy... not so much Bane.
The whole Tallia/Bane relationship was poorly done. The core was excellent in that just like Ras, Tallia was the throne behind the power. But it just wrecked everything cool about Bane. As has been said, awesome villain turned to a side-kick in an instant.
Pretty much everything La Comedie said.

[RedSonRising]

I did like Bane's persona tho. He reminded me of Eckhart Tolle, unassuming conviction. He didn't get that loud or aggressive in demeanor at all throughout the movie, he just asserted the situation. That's more sinister than the Joker, imo. You're sure the Joker's crazy... not so much Bane.
The whole Tallia/Bane relationship was poorly done. The core was excellent in that just like Ras, Tallia was the throne behind the power. But it just wrecked everything cool about Bane. As has been said, awesome villain turned to a side-kick in an instant.
Pretty much everything La Comedie said.

I agree.


I think my main grievance has to come down to the fact that Bruce is in the Bat suit for what feels like a maximum of 30 minutes. Is the movie not called "Batman"?

[La Comédie Noire]

I agree the Joker is crazy, but you never feel unsafe for Batman the same way you do around Bane. There's just something about his presence that is religiously terrifying. Bane was really well done and even though it may seem blasphemous I like him better than the Joker. It's a shame he didn't get as much emphasis as the Joker in the previous film.

[Red Commissar]

I saw the movie earlier- couldn't see it the opening weekend because of a combination of being busy and not having much a drive.

Eric and La Comedie's reviews pretty much summed up my main gripe with the film- I felt that the pacing of the plot felt odd. Even with the 2 hour 45 minute running time, it appeared Nolan still really didn't get everything out. Consequently I felt the "flow" of the plot was irregular and they were referring to things that weren't too established.

As for political messages in the movie, I really didn't feel they were that major and in your face. Bane does his thing with an uprising of the underclasses and grime of Gotham, but I feel like it wasn't as clear cut as people were saying. Most of my friends seemed to have missed the whole Tale of Two Cities spin and their main gripe came down to Batman being absent for a considerable part of the plot.


As for plot points, I liked Bane but didn't like how he essentially ended up being a pawn in a greater plan. I was actually worried about this when we discussed this movie last year.



Then again, depending on how much of Miller's weird views Nolan decides to throw in there (It seems he won't, judging from him so far), it just might be a unpleasant depiction of 'rabble' being manipulated by a demagogue for his own purposes. Maybe not. Who knows. I've liked these seies of Batman movies so far though for the most part.


So yeah, we saw Bane acting out the League of Shadows's plan using this as a means to do so, and not only that but he was following orders from a person (Talia) above him. The alternative take on the plot La Comedie brings up was something I didn't think of, but come to think of it I think it would have sat with me better. Bane has his own plots messed up by the League of Shadows who try and take advantage of the Chaos may have at least introduced different takes on what a place like Gotham truely deserves- status quo/ slow reform, revolution, or destruction? I already thought about Talia being brought in due to the mark on Tate's back the camera briefly being shown, and mentioning the League of Shadows in the movie.

That way we would have at least seen some more development of Bane, rather than being reduced to a servant of another plan.


That being said I'd probably give the movie a B. I did like this Bane better than the one in Batman and Robin, and I felt the fight scenes were pretty nice (except for the bullet shield thrown up around the charging cops!). I did, however see something that would probably get the whole anti-99% deal more obviously before the movie with the CoD Black Ops 2 trailer. A romantic revolutionary in Latin America who captures the imagination of the youth in America (*cough* Che *cough*) and proclaims himself the champion of the "99%"... and then he manipulates that to fuck up the world as the angry army man tells us about those ingrateful youth who sympathized with him. Goyer's really throwing that in your face there.

[Yu Ming Zai]

I just saw the potential for an even better film being disjointedly lost in the rush. I really like the way you described the film as being very emotional, but denying us certain spots of time and scenes that would have allowed a more proper and deserving emotional engagement.

Yea, particularly at the end where Batman supposedly died in the atomic explosion in which that scene lasted like 3 seconds before it cut to Gordon's monologue! I was like what the fuck, cant we get a moment of silence here... or a panning shot of the people and police of Gotham City looking over the horizon at the explosion? There was absolutely no display of emotion nor was there time for the audience to let that sink in in that moment of time. It seems like most of Nolan's movies often like to tell of emotions rather than to show it which is okay in some instances but I just wish more emotions was shown in this movie rather than told.


And the manholes-trapped police scenes both seemed same to me at the time. Just a little confusing; Nolan has a habit of making quick plot points that are explained just a little too quickly, much like the scene where the Chinese businessman saves all the Gotham underground's cash.

True but those quick plot points often have a greater meaning than just being there for the sake of time as like your example of Batman going to Hong Kong to retrieve the Chinese businessman was basically to show that Batman doesn't only exist in the fictional city of Gotham but also around the world as well. Hong Kong was chosen by Nolan for its cosmopolitan culture of Western and Eastern influences, thus representing the outside world beyond Gotham City. And in essence, putting Gotham City in the real world.

In the case of the manholes and sewers, it is relative to Blake's character showing his devotion and intuition to investigate the on going rumor of some kind of underground army that the other police officers are having a hard time believing. Ultimately in the end, he was right about the underground army thus showing his skills as a detective as well as his conviction to help the trapped cops underground in the later half of the movie. The purpose of these scenes is possibly setting up his character to be Robin in the reveal at the end with these great skills similar to that of Batman's so that he can be viewed as a legitimate successor to Bruce Wayne.


So yeah, we saw Bane acting out the League of Shadows's plan using this as a means to do so, and not only that but he was following orders from a person (Talia) above him. The alternative take on the plot La Comedie brings up was something I didn't think of, but come to think of it I think it would have sat with me better. Bane has his own plots messed up by the League of Shadows who try and take advantage of the Chaos may have at least introduced different takes on what a place like Gotham truely deserves- status quo/ slow reform, revolution, or destruction?

That was what I was thinking of as well before the movie came out! I thought one of the downfalls of this movie was that the main villain of this movie didnt bring about his own philosophical idea to challenge Batman's as in the previous two films with Ras al Ghul and the Joker but instead was a rehash of Ras al Ghul's philosophy in the first film. I wish this would have been a three way battle between Batman and the cops, Bane and his mercenaries, and Talia al Ghul and the League of Shadows. How awesome would that be. Too bad they made Bane Talia's lackey... oh well, I guess nothing is perfect. Still a good film though.

[Invader Zim]

It's interesting, do you really think you can take me on? It's so cute how new users, when feeling confident, respond to a post ...
You just lost the argument in the opening couple of lines of that post.

What makes you think you can dismiss someone's argument because they haven't been here as long as you? And surely you, given your own estimation of your veteran status here, should be encouraging to new members and not act like a dickhead?

[Rafiq]

You just lost the argument in the opening couple of lines of that post.

You're not one to judge, especially considering that's probably where you stopped reading:


It's interesting, do you really think you can take me on? It's so cute how new users, when feeling confident, respond to a post they hold as completely unfalsiable, proceeding to respond to other posts made by that same user to ideologically secure themselves, well, sorry, it's not going to work this time.



What makes you think you can dismiss someone's argument because they haven't been here as long as you? And surely you, given your own estimation of your veteran status here, should be encouraging to new members and not act like a dickhead?


Did you read the whole fucking post? I dismissed, and discredited his argument because


Not a "cop" as the cop you are thinking (A member of X police force being forced to abide by X police code), but a more efficient enforcer of the interests of the Bourgeois class. This is a stupid example, but if you watch Game of Thrones, Tyrion Lannister, interestingly enough, makes such sacrifices in order to preserve and protect the interests of his "house", i.e. He treats the masses kindly in order to win over their loyalty, but is still acting on behalf of the same house. In this same sense, the Green Arrow is protecting Bourgeois society from it's own products. It's not hard to understand.

You're so constrained by modern bourgeois society, it's laughable. Where's your imagination? Do you really think all cops have the same regulations across all Bourgeois states, or something? Do you think a more efficient cop means a cop who follows all of the rules, all of the rules, to which these superheros understand, are harmful in preserving Bourgeois society to some extent? No.

He's not only a more efficient cop, he's a more efficient version of a cop.

Here's a question: Who the fuck are you to dismiss my whole fucking post, because you're uncomfortable with the opening side remark, which really had little to do with my actual argument?

[Invader Zim]

especially considering that's probably where you stopped reading:

Actually, I don't really care. But your response was petty, snide, unwelcoming and generally unnecessary.

[pluckedflowers]

I have now seen the movie, and I think I have to say I found the plot holes even more disturbing than the politics.

Bane: Excuse me, my underground army, I need to take a quick flight to Central Asia to put this half-dead superhero in the unnecessarily slow dipping device prison. Just hang out for a few days and then we'll start our war.

But, seriously, the politics are fucked.

In any case, I think it's about time someone made one of those satire movies about the new genre of moody superhero flicks.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I have now seen the movie, and I think I have to say I found the plot holes even more disturbing than the politics. I just saw it over the weekend and I agree that the politics were less cringe-inducing than I expected while some of the storytelling problems were more glaring than I expected.

Excuse me, city about to be destroyed by an timed atom bomb, but I'm going to create a giant bat symbol out of fire on the side of this bridge because I must have studied under Banksy after training with the League of Shadows

There was just a lot of silly things in the movie and chanraters and mini-subplots that really had no meaningful narrative or thematic connection to Batman: Mathew Modine's character for example.

As for the politics, it wasn't as much of a ham-handed right-wing commentary on Occupy or social inequality as I expected. The reactionary-ness of the movie, I think was in overall assumptions and worldview than in specific political jabs at anything in the real world. For example: the assumption that anyone in a US prison is a total sociopath who needs to be kept bound whereas prisons in vaguely middle-eastern (or at least 3rd world) countries are obviously torturous and full of innocent people; the idea that maybe the police and courts are sometimes bad, but the alternative is only some worse illegitimate Kangaroo court headed by literally insane people and so on.

It would be expecting too much from the filmmakers, but I think another writer or director with some more political sense (not necessarily a socialist or even a progressive) could have done some interesting things with this story that fits into some of the themes of the earlier movies. What if, bane had a certain appeal to people at large? What if there was still a depression going on and the cops were just as corrupt as in the earlier movies - that would make the plot seem more hard-hitting because it wouldn't just be that a city was taken hostage, but that in a time of crisis and corruption, some insane kinds of ideas might become more appealing to people (given that in the movie Bane would still be a sort of insane warlord character, this would be more of a comment about fascist possibilities in societies in crisis).

Overall I thought it was the weakest of the three movies and I think Nolan's emphasis on making things seem "epic" have the opposite effect of making things seem more shallow and even silly at times.

[ВАЛТЕР]

haven't seen it, but I liked this review.

http://exiledonline.com/the-dark-knight-rises-vs-the-99/



The Dark Knight Rises vs. The 99% (http://exiledonline.com/the-dark-knight-rises-vs-the-99/)
By Eileen Jones (http://exiledonline.com/?s=%22Eileen%20Jones%22)

http://exiledonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/chistian-bale-anne-hathaway-dark-knight-rises1-470x312.jpg (http://exiledonline.com/the-dark-knight-rises-vs-the-99/chistian-bale-anne-hathaway-dark-knight-rises-2/)

Dear Reader,
This whole review’s a spoiler, so if you’re not prepared to handle an all-spoiler review, take a hike. (You know the drill.)
Yours in despair,
Eileen J.
So get this. At the end of The Dark Knight Rises, Batman/Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) is supposedly dead and gone, having sacrificed himself to save Gotham City without the public appreciating it—ungrateful bastards! Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) gives the eulogy at the sparsely attended funeral. In tribute to Batman’s heroism, Gordon reads Sydney Carton’s final lines from A Tale of Two Cities.
Yeah! He really does! The whole “It’s a far far better thing I do than I have ever done, it’s a far far better rest I go to than I have ever known” bit!
http://exiledonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Sydney-Carton-423x550.jpg (http://exiledonline.com/the-dark-knight-rises-vs-the-99/sydney-carton/)
Now, this takes some nerve. Those are among the hammiest lines ever conceived by the human brain, and they take considerable justification to lead up to ‘em. Charles Dickens spent about 500 pages carefully building to the big lugubrious sockeroo. Sydney Carton’s noble death on the guillotine is an absolute triumph of careful handling by a master of lurid melodrama who was all for incremental social change but got very, very squeamish about revolution, no matter how necessary and justified…
Wait, hang on—why the hell is Batman being compared to Sydney Carton, the guy who saved an aristocrat by taking his place in the tumbril, sacrificing himself to a French peasant mob represented by Dickens as vile, bloodthirsty, and insane?
http://exiledonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/kniferevolutionary-385x550.jpg (http://exiledonline.com/the-dark-knight-rises-vs-the-99/kniferevolutionary/)
Well, it seems Christopher Nolan had hisself an idea, he and his writer-brother Jonathan, when writing this Batman-movie-to-end-all-Batman-movies. They thought they’d angle it so that the populace of Gotham City, finally rebelling against the vicious plutocrats in control and demanding a more just society, would turn instantly into a French Revolution-type mob and go all Robespierre on the rich and powerful.
First the Nolans pulled a lot of rhetoric straight from the Occupy movement and put it in the mouth of Bane (Tom Hardy), the masked, muscled-out gargoyle with the silly voice who’s the villain of the piece. Bane’s up on the steps of City Hall or wherever, exhorting the people to rise up and take back control of their city from the Wall Street thieves and billionaire bloodsuckers. But during this oration, Nolan never cuts to reaction shots of the crowd—he’s pulling the old camera trick of making us, the audience, the “mob.”
Take that, you 99%-ers, you mob-waiting-to-happen, you incipient villains! Let this be a warning to you not to listen to any charismatic rhetoric about your rights as citizens!
http://exiledonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/The-Dark-Knight-Rises-the-dark-knight-rises-30989936-1600-1200-470x352.jpg (http://exiledonline.com/the-dark-knight-rises-vs-the-99/239080id2a_mr_bane_bob_busshelter_48inw_x_70inh_10 0-indd/)
Because sure enough, the dreadful working class hordes dressed in sinister motley casual-wear—hoodies and the sorta thing—are manipulated by Bane to take back their city. So the first thing they do is buckle down to releasing all the violent psychopathological criminals in the prison—that’s the first thing protesters always do, it’s Step One in the Social Justice Playbook. Then they go around looting violently and attacking women in fur coats.
Later on, the brainwashed mob follows Bane through the streets to a confrontation with the cops, where the Nolan boys continue to get all topical on our asses. The brave men in blue, the vulnerable uniformed “thin blue line” of police, armed only with pathetic small handguns against tanks and assault rifles, and badly outnumbered, march right into the terrifying mob of savage sans-culottes, I mean protesters, who mow them down.
Ripped from today’s headlines, see, only reversed: now it’s the police who get mauled and the protesters who do the mauling.
Soon it’s hand-to-hand combat, cops versus protesters, in some of the rock-bottom worst staged fight scenes I have ever, ever witnessed. Has Christopher Nolan never even watched any news footage of street fights or riots? They’re generally scary-looking because they’re so ragged and random and chaotic, with surges of crowd motion and sudden bursts of mayhem, arms flailing, legs kicking, people falling and getting stepped on and tripped over, violent pile-ups in one area while other areas open up as people scatter. Nolan’s fight is so badly choreographed, everyone’s fighting in pairs, trading phony-looking, equi-powerful punches like guys in old Westerns, and all the pairs seem to be maintaining an even distance from each other like it’s a barn dance.
Maybe Nolan figured we’d be paying too much attention to Bane fighting Batman in the foreground to notice the rest, but seriously, you can practically hear Nolan yelling though a bullhorn at the extras to do another take, and this time try to punch more like John Wayne.
http://exiledonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/tom-hardy-christian-bale-the-dark-knight-rises1-470x352.jpg (http://exiledonline.com/the-dark-knight-rises-vs-the-99/dark-knight-rises/)
Still later Bane and the protesters and all the other bad guys have lost. The protester-perps are all kneeling down with their hands clasped behind their heads, guarded by the standing cops, as the cops gaze out manfully at the horizon. Virtue triumphant!
I go into all this at such length because the critics and bloggers who’ve already mentioned these embarrassing facts about The Dark Knight Rises aren’t getting half-enough play. The wild charge by Rush Limbaugh that the film is actually a left-wing smear because the villain Bane is meant to refer to Bain Capital, Mitt Romney’s corporation, is getting more traction than the film’s amazingly in-your-face pro-plutocrat, anti-protestor plot development.
http://exiledonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Bane-and-Mitt-Romney-006.jpg (http://exiledonline.com/the-dark-knight-rises-vs-the-99/bane-and-mitt-romney/)
Plus there’s so much other attendant madness swirling around the film, first the death-threats against critics who disparaged it, then the midnight-show mass murders in Aurora, Colorado, then the latest round of debates about violent media and its potential effects on violence-prone people—it’s hard not to feel addled by it all.
Critics who love and defend the film note the anti-99% rhetoric, but hurry to contextualize it as all part of Christopher Nolan’s dark vision, his wonderfully profound portrayal of a whole world gone mad, which is so great it justifies a certain “provocative” topicality. Here’s Andrew O’Hehir of Salon going absolutely bonkers over this film:

I would argue that Nolan is mostly being provocative with this tale of underclass resentment, of an uprising by the lower half of the 99 percent that is turned to evil purposes. If so, it works. In its tremendous, almost apocalyptic action sequences, “The Dark Knight Rises” suggests a reverse-engineered version of a Soviet-era revolutionary epic, in which the masses are the villains and their onetime overlords the heroes. Bane’s attack on a football stadium right after kickoff concludes a simultaneously brutal and elegant sequence, set against an angelic boy singing the national anthem, that’s worthy of Martin Scorsese at his best.
HAAAAAAA-HA-HA-HA-HAAAA!!! That idiotic football stadium scene, with its stupid cliché-kid singing a fey, tremolo “Star-Spangled Banner” as part of the buildup to bombing the place? I swear, I thought there might be some intentional black comedy going on there. But no—turned out to be UNintentional. Especially the finale with the football player running for a touchdown not realizing the field is exploding behind him, killing all the other players (is he a DEAF football player?), and turning around triumphantly in the end zone only to see a giant smoking crater. Far Side cartoons have been made out of images like that!
That’s “simultaneously brutal and elegant…worthy of Martin Scorsese at his best”?! Martin Scorsese!! Guy who did Raging Bull!! Scorsese oughta SUE Andrew Goddamn O’Hehir for defamation of character!!
Anyway, my point being…gotta calm down here…my point being, this movie isn’t just ideologically rotten to the core, it’s rotten in the regular way, too. Bad, stupid, lame, embarrassing, and seemingly interminable, full of main characters delivering long-winded speeches explaining their histories from childhood so we’ll be sure to understand their motivations, which are murky and trite in equal measure. Famous and excellent actors do their damnedest to put all this crap across. But don’t let all the cinematic embiggening fool you! Nolan lays on bogus profundity with a trowel!
See, you enamored critics and fans, you’re all giving Nolan way too much credit, you always have. Just because Heath Ledger gave a terrific performance as the Joker before he went to the Great Oscar Party in the Sky—just because the production designs are large and well-lit, just because Nolan’s cinematographer Walter Pfister can shoot some good angles—you all give Nolan credit for being some kinda deep, edgy nihilist showing us the infinite corruptibility of humanity or something. But Nolan signals who the good guys and the bad guys are just as simplistically and strenuously as any old-time Hollywood hack who used to rely on white hats and black hats to keep things clear.
We all know who’s “good” in The Dark Knight Rises, no matter what their tiresome human frailties are. Batman/Bruce Wayne, Commissioner Gordon, the “angry orphan” who sees himself in Batman (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), John Blake aka soon-to-be-Robin, Batman’s faithful flunkies Alfred (Michael Caine) and Lucien (Morgan Freeman), and all the cops who fight on Batman’s side, upholding law ‘n’ order no matter what.
http://exiledonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/reg_1024.DKRises.bale_.caine_.mh.070612.jpg (http://exiledonline.com/the-dark-knight-rises-vs-the-99/reg_1024-dkrises-bale-caine-mh-070612/)
Selina Kyle/Catwoman is also unambiguously good in this Batman, because she’s played by Anne Hathaway with her giant doe eyes and schoolgirl pertness, and more importantly, because she renounces “class warfare” at the end. Sickening little scene when Catwoman, portrayed here as battling her way up out of poverty and exploitation, comes upon a looted apartment and shudders with horror at the property damage. A framed photo of a nuclear family has been smashed! It’s unbearable, in a city of poverty and suffering, that the glass in this framed photo of blonde people should get broken!
Then she changes sides and helps Batman save the aristocrats from the tumbrils.
And who’s bad? Lessee. Bane, of course, who comes from some literal hellhole in the Mideast seeking vague revenge on Gotham City, and of course, the 99% proles who are manipulated into following Bane. A few of the evil plutocrats are bad, until they’re attacked by the working class, then they’re seen as victims of badly dressed upstarts and become good again.
The ultimate villain, it turns out, is Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard), an environmentalist who’s always talking about her dedication to the cause of sustainable energy. Ain’t it perfect? She spends most of the movie gassing on about the renewable energy sources and saving the planet, then out of nowhere she sticks a knife into Batman.
Fucking tree-huggers—shoulda known!
So how much of a Tory bastard is this Chris Nolan, exactly? His devoted followers might not care, but all of a sudden I do. Anyone out there got insider info? I’m thinking of knitting his name into a shawl I’m working on. (It’s a Tale of Two Cities reference. Look it up.)

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Zizek's response to DKR: http://boitempoeditorial.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/dictatorship-of-the-proletariat-in-gotham-city-slavoj-zizek-on-the-dark-knight-rises/