MovieChat Forums > The Dark Knight Rises (2012) Discussion > Changes I Would Have Made.

Changes I Would Have Made.

posted 3 years ago by mav100000 (339)
13 replies | jump to latest

Hi all! I'm watching through these three films today and tomorrow and it got me thinking. I like the third movie, but in my mind it is the weakest due to a few things - the Robin character (I forgot the character's name throughout) was not needed and helped movie to drag, the final fight was not all that great, and Talia's betrayal stuff just didn't really work. Here is what I would change:

1. Get rid of the Robin character completely, or at least don't tie him in to Robin at all. Plus, no "recognizing the look in his eye" stuff.
2. Catwoman takes out Talia, not Bane.
3. Make the police battle much more believable.
4. Batman needs to defeat Bane with more than just better striking. Bane should have been able to defeat Batman again until Batman uses his intelligence. My suggestion would be to re-use the bat swarm (shown in Begins). Bane was born in the darkness, but Batman has gadgets on his side. Use them! He needed something like that to stall the fight to model attacks like the dock scene in Begins but with bats swarming the scene to create chaos!
5. While I love that Scarecrow was used in all 3 films to some degree, bring us some damn closure for him! Have him caught at some point by someone!

I'm sure I have a few other changes and may throw them up at some point! Thanks for listening to yet another of these threads by yet another random person!

[–] Ace_Spade (9334) 3 years ago

I thought the third film was a bit on the weaker side, and it starts promising but dwindles into nothing much, really.

1. I'd either get rid of him or have the guts to actually name the guy Dick Grayson. If Nolan wanted to do the Robin character and plotline, he should have done it. It would be like renaming Bruce into a guy called Thomas Batman. 100% on "look in his eye". That was some of the sloppiest, dumbest writing I've seen in a movie, particularly by people who usually tell great stories and have a track record for high-grade writing.
2. I'm not sure why you'd want this...? I do think Catwoman's role in the movie was strange. It felt shoe-horned in, like they knew they couldn't do Batman without including Catwoman (fair enough), but she wasn't really part of the story they wanted to tell. I'd have liked to see Selina and Bruce's relationship developed better (not necessarily more, just...better), and Catwoman behaving more as herself - this independent anti-hero/demi-villain instead of someone beholden to the MacGuffin program CIA spy nonsense.
3. Agreed, although this wasn't a huge problem for me and in a better movie I'd be willing to look the other way on it.
4. Yeah, I'd second the cleverness angle. Not necessarily gadgets, but just showing Batman to be craftier than Bane.
5. Again, this is a flaw I'd overlook in a better movie.

Changes I'd have liked (in addition to a much better Selina relationship - especially juxtaposed against Bruce's romance with Miranda):

1. More believable injury recovery in the Pit. Punch-surgery? What?
2. More of recluse Bruce. This was interesting, and I'd have liked to see more.
3. More believable villain scheming. The stock exchange takedown of Wayne was baffling. It would never work.
4. Explain how he did that fire-bat thing without sacrificing time needed to disable a nuclear device.
5. Better explanation as to why the US government let a major city of theirs be occupied by a terrorist cell for literally months.

[–] mav100000 (339) 3 years ago

So to explain my number 2. The whole ending made Bane, who was larger than life in this film, both literally and metaphorically, seem suddenly weak. Talia's reveal should definitely not have been done that way. Plus, Batman technically defeated Bane, but really it was Catwoman who put him down for good, and I just didn't like that. Take her out of that fight and give her something else to do.

For yours:
1. Agree and forgot about that!
2. I'm fine without this as we got some and it took a long time to get back to Batman and the Bat-suit as it was.
3. While I really like the stock exchange heist scene as a movie scene, I agree that they should have tweaked that to make it believable.
4. I'm fine with this. Batman is a symbol as well as a fighter, and this movie did help show that a bit.
5. Agree in part, but it makes sense that the gov't doesn't want to go into the city (remember they tried) for fear of the bomb going off early.

As for my number 4, the reason I would want to see the bat swarm gadget back is that it would definitely tie things into the first film and if Bane is born from darkness and silence, Bats has modified that to bring fear and something new to it which could throw Bane off just enough to give Bats the edge. That's why I want that specifically.

[–] Ace_Spade (9334) 3 years ago

I see what you mean with Bane getting undercut at the end. Yeah, when he gets subbed out he feels less menacing, but Talia didn't feel that much more menacing to make up for it. That kind of thing is hard to pull off. But that's not just down to Catwoman punking him with 20mm cannons, it's more to do with, as you say, his being superseded by Talia at the 11th hour.

2. You're right, it was a bit of a wait to see Batman again. I was just intrigued by it. I think you're right, though.
3. The heist scene itself was great, it was more the fallout. No one would honour those trades. Wayne's lawyers would have wiped it out by day two. It was kinda fun seeing Wayne manor lose power, but there's no way it would. They wouldn't be able to freeze that much of his assets that quickly. It'd be more believable if the person eraser MacGuffin was stolen by Catwoman for the League and they modified the program to wipe out Wayne or something like that. But, yeah, your point is well-taken: the heist itself was a good action setpiece.
4. The symbol wouldn't bug me, but the whole vibe of Nolan's films was, "It's more realistic," so then I'm looking at a thing that would have taken a team of experienced building painters all day to do (or maybe more than a day?) Bruce did. He did this while there's a nuke that could level Gotham at any minute, but he takes (12 hours?) to paint a Bat. The symbol vibe could have been accomplished using a restored Bat-signal or something. Maybe several of them. I'd buy that he's got some stashed around, but you can't "stash" flammable paint on the side of a bridge.
5. I remember they tried, but after that long of a siege, they'd put an end to it. It's a minor point for me, but it's like a lot of other points - in a better movie, I'd forgive them and come up with an excuse, but there are so many plotholes (spine punch, stock exchange) and character gaffs ("I just sorta know who you are from looking in your eyes." "D'aawww, you got me, guy!") that the small stuff irks me, too.

[–] Ace_Spade (9334) 3 years ago

I do like the idea of bringing back the bat swarm gadget. Maybe it could be an improved version, too, where he can relay them around or something, change the signal to get them to attack or cloak what he's doing.

[–] mav100000 (339) 3 years ago

I love your idea of improving the bat swarm gadget, and frankly you are right, bringing the bat signal back would have probably been better and would have made more sense than starting a fire. I like that better too!

I actually finished watching the movie today and I really think it was quite good and had some great moments and points, but it also feels a bit like the writers were really rushed in a few points and could have had even better ideas if they had thought a few more things through.

[–] Ace_Spade (9334) 3 years ago

Yeah, I think if they're bringing back gadgets they should improve them. Then they wouldn't just feel like re-treads. Maybe they could have combined it with the echolocator cell-sonar thing from TDK somehow (I have no idea how). As for the signal, that's *the* Batman symbol, and it would symbolize his non-abandonment of Gotham more than lighting up a bridge like The Perpendicular Crow.

To your last point, yes, I think TDKR would have had better success if it were two films, they took their time, and they could have developed the storylines more thoroughly. Dive into Selina and Batman more, foreshadow Talia a little better so Bane doesn't feel undercut, show Bruce healing and re-training himself so we have more of a sense of why he can out-pummel Bane when next they meet - and so on. There's almost enough material for a miniseries.

Regarding Robin, in addition to just naming him Dick Grayson from the start, they should have had him crack some tough case early and catch Bruce's eye. Bruce starts grooming him, and then through good, solid detective work, Grayson figures out *evidence* about Wayne's double identity. That is what *really* impresses Bruce, who lets him in on the secret more officially. They could even work together and solve more about the Catwoman case, Bane, and even Talia.

Talia feeling like a sidewinder and undercutting Bane could have been avoided if he alluded to a greater bane of Gotham, of whom he is but a herald and harbinger. Throw in some dark John the Baptist vibes.

[–] mav100000 (339) 3 years ago

I can see that, though I don't think I would agree to split the film into 2. I think we needed to end it where we did, and thematically it did make some sense. But I agree that there were things they could have done to help the film along. Also, they could have just made Talia a partner for Bane instead of his superior, and that would have helped a good bit.

[–] Ace_Spade (9334) 3 years ago

I think for them to leave the film as just one, they should have nixed a plotline or two. They had to introduce Bane as a villain and give him an arc, plot, and backstory. Ditto for Talia. Ditto for Catwoman, who they also had to establish as a love story/ romance arc. They brought in Blake/Robin who they had to establish, give an arc to, and set up for the pass-the-torch moment. Then they had to have Gordon be conflicted about the aftermath of Harvey Dent's death. Oh, and they had to give Alfred his arc about his push-pull with Bruce. Morgan Freeman's on contract and a well-liked character, so he needs some tech/gadget scenes. Did we forget anybody? Oops, yeah, the main guy. Batman has to go from exile/torpor into regeneration/resurrection.

That's a lot of people, and I think there are still a couple of side-characters who get a scene or two (wasn't there some police officer besides Gordon and Blake who was leading the charge against Bane's goons?)

Something should have been trimmed, plotlines might have been combined, to save enough space and spend more time working out the other elements (ie, Talia/Bane as we have been discussing). If they wanted all those plotlines, I think they should have had two movies. If they wanted one movie, aiming perhaps at the comfortable number 3, it's my opinion that they should have reduced plotlines to allow enough time to bring fewer stories to life in a more satisfying way.

[–] mav100000 (339) 3 years ago

I definitely agree that the movie could have been trimmed, but other parts could have been given more time to create a better story. It did feel a bit like the writers couldn't decide on anything so they tried to throw it all in. Unfortunately they didn't have someone there to say no once in a while!

[–] Ace_Spade (9334) 3 years ago

If they had trimmed fat or combined storylines/characters, they could have had room to expand on the really, really important stuff. Which, it is my opinion they should have done; they obviously had too much to do in the already bogged-down runtime. The movie felt bloated, yet somehow still didn't have enough time to do what needed to be done.

I used to think of TV shows as short fiction and movies as novels. Movies were the big, epic-scope things, right? Now I think of it the other way 'round. TV shows, especially these days with binging and streaming, are becoming more and more like chapters in a novel, or entries in a serialized work ala Dickens. Film is really the short story, or maybe novella, where every word counts and brevity is the strategy by which they succeed or fail. They can be HUGE EPICS, but they still need to be economical (of course, TV series need to be economical, too, they just have more room to be economical in... a whole other topic, really).

The reason for this is, likely as you say, nobody saying no. Nolan knocked two home-runs with BB and TDK, so who's questioning his decisions by Number III? Nobody who wants money, that's who!

I think there were multiple reasons for the bloat/underwriting paradoxical combination here. First, I think they wanted a trilogy and out. They didn't want to fire up two more movies, Nolan had other stories to get to and didn't want two decades of Batman. Fair enough. Second, I think Nolan had plans to connect the League storyline with the Joker storyline and those plans went wonky with Ledger's death. I think he likely stopgapped a few things. Third, I think they felt beholden to the comic mythos and knew that before they peaced out, they would need to put in essential Batman ingredients, most notably Catwoman, but also (ersatz) Robin.

But, mostly, I would agree with you: nobody was editing his work. He said, "here's the story," and darned if nobody read it and fired back, "It's all over the place, Chris."

[–] Cognoscente (2463) 3 years ago

I agree. This movie suffered from bloating in the same way that Spider-Man 3 did.

[–] Ace_Spade (9334) 3 years ago

It tends to happen in superhero films with an abundance of villains. They need to put in backstory and plotlines for everybody, so if too many villains start showing up - especially new ones - the movie tends to get overburdened.

In this case, TDKR was trying to juggle arcs for Batman, Blake, Gordon, Bane, Talia, Catwoman, and Alfred, as well as making sure that Lucius Fox and that other police guy (name?) got enough screentime. They had a protege plot, two romance plots, a Catwoman-specific plot about the erase-yourself device, the main storyline, Gordon's conflict over Harvey, and on and on and on.

It took three arcs in the Batman comics to introduce Bane and have him break Batman, bring down the venom-infused villain, and then for Bruce to return to the cowl. They tried to stuff all that into one film (which had the consequence of making his swift recovery from his injury seem ridiculously fast, as just one for-instance) plus they put in other plots.

It's too much.

The movie winds up being nearly three hours long but still feeling rushed.

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 3 years ago

the list gotta be longer.
movie sucked!