When I use the term "deep" I refer to depth as the following (though more can be said):

http://www.brocku.ca/english/courses/1F95/depth-etc.php

Now, with the argument of "what constitutes depth in films" out of the way, is the question at hand: Do you consider TDKR as being a film of great depth? The reason I ask this is I've seen/heard many critics bash the film as being shallow, and that its depth is a mere illusion masking that flaw.

As for my own opinion, I think TDKR is a marvelously deep film. I'm not going to try to prove how or why, but I will I say this from a casual writer's perspective. I like to describe the writing process as a brilliant game of connect the dots. You start off the project with several ideas (characters, conflicts, settings, scenes, etc), and the goal is to connect all those ideas together to create a compelling and coherent story. (disagree with that if you want)

Anyone can write a story and, connect the dots, so to say, but when you look at a film like TDKR, you're presented with such a huge magnitude of ideas, each one carrying a huge weight of emotional/philosophical/thematic undercurrents, and the fact that anyone can connect all of these is so tremendously impressive. Which is why I give Nolan such credit.

People are always quick to criticize a script and call it "weak" or that "it sucks" but if they took the time to understand how the screenwriting process works, you'll realize even the shitiest scrips contain a great deal of talent and wisdom. It's not easy to entertain people for one and a half hours. The truth is, writing even a typical shitty Hollywood script takes a lot of effort, which is why out of the 14,000 (I may be off with the number) spec scripts sent to studios/agents each year, only about 3 of them go anywhere.

With that being said, I respect any film that Hollywood poops out, but when a script like TDKR comes out, where every "idea-dot" holds so much weight, I can't help but sit back and clap my hands. One can spend hours connecting all the dots in a Nolan film, which is an experience very few film scripts provide.

Yes, I do. It is actually a brilliant character study of Bruce Wayne that doesn't shy away from the possible harshness of the character's life that a lot of writers have previously shied away from. Note how I said Bruce Wayne, not Batman. In The Dark Knight Rises, Batman is more of a theme than an actual character. However, that doesn't mean that it doesn't hold significance. Batman represents several ideas (fear, rage, hope, rising above) that have their roots in Bruce Wayne's character, which are reflected and subverted through the other characters. Batman can be anyone, but he can also destroy anyone. As seen by Bruce's state at the beginning of the film along with the shadow character, Bane.

Bane actually believes that what he is doing is justified or the right thing to do. He represents the extremities of the idea of Batman, the very worst aspects of the theme of Batman and Bruce's journey. Of course, other characters take the theme and turn it into something positive. John Blake is clearly the good of Batman, despite the fact that he does kill in the film and lacks the experience. He represents the more ideal side of the dark knight, the one that doesn't let the rage or guilt that drives it cloud its judgement.

This all goes back to two simple questions; Is the Batman a good thing? Do vigilantes cause more harm than intended? The film does a good job of giving both yes and no answers, yet always with a "but for Bruce/Gotham. . ." It's a very Human story that, though veiled with some social commentary that has been interpreted in ways that contradict each other, shines through as the focus.

Though it doesn't spell the themes out as much as The Dark Knight arguably does, it actually has a lot more depth, I feel. Sure, there are flaws. However, flaws do not automatically make the effort or positive aspects of a film become null and void.

Who the hell voted no?

I don't feel like linking my article from the front page or copying and pasting the million many page long rants on the movie, so I'll just say:

yes.

-Vader

prince0gotham wrote:Who the hell voted no?

Some trolls did.

prince0gotham wrote:Who the hell voted no?

I did.

Love the film to death. But I don't consider it to be a deep film.

It very much tries to to be a deep film. And I think it succeeds. I mean there are a whole bunch of themes and while they don't hit me as hard as they should, I feel their presence and their right to be present.

Not really.

I don't think it dealt with many of the issues it raised in a subtle way. In fact it barely raised any issues other than the ones which were key plot points. Compare it to The Dark Knight, The Prestige and even very different films such as Chronicle or 3:10 to Yuma it didn't prompt any real reaction from me. I didn't like Banes voice, in fact when he first started talking in the film, I was sitting in the cinema and actually face-palmed. The ending was good, but was trying to do a little too much. They didn't spend enough time looking at the reaction of the people, and there wasn't enough Batman in it. The best bits of the film were nearly all in the dark, and The Dark Knight Rises had very little darkness it in.

Now I still really enjoyed the film, but compared to the past two I think it was the weakest.

This comes from someone who is a huge Nolan fan who has been following him very closely since realizing Batman Begins and The Prestige were made by the same guy. He is my favorite director but the Dark Knight Rises wasn't as good as it could, and should have been. It has taken me a long time until I am able to say this, because I wanted it to be a 5/5 film so much, I kind of convinced myself that it was fantastic.

Now I'm not trying to say it is a bad film objectively or anything like that. I have no problem with people who say it is the best of the three or even the best film Nolan has made, but I just don't see it like that. Film is highly personal and subjective, and I accept that what one film I might think was the best ever made the next person might think is utter trash. I'm ok with that, and I hope you guys will be as well

Yes I do, but I'm not really in the mood to type several paragraphs explaining why. If this thread gets out of hand I may have to come back later.

Mad deep.