Red Hood wrote:I say it's a tad underrated. If the Aurora massacre never happened, it would've gotten all of the attention it deserved.
Exactly.
To answer the topic, yes, yes it is being under-appreciated. My friend, who's a big Nolan fan as well, didn't like Rises as much as he liked TDK. He did like Rises no doubt, just for some reason didn't absolutely love it like I did.
I think personally the Aurora massacre tainted some people's view on the film, but at the same time, I think the film was very dark and heavy for a lot of people. Bane was a very "heavy" villain to watch psychologically speaking.
In fact, I unfortunately see TDKR getting snubbed from a lot of major Oscar nominations/wins, simply because it wouldn't be "politically correct" given the shooting massacre. Rises already did get completely snubbed from the Golden Globes.
Cilogy wrote:I said this before and I'll say it again.
A big reason critics were negative or mixed, and maybe even fans, was because people were expecting The Dark Knight 2.0, not The Dark Knight Rises. Do you guys remember some of the reviews? Folks whined about how much they missed the Joker, how there are no moral conundrums like the ferry scene on TDK, how the villain isn't "charismatic enough". People were expecting simply an upgrade to the previous film instead of maybe, I don't know ... a different movie.
I'm sorry but when you expect a completely different movie from the one that was made, especially when the trailers or buzz didn't misrepresent it, don't blame the film, it's your own fucking fault.
100% bullseye!
chom wrote:then I'm even more convinced that this is just hivemind backlash bullshit.
Exactly, it's hivemind groupthink backlash hate against TDKR.
TalkOnCorners wrote:Not really.
I see where most of the criticisms/issues are coming from. I love TDKR but it's my least favorite in the trilogy.
I don't.
What most people don't understand, and in fact, this is THE MOST UNDER-APPRECIATED aspect of Rises: Nolan was under a time limit, and didn't fit 100% of everything that he wanted into the film. Nolan will never admit to this, but this is a fact.
For anyone who saw Rises in real IMAX, there were ZERO trailers and ZERO commercials. Absolutely EVERY minute of IMAX film reel was needed for the film itself. The maximum limit for an IMAX film roll is roughly 165 min or so, and that is almost the exact length of Rises.
So Nolan with Rises was under a predetermined limit, which was the maximum real IMAX length a film could be. Now there are a select few IMAX projectors in the world that can handle 2 film reels, and switch reels on the fly in a middle of a film. But there are only a handful,
in the whole world of such projectors.
Nolan wanted Rises to be seen on as many real IMAX projectors as humanly possible, that's why museums and science centers were showing Rises on their IMAX screens. And that dedication to quality is why Nolan had a time limit.
Why were some things in the film not fully explained, or some scenes cut out that we know should have been in the film? That IMAX time limit. Regular theaters and the digital IMAX theaters have no such time limit, but the real IMAX theaters do.
Now if everyone who saw Rises knew this, they would appreciate the film SO much more. It's amazing what Nolan accomplished with Rises, given that he gave himself a self-imposed time limit to work with, due to his dedication to film quality.
Lastly, speaking just for myself personally, some of the parts of the film that were not fully explained or a bit rushed, they all still made perfect sense to me. Why, because I simply filled in the "gaps" myself. When you think about it, everything makes total sense in the film, in the context of Nolan's Batman world/universe.
