You wanted them to spend time explaining why the soldiers are loyal. Man some of you guys are reaching like crazy.
I don't want them to spend time explaining it, I want them to write the story around guys that don't require that much explanation instead. Wouldn't be that hard. Like I said, all the other plotholes didn't bother me that much, if at all. But I found myself asking, 'why the hell do these guys care?' several times throughout the movie. Especially since they went out of their way to say that they were not just "simple mercenaries".
Have to say this was one of my only complaints. They have just the one guy in the airplane who is clearly a zealot. "Have we started a fire?" And he has that dreamy cult look on his face before sacrificing himself. It sounds like, from the reports, that they cut out a ton of Bane stuff that was actually in the script, so maybe the loyalty of his followers also fell to the cutting room floor (or desktop trashbin icon.) But yeah, I've never found myself asking that before. The Joker's guys were in it for money, and they were just scum. Bane's guys assembled in Turkey or wherever, all somehow got to the US (?) and were willing to watch him kill some of them, brutally, in front of the rest, and still remain very loyal. It's the most minor point, and I kind of write it off to the world being full of people who are ready to follow a strong-willed person.
Its the League of Shadows man. Extreme terrorist group brainwashed into thinking what its doing is right. We see it all of the time in real life, groups of people willing to die for what they see as a righteous cause. Y'all don't need it to be spelled out and applied to foot soldiers in a movie, y'all are big boys right? Connect the dots. Hint: if they hijacked a plane they'd probably crash it into a building in Gotham
The league of shadows is a bunch of ninjas. Those guys didn't look very ninjy. But whatever. Maybe they were the rejects who couldn't fight and had to use guns.
The league of shadows were mostly destroyed by Bruce Wayne; Bane revived the organization and lead it to a new direction. They must have had tons of non-ninjy new members join in.
That was my best guess, is that Bane started his own little thang over the years. It will make an interesting pre-quel. Bane's rise to power, that is.
i just wanted to comment on how great of an alfred michael was, i'm not sure if it has been mentioned although i am sure it was mentioned it at least 3/4 of this thread, but he was a really great
This "trilogy" (but you know it will continue) could be retitled as "Alfred and Bruce's Spats"... they argued so much in all the freakin' movies. LOVE STORY. There are at least 20 minutes of their "talks" and disagreements about how Bruce doesn't listen to him about NOT going back out there as Batman in each movie. :grin:
And why are Batman's ears so small and outward-facing? Shouldn't they be larger and sort of, you know, face forward? And why didn't Selina apologize just a little when she saw Bruce? I mean, wouldn't that be more realistic? And why wasn't Fox more, you know, heroic? Why doesn't Alfred bring more scones to Bruce? He's ailing, let himself go. Wouldn't it be, like, more real?
Yeah, his version of Alfred is another reason why Nolan's iteration of Batman surpasses any Batman that came before, better than any of the Frank Miller stuff even. The only superhero movie that was done better than the comic.
The most important question is why is there a Batman, wouldn't it be more real if there was no batman?
As good as this movie was, there is a significant problem with the high number of "plot holes" that are literally that: missing portions of the story. One or two, okay, but there's close to a dozen scenes that require the viewer (or diehard defender) to justify/explain away. I'm sorry, but that's a problem. It's the EXACT same problem that had people up in arms and trashing Prometheus. I still hold that there was simply too much for Nolan to fit in a 3 hour film. This needed to be split into at least two movies and a combined 4-5 hours. Closed trilogy. 2016 reboot.
there were a lot of plot holes in TDK also. was there as much criticism for it as there seems to be for TDKR?
This is nothing like Prometheus. Why do you need to know why the mercs are so loyal. Why is that pertinent to understanding the movie. The very first scene of the movie let's you know they are loyal to the death. Boom. What was left out of TDKR that leaves such a massive hole? I really don't understand.
You don't think understanding the motives and background of the bad guys is important to a superhero movie...? If not ANY movie? Ooooooook. I get why it couldn't get fit in, it was 2 hours and 45 minutes already, but it was something I needed either explained to me or written out of the story to make the movie more enjoyable to me. The biggest flaw in the movie (other than the casting of Anne Hathaway) is the lack of development of Bane's character. It's a legit complaint, but we know Nolan isn't an idiot, it's just something that would've been nice to have and not nit-picky nonsense.
I think most of the plot holes being listed here are more nit picks or things that are explained in the movie...or issues that don't need explanation because as a viewer you should be able to make the jump from point A to B without someone holding your hand. I'm thinking Bane's mercenaries fall under that. The dude is intimidating as hell, and has had close to a decade to assemble an army of followers. And they never explained how the League of Shadows under Ra's was formed...how did he recruit followers willing to possibly die for a cause?
Liam and Bane didn't just kill batman, kill the cops and blow the bombs cause they are pyschos. They like torturing ppl more than killing ppl, and they like torturing ppl's mind more than torturing ppl's body.
Ooooooook, we understand Bane motives completely, if you don't get it by now that's on you. Your nitpicking about why the mercs are so committed to the league of shadows takes nothing away from the plot of the movie. Oooooooook
