PDA

View Full Version : How long did Nolans Batman actually fight crime?(SPOILERS)


Anne Hathaway
07-30-2012, 07:04 PM
From what Im getting Nolans Batman fought crime for less than 3 years.He returns to Gotham at 30 years old and starts dealing with the protected vrime bosses,which lesd him to scare crow and then the LOSs plan fairly quickly.Then one year later the events of The Dark Knight take place in less then a year obviously.

Then he goes on an 8 year break where we know he wasnt fighting crime because JGL says that the day Dent died was the LAST confirmed sighting of The Batman.

Followed by him returning for another 6 month stretch at age 39,followed by what appears to be his retirement.

Did Nolans batman,the world greatest detective, really only fight crime for 3 years before hanging up the cape.Couple that with him giving up on Gotham and it just seems really out of character.

MessiahDecoy123
07-30-2012, 07:15 PM
There is no way...

a female would seriously pose this question.

Mito88
07-30-2012, 08:21 PM
From what Im getting Nolans Batman fought crime for less than 3 years.He returns to Gotham at 30 years old and starts dealing with the protected vrime bosses,which lesd him to scare crow and then the LOSs plan fairly quickly.Then one year later the events of The Dark Knight take place in less then a year obviously.

Then he goes on an 8 year break where we know he wasnt fighting crime because JGL says that the day Dent died was the LAST confirmed sighting of The Batman.

Followed by him returning for another 6 month stretch at age 39,followed by what appears to be his retirement.

Did Nolans batman,the world greatest detective, really only fight crime for 3 years before hanging up the cape.Couple that with him giving up on Gotham and it just seems really out of character.

yea thats pretty lame, and in those few years he didnt want to be Batman.

Greens
07-30-2012, 08:26 PM
It's not out of character at all for the world Nolan created.

beyond_death
07-30-2012, 08:28 PM
It was less than a year spanning Batman Begins and Dark Knight I think. Plus the duration he returned as Batman again in Rises. But yea, at most it was probably just a little over 2 years if you add it all up.

I honestly didnt give this much of a thought until Comicvine mentioned it in their review of Rises.

BaleISBatman4ev
07-30-2012, 08:33 PM
Woah everyone is way off in here. Nolans batman fought crim from 1999 to 2013 minus the 8 year gap where we assume he did absolutely nothing. that makes him "Active Batman" for roughly 6 years... all this as per the official Dark Knight Trilogy Manual timeline!

Greens
07-30-2012, 08:35 PM
He started out in 1999? I'd like some proof of this.

lordofthenerds
07-30-2012, 08:37 PM
I was thinking about this too after I saw the movie. Nolan's Batman couldn't have been around for more than a few years, which is more realistic than him being around for a few decades when you think about. But still, I would've preferred for him to be more than just a blip in this Gotham City's history.

Thundercrack85
07-30-2012, 08:42 PM
It wasn't quite clear how long he was active. But it couldn't be that long. He only started midway in Batman Begins, and basically retired at the end of the Dark Knight (unless I'm misremembering things).

Thing is, Batman for the most part only dealt with major crime. Once the mob was essentially dismantled, and the Joker defeated he really didn't have much else to deal with. Sort of explains the retirement.

What else was he going to do?

In comics there are dozens of super-villains, here, not so much.

Yurka
07-30-2012, 08:42 PM
This was always one of my concerns going into TDKR. Not only was he active for a short while, but he was only in his prime, arguably, for maybe a few months.

BaleISBatman4ev
07-30-2012, 08:43 PM
Then buy the TDK trilogy Manual... the only reasoning people are using against the official timeline is the fact that Joker says "Let's wind the clocks back a year" ...

kvz5
07-30-2012, 08:44 PM
This was always one of my concerns going into TDKR. Not only was he active for a short while, but he was only in his prime, arguably, for maybe a few months.

Yup... :(

FlawlessVictory
07-30-2012, 08:45 PM
Considering the physical toll it takes to be Batman fighting crime, it makes quite a lot of sense for him to be Batman in only the limited time he was. And it's not like it translated into Batman appearing in each film for only 2 minutes so I don't see why it really matters. Heightened realism is obviously at the forefront of Nolan's Batman movies so this would translate into a real man fighting crime for this long. Everyone saw the damage he had suffered in TDKR from just the limited he was Batman and that was before the events of TDKR!

lordofthenerds
07-30-2012, 08:47 PM
Considering the physical toll it takes to be Batman fighting crime, it makes quite a lot of sense for him to be Batman in only the limited time he was. And it's not like it translated into Batman appearing in each film for only 2 minutes so I don't see why it really matters. Heightened realism is obviously at the forefront of Nolan's Batman movies so this would translate into a real man fighting crime for this long. Everyone saw the damage he had suffered in TDKR from just the limited he was Batman and that was before the events of TDKR!
Yeah but I found the realism of all that sudden damage to be a bit questionable.

BaleISBatman4ev
07-30-2012, 08:47 PM
Courtesy of Umair Dar on the facebook fan page:

2003 - Bruce Wayne returns to Gotham City, has his first night out, begins prowling as the Batman.

2003 - Jimmy is a two year-old infant when Batman visits Gordon at home.

2005 - Batman defeats Ra's Al Ghul on the train. Remember this is on the SAME NIGHT that he has his 30th birthday party.

2005 - 2008 - Offscreen, Batman wages war on crime, working his way up to the big fish of the mob. Assuming this is true conveniently explains several things:

- (1) Like SnakeDoc suggests, it is not until a year before TDK that he is finally having an impact that is really hurting them and making them take notice.

- (2) All during this time, while Batman is building his reputation, Joker commits random crimes and builds up his own legend among criminals. This is where we get the "So why do they call him the Joker?" "I heard he wears makeup..to scare people...y'know, war paint" lines. It makes sense that it takes a while to build up that kind of rumormill/reputation. It also explains the "Two-bit wack job, cheap purple suit" line from Maroni and the "Him again" line from Batman. Joker wasn't wearing the purple suit during the bank robbery, so Maroni must have seen/heard of him before. Like Batman, dispite his crimes, he views him as just a minor nuisance to be dealth with later.

- (3) Guestimating this three-year gap between the films also neatly explains the line in The Dark Knight Manual that he was wearing the Original Suit for 5 years---he was---from 2003 to 2008.

- (4) Finally, this 3 year gap ages little Jimmy almost perfectly. If he is two years-old in 2003, then he is seven in 2008. It doesn't take much stretching in either direction to make him an 8 year-old, or to even just assume he is supposed to be seven in that film.

The Dark Knight Rises is eight years later.

2016 Now I know the Gotham Civil War poster contradicts this, with the date of the exhibit ending in 2014. But this is the only really hard-set date we know of (as of now anyway), and it's not really clear if it even appears noticeably on-screen or if a hard-set date of 2014 appears in the final film on screen, so I'm willing to overlook it. Also, I realize this is just an excuse, but that poster could be an "old" ad that was never taken down, or pasted over with something else newer that is peeling off. It certainly doesn't look like it's supposed to be in new condition. Just sayin'.

Working backward from the above dates, we can make the milestones in Bruce's life fit too.

2003 - Bruce Wayne returns to Gotham. Based on the above that he turns 30 in 2005, he turns 28 in 2003. Since we know he was away for seven years, he dropped out of Princeton at 21 (or 20, depending on his birthday) as an undergrad in his senior year, just shy of graduation.

Working farther back and using the casefile of the Wayne murders in The Dark Knight Manual

November 8, 1983 - The Waynes are gunned down. Bruce is 10 or 11 years old (again, depending on his birthday)

1972 or 1973 - Bruce Wayne is born.

Blackman
07-30-2012, 08:48 PM
Batman Begins takes place over 2 years when Bruce returns to Gotham?

MagnarTheGreat
07-30-2012, 08:49 PM
He comes back Gotham at age 29 and creates Batman, fights Ra's on his 30th birthday, and then he takes the fall for Dent's crimes and disappears (presumably) less than a year later. In TDKR, that was the last known sighting until he returns 8 years later for a short period of time and then fakes his death.

Anyway, Nolan's Batman is a deconstruction of the idea of Batman. It's a disease Bruce Wayne had to be cured of in his point of view in order to move on with his life, and it was better for an ex-cop that wasn't driven by the same things as Bruce to presumably take over his job. And of course, in order for Bruce Wayne to move on with his life, he had to fake his death and exile himself from Gotham entirely--which is what Alfred wanted. Not too happy with this or the logic behind some of it, but there it is.

Blackman
07-30-2012, 08:51 PM
And I thought I read somewhere that TDK takes place like 6 months after BB

Thundercrack85
07-30-2012, 08:59 PM
And I thought I read somewhere that TDK takes place like 6 months after BB

I've seen a lot of contradicting stuff.

I assumed it was a year, but not much more.

bosef982
07-30-2012, 09:36 PM
The construction of the Bat-Cave, still have Wayne Manor set up for the cave, Alfred saying to Bruce that he hadn't been down in the cave in a long time, and the existence of two batsuits and new weaponry lead me to believe that Batman was active in those 8 years.

Remember, 'the last CONFIRMED sighting of the Batman" 8 years ago. I think Batman was still going at it for a few years after, thus the injury and further scarring and injuries as pointed out by the doctor.

KalMart
07-30-2012, 09:37 PM
Long enough to earn a chance at a happy and peaceful life.

Tacit Ronin
07-30-2012, 09:49 PM
Long enough to be deemed deserved, but perhaps not long enough to be needed.

Anno_Domini
07-30-2012, 10:16 PM
It's not out of character at all for the world Nolan created.

This. This. This.

babbage
07-30-2012, 10:38 PM
As a famous archaeologist once said, "It's not the years, honey. It's the mileage."

PSYLENTGuardian
07-30-2012, 10:41 PM
2014 is TDKR. Minus 8 years makes 2006. "One year ago" is 2005. I'll just stick with this. I don't think it really matters how long Bruce wore the cape and went out at night -- it feels like a long time and a long, torturous journey for him to endure.

the_monk
07-30-2012, 10:47 PM
Since you said "fight crime," I could make an argument that 8 years could be added on, if you view the years Batman sacrificed his own image preserving Harvey's name and thereby lowering crime in Gotham. And I bet Nolan would agree with that idea.

If you mean, "active," then it's lower.

TheDarkKnight08
07-30-2012, 10:54 PM
I read somewhere that it must've been about 5 years that he had the BB suit. I think it was in one of the art books. It was a note "Bruce" wrote, saying that after 5 years with the BB suit, he needed something more flexible, hence the TDK suit.

So, assuming this can be considered canon, it's 5 years, and a few months, considering the events of TDK and TDKR. Plus, Blake mentions Harvey Dent day being 8 years later of Batman's last "confirmed" sighting, so maybe Bruce was prowling the streets anyway, taking down smaller criminals?

shauner111
07-30-2012, 11:10 PM
Id like to get my hands on this manual. So he returns to Gotham in 2003, debuts as Batman soon after (03 or 04 was it?), is active as Batman til 2005 where he saves the city from Ra's. Keeps the suit for 3 more years fighting crime until 2008. Joker builds his reputation during this time as well.

They meet in 2008, he changes his suit. During the summer is when the ending happens with Dent. Batman dissapears for 8 years. And you know how that ends.

Just typing it out quickly, is that correct?

This changes A LOT! You can do many stories with different mobsters and other freaks before Joker comes into play. Alberto Falcone, Black Mask, Deadshot, Hush? Penguin? Mad Hatter if you make him a child kidnapper or something. Killer Croc if you make him a big black dude with a skin condition working as the muscle to either Maroni or Sionis.

Just_Human
07-30-2012, 11:21 PM
Well, in BB, he clearly says that he just wanted to inspire Gothamites

Then he is forced to keep "batmaning" because someone has to stop the Joker
Then he reaches his goal in TDKR

So at the end of the day, he wasnt supposed to be Batman forever, even though Harvey (mantle blabla) and Alfred advised otherwise

the5timechamp
07-30-2012, 11:28 PM
Its nice to see these lines of reasoning that explain that perhaps he spent more time in the suit...all things considered its a shame that TDKR didnt choose a more effective or useful way to fill in the gap for the 8 years...

TDK ended with " we will hunt him cause he can take it"...TDKR seems to imply that he didnt feel like taking it and chose to retire instead..

shauner111
07-30-2012, 11:32 PM
So with this new information it seems like Nolan decided to use the most essential parts of Bruces journey as the Batman. Between his first appearance where he caught Falcone and the train fight with Ras, that's a year or two of unseen stories. Between Ras and Joker it's another 3 years. Then X amount of months during Rises. 5 to 6 years as the Batman. During the span of 13 or 14 years.

That surely beats the hell out of a year and a half, which is what the world is thinking at the moment.

JackWhite
07-30-2012, 11:35 PM
Its nice to see these lines of reasoning that explain that perhaps he spent more time in the suit...all things considered its a shame that TDKR didnt choose a more effective or useful way to fill in the gap for the 8 years...

TDK ended with " we will hunt him cause he can take it"...TDKR seems to imply that he didnt feel like taking it and chose to retire instead..

lol, there was nothing to "take" or "endure" because organized crime/freaks were not an issue in Gotham anymore.

Why can't some people understand the setup of the 8 year gap in TDKR?

JackWhite
07-30-2012, 11:38 PM
Its nice to see these lines of reasoning that explain that perhaps he spent more time in the suit...all things considered its a shame that TDKR didnt choose a more effective or useful way to fill in the gap for the 8 years...

TDK ended with " we will hunt him cause he can take it"...TDKR seems to imply that he didnt feel like taking it and chose to retire instead..


quoted the wrong person, lol.

JackWhite
07-30-2012, 11:41 PM
Well, in BB, he clearly says that he just wanted to inspire Gothamites

Then he is forced to keep "batmaning" because someone has to stop the Joker
Then he reaches his goal in TDKR

So at the end of the day, he wasnt supposed to be Batman forever, even though Harvey (mantle blabla) and Alfred advised otherwise

If Bruce had never met Harvey Dent, or another good willed politician, he would not have had a legit way out of being Batman in TDK.

The same thing can be said about Blake in TDKR. But with Blake, he was cut from the same mold as Bruce. Blake truly was incorruptible, and unlike Dent; could actually take up the mantle of "Batman", or Robin/Nightwing.

darpavader
07-30-2012, 11:42 PM
wasn't the animated batman: gotham knight in the same continuity?

JackWhite
07-30-2012, 11:43 PM
wasn't the animated batman: gotham knight in the same continuity?

Yes.

Anno_Domini
07-31-2012, 12:18 AM
Since you said "fight crime," I could make an argument that 8 years could be added on, if you view the years Batman sacrificed his own image preserving Harvey's name and thereby lowering crime in Gotham. And I bet Nolan would agree with that idea.

I never thought of this. But I likey.

wasn't the animated batman: gotham knight in the same continuity?

One could place Gotham Knight into the continuity where it's between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, but I don't.

weezerspider
07-31-2012, 12:46 AM
Its nice to see these lines of reasoning that explain that perhaps he spent more time in the suit...all things considered its a shame that TDKR didnt choose a more effective or useful way to fill in the gap for the 8 years...

TDK ended with " we will hunt him cause he can take it"...TDKR seems to imply that he didnt feel like taking it and chose to retire instead..

Nope. He wasn't Batman for the 8 years because Gotham didn't need Batman. TDKR makes it pretty clear the Dent Act pretty much washed Gotham clean and negating the need of Batman. It also makes it clear Bruce would have gone out there IF Batman was needed. Evidence from the film showing Bruce would become Batman IF he was needed:

1. First scene in the Batcave- Alfred is surprised to see Bruce in the cave, saying that it has been a long time since he's been there. Evidence that his confrontation with Selina started to push him towards re-dawning the cape.

2. First scene with Blake and Gordon- Blake tells Gordon about the missing person to which Gordon replies "Thats a job for the police". Blake responds "When you cleaned the streets up, you cleaned them up good. Pretty soon we'll be going after over-due library books". This shows that the Dent Act negated the need for Batman and Bruce quit because Gotham didn't NEED him. Gordon didn't even feel the police were that needed. Once the big hostage situation went down at Wall Street, Bruce would have seen he is needed again and taken on the cowl. This is even told inů.

3. Alfred's first speech to Bruce- Alfred tells Bruce that he's not living, he's just waiting, waiting for things to go bad again. He's simply waiting until Gotham needs Batman again. More evidence that once the Wall Street thing happened, Bruce would once again become Batman.

People seem to mis-translate the eight years thing. Bruce didn't just quit. He quit because Batman was no longer needed. The Dent Act wiped Gotham clean. As I've shown, the film continually hints that Bruce would go back out there if/when Gotham needed Batman again. Also, The Wall Street incident was the first major act of crime in Gotham since the night Dent died. Batman was needed for 8 years.

Pontillo
07-31-2012, 01:33 AM
While it's strange that he rebuilt the batcave, I'm fairly convinced that Bruce has not been Batman since the end of TDK. Although they do leave things kind of ambiguous.

The Dark Knight Weapons manual states that Bruce was Batman for 5 years before changing suits.

While some things don't add up other things do i.e Harvey and Rachel wanting to get married. Obviously they had to have known each other for a couple of years to feel that way about each other.

Gordon's kids are a lot older in the TDK then they were in BB.

Also in TDKR during Bruce's dream Ras tells him "You spent years fighting decadence in Gotham yada yada."

The only thing that made me things TDK and BB were sort of close together was the Jokers "A year ago" line. But then again it could have only been in the last year that Batman has really broken the mobs back. Also the fact that Bruce is still living in the penthouse (How long does it take to rebuild a mansion?)

All of this makes me feel more satisfied about Batman's career in these films though of course it makes me wish I saw more of it lol.

5 years is a realistic amount of time for Bruce to be Batman and do the amount of damage to his body as seen in TDKR.

Don't know what the point of this post was but I hope you all enjoyed it.

the5timechamp
07-31-2012, 02:18 AM
Nope. He wasn't Batman for the 8 years because Gotham didn't need Batman. TDKR makes it pretty clear the Dent Act pretty much washed Gotham clean and negating the need of Batman. It also makes it clear Bruce would have gone out there IF Batman was needed. Evidence from the film showing Bruce would become Batman IF he was needed:

1. First scene in the Batcave- Alfred is surprised to see Bruce in the cave, saying that it has been a long time since he's been there. Evidence that his confrontation with Selina started to push him towards re-dawning the cape.

2. First scene with Blake and Gordon- Blake tells Gordon about the missing person to which Gordon replies "Thats a job for the police". Blake responds "When you cleaned the streets up, you cleaned them up good. Pretty soon we'll be going after over-due library books". This shows that the Dent Act negated the need for Batman and Bruce quit because Gotham didn't NEED him. Gordon didn't even feel the police were that needed. Once the big hostage situation went down at Wall Street, Bruce would have seen he is needed again and taken on the cowl. This is even told inů.

3. Alfred's first speech to Bruce- Alfred tells Bruce that he's not living, he's just waiting, waiting for things to go bad again. He's simply waiting until Gotham needs Batman again. More evidence that once the Wall Street thing happened, Bruce would once again become Batman.

People seem to mis-translate the eight years thing. Bruce didn't just quit. He quit because Batman was no longer needed. The Dent Act wiped Gotham clean. As I've shown, the film continually hints that Bruce would go back out there if/when Gotham needed Batman again. Also, The Wall Street incident was the first major act of crime in Gotham since the night Dent died. Batman was needed for 8 years.

All that is well and good... despite that I still don't like the implication that he was waiting for something "major" to happen since a "petty" crime is what took his parents' life...It just comes off as odd that Bruce would only react to a major threat on the city as opposed to all threats...His lack of awareness of the disenfranchised orphans shows a lack of awareness, odd given that he was looking for an excuse to be Batman...

I guess its my fault for having expectations of the Nolan Batman to be similar to those of the Batman from the comics...

If anything Nolans Batman is more like Dark Warrior Duck....yeah I went there..

DACrowe
07-31-2012, 02:30 AM
It's "confirmed" he fought crime for 1.5 years before retiring (roughly 18 months between BB and TDK).

However, I'd throw out there that Blake said to Gordon, "the last confirmed sighting of the Batman was eight years ago...." I tend to think that given the process of getting legislation passed and then enacted, that things didn't get better over night. And I do think there had to be some ind of "freak" escalation after Joker for at least a year or so (Riddler? Penguin or Black Mask trying to fill the organize crime hole Joker and Two-Face left? Who knows even an eco-terrorist named Pamela?). So, I don't think it's hard to imagine he continued his crusade for at least a year or two or even three before he finally retired for good. It would explain why he bothered to rebuild the batcave in its entirety and why Alfred notes he hasn't been here in years (as opposed to ever if he hanged it up for good the night Dent died).

So, it's at least 1 and a half years that become 2 years when you factor in the months of TDKR. If you think he did more before the Dent Act cleaned up the streets, it could have been more like a combined 3 or 4 years. I like to think so, simply because the age of freaks Joker ushered in should have come in some form. Even in this semi-realistic view of Gotham. That is my take.

Bruce Malone
07-31-2012, 02:42 AM
Does anyone have any concrete proof on the timeline between Begins and TDK? I've watched the film a countless number of times and still don't know where people are pulling these dates from?

Are people just guessing here?

Greens
07-31-2012, 03:42 AM
I don't think there's an official timeline. Wasn't there a date on the newspaper in the Fox-Bruce still?

Doc Samson
07-31-2012, 03:42 AM
2014 is TDKR. Minus 8 years makes 2006. "One year ago" is 2005. I'll just stick with this. I don't think it really matters how long Bruce wore the cape and went out at night -- it feels like a long time and a long, torturous journey for him to endure.

This is how I compute it. And honestly, it feels right with this particular interpretation. I see criticism about Bane/Talia being derivative and things of that nature, but honestly, a large number of villains just wouldn't work in Nolan's universe anyway. At least not as anything close to their comic counterparts. You think Bane was bad? Maybe it's good we didn't get Mr. Freeze after all :cwink:

Way I see it, in a grounded, plausible setting, this Batman was on the job probably longer than he should've been. We see how banged up he was after just his first night on the job in BB, and the damage just two years did to his body in TDKR. For this trilogy, I think being chased every time he took a step outside the cave would've took even more of a toll on him had he been active 10 years straight.

Bruce Malone
07-31-2012, 03:48 AM
I don't think there's an official timeline. Wasn't there a date on the newspaper in the Fox-Bruce still?

Well i've seen numerous people spout off specific times from 1 year to 18 months to 8 months.

I think it's ambiguous it's certainly not a huge amount of time between begins and TDK like in TDKR but unless someone can prove me wrong i don't think anyone has the real answer.

Slushy
07-31-2012, 03:53 AM
6 months LOL

da3dl3us
07-31-2012, 04:01 AM
It's "confirmed" he fought crime for 1.5 years before retiring (roughly 18 months between BB and TDK).

However, I'd throw out there that Blake said to Gordon, "the last confirmed sighting of the Batman was eight years ago...." I tend to think that given the process of getting legislation passed and then enacted, that things didn't get better over night. And I do think there had to be some ind of "freak" escalation after Joker for at least a year or so (Riddler? Penguin or Black Mask trying to fill the organize crime hole Joker and Two-Face left? Who knows even an eco-terrorist named Pamela?). So, I don't think it's hard to imagine he continued his crusade for at least a year or two or even three before he finally retired for good. It would explain why he bothered to rebuild the batcave in its entirety and why Alfred notes he hasn't been here in years (as opposed to ever if he hanged it up for good the night Dent died).

So, it's at least 1 and a half years that become 2 years when you factor in the months of TDKR. If you think he did more before the Dent Act cleaned up the streets, it could have been more like a combined 3 or 4 years. I like to think so, simply because the age of freaks Joker ushered in should have come in some form. Even in this semi-realistic view of Gotham. That is my take.

Agree completely and that's how I'd like to understand it. Makes sense and opens the possibilities of different adventures between TDK and TDKR.

It's also consistent with his injuries and the development of a fully functional Batcave.

Remember, Alfred also said "You haven't been down here for a while", meaning he's used the cave post TDK. He never said, "You finally used this new cave" or something to that effect.

Uroboric Forms
07-31-2012, 04:33 AM
Courtesy of Umair Dar on the facebook fan page:

2003 - Bruce Wayne returns to Gotham City, has his first night out, begins prowling as the Batman.

2003 - Jimmy is a two year-old infant when Batman visits Gordon at home.

2005 - Batman defeats Ra's Al Ghul on the train. Remember this is on the SAME NIGHT that he has his 30th birthday party.

2005 - 2008 - Offscreen, Batman wages war on crime, working his way up to the big fish of the mob. Assuming this is true conveniently explains several things:

- (1) Like SnakeDoc suggests, it is not until a year before TDK that he is finally having an impact that is really hurting them and making them take notice.

- (2) All during this time, while Batman is building his reputation, Joker commits random crimes and builds up his own legend among criminals. This is where we get the "So why do they call him the Joker?" "I heard he wears makeup..to scare people...y'know, war paint" lines. It makes sense that it takes a while to build up that kind of rumormill/reputation. It also explains the "Two-bit wack job, cheap purple suit" line from Maroni and the "Him again" line from Batman. Joker wasn't wearing the purple suit during the bank robbery, so Maroni must have seen/heard of him before. Like Batman, dispite his crimes, he views him as just a minor nuisance to be dealth with later.

- (3) Guestimating this three-year gap between the films also neatly explains the line in The Dark Knight Manual that he was wearing the Original Suit for 5 years---he was---from 2003 to 2008.

- (4) Finally, this 3 year gap ages little Jimmy almost perfectly. If he is two years-old in 2003, then he is seven in 2008. It doesn't take much stretching in either direction to make him an 8 year-old, or to even just assume he is supposed to be seven in that film.

The Dark Knight Rises is eight years later.

2016 Now I know the Gotham Civil War poster contradicts this, with the date of the exhibit ending in 2014. But this is the only really hard-set date we know of (as of now anyway), and it's not really clear if it even appears noticeably on-screen or if a hard-set date of 2014 appears in the final film on screen, so I'm willing to overlook it. Also, I realize this is just an excuse, but that poster could be an "old" ad that was never taken down, or pasted over with something else newer that is peeling off. It certainly doesn't look like it's supposed to be in new condition. Just sayin'.

Working backward from the above dates, we can make the milestones in Bruce's life fit too.

2003 - Bruce Wayne returns to Gotham. Based on the above that he turns 30 in 2005, he turns 28 in 2003. Since we know he was away for seven years, he dropped out of Princeton at 21 (or 20, depending on his birthday) as an undergrad in his senior year, just shy of graduation.

Working farther back and using the casefile of the Wayne murders in The Dark Knight Manual

November 8, 1983 - The Waynes are gunned down. Bruce is 10 or 11 years old (again, depending on his birthday)

1972 or 1973 - Bruce Wayne is born.

This sounds good to me.

I read somewhere that it must've been about 5 years that he had the BB suit. I think it was in one of the art books. It was a note "Bruce" wrote, saying that after 5 years with the BB suit, he needed something more flexible, hence the TDK suit.

So, assuming this can be considered canon, it's 5 years, and a few months, considering the events of TDK and TDKR. Plus, Blake mentions Harvey Dent day being 8 years later of Batman's last "confirmed" sighting, so maybe Bruce was prowling the streets anyway, taking down smaller criminals?
I'm pretty sure Blake specified that the last confirmed sighting 8 years ago was the night Dent died.

Anyway, live action Batman can't be infinite without swapping around casts and crews like James Bond. I'm not bothered by him being forced to sit out for 8 years, or that he's only been Batman for 5-6 years prior to TDKR, when he's in his physical prime.

Broker
07-31-2012, 05:36 AM
Does anyone have any concrete proof on the timeline between Begins and TDK? I've watched the film a countless number of times and still don't know where people are pulling these dates from?

Are people just guessing here?

Well i've seen numerous people spout off specific times from 1 year to 18 months to 8 months.

I think it's ambiguous it's certainly not a huge amount of time between begins and TDK like in TDKR but unless someone can prove me wrong i don't think anyone has the real answer.

In his first scene with the mob Joker says that -

"Let's wind back the clocks. A year ago these cops and lawyers wouldn't have crossed any of you"

ie. Batman.

Broker
07-31-2012, 05:53 AM
Nope. He wasn't Batman for the 8 years because Gotham didn't need Batman. TDKR makes it pretty clear the Dent Act pretty much washed Gotham clean and negating the need of Batman. It also makes it clear Bruce would have gone out there IF Batman was needed. Evidence from the film showing Bruce would become Batman IF he was needed:

.....

People seem to mis-translate the eight years thing. Bruce didn't just quit. He quit because Batman was no longer needed. The Dent Act wiped Gotham clean. As I've shown, the film continually hints that Bruce would go back out there if/when Gotham needed Batman again.

Great post.

Bruce Malone
07-31-2012, 05:55 AM
In his first scene with the mob Joker says that -

"Let's wind back the clocks. A year ago these cops and lawyers wouldn't have crossed any of you"

ie. Batman.




That's probably the closest to a time frame but it's nothing specific still. The joker is talking in general not to mention it seems he's referring to batman's involvement in aiding the police which may have come a little later on.

It's a good start but i don't think anyone can piece together an accurate timeline aside form the known 8 years between TDK and TDKR.

Does anyone know if those newspapers in TDK had any dates on them? because i beleive TDK took place in the present ie 2008.

jb007
07-31-2012, 05:57 AM
Alot! He tracked down Falcone, found the Scarecrow. Found the Joker and fought him. Tracked finger prints. Found Bane & beat him......

Broker
07-31-2012, 06:38 AM
That's probably the closest to a time frame but it's nothing specific still.

It's hard to be more specific than the writers including a line that deliberately references the timeframe. :yay:

By the way, I agree completely that we aren't to take it by the letter. It's not 12 months on the dot and in that sense Joker's generalising.

But of course that line didn't make it in their accidentally. It was written in. Every line is drafted, re-drafted, and poured over. So, we know that the writer intentionally chose that specific amount of time. Had he felt the period was 2 years, then he would have written the line as 2 years.

So questioning it is somewhat strange.

Tojo
07-31-2012, 08:51 AM
Two things to consider for me;

The Dent act. Do people seriously believe the Dent act was written, established, enforced and worked overnight? This would have taken some time, and the city could not have become clean in the space of a few weeks. I would speculate that Batman was phased out over a 1-2yr timespan, still fighting for that time whilst being chased by the authorities. It's certain that Gordon, or whoever, would have had task forces after Batman. Gordon even says,'They'll chase him'. Of course he may not be speaking literally here, but logically let's assume that he was.

War hero. Foley says early on that Gordon was a war hero. Well, there was certainly no evidence of any type of war in BB or TDK, unless he s being entirely metaphorical. Again, would like to think that the repurcussions of TDK were heavily felt afterwards, and that there was a time of chaos and conflict for an established time, something like 2 years. Then Bruce comes to the realisation that Batman is no longer needed, and coupled with his body falling apart, put's the cowl away. He rigs the cave up with computers etc and does some behind the scenes surveillance and work for a few more years, then stops entirely for the remainign 2 yrs and basically degenerates into the Bruce we see at the start of TDKR.

Asteroid-Man
07-31-2012, 08:53 AM
Back before TDK came out, it was confirmed there was an 8-month gap between the two films. I thought this was common knowledge by now. I think it was on one of the viral websites.

Also, as far as I know, Batman Begins takes place over the course of a few months, same with TDK. So when Joker says "a year ago these cops and lawyers wouldn't dare cross any of you" makes sense because that would have been right before Batman showed up.

And we know the prologue of TDK is July 18th, 2008

Wind that back 8 months, the end of Batman Begins is November of 2007. If the film does take place over the course of some time, it has to have been after April (looking at the trees). So, Batman Begins must have taken place sometime between April and November of 2007, with it ending in November.

TDK must have ended before November (again, looking at the trees). So 8 years later (excluding the Prologue for TDKR which clearly takes place in the Summer), we're looking at October of 2016. So add in the 5 months for the bomb to decay, and we're looking at March of 2017 (snow is beginning to melt too).

Now the end sequence, everything starts to go green, spring/summer of 2017.


With all that in mind, he was only really active for about two years (compressing all his time in the suit), but that's two years spread across a lot of time. 2007/2008 & 2016/2017



That's not an official timeline, just how I've been able to make sense of it all.

Broker
07-31-2012, 09:15 AM
Do people seriously believe the Dent act was written, established, enforced and worked overnight? This would have taken some time, and the city could not have become clean in the space of a few weeks. I would speculate that Batman was phased out over a 1-2yr timespan

I understand the logic in your thinking, but I would say that it was made explicit that Batman has not been seen in 8 years.

Broker
07-31-2012, 09:27 AM
Foley says early on that Gordon was a war hero. Well, there was certainly no evidence of any type of war in BB or TDK

Of course he was a war hero.

Gordon, operating the Tumbler, was instrumental in saving the whole of Gotham and it's inhabitants from Ra's who was hell-bent on destroying the City with his microwave emitter.

In the year between BB and TDK both Gordon and Batman worked together to wage a two man war against serious organised crime in Gotham, specifically the Mob, and were successful.

He saved Gotham from a maniac and then eradicated serious crime, what more of a war do you want him to fight? LOL.

ares834
07-31-2012, 09:33 AM
How can there be a very large span of time between when Batman first emerges and when Ra's comes to Gotham? That makes almost no sense. There may be a month or so between when he talks to Gordan for the first time and when he captures Falcone but after that it seems that the plot kicks into overdrive. Crane poisons Falcone to prevent him from talking which means it couldn't have been long after. Shortly after that Rachel goes into Arkham's basement and is saved by Batman. And shortly after that Ra's arrives in Gotham. No way that takes place over a year's worth of time, it's a few months at tops. Certainly not a year or two.

Pontillo
07-31-2012, 10:11 AM
Yeah this is the only part I can't get behind in that timeline. Clearly Ras shows up at Bruce's 30th birthday party which takes place 2 days after Batman gets set on fire by Scarecrow.


How can there be a very large span of time between when Batman first emerges and when Ra's comes to Gotham? That makes almost no sense. There may be a month or so between when he talks to Gordan for the first time and when he captures Falcone but after that it seems that the plot kicks into overdrive. Crane poisons Falcone to prevent him from talking which means it couldn't have been long after. Shortly after that Rachel goes into Arkham's basement and is saved by Batman. And shortly after that Ra's arrives in Gotham. No way that takes place over a year's worth of time, it's a few months at tops. Certainly not a year or two.

filmboy33
07-31-2012, 10:12 AM
He comes back Gotham at age 29 and creates Batman, fights Ra's on his 30th birthday, and then he takes the fall for Dent's crimes and disappears (presumably) less than a year later. In TDKR, that was the last known sighting until he returns 8 years later for a short period of time and then fakes his death.

Anyway, Nolan's Batman is a deconstruction of the idea of Batman. It's a disease Bruce Wayne had to be cured of in his point of view in order to move on with his life, and it was better for an ex-cop that wasn't driven by the same things as Bruce to presumably take over his job. And of course, in order for Bruce Wayne to move on with his life, he had to fake his death and exile himself from Gotham entirely--which is what Alfred wanted. Not too happy with this or the logic behind some of it, but there it is.

I agree with your latter points completely. Batman was always in this series just a guise that Bruce had to use in order to achieve his objective of cleaning up Gotham. But it was always Bruce who was fighting crime and not Batman. Nolan was more interested in Bruce Wayne than his superhero alter-ego Batman. Someone wrote some time ago that Nolan prefers heroes with faces, everyday people who do heroic things, and had a dislike for superheroes and their trappings. I would tend to agree with that completely.

Just look at TDK and TDKR, Nolan spends alot of screen time in both focusing on everyday heroes in Dent and then Blake. I would say in the case of both films that they are as much Dent's and Blake's film as they are Batman/Bruce Wayne's. Which I understand in some ways as Nolan was working to transition the protection of Gotham from Batman back to the people of Gotham, in the form of an exceptional everyman. But at the same time, I am kind of troubled that Batman is getting second billing in his own film.

Now I love TDK and BB. Both are excellent films. But at the same time having seen TDKR it is so obvious to me that Nolan never really was all that interested in Batman as a character. He loves Bruce Wayne, but feels Batman is only a means to an end. If that makes sense.

I have to admit that I was disappointed that Batman was out of service for that entire 8 years. I was always of the opinion that Batman should have been out there for a year or two after the events of TDK, continuing to fight crime while being a wanted man. Then at some point after the Dent Act takes effect and starts working, he slowly recedes into the shadows.

In the end, it is Nolan's series to do what he wishes. I just would have liked Nolan to have his Bruce struggle to let go of Batman and have Batman be as important of a character as Bruce.

Pontillo
07-31-2012, 10:13 AM
As per the 8 year gap it's really never specifically said when he stopped being Batman. I'm assuming he continued on briefly after TDK but in almost total secret. Maybe only lightly communicating with Gordon.

"_____"
07-31-2012, 10:17 AM
This is actually a pretty good topic. I never once even thought about it, but yeah he wasn't batman for very long.

KalMart
07-31-2012, 11:08 AM
I don't think it's as important how long, technically, as how long it felt. And it felt like a lifetime. The events in each of the three stories were virtually history-changing in their scope/magnitude...each like a war to those involved. So that's plenty to take up a lifetime.

DACrowe
07-31-2012, 11:24 AM
I understand the logic in your thinking, but I would say that it was made explicit that Batman has not been seen in 8 years.

By the police. Or rather "confirmed sighting." That does not mean he was not quietly involved in some way. It could explain his injuries and why he bothered to rebuild the batcave. Alfred even said, "You haven't been down her in a while, sir." If he retired when Dent died (before the mansion was even done being rebuilt), he would never have been down there.

It would takes months for the Dent Act to pass, if not a year. It would then takes months or even years for it to be fully enacted. In that time, there would be the "war" Foley spoke of. Perhaps Batman played a secret part in it. There were bound to be some copy cats inspired by the Joker. In fact, if there were more theatrically-themed villains (the Riddler? A black mask wearing gangster? Ivy the eco-terrorist? A Lewis Carroll-obssessed predator?), it would explain why nobody bats an eye to Catwoman wearing such a theatrical costume in TDKR. It's par for the course in Gotham post-Joker.

Most of those guys would be sent to Arkham and could be raving about the Batman which Gordon would dismiss. I admit this is speculation, but it logically makes sense more than just quitting cold turkey. Though the movie never explains this aspect.

The Joker
07-31-2012, 11:29 AM
I don't know why there's such a raging debate over it. Nolan's wasn't trying to be subtle here. When Blake says the night Dent died was the last time Batman was seen, Nolan's saying that's the last time Bruce donned the cape and cowl.

Bruce also said to Gordon in the hospital "The Batman wasn't needed any more. We won", to which Gordon replied "Based on a lie". It's blatantly obvious to me that once Harvey died a hero Batman was put out to pasture.

KalMart
07-31-2012, 11:34 AM
From another thread:

The only time I remember it mentioned that he hadn't been seen was from Foley said, when he told Blake after squad cars chasing Bane spotted Batman, that the "last confirmed sighting" was on the night of Dent's death. I don't know, I thought it still left room for some low key activity from Bats.

I don't remember Bruce telling Gordon that after Dent's death Batman wasn't needed. I'll have to see the film again to confirm, but I don't remember him even mentioning Dent's death to Jim in the hospital. He did say they'd won, which was why he retired.

But that's the thing...if there was any 'activity' after Dent's death, it was so low key and non-eventful that it's basically insignificant. So for all intents and purposes, he was retired for the full eight years. Aside from not being a 'constant' thing like comics, perhaps some fans see that as some sort of abandonment of duties...like it's somehow out of character for Batman. It's really not if Gotham didn't actually need him to take care of its major crimes...and as we see, the time off has not been kind, most notably because he does seem to yearn to be Batman again.

So the circumstances of such a long sabbatical are different than the 'norm', but the character is still very much Batman because it hasn't sat well with him.

I Am The Knight
07-31-2012, 11:36 AM
I am not trusting that timeline in the new books. It makes no sense for Batman to have been active 2 years before the Joker shows up in TDK. Some weird retconning there.

Mysteryman
07-31-2012, 01:06 PM
As long as you want to think that he did .
BB and TDK dont specifically say the first six months and the next six months .
I imagine a 2 year gap between the first two films.
So, 4 years active .
And,even though he was retired for 8 years,
Batman was still wanted by the police .
That means he was part of the consciousness of Gotham City For 12 years .
Just look at it in real time .
There is nothing in the story that says that you cant.

Tojo
07-31-2012, 01:13 PM
Of course he was a war hero.

Gordon, operating the Tumbler, was instrumental in saving the whole of Gotham and it's inhabitants from Ra's who was hell-bent on destroying the City with his microwave emitter.

In the year between BB and TDK both Gordon and Batman worked together to wage a two man war against serious organised crime in Gotham, specifically the Mob, and were successful.

He saved Gotham from a maniac and then eradicated serious crime, what more of a war do you want him to fight? LOL.

Erm, you make it sound as though this was all out in the open...common knowledge as it were. Gordon working with Batman was only known between three people. Him operating the Tumbler was not a public act of heroism. No-one would know this. Hence it being illogical to be referred to as a war hero.

However, I would concede that Foley could be referring to the cleaning up of the streets. But in that case to call him a war hero is exaggeration, and I still think it makes sense for there to have been a large outburst after Dent's death, and then all those prisoners put into Blackgate(not without a fight). Batman most likely would have been active for the aftermath, if we're being logical. He just had to do it from the shadows...hence last confirmed sighting. This is my speculation though and of course you're version works aswell.

And as has been pointed out, Bruce has been in the Bat-cave because Alfred references it. How or why would he have done that, or even built the thing if he retires on the night Dent died. It makes sense for him to have been active in some capacity for a year, perhaps two, before realising the city didn't need a Batman anymore.

PWN3R
07-31-2012, 01:38 PM
It would takes months for the Dent Act to pass, if not a year. It would then takes months or even years for it to be fully enacted. In that time, there would be the "war" Foley spoke of. Perhaps Batman played a secret part in it. There were bound to be some copy cats inspired by the Joker. In fact, if there were more theatrically-themed villains (the Riddler? A black mask wearing gangster? Ivy the eco-terrorist? A Lewis Carroll-obssessed predator?), it would explain why nobody bats an eye to Catwoman wearing such a theatrical costume in TDKR. It's par for the course in Gotham post-Joker.

Most of those guys would be sent to Arkham and could be raving about the Batman which Gordon would dismiss. I admit this is speculation, but it logically makes sense more than just quitting cold turkey. Though the movie never explains this aspect.

My head canon. I wish the film implied something similar. It would have only needed but a few lines.

DACrowe
07-31-2012, 01:44 PM
I don't know why there's such a raging debate over it. Nolan's wasn't trying to be subtle here. When Blake says the night Dent died was the last time Batman was seen, Nolan's saying that's the last time Bruce donned the cape and cowl.

Bruce also said to Gordon in the hospital "The Batman wasn't needed any more. We won", to which Gordon replied "Based on a lie". It's blatantly obvious to me that once Harvey died a hero Batman was put out to pasture.

Oh I completely agree. I just wanted him to be Batman for at least three years and there is enough head scratching elements (Bruce's limp, a rebuilt batcave that would have been unneeded if he quit the night Dent died), as well as the logic that it would take at least two years for any piece of legislation to be passed and come into full effect on the street that can let fans go, "but..."

So, I am fine with that.

KalMart
07-31-2012, 01:44 PM
By the police. Or rather "confirmed sighting." That does not mean he was not quietly involved in some way. It could explain his injuries and why he bothered to rebuild the batcave. Alfred even said, "You haven't been down her in a while, sir." If he retired when Dent died (before the mansion was even done being rebuilt), he would never have been down there.

It would takes months for the Dent Act to pass, if not a year. It would then takes months or even years for it to be fully enacted. In that time, there would be the "war" Foley spoke of. Perhaps Batman played a secret part in it. There were bound to be some copy cats inspired by the Joker. In fact, if there were more theatrically-themed villains (the Riddler? A black mask wearing gangster? Ivy the eco-terrorist? A Lewis Carroll-obssessed predator?), it would explain why nobody bats an eye to Catwoman wearing such a theatrical costume in TDKR. It's par for the course in Gotham post-Joker.

Most of those guys would be sent to Arkham and could be raving about the Batman which Gordon would dismiss. I admit this is speculation, but it logically makes sense more than just quitting cold turkey. Though the movie never explains this aspect.
But if they were somehow mentioned without being seen or portrayed in a movie, it'd make it that much more insignificant and/or redundant that they weren't put together for the main plot of a third film...especially if it were to entail renown rogue characters like Black Mask and such. The expanse of eight years always had a primary purpose of establishing a long break/absence and setting up Batman's return. If they didn't want it to be absent, then they probably wouldn't have gone with the idea of moving so far ahead in time to begin with.

DACrowe
07-31-2012, 01:48 PM
A 6 year absence is still pretty long. Most people miss Bruce only became a recluse three years prior to TDKR, not eight. I am just saying logically the Dent ACt would not change things overnight and Bruce has injuries in TDKR he did not have at the end of TDK and has a batcave he did not have at the end of TDK. So, fans can think what they want in that regard.

KalMart
07-31-2012, 01:59 PM
A 6 year absence is still pretty long.
They decided to make it 8. It's a good length because it doesn't quite put Wayne substantially past 40 so he has some physical gas left to do the job, but it close enough to a decade which is a right away a solid benchmark of time to pass to make that time away significant.


Most people miss Bruce only became a recluse three years prior to TDKR, not eight. I am just saying logically the Dent ACt would not change things overnight and Bruce has injuries in TDKR he did not have at the end of TDK and has a batcave he did not have at the end of TDK. So, fans can think what they want in that regard.
Here's the thing....the movie itself indicates that he was gone, for all intents and purposes, from being Batman for eight years, starting the night that Dent died. Whether or not they did that 'logically' enough is up to your tastes et al, but the actual story/movie that they made had him absent the whole time. We can like or not like how it was done, but it is what's there and what's intended....with other possibilities only being what-if's on our part. It wasn't meant to be eft up to interpretation of leave openings for that possibility.

You may feel that it should have been some more time of him being Batman, I may feel that the 8 yr absence was a good idea that wasn't quite executed well enough...but either way, Batman absolutely was inactive for the full eight years as per this story. I do think you're acknowledging that distinction, but it is a distinction between what fans can imagine, and what the story intends to present. And I think it revolves more around what some Bat-fans specifically see their favorite character as, than the internal 'logic' the story presents..which itself is fine as long as you're just not inherently opposed to the concept.

DACrowe
07-31-2012, 05:09 PM
I'm not opposed to the concept.

But tell me why did he rebuild the batcave and why did he go down there for years later (note Alfred saying "You haven't been down here for a while")?. Why did he have such a bad leg injury?

The story certainly says eight years, but there are enough questions about what happened in those eight years that are not explained.

Macphisto
07-31-2012, 05:18 PM
He's limping badly after taking the fall at the end of TDK. That's all I got with regards to the leg injury (that magically disappears).

KalMart
07-31-2012, 05:31 PM
I'm not opposed to the concept.

But tell me why did he rebuild the batcave and why did he go down there for years later (note Alfred saying "You haven't been down here for a while")?.
In case he did have to come back....but the need never arose until eight years later.
Why did he have such a bad leg injury?
He was shot. If that shattered the bone and affected nerves it could be a lifelong issue....especially if he tried to treat the injury himself and hide it from going to a hospital.

The story certainly says eight years, but there are enough questions about what happened in those eight years that are not explained.
They don't need to be, except for someone who for whatever reason is looking for more than what this movie is presenting. That's the someone's cross to bear, not the film's.

Mysteryman
07-31-2012, 08:02 PM
It's hard to be more specific than the writers including a line that deliberately references the timeframe. :yay:

By the way, I agree completely that we aren't to take it by the letter. It's not 12 months on the dot and in that sense Joker's generalising.

But of course that line didn't make it in their accidentally. It was written in. Every line is drafted, re-drafted, and poured over. So, we know that the writer intentionally chose that specific amount of time. Had he felt the period was 2 years, then he would have written the line as 2 years.

So questioning it is somewhat strange.
If there were a 2 year frame than the 1 year period period The Joker referred to could be right after Batman showed up,
The end of BB.
Things were still in flux back then.

the_monk
07-31-2012, 08:13 PM
I think some people are being too liberal with this "last confirmed sighting" terminology. "Last confirmed" most likely implies that, as you would expect, people reported sightings that were false. You know, like how there aren't any "confirmed sightings" of Bigfoot.

I'm willing to bet he stopped going out as Batman after the night Dent was killed, and devoted his time to rebuilding the Batcave, in case Batman was needed again.

Homer J. Fong
08-01-2012, 01:05 AM
I take it that there's a year at most from the time Batman first appears to the time The Dark Knight begins. Batman Begins only seems to span a couple of weeks or so, and The Dark Knight maybe a couple months. I'm guessing, as I've never noticed or sought out the specifics. I don't particularly care about how long Bruce acts as Batman - someone employed the quote, "It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage," which is not only a great line and reference, but a great, succinct summation of it.

I do care about when Bruce stopped acting as Batman after the end of TDK, though. Now, the film clearly implies that Bruce did not act as Batman after Dent died. I'm one of those people clinging to that "confirmed" because I can't make sense of some things or can't deal with some things (and I'm pretty sure that word "confirmed" is in there partly so that we can do some theorizing, because if Nolan was super-committed to saying Dent's last night was also Batman's last night for eight years, he wouldn't have let the phrase "confirmed sighting" stay through draft after draft). I complained about it on the thread about the eight-year gap idea, but let me explain my issues here:

1) It seems awfully out of character for him to promptly hang up the cape and cowl after the night of Dent's death, his crimes, and agreeing to take the fall for those crimes. He can take it...and then he decides he can't? Or does he just decide not to?

2) As has already been pointed out, well, at length, the Dent Act couldn't possibly have gone into effect quickly - not in this universe. If this were the form of reality presented in the Burton or Schumacher movies, I'd go with that, but it's not. And if Batman retired long before the Dent Act was enacted, then I have to go back to the "feels out of character" argument. I'd like to know how long after Dent's death the Dent Act was created, passed, what have you.

3) This one is much smaller, but I too have to ask: Why complete the Batcave if it's not going to be used? Now, one could argue that Alfred's, "You haven't been down here in a long time," line does make sense if he and Bruce were building it before/up to the creation of the Dent Act, but afterward it was never properly used. I don't know if that entirely works, but the question of, "Why is the Batcave complete if he retired right after Harvey died?" is not the biggest of these.

4) It nags at me that I can't even imagine this Batman and this Joker encountering each other again after the events of TDK. As I've said before, I know that the, "I think you and I are destined to do this forever," line was more a nod to that eternal battle that we know so well from the overall Batman mythology than an atual promise for this Batman-Joker, but with Batman swiftly retiring after Harvey's downfall and death, I can't even imagine that they even encountered each other again. Again, this is a minor quibble, but still.

The intent is clearly to say that Bruce/Batman has been out of action for eight years. Not five, not seven, eight. That seems - and these are probably weird ways to put it - too easy or simple, though. That he would stop right after the events of the TDK finale, that no major crimes would occur in the intervening eight years, that the Dent Act would come about and do its job so quickly...I have a hard time buying in to all of this. So even though it's kind of against what's onscreen, I have to cling to that word "confirmed" and try to believe that Batman did his thing for a while - I'm like to think a year or so - after the end of TDK, but with the utmost care and secrecy, only even contacting Gordon once or twice. That has to mean there were no more "freak villains" on the level of The Joker, because if there were, there would also have to be confirmed sightings of Batman, right? Other people above me have made these points more eloquently, and other people below me probably will too, but there are my thoughts.

Broker
08-01-2012, 04:00 AM
In case he did have to come back....but the need never arose until eight years later.

Exactly. The Batcave and Wayne Manor were being re-built prior to, and at the time of, TDK. We don't know how close they were to completion.

Bruce gave up being Batman after TDK, that is made quite explicit to us, but I am sure he still monitored Gotham for a period from the Batcave, and went down there less frequently as time wore on.

He was shot. If that shattered the bone and affected nerves it could be a lifelong issue....especially if he tried to treat the injury himself and hide it from going to a hospital.

It is also heavily hinted that it is partly phychosomatic.

Broker
08-01-2012, 04:15 AM
The intent is clearly to say that Bruce/Batman has been out of action for eight years. Not five, not seven, eight. That seems - and these are probably weird ways to put it - too easy or simple, though. That he would stop right after the events of the TDK finale, that no major crimes would occur in the intervening eight years, that the Dent Act would come about and do its job so quickly...

I understand exactly what you are saying and you made your points very well.

As you say, when broken completely down, it does not 100% follow. The ending of TDK led us to believe that Batman would continue even though he was to be hunted, but then in TDKR we are presented with a Batman that apparantly finished directly after TDK - and the reason given - because the Dent Act made him null and void. As you say, it's is unlikely such an Act would come in to effect quite that quickly.

Of course, as the audience there is much that we are not privy to that we are to imagine happened off-screen.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle all of this and I think at some point you have to step back from the fine details and think what the true intention of the Writer/Director really was.

Looking at things now, my opinion is that Bruce stopped being Batman immediately after TDK. This is alluded to quite specifically in TDKR. In TDK organised crime had been seriously disrupted, both by Batman/Gordon but also through the Joker killing two of the major kingpins. The city, as we saw, had also chosen to fight back and there was undoubted momentum to clean up the city.

With the Police handling low level crime, the Dent Act was passed relatively soon afterwards which formalised how they would treat organised crime.

So I suspect that Bruce found himself very quickly in a position where his services were not required.

Given the timespan of at least a year between BB and TDK I think it is reasonable to assume that the cave was nearing completion at the time of TDK. If an explanation as to why it was ultimately completed is required then I would suggest this was because there was always the possibility he may need it again (we see in TDKR that he is waiting for such a moment when the city would need him).

Mysteryman
08-01-2012, 10:33 AM
I tend to agree with the theories posted above.
However, I was reading the new Dark Knight Technical Manual,
And , there was a note from Bruce that said after 5 years of being Batman, he redesigned his suit ,
It is the TDK Batsuit .
Unfortunately, I dont have a scan of it, but the book is currently in stores .

Ultimatehero
08-01-2012, 10:36 AM
Some time DID pass between BB and TDK - SHADOW OF THE KNIGHT tie-in dvd shows that he did fight criminals in between.

Broker
08-01-2012, 10:41 AM
Some time DID pass between BB and TDK - SHADOW OF THE KNIGHT tie-in dvd shows that he did fight criminals in between.

As said above, the Joker tells us that roughly a year has passed.

I Am The Knight
08-01-2012, 10:47 AM
I tend to agree with the theories posted above.
However, I was reading the new Dark Knight Technical Manual,
And , there was a note from Bruce that said after 5 years of being Batman, he redesigned his suit ,
It is the TDK Batsuit .
Unfortunately, I dont have a scan of it, but the book is currently in stores .

So it took him 5 years to "look into" the Joker? :huh:

Altough, the 5 year gap would explain why Rachel looked so rough in TDK ... :oldrazz:

ThePhantasm
08-01-2012, 10:48 AM
He was shot. If that shattered the bone and affected nerves it could be a lifelong issue....especially if he tried to treat the injury himself and hide it from going to a hospital.

I thought he got shot in the abdomen? I figured the leg injury was from his fall after pushing Dent over the edge. I don't see why Dent would shoot him in the leg when Batman wasn't standing that far away.

zmystico
08-01-2012, 11:17 AM
Considering the physical toll it takes to be Batman fighting crime, it makes quite a lot of sense for him to be Batman in only the limited time he was. And it's not like it translated into Batman appearing in each film for only 2 minutes so I don't see why it really matters. Heightened realism is obviously at the forefront of Nolan's Batman movies so this would translate into a real man fighting crime for this long. Everyone saw the damage he had suffered in TDKR from just the limited he was Batman and that was before the events of TDKR!

I agree with this, you just cannot physically do what Batman does night in and out without incurring some serious damage. Also, even though he wasn't active in those 8 years, cartilage does not grow back, once you start damaging and losing it...it only deteriorates.

ALP
08-01-2012, 12:03 PM
So it took him 5 years to "look into" the Joker? :huh:

Altough, the 5 year gap would explain why Rachel looked so rough in TDK ... :oldrazz:

LOLZ:lmao:

KalMart
08-01-2012, 01:46 PM
I thought he got shot in the abdomen?
Judging by the massive limp he had at the end if TDK, but very well could have penetrated lower into the pelvic and upper leg.

I figured the leg injury was from his fall after pushing Dent over the edge. I don't see why Dent would shoot him in the leg when Batman wasn't standing that far away.
He still just pointed and didn't aim. Plus, although Batman's armor may not have been completely bulletproof, it still could have deflected a bullet headed toward the lower abdomen enough to veer off and, again, penetrate into the pelvic/leg region...especially at the less-protected seams between plates where movement is needed. If it went into that very critical joint area between hip and leg bone, it could be really bad and much harder to heal since it's so hard to restrict that movement.

ChrisBaleBatman
08-01-2012, 03:00 PM
I remember reading an article once, before Batman Begins was ever released, on the theory of a real superhero.

Conceptually, the pitch was that if the hero is like Batman, a human being and not endowed with super powers, then the closest approach to how his career would or could go would be by comparing it to an all-star athlete. The guy wouldn't be able to last 30 years or anything, because eventually the bumps and bruises would build up. So either he'd catch a bullet or just not be able to get up in the morning. And the idea would also be that there'd be a peak, where he would be an absolute beast. He'd be at peak physical condition, very confident and sure of himself, and be completely healthy. In his prime, around his early 30's. And then it'd just kinda go downhill after that.

I think Nolan's films, more or less, kinda followed that type of trajectory. Bruce became Batman was pretty much leaped into it in his prime. He was probably Batman for about 3 or 4 years. But, I guess he got a ton done. Aside from Bane, Ra's, Scarecrow, and the Joker...who all had a hand in major plans, Batman's biggest opponent in Gotham was organized crime. With the Dent Act getting passed, probably a few years after Dent died, that was it for organized crime in Gotham.

The film did seem to emphasize that Bruce was not exactly forced into retirement by his injury. His injury wasn't really holding him back. The first whiff of anything big had him ready to roll. He retired because he and Jim had won. He definitely got usage out of the Batcave, which I assume wasn't ready during TDK since it hadn't been seen.

lordofthenerds
08-01-2012, 03:03 PM
So it took him 5 years to "look into" the Joker? :huh:

Joker retired from crime for 5 years.

hafizbat
08-02-2012, 11:13 PM
Judging by the massive limp he had at the end if TDK, but very well could have penetrated lower into the pelvic and upper leg.


He still just pointed and didn't aim. Plus, although Batman's armor may not have been completely bulletproof, it still could have deflected a bullet headed toward the lower abdomen enough to veer off and, again, penetrate into the pelvic/leg region...especially at the less-protected seams between plates where movement is needed. If it went into that very critical joint area between hip and leg bone, it could be really bad and much harder to heal since it's so hard to restrict that movement.

If the injury was that bad like the way you describe it, how was he able to recover so quickly when he needed to be Batman again?? I know he used the brace thing in his first comeback but he doesn't have that in the pit yet he not only walks but makes a huge jump to escape the pit. And he walks perfectly fine as Bruce Wayne. So how did he recover?

KalMart
08-03-2012, 01:17 AM
If the injury was that bad like the way you describe it, how was he able to recover so quickly when he needed to be Batman again?? I know he used the brace thing in his first comeback but he doesn't have that in the pit yet he not only walks but makes a huge jump to escape the pit. And he walks perfectly fine as Bruce Wayne. So how did he recover?
You mean the pit that the was in for months, was treated by the doctor, and worked himself physically back into shape moreso than when he suited up earlier?

hafizbat
08-03-2012, 06:10 AM
You mean the pit that the was in for months, was treated by the doctor, and worked himself physically back into shape moreso than when he suited up earlier?

Mhm, I guess it just goes to show the role will and motivation plays. Because theoretically if he was able to fully recover in a few months in the pit (when he had far more sever injuries back etc) then he could've healed himself all these 8 years or whenever his leg went bad. But I don't know something doesn't add up here. So either his leg was that bad that he was on a cane for 8 years, which makes his full recovery in the few months in the pit a bit unrealistic or his leg wasn't that bad in the first place as seen by his full recovery post-pit which muddles why he needed a cane for 8 years.....I think the latter is the better scenario, as at least his use of the cane/not healing leg can be attributabed to his disheartened, defeated state of mind.

piccolo
08-03-2012, 08:15 AM
They don't have doctors and floors for pushups in Gotham?

And that was after a broken back. He should have easily been able to recover from his TDK injuries within a couple months if thats all it took in a 3rd world cave with a prison "doctor".

FlawlessVictory
08-03-2012, 08:19 AM
They don't have doctors and floors for pushups in Gotham?

And that was after a broken back. He should have easily been able to recover from his TDK injuries within a couple months if thats all it took in a 3rd world cave with a prison "doctor".

That's the power of belief! He didn't have that before. I sort of kid, I see your point.

Broker
08-03-2012, 08:38 AM
Mhm, I guess it just goes to show the role will and motivation plays. Because theoretically if he was able to fully recover in a few months in the pit (when he had far more sever injuries back etc) then he could've healed himself all these 8 years or whenever his leg went bad. But I don't know something doesn't add up here. So either his leg was that bad that he was on a cane for 8 years, which makes his full recovery in the few months in the pit a bit unrealistic or his leg wasn't that bad in the first place as seen by his full recovery post-pit which muddles why he needed a cane for 8 years.....I think the latter is the better scenario, as at least his use of the cane/not healing leg can be attributabed to his disheartened, defeated state of mind.

I think a good degree of the issue is psychosomatic.

KalMart
08-03-2012, 11:31 AM
Mhm, I guess it just goes to show the role will and motivation plays. Because theoretically if he was able to fully recover in a few months in the pit (when he had far more sever injuries back etc) then he could've healed himself all these 8 years or whenever his leg went bad. But I don't know something doesn't add up here. So either his leg was that bad that he was on a cane for 8 years, which makes his full recovery in the few months in the pit a bit unrealistic or his leg wasn't that bad in the first place as seen by his full recovery post-pit which muddles why he needed a cane for 8 years.....I think the latter is the better scenario, as at least his use of the cane/not healing leg can be attributabed to his disheartened, defeated state of mind.
Yeah, I don't think he has as much to 'shoot for' during those 8 yrs.

There's a lot that doesn't quite add up in this rather overstuffed storyline, but you just kinda' go with it.

KneelBeforeZod
08-03-2012, 03:32 PM
Here's the timeline I prefer. There are inconsistencies ... but this lines up the best, and makes the most sense to me ...

-- Bruce returns from Princeton when he is 21 (in 1996), and disappears for seven years after Joe Chill is killed (gone between 1996 and 2003);
-- He returns to Gotham when he is 28, in 2003, and becomes Batman for the first time.
-- The Ras al'Ghul attack happens on his 30th birthday in 2005. The first Joker robberies happen in the same year (calling card at the end of BB);
-- Between 2005 and 2008, Joker gains notoriety and Batman works his way up the mob ladder (wearing the original BB suit), and Rachel Dawes does not age well ... she looks awful come 2008.
-- Events of TDK happen in 2008 ... new suit, Joker killings, death of Harvey Dent. Last appearance of Batman, age 33.
-- Batman in retirement from 2008-2016.
-- Events of TDKR occur in 2016 -- Bruce is now 41.

That would leave Bruce as Batman from age 28 to 33 (2003-2008), and again at age 41 (2016). Those years make sense to me, those ages makes sense ... and the five-year timeline before retirement is more satisfying than the 18-months or whatever people are using. Also leaves a reasonable off-screen gap for an active Batman between BB and TDK.

There are some inconsistencies. The new book cites Harvey Dent's injuries as occurring in 2004. There is something about TDKR referencing 2014. But, the above seems to line up the best. Here is a more detailed timeline I got off of another board ...

Maybe Batman Begins from his first night out to defeating Ra's does actually take place over a couple years, as Zach suggested:

--and it is from:

2003 - 2005

Things that suddenly fit if we accept this, and assume that TDK takes place in 2008:

2003 - Bruce Wayne returns to Gotham City, has his first night out, begins prowling as the Batman.

2003 - Jimmy is a two year-old infant when Batman visits Gordon at home.

2005 - Batman defeats Ra's Al Ghul on the train. Remember this is on the SAME NIGHT that he has his 30th birthday party.

2005 - 2008 - Offscreen, Batman wages war on crime, working his way up to the big fish of the mob. Assuming this is true conveniently explains several things:

- (1) Like SnakeDoc suggests, it is not until a year before TDK that he is finally having an impact that is really hurting them and making them take notice.

- (2) All during this time, while Batman is building his reputation, Joker commits random crimes and builds up his own legend among criminals. This is where we get the "So why do they call him the Joker?" "I heard he wears makeup..to scare people...y'know, war paint" lines. It makes sense that it takes a while to build up that kind of rumormill/reputation. It also explains the "Two-bit wack job, cheap purple suit" line from Maroni and the "Him again" line from Batman. Joker wasn't wearing the purple suit during the bank robbery, so Maroni must have seen/heard of him before. Like Batman, dispite his crimes, he views him as just a minor nuisance to be dealth with later.

- (3) Guestimating this three-year gap between the films also neatly explains the line in The Dark Knight Manual that he was wearing the Original Suit for 5 years---he was---from 2003 to 2008.

- (4) Finally, this 3 year gap ages little Jimmy almost perfectly. If he is two years-old in 2003, then he is seven in 2008. It doesn't take much stretching in either direction to make him an 8 year-old, or to even just assume he is supposed to be seven in that film.

The Dark Knight Rises is eight years later.

2016 Now I know the Gotham Civil War poster contradicts this, with the date of the exhibit ending in 2014. But this is the only really hard-set date we know of (as of now anyway), and it's not really clear if it even appears noticeably on-screen or if a hard-set date of 2014 appears in the final film on screen, so I'm willing to overlook it. Also, I realize this is just an excuse, but that poster could be an "old" ad that was never taken down, or pasted over with something else newer that is peeling off. It certainly doesn't look like it's supposed to be in new condition. Just sayin'.

Working backward from the above dates, we can make the milestones in Bruce's life fit too.

2003 - Bruce Wayne returns to Gotham. Based on the above that he turns 30 in 2005, he turns 28 in 2003. Since we know he was away for seven years, he dropped out of Princeton at 21 (or 20, depending on his birthday) as an undergrad in his senior year, just shy of graduation.

Working farther back and using the casefile of the Wayne murders in The Dark Knight Manual

November 8, 1983 - The Waynes are gunned down. Bruce is 10 or 11 years old (again, depending on his birthday)

1972 or 1973 - Bruce Wayne is born.

So,to answer the question, that would leave Bruce Wayne fighting crime between 2003 and 2008 , and then again in 2016 ... about six-years total before the end of TDKR.

Whether you want to think he eventually comes back after TDKR is up to you.

KBZ

MarvelFan
01-22-2013, 10:13 PM
I'm thinking Bruce was officially Batman for about a total of a year and then some. Because in TDK, it takes place about a 9 months after BB, and I know that because in the movie, Joker makes a comment to the Mob saying, "Let's wind the clocks back a year, before Batman. These cops and lawyers wouldn't dare cross you. I mean, what happened? Did ya balls drop off." And the few moments when Bruce was Batman in BB was about a month. And the events of TDK is about 2 and a half months at least. And when Bruce returns as the Batman in the beginning of TDKR, it was about a month before he was taken by Bane. So all that together, Bruce was officially Batman for a year, a month and a half.

AnneFan
01-23-2013, 12:58 AM
Heh, Nolan's Batman fought crime long enough that nearby thugs fell over backwards and played dead to avoid getting a beatdown. Some reputation!

KneelBeforeZod
01-23-2013, 03:31 PM
I'm thinking Bruce was officially Batman for about a total of a year and then some. Because in TDK, it takes place about a 9 months after BB, and I know that because in the movie, Joker makes a comment to the Mob saying, "Let's wind the clocks back a year, before Batman. These cops and lawyers wouldn't dare cross you. I mean, what happened? Did ya balls drop off." And the few moments when Bruce was Batman in BB was about a month. And the events of TDK is about 2 and a half months at least. And when Bruce returns as the Batman in the beginning of TDKR, it was about a month before he was taken by Bane. So all that together, Bruce was officially Batman for a year, a month and a half.

The Joker doesn't say "before Batman". He just says, "Lets wind the clocks back a year, these cops and lawyers wouldn't dare cross any of you." That scene isn't necessarily within a year of Batman emerging. It is just within a year of the mob losing control.

Also ... Falcone was the kingpin during Begins. Those mobsters emerged after Falcone, and it would've taken them some time to regain control -- and then a year passed since they lost control to Batman/Dent.

I think its about three years between BB and TDK. If its only a few months ... Gordon's kid aged awful fast.

KBZ

shauner111
01-23-2013, 03:51 PM
I take back what i said previously. After some looking into and talking to one of the guys here on this forum..

Ive changed my mind, and i do believe Bruce was Batman for 3 years then he took a 8 year absence (for the first year of that 8 year break, there is a slight chance he was on and off). Then you have to add his time up of when he was Batman in TDKR.

Nolan himself states that Bruce pretty much had a 5 year plan to get Gotham to a point where it doesn't need him. He was Batman for over 3 years. Possibly a little more. Possibly 4 years if there were unconfirmed post Dark Knight sightings. But it's spread out over the course of 12 years or so.

By the end of it, Gotham has reached a point where it may not need another Batman ever again. Or for a very long time anyway. Or it may need Batman right away. That part is unknown. But it's still "the Batman". And since this thread title isn't exclusive to Bruce Wayne...you can say that Nolans Batman just keeps going until the years pile up.

FeedOnATreeFrog
01-24-2013, 01:34 AM
why do people here want Batman to have been fighting longer?

What's wrong with him only being Batman for a year?

Llama_Shepherd
01-24-2013, 04:36 AM
Personally, I don't find it impressive.

Tequilla
01-24-2013, 08:17 AM
why do people here want Batman to have been fighting longer?

What's wrong with him only being Batman for a year?

There's nothing wrong. Especially the way Rises deals with the subject , and his dualism. Batman's persona in Bruce isn't reduced to fighting thugs. That's why he was Batman long enough.

The Joker
01-24-2013, 09:18 AM
The Joker doesn't say "before Batman". He just says, "Lets wind the clocks back a year, these cops and lawyers wouldn't dare cross any of you." That scene isn't necessarily within a year of Batman emerging. It is just within a year of the mob losing control.

Yeah and they started losing control when Batman emerged. Before Batman came everything was hunky dory for them.

Also ... Falcone was the kingpin during Begins. Those mobsters emerged after Falcone, and it would've taken them some time to regain control -- and then a year passed since they lost control to Batman/Dent.

Dent said with Carmine Falcone in Arkham someone must have stepped up to run his organization. Why should that have taken so long?

I think its about three years between BB and TDK. If its only a few months ... Gordon's kid aged awful fast.

3 years or a few months, it's the same continuity goof. He was a little crying baby in Begins, and in TDK he was about 8 years old.

RustyCage
01-24-2013, 02:04 PM
why do people here want Batman to have been fighting longer?

What's wrong with him only being Batman for a year?

Because he didn't do very much, and people want room to imagine it's possible he could have had a more fleshed out career.

BlueLightning
01-24-2013, 03:08 PM
3 years or a few months, it's the same continuity goof. He was a little crying baby in Begins, and in TDK he was about 8 years old.

The baby brings me so much trouble with my timeline. I always thought that the baby was Gordon's daughter, I didn't pay much attention to it in Begins, and since in TDK we only see little glimpses of her, seemed fair enough. But according to IMDB the girl who portrayed Gordon's daughter (Hanna Gunn) was six or seven years at the time of the filming. And seeing the scene again, it is clearly older. So it doesn't add up.

Since it's the most notorious continuity issue in the films. I'm going out on a limb and say that the Gordon's were babysitting.

RustyCage
01-24-2013, 04:56 PM
I'm going out on a limb and say that the Gordon's were babysitting.

:lmao: ^ Win. Problem solved.

That was too good.

The Guard
01-24-2013, 05:48 PM
Or they have three kids, and one of them was out of the room at all times.

Anno_Domini
01-24-2013, 06:13 PM
One lucky bastard didn't listen to Barbara with getting ready to leave their house at the end of TDK then, lol.

Tequilla
01-25-2013, 04:53 AM
The baby brings me so much trouble with my timeline. I always thought that the baby was Gordon's daughter, I didn't pay much attention to it in Begins, and since in TDK we only see little glimpses of her, seemed fair enough. But according to IMDB the girl who portrayed Gordon's daughter (Hanna Gunn) was six or seven years at the time of the filming. And seeing the scene again, it is clearly older. So it doesn't add up.

Since it's the most notorious continuity issue in the films. I'm going out on a limb and say that the Gordon's were babysitting.

The thing is , time continuity is completely irrelevant in these movies. Nolan treats time in this series , in a very diffuse way. That's why the time elapsed between movies (and even during movies) is not detailed. Its not something that brings a point. Every sequels carries a lot of stuff from the previous movie , yet time itself is dismissed. Even the 8 years , they exist to bring something out of the character , to accentuate a trait of Bruce's persona but he doesn't try to explicitly show us that time elapsing , and how it occurred . We know time has passed , and how Bruce reacted. The movie itself show us he has been Batman long enough. If it was 1 year or 3 years between Begins , TDK , or how things really worked out after Dent's fall , that's not something the director intended to show or develop.

That's why this exercise of trying to solve the puzzle of time with bits of pieces and info in the movies , ends up being completely incomplete. Because that's how Nolan intended to treat time in these movies.

Anno_Domini
01-25-2013, 10:58 AM
Saying time continuity is irrelevant is really making it less important than it should be, imo.

BlueLightning
01-25-2013, 11:19 AM
The thing is , time continuity is completely irrelevant in these movies. Nolan treats time in this series , in a very diffuse way. That's why the time elapsed between movies (and even during movies) is not detailed. Its not something that brings a point. Every sequels carries a lot of stuff from the previous movie , yet time itself is dismissed. Even the 8 years , they exist to bring something out of the character , to accentuate a trait of Bruce's persona but he doesn't try to explicitly show us that time elapsing , and how it occurred . We know time has passed , and how Bruce reacted. The movie itself show us he has been Batman long enough. If it was 1 year or 3 years between Begins , TDK , or how things really worked out after Dent's fall , that's not something the director intended to show or develop.

That's why this exercise of trying to solve the puzzle of time with bits of pieces and info in the movies , ends up being completely incomplete. Because that's how Nolan intended to treat time in these movies.

Nolan did develop events in those time intervals, and he leaves enough clues for such events and to set things up. For example on TDKR , the choice of 8 years serves to get us to that moment of Bruce's life and the consequences of his acts. But there is also state what happened in that interval. Bruce heals physically (to an extent, remember the tremendous beating he took on the previous film), the truth of Harvey Dent being uncovered leads to him being hailed as a hero and Batman as a wanted criminal, the consequential Dent Act gives the police the tools to erradicate organized crime and renders Batman without a purpose. Bruce decides to put his mind on the energy project (attracting Miranda Tate's attention), later he finds out that the project is too dangerous, that failure is the last straw and recluses himself in the mansion. That information is shown to the viewer on the context of TDKR.

Same between Begins and TDK: Batman is taking down the mob with aid of Liutenant Gordon and hunting down the remaining Arkham inmates that were set free, also giving the remaining population the antidote for the fear toxin. The Joker begins his rise to power, Harvey Dent is elected district attorney, Bruce Wayne moves to the city. Batman's actions lead the mob to the breaking point. This is shown to the viewer on the context of TDK and elaborated more on the viral marketing.

There are other details that I like too, like the reconstruction of the monorail.

the last son
01-25-2013, 11:30 AM
The reason some of us never want Batman to quit is batman is not supposed to have a happy ending. At least not this early in his career. He's supposed to be brooding and obsessed. The characteristics of Bales Batman is not the Batman I know. Quiting, sulking, feeling sorry for himself for more than a week.

BlueLightning
01-25-2013, 11:34 AM
The reason some of us never want Batman to quit is batman is not supposed to have a happy ending. At least not this early in his career. He's supposed to be brooding and obsessed. The characteristics of Bales Batman is not the Batman I know. Quiting, sulking, feeling sorry for himself for more than a week.

Why not? How do you define the length of a superhero career? Yes Batman broods, he is obsessed. That is on Bale's Batman. And yes, Batman has quitted on the comics, the cartoons, etc. So perhaps you can elaborate a little more.

Anno_Domini
01-25-2013, 12:10 PM
Yah, why can't Bruce Wayne get a happy ending for once? Saying he's not meant to is just silly.

This isn't the Batman I ever thought of, but it is the kind of Batman I am pleased to have gotten from Nolan and will treasure it.

The Guard
01-25-2013, 12:40 PM
One lucky bastard didn't listen to Barbara with getting ready to leave their house at the end of TDK then, lol.

They were at a sleepover.

the last son
01-25-2013, 01:37 PM
Batman has quit before but not for a stupid reason like they described and for 8 years. That's absurd. He is rewarded for doing nothing for 8 years by getting a happy ending. No I don't like it. If he was proactive and still being Batman I might be a little more accepting to him having a happy ending. But he didn't really deserve one. Now, real Batman also should and would not accept a happy ending. That's part of why people love him. He refuses to take the easy route. He would rather die helping as much as he can.

shauner111
01-25-2013, 02:08 PM
Batman has quit before but not for a stupid reason like they described and for 8 years. That's absurd. He is rewarded for doing nothing for 8 years by getting a happy ending. No I don't like it. If he was proactive and still being Batman I might be a little more accepting to him having a happy ending. But he didn't really deserve one. Now, real Batman also should and would not accept a happy ending. That's part of why people love him. He refuses to take the easy route. He would rather die helping as much as he can.Cuz of course living a miserable life for 30 years, with a torn up body, and let's not forget the amount of criminals he got off the streets AND SAVING AN ENTIRE CITY FROM AN ATOM BOMB. Yeah..he was rewarded for nothing...and didnt deserve a happy ending...

So being happy is always the easy way out? Wow, ive heard it all. The easy way out would have been to stay in the pit. Or to live in some country after escaping the pit instead of coming back to save the city. Yeaaaah...Bruce REAAAALLY didnt deserve it. :whatever:

the last son
01-25-2013, 02:15 PM
If Batman never retired and was on top of his game the league would have never even been able to sneak in an atom bomb and infiltrate gotham.

BlueLightning
01-25-2013, 02:25 PM
Batman has quit before but not for a stupid reason like they described and for 8 years. That's absurd. He is rewarded for doing nothing for 8 years by getting a happy ending. No I don't like it. If he was proactive and still being Batman I might be a little more accepting to him having a happy ending. But he didn't really deserve one. Now, real Batman also should and would not accept a happy ending. That's part of why people love him. He refuses to take the easy route. He would rather die helping as much as he can.


Let's see, just as an example, on The Dark Knight Returns it's implied that he quit because of the death of Jason Todd. That's a good enough reason to quit, someone that was under his care died, and he felt guilty about it. On Batman Beyond, in the first episode "Rebirth Part I" the reason was physical, he was unable to keep going due to old age. Now let's analyze the background of the Nolan Bat-Films. Bruce does not want to be Batman forever. The ambitions of Bruce are aimed a little higher, a little bigger. On Gotham things are different, it's a unique case in which corruption and crime runs rampant on the city, and the police can't do a thing to stop it, in fact it's part of the problem. The system is broken. A fascinating aspect is that Batman is born out of a need. This is taking directly from Frank Miller's Year One. If the police and the government did their job as they should, there would be no need for Batman.

So Bruce sets his aims on eradicating the root of the problem. It's not about common muggins and robberies. It's the root that causes this problem. In Begins is reflected in the form of Joe Chill. He is the byproduct of the actions of the organized crime and the corruption has done to the city. Creating poverty and hunger. This is also taking from a comic book, The Dark Knight Returns in the first part of the book, where Bruce comes to an understanding of Joe Chills actions and the murder of his parents. At the same time, he wants to inspire people, to shake them out of apathy, and become a symbol for Gotham. Restore the damage, taking Gotham from the hands of crime to their people. Restoring the police, as channeled by his alliance with Jim Gordon, and moving the powerful people into action.

This works in the form of Harvey Dent. This is a man that idealizes Bruce's ambitions, a person with a face that can do things right without resorting to Batman's tactics. He sees that he is almost accomplished what he has set up to do. At the beginning of The Dark Knight we see that things have improved, criminals are scared on the streets, the mob is cornered and people have hope. We also see the unexpected consequences of Bruce's actions too. At the same time Harvey Dent rose, The Joker made his move. We see good people like the Citizens for Batman trying to do good things in the wrong way too. On the other hand, Bruce has this inherent desire for being happy, in his mind to overcome pain and move one, idealized in Rachel Dawes. This is brought upon various interpretations of Batman. See Mask of the Phantasm, where Bruce considers giving up being Batman by the return of Andrea Beaumont.

And all of this fails. The Joker does his act: kills Rachel, breaks Harvey and attempts to gain the upper hand on Gotham's soul. All of Harvey's good deeds could go into the drain if the truth of Two-Face came up to the public. Everything Bruce has done would be lost, people would lose hope. So they cover it up. It is a lie, but Bruce takes on the weight of it, taking the blame, becoming the villian, being hunted.

So at the beginning of Rises, we see a shattered man. He cannot continue being Batman. There is no need. The Dent Act sweep off the remains of the organized crime. If he would make an apparition as Batman for a minor thing, he would be hunted, bringing the police after him, and giving Gordon more pain to deal. (And this happens on Rises) There is no reason powerful enough to go on. As Bruce Wayne he has also lost so many. His project for giving the people of Gotham free clean energy has gone awry. Something that could potentially improve the quality of life of the Gothamites, and namely something he could do as a Wayne, has deemed to be potentially dangerous and is shut down, lossing a lot of money of his company in the way. He only awaits for death.

When Bane and the League of Shadows makes it's apparition, Bruce is mentally and physically broken. He needs to overcome pain and gain a new found respect for his own life. The film takes other points, like Blake being an embodiment for what Bruce idealized on Harvey Dent, albeit in a different manner. Inspiring the people to defend themselves, represented by Gotham's police. Changing Selina's views on the world. And finally, after there is no more to give, he has to make a choice.

So the movie shifts its focus. It's not about saving Gotham, we kinda know that Batman will save it. It's about Bruce saving himself. And because of the journey of this man (as stated somewhat briefly before), we want him to succeed.

Also worth nothing, we do not see Bruce being "happy go-lucky", we see a mature Bruce giving life another chance, a beginning of a new journey.

In my book, he earned this in spades.

BlueLightning
01-25-2013, 02:30 PM
If Batman never retired and was on top of his game the league would have never even been able to sneak in an atom bomb and infiltrate gotham.

They didn't sneak the atom bomb. The atom bomb was always there. It was Bruce's energy source for Gotham.

BatLobsterRises
01-25-2013, 02:32 PM
Let's see, just as an example, on The Dark Knight Returns it's implied that he quit because of the death of Jason Todd. That's a good enough reason to quit, someone that was under his care died, and he felt guilty about it. On Batman Beyond, in the first episode "Rebirth Part I" the reason was physical, he was unable to keep going due to old age. Now let's analyze the background of the Nolan Bat-Films. Bruce does not want to be Batman forever. The ambitions of Bruce are aimed a little higher, a little bigger. On Gotham things are different, it's a unique case in which corruption and crime runs rampant on the city, and the police can't do a thing to stop it, in fact it's part of the problem. The system is broken. A fascinating aspect is that Batman is born out of a need. This is taking directly from Frank Miller's Year One. If the police and the government did their job as they should, there would be no need for Batman.

So Bruce sets his aims on eradicating the root of the problem. It's not about common muggins and robberies. It's the root that causes this problem. In Begins is reflected in the form of Joe Chill. He is the byproduct of the actions of the organized crime and the corruption has done to the city. Creating poverty and hunger. This is also taking from a comic book, The Dark Knight Returns in the first part of the book, where Bruce comes to an understanding of Joe Chills actions and the murder of his parents. At the same time, he wants to inspire people, to shake them out of apathy, and become a symbol for Gotham. Restore the damage, taking Gotham from the hands of crime to their people. Restoring the police, as channeled by his alliance with Jim Gordon, and moving the powerful people into action.

This works in the form of Harvey Dent. This is a man that idealizes Bruce's ambitions, a person with a face that can do things right without resorting to Batman's tactics. He sees that he is almost accomplished what he has set up to do. At the beginning of The Dark Knight we see that things have improved, criminals are scared on the streets, the mob is cornered and people have hope. We also see the unexpected consequences of Bruce's actions too. At the same time Harvey Dent rose, The Joker made his move. We see good people like the Citizens for Batman trying to do good things in the wrong way too. On the other hand, Bruce has this inherent desire for being happy, in his mind to overcome pain and move one, idealized in Rachel Dawes. This is brought upon various interpretations of Batman. See Mask of the Phantasm, where Bruce considers giving up being Batman by the return of Andrea Beaumont.

And all of this fails. The Joker does his act: kills Rachel, breaks Harvey and attempts to gain the upper hand on Gotham's soul. All of Harvey's good deeds could go into the drain if the truth of Two-Face came up to the public. Everything Bruce has done would be lost, people would lose hope. So they cover it up. It is a lie, but Bruce takes on the weight of it, taking the blame, becoming the villian, being hunted.

So at the beginning of Rises, we see a shattered man. He cannot continue being Batman. There is no need. The Dent Act sweep off the remains of the organized crime. If he would make an apparition as Batman for a minor thing, he would be hunted, bringing the police after him, and giving Gordon more pain to deal. (And this happens on Rises) There is no reason powerful enough to go on. As Bruce Wayne he has also lost so many. His project for giving the people of Gotham free clean energy has gone awry. Something that could potentially improve the quality of life of the Gothamites, and namely something he could do as a Wayne, has deemed to be potentially dangerous and is shut down, lossing a lot of money of his company in the way. He only awaits for death.

When Bane and the League of Shadows makes it's apparition, Bruce is mentally and physically broken. He needs to overcome pain and gain a new found respect for his own life. The film takes other points, like Blake being an embodiment for what Bruce idealized on Harvey Dent, albeit in a different manner. Inspiring the people to defend themselves, represented by Gotham's police. Changing Selina's views on the world. And finally, after there is no more to give, he has to make a choice.

So the movie shifts its focus. It's not about saving Gotham, we kinda know that Batman will save it. It's about Bruce saving himself. And because of the journey of this man (as stated somewhat briefly before), we want him to succeed.

Also worth nothing, we do not see Bruce being "happy go-lucky", we see a mature Bruce giving life another chance, a beginning of a new journey.

In my book, he earned this in spades.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lor3u3CqTY1qi88uuo1_400.gif

shauner111
01-25-2013, 02:33 PM
Let's see, just as an example, on The Dark Knight Returns it's implied that he quit because of the death of Jason Todd. That's a good enough reason to quit, someone that was under his care died, and he felt guilty about it. On Batman Beyond, in the first episode "Rebirth Part I" the reason was physical, he was unable to keep going due to old age. Now let's analyze the background of the Nolan Bat-Films. Bruce does not want to be Batman forever. The ambitions of Bruce are aimed a little higher, a little bigger. On Gotham things are different, it's a unique case in which corruption and crime runs rampant on the city, and the police can't do a thing to stop it, in fact it's part of the problem. The system is broken. A fascinating aspect is that Batman is born out of a need. This is taking directly from Frank Miller's Year One. If the police and the government did their job as they should, there would be no need for Batman.

So Bruce sets his aims on eradicating the root of the problem. It's not about common muggins and robberies. It's the root that causes this problem. In Begins is reflected in the form of Joe Chill. He is the byproduct of the actions of the organized crime and the corruption has done to the city. Creating poverty and hunger. This is also taking from a comic book, The Dark Knight Returns in the first part of the book, where Bruce comes to an understanding of Joe Chills actions and the murder of his parents. At the same time, he wants to inspire people, to shake them out of apathy, and become a symbol for Gotham. Restore the damage, taking Gotham from the hands of crime to their people. Restoring the police, as channeled by his alliance with Jim Gordon, and moving the powerful people into action.

This works in the form of Harvey Dent. This is a man that idealizes Bruce's ambitions, a person with a face that can do things right without resorting to Batman's tactics. He sees that he is almost accomplished what he has set up to do. At the beginning of The Dark Knight we see that things have improved, criminals are scared on the streets, the mob is cornered and people have hope. We also see the unexpected consequences of Bruce's actions too. At the same time Harvey Dent rose, The Joker made his move. We see good people like the Citizens for Batman trying to do good things in the wrong way too. On the other hand, Bruce has this inherent desire for being happy, in his mind to overcome pain and move one, idealized in Rachel Dawes. This is brought upon various interpretations of Batman. See Mask of the Phantasm, where Bruce considers giving up being Batman by the return of Andrea Beaumont.

And all of this fails. The Joker does his act: kills Rachel, breaks Harvey and attempts to gain the upper hand on Gotham's soul. All of Harvey's good deeds could go into the drain if the truth of Two-Face came up to the public. Everything Bruce has done would be lost, people would lose hope. So they cover it up. It is a lie, but Bruce takes on the weight of it, taking the blame, becoming the villian, being hunted.

So at the beginning of Rises, we see a shattered man. He cannot continue being Batman. There is no need. The Dent Act sweep off the remains of the organized crime. If he would make an apparition as Batman for a minor thing, he would be hunted, bringing the police after him, and giving Gordon more pain to deal. (And this happens on Rises) There is no reason powerful enough to go on. As Bruce Wayne he has also lost so many. His project for giving the people of Gotham free clean energy has gone awry. Something that could potentially improve the quality of life of the Gothamites, and namely something he could do as a Wayne, has deemed to be potentially dangerous and is shut down, lossing a lot of money of his company in the way. He only awaits for death.

When Bane and the League of Shadows makes it's apparition, Bruce is mentally and physically broken. He needs to overcome pain and gain a new found respect for his own life. The film takes other points, like Blake being an embodiment for what Bruce idealized on Harvey Dent, albeit in a different manner. Inspiring the people to defend themselves, represented by Gotham's police. Changing Selina's views on the world. And finally, after there is no more to give, he has to make a choice.

So the movie shifts its focus. It's not about saving Gotham, we kinda know that Batman will save it. It's about Bruce saving himself. And because of the journey of this man (as stated somewhat briefly before), we want him to succeed.

Also worth nothing, we do not see Bruce being "happy go-lucky", we see a mature Bruce giving life another chance, a beginning of a new journey.

In my book, he earned this in spades.:applaud

Tequilla
01-25-2013, 02:34 PM
Saying time continuity is irrelevant is really making it less important than it should be, imo.

I think looking at story-telling from a more classical , and very conservative point of view , you may be right. But in this sort of movie series , especially the way Nolan writes his stories and his structures , i dont necessarily agree. Im not talking about the kids. That's a huge blunder. Im talking about how time elapses in the movie , how he details his progress. Stuff happens without we knowing exactly the window of time. We have clues , but nothing definitive or substantial to the story. Because its unnecessary (maybe a better word than irrelevant )

Nolan did develop events in those time intervals, and he leaves enough clues for such events and to set things up. For example on TDKR , the choice of 8 years serves to get us to that moment of Bruce's life and the consequences of his acts. But there is also state what happened in that interval. Bruce heals physically (to an extent, remember the tremendous beating he took on the previous film), the truth of Harvey Dent being uncovered leads to him being hailed as a hero and Batman as a wanted criminal, the consequential Dent Act gives the police the tools to erradicate organized crime and renders Batman without a purpose. Bruce decides to put his mind on the energy project (attracting Miranda Tate's attention), later he finds out that the project is too dangerous, that failure is the last straw and recluses himself in the mansion. That information is shown to the viewer on the context of TDKR.

Same between Begins and TDK: Batman is taking down the mob with aid of Liutenant Gordon and hunting down the remaining Arkham inmates that were set free, also giving the remaining population the antidote for the fear toxin. The Joker begins his rise to power, Harvey Dent is elected district attorney, Bruce Wayne moves to the city. Batman's actions lead the mob to the breaking point. This is shown to the viewer on the context of TDK and elaborated more on the viral marketing.

There are other details that I like too, like the reconstruction of the monorail.

Yes , but you said it right . We know time passed and what happened. But we specifically dont know when it happened. Only the Miranda dialogue clearly tells us something more precise (the importance being differentiating Batman's disappearing and Bruce's exile) . But that's just the way these movies treat time. Its very elastic. That's why there's always doubts concerning the time that elapsed. Nothing that wouldn't be easy to put in the movie. But he his purposefully diffuse.

Tequilla
01-25-2013, 02:36 PM
Batman has quit before but not for a stupid reason like they described and for 8 years. That's absurd. He is rewarded for doing nothing for 8 years by getting a happy ending. No I don't like it. If he was proactive and still being Batman I might be a little more accepting to him having a happy ending. But he didn't really deserve one. Now, real Batman also should and would not accept a happy ending. That's part of why people love him. He refuses to take the easy route. He would rather die helping as much as he can.

Real Batman ?

Are you the real Batman ?

Anno_Domini
01-25-2013, 03:09 PM
Batman has quit before but not for a stupid reason like they described and for 8 years. That's absurd. He is rewarded for doing nothing for 8 years by getting a happy ending. No I don't like it. If he was proactive and still being Batman I might be a little more accepting to him having a happy ending. But he didn't really deserve one. Now, real Batman also should and would not accept a happy ending. That's part of why people love him. He refuses to take the easy route. He would rather die helping as much as he can.

Stupid reason? Such as....not letting Joker have his "win" by keeping the good and clean name of Harvey Dent without letting Gotham lose its hope? Alas, it happened anyways, but at least organized crime was already taken out of the situation by then and something else was dirtying up Gotham at that time with the LoS.

And he wasn't awarded a happy ending for nothing. He returned, finally gave Gotham the "face" that inspired hope and a symbol that is everlasting even if Bruce Wayne is no longer Batman. The definitely warrants a happy ending.

And one last thing...look at The Dark Knight when saying how Batman doesn't take the easy route. He sacrificed, literally, his own life as Batman to keep Dent's name clean. That's a sacrifice Batman will do, so I still don't see how unreal Nolan's Batman is. I don't think you do either to be perfectly honest.

If Batman never retired and was on top of his game the league would have never even been able to sneak in an atom bomb and infiltrate gotham.

Me thinks you didn't pay attention to TDKR if you thought they snuck in an atom bomb to Gotham.

Let's see, just as an example, on The Dark Knight Returns it's implied that he quit because of the death of Jason Todd. That's a good enough reason to quit, someone that was under his care died, and he felt guilty about it. On Batman Beyond, in the first episode "Rebirth Part I" the reason was physical, he was unable to keep going due to old age. Now let's analyze the background of the Nolan Bat-Films. Bruce does not want to be Batman forever. The ambitions of Bruce are aimed a little higher, a little bigger. On Gotham things are different, it's a unique case in which corruption and crime runs rampant on the city, and the police can't do a thing to stop it, in fact it's part of the problem. The system is broken. A fascinating aspect is that Batman is born out of a need. This is taking directly from Frank Miller's Year One. If the police and the government did their job as they should, there would be no need for Batman.

So Bruce sets his aims on eradicating the root of the problem. It's not about common muggins and robberies. It's the root that causes this problem. In Begins is reflected in the form of Joe Chill. He is the byproduct of the actions of the organized crime and the corruption has done to the city. Creating poverty and hunger. This is also taking from a comic book, The Dark Knight Returns in the first part of the book, where Bruce comes to an understanding of Joe Chills actions and the murder of his parents. At the same time, he wants to inspire people, to shake them out of apathy, and become a symbol for Gotham. Restore the damage, taking Gotham from the hands of crime to their people. Restoring the police, as channeled by his alliance with Jim Gordon, and moving the powerful people into action.

This works in the form of Harvey Dent. This is a man that idealizes Bruce's ambitions, a person with a face that can do things right without resorting to Batman's tactics. He sees that he is almost accomplished what he has set up to do. At the beginning of The Dark Knight we see that things have improved, criminals are scared on the streets, the mob is cornered and people have hope. We also see the unexpected consequences of Bruce's actions too. At the same time Harvey Dent rose, The Joker made his move. We see good people like the Citizens for Batman trying to do good things in the wrong way too. On the other hand, Bruce has this inherent desire for being happy, in his mind to overcome pain and move one, idealized in Rachel Dawes. This is brought upon various interpretations of Batman. See Mask of the Phantasm, where Bruce considers giving up being Batman by the return of Andrea Beaumont.

And all of this fails. The Joker does his act: kills Rachel, breaks Harvey and attempts to gain the upper hand on Gotham's soul. All of Harvey's good deeds could go into the drain if the truth of Two-Face came up to the public. Everything Bruce has done would be lost, people would lose hope. So they cover it up. It is a lie, but Bruce takes on the weight of it, taking the blame, becoming the villian, being hunted.

So at the beginning of Rises, we see a shattered man. He cannot continue being Batman. There is no need. The Dent Act sweep off the remains of the organized crime. If he would make an apparition as Batman for a minor thing, he would be hunted, bringing the police after him, and giving Gordon more pain to deal. (And this happens on Rises) There is no reason powerful enough to go on. As Bruce Wayne he has also lost so many. His project for giving the people of Gotham free clean energy has gone awry. Something that could potentially improve the quality of life of the Gothamites, and namely something he could do as a Wayne, has deemed to be potentially dangerous and is shut down, lossing a lot of money of his company in the way. He only awaits for death.

When Bane and the League of Shadows makes it's apparition, Bruce is mentally and physically broken. He needs to overcome pain and gain a new found respect for his own life. The film takes other points, like Blake being an embodiment for what Bruce idealized on Harvey Dent, albeit in a different manner. Inspiring the people to defend themselves, represented by Gotham's police. Changing Selina's views on the world. And finally, after there is no more to give, he has to make a choice.

So the movie shifts its focus. It's not about saving Gotham, we kinda know that Batman will save it. It's about Bruce saving himself. And because of the journey of this man (as stated somewhat briefly before), we want him to succeed.

Also worth nothing, we do not see Bruce being "happy go-lucky", we see a mature Bruce giving life another chance, a beginning of a new journey.

In my book, he earned this in spades.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md3oqqBcZX1rpwmly.gif

MeenieWK
01-25-2013, 03:44 PM
Blue lightning... Seriously


Wicked.. Wicked RAD post

Well done, respec'

And I might I add... Anyone nitpicking about TDkR without paying proper attention should read that post... There endeth the lesson.

FeedOnATreeFrog
01-25-2013, 04:00 PM
I'd also add that Bruce was not only paralyzed by his inability to be Batman, and the failure of his energy project, but also by not letting himself find love, as he made Rachel his 'one chance for a normal life'. He had no purpose in any aspect of his life, thus leading him to become a recluse, waiting for things to wrong again, to give him a sense of purpose.

(and note that all 3 aspects that shut Bruce down are based on lies. The lie of Harvey Dent, the lie that his energy project failed, and the lie that Rachel chose Bruce)

By the end, the truth had surfaced, painful as it was, but necessary, and Bruce was able to give the city its true symbol of hope and bring it out of apathy (and a protector in case things go wrong again), he succeed in "Bruce Wayne's" philanthropic efforts with the boys' home, and was able to let himself find love again (first with Miranda, and then with Selina, when Talia lay a bombshell on him that could have had him regress, had it not been the quick arrival and reminder of others like Selina).

The Guard
01-25-2013, 04:02 PM
I'd also add that Bruce was not only paralyzed by his inability to be Batman, and the failure of his energy project, but by having no personal life, as he made Rachel his 'one chance for a normal life'. He had no purpose in any aspect of his life

Boy, when you put it like that...

Really sounds like a horrible, shallow and boring portrayal of Bruce Wayne.

FeedOnATreeFrog
01-25-2013, 04:20 PM
Boy, when you put it like that...

Really sounds like a horrible, shallow and boring portrayal of Bruce Wayne.

Well Alfred's (and Fox's) efforts to have Bruce find love (be it with Miranda, Selina, or a Chimpanzee) suggest that it was the thing that could have brought him out of his depression. (seeing as his philanthropic efforts failed and that he wouldn't let himself put on the cowl)

Anno_Domini
01-25-2013, 04:27 PM
Boy, when you put it like that...

Really sounds like a horrible, shallow and boring portrayal of Bruce Wayne.

Doesn't sound horrible, shallow or boring. Bruce has no actual family and the only woman he claimed to have loved is dead. Having nothing is not a bad portrayal because he does have nothing and especially in the moment of TDKR where he has even more of nothing.

the last son
01-25-2013, 04:28 PM
They didn't sneak the atom bomb. The atom bomb was always there. It was Bruce's energy source for Gotham.

I'm saying if Bruce was Batman and never retired he would have been able to know there was something suspicious about Tate and her intentions?

BlueLightning
01-25-2013, 04:44 PM
Well, Bruce Wayne was never a people's person. Not in the traditional sense at least. With all the facade that he made as a "playboy millionaire" I don't think he would open to more established relationships in a broad sense. On the films he states "I don't have the luxury of friends."

The way I think of Rachel is that she represented an ideal of moving on. Even though Rachel clearly didn't feel the same way. That's where most criticism for the relationship is found in TDK. The truth is, there wasn't a romantic relationship. Bruce wanted it to be, but Rachel whereas Rachel toyed with the idea once, she found in Harvey what she thought Bruce could never give to her. But more importantly, they were still friends. They were close, and he lost her arguably because of his actions.

Besides, I see it more of a nod to The Dark Knight Returns, where Alfred continuously teases Bruce about his personal life. In my opinion it was better done on Rises.

But as stated before, there are multiple factors at play here. It's more that the sum of all the parts.

BlueLightning
01-25-2013, 04:48 PM
I'm saying if Bruce was Batman and never retired he would have been able to know there was something suspicious about Tate and her intentions?

But she was lovely! :woot:

BatLobsterRises
01-25-2013, 08:46 PM
Doesn't sound horrible, shallow or boring. Bruce has no actual family and the only woman he claimed to have loved is dead. Having nothing is not a bad portrayal because he does have nothing and especially in the moment of TDKR where he has even more of nothing.

Exactly. I thought it was totally in keeping with the Bruce Wayne character to not let go of something that way.

Bruce is a very rigid guy who never lets go of anything. His father's dying words were to not be afraid, and he obviously to that straight to heart. He was still holding onto and honoring the idea that he'd have a normal life with Rachel if Gotham ever didn't need Batman. So when Gotham finally doesn't need Batman, but his "after Batman" plans are no longer an option, Bruce falls into this limbo where he kind of ceases to exist without a purpose. Things didn't go according to his grand plan, and he's too stubborn and broken to find happiness. He lost the will to live.

I think it's beautifully tragic, which makes it all the more inspirational that Bruce is able to overcome all of that.



(and note that all 3 aspects that shut Bruce down are based on lies. The lie of Harvey Dent, the lie that his energy project failed, and the lie that Rachel chose Bruce)

By the end, the truth had surfaced, painful as it was, but necessary, and Bruce was able to give the city its true symbol of hope and bring it out of apathy (and a protector in case things go wrong again), he succeed in "Bruce Wayne's" philanthropic efforts with the boys' home, and was able to let himself find love again (first with Miranda, and then with Selina, when Talia lay a bombshell on him that could have had him regress, had it not been the quick arrival and reminder of others like Selina).

That's an awesome angle to look at it from, the fact that everything that broke him down was based on a lie.

He really ascended from darkness into light in this movie, in every way.

Anno_Domini
01-25-2013, 09:07 PM
I'm saying if Bruce was Batman and never retired he would have been able to know there was something suspicious about Tate and her intentions?

Because being Batman all of a sudden made Bruce smarter?

TheGuy
01-25-2013, 10:07 PM
Let's see, just as an example, on The Dark Knight Returns it's implied that he quit because of the death of Jason Todd. That's a good enough reason to quit, someone that was under his care died, and he felt guilty about it. On Batman Beyond, in the first episode "Rebirth Part I" the reason was physical, he was unable to keep going due to old age. Now let's analyze the background of the Nolan Bat-Films. Bruce does not want to be Batman forever. The ambitions of Bruce are aimed a little higher, a little bigger. On Gotham things are different, it's a unique case in which corruption and crime runs rampant on the city, and the police can't do a thing to stop it, in fact it's part of the problem. The system is broken. A fascinating aspect is that Batman is born out of a need. This is taking directly from Frank Miller's Year One. If the police and the government did their job as they should, there would be no need for Batman.

So Bruce sets his aims on eradicating the root of the problem. It's not about common muggins and robberies. It's the root that causes this problem. In Begins is reflected in the form of Joe Chill. He is the byproduct of the actions of the organized crime and the corruption has done to the city. Creating poverty and hunger. This is also taking from a comic book, The Dark Knight Returns in the first part of the book, where Bruce comes to an understanding of Joe Chills actions and the murder of his parents. At the same time, he wants to inspire people, to shake them out of apathy, and become a symbol for Gotham. Restore the damage, taking Gotham from the hands of crime to their people. Restoring the police, as channeled by his alliance with Jim Gordon, and moving the powerful people into action.

This works in the form of Harvey Dent. This is a man that idealizes Bruce's ambitions, a person with a face that can do things right without resorting to Batman's tactics. He sees that he is almost accomplished what he has set up to do. At the beginning of The Dark Knight we see that things have improved, criminals are scared on the streets, the mob is cornered and people have hope. We also see the unexpected consequences of Bruce's actions too. At the same time Harvey Dent rose, The Joker made his move. We see good people like the Citizens for Batman trying to do good things in the wrong way too. On the other hand, Bruce has this inherent desire for being happy, in his mind to overcome pain and move one, idealized in Rachel Dawes. This is brought upon various interpretations of Batman. See Mask of the Phantasm, where Bruce considers giving up being Batman by the return of Andrea Beaumont.

And all of this fails. The Joker does his act: kills Rachel, breaks Harvey and attempts to gain the upper hand on Gotham's soul. All of Harvey's good deeds could go into the drain if the truth of Two-Face came up to the public. Everything Bruce has done would be lost, people would lose hope. So they cover it up. It is a lie, but Bruce takes on the weight of it, taking the blame, becoming the villian, being hunted.

So at the beginning of Rises, we see a shattered man. He cannot continue being Batman. There is no need. The Dent Act sweep off the remains of the organized crime. If he would make an apparition as Batman for a minor thing, he would be hunted, bringing the police after him, and giving Gordon more pain to deal. (And this happens on Rises) There is no reason powerful enough to go on. As Bruce Wayne he has also lost so many. His project for giving the people of Gotham free clean energy has gone awry. Something that could potentially improve the quality of life of the Gothamites, and namely something he could do as a Wayne, has deemed to be potentially dangerous and is shut down, lossing a lot of money of his company in the way. He only awaits for death.

When Bane and the League of Shadows makes it's apparition, Bruce is mentally and physically broken. He needs to overcome pain and gain a new found respect for his own life. The film takes other points, like Blake being an embodiment for what Bruce idealized on Harvey Dent, albeit in a different manner. Inspiring the people to defend themselves, represented by Gotham's police. Changing Selina's views on the world. And finally, after there is no more to give, he has to make a choice.

So the movie shifts its focus. It's not about saving Gotham, we kinda know that Batman will save it. It's about Bruce saving himself. And because of the journey of this man (as stated somewhat briefly before), we want him to succeed.

Also worth nothing, we do not see Bruce being "happy go-lucky", we see a mature Bruce giving life another chance, a beginning of a new journey.

In my book, he earned this in spades.
Holy cow! Such an epic post.

RustyCage
01-26-2013, 08:20 AM
Let's see, just as an example, on The Dark Knight Returns it's implied that he quit because of the death of Jason Todd. That's a good enough reason to quit, someone that was under his care died, and he felt guilty about it. On Batman Beyond, in the first episode "Rebirth Part I" the reason was physical, he was unable to keep going due to old age. Now let's analyze the background of the Nolan Bat-Films. Bruce does not want to be Batman forever. The ambitions of Bruce are aimed a little higher, a little bigger. On Gotham things are different, it's a unique case in which corruption and crime runs rampant on the city, and the police can't do a thing to stop it, in fact it's part of the problem. The system is broken. A fascinating aspect is that Batman is born out of a need. This is taking directly from Frank Miller's Year One. If the police and the government did their job as they should, there would be no need for Batman.

So Bruce sets his aims on eradicating the root of the problem. It's not about common muggins and robberies. It's the root that causes this problem. In Begins is reflected in the form of Joe Chill. He is the byproduct of the actions of the organized crime and the corruption has done to the city. Creating poverty and hunger. This is also taking from a comic book, The Dark Knight Returns in the first part of the book, where Bruce comes to an understanding of Joe Chills actions and the murder of his parents. At the same time, he wants to inspire people, to shake them out of apathy, and become a symbol for Gotham. Restore the damage, taking Gotham from the hands of crime to their people. Restoring the police, as channeled by his alliance with Jim Gordon, and moving the powerful people into action.

This works in the form of Harvey Dent. This is a man that idealizes Bruce's ambitions, a person with a face that can do things right without resorting to Batman's tactics. He sees that he is almost accomplished what he has set up to do. At the beginning of The Dark Knight we see that things have improved, criminals are scared on the streets, the mob is cornered and people have hope. We also see the unexpected consequences of Bruce's actions too. At the same time Harvey Dent rose, The Joker made his move. We see good people like the Citizens for Batman trying to do good things in the wrong way too. On the other hand, Bruce has this inherent desire for being happy, in his mind to overcome pain and move one, idealized in Rachel Dawes. This is brought upon various interpretations of Batman. See Mask of the Phantasm, where Bruce considers giving up being Batman by the return of Andrea Beaumont.

And all of this fails. The Joker does his act: kills Rachel, breaks Harvey and attempts to gain the upper hand on Gotham's soul. All of Harvey's good deeds could go into the drain if the truth of Two-Face came up to the public. Everything Bruce has done would be lost, people would lose hope. So they cover it up. It is a lie, but Bruce takes on the weight of it, taking the blame, becoming the villian, being hunted.

So at the beginning of Rises, we see a shattered man. He cannot continue being Batman. There is no need. The Dent Act sweep off the remains of the organized crime. If he would make an apparition as Batman for a minor thing, he would be hunted, bringing the police after him, and giving Gordon more pain to deal. (And this happens on Rises) There is no reason powerful enough to go on. As Bruce Wayne he has also lost so many. His project for giving the people of Gotham free clean energy has gone awry. Something that could potentially improve the quality of life of the Gothamites, and namely something he could do as a Wayne, has deemed to be potentially dangerous and is shut down, lossing a lot of money of his company in the way. He only awaits for death.

When Bane and the League of Shadows makes it's apparition, Bruce is mentally and physically broken. He needs to overcome pain and gain a new found respect for his own life. The film takes other points, like Blake being an embodiment for what Bruce idealized on Harvey Dent, albeit in a different manner. Inspiring the people to defend themselves, represented by Gotham's police. Changing Selina's views on the world. And finally, after there is no more to give, he has to make a choice.

So the movie shifts its focus. It's not about saving Gotham, we kinda know that Batman will save it. It's about Bruce saving himself. And because of the journey of this man (as stated somewhat briefly before), we want him to succeed.

Also worth nothing, we do not see Bruce being "happy go-lucky", we see a mature Bruce giving life another chance, a beginning of a new journey.

In my book, he earned this in spades.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lz1c6scqO01qfeaoyo1_500.gif

Standing ovation for Mr. Lightning, please.

the last son
01-26-2013, 08:39 AM
Because being Batman all of a sudden made Bruce smarter?

If you don't think being batman made him smarter there is nothing else to discuss

Anno_Domini
01-26-2013, 11:11 AM
If you don't think being batman made him smarter there is nothing else to discuss

So you can't give me a reply. Predictable.

MarvelFan
05-07-2013, 09:44 PM
The Joker doesn't say "before Batman". He just says, "Lets wind the clocks back a year, these cops and lawyers wouldn't dare cross any of you." That scene isn't necessarily within a year of Batman emerging. It is just within a year of the mob losing control.

Also ... Falcone was the kingpin during Begins. Those mobsters emerged after Falcone, and it would've taken them some time to regain control -- and then a year passed since they lost control to Batman/Dent.

I think its about three years between BB and TDK. If its only a few months ... Gordon's kid aged awful fast.

KBZ
Yeah your right, and I saw an article saying that Gordon had a newborn son in Begins and he was, like, 10 in TDK. And they even had a daughter, Babara of course.

Thoix
05-08-2013, 10:51 AM
Let's see, just as an example, on The Dark Knight Returns it's implied that he quit because of the death of Jason Todd. That's a good enough reason to quit, someone that was under his care died, and he felt guilty about it. On Batman Beyond, in the first episode "Rebirth Part I" the reason was physical, he was unable to keep going due to old age. Now let's analyze the background of the Nolan Bat-Films. Bruce does not want to be Batman forever. The ambitions of Bruce are aimed a little higher, a little bigger. On Gotham things are different, it's a unique case in which corruption and crime runs rampant on the city, and the police can't do a thing to stop it, in fact it's part of the problem. The system is broken. A fascinating aspect is that Batman is born out of a need. This is taking directly from Frank Miller's Year One. If the police and the government did their job as they should, there would be no need for Batman.

So Bruce sets his aims on eradicating the root of the problem. It's not about common muggins and robberies. It's the root that causes this problem. In Begins is reflected in the form of Joe Chill. He is the byproduct of the actions of the organized crime and the corruption has done to the city. Creating poverty and hunger. This is also taking from a comic book, The Dark Knight Returns in the first part of the book, where Bruce comes to an understanding of Joe Chills actions and the murder of his parents. At the same time, he wants to inspire people, to shake them out of apathy, and become a symbol for Gotham. Restore the damage, taking Gotham from the hands of crime to their people. Restoring the police, as channeled by his alliance with Jim Gordon, and moving the powerful people into action.

This works in the form of Harvey Dent. This is a man that idealizes Bruce's ambitions, a person with a face that can do things right without resorting to Batman's tactics. He sees that he is almost accomplished what he has set up to do. At the beginning of The Dark Knight we see that things have improved, criminals are scared on the streets, the mob is cornered and people have hope. We also see the unexpected consequences of Bruce's actions too. At the same time Harvey Dent rose, The Joker made his move. We see good people like the Citizens for Batman trying to do good things in the wrong way too. On the other hand, Bruce has this inherent desire for being happy, in his mind to overcome pain and move one, idealized in Rachel Dawes. This is brought upon various interpretations of Batman. See Mask of the Phantasm, where Bruce considers giving up being Batman by the return of Andrea Beaumont.

And all of this fails. The Joker does his act: kills Rachel, breaks Harvey and attempts to gain the upper hand on Gotham's soul. All of Harvey's good deeds could go into the drain if the truth of Two-Face came up to the public. Everything Bruce has done would be lost, people would lose hope. So they cover it up. It is a lie, but Bruce takes on the weight of it, taking the blame, becoming the villian, being hunted.

So at the beginning of Rises, we see a shattered man. He cannot continue being Batman. There is no need. The Dent Act sweep off the remains of the organized crime. If he would make an apparition as Batman for a minor thing, he would be hunted, bringing the police after him, and giving Gordon more pain to deal. (And this happens on Rises) There is no reason powerful enough to go on. As Bruce Wayne he has also lost so many. His project for giving the people of Gotham free clean energy has gone awry. Something that could potentially improve the quality of life of the Gothamites, and namely something he could do as a Wayne, has deemed to be potentially dangerous and is shut down, lossing a lot of money of his company in the way. He only awaits for death.

When Bane and the League of Shadows makes it's apparition, Bruce is mentally and physically broken. He needs to overcome pain and gain a new found respect for his own life. The film takes other points, like Blake being an embodiment for what Bruce idealized on Harvey Dent, albeit in a different manner. Inspiring the people to defend themselves, represented by Gotham's police. Changing Selina's views on the world. And finally, after there is no more to give, he has to make a choice.

So the movie shifts its focus. It's not about saving Gotham, we kinda know that Batman will save it. It's about Bruce saving himself. And because of the journey of this man (as stated somewhat briefly before), we want him to succeed.

Also worth nothing, we do not see Bruce being "happy go-lucky", we see a mature Bruce giving life another chance, a beginning of a new journey.

In my book, he earned this in spades.
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w192/kenny90_bucket/gif-picard-clapping.gif

BlueLightning
05-09-2013, 08:25 PM
Wow! Back from the depths. :-)
I'm glad you liked it.

TheXtremisT
05-23-2013, 01:33 PM
I've seen a lot of contradicting stuff.

I assumed it was a year, but not much more.

I always figured it was a year, but the general consensus is TDK happened 8 months after Begins.

Courtesy of Umair Dar on the facebook fan page:

2003 - Bruce Wayne returns to Gotham City, has his first night out, begins prowling as the Batman.

2003 - Jimmy is a two year-old infant when Batman visits Gordon at home.

2005 - Batman defeats Ra's Al Ghul on the train. Remember this is on the SAME NIGHT that he has his 30th birthday party.

2005 - 2008 - Offscreen, Batman wages war on crime, working his way up to the big fish of the mob. Assuming this is true conveniently explains several things:

- (1) Like SnakeDoc suggests, it is not until a year before TDK that he is finally having an impact that is really hurting them and making them take notice.

- (2) All during this time, while Batman is building his reputation, Joker commits random crimes and builds up his own legend among criminals. This is where we get the "So why do they call him the Joker?" "I heard he wears makeup..to scare people...y'know, war paint" lines. It makes sense that it takes a while to build up that kind of rumormill/reputation. It also explains the "Two-bit wack job, cheap purple suit" line from Maroni and the "Him again" line from Batman. Joker wasn't wearing the purple suit during the bank robbery, so Maroni must have seen/heard of him before. Like Batman, dispite his crimes, he views him as just a minor nuisance to be dealth with later.

- (3) Guestimating this three-year gap between the films also neatly explains the line in The Dark Knight Manual that he was wearing the Original Suit for 5 years---he was---from 2003 to 2008.

- (4) Finally, this 3 year gap ages little Jimmy almost perfectly. If he is two years-old in 2003, then he is seven in 2008. It doesn't take much stretching in either direction to make him an 8 year-old, or to even just assume he is supposed to be seven in that film.

The Dark Knight Rises is eight years later.

2016 Now I know the Gotham Civil War poster contradicts this, with the date of the exhibit ending in 2014. But this is the only really hard-set date we know of (as of now anyway), and it's not really clear if it even appears noticeably on-screen or if a hard-set date of 2014 appears in the final film on screen, so I'm willing to overlook it. Also, I realize this is just an excuse, but that poster could be an "old" ad that was never taken down, or pasted over with something else newer that is peeling off. It certainly doesn't look like it's supposed to be in new condition. Just sayin'.

Working backward from the above dates, we can make the milestones in Bruce's life fit too.

2003 - Bruce Wayne returns to Gotham. Based on the above that he turns 30 in 2005, he turns 28 in 2003. Since we know he was away for seven years, he dropped out of Princeton at 21 (or 20, depending on his birthday) as an undergrad in his senior year, just shy of graduation.

Working farther back and using the casefile of the Wayne murders in The Dark Knight Manual

November 8, 1983 - The Waynes are gunned down. Bruce is 10 or 11 years old (again, depending on his birthday)

1972 or 1973 - Bruce Wayne is born.

Sounds a bit far-fetched to ve drawn out that long.
There is NO way the events of Begins from where Bruce returns to Gotham and becomes Batman, and when he fights Ra's is 2 years. It sounds ridiculous, I can believe from when he returns from Asia to Gotham, and the end of the film, is a few months (5+ I'd say).

And with regards to little Jimmy, I always thought he had 2 or more? children, and Jimmy was not the baby in Begins.
You really think the Joker could be at large for 3 years before Batman ever came into contact with him? (Given the scene where Gordon tells Batman about it, and the first meeting at Bruce's penthouse). It was probably more than 8 months like others have said.
Even the Joker says in TDK "Let's wind the clocks back a year. These cops and lawyers wouldn't dare cross any of you. I mean, what happened? Did your balls drop off? Hmm? You see, a guy like me...".
So Batman was probably at work for a around a year after Begins, bringing the mob down.

The events of DKR are supposed to be in 2014? Or something.
Which gives:
2014 DKR
2006 Last confirmed sighting of the Batman after Dent's murder
2005 Batman first appearance, Bruce becomes 30
2004(or early 2005) Bruce Wayne returns to Gotham
1997 Joe Chill's murder, Wayne travels and trains with the League (22 years old)
1985 (Presuming he is 10 by the time his parents are killed)
1975 Wayne is born

Or if you go by the other theory that because TDK and Begins are ~2007-8, then DKR is 2016, and that would mean Bruce was born in 1977.

batfreakforever
05-23-2013, 07:31 PM
I always figured it was a year, but the general consensus is TDK happened 8 months after Begins.



Sounds a bit far-fetched to ve drawn out that long.
There is NO way the events of Begins from where Bruce returns to Gotham and becomes Batman, and when he fights Ra's is 2 years. It sounds ridiculous, I can believe from when he returns from Asia to Gotham, and the end of the film, is a few months (5+ I'd say).

And with regards to little Jimmy, I always thought he had 2 or more? children, and Jimmy was not the baby in Begins.
You really think the Joker could be at large for 3 years before Batman ever came into contact with him? (Given the scene where Gordon tells Batman about it, and the first meeting at Bruce's penthouse). It was probably more than 8 months like others have said.
Even the Joker says in TDK "Let's wind the clocks back a year. These cops and lawyers wouldn't dare cross any of you. I mean, what happened? Did your balls drop off? Hmm? You see, a guy like me...".
So Batman was probably at work for a around a year after Begins, bringing the mob down.

The events of DKR are supposed to be in 2014? Or something.
Which gives:
2014 DKR
2006 Last confirmed sighting of the Batman after Dent's murder
2005 Batman first appearance, Bruce becomes 30
2004(or early 2005) Bruce Wayne returns to Gotham
1997 Joe Chill's murder, Wayne travels and trains with the League (22 years old)
1985 (Presuming he is 10 by the time his parents are killed)
1975 Wayne is born

Or if you go by the other theory that because TDK and Begins are ~2007-8, then DKR is 2016, and that would mean Bruce was born in 1977.
I just go by what has been offically been put out, either in the dark knight manual, the making of books or the novels etc. If it says he was Batman in the BB suit for 5 years then I go with that. Then I try and line that up with events/comments made in the films. If it makes sense to yourself then that's all that counts yeah.

ShadowBoxer
05-23-2013, 10:54 PM
Well Bruce was only Batman for like a year and a half before disappearing for 8 years. BB was year 1 and DK took place the following year. I know seemed longer but he really wasn't Batman for that long and his body was that damaged by the events of Rises is weird. I know his knee got injured by the fall in DK, which they really should have mentioned IN RISES..... Some people were asking about that when I left rises for the first time in theaters and people had to piece it together or have others explain it.

Anno_Domini
05-23-2013, 11:00 PM
Why would you ever go by the idea that Batman was in the BB suit for five years when The Dark Knight obviously contradicts that idea?

2014 DKR
2006 Last confirmed sighting of the Batman after Dent's murder
2005 Batman first appearance, Bruce becomes 30
2004(or early 2005) Bruce Wayne returns to Gotham
1997 Joe Chill's murder, Wayne travels and trains with the League (22 years old)
1985 (Presuming he is 10 by the time his parents are killed)
1975 Wayne is born

Or if you go by the other theory that because TDK and Begins are ~2007-8, then DKR is 2016, and that would mean Bruce was born in 1977.

This is the most logical timeline except for a few alterations:

Bruce Wayne should be eight when his parents died, so that makes it 1983 when Thomas and Martha Wayne are murdered. And also, while TDKR begins in 2014, it's fairly safe to say the ending of TDKR is in 2015 because we need to skip five months(plus another month since the technicians said Bruce fixed the auto pilot six months ago) for when the siege begins, and it should begin around the time football season since there is a football game(September, or perhaps early October).

TheXtremisT
05-24-2013, 07:06 AM
^^^

Sounds good to me Anno.
I agree it must break into 2015 by the end.
I think, but am not sure, that Dent day (Start of DKR, and end of DK), is in August sometime. I'm pretty sure it is either mentioned/shown somehow in DKR or I read it.
So if we think that the return of Batman is ~ September or maybe shortly after to coincide with when Bane really gets his plans into action August/Sep: Bruce gets his back broken, the Bomb is armed, 5 months later it blows up around February 2015??

Anno_Domini
05-24-2013, 01:45 PM
I think August, or at least early September sounds about right...five months later is February and then a month later since the technicians said Bruce fixed the auto pilot six months later...TDKR ends in March, either in 2015, or 2017 if you go by the route of TDK being in 2008.

shauner111
05-24-2013, 02:58 PM
TDK is the summer of 2008. TDKR begins in the summer (August-ish?) of 2016. The end of TDKR battle is in January or February of 2017. Alfred sees Bruce at the end, probably in the spring of that year.

Anno_Domini
05-24-2013, 08:37 PM
That's if you want to believe TDK is in 2008, which is totally fine and reasonable. I would beg to differ, but I can totally understand why someone would place TDK in 2008, thus TDKR beginning in 2016 and ending in 2017 :up:

Snow Queen
05-24-2013, 08:46 PM
^Just wondering, why do you say that TDK was in 2005? Not going to debate you on it but I'm just wondering if there was something I missed.

I put TDK in 2008 based on the security photo that Gordon shows Batman of the Joker when in the vault saying that it was taken on July 18, 2008.

Anno_Domini
05-24-2013, 09:19 PM
I'm not saying The Dark Knight is set in 2005, I'm saying Batman Begins could very well take place in 2005, the year it was released. In that case, TDK could be in 2006.

The security photo may indeed say 2008, but I never really take any "evidence/security/ID" photo in mind simply because they always do seem to mess up any kind of continuity, whether it be TDK, or Supernatural, Person of Interest, 24, etc.

TheJediBrah
05-24-2013, 10:18 PM
That's a really good question. I never thought of that.
He was only batmanning for a few years . . . weird

Just_Human
05-25-2013, 03:58 AM
Well they cleaned up the streets pretty good

Its not like Batman was going to go after overdue library books

Snow Queen
05-25-2013, 04:03 AM
Well they cleaned up the streets pretty good

Its not like Batman was going to go after overdue library books

http://www.haverford.edu/library/special/exhibitions/online_exhibitions/fewbooks/images/batman_librarian.jpg
He used them to crack the case.

Just_Human
05-25-2013, 04:32 AM
http://www.haverford.edu/library/special/exhibitions/online_exhibitions/fewbooks/images/batman_librarian.jpg
He used them to crack the case.

you beat me to it

I was going to post that pic

FeedOnATreeFrog
05-25-2013, 04:40 AM
he could have only gone out a handful of times for all I care.

In this real-world universe, nobody's ever done anything as crazy as this, and the fact that he's even doing it is the biggest deal in the world.

Art Damage
05-25-2013, 11:50 AM
Not long enough...