Originally Posted by TheBat812
Desarana, I certainly wouldn't have been against trying to include it, there is a way they could have made it work, but I can see why they didn't, and I personally just don't think it was needed. If I hadn't care about Gotham at all, it would be a different story, but they made me care about Gotham over the course of the entire trilogy. They made me care, as Bruce cares, about the fate of Gotham, and I don't need to see the citizens reacting to things to make me care about them. Overall, they correctly chose to sacrifice those kinds of shots in this film to provide us with more direct characters who represent them. To me it was never an issue because as Anita pointed out, it's just not at the core of what the film is about.
But one of the main points at the end of the film was that Gotham will always need a Batman however we don't even know if Gotham had taken back this Batman. IMO it was vital that we saw Gotham change it's opinion of Batman in this film. Bruce rised but The Dark Knight didn't as far as I'm concerned (I'm aware that sounds cheesy
) based on what we see, which in the end is all that really matters, I could say that Gotham has the exact same viewpoint in the beginning than it does in the end. In BB and TDK we had people going from "you can't take the law in to your own hands" to "at least he's geting something done" to the city accepting him to people dressing up as him to maybe Gotham may need him forever to "look at how crazy Batman made Gotham" to "he should turn himself in" to a masked criminal outlaw. I can assume they accepted him with the statue but that doesn't mean the people did and we definitely didn't see it.
In TDKR I just can't shake the feeling that the city doesn't give a toss about Batman at all.
I think Batman's redemption and Bruce moving on should have been the two big big points of the film. I can see why this wouldn't bother people and when watching them back to back it probably doesn't stick out but on reflection to me it really does.