Originally Posted by Raiden
And I still think that Talia was literally clueless at the end, when she was being chased by Batman inside his Batwing. Why is it that she did not have the detonator in her hand as the contingency plan, anyway? There was no way for her to get out of Gotham in time, so she could've blew everything sky high, instead of crashing the van and gave Batman all the time he needed (under 5 minute) to airlift that bomb out of Gotham and still live to tour the world with Selina. The whole ending just irks me because when you really think about it, the plan was executed poorly by criminals that were supposed to be smarter than everyone and always be one step ahead.
She DID have the detonator in her hand - it's just that Gordon was guarding the bomb in the back with the EMP thingie blocking the signal. The only way for her to blow up the city then was either wait for it to blow up (and hold off Batman trying to stop her, which we see her try to do), or go into the back to remove the EMP thingie so the detonator would work. And remember, Gordon is still there, and he probably still has a gun.
She could try to still pretend to be Tate when she gets in the back, but once she removes the EMP thingie, the jig would be up. He definitely trusts Batman more than Tate, especially when he finds the first bomb truck (the one she helped mark) to be empty.
Originally Posted by Deserana
Bane wanted the people to take back their city. I'll buy that. Infact I love it in theory. But you have to show it. As that honest trailer showed there was no one. As in NO ONE. You saw no one turn to Bane, no one turn to Batman, no one rebel, no one do anything. Hiding in their houses is a lame excuse IMO as that would either A) make Bane's plan fail as the citizens do nothing or B) make Bruce's symbol fail as the people clearly haven't been inspired to do anything. I'm leaning toward B even more so as the people now know that Batman did what he did for the good of the city.
As convoluted as it would be I would have rather they had a plot around Selina in Gotham with the ordinary citizens (making them wish for Batman's return), a plot with the undercover police and Bruce in the pit plot. All of which building up to some sort of rebellion against Bane then Batman comes along and kicks start the whole thing. As it stands it is just Bruce and the police fighting for the city then various shots of Gothamites leaving their houses. Fine. That's good for a run of the mill comic-book film infact it's probably what you'd expect. I know I've sometimes criticised people for expecting far far too much for TDKR but in this aspect I did. After what has been created in the first two films it is hard for me to believe this Gotham would hide in their houses till all was clear. Did they do this with Joker's threat? No the city went absolutely crazy.
Yes they had the threat of a bomb but when the war started that's a signal to take back the city. And the stuff with the police showed under-the-radar work was easily doable.
Because he told them if they stayed
, he would have run of the entire city and do whatever he wanted with them. So everybody tried to leave. Bane threatened that if anyone left
, he would blow up the entire city. So everybody stayed put. Of course the people reacted differently - they were completely different threats!
And Jen and her folk were certainly celebrating their newfound run of the city, partyting in the mansions. Sure she didn't align herself with Bane in particular, but did they have to? Most people are opportunists and followers, not leaders who want a slice of the dictator pie.
Originally Posted by Deserana
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.
Nolan never says if Batman is what the city really, actually needs. He never says unequivocally that Batman is "right." He gives arguments on both sides in all the movies, but he never plants his flag on one side or another.
Batman is mostly something that Bruce needs to live through, within the canvas of Gotham, to grow as a person. Not about what the city itself needs. So I find that Gotham as a whole not giving a toss about Batman to be pretty consistent.