View Single Post
Old 01-05-2013, 04:36 PM   #69
Caballero de la Luz
BlueLightning's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,483
Default Re: How Long Was Bruce Wayne Actually Batman in this Trilogy?

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd View Post
Literally every time I left The Dark Knight Rises people were asking "So is there gonna be more films with Robin now?"

That's blowing up the bubble. Now I do accept I'm probably a minority then.
My father said the same thing, I had an argument with him after the release of the film. But this wasn't sequel bait. It was a thematic element, as I explained before. Even poor Joseph Gordon Levitt had the same problem. Check this interview:

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd View Post
Yep, that's the underwhelming part. One year and 4 villains is just underwhelming for me. Like, why would every major hypothetical criminal need to be connected to the mob?
Well let's count the villians then. Ra's al Ghul, The Scarecrow, The Joker, Two-Face. Add perhaps Victor Zsaz and the mob, counting characters from the comics there is Carmine Falcone, Salvatore Maroni. Count also the villians for the third film, Bane, Catwoman and Talia. There you go. Five comic book criminal before Rises, seven if you count the mob, and ten overall. Not to shabby for three films.

As I said before, hinting towards other adversaries in the interim between TDK and Rises wouldn't add much to the overall story.

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd View Post
Nyssa is at least a villain, until recently, Talia has always genuinely loved Bruce being a pawn in her fathers plans.
Nyssa doesn't have the starpower that Talia has. You see that the circumstances they are met on comics and the films are different, with different outcomes. I would still say Talia counts as a villian, she plays the role in a similar fashion as Catwoman in the comics, being sometimes the romantic interest, sometimes the adversary, or both.

Originally Posted by shauner111 View Post
I would say that Gotham doesn't need Batman for a while at least. But maybe in a couple of years things could get shakey once again. People taking advantage of the lack of no Dent Act and the lack of an existing Batman. It gives Blake time to train, time for Gotham to begin the rebuilding process.

But you also have to look at the Blackgate prisoners (and possibly Arkham patients?) who are out there. Perhaps scattered around the city. Yes the cops could round them up, but what if they can't catch every single one of them? So maybe Batman IS needed during this time..

It is a bit vague. Maybe Gotham doesn't need Batman for a while, maybe it does. Blake is there regardless to step up to the plate incase. Training or not i guess.

Bruce's journey has a definite conclusion as this universe's first generation Batman & creator. But we don't know if this is the beginning of Robin's journey or when it will happen, or if it will EVER happen. Gotham might not need a Batman for the next 10 years after TDKR for all we know. Blake may end up helping orphaned children and using the tech inside the batcave to help tip off Gordon and his crew in catching the leftover prisoners. Or better yet to keep an eye on the city via the computers just incase some big trouble arises. Then he would have to teach one of those children upstairs in Wayne Manor a few tricks in possibly becoming a vigilante-hero if/when Blake gets too old to don the suit.

I think the end is done in such a way where they've teased us with a continuation but they don't ever have to show us anything more. It's great for the imagination.
Yes. It's good food for thought but, as I mentioned before, not "sequel bait". The thematic point for Blake works within this film.


A hero can be anyone. Even a man doing something as simple and reassuring as putting a coat around a young boy's shoulders to let him know that the world hadn't ended.

BlueLightning is offline   Reply With Quote