Originally Posted by Clerk
Well yes and no- I think some and some arent in that article. For example, the Bruce/Alfred arguments- from what I remember, most of the lines are heavily focused on Rachel, so one would think it's just all about Rachel. The implication after TDK and a few lines say "victory has defeated you." You have to really focus on those few lines to really fill in the character motives there.
The same goes for Bruce faking his death after Alfred went "oh it would kill me if you died." The WC article discusses off screen stuff, like "oh well Bruce could've thought X." But on screen, it's easy to go "wait WHY DID YOU DO THIS TO HIM." It's not as if Bruce turned to the camera as he was driving off and said "the temporary pain Alfred will endure will be forgiven when I smile in the cafe." There is some filling in the blanks with character motives there, which I really dont dig personally.
Sorry if my argument is worded terribly, Im taking a break from math finals so I can't really think in terms of ENGLISH.
It's not worded terribly at all man, I can read it just fine
And I feel that the idea of how Bruce Wayne quit being Batman are noticeable, such as Bruce Wayne quit being Bruce Wayne because of Rachel. The latter was the most important though as the movie dealt heavily with the idea that Bruce has to move on. Him quitting being Batman is of course mentioned, but not heavily and I feel that that was the point.
And it indeed brings up questions on what Bruce could have done, and I think what he could've done as well, but showing Gotham that Batman is dead means more than Bruce letting Alfred know what was going to happen, especially when Alfred was gone. Alfred getting his own hope back in the last seconds makes it all worth it, imo.