View Single Post
Old 08-10-2013, 01:33 PM   #54
DACrowe's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 29,646
Default Re: Lol...if i didn´t know the critics and GA´s score for this movie...

Originally Posted by justpassinby View Post
It swings both ways: on the one hand, what drove this Batman, in this universe, to become active, was the organized crime and the effects it had on the city's crime in general; and it was established as early as in part 2 that he generally believed in "democracy" and was only willing to do what he did as long as the system was dysfunctional.
Once the bigger fish was gone, and the economy improved I guess (maybe a bit thanks to his help in the aftermath), his retirement was consistent with his character, as well as his growing frustration with the lines he had to cross in the process - only it wasn't the happy retirement he wished for in DK.

On the other hand, robberies like the Joe Chill one always happen even without three mafias running a town, without the police being always there for prevention/justice, and it wouldn't be illogical for A Batman (not necessarily the Nolan one) to keep going regardless with that as his primary motivation. And that's where the problem with your frivolous, strawman-filled comment comes in - unless you're a firm believer in the system / "no man should have so much power" principle, there's really no particular reason why you SHOULDN'T continue patrolling the streets even with a perfectly functional police at the ready.
No, it's not about beating up jaywalkers and graffiti maestros - it's about preventing assaults, batteries, murders and worse things (mayor's not talking about wallpainters in his opening speech, you know), and doing his part in this in ADDITION to the police, rather than instead of them. Also, not to hunt 1000 of them at once - just intervene as much as he could, and intimidate the rest through (you guessed it) fear... as clearly shown in TDK's opening montage.

Plus he's got no jurismydiction to worry about, and can get away with hacking apart way more poisoned trees than Dirty Harry ever could - and... he's got his superior equipment and technology that he doesn't trust the police with... as established in this very movie, TDKR... WHILE its plot is already running!
So this (new - possibly inspired by the sonar thing in addition to the bomb thing) character trait of his, not trusting the already cleaned up police force, can easily work as a counterbalance to his previous retirement aspirations.
He's sitting there in his cave... still not trusting the cops... hiding precious tools from them... that he could totally use to aid crime prevention, but instead he's sitting in his basement/attic and mopes around in clinical, self-neglecting depression.

Hey, could it be that maybe... he really gave up due to said depression, and not because he thought the naughty wall painters weren't worth the effort? Interpretation!!

And that brings us right back to the problems with this film - one of which being Bruce's retirement. However, not because "Batman would never give up, man" as that possibility had clearly been set up previously... but because it hadn't been set up previously.
Not this kind of retirement - the depressed, meaningless one, the motivations for which clearly came about way after the TDK credits rolled. The failed energy project, the war wounds that came out of ****ing nowhere. The premature retirement, accepted long before the system became good enough for Bruce to declare that the city didn't "need Batman" now.

Last movie he did talk about leaving, yes - but that's not how the movie ended; while it isn't clearly stated whether the Joker's chaos changed his attitude regarding this issue or not, the tone of that ending montage DEFINITELY spelled something totally different from "goes into sad retirement". Energetic, action packed, darkly optimistic - things still aren't fixed, streets probably need cleaning up, and the police hunting down Batman with evil dogs; and yet he'll be there, the outcast, hated by the population, but still doing what needs to be done.
Who wasn't pumped to see some of that, if not a whole delicious bunch, carried over into the sequel? But no - apparently, a few weeks later, real life intervened, as it does, that enthusiastic fever slowly wayned once Bruce returned back home, realized there was kind of nothing to do really, and depression / daily life (and then depression) took over.

Unrealistic? Certainly not. But this is me filling in the gaps that the movie shouldn't just have filled, but filled up with some good, effective "show don't tell" storytelling and character development, not just kinda thrown at the wall to make the new arc work.
Now, suddenly, Batman is old and weak, and has to "rise up" again - not from the exile so tastily set up in TDK (that one is treated very marginally thoughout the whole movie), but from this new plot device that apparently developed off-screen. Chances are he only loses to Bane for that reason, and not because this scary guy is the new big guy in town that finally proves a match to him, after long years of invincibility.

Feel the drama and excitement slowly dripping out of you yet?

It was stuff like this, along with Alfred's sudden concern for his safety (extending beyond the singular threat of Bane apparently) and reluctance to support him, resulting in their extremely poorly set-up fallout, the ending twist doing as much damage to the main plot and Bane's character as it kinda gave it all a new interesting angle, the lazy-feeling "rookie cop takes on an elite ninja's job, uplifting music" conclusion, the phoned-in, again hardly set-up not-threeway-romance and, not to forget, a whole bunch of awkward line delivery and hackneyed plot devices such as the "clean slate" that made it an inferior sequel to TDK.
Not worthy of hate by any means, very well-made in general as well as engaging and entertaining (mostly), it was just simply a disappointing, inferior sequel with some weak, alieanating story choices - probably in need of a rewrite / retool or two.

Yes, just my opinion obviously, but let's do a thought experiment here - let's imagine the movie HAD been rewritten, rectifying the rough bulk of problems I just rattled down, and making it flow naturally from TDK in really exciting ways (feel free to fill in the blanks here), and the real final version would've been released as an early draft that you could read.
Would you go "aww, what a shame they didn't stay with that one", or would you just kinda acknowledge it with a "yea, still cool, but certainly no TDKR!"? Rounding it off with a quip about how this is the devil while that was practice, maybe?

I kinda strongly feel it'd be the latter - but then again, I'm just some dude.
What makes you think he retired overnight? All we know is that Blake said, "The last CONFIRMED sighting of the Batman." The Batcave is fully rebuilt in TDKR and Alfred makes some crack about figuring he'd find Bruce down here, as in he used to spend a lot of time down there. Those extra, less public, adventures may account for his other injuries, as well.

After all, he only locked himself away from the world for three years after the fusion project failed. Who is to say that he didn't hang up the cape fully until the Dent Act took full effect, which would have been at least another 18 months after Harvey died? Interpretation can go both ways.


As for why this Batman retired. This Gotham not only was shot primarily in NYC, but it was made to look like the modern, post-1990s NYC. And if you've even visited that city in the last 20 years, at least the Manhattan borough (which appears to be all Gotham is in TDKR) is incredibly clean and highly policed, particularly after 9/11, which has led to the NYPD's budget becoming mind-boggling.

If Nolan's Gotham does become something akin to that, the idea of a lone avenger stalking the rooftops only works for two reasons:

A) He is somewhat psychotic, or at least narcissistic, and he does this as much, or more, for his own therapeutic reasons as it is about saving lives. In short, it plays into the negative archetype that some intellectuals view as a problem with the character: He's a rich man who is spending his millions to beat up poor people, as opposed to trying to solve the root of the problem, instead of the symptoms. In fact, I'd argue that is exactly Miller's take in The Dark Knight Returns.


B) It is a fantasy world where there will always be a need for a superhero. Basically the comics or, to an even more exaggerated degree, the Tim Burton films. Logic is a pesky detail to be overlooked.

But as Nolan wanted to "ground" it (throwing the word "realism" around Batman is ridiculous), he could not go with choice B. And as he wanted his Batman to be more straight forward and heroic as he is traditionally portrayed in comic books not written by Frank Miller or 1980s-era Grant Morrison, he always focused on giving his Batman a larger and more logical goal that looks at the bigger causes of crime and corruption than just the hoods on the street. He pulled from Miller's other major work, Year One, but also Loeb's stories of escalation from there and gave them a more straightforward motivation: clean up the city by setting an example and clearing house of the root problems and, presumably, investing in the city for politicians and policies he likes (Harvey Dent and apparently the mayor as well considering he is at a Wayne fundraiser in TDKR) and invest in agendas that apparently helped the city recover from its depressed economy with a newly strengthened police force on the enforcement side.

Not nearly as romantic or fantastical as the image of the lone guardian watching above his city every night of his life while on a gargoyle...but, eh it makes sense. And it allows Nolan to put this character in a world with slightly better repercussions without making him appear like a selfish rich guy playing dress up because he needs a hug.

"Let us disappoint the Men who are raising themselves upon the ruin of this Country."

--John Adams

Last edited by DACrowe; 08-10-2013 at 01:38 PM.
DACrowe is offline   Reply With Quote