Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises
If nothing else, it's some interesting insight into his thought process on the three movies. [...] He's a little more open and detailed about his thought process here than he is in most other interviews about the movies.
All very interesting, but only like 90 seconds of the TDKR one were relevant to the topic(s) here - wonder if there's any interview with him elaborating on the 8 year gap and related decisions a bit more?
The little I've found so far:
At the end of The Dark Knight on some level he senses that maybe he’s become the villain of the story, that maybe he has too much blood on his hands, and that Batman should go away and leave Gotham alone. Those are dark areas that no Batman movie really ventured into before,
Okay, anyway, so at 4:43-5:53, he says that the time gap and the movie's outset have been put there to "show the consequences" of what came before, in order to continue the story instead of making a "new Batman episode".
But didn't someone here quote another interview with him where he said something about it being more of a surprise move?
What the FONT??! It was **************... I'll look into it. '^
' .......... jesuswat
It's really all about finishing Batman's and Bruce Wayne's story. We left him in a very precarious place at the end of The Dark Knight. His reputation in tatters, on the run. And I think perhaps surprisingly for some people, out story picks up quite a bit later. He's not in great state. He's frozen in time, he's hit a brick wall.
Nah, not really it, the basic statement's still the same.
Well, regardless - that pretty much seems to be the kind of sentiment the movie itself is also communicating while you're watching it: the "yea, that's what was supposed to happen, what did you expect?" kind of feel.
What, 8 years? Well sure, they began winning over the mafia back then, so it must've taken a few years to finish the job and have people get used to it a bit. What, you thought showing the process with its trials and tribulations would've been more dramatic? Huh?
Yea, of course he's retired - at the end of TDK! Or what did you think was that final shot about (disclaimer: what if he retired later, whatever)? What injuries, hello?! Look at what he's doing every night, plus getting shot at and falling onto Harvey Dent there, sure he's got no cartilage!
Yea, his love interest died, what would you do? Of course he's a recluse. Okay, it was after his globe failed, but come on, of course he was gonna get into philantrophy after Batman, stupid question.
Expecting something exciting and slightly more ambiguous with that letter cliffhanger? Or at least some pay-off to the irony of him doing that while Batman was setting up a conspiracy himself? Pfft, nah, burned the letter, reveals to him, Bruce gets pissored. What did you think was gonna happen? Perfectly natural progression is my second name!
And so on. If it had
actually felt somewhat subversive, surprising, deconstructive, it probably would've been better, but with the kind of intentions as expressed by Nolan in that interview up there, it really rather feels like the movie "failed" to really understand its predecessor, particularly what gave its ending all the impact and excitement (incl. for the sequel). You watch the movie, wondering, will it really need a sequel, will I want to watch tha-, wait **** yeah stop making Inception and give it us now! Can't wait to se-, ohhhhh well okay... still cool I guess?
Because really, while both Nolan (in this interview) and the "movie" seem to think that they're being all about natural development, that really applies only halfway at best.
Yea, technically it can all be reasonably traced back to TDK, but several deciding things also happened inbetween (things not given much if any narrative weight) that ultimately led to the current situation more directly.
And really, the tension of the Dent conspiracy aside, and even that was given kind of an awkward, half-arsed resolution by
1) giving it merely a marginal, almost "accidental" (i.e. Bane finds letter) role in driving the Gothamites back into chaos, as the protagonists had feared*, and
2) relocating what little role it played there on a yet another, completely new, artificial and not even properly explained plot device, namely the "Dent Act", instead of what had mattered, and why the conspiracy was made at all, back then: the population's psychological need to have a heroic role model to inspire them to clean up their act,
... anyway, this IS a new story basically. Not a continuation of the previous plot, but more like how it comes back to haunt them after it's pretty much over. And even not itself, but more like completely new plot devices connected to it... indirectly.
Does he find "closure", overcome his mourning for Rachel in some way? Nah - the rug is pulled from under his feet when his existence is destroyed and Alfred leaves, and then he's basically on the market again. Understandable? Yea, kind of, but a new story
Bane is the second death star basically, he doesn't count, and, what else is there that's "continued"? Yes, the theme of escalation, i.e. Batman's actions causing harsher reprisals, now with the LoS, which is actually pretty clever, mixed with a new theme of "benevolent tools turning into weapons", what else? Not much really.
*The way their fears of a social collapse come true here (still having to do with Dent... but not really) also resembles how Batman's retirement, set up as early as the ending of Begins, ended up being a different one in Rises in terms of motivation - still kinda because Batman isn't needed (or is he), but mostly really because of the depression.
Now, is it cool as a new story? Yea... certainly much better than as a direct, natural follow-up "honoring the weight of its predecessors", but there's still internal flaws in its execution (some sloppy plotting + awkward performances) that make it inferior to those stories imo - but that's not the topic right now is it