View Single Post
Old 08-17-2013, 07:09 PM   #766
Malcolm Reynold
Straight Edge Browncoat
Malcolm Reynold's Avatar
Join Date: May 2013
Location: England
Posts: 363
Default Re: Where does most of TDK's critisism come from?

My biggest problem with it is the sub-plot that Bruce thinks Harvey can clean up the city so he doesn't have to be Batman anymore because it just doesn't make any sense. First of all, it's reasonable to assume that there is no more than 6 months between Begins and Dark Knight, so Bruce goes away to train for 7 years but suddenly wants to give up after a few months just so he can be with Rachel? Also his reasoning that Dent could clean up the city is that Dent put away 500 mobsters at once in a public courtroom, but they forget that the only reason these mobsters could be caught in the first place is because Batman irradiated their money so the cops could track them. Dent couldn't do anything to stop the mob without Batman. This leads me into one of my biggest problems with the Nolan trilogy overall is that Batman is solely interested in taking down the mob. He isn't fighting a war on crime, he is fighting a war on the mob because in Begins Rachel told him the mob was responsible for his parents death by ruining the city. This turns Batman's motivations from the pursuit of justice which it should be, to just targeting a single problem, almost like revenge. When I first watched the Dark Knight Rises the fact that Bruce quits being Batman for 8 years really bothered me because it felt really out of character, but it actually wasn't because all Bruce cared about was getting the mob and because of the Dent act they were virtually non-existent in Gotham.

This 8 year gap also presents another problem I have with the series and that is that Bruce couldn't have spent any more than a year actually as Batman, and that just bugs me. Another big problem I have with the Nolan trilogy is Batman's inconsistent views on killing. Most of the time he is like the comic Batman because he will never kill. But in Begins he says to Rhas "I'm not going to kill you, but I don't have to save you." This seems really inconsistent with who Batman should be because in my opinion those two things would be the same thing to the real Batman. His philosophy is that he will try to save everyone, regardless of what they have done. An example of this is in Arkham City where
Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:
Batman says he would have given Joker the cure regardless of the things he had done and the threat he would pose if he became healthy again. If he decided not to give him the cure he wouldn't be killing him because Joker poisoned himself with the Titan formula, but Batman doesn't see it that way so would have saved him with the cure.
Now you could almost forgive this by saying that Batman was only just starting out and didn't know of any other way to deal with Rhas, especially considering how much he talks about never killing in The Dark Knight. But then, after giving Joker a long speech about why he will never kill, in the very next scene Batman pushes Harvey off of a ledge where he falls to his death. Now again you could argue that Dent's death was accidental and Batman was just doing what he had to to save a child but the Nolan Batman is a ninja, he could have easily snuck up behind Dent and knocked him out but he decides to have a conversation with him instead because it's the end of the movie so Dent's character arc needs to be finished. Sorry that was a bit of a rant, and don't get me wrong I love all 3 of the Nolan Batman movies, but these things and other problems mean they aren't the Batman movies I always wanted to see.

Last edited by Malcolm Reynold; 08-17-2013 at 07:15 PM.
Malcolm Reynold is offline   Reply With Quote