Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises
But there is a similarity there. It's the aspect of a base character arc.
Walter White was a guy on a "Scarface downfall" like you said. But he also tried to make the best of his situation with his dying actions and ended up with some semblance of "victory", which to some people came as a surprise. Ironically a lot of people have griped with BB's ending because they felt it wasn't as dark and tragic as what the series had promised. Sound familiar? To me he didn't truly fulfill the "Scarface" part of his arc until the last episode. It's Mr. Chips/slow descent into hell/avenging Scarface. There's your arc of a character. Just because Vince and co. had no idea who Todd and the Nazis were in the earlier days doesn't mean (uncle) jack about having a basic shape for Walt's arc.
So you agree with me, but you don't agree? I don't get it.
I said that an outline for Walter White from the beginning makes sense when the character debuts as a cancer patient that only has a few years to live AND your pitch is to take a good, kind chemistry teacher and turn him into "Scarface". It's only natural when you have those qualities to have somewhat of an idea of where you're headed. And that's right, they had no idea about Todd, or Uncle Jack, or of Gretchen and Elliot, so my argument still stands. Is it that hard to think ahead that, "yeah, Walt is going to die in a blaze of glory but still kinda-sorta redeem himself"? No.
But since you're so determined to tie the quality of one thing to Nolan's Batflicks (like Star Wars, other trilogies, etc.) . . .
Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises
For Nolan and co.- they viewed Bruce's arc as a guy thinking he can save the city via a one man war on crime, learning that it wouldn't be that simple along the way, and then finally having to close that chapter of his life.
. . . I'll play
NOT really the same as your main character having cancer, living two years tops and destined for some kind of downfall.
When did they view it as "finally having to close that chapter on his life"? That came out of no where and wasn't even touched upon until 2011/2012 with the "full circle" and "teh epic legend ends". It was never conceived as a three part trilogy until marketing and promoting TDKR set in. Prior to this?
- we have a Bruce Wayne that thinks
he can simply inspire and be a symbol for people to fight as a force of good against corruption
- believes that after the mob and Arkham inmates are rounded up that things will get better and that "Gotham can be brought back"
- he views it as temporary, that he is Bruce Wayne that simply becomes that symbol
- his childhood friend believes otherwise as Shika points out. She believes that Bruce is the mask, that he died 7 years ago, and the face she now sees is Batman's (the one criminals FEAR, not the face that makes people want to stand up and fight against evil). MAYBE if Gotham no longer needs him, they can be together, but for now, he's the Batman.
- they play the Batman . . . Forever card harder than they do, "well, he's going to quit someday and achieve exactly what he wants to do".
- they mention numerous times that this is a young, amateur Bruce/Batman that still has several years ahead of him before he's THE BATMAN, (hence "Batman Begins"). So fresh faced idealism is a must.
The Dark Knight
- completely kills off the notion that this quest and journey is a one time deal
- the mob is still there, but to make matters worse, you have a new "idea" with the character of the Joker. A threat that makes Batman's naive goal of quitting before breakfast impossible
- like comic Batman, this Batman trusts NO one. And the person he does trust, the guy he puts all of his eggs in his basket with, goes baaaaaad. Yeah, I don't think Batman would go back to that idea anymore. "Can't rely on anyone these days, gotta do everything yourself".
- CLEARLY not interested in a "Legacy" sort of situation. From Brian Douglass to Harvey Dent, Bruce is NOT interested in someone taking up the mantle. From Begins on it was about the city being able to take the reigns WITHOUT vigilantism. WITHOUT Batman's way.
- Literally KILLS off Rachel, Bruce's chance "for a normal life"
- KILLS the idea that Batman is a "symbol of hope to inspire good", Batman even says as much
- juggles the idea of who Wayne really is between Bruce and Batman
- the writers once again indicate that Batman IS Batman and that "I'm sure the day won't come when *you* no longer need Batman"
- Batman not being a hero that inspires good, but something more. A darker hero, a "Dark Knight"
- Batman being hunted down and having to run, NOT hide
- THE ENDING
- everyone associated with the series swears up and down that they have NO interest in Robin. That some writer or filmmaker after them can pursue that idea if they'd like and that they're only interested in a younger Batman. "Robin" is in a baby carriage somewhere, remember? Bale will chain himself up and never work again, remember?
Nothing about the above points to the writers and filmmakers knowing where Bruce was going to go. If anything, there's a lot of ambiguity and uncertainty. WILL they go darker with Batman? The Dark Knight certainly implies as much. Batman has no real problem with "becoming the villain" and doesn't care about that naive idealism anymore. He knows that he can't be "that symbol" and gives up on it. Batman is his course of action now. He takes pleasure in what he does for the first time even AFTER Rachel perishes.
Based on everything pre-2011, I think it's fair to question that Goyer, and the Nolan's simply contrived "Bruce goes to Italy" during the writing stages of TDKR. Nothing more.
- they don't show him hunted . . . until briefly, 8 years later. And at that point, the chase wasn't even really about catching Batman, but catching the Stock Exchange villains
- they show that he couldn't take it. He's a miserable little man, hunched over in his Manor completely deprived of any of the heroism he had in the last film
- "frozen in time"? From what point? Certainly not from Dark Knight or Batman's uplifting decision at the climax of the film. He deals with Rachel's death briefly, questioning if "he brought it on her", but falls right back into Batman. Everything from the Playboy facade to cold and calculating Batman gets played up AFTER her death. MAYBE frozen in time from a point afterwards that we didn't see (thanks again to that ludicrous and contrived time jump), but that's a different story.
- "frozen in time" as far as Bruce Wayne goes? Uhh, why is the character's lifestyle always viewed as a "negative" thing? Better question, if that lifestyle is damaging to someone's lifestyle, as the writers imply, why oh why would they . . .
- want to encourage the idea of someone ELSE taking on that role
- they create John Blake, a "Robin" after stating that they have no interest in him from the get go.
- they create a legacy despite never establishing the idea in the first two films (it was always about GOTHAM standing up for what's right themselves, not another vigilante having to step up to bat "someday")
- they have Bruce state that "anyone can be a hero, that was the point" one second, then encourage vigilantism/Batman the next with talks of encouraging masks, gadgets, etc. What message does that send? "Batman isn't a hero, he's something more", but then, "HE IS A HERO, HE GETS STATUES!" It's a complete contradiction. Bruce in Begins and half way through Dark Knight isn't seeking a person to take up the mantle in a sense of a BATMAN MANTLE. He's looking for "ordinary people" to stand for what's right. Elected officials like Harvey Dent. Encouraging someone to wear a mask and giving them your entire arsenal sort of goes against that idea. It implies that there will always be a fight to be had against crime in Gotham and that ONLY a Batman can conquer it.
So what was "the point" Bruce? And how can you possibly know when the writers/filmmakers don't?
What's the point of all of it? By TDKR, there are conflicting messages. They state by the films end that the law doesn't work with shackles and all that. They encourage the cowl over the badge. So there isn't any real hope for Gotham? If that's the case, why the hell wouldn't you take it darker? You can't have it both ways. What was so "wrong" with Batman's reputation being tarnished? Did he have to be "redeemed" in a third when his character was against the law and "bad" from the get go? Gordon, Gordon's family, Alfred, Fox, Joker and Batman himself knows what went down. We the audience knew what went into that ending. Did Batman really need to be "Supermaned" when the character since his CONCEPTION was never that kind of hero which Dark Knight establishes?
Like I've said in the past, it'd be better to just have Batman/Bruce getting lost in "this monster of his" and going out in a blaze of glory OR surviving and becoming stronger. Is happiness to this character REALLY shacking up with a criminal and touring Italy as a couple of vacationers? Really? What is "living" to Bruce? What is "living" to us!?! Is pain and hurt driving someone to do good things REALLY a bad thing like Alfred so often remarks of? He didn't want Bruce to come back? Huh? When is that implied in Batman Begins if these creators knew from the get go that Bruce would end on a happy note? If Gotham is bad and the idea of Batman is bad, and there will always be a need for that legacy character, then it's a battle that can't be won is it not? So going back to what Bruce originally wanted, for the city to stand up and fight evil and for Gotham to go back to that glistening, CGI beauty he saw from the monorail in Begins, never really
happened. So Bruce failed.
It doesn't add up, none of it. Going back to "it's a contradiction", well, it is. It's a muddled mess of differentiating views and ideals. They would have been better off simply embracing this guy, like they did in Dark Knight,
No wishy washy melodrama with freakin' Tale of two cities quotes. There is no "happiness" or "good". There is Batman and his law. Not as a fascist, but as a protector. Dark Knight got the character right and ended it right with him riding off into the night. TDKR got it wrong.
Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises
I also still don't even know what your point is. If your point is that "Nolan seems all stiff and stuff so he obviously must be lying about having an arc in mind for Bruce from the beginning", then I really don't get that. Sure, you weren't pleased with the end result but we're not arguing about quality here. We're just talking about whether this approach to storytelling is a logical fallacy or not- which you claimed it was.
You should have left that British thing in there and not edited it, because that sort of indicated that you knew exactly what I was talking about with the way I described it.
Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises
And just as a little PS- Rian Johnson, who directed the very best episode of Breaking Bad (The TDK
episode, the one where a lot of fans think it could've ended) is a huge professed Nolan fanatic and a TDKR defender. Boom.
Yeah, and he also made Looper.
You pointed out that Gilligan not being infallible. I agree. Neither is Nolan, or his writing team, or ANYONE for that matter.