Characterization of the Knight - Nolan and Bale's Bruce Wayne/Batman - Part 2

[Brain Damage]

Originally Posted by BlueLightning

Well, I think it is a bold assumption to make that Gordon took his coat to give it to every traumatized kid he encountered, I don't say that he didn't had noble gestures but I believe it was a very special thing. It was Bruce Wayne after all, who else with all the resources that Batman has could be the man behind the cowl. Gordon is a very smart man after all. Bruce Wayne saying that to Gordon at the end of Rises means that Bruce considered Gordon his hero. And visually and thematically it makes sense.

While I still consider it a poorly executed moment, I love the notion that Bruce considers Gordon his hero. Very good point

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Brain Damage

Compare the sheer amount of character development that occurs when Batman takes off his cowl in front of Gordon in No Man's Land and Gordon turns away and refuses to look.



In that moment we learn so much about both characters. About their friendship, about their motivations and the differences in their character.

Now, I'm not saying the filmmakers should copy that scene or try to imitate it any way. I'm just comparing the impact both scenes had. Enlighten me, please, what character development occurs in the moment when Batman reveals his identity to Gordon through a reference to something that happened thirty years ago?

And don't say "Gordon learns who Batman really is".
That's not character development. That's a plot point.

Also don't say "it brings it full circle".
That's not character development either and it's not a good enough reason to include such a big moment in your story.

I will say though, since you so adamantly insist I include something positive in my criticism, I thought Gordon's line about the people of Gotham knowing who saved them: "It was The Batman", was brilliant. And yes, that moment does play differently when you know that he really knows who Batman is. But that's not an excuse, in my opinion, for the ham-handed way in which the reveal was played out.

That issue of No Man's Land is amazing. One of the best Batman comics I've ever read. It's like 22 pages of Batman and Gordon talking to each other about their friendship in Gordon's back yard.

[Visceral]

Originally Posted by Brain Damage

First. What does this have to do with Batman's reveal to Gordon? Second. Are you saying that because someone has done fantastic work in the past they're immediately immune to ever fumbling the ball? What does the fact that they "infused Batman with influences like existentialist Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, Neitzche, and Charles Dickens" have ANYTHING to do with the quality of THIS SPECIFIC film?

In a word, no. But Scorsese has never been some blubbering idiot that ham hands scenes because an audience demands it. Did the audience demand it? When? How are you coming to that conclusion.

Martin Scorcese is my absolute favorite director of all time. He's created some films that have affected and entertained me in ways no others have. In my opinion, he's an absolute master, a genius. But that doesn't change the fact that I've never once sat through Gangs of New York all the way through without checking the time at least five or six times, or the fact that I found the plot twist in Shutter Island to be incredibly predictable.

Love his work, I prefer to talk about the ones where he didn't fumble the ball, the ones where he did are not worth my time. And even if the twist was foreseeable in shutter island, the rest of the film is rich with symbolism and great character.

Scorcese is a genius, but he, like anyone else, is perfectly capable of fumbling the ball. Same with Nolan.

Okay. This is a common statement on SHH. I've made my peace with it. News flash Nolan isn't perfect. Most people got that.

Yes, it does deal with intelligent themes. But to me and to a lot of other people it does not deal with them nearly as intelligently as Nolan's previous films.

It could be argued the other way. easily, even when Scorsese fumbles the ball, he is still miles ahead of other directors. His films still have many wonderful things in them.

Don't assume I hate the film, either. I don't. In fact, I quite like it. I pre-ordered it on Blu-Ray and I'm quite excited to watch it again, I think it's a very entertaining film. And I've praised many parts of it in various posts I've made throughout this forum, but we weren't talking about that - we were discussing Batman's reveal to Gordon.

I'm sorry, but are Nolan and I in a Freshman workshop class or something? Why do I have to say positive about the ideas of the film to make my criticisms hold weight? First off, you asked me to elaborate on how I thought that moment was ham-handed, now you're reprimanding me for doing that? Second, did I ever say the writers of Inception and TDK are buffons? No, I did not. Thirdly, refer to my above point about Scorcese. Just because they've done great work in the past does not mean they will continue to do great work in the future.

No, but you are in a characterization thread. Not a nitpick thread.

Not really. It's powerful in that it tugs on our emotions and is well acted, but it's superficially powerful because that moment isn't earned by the film, it's just thrown in there. A lot of films do this, and a lot of them gain the title of "Awards Bait", films that show us images that they know will move us and cause an emotional reaction, but that do so for the very reason of causing an emotional reaction, not because the story demands it.

Was it superficial or powerful?

I could seriously write a book on the scene. I am actually writing several articles on the film. It blows my mind that you would call one of the film's most powerful moments ham-handed and think that you wouldn't be attacked. Its a huge moment in Batman giving his mantle and power away. It goes all the way back to the first scene in the Dark Knight when he stops the imitators in hockey pads.

Now, I'm not saying the filmmakers should copy that scene or try to imitate it any way. I'm just comparing the impact both scenes had. Enlighten me, please, what character development occurs in the moment when Batman reveals his identity to Gordon through a reference to something that happened thirty years ago?

There would be no power if he had said "I'm Bruce Wayne". With that line he honored Gordon's fight for justice, and relented his power, unlike Caesar in Rome. Batman was true to the end, giving up his power when it stifled Gotham.

I will say though, since you so adamantly insist I include something positive in my criticism, I thought Gordon's line about the people of Gotham knowing who saved them: "It was The Batman", was brilliant. And yes, that moment does play differently when you know that he really knows who Batman is. But that's not an excuse, in my opinion, for the ham-handed way in which the reveal was played out.

I insist that you think critically on the film. There are weird trends on SHH that need to change. A film is either perfect or absolute trash. And when a film is complete trash there is no need to think about it, respect its better scenes. No reason to contemplate the bold ideas the director might have been trying. You say you like the It was the batman line. Okay that seems a bit blatantly positive.

You seriously didn't think that you were going to get a rise out of people, by calling such a meaningful and intimate scene ham-handed?

[Brain Damage]

Originally Posted by Visceral

In a word, no. But Scorsese has never been some blubbering idiot that ham hands scenes because an audience demands it. Did the audience demand it? When? How are you coming to that conclusion.

I would say the question of Gordon knowing Batman's real identity is something most fans/the general audience expected and wanted to be dealt with in the final chapter of Nolan's Batman story. Even if it was to the extent of "Gordon doesn't know Batman's real identity". Didn't you?

Love his work, I prefer to talk about the ones where he didn't fumble the ball, the ones where he did are not worth my time. And even if the twist was foreseeable in shutter island, the rest of the film is rich with symbolism and great character.

Why are they not worth your time? There is so much good discussion that can be had over a bad film, just as much if not more than a great film. And yes, I agree, Shutter Island has great symbolism and character, it's also an immensely well shot film. My point wasn't to argue about the merits of Shutter Island, it was to point out that even the greatest artists don't always get everything right.

Okay. This is a common statement on SHH. I've made my peace with it. News flash Nolan isn't perfect. Most people got that.

Glad we're in agreement on this.

It could be argued the other way. easily, even when Scorsese fumbles the ball, he is still miles ahead of other directors. His films still have many wonderful things in them.

Yes. I agree with this and I wasn't trying to argue otherwise. My problems with TDKR are nearly all concerning the script. Everything else about the production is absolutely top notch. The performances, score and cinematography were some of the best I've seen all year. And yes, the script had a lot about it I liked as well, but in my opinion, it's not at the same caliber as the rest of the production.

No, but you are in a characterization thread. Not a nitpick thread.

I'm discussing an issue I had with the film and explaining why beyond just "I didn't like it", not nitpicking. This is a discussion thread, and last time I checked, Batman revealing his identity deals with his characterization. Furthermore, if my original comment was so nitpicky, why even ask me to elaborate? Why not just move on? Oh, right, because this is a forum, meant for discussion. And we are discussing an issue with the film which relates to the characterization of its protagonists.

Was it superficial or powerful?

Are you even reading my posts? It's both. And yes. That's possible. It's superficial and powerful in the same way those commercials with the sad-eyed puppies and the arms of an angel songs are superficial yet still powerful. A scene can stir emotions in you, that doesn't mean it's logical.

I could seriously write a book on the scene. I am actually writing several articles on the film.

Wonderful for you. I'm looking forward to reading them.

It blows my mind that you would call one of the film's most powerful moments ham-handed and think that you wouldn't be attacked. Its a huge moment in Batman giving his mantle and power away. It goes all the way back to the first scene in the Dark Knight when he stops the imitators in hockey pads.

I didn't even think about being or not being attacked, I was merely stating my opinion on the matter. Also, not once did I argue it wasn't a huge and important moment, I argued that it was executed poorly.

There would be no power if he had said "I'm Bruce Wayne". With that line he honored Gordon's fight for justice, and relented his power, unlike Caesar in Rome. Batman was true to the end, giving up his power when it stifled Gotham.

Did I say he should have just said "I'm Bruce Wayne"? In the comic page I posted, does Batman ever say "I'm Bruce Wayne"?

Also, how did Batman's power stifle Gotham?

I insist that you think critically on the film.

Again I have to ask, are you even reading my posts?

There are weird trends on SHH that need to change. A film is either perfect or absolute trash. And when a film is complete trash there is no need to think about it, respect its better scenes. No reason to contemplate the bold ideas the director might have been trying.

Did I say the film was crap? Did I say it was complete trash? Why are you comparing me to users like that when all I did was point out a flaw I had with one particular scene? I think TDKR is the ballsiest Batman film that has ever been made, and probably will be made in quite some time, and yes, it has many ideas that deserve to be discussed. That doesn't mean I don't have issues with the execution of the material. Jumping across a rooftop is ballsy, doesn't mean you're gonna land on your feet.

You say you like the It was the batman line. Okay that seems a bit blatantly positive.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Blatantly positive? Are you trying to say "well, who wouldn't like that?" If so. Uhm. What? You could also say me liking Joker's magic trick is blatantly positive, that doesn't make it any less awesome of a scene.

You seriously didn't think that you were going to get a rise out of people, by calling such a meaningful and intimate scene ham-handed?

I didn't care if I was or was not going to get a rise out of people. That's not why I posted that I felt the scene was ham-handed. I posted it because that's genuinely how I feel.

[Tequilla]

ham-handed is exactly how i would describe that particular issue (not only the page) of No Man's Land. Although the storyline of NML has some very nice ideas , the execution is as terrible as it gets. Cringe-worthy sometimes.

[kvz5]

I can't remember if it was Chris or Jonah who said it but this was the Bruce Wayne feature of the TDKR DVD extras:

“The only way that Bruce can really free himself of these demons is if he lets go of the anger. And in order to let go of the anger that means letting go of Gotham, letting go of Bruce Wayne, letting go of all of it. He has to decide, OK what I’ve done is good enough. My dad would have been proud.”

[MagnarTheGreat]

It was Goyer. And I find it dumb and contrived, because it looks like Bruce is just avoiding the problem (Gotham, supposedly) and running away from his problem.

Chris in one of the featurettes said Bruce's leg is hurt and he walks with a cane because of the fall at the end of TDK, if anyone still hasn't reasoned that out.

Most of the featurettes are pretty dry technical things and don't discuss the story in substantial ways. I've seen bits and pieces before in that BTS thing they released back in June, I think it was?

[kvz5]

Yeah most are just a rehash of the 13 minute featurette released last July. It was pretty disappointing that the Bruce Wayne feature was pretty short (only 8 mins). Same with the Selina featurette. Haven't watched the Bane one yet. But it's still better than the TDK features I guess.

[Travesty]

I'm not sure Wayne's dad would be like, "son, I'm glad you helped create these villains that helped destroy Gotham. So happy to see you abandon Gotham right after one of them basically leveled the city. Enjoy the margaritas on the beach with Selina...you deserve it after having such a hard year as Batman".

[JackWhite]

Originally Posted by MagnarTheGreat

It was Goyer. And I find it dumb and contrived, because it looks like Bruce is just avoiding the problem (Gotham, supposedly) and running away from his problem.

Chris in one of the featurettes said Bruce's leg is hurt and he walks with a cane because of the fall at the end of TDK, if anyone still hasn't reasoned that out.

Most of the featurettes are pretty dry technical things and don't discuss the story in substantial ways. I've seen bits and pieces before in that BTS thing they released back in June, I think it was?

I don't agree with that. I would if Bruce didn't realize what he set out to ultimately do - inspire someone through the symbol of Batman. If he didn't find a suitable replacement, him leaving Gotham would have been running away from the problem, IMO. For him to do so, he had to have a suitable successor.

[kvz5]

I'm still pretty torn with Bruce Wayne's ending. On one hand, I'm happy that he managed to get out of it all and start living a normal life and have a shot at happiness with someone but I'm still not fond that Gotham still needs a masked hero (kinda defeats TDK's theme IMO) and the mantle was passed to someone like Blake who I couldn't care less about. But whatever. I'm so over it. *shrug*

[Brain Damage]

How's that "End Of A Legend" feature?

[kvz5]

Originally Posted by Brain Damage

How's that "End Of A Legend" feature?

Just Chris, Emma, Roven, Jonah, Lindy etc. talking about the end of the trilogy, how proud they are with it and how it's the perfect end to the trilogy and how they think it will stand the test of time, blah, blah, blah. How emotional they were during the last days of filming. How they spend years working with the same people. That kind of stuff. There were some interviews that were already in the 13 min featurette. Some part were pretty nostalgic, while some are redundant.

[JackWhite]

Originally Posted by kvz5

I'm still pretty torn with Bruce Wayne's ending. On one hand, I'm happy that he managed to get out of it all and start living a normal life and have a shot at happiness with someone but I'm still not fond that Gotham still needs a masked hero (kinda defeats TDK's theme IMO) and the mantle was passed to someone like Blake who I couldn't care less about. But whatever. I'm so over it. *shrug*

lol, yeah. For the ending to work, you really have to like and believe in Blake. Tough sell, indeed.

[MAKAVELI25]

Originally Posted by kvz5

I'm still pretty torn with Bruce Wayne's ending. On one hand, I'm happy that he managed to get out of it all and start living a normal life and have a shot at happiness with someone but I'm still not fond that Gotham still needs a masked hero (kinda defeats TDK's theme IMO) and the mantle was passed to someone like Blake who I couldn't care less about. But whatever. I'm so over it. *shrug*

Exactly, I have a couple of problems with him leaving the mantle to Blake in particular:

1: Bruce Wayne, as Batman, amassed a very deadly arsenal. Throughout the movie he has about 4/5 scenes with Blake. Not only is Blake untrained (which of course he has time to train), but Bruce knew him for maybe a week before the five month siege began. I understand that he saw some promise in Blake, but I'm a little surprised that someone as cautious as Bruce would leave such weaponry/technology to someone he didn't even know that well

2. I thought the Dark Knight did an excellent job of showing that in a world where Batman exists, a Joker like character is inevitable. Blake does not have the training to contend with such a villain, and even if he does train in the following years he will have to learn the same lesson that Bruce did. I would've much rather Bruce's Batman made Gotham a place that would never need a masked hero again that one where there needs to be a Batman legacy passed down. The themes of escalation shown in TDK seem to be ignored by Bruce, did he not learn his lesson?

3. Having experienced all the grief he experienced because of Batman, I'm also somewhat surprised that he would allow somebody else to maybe go through the same thing. Bruce lost Rachel, Harvey, and saw lotsof people die because of him and the mantle he had undertaken. Why would he not warn Blake about this or even consider passing down the mantle knowing all the tragedies that had befallen himself AND Gotham because of the Batman persona?

[Brain Damage]

Originally Posted by kvz5

Just Chris, Emma, Roven, Jonah, Lindy etc. talking about the end of the trilogy, how proud they are with it and how it's the perfect end to the trilogy and how they think it will stand the test of time, blah, blah, blah. That kind of stuff. There were some interviews that were already in the 13 min featurette.

That's a bit disappointing.
Since Nolan is someone who's quite visibly grown with every film he's made, I was hoping we'd get some honest reflections on the experience, surely there were things in all the films that didn't go quite according to Nolan's plan.

I was hoping for that since I very much enjoy listening to filmmakers talk about the tribulations they went through in making their films.

I'm very keen to know more about how the studio approached Nolan during Begins and the making of TDK and then post TDK, and specifically, how he felt about it.

Here's hoping that pigs fly and Nolan decides to do commentaries for the Ultimate Edition

[kvz5]

Originally Posted by JackWhite

lol, yeah. For the ending to work, you really have to like and believe in Blake. Tough sell, indeed.

I don't know... The "happy ending" for Bruce could've still worked with Gotham not needing a masked hero anymore (which I personally thought was the point of TDK but I guess I was wrong there?). But like what I said, I'm over it. Plus, that's what personal edits are for. I'm taking the stuff I don't like and ending it where I want to.

Originally Posted by MAKAVELI25

Exactly, I have a couple of problems with him leaving the mantle to Blake in particular:

1: Bruce Wayne, as Batman, amassed a very deadly arsenal. Throughout the movie he has about 4/5 scenes with Blake. Not only is Blake untrained (which of course he has time to train), but Bruce knew him for maybe a week before the five month siege began. I understand that he saw some promise in Blake, but I'm a little surprised that someone as cautious as Bruce would leave such weaponry/technology to someone he didn't even know that well

2. I thought the Dark Knight did an excellent job of showing that in a world where Batman exists, a Joker like character is inevitable. Blake does not have the training to contend with such a villain, and even if he does train in the following years he will have to learn the same lesson that Bruce did. I would've much rather Bruce's Batman made Gotham a place that would never need a masked hero again that one where there needs to be a Batman legacy passed down. The themes of escalation shown in TDK seem to be ignored by Bruce, did he not learn his lesson?

3. Having experienced all the grief he experienced because of Batman, I'm also somewhat surprised that he would allow somebody else to maybe go through the same thing. Bruce lost Rachel, Harvey, and saw lotsof people die because of him and the mantle he had undertaken. Why would he not warn Blake about this or even consider passing down the mantle knowing all the tragedies that had befallen himself AND Gotham because of the Batman persona?

Yeah I agree. I personally would've like it if it ended with both Bruce (and Gordon) finally having peace and living a normal, happy life because they've made their mark on Gotham and Gotham finally learned to stand on their own feet and they don't need a masked hero to inspire them anymore.

Originally Posted by Brain Damage

That's a bit disappointing.
Since Nolan is someone who's quite visibly grown with every film he's made, I was hoping we'd get some honest reflections on the experience, surely there were things in all the films that didn't go quite according to Nolan's plan.

I was hoping for that since I very much enjoy listening to filmmakers talk about the tribulations they went through in making their films.

I'm very keen to know more about how the studio approached Nolan during Begins and the making of TDK and then post TDK, and specifically, how he felt about it.

Here's hoping that pigs fly and Nolan decides to do commentaries for the Ultimate Edition

Yeah I was disappointed with it but I guess we can't really expect much since Nolan is so anti these BTS stuff. But watch them for yourself and maybe you'll enjoy it more than I did. I'm just feeling greedy wanting for so much more since this is the last one.

[BatLobsterRises]

I think Blake is a generic character, but an intentionally generic one because he's pretty much an audience surrogate, which is pretty much what Robin always was anyway- to put someone in the comics that the kids could relate to. Blake is basically like any Batman fan in real life- he looked up to Batman when he was younger and is inspired by his symbol still, even in adulthood.

The ending for me wasn't like, "Go Robin John Blake, you're gonna make an awesome Batman!" It was more just experiencing the awe of finding the Bat-cave and having the slow realization that Batman has selected you to succeed him. And also just happiness for Bruce his symbol would indeed be everlasting.

I also feel like the idea is that the next hero will be there if Gotham needs him. The Gotham Blake will inherit will be a very different one from the one Bruce inherited. It's an uncertain future, but at least he'll be there if he's needed.

[JackWhite]

Originally Posted by kvz5

I don't know... The "happy ending" for Bruce could've still worked with Gotham not needing a masked hero anymore (which I personally thought was the point of TDK but I guess I was wrong there?). But like what I said, I'm over it. Plus, that's what personal edits are for. I'm taking the stuff I don't like and ending it where I want to.

haha, speaking of "personal edits" I'm wondering if someone in the future will do a re-cut of TDKR, like that one guy did for Spider-Man 3.

[kvz5]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

I think Blake is a generic character, but an intentionally generic one because he's pretty much an audience surrogate, which is pretty much what Robin always was anyway- to put someone in the comics that the kids could relate to. Blake is basically like any Batman fan in real life- he looked up to Batman when he was younger and is inspired by his symbol still, even in adulthood.

The ending for me wasn't like, "Go Robin John Blake, you're gonna make an awesome Batman!" It was more just experiencing the awe of finding the Bat-cave and having the realization that Batman has selected you to succeed him. And also just happiness for Bruce his symbol would indeed be everlasting.

I always thought of him as Nolan's Gary Stu. The character Nolan used to dump all the answers to all the flaws of his main characters (particularly Bruce/Batman and Gordon). But I digress. I don't want to turn this thread to a Blake thread.

[Brain Damage]

Originally Posted by JackWhite

haha, speaking of "personal edits" I'm wondering if someone in the future will do a re-cut of TDKR, like that one guy did for Spider-Man 3.

Please elaborate?

[JackWhite]

Originally Posted by Brain Damage

Please elaborate?

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=341198

[Brain Damage]

Originally Posted by JackWhite

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=341198

The link the thread refers to doesn't work
But this sounds like it would be awesome.

[Anita18]

Originally Posted by kvz5

I'm still pretty torn with Bruce Wayne's ending. On one hand, I'm happy that he managed to get out of it all and start living a normal life and have a shot at happiness with someone but I'm still not fond that Gotham still needs a masked hero (kinda defeats TDK's theme IMO) and the mantle was passed to someone like Blake who I couldn't care less about. But whatever. I'm so over it. *shrug*

But Gotham doesn't NEED a masked hero. It's arguable that Batman made things worse by existing. Batman was what Bruce Wayne needed to work through his pain, and he tried to do good during the process. But Nolan has never made it very obvious that Batman all by his lonesome was going to "save" Gotham from itself.

And I'm sure that Bruce's parents, if they were alive, would never want Batman for Bruce. They wouldn't be disappointed in him for doing his best and moving on for his own good. That's why I thought Bruce bequeathing Wayne Manor for orphans was such great closure - that's what his parents would want their memory to be. Not Batman. Not for their only son.

[JackWhite]

Originally Posted by Brain Damage

The link the thread refers to doesn't work
But this sounds like it would be awesome.

Yeah, I never checked it out myself. But after watching the first act of Spider-Man 3 on TV recently, I really wanted to watch it.