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

[MAKAVELI25]

Originally Posted by Anita18

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.

So are you saying Bruce was right or wrong for leaving the equipment to Blake? Blake clearly eschewed the path of working within the system, we see that in his scene of throwing away his badge and in his scene with Gordon at the end. Unless Blake is going to be just sitting in the batcave and not trying to be the symbol Bruce was, he is likely going to cause and destruction as the first Batman did

[Travesty]

Originally Posted by Anita18

And I'm sure that Bruce's parents, if they were alive, would never want Batman for Bruce.

Bruce wouldn't need a Batman if his parents were alive, that's the entire point of the mythos. Although, who knows with Nolan's version? Bruce seems to be more motivated and sad over Rachel than his parents in this trilogy.

[Anita18]

Originally Posted by MAKAVELI25

So are you saying Bruce was right or wrong for leaving the equipment to Blake? Blake clearly eschewed the path of working within the system, we see that in his scene of throwing away his badge and in his scene with Gordon at the end. Unless Blake is going to be just sitting in the batcave and not trying to be the symbol Bruce was, he is likely going to cause and destruction as the first Batman did

I'm not entirely sure if Bruce leaves Blake ALL of his Batman stuff. He only had two batsuits - one was destroyed by Bane in the sewer and the other has a stab hole in it thanks to Talia.

I like to think that Bruce leaves Blake the detective tech which is all in the cave, but not the actual Batman weaponry. Blake does not question his morals as Bruce does (cell phone sonar, anyone?), and if he keeps an eye on things from afar without showing up in a cape and cowl and publicly kicking asses, nobody would be none the wiser.

Originally Posted by Travesty

Bruce wouldn't need a Batman if his parents were alive, that's the entire point of the mythos. Although, who knows with Nolan's version? Bruce seems to be more motivated and sad over Rachel than his parents in this trilogy.

Or if his parents could speak with him from beyond the other realm. Point is, they wouldn't have wanted Batman for him.

[MAKAVELI25]

Originally Posted by Anita18

I'm not entirely sure if Bruce leaves Blake ALL of his Batman stuff. He only had two batsuits - one was destroyed by Bane in the sewer and the other has a stab hole in it thanks to Talia.

I like to think that Bruce leaves Blake the detective tech which is all in the cave, but not the actual Batman weaponry. Blake does not question his morals as Bruce does (cell phone sonar, anyone?), and if he keeps an eye on things from afar without showing up in a cape and cowl and publicly kicking asses, nobody would be none the wiser.

Throughout the movie Bruce advises him to wear a mask when confronting his enemies. I doubt he would have given him this advice then witheld the equipment that would allow him to battle them

[BatLobsterRises]

That's a good point. There is no Tumbler, no Bat, and no Batsuits in the cave. The biggest mystery of the film is what became of the Bat-pod (I'd like to think Selina rode it through that tunnel and went as far as she could before Bruce tracked her down via the necklace ).

So we know that Bruce's most dangerous machines are not there, and also I think the fact that there are no Bat-suits shows that Blake would definitely have to do more of his own thing if he were to fully adopt the superhero thing.

But as is, he could very well just be the world's greatest Private Investigator with the help of the Bat-computer. It's pretty open to interpretation what becomes of Blake.

[MAKAVELI25]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

That's a good point. There is no Tumbler, no Bat, and no Batsuits in the cave. The biggest mystery of the film is what became of the Bat-pod (I'd like to think Selina rode it through that tunnel and went as far as she could before Bruce tracked her down via the necklace ).

So we know that Bruce's most dangerous machines are not there, and also I think the fact that there are no Bat-suits shows that Blake would definitely have to do more of his own thing if he were to fully adopt the superhero thing.

But as is, he could very well just be the world's greatest Private Investigator with the help of the Bat-computer. It's pretty open to interpretation what becomes of Blake.

You could be right, but again I don't see the point of Bruce advising him throughout the movie to wear a mask. Why does Blake need a mask if Bruce is only leaving him enough equipment to monitor the city?

[BlueLightning]

Another point being that Bruce couldn't keep going on as Batman. That was it, physically it was his swan song, and mentally he finally let go the pain that was burdening him. He managed to do what he set out to do, to inspire people and give them hope. If Gotham would need Batman after all of that is still debatable, but if the situation arises, and neither the cops or the system could handle it, there is still Blake to join to the fray. But it is up to him, Bruce didn't force Blake, he just saw his potential and left him with a choice.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by MAKAVELI25

You could be right, but again I don't see the point of Bruce advising him throughout the movie to wear a mask. Why does Blake need a mask if Bruce is only leaving him enough equipment to monitor the city?

Well, I would imagine Blake does have access some of the batarangs, bat-mines and other gadgets (I wonder what happened to the sticky bomb gun?).

Blake could very well become the next hero for Gotham, if he's needed. I think it's up to both Blake and Gotham to determine whether or not Batman (or "other" Bat-hero) will resurface. Don't forget, Gotham is recovering from the worst thing it's ever experienced and is going to be entering a rebuilding period. Perhaps it will emerge a better place than it previously was ("I see a beautiful city and a brilliant people rising from this abyss"). Or perhaps not, and Blake will have to answer that Bat-signal one day if Gordon is that desperate for help. I just don't think Gotham will be seeing another Tumbler crushing cop cars on the evening news any time soon, either way. It's entering a new era one way or another.

Originally Posted by BlueLightning

Another point being that Bruce couldn't keep going on as Batman. That was it, physically it was his swan song, and mentally he finally let go the pain that was burdening him. He managed to do what he set out to do, to inspire people and give them hope. If Gotham would need Batman after all of that is still debatable, but if the situation arises, and neither the cops or the system could handle it, there is still Blake to join to the fray. But it is up to him, Bruce didn't force Blake, he just saw his potential and left him with a choice.

Yup.

[Fudgie]

Originally Posted by Brain Damage

It was just kind of silly. Batman says: "A hero can be anyone, even a man doing something as simple and reassuring as putting a coat around a young boy’s shoulders to let him know the world hadn’t ended."

First off, it spells the major theme of the movie right out for everyone.

Second, Gordon was a cop in Gotham City. I'm willing to bet he's probably put his coat around a lot of young boy's shoulders to let them know the world hadn't ended. The fact that he's able to instantly recall doing so to Bruce Wayne seemed forced to me. Now, you might say that Batman reveals his identity in a similar way to Rachel towards the end of Begins, but consider the difference. In Begins, he utters a specific phrase that Rachel had told him before at most a few weeks (if not days) prior. In TDKR, he recalls a moment that occurred thirty years ago, vaguely, I might add.

Third, in the moment when seconds are counting down till the bomb blows off, Batman chooses to become the Riddler (as Kevin Smith very funnily pointed out) and leave his only real friend standing in confusion trying to figure out what he just told him. Eh.

Now, I'll say these, none of these things completely ruin the moment for me. It's still very powerful and emotional scene. But it's the most superficial kind of emotional scene. There's no subtlety involved. It's a moment in which the story is quite clearly dictated by the fact that it's a story meant for an audience, if that makes sense. Rather than having a natural build up to the reveal it's thrown in there at the last second simply because, well, it's gotta happen sometime and Bats and Gordon aren't gonna get a chance to speak to each other again.

Thus. Ham-handed.

Quoted for truth.

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*

Yup same here. Didn't give a damn about Robin Blake.

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?

Originally Posted by 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".

The awesome posts are plenty in this thread today. Good to see.

[shauner111]

I'd like to think Gotham is at a better place now. At least the peoples spirits are lifted and they'll need to come together to rebuild the place. The rich might wake up a bit (at least a portion of them) after being put out on the streets. Maybe seeing Bruce Wayne, the airhead billionaire, leave behind his Manor to new generations of young children who need a place to learn, etc. Knowing that Batman lead the police in fighting for the soul of the city...even after he was spat on during his reign and especially taking the blame for 8 years. Which they now know wasn't true. After all that he still came back and saved the lives of the rich and the poor. I would hope that this brings people closer together.

Of course the city (and legal system) is really vulnerable as well. It doesnt have to be a Gothamite, it could be somebody from the outside who sees this "vulnerability" as an oppurtunity. Or a "Joker" who takes advantage of the situation. Blake is there incase. Or if a bunch of organized crime hits again? Blake is there incase. It could take several years before these things happen but he'll have time to train, use his detective skills and help the orphans. Also it may never get to that point.

I really do think the 8 year break helped Batman be looked at as a legend but in a bad light. Then when it was revealed that he never murdered anyone + he took his own life by getting rid of a nuclear bomb?? If this happened for real we would be like "wow he took the blame so we can have peace for a decade. It was wrong to lie, but he suffered for it. Then he returned and saved us despite all the blame. We're going to create a statue in memory of him. He changed things...forever." It would be pretty powerful i think.

You guys ask where the bat-pod is? I have this vision of Blake patrolling the streets of the Narrows on it, in a new suit with a part of Catwomans goggles (without the ears lol). With those blue lights shining from the eyes, but stronger. As he looks on in each direction. He hits a button near his temple to shut it off, keeping them on at all times. No flip-ups. Old leftover gadgets of Batmans are left to him in the batcave. With new adjustments made to the suit by Lucius + new weapons.

[batfreakforever]

In the BB picture in picture Nolan says that you have to show why Batman is the best thing for Gotham City. In TDK Bruce wants Gotham to have a hero with a face with Harvey, but by the end of Rises we find out the hero is Batman. I like how questions arise in the first two films but in Rises the answers to those questions are answered.

[MAKAVELI25]

Originally Posted by batfreakforever

In the BB picture in picture Nolan says that you have to show why Batman is the best thing for Gotham City. In TDK Bruce wants Gotham to have a hero with a face with Harvey, but by the end of Rises we find out the hero is Batman. I like how questions arise in the first two films but in Rises the answers to those questions are answered.

I do like the fact that Batman made a positive difference, but I think TDK is the best film in the trilogy because of how compelling it is. When examining a hero like Batman you have to adress the fact that with the style of war he wages on crime there will be benefits as well as casualties. A Gotham where a Batman WAS needed and is not needed anymore is a lot more safe than a Gotham that will need the legacy passed down from one Batman to the next

[Fudgie]

Originally Posted by MAKAVELI25

I do like the fact that Batman made a positive difference, but I think TDK is the best film in the trilogy because of how compelling it is. When examining a hero like Batman you have to adress the fact that with the style of war he wages on crime there will be benefits as well as casualties. A Gotham where a Batman WAS needed and is not needed anymore is a lot more safe than a Gotham that will need the legacy passed down from one Batman to the next

Yup I loved seeing the Batman effect on Gotham in TDK. Those crazy ass copycats, the desperation of the mob with their daylight meetings and hiring a crazy like Joker to help them. Hell Joker himself was the ultimate villain response to the Bat in Gotham.

[Anita18]

Originally Posted by MAKAVELI25

You could be right, but again I don't see the point of Bruce advising him throughout the movie to wear a mask. Why does Blake need a mask if Bruce is only leaving him enough equipment to monitor the city?

"If you're working alone, wear a mask."

Blake asks Bruce the first time. But there's a difference between going out once in a while for on-the-ground work, ie as Matches Malone, vs going out as a symbol and all. Bruce doesn't mention using the mask as a symbol for its reason for existing - it's for practical protection reasons.

I think Robin being a new Batman is up in the air.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by Anita18

I think Robin being a new Batman is up in the air.

It is. It's up to Gotham more than it's up to Blake. Blake will emerge as Gotham's new protector the second he's absolutely needed and not a second sooner. Or perhaps the day when Gotham will no longer need Batman has arrived at last, this time without the sham of the Harvey Dent Act.

It's really up to the audience's imagination. There's no way Nolan could have honestly gotten people to believe Gotham will be crime free for the rest of its existence and will have no violent enemies after such a turbulent past. I know some people think having the ordinary citizens fighting along with the police would have shown that Gotham was ready to stand up for itself...but that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. It was a time of war where Gotham was separated from all concepts of law and order. Once peace in Gotham is restored people can't just go around being vigilantes and beating up the bad guys. And if the next "Joker" was to show up in Gotham, it's not a job for the ordinary citizens.

Blake is Bruce's ace in the hole.

[MAKAVELI25]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

It is. It's up to Gotham more than it's up to Blake. Blake will emerge as Gotham's new protector the second he's absolutely needed and not a second sooner. Or perhaps the day when Gotham will no longer need Batman has arrived at last, this time without the sham of the Harvey Dent Act.

It's really up to the audience's imagination. There's no way Nolan could have honestly gotten people to believe Gotham will be crime free for the rest of its existence and will have no violent enemies after such a turbulent past. I know some people think having the ordinary citizens fighting along with the police would have shown that Gotham was ready to stand up for itself...but that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. It was a time of war where Gotham was separated from all concepts of law and order. Once peace in Gotham is restored people can't just go around being vigilantes and beating up the bad guys. And if the next "Joker" was to show up in Gotham, it's not a job for the ordinary citizens.

Blake is Bruce's ace in the hole.

But, atleast IMO, Batman existing in the first place is what allows a supervillain like the Joker to arise. Presumably since Bruce was retired there were no such supervillains, I think this shows that he was pretty much the cause of the chaos that ensued after Batman Begins. Remember that the mob was on its last legs when they allowed the Joker to take over the city, without this desperation they could've banded together and killed him easily. Some of you might argue this point, but remember that the Joker wasn't a priority to the mob, the only one really looking for him was Gamble, even Maroni says something to the effect of the Joker not being important (mob meeting). Had they worked together to catch him they would've found him easily. Without a Batman supervillains like the Joker cannot arise because the criminal elements will dispose of them before they can become too big of a problem. Having national guards patrolling your city is bad for business


. I'd like to think that Gotham, like pretty much any other city in the world, could survivie without a masked crimefighter IF the people rose up as one in order to combat crime.

[Visceral]

Originally Posted by Brain Damage

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?

Yes but that doesn't mean that the story didn't also demand it. The Dark Knight Trilogy is about heroism, and what that means. In this one line Batman is telling Gordon who he is, while at the same time making a statement heroism, and explaining to Gordon it still doesn't matter who he is. Its a statement that the Batman wasn't created in a bubble. He was influenced by many father figures, like Gordon. The trilogy itself starts with a conversation between Ra's and Batman, a father and son archetype. That conversation continues until the last scene of the Dark Knight Rises.

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.

I'm saying that there are many films that are hated by the general public, that are full symbolism to me. Films that I think people are just flat out wrong about. If I think a film is ham-handed, I usually don't comment on it because why dwell on something mindless, when there are so many other fulfilling things to meditate on.

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.

Jonathan Nolan is an incredible screenwriter, and the script isn't perfect but I would argue that nearly every scene and character is done with purpose. So I am attacking you because you called a clearly logical, beautiful, and powerful scene that I thought would be obvious to most posters on this board, but my anger goes beyond that. Most posters on this board have no idea why Nolan created the character of Foley, or even try to understand why Nolan believed that he is important to the story. Hopefully I'm making sense here. I am frustrated when people don't think before they post.

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.

Those were incredibly terrible reasons as to why the scene might be ham-handed. It sounded like nitpick to me.

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.

Of course, I am reading your posts. That's another common statement found on the internet. I just disagree with you. I guess that's hard to believe. I've never had emotion evoked in me by something superficial. Most college professors are going to tell you that superficial and powerful are antonyms. You need concede this one.

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

thanks I guess.http://forums.superherohype.com/show...+batman+essays
Here on Tuesday, I hope. You can rip it apart or maybe it will change your mind.

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.

Not convinced it was done poorly, sorry.

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 argue quite a bit about how Batman's power will stifle Gotham in thread I posted, basically The Dent Act leads all of Gotham to revolt even though I might be doing good for Gotham.

Fyodor Dostoevsky's Notes from the Underground centers around a character who lives in a subterranean home, underneath a perfect Utopian socialist society. In the opening monologue, he explains that there is something wrong with him. "There is something wrong with my liver, I should do something about it, but I won't". The story goes on to explain that no matter how perfect the society is, it does not allow for the freedom of the human person. This underground man would rather die than take part in such a society that does not allow for him to make his own mistakes. Much like how Bane seeks vengeance on society's leaders even though technically the Dent Act is saving people from the tyranny of organized crime. Bane does this underground.

This underground man is an inspiration for most of what goes on in the film TDKR. Batman, Bane, the Underground Army, and the Cops are all at one point underground and fighting for freedom. Its a statement on human nature. Human beings are far more complex than any social system they can create. So technically even if Batman truly saves the world, society will eventually not want to be saved.

There is a reason that Batman attaches himself to Catwoman, a common criminal, who hates the Dent Act. Sort of curious, since Joe Chill was a common criminal and was one of the reasons Batman came into being.

If the Dent Act creates such a perfect city without crime, why are kids from St. Swithins still idolizing the Batman? Why are they going underground to join the League of Shadows?

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.

No, you didn't nor did I intend to say that you did. I picked a fight with you because I find an incredible amount of meaning in a scene you called ham-handed. I can handle Talia's death scene being criticized among other things. I'm not done arguing with people on here there are other things I feel are inappropriately being torn apart without good reason or real analysis.

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.

I like good strong reasons for as why you like something. When you don't like something why? Why does it go against what you think batman should be? To me this scene showed a tremendous amount of honor, respect and humility on Batman's part. I feel those virtues are important in a hero.

Saying batman was to much like the riddler, comes off completely WTF to me.

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.

I think that is a terrible way to feel. But hey its your opinion man.

[TheBat812]

Originally Posted by MAKAVELI25

But, atleast IMO, Batman existing in the first place is what allows a supervillain like the Joker to arise. Presumably since Bruce was retired there were no such supervillains, I think this shows that he was pretty much the cause of the chaos that ensued after Batman Begins. Remember that the mob was on its last legs when they allowed the Joker to take over the city, without this desperation they could've banded together and killed him easily. Some of you might argue this point, but remember that the Joker wasn't a priority to the mob, the only one really looking for him was Gamble, even Maroni says something to the effect of the Joker not being important (mob meeting). Had they worked together to catch him they would've found him easily. Without a Batman supervillains like the Joker cannot arise because the criminal elements will dispose of them before they can become too big of a problem. Having national guards patrolling your city is bad for business


. I'd like to think that Gotham, like pretty much any other city in the world, could survivie without a masked crimefighter IF the people rose up as one in order to combat crime.

Do you consider the LOS and their leaders to be supervillains? Because they were coming for Gotham regardless of Bruce, and the mob would have been of no consequence. Agreed on the Joker front though, he in particular would not have been successful or maybe wouldn't even have hatched his plans without the Batman.

[MAKAVELI25]

Originally Posted by TheBat812

Do you consider the LOS and their leaders to be supervillains? Because they were coming for Gotham regardless of Bruce, and the mob would have been of no consequence. .

That's actually a really good point. Forgot about that. I still think that a Gotham without a masked hero is a safer one, but that's definitely a valid objection

[Happy Jack]

Originally Posted by Anita18

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.

I'm not sure if I agree with the idea that Batman was somehow bad for Gotham. A large part of Bruce's reasoning for inventing Batman in the first movie was to galvanize the city into saving itself. Yes, it was also because of his pain and Batman became the indirect cause for a lot of suffering, but he also did do good for Gotham. In Rises we see Batman's victory, the actualization of Bruce's goals. We see that Batman ultimately worked. I think the city will be better off than if Bruce had never put on the cape and cowl. If nothing else he wouldn't have been able to stop Ra's from destroying Gotham in Begins, which still would have happened regardless.

[Anita18]

Originally Posted by Happy Jack

I'm not sure if I agree with the idea that Batman was somehow bad for Gotham. A large part of Bruce's reasoning for inventing Batman in the first movie was to galvanize the city into saving itself. Yes, it was also because of his pain and Batman became the indirect cause for a lot of suffering, but he also did do good for Gotham. In Rises we see Batman's victory, the actualization of Bruce's goals. We see that Batman ultimately worked. I think the city will be better off than if Bruce had never put on the cape and cowl. If nothing else he wouldn't have been able to stop Ra's from destroying Gotham in Begins, which still would have happened regardless.

But Ra's even said, they did it to Gotham before and the eventual result was the same every time. In their view, Batman is just delaying the inevitable. There will always be criminals, so what's the point?

The point is then, Bruce needs Batman more than Gotham needs Batman. And if a few Gothamites latch onto the hope that Batman symbolizes, all the better.

If we really were to have seen the "dramatic example to shake people out of apathy," Nolan would have probably shown us the reaction of the Gotham State cop who ordered the bridge be blown. He had been acting out of apathy, only doing what was told. Wouldn't his reaction and his lesson been the point of Batman? But it isn't. Blake, Gordon, Lucius (and Dent and Rachel), already had heroism within them. There is no apathy to shake off. Only in Selina, really. But in all the others, the existence of Batman only made them brave enough to act. Batman was pretty much already preaching to the choir with them. He isn't really going to change any minds, but give hope to those who are without it. And save as many innocent lives in the process as he can. But hope without action doesn't exactly change the world.

Bruce was reasoning that Batman was good for Gotham, and it's fair that he is. He didn't want to face how messed up he really was. It's only in Rises that he finally acknowledges the harm that he's doing himself, and that the city doesn't need a hero who functions from pain. Violence and pain only begets more, and what he sees in Blake he thinks is better.

[Brain Damage]

Originally Posted by Visceral

Yes but that doesn't mean that the story didn't also demand it. The Dark Knight Trilogy is about heroism, and what that means. In this one line Batman is telling Gordon who he is, while at the same time making a statement heroism, and explaining to Gordon it still doesn't matter who he is. Its a statement that the Batman wasn't created in a bubble. He was influenced by many father figures, like Gordon. The trilogy itself starts with a conversation between Ra's and Batman, a father and son archetype. That conversation continues until the last scene of the Dark Knight Rises.

Okay, I agree with all of this. The line definitely does everything you've just mentioned - that doens't mean it's not a cheesy line. I'm not arguing that it doesn't have a lot of impact, I'm arguing that it could have been done in a more subtle way. I feel like I've made that quite clear and that we're going in circles now.

I'm saying that there are many films that are hated by the general public, that are full symbolism to me. Films that I think people are just flat out wrong about. If I think a film is ham-handed, I usually don't comment on it because why dwell on something mindless, when there are so many other fulfilling things to meditate on.

I think you and I have different defintions of ham-handed. Let's consult dictionary? Merriam-Webster defines it as: "lacking dexterity or grace". That's all I'm arguing. Not that the moment isn't meaningful or that it's mindless, I'm arguing that it was done with a lack of grace.

Jonathan Nolan is an incredible screenwriter, and the script isn't perfect but I would argue that nearly every scene and character is done with purpose. So I am attacking you because you called a clearly logical, beautiful, and powerful scene that I thought would be obvious to most posters on this board, but my anger goes beyond that. Most posters on this board have no idea why Nolan created the character of Foley, or even try to understand why Nolan believed that he is important to the story. Hopefully I'm making sense here. I am frustrated when people don't think before they post.

No, quite honestly you are not. I never once argued that the moment didn't have purpose. Also, I personally happen to like the character of Foley a lot and I think he has a good arc that mirrors the people of Gotham's. But I would never be so condescending as to say that most people don't understand what Nolan was trying to do with the character, or to suggest that they're not thinking before they post just because they happen to disagree with me.

Maybe they understand perfectly what Nolan was trying to do with the character, maybe they just don't like it. Clearly you're angered by people who in your opinion do not understand the film and I can understand that sort of anger, but you my friend are taking it too far. And saying that people don't think before they post is not only extremely condescending, it's very rude to most of the people on these boards who in fact happen to put a lot of thought into their posts.

Those were incredibly terrible reasons as to why the scene might be ham-handed. It sounded like nitpick to me.

Okay, if this is how we're going to debate this, then I see we're not going to get anywhere.

Of course, I am reading your posts. That's another common statement found on the internet. I just disagree with you. I guess that's hard to believe. I've never had emotion evoked in me by something superficial. Most college professors are going to tell you that superficial and powerful are antonyms. You need concede this one.

Um. No. I don't. You "just disagree" with me, yet you act like you're superior because apparently you have some higher understanding of the scene that I don't.

thanks I guess.http://forums.superherohype.com/show...+batman+essays
Here on Tuesday, I hope. You can rip it apart or maybe it will change your mind.

I'll give them a read

Not convinced it was done poorly, sorry.

Fair enough, and I'm not convinced it was done with grace. We can agree to disagree.

I argue quite a bit about how Batman's power will stifle Gotham in thread I posted, basically The Dent Act leads all of Gotham to revolt even though I might be doing good for Gotham.

Fyodor Dostoevsky's Notes from the Underground centers around a character who lives in a subterranean home, underneath a perfect Utopian socialist society. In the opening monologue, he explains that there is something wrong with him. "There is something wrong with my liver, I should do something about it, but I won't". The story goes on to explain that no matter how perfect the society is, it does not allow for the freedom of the human person. This underground man would rather die than take part in such a society that does not allow for him to make his own mistakes. Much like how Bane seeks vengeance on society's leaders even though technically the Dent Act is saving people from the tyranny of organized crime. Bane does this underground.

First off... ay.... drawing comparison to classic literature is not how you're going to win this argument. Not because I don't enjoy classic literature or because I don't see the merit in comparing TDKR to such works, but just because something drawls comparison to a classic work does not mean that thing works on its own.

About the bolded part. Where in the movie does it say or show that? I mean specifically, which scene, which line of dialogue. Why does Bane seek vengeance on society's leaders? Talia seeks revenge on Bruce, that much we can be sure of, and Bane seeks to help Talia gain her revenge, but where in the film is it shown that Bane seeks vengeance against society's leaders?

Vengeance for what?

And for what purpose?

Is it because the Dent Act is based on a lie? Couldn't imagine, as Bane only stumbles on that nugget of information by accident when Gordon is brought into the sewer.

This underground man is an inspiration for most of what goes on in the film TDKR. Batman, Bane, the Underground Army, and the Cops are all at one point underground and fighting for freedom. Its a statement on human nature. Human beings are far more complex than any social system they can create. So technically even if Batman truly saves the world, society will eventually not want to be saved.

I agree with everything you've said up until the bold part. I'm not quite sure what you're using to draw that conclusion.

There is a reason that Batman attaches himself to Catwoman, a common criminal, who hates the Dent Act. Sort of curious, since Joe Chill was a common criminal and was one of the reasons Batman came into being.

And what reason is that?

If the Dent Act creates such a perfect city without crime, why are kids from St. Swithins still idolizing the Batman? Why are they going underground to join the League of Shadows?

Lack of crime does not equal economic prosperity. The boy Blake talks to quite clearly states that kids are going into the sewers looking for work. So yes, the dynamic of rich vs poor is definitely there, and if Bane's plan was to exploit that and to ACTUALLY lead a revolution, that would have been incredibly interesting. And the movie teases you to believe that just may be the case, but unfortunately, all we get is one quick montage of the rich being pulled from their homes and Bane's motivations aren't actually to inspire the poor to take back their city but rather just to blow them all up.

Motivations that are far less interesting that the ones he pretends to have.

But to be honest, considering we were talking about Batman's reveal to Gordon I'm not quite sure how we ended up on this topic. Moving on.

No, you didn't nor did I intend to say that you did. I picked a fight with you because I find an incredible amount of meaning in a scene you called ham-handed. I can handle Talia's death scene being criticized among other things. I'm not done arguing with people on here there are other things I feel are inappropriately being torn apart without good reason or real analysis.

So basically if there's something in the film you think works perfectly well then people shouldn't be wasting their time criticizing it? I'm sorry but that's just bull. I don't care how educated or well informed your opinion may be, it is your opinion and it is not the only valid one. Just because you don't think there's good enough reason for real analysis does not mean others agree. I guarantee you that someone would be able to find a good reason for real analysis about practically anything. From War and Peace to The Love Guru. I may think that analyzing The Love Guru is a complete and utter waste of time but if someone chooses to do so I'm not going to pick a fight with them - that is a waste of time.

I like good strong reasons for as why you like something. When you don't like something why? Why does it go against what you think batman should be? To me this scene showed a tremendous amount of honor, respect and humility on Batman's part. I feel those virtues are important in a hero.

I agree that those virtues are important and that it demonstrates them. But it's a cheesy line of dialogue. The O'Neil/Adams era of Batman comics is often considered to beone of the best representations of the character, and I'd have to agree. But a lot of the writing very much has a cheesy and distinctly comic-y feel to it. Nothing wrong with that - they were still very effective stories - but I felt Batman's line to Gordon was cheesier than the dialogue I had come to expect from the rest of the films. Doesn't mean it's not effective, just means it could have been done with a lot more grace and subtly.

Saying batman was to much like the riddler, comes off completely WTF to me.

Actually, Kevin Smith said that and he did so jokingly (something I pointed out in my post). It was not meant to be taken literally.

I think that is a terrible way to feel. But hey its your opinion man.

Yes it is. I'd say we're about done here and we've both drawn this out long enough, eh? So lets be mature and agree to disagree.

[Visceral]

Originally Posted by Brain Damage

Yes it is. I'd say we're about done here and we've both drawn this out long enough, eh? So lets be mature and agree to disagree.

Yes, I suppose we will.

If you want to analyze the Love Guru, go ahead right ahead. The more power to you, and it can be done. I know you are just using the film as an example but sometimes I look at my guilty pleasures critically, and the result is good. The problem and where my frustrations stems from is people who believe that criticism and thinking critically are the same thing. It drives me nuts. I love people who have good opinions of films, and by "good" I mean well thought out.

If I may take a shot of the What Would You Change Thread for a moment. You look over there and most people would have changed the entire film. What is the point of dwelling on what you think is negative I don't know, but at the same time I would agree that I have completely different thoughts on Batman than Nolan does and would have made an entirely different film.

[AnneFan]

BB - "And you'll never have to."
TDK - "You don't have to thank me."
TDKR - "Don't thank me yet."

[BatLobsterRises]

It really warms my heart that Gordon finally got to understand why Batman always insisted that he didn't have to thank him.