The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - - - - - - Part 142

[kvz5]

I remember there was a rumor back then that Tate is not Talia but... Earle's daughter.

[redfirebird2008]

Originally Posted by TheBat812

I don't really agree. It would have felt nonsensical that they let him back into their company. The plot point was believable because of the existence of other convenient gadgets throughout the trilogy.

Valid point. This is the man who fired Fox. If it wasn't for that, I actually like the idea of bringing him back and having Bane snap his neck.

[CapedCrusader14]

Would have been all the more satisfying.

Though having Bane snap the neck of a master actor of villains could have been pushing the suspension of disbelief

[craigdbfan]

Originally Posted by TheBat812

I don't really agree. It would have felt nonsensical that they let him back into their company. The plot point was believable because of the existence of other convenient gadgets throughout the trilogy.

Not really as Daggett just held shares within Wayne Enterprises and separately owned a construction company.

Earle was let go as CEO, that doesn't mean he wouldn't be able to buy stocks within Wayne Enterprise.

So it wouldn't of been nonsensical as it wouldn't of been hard for him to become a CEO for a different company and go ahead with the same plan Daggett had. Excelsior is right in that Earle could have easily been weaved back in and believably so too.

[TheBat812]

I think it was important to have a new force in there, just like bane is not Ra's, but an extension of the same type of person, but that certainly could have been interesting in itself. Alot of revenge would have been possible. Would be an interesting move to have Earle be the one who helps the LOS get a Wayne device after what happened in BB, haha.

[uros3d]

So, I read that the desert pit in the TDKR is actually a reference to the Lazarus Pit. They drop people there dying or to die, and some of them climb back or as Alfred says in the movie - "Rise from the darkness".

If you already elaborated on this, sorry

[georgec]

Earle couldn't have come back.

He's too busy living his life as a hobo with a shotgun.

[CapedCrusader14]

And Blake stole that shotgun from him

[randyf]

[If addressed earlier, please kindly point me to the relevant Parts]

I've had this question in mind and awaited the BR release to see if there is an answer. I didn't see one so . . .

How is Bruce Wayne's death -- not Batman's -- supposed to be explained publicly? There is a public reading of his will, his estate is broken up, but how is Bruce -- again not Bats -- supposed to have perished?

The last time Bruce -- again not Bats -- is "seen" in the film is when he is "captured" in the tunnels. From there he dons the Batman persona and Bruce disappears from the remainder of the movie.

Unlike how the ruse of Bruce Wayne's "disfigurement" and recluse existence is created at the outset of the film, I'm coming to the conclusion that Bruce's absence from the last 30 minutes of the film (except for the Florence scene) to be a major plot hole?

[doobie]

I know this will have been asked before but what motive was Batman supposed to have had for killing Dent? At the end of TDK he said he would take the blame for killing Dent's victims (which would make sense as they were people who helped Joker so he would have been angry at them). But Dent was praising Batman and helping him all throught TDK, so why did people believe Batman would want to kill Dent? Or was Dent supposed to have died stopping Batman from killing Gordon's family in revenge for him not checking his cops well enough.

[Anita18]

Originally Posted by randyf

[If addressed earlier, please kindly point me to the relevant Parts]

I've had this question in mind and awaited the BR release to see if there is an answer. I didn't see one so . . .

How is Bruce Wayne's death -- not Batman's -- supposed to be explained publicly? There is a public reading of his will, his estate is broken up, but how is Bruce -- again not Bats -- supposed to have perished?

The last time Bruce -- again not Bats -- is "seen" in the film is when he is "captured" in the tunnels. From there he dons the Batman persona and Bruce disappears from the remainder of the movie.

Unlike how the ruse of Bruce Wayne's "disfigurement" and recluse existence is created at the outset of the film, I'm coming to the conclusion that Bruce's absence from the last 30 minutes of the film (except for the Florence scene) to be a major plot hole?

"Sorry to spoil things boys, but Bane wants these guys to himself."

Doesn't that pretty much explain it all? Bane killed Bruce, and Lucius miraculously managed to escape. Lucius could probably even come up with a good sob story about Bruce sacrificing himself so Lucius could live. True, the henchmen that Catwoman takes out could have testified that she attacked them, but for all they knew, Catwoman just wanted to take all the credit. Point is, they certainly can't ask Bane what happened to Bruce Wayne because he be dead.

[Brain Damage]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

Yeah, it's insane. There truly is every single opinion imaginable out there. It's not divisive in the sense that it divides people in half. It divides people like a friggin' pizza pie.

- Every Act has been cited as the film's worst and best.
- Bane, Selina, Bruce Wayne, Blake and Alfred have been called the best characters of the movie.
- Bane, Selina, Bruce Wayne, Blake and Alfred have been called the worst characters of the movie.
- The Bat was awesome/The Bat was too out there
- The movie was wasn't long enough/The movie was too long
- Yay full circle/Boo full circle
- The ending...'nuff said

Not to mention all the middle ground. Wildly divisive. Yet, still very much embraced by the overall majority. I do believe the trilogy easily will stand the test of time regardless of how the dust settles on Rises. Though IMO, it only gets better the more you watch it and think about it. Of course, there are those who feel the opposite haha.

You've hit the nail on the head my friend. Despite my many problems with Rises, I really love the fact that we have a Batman film with such vastly different opinions about it.

[Tequilla]

Originally Posted by Excelsior.

You know how the insignificant plot device of Dagget could've been improved on? If they brought back Rutger Hauer's character as a substitute. You could still have him be the same plot device as from before, but his history with Bruce in Batman Begins would immediately give it a greater texture. And his motivation to take over Wayne Ent. would be have some weight.

See, that right there is a better call back to Begins than LOS.

It isn't. Texture doesn't come with a familiar face. Comes from a real conflict . Not a caricature of someone wanting something that was never his.

Rutger Hauer was a corporate executive. Not a guy who would be involved in coups in Africa , tying himself with the LOS to use the country resources.

[redfirebird2008]

Originally Posted by Tequilla

Rutger Hauer was a corporate executive. Not a guy who would be involved in coups in Africa , tying himself with the LOS to use the country resources.

He ties himself to the LOS when he gives them a microwave emitter, though I suppose you could argue they simply paid him for it and he had no idea what they planned to do with it.

[Tequilla]

Originally Posted by redfirebird2008

He ties himself to the LOS when he gives them a microwave emitter, though I suppose you could argue they simply paid him for it and he had no idea what they planned to do with it.

Didn't the LOS stole the microwave emitter , when it was being transported on a freighter ? Maybe im remembering it wrong.

[BatmanBeyond]

Originally Posted by redfirebird2008

He ties himself to the LOS when he gives them a microwave emitter, though I suppose you could argue they simply paid him for it and he had no idea what they planned to do with it.

I don't remember it being made clear that Earle was in on the LoS acquiring the microwave emitter in BB.

[redfirebird2008]

Originally Posted by Tequilla

Didn't the LOS stole the microwave emitter , when it was being transported on a freighter ? Maybe im remembering it wrong.

Originally Posted by BatmanBeyond

I don't remember it being made clear that Earle was in on the LoS acquiring the microwave emitter in BB.

"Earle just fired me for asking too many questions about it."

Implies that Earle was in on it. Probably told the LOS which ship it would be on.

[Tequilla]

Originally Posted by redfirebird2008

"Earle just fired me for asking too many questions about it."

Implies that Earle was in on it. Probably told the LOS which ship it would be on.

I never got that impression. He didnt want too many questions about it , because he was the administrator of a company who just had lost a weapon of (potential) mass destruction. That's the sort of stuff any corporate executive would be burned. And stocks prices would completely collapse.

He was also guilty of developing heavy weapons , something that was clearly against the idea of Wayne Enterprises before the death of Thomas.

More , if you remember before the lucius scene there's a scene where someone goes to Earle and explains to him what happened , what was developed and what the weapon itself does. He also feels kinda agitated when speaking Lucius.

I never even thought of him having any sort of connections with a group like LOS , and specially jeopardize the future of the company. Something he is very much interested.

Dagget is a nasty pos . Someone who would involve himself with terrorists just to get more rich. I saw Earle as the typical corporate greedy man , and not that villainous.

[Travesty]

Originally Posted by Cory

Why is Ferris Bueller with Michael Caine and Chistopher Nolan?

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Excelsior.

You know how the insignificant plot device of Dagget could've been improved on? If they brought back Rutger Hauer's character as a substitute. You could still have him be the same plot device as from before, but his history with Bruce in Batman Begins would immediately give it a greater texture. And his motivation to take over Wayne Ent. would be have some weight.

See, that right there is a better call back to Begins than LOS.

Daggett was a WE board member though, wasn't he? Not just someone who owned Daggett Construction and wanted to take over Wayne Enterprises.

Mr. Earle was fired and no way could play the same role as Daggett.

[BatLobsterRises]

So Daggett should have been Earle, Blake should have been the kid from the Narrows. I guess Selina should have probably been Falafel guy instead. What better way to revisit class struggle?

[Batman jr.]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

So Daggett should have been Earle, Blake should have been the kid from the Narrows. I guess Selina should have probably been Falafel guy instead. What better way to revisit class struggle?

Earle instead of Daggett would've been nice!

[The Joker]

Can you imagine Earle getting Bruce kicked out of the board meeting like Daggett did, and getting to say the memo line again.

[C. Lee]

I didn't get to watch the movie until yesterday....so I haven't read much discussion about the movie (I like at least some surprises when I see a movie....I don't have the insatiable need to know every iota about one before watching it for the first time)....so, if this has been mentioned too much, just ignore it....

Did any one have problems with how hale and healthy 3,000 policemen looked after being crammed into a sewer for 5 months?

[Anno_Domini]

Why wouldn't they be? We see them being given food and other essentials during Bane's monologue after breaking into Blackgate.