How Long Was Bruce Wayne Actually Batman in this Trilogy?

[shauner111]

Maybe the idea is not for us to think of Bruce's Batman as having time to fight other rogues within the gaps. But for Blake's Batman (or shall i say Robin's Batman) to be the one who goes on through the years fighting these comic book villains. And when he passes the mantle on, to a Dick Grayson type (hey..he does have an entire orphanage of kids to choose from) then HIS version of Batman can fight other villains as well. There's so many rogues. Batman helps but he attracts so many weirdos. This could be a never ending battle.

[BlueLightning]

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd

But if he wasn't. Then it was Scarecrow, which means there were intermediary clashes.

I'm pretty sure he was referring to the copycats.

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd

Only as much as the time between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight was, it would suggest Bruce had a near full career as Batman. But hinting towards a brand new Batman isn't blowing the balloon up?

No. Because that story would have Blake as the protagonist, and Bruce Wayne journey it's over. It's a thematic thing though, because it is a thread left from TDK where Bruce looks at Harvey Dent as a successor, in a way Batman inspired Dent "Things have improved" says Alfred, but in the end it all goes wrong. Now Blake fulfills this purpose in a different fashion.

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd

Joker has almost always gone through a tragic occurrence in his past which fractures his psyche. Bruce has sometimes had both parents shot, sometimes he was raised by Uncle Philip Wayne for a while, he's sometimes had a brother. Also, I never said "origin" I said "past" which opens up even more pathways.

Depends on what you define tragic, for example being a Gangster/Red Hood who clashes with the Batman and ends up in a chemical bath doesn't equally match to a disgraced comedian with lost family. But in comics and media there are details that fluctuates, but there are milestones that prevail, like the chemical bath for the Joker.

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd

But you wouldn't bring them to the table. You'd hint to them. What did Zsasz in Batman Begins serve that couldn't be filled with any other random crazy Arkham inmate? The purpose is to develop Bruce, not them.

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd

You clearly aren't reading at all now. I never said do a film based around any of these characters. I'm not even saying to show the characters. I'm saying hint towards them. Hint. Suggest they could exist.

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd

I see a reason. Not one good enough for me though. Like you said, it's limited.

I know what you are saying, but I already made my point about how most of these characters don't bring anything of weight for the story they are telling. I don't get this necessity of hinting towards them.

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd

Was it necessary to use Talia Al Ghul in the film? No. Bane? No. 8 year gap? No. But there they all were.

Yes there is, because this is the story they are telling. You change that, you get a different film. There is a reason for all of that.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd

That's my point, hint to some things that were worthy of Bruce's attention. But when they are gone. He keeps being Batman, trying to stop "small" crimes like murders, rapes, carjackings, but they aren't worth the toll on his body.

Seeing as how we got two movies of Batman not dealing with those "small" crimes, it's not something that bothers me as such that Batman didn't deal with those, especially with Bruce's main goal of taking out organized crime; we're not really in the know of anything else Bruce set out to achieve in Nolan's trilogy from the beginning.

Bringing in the League seemed like trying to arbitrarily tie it to Batman Begins.

But that was intended. To tie back into Batman Begins with the League of Shadows. It had part of the beginnings of Batman and it played a part in the ending, or at least Bruce Wayne's time as Batman(if Robin John Blake becomes Batman later on).

[Team Andino]

Originally Posted by JDonaldD

This is my only major gripe with the trilogy. He was Batman for too short of time. Even if you want to believe BB takes place over three years because it says in some book, there is nothing in the film to suggest it takes this long. The same thing with gap between BB and TDK. Even if you see a "2008" somewhere it does not feel like 3 years after BB. For me, I would have loved to have seen a fourth film that fleshed out the world created by Bats and the escalation of crime created by the Joker. Basically, I wanted a bigger rogues gallery. But that's not necessarily a good reason to tell a story, it's just the fanboy in me. The trilogy is meant to be beginning, middle and end. Unfortunately, the middle period seems a bit too brief and the ending comes a bit early for me personally. Love the trilogy overall though.

Agreed, while I love TDKR I salivate at the potential left hanging after the ending of TDK. I know whatever their original plans were changed when Heath passed but I'd of loved TDKR to of been the forth movie and have another movie be the third to flesh out the lie they built and the lunatics Joker may of inspired. They keep the lie covered up in the third movie and we see it start to see Gordon and Batman suffering and feeling the weight of this pressure. After Batman maybe realizes he's the reason for these lunatics he "retires", only to be forced to come back when the threat of Bane becomes eminent. Then have TDKR play out damn near the same and I'd have a Batman universe that truly feels complete.

[shauner111]

I know what you mean Andino but you see, Joker thought Two-Face was really his ace in the hole all the way. He thought he would kill a bunch of people (he did) and all of Gotham would find out. Therefore Batman would still be batman, Dent would be known as the murderer, people would lose hope, freaks would come out of every corner. He also had this idea that because of all that Joker and Batman were destined to battle forever. With a city full of corruption (even more than ever)...it would allow for Joker to possibly be broken out quicker than imaginable.

All of this sounds like the comics, animation, video games doesn't it? If that was the ending of TDK...meaning Joker's predictions ALL coming true, then your third movie could have went down in similar fashion. BUT Jokers predictions didn't come true because the end of TDK showed Batman & Gordon covering up Dent's murders. People did not lose hope. They painted Batman as the baddie. Joker was locked up within a city that was cleaner & cleaner by the month/year. The corruption went away for the most part. Mainly organized crime. But it seems like the city became pretty ordinary throughout the 8 year gap.

Batman wasn't needed after TDK (or needed much: for those of us who believe the unconfirmed sightings theory) so Joker rots in Arkham. Dent is hailed as a hero until Bane makes his presence felt. And we see a different outcome alltogether.

I think it transitions into TDKR extremely well. If Dark Knights ending was different and the cops came and saw the struggle between Two-Face, Gordons son and Batman, then i would be saying YES!! Joker was right. There should be more freaks, more Batman adventures. But instead Joker is probably gone completely mad because his plan didn't work and Batman disappeared.

[shauner111]

To add to that..

I know it would have been cool if Harvey Dent was indeed caught as a murderer. And of course if Heath was still alive. A third movie with Joker in a hannibal lecter role, a bunch of rogue cameos, and maybe Hugo Strange as the main villain. Then they could have done the 4th movie like TDKR. A lot of the same stuff could be kept such as Bane, Talia, the No Man's Land/Knightfall/Returns retirement stuff. Robin at the end. Most of it intact. It would have been amazing but probably not Nolan or Bale.

So i must say..im happy with what i got. Even though the alternate choice could have been really cool.

[Team Andino]

You make a great point, like you said though it's that natural urge to want to see more from this world. Your post though definitely makes me put some of my disappointment to rest.

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

I never thought of the eight-year gap as Bats being 'allowed' to take time off.

Rather he wasn't allowed to be Batman, to be the Hero, out there saving people every night, because Batman made decision 8 years ago that he was supposed to be the villain. Dent was supposed to be the Hero.

You can see it in the TDKR. Like Alfred says, Bruce is just waiting for things to go wrong again. He can't wait to get back out there, because it's what he believes deep down is right (defeating criminals, and not upholding the lie), and it gives him a sense of purpose.

Bats was just resisting getting back out there in the beginning of TDKR because he was adhering to what he and Gordon previously laid out as being the 'just', responsible course of action. It took Robin and Gordon's pleas to convince Bruce that Batman 'had to come back'.

[ComicStalker]

Originally Posted by BlueLightning

I'm pretty sure he was referring to the copycats.

Let me put it this way. If I caught you in my house stealing 10 dollars and I beat you up and cracked you up-side the head I might say to you," Dont let me catch you in here again." That doesnt mean its the 2nd or 3rd time Ive caught you in my house. It just means that I dont want to see you in my house again after this 1st time I caught you. I dont understand how people can be so confused by this statement. It might mean that I have caught you 2 or 3 times but it is by no means a definitive statement.

Also I would also have liked a 4 movie set. With the 3rd movie starting with a Two Face trial and then dealing with a Penguin trying to control the remnants of the Mob with 1 or 2 minor villians. Then the 4th movie exactly like it ended up. It would have made his "journey" as Batman feel more complete and meaningful.

[BlueLightning]

Originally Posted by ComicStalker

Let me put it this way. If I caught you in my house stealing 10 dollars and I beat you up and cracked you up-side the head I might say to you," Dont let me catch you in here again." That doesnt mean its the 2nd or 3rd time Ive caught you in my house. It just means that I dont want to see you in my house again after this 1st time I caught you. I dont understand how people can be so confused by this statement. It might mean that I have caught you 2 or 3 times but it is by no means a definitive statement.

It's also not the first time he encounters the copycats:
From the script:


WAYNE
A dog. (off look) A big dog. There were more copycats last night, Alfred. With guns.


And finally:


SCARECROW
Not my diagnosis.

Batman silences Scarecrow with his boot. Turns to "Batman"

BATMAN
Don't let me find you out here again.

End of discussion.

[Llama_Shepherd]

Originally Posted by BlueLightning

No. Because that story would have Blake as the protagonist, and Bruce Wayne journey it's over. It's a thematic thing though, because it is a thread left from TDK where Bruce looks at Harvey Dent as a successor, in a way Batman inspired Dent "Things have improved" says Alfred, but in the end it all goes wrong. Now Blake fulfills this purpose in a different fashion.

I still think it was blowing up the balloon though. Because Batman is still there. Bruce didn't want Batman to become a permanent fixture of Gotham. He wanted to show people that the City didn't belong to the criminals and the corrupt. I feel a better ending would have been a city that didn't need a Batman. Plus, 2-3 lines of extra dialogue doesn't make Bruce's story any less complete.

Depends on what you define tragic, for example being a Gangster/Red Hood who clashes with the Batman and ends up in a chemical bath doesn't equally match to a disgraced comedian with lost family. But in comics and media there are details that fluctuates, but there are milestones that prevail, like the chemical bath for the Joker.

I think being physically deformed is tragic no matter who you are.

I know what you are saying, but I already made my point about how most of these characters don't bring anything of weight for the story they are telling. I don't get this necessity of hinting towards them.

To establish that it was more than just Bruce being Batman for 9 months, that he went above and beyond what any person could. That he willingly put his body through hell every night because he failed Harvey.

For me, 4 months and 9-18 months will always be disappointing.

Yes there is, because this is the story they are telling. You change that, you get a different film. There is a reason for all of that.

Bane could have been switched out for different villains. Talia could have been switched for Nyssa etc. Even still it's not necessary, why not tell a different story? That specific story was not necessary, it was just preferred.

[ComicStalker]

End of discussion.

Not quite...
the line...

WAYNE
A dog. (off look) A big dog. There were more copycats last night, Alfred. With guns.

Implies that this group of copycats that he had just encountered was a different group of copycats. Otherwise he would have said I ran into scarecrow and "whats-his-names" group again last night.

[JDonaldD]

I kinda of agree with the notion that for this world, it would have made sense for Gotham to no longer need a Batman and I think for now, they don't. Bruce made his dramatic example by the "death" of Batman and saving the city as well as "letting the truth have its day." What TDKR does address is that there will always be corruption and evil on some level. Blake sees this and the the movie suggests that the Batman symbol, which is someone noble who exists outside the law, might be necessary again. There's a generational theme in TDKR with Blake and Talia. Bruce's actions don't exist in a void. What he did has Batman will continue to affect generations long after him. It would be unbelievable to say that Gotham is "fixed" permanently.

[Polux]

I'm gonna stick to my belief that TDK was a few years after BB, based solely in Gordon's kids age.


Polux

[BlueLightning]

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd

I still think it was blowing up the balloon though. Because Batman is still there. Bruce didn't want Batman to become a permanent fixture of Gotham. He wanted to show people that the City didn't belong to the criminals and the corrupt. I feel a better ending would have been a city that didn't need a Batman. Plus, 2-3 lines of extra dialogue doesn't make Bruce's story any less complete.

They didn't show that Blake was going to be Batman for sure. Bruce just left him his stuff. It goes around to the dialogue with Alfred, where he admonishes Bruce for not trusting people. It's up to Blake now. Hypothetically speaking, if there was a need for Batman, Blake most likely would step up, but as for the ending, they didn't established that there was still a need for Batman.

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd

I think being physically deformed is tragic no matter who you are.

For storytelling purposes, the themes are different though.

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd

To establish that it was more than just Bruce being Batman for 9 months, that he went above and beyond what any person could. That he willingly put his body through hell every night because he failed Harvey.

For me, 4 months and 9-18 months will always be disappointing.

He did that. The approach they took was different. Let me put it this way. At the end of TDK, Batman had worked non-stop for more than a year to put an end to organized crime. That ought to take a heavy toll on his body. That final battle left him gravely battered, gun wounded, and with a limp. Bruce would need time to heal, while the crooks Harvey put in prison where still there for argably 18 months, time enough to develop the Dent Act and giving Gordon the tools he needed to make the final strike to the organized crime. Batman wasn't needed, so Bruce took his time and efforts to do good as Bruce Wayne, namely with the energy project. Those things take time too. It was a more rounded approach if you think it through. It is fine if you don't like it though.

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd

Bane could have been switched out for different villains. Talia could have been switched for Nyssa etc. Even still it's not necessary, why not tell a different story? That specific story was not necessary, it was just preferred.

Like who? I already mentioned the remaining rogues, and really for the story they where trying to tell, Bane fitted like a glove. And Nyssa instead of Talia? Really?

Originally Posted by ComicStalker

Not quite...
the line...

WAYNE
A dog. (off look) A big dog. There were more copycats last night, Alfred. With guns.

Implies that this group of copycats that he had just encountered was a different group of copycats. Otherwise he would have said I ran into scarecrow and "whats-his-names" group again last night.

Of course! It is implied, even in the viral marketing campaign that the Citizens for Batman made several interventions. What I was arguing was that he referred to the copycats, not Scarecrow.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by BlueLightning

He did that. The approach they took was different. Let me put it this way. At the end of TDK, Batman had worked non-stop for more than a year to put an end to organized crime. That ought to take a heavy toll on his body. That final battle left him gravely battered, gun wounded, and with a limp. Bruce would need time to heal, while the crooks Harvey put in prison where still there for argably 18 months, time enough to develop the Dent Act and giving Gordon the tools he needed to make the final strike to the organized crime. Batman wasn't needed, so Bruce took his time and efforts to do good as Bruce Wayne, namely with the energy project. Those things take time too. It was a more rounded approach if you think it through. It is fine if you don't like it though.

Funny thing, some time ago i was reading a Batman comic book, think it was Hush, and in the story he got really injured with a cracked skull and several broken bones, in the story, a few weeks later he's back into action and that made me think "Wait, this happens to Bruce a lot, right? Like, he gets badly injured constantly..." and realized how ridiculous is for a man with no supernatural powers to keep healing from this things like nothing happened and remain on top of "human potential"; I mean, boxers get permanently damaged for things that Bats faces in a nightly basis, yet, he keeps goin like it's nothing.

That's something that I loved about this version of the character; his humanity, how he got hurt really bad and how that leaves scars and consequences (sp?), yet, this extraordinary man, works through pain, sucks it up and keeps on fighting, never giving up, and you can tell that he's hurt, he's in pain while doing it.

I've read a lot of people here saying how much superior comics/TAS Batman is to Nolan's, and I'm sorry, I just don't see it (don't get me wrong, Batman is my favorite fictional character ever since I was a little kid); when comparing the Nolan movies to, say, Mask of the Phantasm (which I saw a couple of days ago), I found Bale's Bats to be much more capable, scarier, incredibly more intimidating, all around much more badass, this unstoppable force of nature; and I know that a lot of people are hung out on "Batgod" from the comics, yet somehow, overlook all the little moments during the trilogy that show us how smart and the gifted detective that he actually is.

These and many other reasons make Nolan and Bale's Batman my favorite version of the character, above both comics and animated shows.

Polux

[Llama_Shepherd]

Originally Posted by BlueLightning

They didn't show that Blake was going to be Batman for sure. Bruce just left him his stuff. It goes around to the dialogue with Alfred, where he admonishes Bruce for not trusting people. It's up to Blake now. Hypothetically speaking, if there was a need for Batman, Blake most likely would step up, but as for the ending, they didn't established that there was still a need for Batman.

Literally every time I left The Dark Knight Rises people were asking "So is there gonna be more films with Robin now?"

That's blowing up the bubble. Now I do accept I'm probably a minority then.

For storytelling purposes, the themes are different though.

Oh yeah.

He did that. The approach they took was different. Let me put it this way. At the end of TDK, Batman had worked non-stop for more than a year to put an end to organized crime. That ought to take a heavy toll on his body. That final battle left him gravely battered, gun wounded, and with a limp. Bruce would need time to heal, while the crooks Harvey put in prison where still there for argably 18 months, time enough to develop the Dent Act and giving Gordon the tools he needed to make the final strike to the organized crime. Batman wasn't needed, so Bruce took his time and efforts to do good as Bruce Wayne, namely with the energy project. Those things take time too. It was a more rounded approach if you think it through. It is fine if you don't like it though.

Yep, that's the underwhelming part. One year and 4 villains is just underwhelming for me. Like, why would every major hypothetical criminal need to be connected to the mob?

Like who? I already mentioned the remaining rogues, and really for the story they where trying to tell, Bane fitted like a glove. And Nyssa instead of Talia? Really?

Nyssa is at least a villain, until recently, Talia has always genuinely loved Bruce being a pawn in her fathers plans.

[shauner111]

Originally Posted by BlueLightning

They didn't show that Blake was going to be Batman for sure. Bruce just left him his stuff. It goes around to the dialogue with Alfred, where he admonishes Bruce for not trusting people. It's up to Blake now. Hypothetically speaking, if there was a need for Batman, Blake most likely would step up, but as for the ending, they didn't established that there was still a need for Batman.

I would say that Gotham doesn't need Batman for a while at least. But maybe in a couple of years things could get shakey once again. People taking advantage of the lack of no Dent Act and the lack of an existing Batman. It gives Blake time to train, time for Gotham to begin the rebuilding process.

But you also have to look at the Blackgate prisoners (and possibly Arkham patients?) who are out there. Perhaps scattered around the city. Yes the cops could round them up, but what if they can't catch every single one of them? So maybe Batman IS needed during this time..

It is a bit vague. Maybe Gotham doesn't need Batman for a while, maybe it does. Blake is there regardless to step up to the plate incase. Training or not i guess.

Bruce's journey has a definite conclusion as this universe's first generation Batman & creator. But we don't know if this is the beginning of Robin's journey or when it will happen, or if it will EVER happen. Gotham might not need a Batman for the next 10 years after TDKR for all we know. Blake may end up helping orphaned children and using the tech inside the batcave to help tip off Gordon and his crew in catching the leftover prisoners. Or better yet to keep an eye on the city via the computers just incase some big trouble arises. Then he would have to teach one of those children upstairs in Wayne Manor a few tricks in possibly becoming a vigilante-hero if/when Blake gets too old to don the suit.

I think the end is done in such a way where they've teased us with a continuation but they don't ever have to show us anything more. It's great for the imagination.

[BlueLightning]

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd

Literally every time I left The Dark Knight Rises people were asking "So is there gonna be more films with Robin now?"

That's blowing up the bubble. Now I do accept I'm probably a minority then.

My father said the same thing, I had an argument with him after the release of the film. But this wasn't sequel bait. It was a thematic element, as I explained before. Even poor Joseph Gordon Levitt had the same problem. Check this interview:

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd

Yep, that's the underwhelming part. One year and 4 villains is just underwhelming for me. Like, why would every major hypothetical criminal need to be connected to the mob?

Well let's count the villians then. Ra's al Ghul, The Scarecrow, The Joker, Two-Face. Add perhaps Victor Zsaz and the mob, counting characters from the comics there is Carmine Falcone, Salvatore Maroni. Count also the villians for the third film, Bane, Catwoman and Talia. There you go. Five comic book criminal before Rises, seven if you count the mob, and ten overall. Not to shabby for three films.

As I said before, hinting towards other adversaries in the interim between TDK and Rises wouldn't add much to the overall story.

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd

Nyssa is at least a villain, until recently, Talia has always genuinely loved Bruce being a pawn in her fathers plans.

Nyssa doesn't have the starpower that Talia has. You see that the circumstances they are met on comics and the films are different, with different outcomes. I would still say Talia counts as a villian, she plays the role in a similar fashion as Catwoman in the comics, being sometimes the romantic interest, sometimes the adversary, or both.

Originally Posted by shauner111

I would say that Gotham doesn't need Batman for a while at least. But maybe in a couple of years things could get shakey once again. People taking advantage of the lack of no Dent Act and the lack of an existing Batman. It gives Blake time to train, time for Gotham to begin the rebuilding process.

But you also have to look at the Blackgate prisoners (and possibly Arkham patients?) who are out there. Perhaps scattered around the city. Yes the cops could round them up, but what if they can't catch every single one of them? So maybe Batman IS needed during this time..

It is a bit vague. Maybe Gotham doesn't need Batman for a while, maybe it does. Blake is there regardless to step up to the plate incase. Training or not i guess.

Bruce's journey has a definite conclusion as this universe's first generation Batman & creator. But we don't know if this is the beginning of Robin's journey or when it will happen, or if it will EVER happen. Gotham might not need a Batman for the next 10 years after TDKR for all we know. Blake may end up helping orphaned children and using the tech inside the batcave to help tip off Gordon and his crew in catching the leftover prisoners. Or better yet to keep an eye on the city via the computers just incase some big trouble arises. Then he would have to teach one of those children upstairs in Wayne Manor a few tricks in possibly becoming a vigilante-hero if/when Blake gets too old to don the suit.

I think the end is done in such a way where they've teased us with a continuation but they don't ever have to show us anything more. It's great for the imagination.

Yes. It's good food for thought but, as I mentioned before, not "sequel bait". The thematic point for Blake works within this film.

[BatmanBeyond]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

But that was intended. To tie back into Batman Begins with the League of Shadows. It had part of the beginnings of Batman and it played a part in the ending, or at least Bruce Wayne's time as Batman(if Robin John Blake becomes Batman later on).

Not to mention that when you think about it the LoS giving up on trying to destroy Gotham is neither very plausible nor very consistent with the way they were established in this series. I mean, Ra's mentions that they already attacked Gotham once more before the attack in BB and that the League 'has been a check against human corruption for thousands of years', proceeding to give the examples of Rome and London afterwards. I don't think an extremist society such as them would've taken their failure to accomplish their main goal with Gotham so easily.

So in that sense, their third (probably) attack on Gotham in TDKR does make sense, even though bringing them back is rather uninspired. There's also the tematic value of bringing it back 'full circle' to BB and all that jazz.

Originally Posted by Polux

Funny thing, some time ago i was reading a Batman comic book, think it was Hush, and in the story he got really injured with a cracked skull and several broken bones, in the story, a few weeks later he's back into action and that made me think "Wait, this happens to Bruce a lot, right? Like, he gets badly injured constantly..." and realized how ridiculous is for a man with no supernatural powers to keep healing from this things like nothing happened and remain on top of "human potential"; I mean, boxers get permanently damaged for things that Bats faces in a nightly basis, yet, he keeps goin like it's nothing.

That's something that I loved about this version of the character; his humanity, how he got hurt really bad and how that leaves scars and consequences (sp?), yet, this extraordinary man, works through pain, sucks it up and keeps on fighting, never giving up, and you can tell that he's hurt, he's in pain while doing it.

I've read a lot of people here saying how much superior comics/TAS Batman is to Nolan's, and I'm sorry, I just don't see it (don't get me wrong, Batman is my favorite fictional character ever since I was a little kid); when comparing the Nolan movies to, say, Mask of the Phantasm (which I saw a couple of days ago), I found Bale's Bats to be much more capable, scarier, incredibly more intimidating, all around much more badass, this unstoppable force of nature; and I know that a lot of people are hung out on "Batgod" from the comics, yet somehow, overlook all the little moments during the trilogy that show us how smart and the gifted detective that he actually is.

These and many other reasons make Nolan and Bale's Batman my favorite version of the character, above both comics and animated shows.

Polux

Nice post.

[Llama_Shepherd]

Originally Posted by BlueLightning

My father said the same thing, I had an argument with him after the release of the film. But this wasn't sequel bait. It was a thematic element, as I explained before. Even poor Joseph Gordon Levitt had the same problem. Check this interview:

So you see my point of the ending being far more "balloon blowing" than the possibility of interim cases between The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises?

Well let's count the villians then. Ra's al Ghul, The Scarecrow, The Joker, Two-Face. Add perhaps Victor Zsaz and the mob, counting characters from the comics there is Carmine Falcone, Salvatore Maroni. Count also the villians for the third film, Bane, Catwoman and Talia. There you go. Five comic book criminal before Rises, seven if you count the mob, and ten overall. Not to shabby for three films.

I wouldn't count Zsasz as a villain, and I don't count the mobsters as villains. Criminals, but not villains.

As I said before, hinting towards other adversaries in the interim between TDK and Rises wouldn't add much to the overall story.

To you, maybe not. To me it adds more possibility to a fictional world I loved.

Nyssa doesn't have the starpower that Talia has. You see that the circumstances they are met on comics and the films are different, with different outcomes. I would still say Talia counts as a villian, she plays the role in a similar fashion as Catwoman in the comics, being sometimes the romantic interest, sometimes the adversary, or both.

Scarecrow and Ra's didn't have star power before Batman Begins. Though I see your point.

Originally Posted by Polux

Funny thing, some time ago i was reading a Batman comic book, think it was Hush, and in the story he got really injured with a cracked skull and several broken bones, in the story, a few weeks later he's back into action and that made me think "Wait, this happens to Bruce a lot, right? Like, he gets badly injured constantly..." and realized how ridiculous is for a man with no supernatural powers to keep healing from this things like nothing happened and remain on top of "human potential"; I mean, boxers get permanently damaged for things that Bats faces in a nightly basis, yet, he keeps goin like it's nothing.

That's something that I loved about this version of the character; his humanity, how he got hurt really bad and how that leaves scars and consequences (sp?), yet, this extraordinary man, works through pain, sucks it up and keeps on fighting, never giving up, and you can tell that he's hurt, he's in pain while doing it.

I've read a lot of people here saying how much superior comics/TAS Batman is to Nolan's, and I'm sorry, I just don't see it (don't get me wrong, Batman is my favorite fictional character ever since I was a little kid); when comparing the Nolan movies to, say, Mask of the Phantasm (which I saw a couple of days ago), I found Bale's Bats to be much more capable, scarier, incredibly more intimidating, all around much more badass, this unstoppable force of nature; and I know that a lot of people are hung out on "Batgod" from the comics, yet somehow, overlook all the little moments during the trilogy that show us how smart and the gifted detective that he actually is.

These and many other reasons make Nolan and Bale's Batman my favorite version of the character, above both comics and animated shows.

Polux

Great post, and I agree to an extent. But keep in mind two things:

1) It's easier to show strain, pain and anguish on film, through motion and physical acting

and 2) Hush sucks . To be fair, some writers keep Batman/Robin injured over what would be months comic time.

[BlueLightning]

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd

So you see my point of the ending being far more "balloon blowing" than the possibility of interim cases between The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises?

To an extent, because I understand how people can come up with such conclusions, but I disagree because it didn't appear to be like that for me. Primarly, because we are talking about Bruce Wayne story. A sequel with Blake would be more in the field of a spinoff.

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd

I wouldn't count Zsasz as a villain, and I don't count the mobsters as villains. Criminals, but not villains.

He was still there. Still, seven villains is not to bad

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd

To you, maybe not. To me it adds more possibility to a fictional world I loved.

The Nolan films are not a straight adaptation of that world. They are a reverent interpretation of the source material which manages to embody most of the greatest aspects of the Batman mythos through the years. It has a different set of rules, in a different media.

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd

Scarecrow and Ra's didn't have star power before Batman Begins. Though I see your point.

They had, Scarecrow was even being considered for the following film after Batman & Robin. Both Ra's and Scarecrow appeared in other media and are staples in the comic books before the Nolan films.

[Llama_Shepherd]

Originally Posted by BlueLightning

To an extent, because I understand how people can come up with such conclusions, but I disagree because it didn't appear to be like that for me. Primarly, because we are talking about Bruce Wayne story. A sequel with Blake would be more in the field of a spinoff.

The audience don't separate that. If it's Batman, it's a Batman film.

He was still there. Still, seven villains is not to bad

I don't count them though, because they aren't "villains" or "freaks".

The Nolan films are not a straight adaptation of that world. They are a reverent interpretation of the source material which manages to embody most of the greatest aspects of the Batman mythos through the years. It has a different set of rules, in a different media.

I was talking about the Nolan world.

They had, Scarecrow was even being considered for the following film after Batman & Robin. Both Ra's and Scarecrow appeared in other media and are staples in the comic books before the Nolan films.

I couldn't remember them and I was a huge fan of the DCAU.

[BlueLightning]

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd

The audience don't separate that. If it's Batman, it's a Batman film.

Perhaps, but I still think the audience would make the distinction. The intention made on the film is other. The theme is there, but is often overlooked.

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd

I don't count them though, because they aren't "villains" or "freaks".

Why not? We are talking about Ra's, Scarecrow, Joker, Two-Face, Bane, Selina and Talia right?

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd

I was talking about the Nolan world.

Oh, very well then. Speaking for myself, I thought the way the films developed showed a balanced translation of the Batman lore.

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd

I couldn't remember them and I was a huge fan of the DCAU.

I did, actually. Specially Scarecrow, he was ingrained into my mind since Batman TAS. He was a part of the Superfriends show too, and member of the Legion of Doom. Those characters maybe aren't up there with The Joker, the Penguin, The Riddler or Catwoman in terms of popularity, but they are recognizable.

[Llama_Shepherd]

Originally Posted by BlueLightning

Perhaps, but I still think the audience would make the distinction. The intention made on the film is other. The theme is there, but is often overlooked.

I wouldn't bet on it. Not unless news sites reported it exclusively as a spinoff. If it picked up plot threads from TDKR, I'd say most would think it was a sequel.

Why not? We are talking about Ra's, Scarecrow, Joker, Two-Face, Bane, Selina and Talia right?

Didn't realise you were counting Bane, Selina and Talia, I thought you were counting Zsasz, Maroni and Falcone.

Yeah, sevens not bad. But, personally, I'd like to think that there could have been more. It's one of those times when I think "Nolan, I don't care what you think, I've substituted my own thing here". Like I did for the ending.

Oh, very well then. Speaking for myself, I thought the way the films developed showed a balanced translation of the Batman lore.

They very much did. Aside from a few minor complaints, it's quite possibly my favourite interpretation of the character.

I did, actually. Specially Scarecrow, he was ingrained into my mind since Batman TAS. He was a part of the Superfriends show too, and member of the Legion of Doom. Those characters maybe aren't up there with The Joker, the Penguin, The Riddler or Catwoman in terms of popularity, but they are recognizable.

That was all way before my time, so that might explain it. Also, I don't think those shows would have been well known outside the US, which is why nobody I knew had known them either.