Why did the League of Shadows want to destroy a peaceful city?

[RustyCage]

I've just gone back and read through the thread. While I appreciate both perspectives in the major argument and found it thought-provoking, ultimately the conclusions you guys are drawing are just fan fiction based on very little information. You're filling in Nolan's blanks.

But don't get me wrong, it's fan fiction of a caliber and care that, frankly, I wish they would have bothered with in the film. There just wasn't enough meat on Bane's bones... it's that simple. We can only guess and try to satisfy ourselves that way.

[jmc]

Originally Posted by TheBat812

It is preposterously naive and presumptuous to see that as the only possible outcome of their relationship. Even if it were true 99% of the time, there would still always be an exception. That's just nature for you.

Furthermore, even if that is the case, you might still have an idealized version of your parent that you still seek. Ask any adopted child. Whether or not they've actually sought them out, they've all wondered about it at some point.

Something tells me that idealized version wouldn't be a killer.

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Originally Posted by RustyCage

I've just gone back and read through the thread. While I appreciate both perspectives in the major argument and found it thought-provoking, ultimately the conclusions you guys are drawing are just fan fiction based on very little information. You're filling in Nolan's blanks.

But don't get me wrong, it's fan fiction of a caliber and care that, frankly, I wish they would have bothered with in the film. There just wasn't enough meat on Bane's bones... it's that simple. We can only guess and try to satisfy ourselves that way.

The reasons why they want to destroy a peaceful city are fan-fiction?

The answer that the movie gave was that despite the extermination of organized crime (mob), Gotham (and perhaps all of the West, in the eyes of the League) was still (or perhaps increasingly) full of white-collar corruption, giving way to large wealth gaps, high unemployment, etc.

[RustyCage]

Originally Posted by FeedOnATreeFrog

The reasons why they want to destroy a peaceful city are fan-fiction?

The answer that the movie gave was that despite the extermination of organized crime (mob), Gotham (and perhaps all of the West, in the eyes of the League) was still (or perhaps increasingly) full of white-collar corruption, giving way to large wealth gaps, high unemployment, etc.

I'll watch it again, but my memory tempts me to say this is an exaggeration of the material the film actually provides.

If you can cite me the exact moments these things are explained, I'll be able to watch for them when I pop the Blu-ray in soon.

[Tequilla]

Originally Posted by RustyCage

I've just gone back and read through the thread. While I appreciate both perspectives in the major argument and found it thought-provoking, ultimately the conclusions you guys are drawing are just fan fiction based on very little information. You're filling in Nolan's blanks.

But don't get me wrong, it's fan fiction of a caliber and care that, frankly, I wish they would have bothered with in the film. There just wasn't enough meat on Bane's bones... it's that simple. We can only guess and try to satisfy ourselves that way.

fan-fiction ? I completely disagree.

To me , Rises is incredibly rich on subtext. Stories exist beyond their surface. That's its greatest achievement , and why its completely unparalleled in the genre.

For this particular topic , the decadence of Gotham is shown through different ways by the director. It cant be fan-fiction if its right there.

Originally Posted by RustyCage

I'll watch it again, but my memory tempts me to say this is an exaggeration of the material the film actually provides.

If you can cite me the exact moments these things are explained, I'll be able to watch for them when I pop the Blu-ray in soon.

It wasn't me who wrote that , but i can easily answer. You didn't see the director alluding the younger generations migrating to the sewers to have a job and fight unemployment ? Cause the kid spills that. The core that its still rotten ? It's such a vivid and implicit idea the movie translates over and over (so much that it bursts from within),

You didn't see Dagget , a major player in the movie , that had gone through years to put the whole city in jeopardy , building state infrastructures and filling them with whatever a group of terrorists wanted ? This is beyond white collar corruption

You didn't see cops talking about a war hero that its about to step down ? The same cops who prefer to chase the vigilante instead of the group of criminals who just had assaulted the stock exchange ?

You didn't see the apathy of the city reacting to the events ? The wealthy being thrown from their houses ?

The movie is filled with this sort of stuff.

TDKR has such a rich social-context (that Bane uses to his advantage) . Nolan over the movie show us how decadent Gotham still is.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by RustyCage

I've just gone back and read through the thread. While I appreciate both perspectives in the major argument and found it thought-provoking, ultimately the conclusions you guys are drawing are just fan fiction based on very little information. You're filling in Nolan's blanks.

But don't get me wrong, it's fan fiction of a caliber and care that, frankly, I wish they would have bothered with in the film. There just wasn't enough meat on Bane's bones... it's that simple. We can only guess and try to satisfy ourselves that way.

The word you're looking for is conjecture. Nolan is anything but subtle when it comes to villain's motivations.

[RustyCage]

Originally Posted by Tequilla

fan-fiction ? I completely disagree.

To me , Rises is incredibly rich on subtext. Stories exist beyond their surface. That's its greatest achievement , and why its completely unparalleled in the genre.

But you still have to fill in Nolan's blanks to gather those stories beyond the surface, you're interpreting these stories with your imagination.

Which is fine, again, but I don't want us pretending that the movie fleshes something out that it doesn't.

For this particular topic , the decadence of Gotham is shown through different ways by the director. It cant be fan-fiction if its right there.

There may be little things here and there that could be interpreted as situational decadence, sure. That doesn't express that Gotham in it's entirety is outright corrupt, though. How on Earth do you gauge the ratio there? Based on a few crumbs? I'm sorry, it's just stretching.

I would have believed this to be the League's view if we were looking at Begins, but not Rises.

You didn't see the director alluding the younger generations migrating to the sewers to have a job and fight unemployment ?

So kids having trouble getting a job means a whole city is corrupt to the point that it needs to be obliterated?

Kind of a weak reasoning point, but let's collect it with your other suggestions.

Cause the kid spills that. The core that its still rotten ? It's such a vivid and implicit idea the movie translates over and over (so much that it bursts from within),

Request elaboration here. To be fair, I don't really remember any of the kid's lines other than 'Is he coming back?' - assuming we're talking about the same kid.

You didn't see Dagget , a major player in the movie , that had gone through years to put the whole city in jeopardy , building state infrastructures and filling them with whatever a group of terrorists wanted ? This is beyond white collar corruption

Yeah, it is beyond that. It's the League infiltrating with the employment of a useful idiot. This example of corruption in Gotham IS the League's doing, so shouldn't they logically be committing ritualistic suicide or something?

If we're going after Daggett specifically and ignoring the League's involvement (which wouldn't be honest, but), one greedy, sneaky man does not equal an entirely rotten, corrupt city beyond saving. Again, barely any ground.

You didn't see cops talking about a war hero that its about to step down ?

What does that have to necessarily do with corruption?

The same cops who prefer to chase the vigilante instead of the group of criminals who just had assaulted the stock exchange ?

You're forgetting the context: They believe Batman killed Harvey Dent, their perceived savior. From the eyes of the cops, Batman is a murderous monster who has been at large for years.

And it's just Foley who calls that shot. One single cocky dude doesn't exactly make me assume the entire police force is crooked, just that they have a slight dick who doesn't know the truth about Batman (and why would he?) to take orders from.

Oppositely, we have Blake and Gordon as beacons of good in the police, so if we're going to cherry pick single characters, the good side of the police have the edge over the 'bad' side, if you can really call Foley 'bad'.

You didn't see the apathy of the city reacting to the events ? The wealthy being thrown from their houses ?

Apathy? No. Jealousy sparked by the coercion of Bane? Yes.

Yet another example of the League being responsible for the corruption they claim to be in Gotham to wipe clean.

It was a scam. They created the problem so that they could declare themselves the solution.

And personally, I've come to think that scam was all to provide cover fire for Talia to slip in and get Bruce.

[BatLobsterRises]

I sort of agree that the League created a problem so they could be the solution. But I also don't think it's quite that simple. The way I see it, they sparked a flame that spread. They took the seeds of injustice inherent to Gotham and allowed them grow into something ugly, completely exploiting the city's weaknesses (IE Bane building an underground army with disgruntled Gothamites). It's kind of like The Joker's "all it takes is a little push" philosophy at play. The LOS, are adamant that a city like Gotham is a nest for evil to prosper. That is a constant, dogmatic view, regardless of how good things may seem on the surface. They gave it a little nudge and thrust it into a dystopian class war, where instead of everyone uniting against the tyrant, fear, hatred and apathy took over (the negative aspects of humanity which the Dent coverup only buried, but of course couldn't erase).

So yeah, it was a scam. But I think the League would see it as the natural order of things. They allowed the system to crumble before they would finally cleanse it. And that's the LOS in a nutshell to me. It's harsh and perverse logic. Mankind itself is always the problem and is always culpable. It's like they view themselves (or perhaps Ra's al Ghul) as some kind of deity, above the rest of humanity, whose word is infallible. And it's an Old Testament, smiting kind of God.

[RustyCage]

When you look at it that way, Lobster (can I call you that? lol), any city in the world can be 'bred' by the League to be deemed fit for a League annihilation.

You would have to be perfectly utopic with no flaws, which even if it were possible to do that, you have to grow the city toward that over time, not grow it deliberately in the opposite direction.

It does reflect God in that God created man imperfect and then punished him for being imperfect.

You're also right about it being a strong mirror to what the Joker said, which I'm surprised I didn't consider yet. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by RustyCage

When you look at it that way, Lobster (can I call you that? lol), any city in the world can be 'bred' by the League to be deemed fit for a League annihilation.

You would have to be perfectly utopic with no flaws, which even if it were possible to do that, you have to grow the city toward that over time, not grow it deliberately in the opposite direction.

It does reflect God in that God created man imperfect and then punished him for being imperfect.

You're also right about it being a strong mirror to what the Joker said, which I'm surprised I didn't consider yet. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

You can certainly call me Lobster

I agree that the League could influence any city into being deemed fit for annihilation. However, Gotham is special in that it is said to be "the world's greatest city" in this trilogy, once by Ra's himself. I've said this a lot before, but I think they saw Gotham as the symbolic poster child for Western civilization and decadence. A modern day Roman Empire (which we learn, they also attacked). I feel the aim of the League, both in the comics and films is to essentially "reboot" society. In the comics, Ra's often wants to wipe out most of the world's population. In the films, it seems that he focused on fostering Gotham's destruction from within as something to jumpstart the rest of the world into moving towards a more balanced utopia. Others have said that I am just exercising in conjecture and that Ra's merely wanted to take down a corrupt city and that in and of itself was the point. But lines like, "Tomorrow the world will watch in horror as its greatest city destroys itself. The movement back to harmony will be unstoppable this time" seem to strongly suggest some kind of global outlook on the situation.

But yeah, overall whether one takes this as conjecture or valid insight, I am grateful that the movies provide a lot of substantial ideas to chew on, even if they're not all profusely elaborated on. A lot of the League's ideals are really a dark mirror of Batman's. They're both, in theory, trying to create a better world. Both see themselves above the law, enforcing their will upon society in a God-like way. The dichotomy of Batman and the LOS shows just how slippery the line between good and evil can be.

[BatmanBeyond]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

You can certainly call me Lobster

I agree that the League could influence any city into being deemed fit for annihilation. However, Gotham is special in that it is said to be "the world's greatest city" in this trilogy, once by Ra's himself. I've said this a lot before, but I think they saw Gotham as the symbolic poster child for Western civilization and decadence. A modern day Roman Empire (which we learn, they also attacked). I feel the aim of the League, both in the comics and films is to essentially "reboot" society. In the comics, Ra's often wants to wipe out most of the world's population. In the films, it seems that he focused on fostering Gotham's destruction from within as something to jumpstart the rest of the world into moving towards a more balanced utopia. Others have said that I am just exercising in conjecture and that Ra's merely wanted to take down a corrupt city and that in and of itself was the point. But lines like, "Tomorrow the world will watch in horror as its greatest city destroys itself. The movement back to harmony will be unstoppable this time" seem to strongly suggest some kind of global outlook on the situation.

But yeah, overall whether one takes this as conjecture or valid insight, I am grateful that the movies provide a lot of substantial ideas to chew on, even if they're not all profusely elaborated on. A lot of the League's ideals are really a dark mirror of Batman's. They're both, in theory, trying to create a better world. Both see themselves above the law, enforcing their will upon society in a God-like way. The dichotomy of Batman and the LOS shows just how slippery the line between good and evil can be.

Good points, as always.

The League's idea is to send out a powerful message to the rest of the world through Gotham's destruction. That's why Ra's calling it 'the world's greatest city' is important. And that's why Bane's ruse of handing the trigger to the bomb to an ordinary citizen made a lot of sense. Because to the rest of the world it would've appeared that an ordinary citizen 'took control of his city' and blew it up, even though it would've been a member of the League that would've actually pulled the trigger. Again, this is a mirror to the Joker's social experiment back in TDK (but on a much larger scale) and I think it's surprising, but also interesting how certain parts of their philosophies resemble each other.

This is why I also think that Bane's revolution wasn't just a ruse, I mean the LoS could've just directly destroyed Gotham like Ra's tried back in BB. It's clear to me that the revolution idea was Bane's, perhaps Talia's as well as a result of their upbringing in the pit. Postponing the actual destruction of the city was also a means to make Bruce suffer, but that idea has Talia written all over it.

[RustyCage]

I agree with all of that, but it's just the full requirements of the League's goal included that Gotham had to reach a point of saturation in how corrupt it was for them to burn it down. For all the League knows, in TDKR, this point was avoided and amended despite Ra's failing.

Since Bane is oblivious to the lie the overall obtained peace was built on until he's already started his phony revolution, seems like they're burning it down just for the sake of Ra's not burning it down, regardless of it's current condition, regardless of harmony. That doesn't jive.

The fact that they're going to blow up all the revolutionaries whether or not they 'took back their city' from... nobody too apparent.. is also highly suggestive of the revolution being a ruse.

In the end, because it was a lie, because the bomb was going to go off no matter what, it was only useful as something to torment Bruce with on the TV, and not useful to the stated purpose of the League.

What I still am trying to understand, and repeat viewings may help me with, is what exactly the rationale is supposed to be that Bane gives the revolutionaries for freeing everyone in Blackgate, as if they were victims and friends of the oppressed.

Wouldn't it fly in the face of everything the Blackgate prisoners did to HURT the people of Gotham prior? Wouldn't the citizens of Gotham find that a -little- weird and counter-productive?

These sorts of logical inconsistencies continue to push me to it being a veil, just like the veil about Bane/Talia's childhood in the prison.

[JDonaldD]

Ok, so I just lost everything I typed but the basic gist is that I don't think Nolan wanted to make a movie that was overtly political but a movie that raises some political themes. With Bane and his motives you have the opportunity to take it into a completely different realm. You have a third world terrorist who comes to America and rallies the poor into killing the rich only to be saved by a billionaire in the end. The move raises a lot of issues that I would have liked to see it go into more. This the film in a nutshell and if told a certain way it sends a pretty elitist message.

One of the ideas I had originally when I heard about the class war was that an interesting way to resolve Bruce's story would be for him to unmask himself in front of the rioters sending his dramatic example that the rich weren't all decadent scum bags. It would also redeem him in the eyes of the public as they would know his story the way the audience does and then force him to retire, making him the "hero with a face." It might not work on film and it wasn't the story they wanted to tell. Just a thought. Imagine if Batman were real and imagine he was Charlie Sheen and all those exploit of Sheen's were just a cover for a noble, selfless ninja....

[RustyCage]

Originally Posted by JDonaldD

Ok, so I just lost everything I typed but the basic gist is that I don't think Nolan wanted to make a movie that was overtly political but a movie that raises some political themes. With Bane and his motives you have the opportunity to take it into a completely different realm. You have a third world terrorist who comes to America and rallies the poor into killing the rich only to be saved by a billionaire in the end. The move raises a lot of issues that I would have liked to see it go into more. This the film in a nutshell and if told a certain way it sends a pretty elitist message.

One of the ideas I had originally when I heard about the class war was that an interesting way to resolve Bruce's story would be for him to unmask himself in front of the rioters sending his dramatic example that the rich weren't all decadent scum bags. It would also redeem him in the eyes of the public as they would know his story the way the audience does and then force him to retire, making him the "hero with a face." It might not work on film and it wasn't the story they wanted to tell. Just a thought. Imagine if Batman were real and imagine he was Charlie Sheen and all those exploit of Sheen's were just a cover for a noble, selfless ninja....

I'm not sure I disagree with this idea...

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by RustyCage

I agree with all of that, but it's just the full requirements of the League's goal included that Gotham had to reach a point of saturation in how corrupt it was for them to burn it down. For all the League knows, in TDKR, this point was avoided and amended despite Ra's failing.

I don't think the point was ever avoided. Ra's says it's "When a society reaches the pinnacle of its decadence". For the League that point came decades prior to Batman Begins, when they attacked Gotham financially. If the League believed broken societies were capable of fixing themselves in a permanent way, why would the League have any reason to exist? And that's the interesting thing. I think this very notion that Gotham can cure itself is utter blasphemy to them. It's an existence-threatening paradox that they cannot begin to consider. They may not have known about the Dent coverup, but their devout dedication to staying the course is vindicated when the truth finds its way to them. And that's what is so fascinating and scary about that to me. What happens when evil extremists have the truth on their side? What does that mean? What kind of power does that give them? Does it make them right? Or is a broken clock right twice a day?

So basically, the League are complete and utter dogmatists. I like to think of it as what would Ra's al Ghul do if he had survived (or if there was a Lazarus Pit in this universe)? He had already made it clear that he thought Bruce's crusade to fix Gotham was pointless because Gotham was beyond saving, just like he thought Thomas Wayne's efforts to fix Gotham were pointless. Even without the knowledge that the Dent Act was based on a lie, you can see how the League would still find this to be a temporary and insufficient solution to a more deeply engrained problem. It doesn't matter that Gotham has shown improvement, the "new" Gotham still does not fit into their vision for a new world, though its destruction lies at the center of it. It's the most prominent city in the world and it's decades past its expiration date.

Bane and Talia had very different methods than Ra's, but I do think they were carrying out his will in the sense that if he were alive, I think he'd very much be regrouping to attack Gotham again no matter the circumstances. In part because he was a vengeful man (a trait his daughter inherited), but also because his belief that Gotham couldn't be saved and had to be destroyed was unflinching and absolute.

[TheGuy]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

I sort of agree that the League created a problem so they could be the solution. But I also don't think it's quite that simple. The way I see it, they sparked a flame that spread. They took the seeds of injustice inherent to Gotham and allowed them grow into something ugly, completely exploiting the city's weaknesses (IE Bane building an underground army with disgruntled Gothamites). It's kind of like The Joker's "all it takes is a little push" philosophy at play. The LOS, are adamant that a city like Gotham is a nest for evil to prosper. That is a constant, dogmatic view, regardless of how good things may seem on the surface. They gave it a little nudge and thrust it into a dystopian class war, where instead of everyone uniting against the tyrant, fear, hatred and apathy took over (the negative aspects of humanity which the Dent coverup only buried, but of course couldn't erase).

So yeah, it was a scam. But I think the League would see it as the natural order of things. They allowed the system to crumble before they would finally cleanse it. And that's the LOS in a nutshell to me. It's harsh and perverse logic. Mankind itself is always the problem and is always culpable. It's like they view themselves (or perhaps Ra's al Ghul) as some kind of deity, above the rest of humanity, whose word is infallible. And it's an Old Testament, smiting kind of God.

Well, Ra's was a God figure in TDKR.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by TheGuy

Well, Ra's was a God figure in TDKR.

He was. He was kind of like Allah, if you want to go with the jihadist analogy. The fact that Ra's al Ghul literally means The Demon's Head in Arabic certainly adds some mystique there.

[RustyCage]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

I don't think the point was ever avoided. Ra's says it's "When a society reaches the pinnacle of its decadence". For the League that point came decades prior to Batman Begins, when they attacked Gotham financially.

But it rebounded since, due to Thomas and Bruce. Surely it's time for such a wise and harmony-seeking organization to re-examine. Surely they'd be mature enough to judge such a serious matter with care.

Thomas wasn't enough to convince Ra's, but Bruce has (apparently to them) taken it so much further. It's been 8 years. You'd think they'd look before they leap.

If the League believed broken societies were capable of fixing themselves in a permanent way, why would the League have any reason to exist?

The issue I take is that the standard for 'broken societies' is incredibly vague, and incredibly low in TDKR's case. Any other city in the world could as easily be manipulated into being corrupt or chaotic BY the League just so the League can point at them in accusation. If these are the standards, it's a hypocrisy, the logic falls apart.

What's the point of them existing at all if the standard is such that a city can't even pursue a harmonious state to begin with? It's not as if a harmonious state comes out of nothing, it has to be worked toward. If they blow up Gotham, a harmonious state does not miraculously sprout from it's ashes. It is built by learning from mistakes. That's what humanity is.

They are purposely stunting that growth under the illusion of encouraging it, just so they can say, 'We're more perfect than you, you failed.' over and over, for literally infinity.

So they might as well just blow up every civilization before it gets started and eradicate all of humanity, because it will never be born again perfect without any work and without any slip-ups.

With Begins, we are left to assume that Gotham became truly terrible before the League stepped in. At least that lack of specified standards of 'decadence' leaves room for a probable reasonable standard and motivation. With Rises, the standard appears pettily low, and merely revenge based.

And that's the interesting thing. I think this very notion that Gotham can cure itself is utter blasphemy to them. It's an existence-threatening paradox that they cannot begin to consider.

So those who take upon themselves the authority to judge the imperfect with the scythe of Death are so set in their ways that they cannot even consider a potentially superior alternative to bettering humanity... Not so perfect themselves, eh?

Not only that, but they are occasionally the deliberate cause of the corruption they seek to destroy. That's two reasons for them to just self-destruct, kill themselves, if they truly adhere to their logic.

Sounds like the League itself has reached decadence.

They may not have known about the Dent coverup, but their devout dedication to staying the course is vindicated when the truth finds its way to them.

But the point is, they just got lucky, it wasn't their motivation.

And that's what is so fascinating and scary about that to me. What happens when evil extremists have the truth on their side? What does that mean? What kind of power does that give them? Does it make them right? Or is a broken clock right twice a day?

This is a perspective that I thoroughly enjoy. The idea that reality looks to be on the moral/philosophical side of these people that feel justified in committing genocide. Scary for sure.

Just wish THAT was the deliberate part of the League's plan, and not the 'causing the problem' part.

So basically, the League are complete and utter dogmatists. I like to think of it as what would Ra's al Ghul do if he had survived (or if there was a Lazarus Pit in this universe)? He had already made it clear that he thought Bruce's crusade to fix Gotham was pointless because Gotham was beyond saving, just like he thought Thomas Wayne's efforts to fix Gotham were pointless. Even without the knowledge that the Dent Act was based on a lie, you can see how the League would still find this to be a temporary and insufficient solution to a more deeply engrained problem. It doesn't matter that Gotham has shown improvement, the "new" Gotham still does not fit into their vision for a new world, though its destruction lies at the center of it. It's the most prominent city in the world and it's decades past its expiration date.

I don't think Ra's is so arrogant and simple-minded that he is above being corrected, even if he has to be corrected the hard way (I want to say this is supported by BTAS, but I'd have to do some digging).

As for the idea of an expiration date, I think Ra's is honorable enough that he would judge the city based on it's condition as it is rather than as it was. The League now is operating on old information, just for the sake of it. In a way this is reflective of the real world, when extremists lose their leaders, but I always figured Bane to be more impressive and self-capable than that.

Further, I figure Ra's to be the kind of person who would have at least found out about Dent before striking, he would seek some larger justification, something Bruce couldn't deny.

And he may even be impressed with Bruce's work to prove him wrong up until he learns of the lie, it may have him slowly reconsidering over the 8 years, but then once the veil falls, he becomes convinced he was right all over again. That's kind of their respect/clash relationship in the books and cartoon as well, which charms me. Makes me wanna see them just hug it out, but I know they never can even if an agreement seems close at times.

I would have LOVED to see Ra's still alive just for this story purpose. Lazarus pit or some other explanation, maybe he's recovering from nearly dying and watching curiously during the 8 years to explain the bizarrely delayed second strike. Giving Bruce a chance to prove himself since he bested him. Respeck, mon. haha

I view Ra's as one of many father figures Bruce turned to after the death of Thomas Wayne in Begins, so finally satisfying the father he never could and setting the foundations for a true harmony that his father previously scolded him to be impossible would be a nice undercurrent with a lot of gravity.

They could have referenced Thomas in that regard at the same time, he completed his real father's work. But he didn't even get roses, much less a visit. Missed opportunity. The parental angle was so scarce in Rises... all we had in the way of that was Alfred whining out of character a couple of times. Siiigh.

[BatLobsterRises]

I respect and appreciate your view RustyCage. All I can say is I view Ra's a bit differently. In the comics and cartoons the clash between Batman and Ra's is perpetual. There's a mutual respect there, but even when they work together their relationship is always doomed because Ra's is a genocidal maniac. He's a father figure for Bruce yes, but ultimately one that Bruce always must reject because their two different solutions for improving the world cannot be reconciled. I understand the temptation to see Ra's as more of a morally grey character, and there's definitely a fun complexity to his relationship with Bruce.

However, because of the real world influence of these films and the very alarming and real nature of terrorism in today's world, it's hard for me personally to view Ra's as anything but evil. Regardless of whatever logic he tries to use, he's still advocating the slaughter of millions of innocents with the very arrogant assertion that this will be for the better of the world. He's no less evil than Lex Luthor or any other mass murdering supervillain in that regard. Because of that it's very hard for me to accept the idea of him or his organization showing any form of mercy or re-evaluation. Those aren't traits I associate with terrorists. And at the end of the day, that's what Ra's is.

Furthermore, I understand why it might have made sense for the League to find out about Dent's corruption prior to attacking Gotham but I very much enjoy the way it played out because I think it underlines the point that they aren't so much driven by factual data as they are core beliefs. It's the fact that their core beliefs just so happen to coincide with this lie Gotham is living under that makes them feel that much more dangerous and scary to me. Also, supposing they did find out about Dent prior to coming to Gotham...why would it be okay for them to attack an "innocent" city then? Wouldn't they still be "causing the problem" by exposing the truth, when the Dent Act had helped Gotham redeem itself? I feel it's still the same end result, because any initiative they might have taken to discover if there was more to the story with Dent would be indicative of a pre-existing mistrust and condemnation of Gotham, which they already have and are acting on in TDKR. Or suppose they didn't trust the official story, but since Bruce and Gordon are the only ones who are in on it, they couldn't prove anything? Considering they would know that Bruce is morally opposed to murder (he did burn down their monastery just to avoid being an executioner), the story that Batman murdered the DA and all those men would probably raise an eyebrow. It just shows how confident and ardent they are in their beliefs that the truth is just fuel to their fire. Even if he never got to the bottom of the big bad secret, Bane could have still made his speech outside Blackgate about "the oppressors of generations" and how it was time to give Gotham back to the people. He had already gotten disgruntled Gothamites to join his underground army prior to finding Gordon's letter.

Finally, I thought seeing Alfred apologizing in front of Thomas' tombstone was a poignant moment, as was seeing Bruce's tombstone next to his parents'. It wasn't the graveyard visit everyone was hoping to see, but to see Bruce "reunited" with them in that way was kind of beautiful. I think Thomas would be extremely proud of Bruce for being able to finally move on with his life, and for opening Wayne Manor's doors for the orphans of Gotham. And I think having the orphanage dedicated to Thomas and Martha's names is probably a stronger gesture than roses. He upheld the Wayne name in the end.

[RustyCage]

The League is described as watching society grow and striking when they see it becoming decadent. This suggests there is a measure of moral judgment they make based on the condition of the city, which is ever-changing. They're watching closely, they have some degree of hope that it won't go bad, or they wouldn't allow it to exist for years in the first place.

So that's why I'm not as black and white on Ra's or the League. They're not strictly evil even if their methods are wrong. Terrorism comes in many shapes. Look at V.

In regard to whether or not they would still be causing the problem when exposing the truth about Dent, the problem would have already been there, they would simply be administering what they thought was the cure (and of course Bruce and you and I would disagree).

But why I find this compelling is that it wouldn't be necessary to mislead or manipulate people into being corrupt, and that would make it tougher to call them wrong about Gotham's corruption. They don't have to fake a reason to strike (other than mere revenge), their motivation will be legitimate from the get-go. They would at least have an argument to make. I don't like that that argument boils down to a fist-fight with no philosophical conclusion, however, so I would amend that too.

About his parents, I also enjoyed that, but it would have been more powerful if they were relevant throughout. A gravesite visit after Bruce gets back to Gotham would have been a great rekindling moment, like saying (or silently implying), 'I'm back, and I won't let you down again'. Bruce fell and learned to pick himself up, completes the climbing out of the pit ordeal to perfection, and then later that promise he makes at their graves is tied off nicely with the Wayne Orphanage and the graves including his at the end.

Bang, tears jerked instead of tickled. For me, anyway.

I think maybe we just wanted different movies. Along with the idea I threw together above, I wanted a stronger motivation for both Bane and Bruce, and I wanted certain characters and concepts fleshed out more (and some maybe trimmed down or even scrapped). The development felt incomplete to me.

Hell, this could even have been a two-parter.

[RustyCage]

Here's a question: Could we consider Batman a terrorist?

[Tequilla]

RustyCage i think it would be easier to just read my post a few pages ago , because i will repeat a lot of the same notions , but for the sake of the discussion

Originally Posted by RustyCage

But you still have to fill in Nolan's blanks to gather those stories beyond the surface, you're interpreting these stories with your imagination.

You're confusing interpretation with filling the blanks. If you think stories exist for mere plotting, then i don't see how you want to discuss anything.

Originally Posted by RustyCage

Which is fine, again, but I don't want us pretending that the movie fleshes something out that it doesn't.

Its not pretending. It's all there. You might not agree with it, its fine. Im not saying its canonical my view of the film (that is something only the writer and director can express) , but its certainly not deserved to be called fan-fiction.

Originally Posted by RustyCage

There may be little things here and there that could be interpreted as situational decadence, sure. That doesn't express that Gotham in it's entirety is outright corrupt, though. How on Earth do you gauge the ratio there? Based on a few crumbs? I'm sorry, it's just stretching.

I didnt said gotham is entirely corrupt. The decadence is something LOS identify in Gotham. That's crystal clear since Begins. Its still the same. Bruce doesn't necessarily agree with it. But the point of the topic was why they came back. Not if the city is beyond saving (which isnt , since Begins we see Gotham trying to lift by itself)

Originally Posted by RustyCage

I would have believed this to be the League's view if we were looking at Begins, but not Rises.

Same city , same conditions. In Rises they use a lie to clean the surface. To take joe chill's out of the streets. But the system that creates them is very much the same.

Originally Posted by RustyCage

So kids having trouble getting a job means a whole city is corrupt to the point that it needs to be obliterated?

Kind of a weak reasoning point, but let's collect it with your other suggestions.

You make an extreme suggestion that i said anything like that , but i didnt , much less i ever agree with the obliteration of the city. What i said was the youth unemployment is a huge signal of decadence , distortion , stratum's of society that have grown in a non civilized way. I chuckled the way you posed the question , kids having trouble with getting a job. I dont know where you're from , how old are you ,anything , but you certainly have noticed the huge crisis we are today. One of the , if not the biggest , challenge we face today is how to fight youth unemployment. A society without the capacity to absorb younger generations , doesn't exist . Its doomed. This is a problem western civilizations are starting to face , especially because of the major slow down in the industrialization by human labor.

But let me ask you something , why do you think the director inserted that scene in the movie ? Why did he alluded younger generations migrating to the sewers

" - Lot of guys been going down the tunnels when they age out.Say you can live down there. Say there’s work down there.

- Work? What kind of work are you gonna find in the sewers?

- More than you can find up here, I guess."

Why ? He thought it was neat alluding kids going to help terrorists ? He explicitly says "more than you can find up here". They are going because the have no place to go , except ther. Where they can find jobs. This trilogy , is all aboutlLegacy. About taking up the mantle. There isnt a bigger factor in that than young kids.

Originally Posted by RustyCage

Yeah, it is beyond that. It's the League infiltrating with the employment of a useful idiot. This example of corruption in Gotham IS the League's doing, so shouldn't they logically be committing ritualistic suicide or something?

No , they use the resources of a well positioned man to infiltrate their infrastructures.

Originally Posted by RustyCage

If we're going after Daggett specifically and ignoring the League's involvement (which wouldn't be honest, but), one greedy, sneaky man does not equal an entirely rotten, corrupt city beyond saving. Again, barely any ground.

What does that have to necessarily do with corruption?

Again, never said anything about entirely rotten. Nor i agree with it. Still the city suffers from the same problems Los saw in Begins (and in the past). Nolan can't detail all the city , and express all points of view. He choses different operators. One of them is Dagget. Infrastructures are one of the most bureaucratic operations you can have in state affairs . Him being able to do all this , his a great image of how Gotham is still very vulnerable.

Originally Posted by RustyCage

You're forgetting the context: They believe Batman killed Harvey Dent, their perceived savior. From the eyes of the cops, Batman is a murderous monster who has been at large for years.

And it's just Foley who calls that shot. One single cocky dude doesn't exactly make me assume the entire police force is crooked, just that they have a slight dick who doesn't know the truth about Batman (and why would he?) to take orders from.

Foley is a deputy commissioner , not a random cop. I've never made the assumption the entire police force is crooked. Just that it still exists.

Originally Posted by RustyCage

Oppositely, we have Blake and Gordon as beacons of good in the police, so if we're going to cherry pick single characters, the good side of the police have the edge over the 'bad' side, if you can really call Foley 'bad'.

Yes ...i dont understand what you're trying to say. I'm not cherry picking , its the director who chose to create that character. I'm simply trying to interpret the purpose. Why do you think he exists ? The simpleton Foley ?

Originally Posted by RustyCage

Apathy? No. Jealousy sparked by the coercion of Bane? Yes.

No , the city reacts in complete apathy. They never try to fight back. Accept everything from him.

Originally Posted by RustyCage

Yet another example of the League being responsible for the corruption they claim to be in Gotham to wipe clean.

The league is responsible for the corruption ? What ? They might be catalysts to show the corruption , but i cant even grasp your concept.

Originally Posted by RustyCage

It was a scam. They created the problem so that they could declare themselves the solution.

The ideology was false (at least the consequences it tried to achieve) no doubt. He wanted to poison their souls. But because he knew the social context , and took advantage of it. He used their own flaws against them. His plan is actually brilliant.


This was from other post of yours

Originally Posted by RustyCage

When you look at it that way, Lobster (can I call you that? lol), any city in the world can be 'bred' by the League to be deemed fit for a League annihilation.

Well Ra's states clearly in Begins that Gotham is a symbol of western civilaztion. So yes , off-course Gotham is not an island isolated of the world. Its a representation of something much bigger. The development of 21st century societies.



RustyCage what i didn't understand from your post was your view of those situations ? Charecters ? Contexts ? They aren't there ? They certainly are. You think they are mere plotting ? Situations to advance the narrative ? Well that's where we have to disagree , and i think cinema would be a very poor medium if everything would be thrown under that bus. Yes usually the genre is pure fluff , even Begins and TDK dont explore so much , but that's why i think Rises is completely unparalleled.

[RustyCage]

Originally Posted by Tequilla

RustyCage i think it would be easier to just read my post a few pages ago , because i will repeat a lot of the same notions , but for the sake of the discussion

I'm not sure how I missed it, if I did.

You're confusing interpretation with filling the blanks.

In many cases, we have to go out of our way to make up a plausible backstory for certain things. That's filling in the blanks.

We can base it on crumbs Nolan gives us, but he didn't bake a whole loaf of bread, so we're doing that ourselves. That's all I'm saying. I admitted before this discussion began that this is all we would in effect be doing, so I accept that my view is also ultimately fan fiction.

The fact that our interpretations of those crumbs can differ so starkly illustrates just how unclear the film was on this subject, so it didn't do it's job very well.

If you think stories exist for mere plotting, then i don't see how you want to discuss anything.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Its not pretending. It's all there. You might not agree with it, its fine. Im not saying its canonical my view of the film (that is something only the writer and director can express) , but its certainly not deserved to be called fan-fiction.

I wouldn't say it's all there, but I would say there are elements that you might interpret it one way or another from. Those are two very different things.

You're taking my use of the term 'fan fiction' too harshly. I already said there's nothing wrong with it. It's not an insult, and I do it too, it's fun to think about these things, but I insisted that we didn't act like it was necessarily the truth. That's all.

I didnt said gotham is entirely corrupt. The decadence is something LOS identify in Gotham. That's crystal clear since Begins. Its still the same.

Decadence is decline, Gotham is by and large doing the opposite of that. It's been 8 years, things look much better than the days of Begins, the entire criminal underworld is behind bars, and now they decide Gotham is bad enough to strike again suddenly? Based on -what-? It's so backwards.

I have yet to see compelling evidence of what in TDKR would justify them still seeing it as in enough decline to try and decimate it again after 8 years of fiddling around watching from the shadows. The only reasoning for them returning that holds up is the concept of finishing Ra's work from before, which was based on the state of Gotham years ago.

It seems a little flimsy to me. It's a weak driving punch, a weak argument, for the villain to have compared to Ra's and the Joker in the previous films.

Same city , same conditions. In Rises they use a lie to clean the surface. To take joe chill's out of the streets. But the system that creates them is very much the same.

It's not the same conditions at all, unless I missed something. And, again, the League has no idea it was built on covering up the truth about Dent until their plan is well underway and Bruce is already long out of action.

You make an extreme suggestion that i said anything like that , but i didnt , much less i ever agree with the obliteration of the city.

This argument isn't about whether or not you agree with the League, it's about how competent the League's motive was based on their own principles.

What i said was the youth unemployment is a huge signal of decadence , distortion , stratum's of society that have grown in a non civilized way.

It's a problem that needs to be addressed, sure, but all I was saying was that that alone does not necessarily illustrate a city in utter decay beyond saving.

I chuckled the way you posed the question , kids having trouble with getting a job.

I fail to find that funny, personally.

I dont know where you're from , how old are you ,anything , but you certainly have noticed the huge crisis we are today. One of the , if not the biggest , challenge we face today is how to fight youth unemployment. A society without the capacity to absorb younger generations , doesn't exist . Its doomed. This is a problem western civilizations are starting to face , especially because of the major slow down in the industrialization by human labor.

I'm very politically studied and active, and I'm currently having to resort to trying to work for myself (not easy) instead of for an employer since jobs are so hard to find these days.

So, yes, I'm aware of (and effected by) the situation, and I'm aware the movie reflects that deliberately. I just don't see this point alone as compelling reason for the League to step in.

So I said I would pair it up with your other reasonings, suggesting the full picture you were painting would possibly be more compelling to me.

No , they use the resources of a well positioned man to infiltrate their infrastructures.

How is that any different from what I said? You gave me an example of Gotham being corrupt, but really, it's an example of the League deliberately breeding the corruption of Gotham themselves.

It's blatantly hypocritical of them, so it makes their motive seem even more flimsy as a philosophical argument to use against Batman's view.

Again, never said anything about entirely rotten.
Nor i agree with it.

This isn't about you. This is about the League's agenda.

Ra's explained this was the standard for striking in Begins. I believe the line was something like: 'When a city reaches the pinnacle of it's decadence...'

Correct me if I'm wrong. My speakers aren't working, so I can't double-check at the moment.

Still the city suffers from the same problems Los saw in Begins (and in the past).

I don't see that illustrated in the film at all.

Him being able to do all this , his a great image of how Gotham is still very vulnerable.

Vulnerable =/= guilty. If you can manipulate someone into being bad, or encourage them to be good, why would you go out of your way to manipulate them into being bad just so you can punish them for being bad? That's a silly motive.

They create corruption and then condemn it. That simply wasn't compelling to me.

If Daggett were anywhere near the level of Falcone, I'd maybe buy it, but things were way worse in Begins. Falcone made waves, he OWNED the city. Begins' Gotham was clearly a dirty, rotten, wreck. Daggett was just some chump in an otherwise decent community.

I've never made the assumption the entire police force is crooked. Just that it still exists.

Foley may be a little cocky, but he's not evil.

Do you have nothing to say about the true context of him chasing Batman? That it was because Batman was a fugitive who, as far as everyone knew, killed Gotham's hero and has been successfully on the run for 8 years?

It may have been a reckless call by one somewhat over-zealous cop, but that does not equate to a corrupt police force, or even a corrupt individual.

Why do you think he exists ? The simpleton Foley ?

To show that Batman is still perceived as an enemy of the public and the police, and rightfully so as far as they know.

No , the city reacts in complete apathy. They never try to fight back. Accept everything from him.

Not all of them. And again, in context, Bane manipulated them into thinking they were victims. He took advantage of poor, desperate people.

The league is responsible for the corruption ? What ? They might be catalysts to show the corruption , but i cant even grasp your concept.

I explained it clearly. You even seem to agree in your very next paragraph:

He wanted to poison their souls. But because he knew the social context , and took advantage of it. He used their own flaws against them. His plan is actually brilliant.

Well Ra's states clearly in Begins that Gotham is a symbol of western civilaztion. So yes , off-course Gotham is not an island isolated of the world. Its a representation of something much bigger. The development of 21st century societies.

Of course, but this is avoiding my point. My point was that Gotham was unremarkable in terms of corruption until Bane deliberately poisoned it himself.

RustyCage what i didn't understand from your post was your view of those situations ? Charecters ? Contexts ? They aren't there ? They certainly are. You think they are mere plotting ? Situations to advance the narrative ? Well that's where we have to disagree , and i think cinema would be a very poor medium if everything would be thrown under that bus. Yes usually the genre is pure fluff , even Begins and TDK dont explore so much , but that's why i think Rises is completely unparalleled.

I'm not saying Nolan doesn't give us anything at all to chew on. I'm just saying, in the case of TDKR, he didn't give us much in the way of impressive or conclusive evidence for various motivations in the film.

Maybe you misunderstood me, but I would appreciate not having my criticisms stretched out of proportion like that.

I still find TDKR rich and deep in other ways, and I adore the other two films almost completely. Don't accuse me of calling them fluff.

[The Joker]

Awesome posts, RustyCage. Well said

The motives of the LOS in TDKR were utter nonsense compared to Begins. I couldn't take their plan seriously at all.

[Tequilla]

Originally Posted by RustyCage

In many cases, we have to go out of our way to make up a plausible backstory for certain things. That's filling in the blanks.

We can base it on crumbs Nolan gives us, but he didn't bake a whole loaf of bread, so we're doing that ourselves. That's all I'm saying. I admitted before this discussion began that this is all we would in effect be doing, so I accept that my view is also ultimately fan fiction.

The fact that our interpretations of those crumbs can differ so starkly illustrates just how unclear the film was on this subject, so it didn't do it's job very well.

I agree with you because what you described is literally any piece of storytelling from any medium (let me rephrase , any good piece of storytelling). Interpretations tend to differ because they are exactly that...interpretations. I could spend all day talking about magnificent books and movies and we would never reach any consensus. That is anything but a negative aspect.

Originally Posted by RustyCage

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Because you said "you're interpreting these stories with your imagination. ". Off course im interpreting with my imagination. Its what we do.With everything. Plotting doesnt have any discussion , outside of the formal basis of its structure . Its the content that its discussed , and interpreted by ourselves.

Originally Posted by RustyCage

I wouldn't say it's all there, but I would say there are elements that you might interpret it one way or another from. Those are two very different things.

You're taking my use of the term 'fan fiction' too harshly. I already said there's nothing wrong with it. It's not an insult, and I do it too, it's fun to think about these things, but I insisted that we didn't act like it was necessarily the truth. That's all.

I agree , again because i think its applicable to anything.

Yes now i understand what you meant by fan fiction. I think the process is so common , that any discussion regarding any movie falls under that fan fiction. That's why i disagree with you. I think fan fiction is hypothesizing for instance what would happen with Blake after Rises (which is totally irrelevant to the movie itself)

Originally Posted by RustyCage

Decadence is decline, Gotham is by and large doing the opposite of that. It's been 8 years, things look much better than the days of Begins, the entire criminal underworld is behind bars, and now they decide Gotham is bad enough to strike again suddenly? Based on -what-? It's so backwards.

I have yet to see compelling evidence of what in TDKR would justify them still seeing it as in enough decline to try and decimate it again after 8 years of fiddling around watching from the shadows. The only reasoning for them returning that holds up is the concept of finishing Ra's work from before, which was based on the state of Gotham years ago.

It seems a little flimsy to me. It's a weak driving punch, a weak argument, for the villain to have compared to Ra's and the Joker in the previous films.

I dont see how its better when we are shown so many signs of its decadence.

Originally Posted by RustyCage

It's not the same conditions at all, unless I missed something. And, again, the League has no idea it was built on covering up the truth about Dent until their plan is well underway and Bruce is already long out of action.

Its the director who makes us perceive how Gotham is very much corrupted. We know practically nothing about the League , how they operated and what did they knew (they didn't knew that). The importance is exactly Nolan showing us Gotham in a similar state.

Originally Posted by RustyCage

This argument isn't about whether or not you agree with the League, it's about how competent the League's motive was based on their own principles.

Ok. But the League were in the same exact conditions in Begins. Ra's himself stated the city was limp , trying to get up by itself with the help of people like Bruce's father. He states that the obliteration is the only way to get back up. He is wrong , as nothing like that happens. Bruce also disagree with him. So if they are incompetent , that also exists in Begins.

What i see is coherence from the first movie. An exaggeration of causes and actions from them. They believe the same. They are wrong , but the motives are still the same.

Originally Posted by RustyCage

It's a problem that needs to be addressed, sure, but all I was saying was that that alone does not necessarily illustrate a city in utter decay beyond saving.

Nor it was illustrated in Begins. The city wasn't beyond saving. That's Batman's goal. But the League thinks differently.

Originally Posted by RustyCage

I fail to find that funny, personally.

I just thought you dismissed in such a quick way , when its probably one of the biggest problems of today.

Originally Posted by RustyCage

I'm very politically studied and active, and I'm currently having to resort to trying to work for myself (not easy) instead of for an employer since jobs are so hard to find these days.

So, yes, I'm aware of (and effected by) the situation, and I'm aware the movie reflects that deliberately. I just don't see this point alone as compelling reason for the League to step in.

So I said I would pair it up with your other reasonings, suggesting the full picture you were painting would possibly be more compelling to me.

You have my sympathies. Its something that exists everywhere (im my country , the youth unemployment is massive )

But i would like to know your interpreation off the scene , and why the director explicity goes that route . That's the morals , and distortions the League tries to fight back.

Originally Posted by RustyCage

How is that any different from what I said? You gave me an example of Gotham being corrupt, but really, it's an example of the League deliberately breeding the corruption of Gotham themselves.

It's blatantly hypocritical of them, so it makes their motive seem even more flimsy as a philosophical argument to use against Batman's view.

That's the joker view I'm Batman . I believe in the people. In being incorruptible. They dont create corruption , they just use it for their advantage. That's why we dont see the city fighting back. That's why they infiltrate whatever they want.

Originally Posted by RustyCage

This isn't about you. This is about the League's agenda.

Ra's explained this was the standard for striking in Begins. I believe the line was something like: 'When a city reaches the pinnacle of it's decadence...'

Correct me if I'm wrong. My speakers aren't working, so I can't double-check at the moment.

Yes , but Bruce doesn't agree they reached a pinnacle. Many citizens didnt agreed. And they are right. And Ra's was wrong. So , in that sense...they are still wrong.

Originally Posted by RustyCage

I don't see that illustrated in the film at all.

We'l just have to agree to disagree. There's so many stuff the directors show us , that i simply dont understand how these aspects can be interpreted any other way. But i would love to read your interpretation of it. Im just giving mine.

Originally Posted by RustyCage

Vulnerable =/= guilty. If you can manipulate someone into being bad, or encourage them to be good, why would you go out of your way to manipulate them into being bad just so you can punish them for being bad? That's a silly motive.

They create corruption and then condemn it. That simply wasn't compelling to me.

If Daggett were anywhere near the level of Falcone, I'd maybe buy it, but things were way worse in Begins. Falcone made waves, he OWNED the city. Begins' Gotham was clearly a dirty, rotten, wreck. Daggett was just some chump in an otherwise decent community.

The corruption exists. They didn't create. They didn't "built" Gotham. If the city was unpolluted it would have reacted differently. But they didn't. “Innocence is a strong word to throw around Gotham"...Talia says that in this movie. The League perceives them like that (its not the other way around).

I cant measure rottenness. But we know Dagget used resources from Africa in a coup d'état done by the League. He is quite a monster.

Originally Posted by RustyCage

Foley may be a little cocky, but he's not evil.

Do you have nothing to say about the true context of him chasing Batman? That it was because Batman was a fugitive who, as far as everyone knew, killed Gotham's hero and has been successfully on the run for 8 years?

It may have been a reckless call by one somewhat over-zealous cop, but that does not equate to a corrupt police force, or even a corrupt individual.

It's the choice the director makes presenting them like that . The police force chasing him. Foley greedy for his fame.

Originally Posted by RustyCage

To show that Batman is still perceived as an enemy of the public and the police, and rightfully so as far as they know.

To me he is much more than that. That doesn't need a character. He's a simpleton. The commoner. A guy who belongs to the force , in a higher position , who only thinks about his promotion. Who stays at his home the moment they need to fight back , until Bat returns. He's is a very simple character because he's nothing but a commoner.

And not all cops think like that (we know one...Blake)

Originally Posted by RustyCage

Not all of them. And again, in context, Bane manipulated them into thinking they were victims. He took advantage of poor, desperate people.

Who fighted back ? No one. They all followed exactly what Bane said. Stay at home and take what is rightfully yours . They accepted it. Like they reacted when joker put a bomb in their hands...in completely and utter apathy. The same apathy Batman wants to shake out of them since Begins.

Originally Posted by RustyCage

I explained it clearly. You even seem to agree in your very next paragraph:

That's a major disagreement we have. People behave accordingly to their nature. That's what Bane takes advantage. He doesn't create their nature.

Originally Posted by RustyCage

Of course, but this is avoiding my point. My point was that Gotham was unremarkable in terms of corruption until Bane deliberately poisoned it himself.

I see the complete opposite. Still a city tormented by its own problems. The only good thing they achieved was actually based on a lie...the irony of it , is brutal.

Originally Posted by RustyCage

I'm not saying Nolan doesn't give us anything at all to chew on. I'm just saying, in the case of TDKR, he didn't give us much in the way of impressive or conclusive evidence for various motivations in the film.

Maybe you misunderstood me, but I would appreciate not having my criticisms stretched out of proportion like that.

I still find TDKR rich and deep in other ways, and I adore the other two films almost completely. Don't accuse me of calling them fluff.

I was the one who said the genre is fluff , and the previous two movies dont have the richness this one have. I stick by that