In hindsight what changes would you do

[RustyCage]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

Would you agree though that he was at least ambivalent and callous towards it? The whole point of his escape from the pit was to get back in touch with that primal fear of dying, which is what finally gave him the will to live again in the end.

In order for that to have any meaning, it's almost necessary to consider the fact that Bruce was pretty much okay with death. Like Bane says, "You don't fear death...you welcome it." Why shouldn't that be true? It gives context to what Bruce has to overcome in the film.

Not fearing death is different from seeking it. Seeking it is speculation on Alfred's part, and I don't find it substantiated by anything Bruce says or does. Quite the opposite. He wants to repair himself and save Gotham. How flimsy is that mission - one he spent his whole life on - if he really just wants to die and therefore let Gotham fall?

It's in direct conflict with both his nature and his desire. To me, that is crystal clear. Alfred was just wrong. He was panicking, lost faith.

Bane says he welcomes it, but you could more accurately take that as an attitude of 'bring it on, I'll put everything on the line to stop you, even my life', because that's the only behavior demonstrated in the movie. 'I want to die' isn't. Bane is describing selfless heroism, not suicidal urges.

One could say, 'Well, Nolan is clearly trying to illustrate it by having other characters say so even if Bruce doesn't'. But how many times are other characters dead wrong about who and what Bruce is and how he feels? Even Selina misjudged him on multiple counts in the same film, so I don't find that angle holds much weight.

Blake and Lucius are the only characters who seem to actually get Bruce in Rises.

[BatLobsterRises]

@The Guard

How is it not touched on again? Bruce wakes up in the pit...first thing he asks is, "Why didn't you just kill me?" That's before he even knows where he is. Bane tells him he welcomes death and his punishment must be more severe. Then Bruce tries to talk Tom Conti into letting the prisoners kill him (which reminds me of "Couldn't they kill me before breakfast?"...full circle). I think you can definitely read some disappointment into Bruce asking Bane why he didn't kill him, especially the way Bale plays it. Without that aspect the line has so much less meaning and is just generically moving the plot forward. But the subtext is right there for the taking.

Not to mention, The ENTIRE ending is a resolution to this idea. Batman's final moments in the Bat, Alfred's tears of regret, Bruce's ultimate choice...the whole fact that the movie gives us the he dies/he lives ending at the same time. These things are all commenting on the idea of a heroic self-sacrificing death for Batman, the emotional consequences of that for all the characters, and the ultimate relief that Bruce no longer sees "only one end" to his journey.

Look, you don't have to like the way it was "handled" and you can call it underdeveloped if that's how you found it, but I walked out of the film with the full understanding that Bruce either was craving a "good death" (stands to reason since they borrowed a lot of elements from TDKReturns) or was at least okay with dying. It doesn't particularly matter which, because the main idea is that either way- his lack of fear of death is intrinsically tied up with his will to live...which is severely lacking. I found the scene the climb out of the pit to be by far the most emotionally satisfying of the film. That scene simply would not have had the power it does if it hadn't been adequately established that this was going to be a transformative experience for Bruce, and not just him escaping the prison so he can go stop the bad guy.

[RustyCage]

The disappointment thing is conjecture. I didn't read that at all. For me, he seems to be defeated, dazed, and prying for answers as to Bane's motives. He doesn't understand what Bane's doing yet. It would have been efficient for Bane to have just killed Batman and had his way with Gotham, so that must have seemed unusual enough to ask about.

Ultimately, that inefficiency wound up costing Bane the win. So it was pretty logical to question it. I know I would have.

"Couldn't they kill me before breakfast?" was more sarcastic and fearless than it was suicidal.

To me, TDKR was more about Bruce showing his true intentions after people misunderstood him. More than just misunderstood.. people lost faith in him. Even Alfred misread him, but he proved all that wrong with a heartfelt magic trick. It was more, 'See? Everything's okay, just like I said it was.'

[RustyCage]

For the record, I don't think TDK Returns Batman wanted to die either. Musing on something grim doesn't mean you desire it. Clearly his desire is to protect Gotham and stop injustice, and since that is in direct conflict with him dying, it demonstrably overrides any kind of death wish one might accuse him of having. If the desire is there, it is by far secondary to his will to survive and fight.

"My city needs me."

[BatLobsterRises]

You know what, that's a valid interpretation. But I think it's arguable that your interpretation (that everything was okay all along) has some conjecture to it as well. But both of ours are coherent interpretations, depending on how you read into certain lines throughout the movie.

I think it's a bit of both ultimately. I agree with what you're saying about him wanting to survive and fight first, with a potentially secondary death fantasy in there. That's how I view it. It's not something he's really conscious about, I certainly wouldn't call him suicidal by any means. But I feel that on some level it's there because I believe Alfred does understand Bruce better than anyone, even himself. And in TDKR, that is the thing that is making him weaker, it's the thing he must overcome. Even if it's the faintest little thought in the back of his mind, he needs to be fully committed to living if he wants to come out on top in the fight of his life. He needs that extra push.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by henzINNIT

It's an opinion that Nolan lost sight of the Batman character when he wrote TDKR. It's also an opinion that for a director who prides himself on realism, Nolan really half-assed the depiction of Gotham city in TDKR.

Both of these things were handled pretty damn well in the preceding films. Shame he dropped the ball.

Indeed all of those are opinions as well, and baffling opinions as well.

Christopher Nolan could have walked after The Dark Knight, but he instead returned to give his story of Bruce Wayne/Batman an ending while also giving us a film that has the most nods/references/insights on a lot of Batman stories.

And you're very much confusing priding one's self on realism to "half-assing" the depiction of Gotham City. How does that go hand in hand? Maybe separate the points and then you might make some sense, lol.

[henzINNIT]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Christopher Nolan could have walked after The Dark Knight, but he instead returned to give his story of Bruce Wayne/Batman an ending while also giving us a film that has the most nods/references/insights on a lot of Batman stories.

... shame none of those nods or references included great Batman characterisation.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

And you're very much confusing priding one's self on realism to "half-assing" the depiction of Gotham City. How does that go hand in hand? Maybe separate the points and then you might make some sense, lol.

It goes hand in hand because Nolan proved with the first two films that he could ground his stories in a realistic and compelling city. This is not the case with TDKR, where crime has miraculously perrished and the citizens will go primitive at the first sight of an obviously scary guy making speeches.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by henzINNIT

... shame none of those nods or references included great Batman characterisation.

Calling Gotham City "MY city" and not wanting his city to die without anyone to protect it isn't great Batman characterization? Even with not being at his prime, he still wants to do right with the city. Don't try to say him being out of action for eight years wasn't Batman characterization just because that's what Nolan's Batman was about...taking out the mobs and that was it, Batman was not needed in Nolan's trilogy for that time. It's not the comics, it's someone else's vision. At least blame the entire trilogy if you view that not the way you'd want Batman to be, but the fact that you only blame TDKR is baffling as hell.

And retiring is different as well, of course, but this isn't the BatGod kind of character you see in the comics either.

It goes hand in hand because Nolan proved with the first two films that he could ground his stories in a realistic and compelling city. This is not the case with TDKR, where crime has miraculously perrished and the citizens will go primitive at the first sight of an obviously scary guy making speeches.

I'll take realism first...that goes out of hand even for fanboys because he did not make a trilogy based on realism, but based on being relatable. TDK doesn't even become that realistic when you look at it(Harvey Dent being able to withstand his injuries out of a hospital bed, the Bat-pod being part of The Tumbler, the RICO ordeal, Batman getting Lau out of China without the government doing anything about it). Of course, more comic-booky elements are given to the series as the the three films progresses, but TDKR isn't the first in the trilogy to have those elements either.

The city? Yes, the city needed more of a soul, but it was relatable. It did give the views of how people who are not raised in a richer area will react to people who do "have it made" as Bane's revolution was created before all of the Occupy happenings. That's as real as you can get when you describe something that can very well happen and did, but it needed to be developed more and sadly, it didn't.

And again you bring up the crime...once again, blame the entire trilogy when it was mentioned in Batman Begins that the root of the problem is the mobs. Don't like it? Do the thing that's smarter and blame BB for making the problem, really, that simple.

[henzINNIT]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Don't try to say him being out of action for eight years wasn't Batman characterization just because that's what Nolan's Batman was about...taking out the mobs and that was it, Batman was not needed in Nolan's trilogy for that time.

... errr exactly? "Nolan's Batman" wasn't as compelling as the Batman he was adapting. He has the right to alter the character in his film, and I have the right to criticise his decision if it harms the core of the character.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

The city? Yes, the city needed more of a soul, but it was relatable. It did give the views of how people who are not raised in a richer area will react to people who do "have it made" as Bane's revolution was created before all of the Occupy happenings. That's as real as you can get when you describe something that can very well happen and did, but it needed to be developed more and sadly, it didn't.

So we agree then?

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

And again you bring up the crime...once again, blame the entire trilogy when it was mentioned in Batman Begins that the root of the problem is the mobs. Don't like it? Do the thing that's smarter and blame BB for making the problem, really, that simple

It is indeed an issue that has roots in the first two films, but it wasn't a problem for me until TDKR gave us a complacent Bruce. It's all well and good targeting the mobs while they're operating, but far less interesting showing a man sat on his arse after he apparently (unbelievably) achieved it.

Compare the end of TDK - where Batman is cemented as the self-sacrificing hero, running because he elected to be chased and vilified for his city - to the opening of TDKR - where he apparently got home, kicked off his boots, sat down and grew a beard.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by henzINNIT

... errr exactly? "Nolan's Batman" wasn't as compelling as the Batman he was adapting. He has the right to alter the character in his film, and I have the right to criticise his decision if it harms the core of the character.

So then, as I mentioned...dislike the entire characterization of all three films and not solely TDKR.

So we agree then?

I only wish it had more time to develop, but I am content with what we have in the film. You seem like you just didn't like the lack-of the film had, lol.

It is indeed an issue that has roots in the first two films, but it wasn't a problem for me until TDKR gave us a complacent Bruce. It's all well and good targeting the mobs while they're operating, but far less interesting showing a man sat on his arse after he apparently (unbelievably) achieved it.

Compare the end of TDK - where Batman is cemented as the self-sacrificing hero, running because he elected to be chased and vilified for his city - to the opening of TDKR - where he apparently got home, kicked off his boots, sat down and grew a beard.

But what can Bruce even do as Batman when the job is done? I do not want to see a Batman just running building after building just to see if he can do a job like chasing cats out of trees(that's for Superman to do ). He retired The Batman and focused on making everything else in Gotham safer by working on that energy project which he then had to shut down.

And Nolan had said for the ending of TDK to work, something good had to come out of it. With the mobs taken out of the system, why would Batman want to use of GCPD's time in trying to hunt him down when there's zero reason?

[RustyCage]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

You know what, that's a valid interpretation. But I think it's arguable that your interpretation (that everything was okay all along) has some conjecture to it as well. But both of ours are coherent interpretations, depending on how you read into certain lines throughout the movie.

Of course. That's the intentional premise of one of the points I was trying to make. 'This is conjecture. Here's an example of how conjecture is unreliable, because I interpreted it differently than you'.

I listed what definite proof was available in the film to determine a conclusion from, and also how I read into the non-definite stuff differently.

I believe Alfred does understand Bruce better than anyone, even himself.

I think he's been a source of wisdom, but (at least in Nolan's trilogy) he's never truly understood him so much as tried to guide him when he felt he was lost. Alfred has an established set of ideals, and Bruce didn't always adhere to that. Whether it was right or wrong to do so was situational.

It was right to in TDK, but wrong to in TDKR. Alfred had no faith in Bruce by Rises, and Bruce showed him he was wrong about it -- not in a spiteful way, obviously. It was more of a reassurance.

The entire ending is about reassurance. Gordon finding the signal, Blake finding the cave, the statue being erected, etc.

It was the promise he tried to make at the end of TDK, but couldn't complete with honesty. This time, he's done it right.

And in TDKR, that is the thing that is making him weaker, it's the thing he must overcome. Even if it's the faintest little thought in the back of his mind, he needs to be fully committed to living if he wants to come out on top in the fight of his life. He needs that extra push.

What I gathered it to be was his disillusionment coupled with his fearlessness (which, at times, crossed over to rage and arrogance) making him weak.

[BatLobsterRises]

Welp RustyCage, I actually now see a new potential interpretation of the movie that I hadn't previously been considering. Which makes me appreciate it even more. Thanks

[TheBat812]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

You know what, that's a valid interpretation. But I think it's arguable that your interpretation (that everything was okay all along) has some conjecture to it as well. But both of ours are coherent interpretations, depending on how you read into certain lines throughout the movie.

I think it's a bit of both ultimately. I agree with what you're saying about him wanting to survive and fight first, with a potentially secondary death fantasy in there. That's how I view it. It's not something he's really conscious about, I certainly wouldn't call him suicidal by any means. But I feel that on some level it's there because I believe Alfred does understand Bruce better than anyone, even himself. And in TDKR, that is the thing that is making him weaker, it's the thing he must overcome. Even if it's the faintest little thought in the back of his mind, he needs to be fully committed to living if he wants to come out on top in the fight of his life. He needs that extra push.

I think it is a bit of both. Alfred saying Bruce is seeking death really is just Alfred's interpretation (he's been wrong before), but emotionally, he has a point. Bruce has been seeking an end to his pain since the beginning, and with his life in shambles and the true saving of Gotham seemingly out of reach with Batman no longer needed to fight crime, and his energy plan failing, he really does have nothing to live for by the time Bane rises. This is different than having a death wish in Bruce's eyes, but to Alfred, this is equal to what Bruce is looking for - an end. He really has lost hope.

I would say that he starts to regain hope a bit in those around him like Blake and Selina, and seeks to reinspire hope to the people by facing bane, but imo, he's kind of hoping to be a martyr at this point, while not actually expecting to be, if that makes sense. He doesn't expect to lose, but in a way he kind of hopes he does. They purposefully don't have Bruce say this explicitly, but imo (and this is my interpretation), you can just see it in Bruce's eyes when he wakes up and asks why Bane didn't just kill him and get it over with. He expected to die, and he's made his peace with it. It's not until Bane tells him his full plan for Gotham and starts seeing it in effect that he regains that will to fight for his life and city. Much like an addict who gives in to his addiction full on knowing the dier consequences. Alfred doesn't mention the idea meaninglessly, and it's an idea that Bruce might never have even consciously considered, but all of his actions definitely point in that direction.

[RustyCage]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

Welp RustyCage, I actually now see a new potential interpretation of the movie that I hadn't previously been considering. Which makes me appreciate it even more. Thanks

Hey, likewise. I know I can be tough in these discussions, but you've done the same for me like six times now.

To be honest, when I rewatch bits of TDKR, I have your point of view on one side of my mind all the while.

Makes me feel weirdly like Two-Face.

[Laderlappen]

Taken out Rachel
Taken out Blake
Taken out the Tate/Talia twist and make her Talia and a villain for the whole movie

[Anno_Domini]

^ Who would you have used if you took out Rachel?

[JackWhite]

Originally Posted by Laderlappen

Taken out Rachel
Taken out Blake
Taken out the Tate/Talia twist and make her Talia and a villain for the whole movie

I'm actually pretty cool with Rachel in the Nolan films. She didn't take away anything from the story, IMO.

Now Blake is the tough one, because if you don't include him in the film you have to change the ending. Either Batman/Bruce dies or Bruce retires for good on his own terms, and dedicates his life to just philanthropy. Which is kind of funny because the film actually suggests some form of an ending like that:

Alfred: This city needs Bruce Wayne; your resources, your knowledge. It doesn't need your body, or your life. That time has passed.

Talia should have either been revealed sooner, or had a little bit more screen time so we can see her and Bane interact more. Bane could have still been the one to escape the pit, but the twist could have solely been that Talia was Ra's' heir, not Bane.

[The Joker]

I'd happily have Blake removed completely.

[georgec]

Originally Posted by The Joker

I'd happily have Blake removed completely.

But then you'd be "Robin" the saga of its message, that a hero can be anyone, and that Batman was always meant to be a symbol that transcends one person.

[Anno_Domini]

Just give Bruce Wayne an identical brother that shows up in the end

In regards to Rachel, I never minded her either, but I hoped she brought in a much more emotional pull from the audience as I didn't think anyone even cared when she died.

And as for Talia...it's tricky. I would have wanted the reveal to be earlier, but I enjoyed the mystery of her being behind such events as Fox being taken to City Hall as well as Gordon and his men. I do think Talia was hoping she would have taken Bruce to the Pit after their one-night stand though(mentioning a plan and going anywhere that night) and Bane using Selina to bring Bruce was Plan B.

[RustyCage]

Originally Posted by Laderlappen

Taken out Rachel

[RustyCage]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

In regards to Rachel, I never minded her either, but I hoped she brought in a much more emotional pull from the audience as I didn't think anyone even cared when she died.

For me, chalk that up to the recast breaking the connection, but more importantly the way they wrote her character as someone completely different - even unlikable.

I've talked to people (mostly general audience types, not really fans) who were glad she died, because they found her annoying in TDK. Such a shame, 'cause her character (actress regardless) started off so nicely in Begins, and that was meant to be at the heart of TDK, her death the big turning point. Feels a bit wasted.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by georgec

But then you'd be "Robin" the saga of its message, that a hero can be anyone, and that Batman was always meant to be a symbol that transcends one person.

A sacrifice I'd be more than willing to make.

[BatLobsterRises]

You know, after watching TDK again recently, I really enjoyed Rachel's character. To be blunt, I honestly think a lot of people who were glad she died were basing that on not her being a "b**chy" character who rejects Bruce Wayne. And both versions of Rachel had that spunk and attitude. Remember when Katie's version completely condescended Bruce on his birthday? ("You enjoy your party Bruce, some of us have work to do.")

I remember when I saw TDK with my mom, she was completely sucker punched by Rachel's death, even asking me "She's not really dead, is she?" I think the bloodlust for Rachel was more of a fanboy thing.

[ThePhantasm]

Originally Posted by The Joker

I'd happily have Blake removed completely.