In hindsight what changes would you do

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by ThePhantasm

I wouldn't want Alfred to die, but a Bats vs. Bane match in the Batcave would have been so cool.

If anything it would have been great to see more of the Batcave. It was too briefly used. The so called improvements in it were nothing to get excited about.

[ThePhantasm]

Yeah, the batcave was a bit disappointing. After two films of buildup, they shouldn't have taken the minimalist approach.

[BatLobsterRises]

I thought the rising platforms were cool. Felt like a natural hybrid of the Begins cave and the TDK bunker.

[Tequilla]

Originally Posted by ThePhantasm

Yeah, the batcave was a bit disappointing. After two films of buildup, they shouldn't have taken the minimalist approach.

Outside of a possible bat vs bane , what would you have liked to see in the Batcave ?

I hear that complaint a lot , so that's why im asking. I always think the space of action in film is supposed to be minimalist so...i never really understand it. More time there ? More scenes ? Is that it ?

[ThePhantasm]

I would have liked the cave to be more useful. A nicer batcomputer would have been a start. Instead of keeping his "arsenal" under Lucius' roof, Bruce could have kept the spare Tumblers in the batcave (a Bane assault on the batcave would give Bane access to those Tumblers). Maybe some sort of detective lab set up in one place, with equipment ready to be used. A physical training area to keep Batman up to peak condition.

Having all this stuff would have also indicated Bruce's inability to fully let the Batman persona go, despite "resigning". He has all this detective / workout / transportation etc. equipment out and ready to go, so that at the first sign of real trouble he can return to crimefighting.

[Marvin]

Originally Posted by Tequilla

Streamlined as in , extremely cliché ?

Especially the killing the old man. Im so glad Alfred didn't die.

Killing characters isn't tragic. I find the image of Bruce being completely lost in the beginning of the movie much more tragic. There's an huge amount of weight in his shoulders , that are direct consequences of his past. That's the tragedy. His actions matter.

A lot of todays storytelling , they kill characters just for the sake of it. Exactly to bring tragedy that simply doesn't exist within their stories.

Bruce's life is a tragic one. And Rises goes in great detail to show us that. No need for unnecessary deaths .

Nolan's series isn't above "Cliche" but that's another discussion.

I'm not just saying let's kill alfred cause it's neat. I'm suggesting they go the route of having someone in the bat family outside of that one damsel in cliched distress, go down.

Why Alfred and not the other 3 members?
1. Cause it would hurt Bruce the most(and this is a story about bruce's loss), and it's perfectly set up with all those tired rants Alfred spewed about retiring in the first act.
2. Care to explain where Alfred is for 2 and a half thirds of the film? Essentially months...not using the bat family's vast resources to find bruce, what's more, not being hunted down like a dog by the league, just.....noooothinnng.
3. When bruce is lying in the prison for months, hows much more "tragic" would it be if he had a thought as to how alone he now is, Alfred died, isn't buried and bruce is the one in a hole.

....of course not, this is Nolan's movie and everything from the drama to the action to the ninja's is said but not fully dramatized.

I say Alfred goes down in the first act and the tone is set from there. Nolan had him disappear for almost the entire film anyways. And get this, he can still end it in the silly cafe in France, only Alfred isn't there...kinda tragic.

Considering what we actually got, in particular Alfred taking a 3 month vacation and Batman seemingly walking into a bs trap with guns aimed at him whilst he got into a drunken brawl....I say the home invasion direction would have been leaps better. Cliche or no.
However the one down side is it might mean nolan would have to shoot more action.

...batman sitting in his house for 8months cause he lost a girl and "all the crime in gotham is now gone" isn't my idea of tragic, it's bad direction. How many kids families have been gunned down in gotham over this 8 years Bruce? Bane takes him out at the beginning and then you can have your long break. This way you don't have batman come out of retirement only to take another long break only to come back again...
Streamlined.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Marvin

How many kids families have been gunned down in gotham over this 8 years Bruce?

If I had to guess, I'd say none since the mobs create guys like Joe Chill and there is nothing of a hint of any mob action.

[Tequilla]

With that , let's say , narrowed simplification of Bruce's reaction to his duality...i kinda understand why you dont think its tragic. Gladly i think the movie shows much more than that.

But hey , maybe your fan-fic is a masterpiece . Or leaps better as you said.

Originally Posted by ThePhantasm

I would have liked the cave to be more useful. A nicer batcomputer would have been a start. Instead of keeping his "arsenal" under Lucius' roof, Bruce could have kept the spare Tumblers in the batcave (a Bane assault on the batcave would give Bane access to those Tumblers). Maybe some sort of detective lab set up in one place, with equipment ready to be used. A physical training area to keep Batman up to peak condition.

Having all this stuff would have also indicated Bruce's inability to fully let the Batman persona go, despite "resigning". He has all this detective / workout / transportation etc. equipment out and ready to go, so that at the first sign of real trouble he can return to crimefighting.

[ThePhantasm]

Originally Posted by Marvin

...batman sitting in his house for 8months cause he lost a girl and "all the crime in gotham is now gone" isn't my idea of tragic, it's bad direction. How many kids families have been gunned down in gotham over this 8 years Bruce? Bane takes him out at the beginning and then you can have your long break. This way you don't have batman come out of retirement only to take another long break only to come back again...
Streamlined.

I agree with this. In fact, up until I saw the movie, I always thought this was going to be the way Nolan would play it.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by Tequilla

With that , let's say , narrowed simplification of Bruce's reaction to his duality...i kinda understand why you dont think its tragic. Gladly i think the movie shows much more than that.

I agree. I don't see the structural problem with Batman coming back twice. In fact that's the whole point of the movie. When he first returns as Batman he's still very broken as Bruce Wayne, and that makes him more of a danger to himself than ever. He pays the price for that. By the end he's returning on his own terms and has already made the decision to move on with his life.

As I've said before, first we see Batman rising from the ashes of a broken Bruce Wayne. Then we see Bruce Wayne rising from the ashes of a broken Batman. It's the whole point of Bruce's arc. He becomes human again.

Just because something is simpler or more streamlined doesn't make it more compelling.

[Marvin]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

If I had to guess, I'd say none since the mobs create guys like Joe Chill and there is nothing of a hint of any mob action.

Organized crime being gone, as if such a thing is even possible didn't happen the year after Dent/Dawes and Joker disappeared(8 years batman has been in the spa). But let's say it did. Criminal conspiracy isn't the only thing batman exists to fight....even in Nolan's world. At least I hope it's not otherwise I've been giving this series too much credit.

Poverty, fuels crime.
Greed fuels crime.
Corruption...in his own company no less fuels crime.
All these things aren't gone. But again let's say they are...

What of the (inter)national scene, this insane state(city) law has been passed and Gotham is a utopia, what about the next city over, does Bruce literally not care(what about the kids).

If anything Gotham crime would simply move to the next town, in fact it's more than likely. I know Nolan doesn't like the idea of a cinematic universe but even he must be aware that there are more cities in the US than just Gotham. No, the real reason Bruce is taking the 8 month hiatus isn't because he's supposedly "beaten crime" by way of municipal policy, it's because of the trauma he faced in TDK. I can see why this "eager to quit" batman has hit a sore spot on many a batman fan's face.

Almost any other superhero in comicdom(with the exception of maybe Nick Fury) is more in character to quit than Batman...but that's just me.

[JackWhite]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

I agree. I don't see the structural problem with Batman coming back twice. In fact that's the whole point of the movie. When he first returns as Batman he's still very broken as Bruce Wayne, and that makes him more of a danger to himself than ever. He pays the price for that. By the end he's returning on his own terms and has already made the decision to move on with his life.

As I've said before, first we see Batman rising from the ashes of a broken Bruce Wayne. Then we see Bruce Wayne rising from the ashes of a broken Batman. It's the whole point of Bruce's arc. He becomes human again.

Just because something is simpler or more streamlined doesn't make it more compelling.

That's how I see it. It's not like Bruce's first retirement was legit, considering he was sidelined because of the Dent Act. For me, Bruce finally having a retirement on his own terms at the end of the film felt justified.

But really this is something you either like or don't like. I remember hearing some people not wanting Bruce to fake his death because they felt another film ending with a lie would not be appropriate, because all truths should come to light by the end of TDKR.

[ThePhantasm]

I don't like the idea of Bats quitting unless he is physically incapable of being Batman (as in Batman Beyond).

[JackWhite]

Forced into retirement does not equate quitting. I can understand people not liking the idea, it's even a stretch for me, but don't bastardize the concept.

[Snow Queen]

I find it funny that some people find it hard to accept Batman's 8 year retirement in TDKRises but are fine with it in TDKReturns. What are the differences? Dent Act instead of the government forcing superheroes into hiding and Rachel gets killed by the Joker instead of Jason.

[JackWhite]

Originally Posted by Gotham's Knight

I find it funny that some people find it hard to accept Batman's 8 year retirement in TDKRises but are fine with it in TDKReturns. What are the differences? Dent Act instead of the government forcing superheroes into hiding and Rachel gets killed by the Joker instead of Jason.

People have complained that Bruce didn't deserve that much time off, because in the comics he had a longer career.

If you look at Nolan's trilogy as a sort of condensed short story, it's not really off-putting.

[Marvin]

I don't think it's all that equivalent but....Nolan has that effect on people.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by JackWhite

People have complained that Bruce didn't deserve that much time off, because in the comics he had a longer career.

If you look at Nolan's trilogy as a sort of condensed short story, it's not really off-putting.

Yeah I agree. To me, since Joker is Batman's greatest villain, TDK works as the chunk of the story where Batman is in his prime and his mission becomes infinitely more complex and double-edged than he ever anticipated. That's why I don't even mind that the "rise of the freaks" angle wasn't explored. The Joker is the king of that mountain. It shouldn't have escalated any worse than The Joker from within Gotham, especially after Bats/Gordon deny him of his victory by hiding the truth about Harvey. That's why a threat from outside Gotham felt like a natural way to raise the stakes without undermining the significance of The Joker as the ultimate criminal response to Batman.

As far as I'm concerned, Nolan's trilogy is the only truly complete beginning to end version of the mythos that exists. So by nature some things will be condensed, but the payoff is so worth it. I don't know if we'll ever get a movie series where Batman and The Joker have this rivalry that spans years, unless they reboot in a universe that's already in play with everything established. Most comic book films deal with relatively short timespans.

[JackWhite]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

Yeah I agree. To me, since Joker is Batman's greatest villain, TDK works as the chunk of the story where Batman is in his prime and his mission becomes infinitely more complex and double-edged than he ever anticipated. That's why I don't even mind that the "rise of the freaks" angle wasn't explored. The Joker is the king of that mountain. It shouldn't have escalated any worse than The Joker from within Gotham, especially after Bats/Gordon deny him of his victory by hiding the truth about Harvey. That's why a threat from outside Gotham felt like a natural way to raise the stakes without undermining the significance of The Joker as the ultimate criminal response to Batman.

As far as I'm concerned, Nolan's trilogy is the only truly complete beginning to end version of the mythos that exists. So by nature some things will be condensed, but the payoff is so worth it. I don't know if we'll ever get a movie series where Batman and The Joker have this rivalry that spans years, unless they reboot in a universe that's already in play with everything established. Most comic book films deal with relatively short timespans.

Yep, even though three films seems like a lot of time; story wise, it really isn't. Especially when you are trying to tell a beginning, middle, and end.

I think a lot of us got lost in that world that TDK setup and began to explore, Bruce in his prime, already on the fly as a fully established Batman, finishing off the old guard of the mob, only to battle the bigger problem - escalation. The rise of the freaks which gave us the Joker, who then spawned Two-Face. I'll admit that TDK is my favorite "angle" that the trilogy tackles, but I'm very glad that Nolan was bold enough to tell a definitive end to Bruce's journey.

[Marvin]

Being happy with what we got, and it being the best, amazing as I hear often around here, are different things. I'd be happy if the 3rd Nolan film only had organized mob crime and a well told story. That doesn't mean I'm going to champion the vision/direction(not with Scott Snyder doing his damndest to make Batman awesome again).

I just think it could have been (alot) better.

As for closure, I personally "would have been happy" with TDK ending.
But that's me.

[Snow Queen]

Originally Posted by Marvin

Being happy with what we got, and it being the best, amazing as I hear often around here, are different things. I'd be happy if the 3rd Nolan film only had organized mob crime and a well told story. That doesn't mean I'm going to champion the vision/direction(not with Scott Snyder doing him damndest to make Batman awesome again).

I just think it could have been (alot) better.

As for closure, I personally "would have been happy" with TDK ending.
But that's me.

I disagree with you on a lot of things in this section but it's nice to see someone else who enjoys Snyder's Batman run at the moment. Go to the Batman Titles thread and there's a lot of negativity about the guy.

[Marvin]

Originally Posted by Gotham's Knight

I disagree with you on a lot of things in this section but it's nice to see someone else who enjoys Snyder's Batman run at the moment. Go to the Batman Titles thread and there's a lot of negativity about the guy.

These boards are fun that way, in one there are people I idolize, in another I want those same people dead(figuratively) lol.

I'll browse on over there.

[BatLobsterRises]

Yeah Snyder is taking a bit of an unfair beating. Imo, if Morrison had done some of the same exact things people would be calling it genius.

/off topic

[ThePhantasm]

Originally Posted by Gotham's Knight

I find it funny that some people find it hard to accept Batman's 8 year retirement in TDKRises but are fine with it in TDKReturns. What are the differences? Dent Act instead of the government forcing superheroes into hiding and Rachel gets killed by the Joker instead of Jason.

I'm not really a huge fan of TDKReturns to be honest.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by ThePhantasm

I would have liked the cave to be more useful. A nicer batcomputer would have been a start. Instead of keeping his "arsenal" under Lucius' roof, Bruce could have kept the spare Tumblers in the batcave (a Bane assault on the batcave would give Bane access to those Tumblers). Maybe some sort of detective lab set up in one place, with equipment ready to be used. A physical training area to keep Batman up to peak condition.

Having all this stuff would have also indicated Bruce's inability to fully let the Batman persona go, despite "resigning". He has all this detective / workout / transportation etc. equipment out and ready to go, so that at the first sign of real trouble he can return to crimefighting.

That would have been perfect. Nearly anything would have been better than just a rising platform. I mean was that really worth a 7 year wait?