In hindsight what changes would you do

[Marvin]

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 pretty great. However it's not needed. With Nolan, fans can extrapolate it themselves and get the same amount of enjoyment, apparently. As for non fans, they are in the dark as to how it really is so they're covered too.

Sometimes I wonder how much more I would have enjoyed these movies had I only known of Tim Burtons work.

[Snow Queen]

Originally Posted by ThePhantasm

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

Ah, well, in that case, fair enough. I mostly just don't understand those who do like TDKReturns and are fine with it there compared to TDKRises' retirement.

[Isearch4dope]

Originally Posted by Marvin

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.

The home invasion route though stripped from the comic would have been leaps better indeed. Why not have Bane hold Bruce and Alfred hostage in his own cave instead of "le pit far far away". If anything this is full circle at it's best because everything hits HOME literally and thematically for Bruce and Batman. Hell I would go to the depths of having Bane set up his base of operations in the cave and secretly live in Wayne Manor while psychologically torturing him with quotes like "You were born with everything and you alone chose to meet your end in such fashion...this cave was your tomb waiting all along" and cause Bruce to question and even regret becoming Batman. Have Alfred serve him while using Bruce's secret and his life as leverage to keep Alfred inbound (at gunpoint when answering doors of course) until he moves on with his master plan where he kills Alfred in front of Bruce. Hell, have Alfred and Bruce chained below under the watch of Bane's followers and summoned (Alfred) only when needed. Have Bane sleep in the master bedroom and show just how much of a hypocrite he views Bruce as because of Batman and vice-versa. This to me is the ultimate form of mockery and bringing about hopelessness. Bane has a bigger revolutionary plan for Gotham which stems from his deep hatred of oppressors (being imprisoned as a child for the crimes of his father....he sees the poor, homeless, oppressed etc. as a reflection of himself and wants them to rise like he did) and Batman who he believes is the ultimate hypocrite in contrast to those like himself which he believes has been poisonous to Gotham's soul and the perfect representation of what is taking place in Gotham on a whole. This would take place 3-5 years after TDK (Batman still active but getting lost in his monster and it's beginning to take a toll on his mind and body) and Bane would have only escaped the pit a week after TDK (he doesn't need the mask but wears it as a symbol....the tubes resemble prison bars and they cover the mouth/freedom) and his loyal followers won't be league of shadows but hardened prisoners who have come to idolize him whom he convinced that Gotham represents a larger Pit (metaphorically) which they must cleanse. Bane is a self taught, skilled, hardened, brutal fighter because of the hellish prison and a powerhouse self schooled intellect. The reason he knows about Batman and becomes obsessed is similar to the comics but with a twist. The night he was imprisoned as a child a huge bat traumatized him in his cell and when stories of the Batman and Gotham somehow reached his prison years later he becomes possessed with the idea that his only reason for living was to conquer this demon and even prophesied that the only way he or anyone else will escape the prison is because of this destiny. Of course over the years he becomes smarter and his ideals build to include Gotham on a whole and when they are actually rescued from the Pit by a miracle raid, his destiny as well as the others become sealed (no one ever escaped...EVER). Bane doesn't know that Bruce is Batman when he first goes to Gotham but when tracking him down he discovers the secret and it only strengthens his cause because now he can kill two birds with one stone.

Bane's master stroke would include completely breaking Bruce mentally as well as his will to live with the final straw being witnessing Alfred's death at the hands of one of his followers while wearing the cowl. Before this he would slowly start to rile up the citizens of Gotham as a revolutionary for change but without his mask of course stating that the rich and powerful can't be trusted. This is where we really see just how insane, twisted and scary Bane is because of this cult like mentality that he and his followers possess for he then outfits a beaten and hopeless Bruce with his suit, drops him off in front of GCPD headquarters in handcuffs along with Alfred's body with video evidence (the video is done from a POV standpoint of an insane Batman (goon) killing his butler Alfred and showing his secret entrance inside Wayne Manor). Bane also makes it look like Batman decides to cuff himself and turn himself in. From here the city descends into shock and chaos after the discovery of Batman's identity. With Bruce in custody waiting to stand trial, lynch mobs forming, the police investigating and the city demanding Bruce Wayne's head, Bane begins his rise with his message of..."The rich and powerful (like Bruce Wayne) and those in power are all liars and are corrupt feeding off of you the people and it is time for you to take what is rightfully yours..." Something along the lines of the Black gate speech. This is where the new Batman/John Blake is vital to the story with him being a cop strongly suspecting Bruce was Batman and innocent of Dent's murder. He visited Wayne Manor and confronted Bruce (who denied to the end) before he was captured by Bane. Blake visited Wayne Manor during Bruce’s captivity and he felt that something was wrong because Alfred gave him a faint hint but he knew for sure when big news broke. He goes to see Bruce in custody immediately after his capture and Bruce tells him what Bane was up to. Blake then secretly breaks him out with the aid of Gordon and Bruce tells him to get him to Fox and they retreat to the R & D department. More chaos erupts when people learn of Bruce’s escape from police custody and Bane and his followers twist it into….the police commissioner and his corrupt officers have been denying you the murderers head because they are on his side .With Gotham in chaos and the police struggling to keep order with riots and looting beginning to occur, Bane and his men using the cover of the angry mob lead a prison break riling up the inmates to bring down the criminals no better than themselves who locked them up. Bane has now successfully managed to completely ruin Bruce Wayne/Batman and use him as a springboard to send Gotham into chaos while agitating the oppressed into action all the while being an almost invisible force in driving and manipulating the action.

I can’t yet think of how Bruce/Batman will rise from this seemingly impossible situation and disappear by faking his death with Gotham being inspired by Bruce Wayne/ the Batman.

[BCDawg97]

Originally Posted by Isearch4dope

The home invasion route though stripped from the comic would have been leaps better indeed. Why not have Bane hold Bruce and Alfred hostage in his own cave instead of "le pit far far away". If anything this is full circle at it's best because everything hits HOME literally and thematically for Bruce and Batman. Hell I would go to the depths of having Bane set up his base of operations in the cave and secretly live in Wayne Manor while psychologically torturing him with quotes like "You were born with everything and you alone chose to meet your end in such fashion...this cave was your tomb waiting all along" and cause Bruce to question and even regret becoming Batman. Have Alfred serve him while using Bruce's secret and his life as leverage to keep Alfred inbound (at gunpoint when answering doors of course) until he moves on with his master plan where he kills Alfred in front of Bruce. Hell, have Alfred and Bruce chained below under the watch of Bane's followers and summoned (Alfred) only when needed. Have Bane sleep in the master bedroom and show just how much of a hypocrite he views Bruce as because of Batman and vice-versa. This to me is the ultimate form of mockery and bringing about hopelessness. Bane has a bigger revolutionary plan for Gotham which stems from his deep hatred of oppressors (being imprisoned as a child for the crimes of his father....he sees the poor, homeless, oppressed etc. as a reflection of himself and wants them to rise like he did) and Batman who he believes is the ultimate hypocrite in contrast to those like himself which he believes has been poisonous to Gotham's soul and the perfect representation of what is taking place in Gotham on a whole. This would take place 3-5 years after TDK (Batman still active but getting lost in his monster and it's beginning to take a toll on his mind and body) and Bane would have only escaped the pit a week after TDK (he doesn't need the mask but wears it as a symbol....the tubes resemble prison bars and they cover the mouth/freedom) and his loyal followers won't be league of shadows but hardened prisoners who have come to idolize him whom he convinced that Gotham represents a larger Pit (metaphorically) which they must cleanse. Bane is a self taught, skilled, hardened, brutal fighter because of the hellish prison and a powerhouse self schooled intellect. The reason he knows about Batman and becomes obsessed is similar to the comics but with a twist. The night he was imprisoned as a child a huge bat traumatized him in his cell and when stories of the Batman and Gotham somehow reached his prison years later he becomes possessed with the idea that his only reason for living was to conquer this demon and even prophesied that the only way he or anyone else will escape the prison is because of this destiny. Of course over the years he becomes smarter and his ideals build to include Gotham on a whole and when they are actually rescued from the Pit by a miracle raid, his destiny as well as the others become sealed (no one ever escaped...EVER). Bane doesn't know that Bruce is Batman when he first goes to Gotham but when tracking him down he discovers the secret and it only strengthens his cause because now he can kill two birds with one stone.

Bane's master stroke would include completely breaking Bruce mentally as well as his will to live with the final straw being witnessing Alfred's death at the hands of one of his followers while wearing the cowl. Before this he would slowly start to rile up the citizens of Gotham as a revolutionary for change but without his mask of course stating that the rich and powerful can't be trusted. This is where we really see just how insane, twisted and scary Bane is because of this cult like mentality that he and his followers possess for he then outfits a beaten and hopeless Bruce with his suit, drops him off in front of GCPD headquarters in handcuffs along with Alfred's body with video evidence (the video is done from a POV standpoint of an insane Batman (goon) killing his butler Alfred and showing his secret entrance inside Wayne Manor). Bane also makes it look like Batman decides to cuff himself and turn himself in. From here the city descends into shock and chaos after the discovery of Batman's identity. With Bruce in custody waiting to stand trial, lynch mobs forming, the police investigating and the city demanding Bruce Wayne's head, Bane begins his rise with his message of..."The rich and powerful (like Bruce Wayne) and those in power are all liars and are corrupt feeding off of you the people and it is time for you to take what is rightfully yours..." Something along the lines of the Black gate speech. This is where the new Batman/John Blake is vital to the story with him being a cop strongly suspecting Bruce was Batman and innocent of Dent's murder. He visited Wayne Manor and confronted Bruce (who denied to the end) before he was captured by Bane. Blake visited Wayne Manor during Bruce’s captivity and he felt that something was wrong because Alfred gave him a faint hint but he knew for sure when big news broke. He goes to see Bruce in custody immediately after his capture and Bruce tells him what Bane was up to. Blake then secretly breaks him out with the aid of Gordon and Bruce tells him to get him to Fox and they retreat to the R & D department. More chaos erupts when people learn of Bruce’s escape from police custody and Bane and his followers twist it into….the police commissioner and his corrupt officers have been denying you the murderers head because they are on his side .With Gotham in chaos and the police struggling to keep order with riots and looting beginning to occur, Bane and his men using the cover of the angry mob lead a prison break riling up the inmates to bring down the criminals no better than themselves who locked them up. Bane has now successfully managed to completely ruin Bruce Wayne/Batman and use him as a springboard to send Gotham into chaos while agitating the oppressed into action all the while being an almost invisible force in driving and manipulating the action.

I can’t yet think of how Bruce/Batman will rise from this seemingly impossible situation and disappear by faking his death with Gotham being inspired by Bruce Wayne/ the Batman.

Streamlined...see?

[Shikamaru]

Originally Posted by Gotham's Knight

Ah, well, in that case, fair enough. I mostly just don't understand those who do like TDKReturns and are fine with it there compared to TDKRises' retirement.

Two completely different things. They quit for two completely different reasons and the world around them reacted and was affected by this in two completely different ways.

Also, the TDK Returns retirement is a lot more acceptable to begin with because the book is not a sequel to anything while the TDK Rises retirement doesn't really work in the context of the franchise. The first two movies clearly hinted over and over again that this was Batman at the beginning of his career and that he was going to be Batman for a long time. Many things point to this such as:

-The first two movies being heavily based on stories that take place in Batman's early years like Year One and The Long Halloween, even dealing with the same themes.
-Bruce gravely underestimating the threat to Gotham in Begins. It wasn't Falcone that was the the major threat, it was the LOS.
-Bruce not expecting to cause bad inspiration to Gotham via the copycats and the Joker.
-The whole theme about escalation and the "freaks" and how more and more have started appearing in Gotham due since Batman's arrival.
-Rachel leaving Bruce because she felt he was always going to need Batman.
-Rachel, the main reason Bruce wanted to quit being Batman in the first place so that he could be with her and have a normal life, is killed off essentially removing something that held him back.
-The Joker saying he and Batman were destined to do battle forever.
-Alfred saying Bruce can endure as Batman because he can take it.
-Gordon said they were going to hunt Batman because he can take it.
-Bruce seeing the man who he thought would be the perfect replacement for Batman be corrupted and brought down to the Joker's level.
-Nolan saying in an interview from 2008 that he doesn't want to bring in Robin into the franchise because his version of Batman was still in his early career as Batman thus Robin was still a little kid, which means he wouldn't appear for a "few films".
-Nolan saying in some book or interview before TDKR that Bruce's original plan was to be Batman for just a temporary time (couple of years or so) only to learn at some point that "things wouldn't be so easy".

These are all just off the top of my head.

All these things heavily imply and hint that Nolan's Batman would continue to be Batman for a LONG time even if TDKR would've been the last one in the franchise. One can even argue that based on all of that, Nolan was trying to show how Bruce grows into the role of Batman starting out as being a more grounded Batman like the one in Frank Miller's Batman: Year One to a Batman a lot closer to the Batman from the comics that take place a few years into Batman's career that most fans consider to feature the ideal version of Batman. Heck, if you compare the Batman in BB to the one in TDK, you can see that at the end of TDK is not the same Batman he was at the start of BB or even at the end of BB.

Do all those things make the 8 year retirement automatically contradictory? Not necessarily but that is not my point. My point is that although the 8 year retirement may not completely contradict TDK's ending, it is clearly obvious that the 8-year retirement was not something originally planned and that Nolan was setting up something other than that for the third movie. TDKR feels like a backup/second story and as if there was a movie between it and TDK that we missed. It doesn't naturally flow well with TDK like how TDK naturally flew well with BB IMO.

This is just my opinion of course, but I think the main reasons for this are 1) Heath Ledger's death not only saddened Nolan immensely but also screwed up a lot of Nolan's plans for the third movie since he didn't want to recast the Joker and 2) This was his last movie and Nolan didn't want WB to touch his franchise after he left so he contrived a plot that featured a Batman that's been retired for 8 years and that retires for good at the end.

I hope this helped you gain a better understanding of why I and so many other people are not too fond of the 8 year retirement idea. I can understand why other people don't mind it but personally, it bugs me big time.

[BatLobsterRises]

Whether the 8 year retirement was originally planned or not, I'd like to see the proof that anything alternative was planned.

I really disagree with the whole "TDKR was Plan B" line of thought. I'm not saying it was Plan A, I'm just saying I don't think there was any detailed plan in place while Ledger was still alive. The original plans for the third film were scrapped when TDK was first written. They condensed Harvey's arc and let it play out entirely in TDK, giving it a closed ending. From there, the story could have gone anywhere. Nolan gave himself that freedom by making TDK a stand alone film.

Besides, let's say they made a third film without the 8 year gap. Still reasonable to assume the ending would be the same, no? Goyer and Nolan supposedly discussed what the last scene of the trilogy would be during the Begins brainstorms. So Nolan always wanted it to end with Bruce moving on with his life, I think that's inarguable. IMO, the ending would still piss people off cause you'd have Bruce retiring at a young age with a short overall career as Batman.

And if you argue that they could have had the 8 year gap with him still being Batman the whole time, but then him retiring at the end wouldn't work nearly as well because it'd be harder pill to swallow if it was the first time we saw him retiring. We'd question it and say that Bruce could never live without Batman. By showing how miserable he was without it in the beginning of TDKR, it gives him a real arc to go on so by the end when you see in at the cafe, you know he's finally at peace and he's done FOR GOOD now.

Bottom line, I think for the retirement ending, having him retired in the beginning was the best way to go. It establishes his "default mode" as retirement. He goes through his final journey as Batman and goes from a miserable forced retirement to actually being able to find the will to live beyond Batman and end things on his own terms. Seeing the "bad" retirement helps the payoff of the "good" retirement immensely.

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

I love how Batman has a 'short career'.

It emphasizes the importance of the symbol, the legend, aspect of it.

Almost like the comics were written after this real life event.
In the movies, the symbol of Batman fights crime forever,
In the comics, Bruce Wayne fights crime forever (since the comics will never stop).

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Marvin

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).

500+ criminals were sent packing behind bars way before the Dent Act was created, though, as mentioned by Dent in TDK for at least a year and a half...enough time for the Dent Act to be created and then the next 500 are so are taken in throughout that period of eight years. You could say things happen with that second wave of criminals(the other 500 to equate to the 1,000 inmates in Blackgate Prison), but it would only be a guess.

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.

Isn't it the reason why Nolan's Batman fights, though? I thought it was always explained that that's the reason besides the run-in with Ra's al Ghul, his mentor, and the wild card that was Joker. If Ledger had lived, perhaps Batman's reason of fighting would've evolved to where he was after the "freaks" as well(as I could see a "rise of freaks" in a third film if Nolan could use Joker).

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.

I wouldn't mind that idea at all with that kind of corruption only spreading if it couldn't happen in Gotham City anymore.

Originally Posted by 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.

Agree

[Isearch4dope]

Originally Posted by BCDawg97

Streamlined...see?

No! Read it all....Maybe later but give it a try...either love or hate it

[Snow Queen]

Shikamaru, I am not going to quote your post since it's long and I don't want to clog this thread but:

What is the different reasons between TDKReturns retirement and TDKRises retirement? In TDKReturns, he retires because the Joker killed Jason and the government created an act to put superheroes into hiding. In TDKRises, Bruce retires because the Joker killed Rachel and the Dent Act was cleaning up the streets.

Now, if you don't think it was executed well that's fine. However, my lack of understanding is why the reasoning behind him hanging up his cape and cowl is fine in TDKReturns but not in TDKRises. The reasoning behind the move presented in the film and graphic novel. Hell, Bruce was letting crime rise in Gotham while he laid down the cowl in TDKReturns, so why is it that it's bad if TDKRises lets him lay the cowl to rest for a bit when there is no longer organized crime? Someone brought up Bruce being retired while families get killed in TDKRises, why is it wrong here but fine in TDKReturns?

[JackWhite]

Rachel's death had nothing to do with Bruce hanging up the cape and cowl. If it wasn't for the Dent Act, Bruce would have become even more obsessed with being Batman. We see how paranoid he was with the clean energy project which he worked on 3 years before the start of TDKR.

[Anno_Domini]

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've always said this before and no one has really come back with a reason of how TDKReturns is better than TDKRises or why some don't complain about the former and do with the latter.

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.

In fact, I've always looked at it like this:

Batman Begins - Year One
The Dark Knight - The Long Halloween(a sequel to Year One)
The Dark Knight Rises - The Dark Knight Returns(some could view it to be part of Miller's world/universe of Batman, and that includes Year One)

Originally Posted by Shikamaru

-The whole theme about escalation and the "freaks" and how more and more have started appearing in Gotham due since Batman's arrival.

More and more ended up being only one freak and another that was kept a secret. How would that ever result in a "rise of freaks" when besides the secret of Dent, there is only one freak that was really there from the beginning ala the ending of BB?

-Rachel, the main reason Bruce wanted to quit being Batman in the first place so that he could be with her and have a normal life, is killed off essentially removing something that held him back.

Killed in a rather coincidental fashion that could be compared to Jason Todd...and we know what happens with Bruce Wayne after that...

We also even see a nod to Red Hood in TDKR

-The Joker saying he and Batman were destined to do battle forever.

And Batman's reply which was on the dot.

-Alfred saying Bruce can endure as Batman because he can take it.
-Gordon said they were going to hunt Batman because he can take it.

Batman taking the blame of murder is taking it.

-Nolan saying in an interview from 2008 that he doesn't want to bring in Robin into the franchise because his version of Batman was still in his early career as Batman thus Robin was still a little kid, which means he wouldn't appear for a "few films".

Did Nolan really mention the few films bit though? Nolan did say his version of Batman is still early in his career and luck be it, they went ahead eight years where it's not so early anymore.

-Nolan saying in some book or interview before TDKR that Bruce's original plan was to be Batman for just a temporary time (couple of years or so) only to learn at some point that "things wouldn't be so easy".

I've heard this once and only recently on the Art of Making The Dark Knight Trilogy book.

[Snow Queen]

Originally Posted by JackWhite

Rachel's death had nothing to do with Bruce hanging up the cape and cowl. If it wasn't for the Dent Act, Bruce would have become even more obsessed with being Batman. We see how paranoid he was with the clean energy project which he worked on 3 years before the start of TDKR.

I agree that he would have probably become lost but I was using the example since people often like to say "Batman quit because his girlfriend died".

[JackWhite]

Originally Posted by Gotham's Knight

I agree that he would have probably become lost but I was using the example since people often like to say "Batman quit because his girlfriend died".

lol, I see.

[Shikamaru]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

Whether the 8 year retirement was originally planned or not, I'd like to see the proof that anything alternative was planned.

I said that in my last post. I don't know what exactly was originally planned but whatever it was, you can tell by analyzing the first two movies that it was clearly something that we did not get. Maybe the ending with Bruce retiring and a few other things would've been the same but overall, most of the movie would've been completely different.

We do know that Ledger was signed on for another movie though. We don't know how much or a major or minor part he would've played but he would've had some sort of presence though.

I really disagree with the whole "TDKR was Plan B" line of thought. I'm not saying it was Plan A, I'm just saying I don't think there was any detailed plan in place while Ledger was still alive. The original plans for the third film were scrapped when TDK was first written. They condensed Harvey's arc and let it play out entirely in TDK, giving it a closed ending. From there, the story could have gone anywhere. Nolan gave himself that freedom by making TDK a stand alone film.

There was no detailed plan but there was definitely at least some sort of basic plan in Nolan's head just like how there was a basic small outline in his head for TDK after Batman. When I say "basic small outline", I'm talking about simply "Batman fights *insert villain*, goes through *insert character arc*, and theme is *insert theme*." Something as simple as that that can be described in one or two sentences.

Ideas from future sequels were condensed in Begins too, and some from Begins were even moved into TDK but that didn't cause a major shift in Nolan's basic outline. The Joker was still the villain in TDK by the end of the day and BB's ending set this up.

Yes, TDK is a stand alone film despite being a sequel but so is BB. Both movies are stand-alone movies but work as part of an overall franchise too. That's why I don't think the whole trilogy works as a natural trilogy like how Star Wars and LOTR do. SW and LOTR were essentially one big story cut into 3 parts while BB and TDK feel and are formatted more like the first 2 stories in an ongoing franchise.

Besides, let's say they made a third film without the 8 year gap. Still reasonable to assume the ending would be the same, no? Goyer and Nolan supposedly discussed what the last scene of the trilogy would be during the Begins brainstorms. So Nolan always wanted it to end with Bruce moving on with his life, I think that's inarguable. IMO, the ending would still piss people off cause you'd have Bruce retiring at a young age with a short overall career as Batman.

And if you argue that they could have had the 8 year gap with him still being Batman the whole time, but then him retiring at the end wouldn't work nearly as well because it'd be harder pill to swallow if it was the first time we saw him retiring. We'd question it and say that Bruce could never live without Batman. By showing how miserable he was without it in the beginning of TDKR, it gives him a real arc to go on so by the end when you see in at the cafe, you know he's finally at peace and he's done FOR GOOD now.

Bottom line, I think for the retirement ending, having him retired in the beginning was the best way to go. It establishes his "default mode" as retirement. He goes through his final journey as Batman and goes from a miserable forced retirement to actually being able to find the will to live beyond Batman and end things on his own terms. Seeing the "bad" retirement helps the payoff of the "good" retirement immensely.

We have no way of knowing what Nolan always wanted and what he changed his mind on as of the moment he started production on TDKR. Nolan also said that Bruce's original plan was to be Batman for a short amount of time (for about 5 years) only for him to eventually realize down the line that it wouldn't be so easy (something like that). I believe he said this in the Art of Making the Dark Knight Trilogy but it might have been somewhere else. That to me shows that he did not do what he set out to do originally and that the ending wasn't even planned from the start, or at least not the ending we got.

It was almost never a trilogy either. Nolan wasn't sure whether or not he wanted to come back after BB and then after TDK. Heck, he barely came back after TDK and many people were surprised he did. You also have quotes from him like the one from when he was asked about Robin. He said Robin wouldn't appear for a few movies because Bale was still portraying a "young Batman" and Robin would still be a little kid. It wasn't until TDKR when the whole "this was always meant to be a trilogy!" and "end of the epic trilogy!" thing came along. Like I said earlier, BB and TDK were not building a trilogy but a franchise with themes like the whole "freaks" theme and the whole "this is the young Year One Batman" theme, and if they were supposed to build a trilogy, they did not succeed at that IMO because it is not a proper three-act trilogy.

As for the 8 year gap, I disagree. You could've still had him operate as Batman during those 8 years and him quitting at the end would've worked a lot better because it would've felt like he fully earned retirement after 9 overall years of being Batman and going on tons of battles as opposed to just 3 or 4 of them. I think so many more people would've accepted the ending a lot more if Nolan did that. As for people being pissed off if Nolan would've had Bruce retire so young at so early in his career, that goes back to the point I made before. BB and TDK were setting up a franchise and heavily implied over and over again that Bruce would be Batman for a long time. I don't think there was anyone that would disagree with this prior to TDKR coming out. Nolan knew this so he had to contrive a story that takes place several years after BB and TDK in which Bruce does not operate as Batman and retires for good at the end just so that he could justify to WB ending a Batman franchise about a very young Batman so soon and to make sure they don't continue his franchise after Nolan left. And while I wouldn't have wanted the franchise to continue after Nolan left and wished we lived in the perfect world where WB respects Nolan's wishes to not milk his franchise and just reboot, I don't think Nolan is any better for doing what he did and for why he did it.

And finally, why do you keep insisting that it just HAD to end with Bruce retiring? Who says it must end that way? Excluding the fact that I don't buy that he would ever retire until he's at least an old man based on everything in BB and TDK, Bruce retiring the way he did and leaving Gotham for good completely flies in the face of the essence of Batman. Part of what makes Batman one of the greatest superheroes of all time is his motivation and commitment to his mission. He is the last superhero to ever quit like that. That's why I find the ending to have one of the biggest anti-Batman messages I've ever seen in anything. It really surprises me that so many fans are ok with it.

There are also ways to give Bruce a happy ending without flying the face of the essence of Batman. Bruce has a very different perspective on life than you and I do. What he consider to be a happy life is not what he would consider to be a happy life and vice versa but it wouldn't matter as long as it makes Bruce happy. Frank Miller managed to make Bruce retire and give him a happy ending in The Dark Knight Returns without going against the essence of Batman like Nolan did. Bruce fakes his death and retires at the end of TDK Returns but he doesn't just abandon Gotham to go party with a hot chick. He is retired but at the same time, he passes on his Batman persona to the "Sons of the Batman" by training them and preparing them to continue his legacy in Gotham. The last line in the book is "This will be a good life. Good enough." That is the way to do a proper retirement for Batman. Miller managed to make him retire without having Bruce being like "**** it. I quit. Let's go party in Europe, Selina! Here are the keys to the Batcave, Robin. You're own your own by the way." What would've been in character for Bruce was for him to retire but prepare Blake for continuing his legacy. What he does instead is leave Gotham when Gotham is in a worse condition than it was both at the end of BB and at the end of TDK and just leaves Blake on his own. He doesn't train him or prepare him in any way. He completely leaves him on his own to protect Gotham in a Dent Act-less Gotham. He has no way of knowing whether or not Blake will continue the Batman legacy, whether or not he will survive out there for long since he doesn't give him any training, or whether or not someone like the Joker will come along and corrupt Blake just like how Harvey was corrupted. It's the same thing as your father giving you the car keys at the age of 15 or 16 when you first learned to drive but instead of actually showing you anything, he just gives you the keys and tells you you're on your own then runs off with your mom to a party. That is essentially what Bruce did. On top of that, he barely even knows Blake and only had like 3 scenes with him yet he gives him the mantle. It really surprises me how people are not able to see all these problems in the ending.

Let's also not forget that the entire message of the movie is that lying is bad even when it is for the greater good. Everyone that lied at the end of TDK (Batman, Gordon, Alfred, etc.) gets to suffer the consequences in TDKR despite their intentions, yet the ending is literally Bruce lying by saying the autopilot doesn't work and by faking his death.

[Shikamaru]

Originally Posted by Gotham's Knight

Shikamaru, I am not going to quote your post since it's long and I don't want to clog this thread but:

What is the different reasons between TDKReturns retirement and TDKRises retirement? In TDKReturns, he retires because the Joker killed Jason and the government created an act to put superheroes into hiding. In TDKRises, Bruce retires because the Joker killed Rachel and the Dent Act was cleaning up the streets.

Now, if you don't think it was executed well that's fine. However, my lack of understanding is why the reasoning behind him hanging up his cape and cowl is fine in TDKReturns but not in TDKRises. The reasoning behind the move presented in the film and graphic novel. Hell, Bruce was letting crime rise in Gotham while he laid down the cowl in TDKReturns, so why is it that it's bad if TDKRises lets him lay the cowl to rest for a bit when there is no longer organized crime? Someone brought up Bruce being retired while families get killed in TDKRises, why is it wrong here but fine in TDKReturns?

I addressed all of this in my post. I said that it worked in Returns more than in Rises because Rises was a sequel to 2 movies that make the 8 year retirement not work while Returns was not a sequel to anything and had the room to do that. I suggest you read the whole thing.

As for all your other questions, I would love to explain everything in full detail but it is 12:30 AM where I live and I'm really tired after writing that long response to BatLobsterRises.

Luckily, I have a friend that did a 3-part video on this exact topic . He addressed all of your questions and explained why Returns' retirement was acceptable and Rises' retirement wasn't a lot better than I ever could.

I don't exactly remember where he talked about the retirement part so I'll post the whole review.

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

[Snow Queen]

Originally Posted by Shikamaru

I addressed all of this in my post. I said that it worked in Returns more than in Rises because Rises was a sequel to 2 movies that make the 8 year retirement not work while Returns was not a sequel to anything and had the room to do that. I suggest you read the whole thing.

As for all your other questions, I would love to explain everything in full detail but it is 12:30 AM where I live and I'm really tired after writing that long response to BatLobsterRises.

Luckily, I have a friend that did a 3-part video on this exact topic . He addressed all of your questions and explained why Returns' retirement was acceptable and Rises' retirement wasn't a lot better than I ever could.

I don't exactly remember where he talked about the retirement part so I'll post the whole review.

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

I disagree that it doesn't work in TDKRises because it's a sequel compared to TDKReturns as I feel The Dark Knight Trilogy are three snapshots of Batman's life. Beginning, middle and end. Year One, The Long Halloween, The Dark Knight Returns. But when it comes to this part I say it's debatable because that's where it comes down to whether or not you like the execution. I'm looking at the reasoning itself and not it's placement as a sequel or even in the film/GN alone, just the reasoning.

Oh, of course. Have a nice sleep!

I'll be sure to give the review a watch another time, I'm watching V For Vendetta at the moment.

[Isearch4dope]

Originally Posted by Shikamaru

I said that in my last post. I don't know what exactly was originally planned but whatever it was, you can tell by analyzing the first two movies that it was clearly something that we did not get. Maybe the ending with Bruce retiring and a few other things would've been the same but overall, most of the movie would've been completely different.

We do know that Ledger was signed on for another movie though. We don't know how much or a major or minor part he would've played but he would've had some sort of presence though.



There was no detailed plan but there was definitely at least some sort of basic plan in Nolan's head just like how there was a basic small outline in his head for TDK after Batman. When I say "basic small outline", I'm talking about simply "Batman fights *insert villain*, goes through *insert character arc*, and theme is *insert theme*." Something as simple as that that can be described in one or two sentences.

Ideas from future sequels were condensed in Begins too, and some from Begins were even moved into TDK but that didn't cause a major shift in Nolan's basic outline. The Joker was still the villain in TDK by the end of the day and BB's ending set this up.

Yes, TDK is a stand alone film despite being a sequel but so is BB. Both movies are stand-alone movies but work as part of an overall franchise too. That's why I don't think the whole trilogy works as a natural trilogy like how Star Wars and LOTR do. SW and LOTR were essentially one big story cut into 3 parts while BB and TDK feel and are formatted more like the first 2 stories in an ongoing franchise.



We have no way of knowing what Nolan always wanted and what he changed his mind on as of the moment he started production on TDKR. Nolan also said that Bruce's original plan was to be Batman for a short amount of time (for about 5 years) only for him to eventually realize down the line that it wouldn't be so easy (something like that). I believe he said this in the Art of Making the Dark Knight Trilogy but it might have been somewhere else. That to me shows that he did not do what he set out to do originally and that the ending wasn't even planned from the start, or at least not the ending we got.

It was almost never a trilogy either. Nolan wasn't sure whether or not he wanted to come back after BB and then after TDK. Heck, he barely came back after TDK and many people were surprised he did. You also have quotes from him like the one from when he was asked about Robin. He said Robin wouldn't appear for a few movies because Bale was still portraying a "young Batman" and Robin would still be a little kid. It wasn't until TDKR when the whole "this was always meant to be a trilogy!" and "end of the epic trilogy!" thing came along. Like I said earlier, BB and TDK were not building a trilogy but a franchise with themes like the whole "freaks" theme and the whole "this is the young Year One Batman" theme, and if they were supposed to build a trilogy, they did not succeed at that IMO because it is not a proper three-act trilogy.

As for the 8 year gap, I disagree. You could've still had him operate as Batman during those 8 years and him quitting at the end would've worked a lot better because it would've felt like he fully earned retirement after 9 overall years of being Batman and going on tons of battles as opposed to just 3 or 4 of them. I think so many more people would've accepted the ending a lot more if Nolan did that. As for people being pissed off if Nolan would've had Bruce retire so young at so early in his career, that goes back to the point I made before. BB and TDK were setting up a franchise and heavily implied over and over again that Bruce would be Batman for a long time. I don't think there was anyone that would disagree with this prior to TDKR coming out. Nolan knew this so he had to contrive a story that takes place several years after BB and TDK in which Bruce does not operate as Batman and retires for good at the end just so that he could justify to WB ending a Batman franchise about a very young Batman so soon and to make sure they don't continue his franchise after Nolan left. And while I wouldn't have wanted the franchise to continue after Nolan left and wished we lived in the perfect world where WB respects Nolan's wishes to not milk his franchise and just reboot, I don't think Nolan is any better for doing what he did and for why he did it.

And finally, why do you keep insisting that it just HAD to end with Bruce retiring? Who says it must end that way? Excluding the fact that I don't buy that he would ever retire until he's at least an old man based on everything in BB and TDK, Bruce retiring the way he did and leaving Gotham for good completely flies in the face of the essence of Batman. Part of what makes Batman one of the greatest superheroes of all time is his motivation and commitment to his mission. He is the last superhero to ever quit like that. That's why I find the ending to have one of the biggest anti-Batman messages I've ever seen in anything. It really surprises me that so many fans are ok with it.

There are also ways to give Bruce a happy ending without flying the face of the essence of Batman. Bruce has a very different perspective on life than you and I do. What he consider to be a happy life is not what he would consider to be a happy life and vice versa but it wouldn't matter as long as it makes Bruce happy. Frank Miller managed to make Bruce retire and give him a happy ending in The Dark Knight Returns without going against the essence of Batman like Nolan did. Bruce fakes his death and retires at the end of TDK Returns but he doesn't just abandon Gotham to go party with a hot chick. He is retired but at the same time, he passes on his Batman persona to the "Sons of the Batman" by training them and preparing them to continue his legacy in Gotham. The last line in the book is "This will be a good life. Good enough." That is the way to do a proper retirement for Batman. Miller managed to make him retire without having Bruce being like "**** it. I quit. Let's go party in Europe, Selina! Here are the keys to the Batcave, Robin. You're own your own by the way." What would've been in character for Bruce was for him to retire but prepare Blake for continuing his legacy. What he does instead is leave Gotham when Gotham is in a worse condition than it was both at the end of BB and at the end of TDK and just leaves Blake on his own. He doesn't train him or prepare him in any way. He completely leaves him on his own to protect Gotham in a Dent Act-less Gotham. He has no way of knowing whether or not Blake will continue the Batman legacy, whether or not he will survive out there for long since he doesn't give him any training, or whether or not someone like the Joker will come along and corrupt Blake just like how Harvey was corrupted. It's the same thing as your father giving you the car keys at the age of 15 or 16 when you first learned to drive but instead of actually showing you anything, he just gives you the keys and tells you you're on your own then runs off with your mom to a party. That is essentially what Bruce did. On top of that, he barely even knows Blake and only had like 3 scenes with him yet he gives him the mantle. It really surprises me how people are not able to see all these problems in the ending.

Let's also not forget that the entire message of the movie is that lying is bad even when it is for the greater good. Everyone that lied at the end of TDK (Batman, Gordon, Alfred, etc.) gets to suffer the consequences in TDKR despite their intentions, yet the ending is literally Bruce lying by saying the autopilot doesn't work and by faking his death.

Shikamaru FTW! I agree totally man. I also feel as if though a movie was missing between TDK and TDKR. Some people say that Blake would not don the cowl literally and he was just used to show that Batman's symbol will live on through people with the will to do good like him. If this is what was intended then tell me what the ****ing reason is for Bruce tempting him with that possibility and him rising on that platform followed by the title TDKR. Don't forget that entire cave ending scene mirrored when Bruce first entered the cave so I say he hypes himself up, puts on the suit and is mauled to death on his first night out.......in the woods....... just outside the batcave......by a bear lol

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by Shikamaru

It was almost never a trilogy either. Nolan wasn't sure whether or not he wanted to come back after BB and then after TDK. Heck, he barely came back after TDK and many people were surprised he did. You also have quotes from him like the one from when he was asked about Robin. He said Robin wouldn't appear for a few movies because Bale was still portraying a "young Batman" and Robin would still be a little kid. It wasn't until TDKR when the whole "this was always meant to be a trilogy!" and "end of the epic trilogy!" thing came along. Like I said earlier, BB and TDK were not building a trilogy but a franchise with themes like the whole "freaks" theme and the whole "this is the young Year One Batman" theme, and if they were supposed to build a trilogy, they did not succeed at that IMO because it is not a proper three-act trilogy.

Shika...I don't have the time right now to respond to your whole post, but just a couple of things:

1. I think you're taking Nolan far too literally about the Robin not appearing for a few movies quote. Yes, Nolan said that but did anyone ever really take that to mean Nolan wanted to setup a franchise that would have an infinite number of films? The whole idea of Batman setting up a larger Batman universe that could expand film after film died with Harvey Dent IMO. The Robin quote is just a jokey way of saying that he didn't have any plans to use Robin. He also joked about Frankie Munez playing the role.

2. All I can say is I whole heartedly disagree, I think The Dark Knight trilogy fits the three act trilogy like a glove, and it's my favorite trilogy of all time. A big part of why is because it wasn't all planned out from the beginning, yet it feels so natural. It was allowed to grow with the actors as the filmmakers as it went along. But, really, how can you deny that there was the skeleton of a trilogy from the start based on these quotes:

"Endings are very important. I don't embark on a project if I don't have a very strong sense of how things are going to end. That's been the case with all three films and very much so with The Dark Knight Rises- because the entire story arc is ending with this film. And so, even as we started to develop the story, we had a very strong sense of what the ending of the movie would be. We came up with it several years ago, in fact, and everything had been building toward that conclusion."

-TDK trilogy book

and

Having revisited all the films, it strikes me that unless you have a great poker face these films were conceived as a trilogy, despite some claims to the contrary.
[Laughs] Well it's a bit of both. I'm often asked if we'll do a trilogy with relation to "Dark Knight Rises" and it's a complicated question to answer because the truth is when we took on the character, you know that there is a potential for sequels... So David Goyer and I at a very early stage, were just throwing ideas around for "Batman Begins" and just exploring the character. We did loosely talk about where you would go for other sequels, and to us, that was a trilogy because a story has a beginning, middle and an end. But very early on we shut that down and said, “Yes and no.” It was in the back of our minds, but if we said anything, or held anything back consciously we were going to be making less of a movie than we could. So with “Batman Begins,” I thought everybody just pretty much was thinking about that movie. When it was finished we said, “Okay we have the loose arc of what the trilogy would be as a story.”

-The Playlist interview

I'm sorry, but unless you're calling Nolan a liar, it's all right there. He's admitting that they put all their ideas into each film as they went but at the same time it's clear that there was a rough idea to do a trilogy, and that it would have a definite ending. I don't buy this idea that they were setting up an ongoing franchise. A LOT of fans were thinking of this in terms of a trilogy too from the start. I don't know how anyone could have been blindsided by that. Nolan's a storyteller, not a hired gun who was just building a franchise for WB to later exploit.

And with regards to Star Wars, plenty changed along the way. Obi-Wan was not originally supposed to die in Episode IV, which is what led to the creation of Yoda. Luke and Leia were not originally meant to be twins. That's just naming a couple of big ones, but rest assured plenty of blanks of the specifics were filled along the way. I just think this "they didn't plan all three movies from the start so it's not a real trilogy" is bogus. You didn't like the direction they went for TDKR, that's fine. But I think some TDKR critics just try too hard in their attempts to understand what "went wrong", and paint this picture of TDKR being this movie that was never supposed to happen. It was completely organic. A product of team Nolan's creative process and them living and breathing the story as it was being told. I don't think the trilogy would be any more "valid" if they had plotted out all three movies in 2004. I think that'd be way more contrived actually.

Furthermore, with regards to the ending...look, I get where you're coming from. But I don't like the attitude that people who like the ending don't get what Batman's all about and "oh the true Batman wouldn't do this or that". This was a specific interpretation of the mythos. Its own thing. I took it in as such. IMO, after everything Bruce did for Gotham he more than earned his retirement. It has nothing to do with the amount of nights spent in the cowl. He gave his city everything- mind, body and spirit. This is the one version of the mythos where we had the opportunity to see Bruce get an actual GOOD happy ending, not a "good enough" one. And I applaud Nolan for having the balls to do it. Having been a Batman fan for my whole life, this shot warms my heart like you can't imagine.

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

We may go the rest of our lives without ever seeing that again in a Batman story. This series took us to some very, very dark places and then gave us a real sense of triumph at the end. This has nothing to do with "what Batman would do" or being a purist about the character. It has to do with the raw emotional reaction of sitting there in the movie theater, putting aside my personal ideas and preconceptions about Batman and just going where the movie took me. And I loved where it took me. It took me to unexpected places. And the idea of the darkest hero of them all being able to actually rise above the tragedy that dominated his life is incredibly inspiring to me.

[BCDawg97]

Too many long posts to quote. But it is clear that Nolan intended for Bruce to hang up the cape. He's been quoted as saying they'd envisioned the ending of the film years before. I think the idea in BB where Bruce says that the symbol can be everlasting proves that point that they had an idea of Bruce passing along the Batman to someone else. But I also think that it is correct that Rises was not the original story that he intended to tell exactly how Bruce retired. As mentioned numerous times, Ledgers death changed the storyline. Nolan had to create something to account for his not wanting to mention the Joker.

The "truth" is in the middle. But for some of us Rises works, for others it didn't in regards to getting Bruce to that end.

[Marvin]

Originally Posted by BCDawg97

Streamlined...see?

Yes, that's exactly what I meant.
Right down to the Bane waring the cowl and ordering room service...


It's been mentioned that Bruce losing Rachel and Batman losing Robin are equivalent catalysts.
I don't think so. For starters, it's conceivable that Bruce could blame himself for Rachel, the public servant's, death in someway, though I don't see Gordan having any right or ground to point the finger in an honest discussion outside of the idea that the Jokers actions are somehow Batman's fault(not true). With Robin, it could very easily be argued that Batman is the direct cause of the minor's death.

1. He let and inspired the minor put on a yellow suit and run around illegally fighting super psycho mass serial killers...ad not always under his watch(kinda like an assistant DA but not really).
2. Batman could have put Joker down for many many many years prior to Todd's death. It's a fickle moral argument but the point has been made. Unlike in TDK, batman didn't have any chances at the joker before the fact.
3. Even for a partner Batman knew the boy was reckless..etc

As for the other reason.
Gotham hunting batman vs a Presidential order are two different things. For one, Superman isn't a factor in the former. Not that either "should" stop The Batman, but for arguments sake, they aren't the same.

The "Dent Act." Just because the "law" stops representing Justice doesn't mean dick all when it comes to batman's (non present) rogues, what does the likes of the joker think about a dent act? Low level crime is what the cops are good at anyways. In Returns, The Joker(the greatest threat there is) is catatonic, in Rises the joker has lost his ability to scheme and sits in some jail compliant for 8 years. I think on this issue again, you will find a sore spot with fans. But, I suppose it's a more grounded "realistic" route.

Something that sets Returns apart from the nolan trilogy.
"Batman first faces Harvey Dent, who was believed to be cured of Two-Face's evil half after a successful plastic surgery operation. Dent holds the city for ransom with a bomb. When Batman defeats Dent, he discovers that while the man outside resembles the good Dent, the man inside is only the evil half." Two face should have been saved later, how he responds to the Dent act is a missed opportunity.

Returns has Bruce "retire" at 45 and succumb to alcohol(hey, it was written in the 80's). After a life times worth of "crap." TDK has him "retire" in his prime cause "Gotham's street's are clean" and "the love of his life" was killed.
As for the stories themselves DKR vs TDKR...the joker aspect alone is enough to tip the scales imo.

Just think of it this way, if tmr, the DC editors mandated that the "Dent act" was enacted and let's just say Vicky Vale or some non costumed loved died in the books...and the cops were out to get batman. Would that elicit a Batman retirement? And would the readers comply? I personally think this is why the readers find the films falling short.

I don't find the stories all that equivalent, but again, Nolan has that effect.

[Anno_Domini]

Batman retired only because of the Dent Act.

Bruce Wayne didn't move on because of Rachel dying.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by Marvin

in Rises the joker has lost his ability to scheme and sits in some jail compliant for 8 years. I think on this issue again, you will find a sore spot with fans. But, I suppose it's a more grounded "realistic" route.

No, you don't know that at all. It's just left unsaid. Joker could've been executed for all we know, that would be the most "realistic" outcome.

[Marvin]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

No, you don't know that at all. It's just left unsaid. Joker could've been executed for all we know, that would be the most "realistic" outcome.

Insanity plea

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Marvin

Insanity plea

TDK suggested the same. "You'll be in a padded cell forever"