Am I the only one that feels like TDKR prevents Nolan's trilogy from being perfect?

[Shikamaru]

Originally Posted by Anita18

I'm not sure. TDKR got pretty much the same RT rating as Inception (although a higher rating on Metacritic) and I see the two as having the same amount of "issues." Not the same issues mind you, but add them up and they'd be pretty similar. So I don't see how TDKR necessarily gets a Batman bonus, or at least a strong argument of one.

How much those issues affect you depends on what you're bringing into the film beforehand. Such is the ways of perception and art....

I believe what I said to apply to all people in general. This includes comic book fans, critics, and the general audience.

I personally see far more issues with TDKR than with BB and TDK in more ways than one. BB and TDK obviously have flaws too (no film is perfect) but TDKR really pushed the boundaries in negative direction. I heard people say that TDKR feels like a knock-off of TDK, in the sense that it tries to be very intelligent and complex like TDK was when its plot (TDKR's plot, that is) is a lot more paper thin than it seems.

[Anita18]

Originally Posted by Shikamaru

I believe what I said to apply to all people in general. This includes comic book fans, critics, and the general audience.

I personally see far more issues with TDKR than with BB and TDK in more ways than one. BB and TDK obviously have flaws too (no film is perfect) but TDKR really pushed the boundaries in negative direction. I heard people say that TDKR feels like a knock-off of TDK, in the sense that it tries to be very intelligent and complex like TDK was when its plot (TDKR's plot, that is) is a lot more paper thin than it seems.

I always explain TDKR to people as "BB shot like TDK." That was my very first opinion about it after I saw it once, and after seeing it 4 more times, I stick by that. It's almost amusing how well it meshes the two preceding movies together.

I didn't see TDKR as attempting social commentary like TDK. I think that's what we gave it after the Occupy Wall St allusions in the trailers from Selina, as well as Nolan filming on Wall St. But in the movie, it isn't like the plot had non-plot-related social commentary in the beginning and abandoned it. Even before the siege and the class warfare stuff, Bane explains exactly what he's going to do and more importantly, why he's doing it.

IMO, the reason why people had that expectation of TDKR being intelligent and having social commentary is because of TDK. The plot is more akin to BB with the personal vendetta thing, but it IS shot more seriously, like TDK was. Hence my one-sentence description.

[TheBat812]

Originally Posted by Shikamaru

I believe what I said to apply to all people in general. This includes comic book fans, critics, and the general audience.

I personally see far more issues with TDKR than with BB and TDK in more ways than one. BB and TDK obviously have flaws too (no film is perfect) but TDKR really pushed the boundaries in negative direction. I heard people say that TDKR feels like a knock-off of TDK, in the sense that it tries to be very intelligent and complex like TDK was when its plot (TDKR's plot, that is) is a lot more paper thin than it seems.

That seems like a bad assessment. TDK was not a complex plot. It was fairly straight forward, in fact. TDKR was incredibly intelligent, but extremely condensed, sometimes delivering with less nuance than is typical of nolan, but still being very layered despite some of its directness. Every day i watch and think about this film, I discover something new. It's not perfectly executed, but it's still very well thought out.

[ShadowBoxer]

Maybe my expectations were just to high for Rises but for me it failed to deliver a epic finale to Nolan's Bat trilogy in my opinion. There are some plot points that weren't really needed and there are a few plot holes as well. It's hard to explain but it just lacked the "WOW" factor that Begins and Dark Knight had. I was amped up and had fanboy chills after seeing Begins and Dark Knight in theaters for the first time. Rises just left me with a " o that was good but kinda underwhelming feeling".

[batman497]

Spoilers!
I already posted this in the spoiler section, but I really want an answer!
Okay maybe this is way of topic, but as the Blu Ray release inches closer I have begun to dissect the movie again. So in the car Bruce talks to Blake. Bruce says to Blake, " Batman could be anybody. That was the point." So in the end of the movie he hands the reigns to an inexperienced cop who can't even "clear the corners" and whose big action finale in the movie is taking kids off and on a school bus! So in The Dark Knight a group of well-meaning citizens take on the symbol of Batman. They attempt to take on the Scarecrow and the chechins. Batman for some reason attacks all of these men who are doing the exact same thing that Blake will be doing. One of them states, "We're trying to help you!" Bruce says he doesn't need their help and states that he has the right to do what he is doing because, "Iiiiiii'mmmmmm noooooot wearingggg hockey pahhhds!" In Batman Begins Rachel says to Bruce, "and then I found out about your mask." Bruce says "Batman is just a symbol." To which Rachel says that his real face is that of Batman. Okay the WHOLE freaking idea behind TDKR is that the symbol of batman will carry on without Bruce and that it will inspire the people of Gotham. The symbol can also be taken up by anyone because what really matters is the symbol and not the person. Now why the hell does Bruce get mad in the beginning of TDK when those other men do the exact thing he wants people to do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!? He even states in TDK "That wasn't exactly what I had in mind when I said I wanted to inspire people." This makes no freaking sense!!!! I'm having like a meltdown over here because this makes no sense. Please someone explain this to me! The first movie basically says Bruce is Batman and the symbolism behind "batman" whether he died or whatever, would inspire people to take back their city. So Bruce=Batman. End of story! Then other people take on the symbol of Batman because they are inspired by him. Bruce doesn't like this. "That wasn't what he meant when he said he wanted to inspire people." So he wants the Batman persona gone so that Harvey can be a real hero that people can look toward. Okay we're fine here. Then the third movie comes around and now it totally makes sense for some kid with no experience, not even real experience as a cop, to be Batman!!!? The whole idea of what, why, and how of Batman now makes no sense. What is going on?
Ps- John Blake spends the end of the movie getting his butt kicked and riding on a school bus!

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by batman497

Spoilers!
I already posted this in the spoiler section, but I really want an answer!
Okay maybe this is way of topic, but as the Blu Ray release inches closer I have begun to dissect the movie again. So in the car Bruce talks to Blake. Bruce says to Blake, " Batman could be anybody. That was the point." So in the end of the movie he hands the reigns to an inexperienced cop who can't even "clear the corners" and whose big action finale in the movie is taking kids off and on a school bus! So in The Dark Knight a group of well-meaning citizens take on the symbol of Batman. They attempt to take on the Scarecrow and the chechins. Batman for some reason attacks all of these men who are doing the exact same thing that Blake will be doing. One of them states, "We're trying to help you!" Bruce says he doesn't need their help and states that he has the right to do what he is doing because, "Iiiiiii'mmmmmm noooooot wearingggg hockey pahhhds!" In Batman Begins Rachel says to Bruce, "and then I found out about your mask." Bruce says "Batman is just a symbol." To which Rachel says that his real face is that of Batman. Okay the WHOLE freaking idea behind TDKR is that the symbol of batman will carry on without Bruce and that it will inspire the people of Gotham. The symbol can also be taken up by anyone because what really matters is the symbol and not the person. Now why the hell does Bruce get mad in the beginning of TDK when those other men do the exact thing he wants people to do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!? He even states in TDK "That wasn't exactly what I had in mind when I said I wanted to inspire people." This makes no freaking sense!!!! I'm having like a meltdown over here because this makes no sense. Please someone explain this to me! The first movie basically says Bruce is Batman and the symbolism behind "batman" whether he died or whatever, would inspire people to take back their city. So Bruce=Batman. End of story! Then other people take on the symbol of Batman because they are inspired by him. Bruce doesn't like this. "That wasn't what he meant when he said he wanted to inspire people." So he wants the Batman persona gone so that Harvey can be a real hero that people can look toward. Okay we're fine here. Then the third movie comes around and now it totally makes sense for some kid with no experience, not even real experience as a cop, to be Batman!!!? The whole idea of what, why, and how of Batman now makes no sense. What is going on?
Ps- John Blake spends the end of the movie getting his butt kicked and riding on a school bus!

It's pretty simple really. First of all, the copycats were using guns, which Batman sees as a no-no. So yeah, that's not what he meant when he said he wanted to inspire people. Second of all, Batman's hooockey paaahhds remark has more truth to it than it seems. That is basically Batman's snarky way of telling them, "I'm equipped for this, you're not, you're going to get yourselves killed".

Well by having Blake inherit the Batcave, that pretty much takes care of that problem. Under-qualified and irresponsible copycats are a completely different thing than passing on THE mantle to someone he trusts will do right by it. Someone who had reverence for the symbol, but didn't play dress up and become a common vigilante like Brian Douglass.

I kind of see Blake like Charlie from Willy Wonka, only instead of a Chocolate Factory he gets a Batcave. Because he's honest and decent, the mantle isn't something he could ever imagine being handed by Bruce...and that's kind of exactly why Bruce chooses him. He knows Blake won't abuse the power he's handed, because it was never something he craved in the first place. That and the bravery and heroism he showed during the siege.

[Anita18]

Originally Posted by batman497

Spoilers!
I already posted this in the spoiler section, but I really want an answer!
Okay maybe this is way of topic, but as the Blu Ray release inches closer I have begun to dissect the movie again. So in the car Bruce talks to Blake. Bruce says to Blake, " Batman could be anybody. That was the point." So in the end of the movie he hands the reigns to an inexperienced cop who can't even "clear the corners" and whose big action finale in the movie is taking kids off and on a school bus! So in The Dark Knight a group of well-meaning citizens take on the symbol of Batman. They attempt to take on the Scarecrow and the chechins. Batman for some reason attacks all of these men who are doing the exact same thing that Blake will be doing. One of them states, "We're trying to help you!" Bruce says he doesn't need their help and states that he has the right to do what he is doing because, "Iiiiiii'mmmmmm noooooot wearingggg hockey pahhhds!" In Batman Begins Rachel says to Bruce, "and then I found out about your mask." Bruce says "Batman is just a symbol." To which Rachel says that his real face is that of Batman. Okay the WHOLE freaking idea behind TDKR is that the symbol of batman will carry on without Bruce and that it will inspire the people of Gotham. The symbol can also be taken up by anyone because what really matters is the symbol and not the person. Now why the hell does Bruce get mad in the beginning of TDK when those other men do the exact thing he wants people to do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!? He even states in TDK "That wasn't exactly what I had in mind when I said I wanted to inspire people." This makes no freaking sense!!!! I'm having like a meltdown over here because this makes no sense. Please someone explain this to me! The first movie basically says Bruce is Batman and the symbolism behind "batman" whether he died or whatever, would inspire people to take back their city. So Bruce=Batman. End of story! Then other people take on the symbol of Batman because they are inspired by him. Bruce doesn't like this. "That wasn't what he meant when he said he wanted to inspire people." So he wants the Batman persona gone so that Harvey can be a real hero that people can look toward. Okay we're fine here. Then the third movie comes around and now it totally makes sense for some kid with no experience, not even real experience as a cop, to be Batman!!!? The whole idea of what, why, and how of Batman now makes no sense. What is going on?
Ps- John Blake spends the end of the movie getting his butt kicked and riding on a school bus!

Paragraphs plz.

Bruce didn't want people acting on their own as vigilantes and getting hurt or killing themselves/others in the process. This is why he's against the Citizens for Batman in TDK.

Blake is not a vigilante, at least not shown in the movie. (And when Gotham is under siege, what IS the difference between a vigilante and a cop anyway? ) His only wish at the end of TDKR was to be able to cross that damn bridge. He would be hurting nobody in the process, but since this was against orders, they prevented him from doing that. When he shot the construction workers, he was not there on his own - he was there for police work. He was not shown in the movie to have specific vigilante tendencies. The vigilantes that Bruce disapproved of were the ones that took the law into their own hands. Blake just wants to do the right thing. Sometimes "the law" or "the orders" differ from "the right thing" but that still means there's a huge difference between someone who saves people against orders, and someone who takes a gun to a gang fight to try and stop the thing.

Bruce specifically orders Blake to take people over the bridge to be rescued. He did not ask Blake to participate in the violence. He recognizes Blake for his persistence, optimism, and detective work, not for his ass-kicking ability. Perhaps it is finally now that he realizes that fighting violence with violence is never going to work. There can be another way, and that way may be beyond Bruce's ability.

This is also a big reason why I DON'T think it's guaranteed that Blake dons the batsuit and becomes Batman v2.0. We don't even know if any batsuits are left intact. But what we DO know is in the cave, is Batman's detective tech. He's trusting Blake to watch over Gotham, because of Blake's optimism and great morals. In both readings, Blake is heir to Bruce's Batman, but in what way, we will never know and is up to personal interpretation.

[Anno_Domini]

Well I for one am pleased to get the Blu-ray of TDKR this Tuesday so I can have the amazing conclusion to Nolan's trilogy as my own

[batman497]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

It's pretty simple really. First of all, the copycats were using guns, which Batman sees as a no-no. So yeah, that's not what he meant when he said he wanted to inspire people. Second of all, Batman's hooockey paaahhds remark has more truth to it than it seems. That is basically Batman's snarky way of telling them, "I'm equipped for this, you're not, you're going to get yourselves killed".

Well by having Blake inherit the Batcave, that pretty much takes care of that problem. Under-qualified and irresponsible copycats are a completely different thing than passing on THE mantle to someone he trusts will do right by it. Someone who had reverence for the symbol, but didn't play dress up and become a common vigilante like Brian Douglass.

I kind of see Blake like Charlie from Willy Wonka, only instead of a Chocolate Factory he gets a Batcave. Because he's honest and decent, the mantle isn't something he could ever imagine being handed by Bruce...and that's kind of exactly why Bruce chooses him. He knows Blake won't abuse the power he's handed, because it was never something he craved in the first place. That and the bravery and heroism he showed during the siege.

That's fine and you are certainly entitled to your interpretation, but Batman uses guns! Selina uses guns! Why would he care if the other guys were using guns? Clearly what they were doing was not safe, but neither was being a police officer, with a gun, in a giant war in the middle of the city. The copy cats going around and shooting criminals is really no different than what the cops do. Maybe the copy cats weren't as prepared as bruce or have his weapons etc, but neither does Blake. My major issue is not that by itself, but the complete change over the three movies in what "batman" is supposed to be and how the character as a symbol was supposed to inspire people. The idea was that the symbol of batman would inspire the people to take back their city. I think the idea about what, who, why batman is are muddled in the three movies mostly because of the third's ridiculous ending. There is no reason to pass the mantle to Blake. He s not trained, there is no need for a batman, and bruce is apparently against amateurs trying to do what he does. We can all try to fill the holes in where things are not explicitly shown, but we can only really go on what is shown to us in the movies. Batman makes decisions that clearly go against ones he has made before and that is not okay. It's especially not okay when it involves one of the biggest story lines in the move (What is the goal of Batman?).

[JackWhite]

Basically Bruce wanted to inspire a John Blake in BB, but in TDK thought Dent would be a more than capable "hero with a face". He was wrong, and everything went full circle with his original intentions - inspire someone who can honor the symbol of Batman, the faceless hero.

[Binker]

Blake is given the mantle of Batman, to continue the symbol for Gotham. No one realizes this, but Blake is not just the combo of the first three Robins, but 2-3 Batmans as well: he takes on the mantle of Batman at a time when Bruce is older and in need of a cane, like Terry McGinnis; his first name beign Robin is also a nod to Robin being the first name for the Batman in Year 100; but also, if you look at Blake's story in TDKR, he is going through the same/similar story of Bruce Wayne's from Batman Begins.

Also, when it comes to these films, and like I said about multiple viewings, you realize things inbetween the lines. For example, and spread the word, guys: there were TWO Bats! The one Fox showed Wayne at the beginning, the dark blue one, and the all black one Batman used in the film. It's the same as the Tumbler from Batman Begins; "Does it come in black?" Why yes, yes it is; they didn't spray the Tumbler black, Fox gave Wayne another Tumbler in all black stealth colors; The Bat is the same, how else would you explain the ending scene where we were lead to believe that the Bat was gone just as the film was about to tell us the final reveal/twist? This also pretty much says that the batsuit Bruce wore survived, and since Bruce is now officially retired, and Blake inherited the Batman mantle, the suit is most likely there too (or a third one, because let's face it we were surprised that a second existed, a third suit wouldn't surprised us now). See?

PS And I just realzied this too: John Blake; Blake rhymes with Drake, but John is also a homophone for Jean, like Jean-Paul Valley. Man, Nolan did a very good job mixing and matching nearly everything together in all three Batman movies.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by batman497

That's fine and you are certainly entitled to your interpretation, but Batman uses guns! Selina uses guns! Why would he care if the other guys were using guns? Clearly what they were doing was not safe, but neither was being a police officer, with a gun, in a giant war in the middle of the city.

He still never uses handguns and has never expressly used his firearms with the intent to kill in these films (possibly with the one exception of Talia's truck driver in TDKR, but it was a time of war and the circumstances could not have been more extreme).

There's basically no difference between what the Citizens for Batman were doing in TDK and The Punisher. And Batman is in no way The Punisher.

As far as Blake...it's not a matter of safety. Gotham was cut off from the rest of the world. Law and order as we know it ceased to exist. Blake was a soldier and showed bravery in the face of extreme adversity. And he did it without wearing a mask to boot.

Originally Posted by batman497

The copy cats going around and shooting criminals is really no different than what the cops do.

Originally Posted by batman497

Maybe the copy cats weren't as prepared as bruce or have his weapons etc, but neither does Blake.

We don't know exactly which of the toys are left in the cave for Blake, but surely it's not empty. As Anita suggested above, perhaps Blake could take more of a detective route with the Bat-computer. It's quite open to interpretation.

You're entitled to your point of view too, but I think the idea of what the Batman symbol was supposed to accomplish had a nice evolution and arc over the three films, which is very different than contradiction.

Like JackWhite said, it went full circle to his original intentions. Batman tried to corrupt his symbol and become the villain to Gotham for what he saw as a greater purpose, but ultimately the symbol was incorruptible after all. The belief of just one guy who didn't lose faith in what The Batman truly stands for is what ultimately what will keep it alive in the long run.

Incorruptible...everlasting.

[BatmanBeyond]

Originally Posted by Shikamaru

Agreed. I fully believe that if it wasn't for the fact that BB and TDK were so good and that Nolan was the director, TDKR wouldn't have received anywhere near the amount of praise it got in general.

I've had friends who didn't watch BB and TDK (one of them wasn't even into Batman) beforehand, and still they were elated with TDKR. What's more, that particular friend considers it the best of the bunch. Nolan being the director had nothing to do with that either, as he hadn't seen any of his movies beforehand.

TDKR's success with the general audiences can't be put down solely to BB and TDK's success. If anything, I think each one of the films strengthens the other two and the trilogy as a whole with how they're different in style and themes from one another. It keeps things fresh. It's true that out of the three, TDKR is the one that depends the most on the preceding two (not surprising, considering it's the final chapter of the trilogy), but it's still a damn good movie on its own.

Originally Posted by Anita18

I'm not sure. TDKR got pretty much the same RT rating as Inception (although a higher rating on Metacritic) and I see the two as having the same amount of "issues." Not the same issues mind you, but add them up and they'd be pretty similar. So I don't see how TDKR necessarily gets a Batman bonus, or at least a strong argument of one.

How much those issues affect you depends on what you're bringing into the film beforehand. Such is the ways of perception and art....

Yep.

[Anita18]

Originally Posted by BatmanBeyond

I've had friends who didn't watch BB and TDK (one of them wasn't even into Batman) beforehand, and still they were elated with TDKR. What's more, that particular friend considers it the best of the bunch. Nolan being the director had nothing to do with that either, as he hadn't seen any of his movies beforehand.

TDKR's success with the general audiences can't be put down solely to BB and TDK's success. If anything, I think each one of the films strengthens the other two and the trilogy as a whole with how they're different in style and themes from one another. It keeps things fresh. It's true that out of the three, TDKR is the one that depends the most on the preceding two (not surprising, considering it's the final chapter of the trilogy), but it's still a damn good movie on its own.

I'm not sure how one could be elated with TDKR if they're not into Batman. Part of why the ending is so cathartic is because you're invested in the character and when Bruce is finally to move on, you're happy and relieved for him. The more invested you are in Bruce, the happier you are for him at the end. Like, I have a coworker who has NO idea what Batman really is, other than the guy who dresses up like a bat. I had to explain that he was made when his parents were shot dead in front of him as a boy and she looked at me like what sort of fun superhero is this, you people are messed up. That kind of viewer might not find the ending as cathartic and joyful as we did.

But I suppose there are also the "Batman should never be able to move on! He should be messed up his whole life!" kinds of fans, whom I consider sadists.

[Llama_Shepherd]

Originally Posted by Anita18

I'm not sure how one could be elated with TDKR if they're not into Batman. Part of why the ending is so cathartic is because you're invested in the character and when Bruce is finally to move on, you're happy and relieved for him. The more invested you are in Bruce, the happier you are for him at the end. Like, I have a coworker who has NO idea what Batman really is, other than the guy who dresses up like a bat. I had to explain that he was made when his parents were shot dead in front of him as a boy and she looked at me like what sort of fun superhero is this, you people are messed up. That kind of viewer might not find the ending as cathartic and joyful as we did.

But I suppose there are also the "Batman should never be able to move on! He should be messed up his whole life!" kinds of fans, whom I consider sadists.

I'm a Batman fan, but I don't really care for the ending. I accept it because it is an elseworlds tale. But I don't think Bruce really let go at all, he did the same thing he did in the 7 years he left in Batman Begins. He ran away and pretended he wasn't Bruce Wayne. I don't think he ever actually confronted his pain. A much more satisfying ending for me would have been to live out his life as Bruce Wayne, acknowledging he gave the city what it needed and now he can do whatever he can to help the way his parents did.

[Anita18]

Originally Posted by Llama_Shepherd

I'm a Batman fan, but I don't really care for the ending. I accept it because it is an elseworlds tale. But I don't think Bruce really let go at all, he did the same thing he did in the 7 years he left in Batman Begins. He ran away and pretended he wasn't Bruce Wayne. I don't think he ever actually confronted his pain. A much more satisfying ending for me would have been to live out his life as Bruce Wayne, acknowledging he gave the city what it needed and now he can do whatever he can to help the way his parents did.

As I've mentioned before I think in this thread, being a Wayne (murdered parents aside) carries baggage in itself, and I believe he wanted to be free of that too. Leaving Wayne Manor for the city's youth was his way of giving back.

In Nolan's universe, it only seemed that the pain of his parents' murder only really affected him in BB. It was an artistic but purposeful choice, so YMMV on how you like that or not. In TDK, it seemed that he was already neck-deep in the mission, and was more intent on doing the right thing than in recalling about why he was doing it all to begin with. It seemed more like he was imposing his own version of order in a chaotic world, which made him the perfect foil for Joker. I mean, being a young Wayne whose parents were shot dead will do that to you; crave order in an unpredictable world. So if anything, his parents' murders did affect him in TDK after all, but only in a residual sort of manner that was inherent in his character. The concept of fighting for justice for his parents was always in the back of his mind though, because in TDKR he learns exactly where this path of personal vendetta-ing gets you - they're named Talia and Bane.

And I believe his running away now is different from BB. For one, he's officially dead after TDKR. They had a funeral, put up a gravestone, gave away his assets, he has no house anymore. In BB, he just went missing and Alfred basically held vigil and held all the vultures at bay who were going after his stock options. After TDKR, he has nothing aside from whatever offshore accounts he was able to squirrel away before the whole stock market mess. He's on his own now, for real.

So in BB, he ran away to find the mission that would satisfy the rage that consumed him. In TDKR, he runs away to find who he really is, beyond Batman and what being a Wayne entails. He's never really had a chance to consider it.

[batman497]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

He still never uses handguns and has never expressly used his firearms with the intent to kill in these films (possibly with the one exception of Talia's truck driver in TDKR, but it was a time of war and the circumstances could not have been more extreme).

There's basically no difference between what the Citizens for Batman were doing in TDK and The Punisher. And Batman is in no way The Punisher.

As far as Blake...it's not a matter of safety. Gotham was cut off from the rest of the world. Law and order as we know it ceased to exist. Blake was a soldier and showed bravery in the face of extreme adversity. And he did it without wearing a mask to boot.







We don't know exactly which of the toys are left in the cave for Blake, but surely it's not empty. As Anita suggested above, perhaps Blake could take more of a detective route with the Bat-computer. It's quite open to interpretation.

You're entitled to your point of view too, but I think the idea of what the Batman symbol was supposed to accomplish had a nice evolution and arc over the three films, which is very different than contradiction.

Like JackWhite said, it went full circle to his original intentions. Batman tried to corrupt his symbol and become the villain to Gotham for what he saw as a greater purpose, but ultimately the symbol was incorruptible after all. The belief of just one guy who didn't lose faith in what The Batman truly stands for is what ultimately what will keep it alive in the long run.

Incorruptible...everlasting.

They are all vigilantes! Batman is a vigilante. From what I can tell Bruce didn't like the copy cats because they were not trained and did not have the skill to be batman. They were just a bunch of wannabe soldier of fortune type of guys that were doing more bad than good. The point is that he never intended for anyone else to batman. the point wasn't that batman could be just some sob, he was a rallying cry for all the disenfranchised. He was the symbol for the people to stand up. That had nothing to do with another guy becoming batman! When people actually try to do it TDK he actually laughs about it with Alfred and states that wasn't what he meant when said he wanted to inspire people. That means he didn't want other people dressing up like batman and hunting down criminals. He was the one who was capable of doing it and he could be that symbol, whether he lived or died, for people to rally behind. A symbol for justice. I mean we can have differing opinions but this is a huge problem. He wanted a city without a batman! And I was saying that the vigilantes going around killing criminals with guns is no different than what the cops do. The cops are shooting people in the street during the final battle. How is this any different from what the copy cats were doing? We also don't see anyone of the copy cats shoot an actual criminal, do we? Again we're taking leaps here and making assumptions. I get that we are supposed to fill in some of the story with our brains, but what we see on film is all we really have to go on so it's hard to just disregard something that clearly contradicts another part of the series.

[Ryan]

Loved this review from a couple of guys that loved Begins and TDK. Look up
Kevin Smith: Dark Knight Rises plot holes on youtube. Even if you love TDKR, it'll get you thinking and at least have a laugh

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by batman497

They are all vigilantes! Batman is a vigilante. From what I can tell Bruce didn't like the copy cats because they were not trained and did not have the skill to be batman. They were just a bunch of wannabe soldier of fortune type of guys that were doing more bad than good. The point is that he never intended for anyone else to batman. the point wasn't that batman could be just some sob, he was a rallying cry for all the disenfranchised. He was the symbol for the people to stand up. That had nothing to do with another guy becoming batman! When people actually try to do it TDK he actually laughs about it with Alfred and states that wasn't what he meant when said he wanted to inspire people. That means he didn't want other people dressing up like batman and hunting down criminals. He was the one who was capable of doing it and he could be that symbol, whether he lived or died, for people to rally behind. A symbol for justice. I mean we can have differing opinions but this is a huge problem. He wanted a city without a batman!

"No, no...a vigilante is just man lost in the scramble for his own gratification. He can be destroyed, or locked up. But, if you make yourself more than just a man..." -Ra's Al Ghul

Batman is not just a common vigilante. A lot of Batman Begins deals with him walking that fine line, particularly the Tumbler chase with Rachel. But ultimately he is something more than that, or at least the film wants us to believe he is.

Through the events of TDK, he tried to make Gotham a city that wouldn't need him. But as TDKR shows, this doesn't protect Gotham from outside threats. Evil rises.

Originally Posted by batman497

And I was saying that the vigilantes going around killing criminals with guns is no different than what the cops do. The cops are shooting people in the street during the final battle. How is this any different from what the copy cats were doing? We also don't see anyone of the copy cats shoot an actual criminal, do we? Again we're taking leaps here and making assumptions.

First of all, that war at the end of TDKR is just that...war. The police were no longer the law in Gotham...Bane was. It's an unprecedented situation that is not comparable to anything that happened in the previous movies.

And yes, those copy cats open fire on The Chechen, his men and the Scarecrow. They're all just terrible shots. Firing rifles and automatic weapons at people, if that's not intent to kill what is? I don't think I'm making any sort of huge leap there.

Lastly, Batman does make himself the symbol for Gotham. He fakes his death while saving the city, gets a statue in city hall cementing his legend for all time. The symbol alone might be enough for Gotham to emerge a better place. Blake is his ace in the hole, like Harvey was Joker's. If things ever get out of hand where the police can't handle it in after Bruce is gone, at least Blake will be there.

I just think there is a huge difference between Batman disapproving of unsolicited copycats with guns in TDK and Bruce finding someone he trusts and passing him the torch. In fact, if Bruce didn't leave Gotham with some sort of contingency plan as it came out of its most catastrophic times, I would have found that out of character.

[Killgrave]

Originally Posted by Ryan

Loved this review from a couple of guys that loved Begins and TDK. Look up
Kevin Smith: Dark Knight Rises plot holes on youtube. Even if you love TDKR, it'll get you thinking and at least have a laugh

Yeah, that and "Kevin Smith on: The Dark Knight Rises" are both good for a laugh.

Actually, all his Fatman on Batman podcast are all pretty good listen.

[Anno_Domini]

Still, even with the plot holes, Kevin Smith did enjoy TDKR. Hear about him trying to get through the ending of TDKR without crying.

[atomicbattery]

Really enjoy your posts Anno Domini, but must note that Kevin Smith loved TDKR.
I believe one of the more memorable quotes (from memory, mind you) in his effusive hour-plus review was that there was 'not a c*ck's hair difference' in his enjoyment of 'The Dark Knight' and 'The Dark Knight Rises'.

[TheBat812]

Originally Posted by batman497

That's fine and you are certainly entitled to your interpretation, but Batman uses guns! Selina uses guns! Why would he care if the other guys were using guns? Clearly what they were doing was not safe, but neither was being a police officer, with a gun, in a giant war in the middle of the city. The copy cats going around and shooting criminals is really no different than what the cops do. Maybe the copy cats weren't as prepared as bruce or have his weapons etc, but neither does Blake. My major issue is not that by itself, but the complete change over the three movies in what "batman" is supposed to be and how the character as a symbol was supposed to inspire people. The idea was that the symbol of batman would inspire the people to take back their city. I think the idea about what, who, why batman is are muddled in the three movies mostly because of the third's ridiculous ending. There is no reason to pass the mantle to Blake. He s not trained, there is no need for a batman, and bruce is apparently against amateurs trying to do what he does. We can all try to fill the holes in where things are not explicitly shown, but we can only really go on what is shown to us in the movies. Batman makes decisions that clearly go against ones he has made before and that is not okay. It's especially not okay when it involves one of the biggest story lines in the move (What is the goal of Batman?).

In TDK he thinks of his mission as Batman as HIS mission alone. Not only that but these are just regular citizens with no training (Blake had, at the very least, all of basic police fighting and training). Only after the events of TDKR does he remember and truly understand the scope of his mission beyond himself. In TDK, he's hardly an example of shining justice as he originally wanted. He becomes the Dark Knight, sinking to Joker's level in order to keep his mission on (what he thinks at the time is on) track. It's a great thing Nolan did with the trilogy, where the characters are actually evolving, and at times losing sight of their moral compass. Alfred realizes he's done the same thing by encouraging such a ridiculous mission, and tries to fix it the only way he knows how in TDKR. Like a drug addict enabler, he had to stop enabling Bruce in order for him to reach his lowest low and manage to finally climb out of the well on his own.

[Ryan]

I remember hearing Smith's podcast where he really loved TDKR. I don't know the dates between that one and this one. Although over the top at times, most of my reasons for feeling that TDKR fell short of the other two were expressed by his co-host. Smith himself takes shots at the film, and somewhere in the podcast the cohost points out that Smith loved the film, which kinda seemed contrary to the feeling of this show. Smith thought that the film was executed well, and his biggest praise was simply that a guy was able to make a more serious toned Batman and use villains like Bane and Talia Al Ghul. For me, it takes more then that to just enjoy a film. I again loved Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, but The Dark Knight Rises just wasn't a direction I enjoyed in comparison to the previous 2.

[badgrammar]

Originally Posted by Fudgie

Deffo the worst Nolan movie and worst Nolan Batman movie. Not enough Batman in it. Too much John Blake. Bruce Wayne is like crippled on a cane or with a broken back for most of it. Bane's plan was dumb. Hated Marion Cottiard's dull character.

Anne Hathaway was the best thing in it.

LOL! I remeber leaving the theater in the middle of Insomnia.
Most people who talk like you probably watch only 4 of Nolan's movies.
Hell, most people I know thought the Prestige was boring.