The Dark Knight Rises - letdown or not?

[Arach Knight]

Originally Posted by ClarkLuther55

Bruce wasn't exactly in his prime. He was 39, rusty after eight years of inactivity, with a bad leg, busted knees, and a back that was damaged and primitively repaired during the course of the movie.

I thought that handing it off to Blake just like that was a bit farfetched, but thematically it works for me because it shows Bruce growing past his issues, inspiring others, and letting go of his self-imposed burden.

Oh no, retiring at the end of TDKR was fine. I am refering to Bruce retiring at the end of TDk for eight years until TDKR. If that is what was meant, then I retract my complaint about the comparison to The Dark Knight Returns.

[Anno_Domini]

Most of your questions are quite plot holes if you want to take them as plot holes(I didn't think they were bad enough to be plot hole material, imo) EXCEPT for...

Originally Posted by Arach Knight

- How is it that Bruce Wayne retires immediately after the events of TDK, and was seen in good health at the end of the film, but somehow his body is so worn in TDKR despite the stated absence of his tenure as Batman? You don't become a cripple from eight years of doing nothing.

While the night Harvey Dent died was Batman's last confirmed sighting, there is no direct conclusion that Batman indeed retired right after. Wayne Manor was not re-built by then but through dialogue, Bruce HAD been in the batcave for some time, but just not awhile. It's easy to assume Bruce had stayed as Batman for a while and only retired after the Dent Act came to play as thru dialogue with Batman and Gordon in the hospital, Batman mentioned that he stopped because Gotham didn't need him anymore and that they(him and Gordon) "won".

And for the injury. His leg could have started to hurt and stayed as an injury through years and years of not exercising the leg. I've seen it happen with my own father even.

- When did Bruce have time to rewrite his will and leave things to Robin and Selina?

Bruce may have re-did his will to give John that bag only to give him the "keys" to be Batman since he knew Bruce's alter ego. And as for Selina, Bruce didn't leave anything for Selina, he only took the necklace with him as it's even stated the necklace was missing. Nothing was left for Selina.

- How was Lucious analzying the data of a lone prototype that gpt destroyed in a nuclear explosion? There should have been no autopilot investigation because the Bat blew up.

I had a tough time with this as well, but since there was no question of radiation among the ones analyzing the prototype as well as Lucius just standing there with no worries as well, they could've definitely been looking at a different prototype(we can see at least three when Lucius first showed Bruce...one built prototype and one on each side that looks broken down) and they could have just been looking through the other prototypes as Fox's order to see what they could have done to fix The Bat. Fixing the auto-pilot on all three prototypes could've been the sign Bruce gave Lucius to show he's alive.

[hammerhedd11]

Originally Posted by Arach Knight

A) It is a Batman movie. Sorry to have to inform you, but people actually see these movies to see the principle character taking on said role. It isn't an issue to not have the costume in every other scene, but it is a problem to allow so much time to pass without having the principle character do something. Batman Begins was shorter and an origin film yet it had nearly twice the Btman screen time. There is no excuse for TDKR's lack of Batman. And for the record, I love books like Gotham Central where Batman is rarely seen. TDKR simply mismanages screen time. The absence of Batman is just one way that it shows.

No excuse? To whom is Nolan reporting? This is his story, his version of the characters. He doesn't have to follow a guideline on how to make a Batman movie. That's boring.
Yes, Batman was in quite a bit less than past films, but all for reasons pertaining to the plot. Should he have worn his batsuit in the prison to make up for this imaginary screen time the films have to reach? The very idea that people time the exact screen time of him suited up is kind of sad, because it seems a lot of people miss the point of what makes his character so interesting.

I came to see Batman too, and I did see Batman. Bruce Wayne is Batman, regardless of whether or not he is in the suit. Nolan captures essential parts of his character and puts him on a journey. I was so engrossed in Batman's journey throughout the film that I didn't even notice the shortened time in the suit, because that's not really what Batman is about. Batman is more than a suit and its sad that that's more than even a quibble in something that examines the character with such care. Is this really the priority of fans?

It's a fallacy to think that Batman is absent from much of the film, because Batman is the entire focus of the film whether he is seen or not. Screentime is arbitrary. It's what they choose to show. Batman is more than a suit. Batman becomes a legend that lives beyond Bruce in this film. He inspires a city to stand against evil. That's Batman. That's what Batman is about. It's sad that people don't see that.

Originally Posted by Arach Knight

B) Bruce Wayne retired in The Dark Knight returns because he was an old man. He was forty-five and not in the same condition. As he was in his youth. One of the sub points to the first half of the story was about how difficult it was to resume the role at the age of fifty-five. It isn't the same as Bruce retiring in his early thirties when he is in his prime.

It was more than old age. As it is more than just physical limitations in the movie, which are specifically stated outright. And if your quibble is that it doesn't follow the comic, (never mind that it's not even really canon) than I say welcome to the world of adaptations.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by hammerhedd11

No excuse? To whom is Nolan reporting?

The people who pay to be entertained by his movie. The people who help make his movies a success. Who else is he making these movies for?

This is his story, his version of the characters. He doesn't have to follow a guideline on how to make a Batman movie. That's boring.

There is only one guideline to making a Batman movie, and that's make a Batman movie. Bruce Wayne is Bruce Wayne, Batman is Batman. When Bruce puts on the cape and cowl he is Batman. Batman is the face criminals fear. Not Bruce Wayne. To say seeing Bruce Wayne is the same as Batman screen time is a fallacy. When Peter Parker quit being Spider-Man in Spider-Man 2, that portion of the movie was not Spider-Man screen time. It was Peter Parker screen time. Same thing here. Bruce Wayne screen time does not equate to Batman screen time.

Yes, Batman was in quite a bit less than past films, but all for reasons pertaining to the plot.

And that's the problem many have with it. The plot is written to have very little Batman.

The very idea that people time the exact screen time of him suited up is kind of sad, because it seems a lot of people miss the point of what makes his character so interesting.

What makes his character so interesting? Both sides of the persona that's what. If one of them is neglected, then the character suffers. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight never wavered with balancing out the two personas. Even Batman Begins which takes nearly an hour to get Bruce into that Batman costume, but once he gets in it, he's rarely out of it for the second hour of the movie.

It's a fallacy to think that Batman is absent from much of the film, because Batman is the entire focus of the film whether he is seen or not. Screentime is arbitrary.

Batman is absent for most of the movie. Just because you see a lot of Bruce Wayne does not make that Batman screen time. Batman is Bruce Wayne in the costume. If just Bruce Wayne could be Batman he wouldn't need to wear a costume. The point of Batman is he is an image and a symbol. Bruce Wayne is not that. Once he's in the costume he is Batman. I mean by your logic we could have a 2 hour Batman movie with 5 minutes of Batman on screen, but lots of Bruce Wayne, and that would make a plentiful Batman movie.

Take a wild guess how many people would feel the same way.

"As Bruce Wayne I'm flesh and blood. I can be ignored. I can be destroyed" - there's your line right there which spells out the difference between Batman and Bruce Wayne.

It's what they choose to show. Batman is more than a suit. Batman becomes a legend that lives beyond Bruce in this film. He inspires a city to stand against evil. That's Batman.

Batman didn't inspire the city to stand against evil. The only people who stand against evil are the Cops, and that's their job. The rest of Gotham seemed to be cowering like frightened sheep. They played no part in the saving of Gotham. That's one of the problems with TDKR. It neglected to give the perspective of the people of Gotham on the situation like in Begins in and TDK. In TDK the people on the ferries chose not to blow each other up. They proved Joker wrong. It had nothing to do with Batman. In Batman Begins they were being used as tools for their own destruction by being dosed with fear toxin and then tear each other apart.

In Rises they didn't do a thing in the climax.

It's sad that people don't see that.

Well you can't see something that's not there in the first place.

[TheGuy]

Originally Posted by hammerhedd11

I never get the argument about Batman not being in costume enough as a negative. Really? That's a criticism? He suits up when it serves the story. Not the other way around. Would people really like the movie more if there was a couple more scenes of him standing around in the suit? It just sounds like people get bored when there isn't superheroes on the screen every five seconds and that sounds rather childish.

Also, I've seen a lot of complaining that Bruce would never ever retire and that it was completely out of character (both the beginning and end). Have people really not read The Dark Knight Returns? I mean, you can argue that point if you want, but it's not like this idea has had no precedent before, especially a massively influential one.

People also get peeved that they didn't simply call John Blake 'Dick Grayson' or 'Tim Drake' but if they did, people would have *****ed as well and called him Robin In Name Only. This was Nolan's way of combining all the seperate elements of Robin into one character and being able to do what he wanted with him.

You just destroyed some of the movie's criticisms.

[TheGuy]

Originally Posted by hammerhedd11

No excuse? To whom is Nolan reporting? This is his story, his version of the characters. He doesn't have to follow a guideline on how to make a Batman movie. That's boring.
Yes, Batman was in quite a bit less than past films, but all for reasons pertaining to the plot. Should he have worn his batsuit in the prison to make up for this imaginary screen time the films have to reach? The very idea that people time the exact screen time of him suited up is kind of sad, because it seems a lot of people miss the point of what makes his character so interesting.

I came to see Batman too, and I did see Batman. Bruce Wayne is Batman, regardless of whether or not he is in the suit. Nolan captures essential parts of his character and puts him on a journey. I was so engrossed in Batman's journey throughout the film that I didn't even notice the shortened time in the suit, because that's not really what Batman is about. Batman is more than a suit and its sad that that's more than even a quibble in something that examines the character with such care. Is this really the priority of fans?

It's a fallacy to think that Batman is absent from much of the film, because Batman is the entire focus of the film whether he is seen or not. Screentime is arbitrary. It's what they choose to show. Batman is more than a suit. Batman becomes a legend that lives beyond Bruce in this film. He inspires a city to stand against evil. That's Batman. That's what Batman is about. It's sad that people don't see that.




It was more than old age. As it is more than just physical limitations in the movie, which are specifically stated outright. And if your quibble is that it doesn't follow the comic, (never mind that it's not even really canon) than I say welcome to the world of adaptations.

I couldn't say this any better.

[Fudgie]

Originally Posted by Arach Knight

- How is it that Bane raids the Gotham stock exchange in daylight, is seen hacking the computers by hundreds of witnesses and cameras, but no one bothered to ask what he was doing on the computers? It makes it unbelievable that Wayne could be bankrupted so easily when even a cursory investigation (or good common sense) would lead the police to follow Bane's activities and determine that he engaged in fraudulent activities through Wayne's account. I bank with Wellsfargo and they've paid greater due dilligence when someone tried to steal my credit card info and use it in Texas.

- How is it that Bruce Wayne retires immediately after the events of TDK, and was seen in good health at the end of the film, but somehow his body is so worn in TDKR despite the stated absence of his tenure as Batman? You don't become a cripple from eight years of doing nothing.

- How did Bruce Wayne return from the prison without any money, passport or identification?

- How is that several federal agencies failed to run a simple finger print scan, dental record check and face recognition check as their first means of identifying the cadaver found on the plane? Although a mid-air blood transfusion "looked cool," the first thing checked by coroners and investigators are finger prints, dental records and image databases, not your blood. The body used wasn't even a double of the doctor. It was a random man in a body bag.

- How do the instruments of a federal plane fail to identify the approach of a large non-stealth aircraft with a massive radar cross section?

- Why would the CIA fail to remove hoods and confirm the identities of the prisoners on the plane?

- Blake knows that Bruce is Batman, not because Batman appeared roughly when Bruce Wayne returned. Not from the fact that Bruce Wayne became a recluse around the same time that Batman was last seen, but because Bruce's smile looked fake and as an orphan, Blake understands what its like to pretend to be someone you're not??

- When did Bruce have time to rewrite his will and leave things to Robin and Selina?

- How did Bruce have time to carry the bomb six miles away from Gotham, eject and get six miles away from the blast radius with only five seconds left for the escape?

- How was Lucious analzying the data of a lone prototype that gpt destroyed in a nuclear explosion? There should have been no autopilot investigation because the Bat blew up.

Originally Posted by Arach Knight

A) It is a Batman movie. Sorry to have to inform you, but people actually see these movies to see the principle character taking on said role. It isn't an issue to not have the costume in every other scene, but it is a problem to allow so much time to pass without having the principle character do something. Batman Begins was shorter and an origin film yet it had nearly twice the Btman screen time. There is no excuse for TDKR's lack of Batman. And for the record, I love books like Gotham Central where Batman is rarely seen. TDKR simply mismanages screen time. The absence of Batman is just one way that it shows.

B) Bruce Wayne retired in The Dark Knight returns because he was an old man. He was forty-five and not in the same condition. As he was in his youth. One of the sub points to the first half of the story was about how difficult it was to resume the role at the age of fifty-five. It isn't the same as Bruce retiring in his early thirties when he is in his prime.

You just destroyed some of this movie's defenses against the flaws. I couldn't say this any better.

[The Guard]

The issue with THE DARK KNIGHT RISES isn’t plot holes. The issues is a largely silly an melodramatic use of plot that is sloppily handled, because the script rarely follows its own logic.

- How is it that Bane raids the Gotham stock exchange in daylight, is seen hacking the computers by hundreds of witnesses and cameras, but no one bothered to ask what he was doing on the computers? It makes it unbelievable that Wayne could be bankrupted so easily when even a cursory investigation (or good common sense) would lead the police to follow Bane's activities and determine that he engaged in fraudulent activities through Wayne's account. I bank with Wellsfargo and they've paid greater due dilligence when someone tried to steal my credit card info and use it in Texas.

Who knows? This is one of the dumbest plot points I’ve ever seen. And then the screenwriters make it worse by not only NOT dealing with the obvious, that pretty much everyone knows Bane was up to no good, but they also flat out tell us via Lucious: “We should be able to prove fraud”. Without that line, it’d irk me a lot less when lo and behold, how does the movie end? Bruce Wayne is still penniless because he lost his fortune due to Bane’s fraudulent trades. The film doesn’t even seem to remember or reference its own logic or character interactions half the time. The writers just seem to want melodrama, and damn the internal logic.

- How is it that Bruce Wayne retires immediately after the events of TDK, and was seen in good health at the end of the film, but somehow his body is so worn in TDKR despite the stated absence of his tenure as Batman? You don't become a cripple from eight years of doing nothing.

It’s fairly obvious given the doctor visit in TDKR that Bruce took a pounding as Batman and evident by the cane and the use of the brace that he injured his leg pretty badly during the events of THE DARK KNIGHT’s climax. Is it a realistic amount of damage to sustain? Arguable, but thematically it works.

The Batcave apparently gets completed in grand fashion anyway because this script is a mess and the filmmakers clearly just didn’t think things through very much when they wrote it.

- How did Bruce Wayne return from the prison without any money, passport or identification?

Eh, there are ways. It’s more an issue of just it would have been nice to see Bruce outsmart Bane’s forces and see his resourcefulness without his gadgets than it is a real plot hole.

- How is that several federal agencies failed to run a simple finger print scan, dental record check and face recognition check as their first means of identifying the cadaver found on the plane? Although a mid-air blood transfusion "looked cool," the first thing checked by coroners and investigators are finger prints, dental records and image databases, not your blood. The body used wasn't even a double of the doctor. It was a random man in a body bag.

I have no idea. There’s an internet meme out there that says “Body found that contains some of Dr. Pavel’s blood” that always makes me laugh.

- How do the instruments of a federal plane fail to identify the approach of a large non-stealth aircraft with a massive radar cross section?

No clue.

- Why would the CIA fail to remove hoods and confirm the identities of the prisoners on the plane?

That fellow was clearly incompetent. Look at him.

- Blake knows that Bruce is Batman, not because Batman appeared roughly when Bruce Wayne returned. Not from the fact that Bruce Wayne became a recluse around the same time that Batman was last seen, but because Bruce's smile looked fake and as an orphan, Blake understands what its like to pretend to be someone you're not??

Yeah, that was fairly stupid. Why would we want to see Blake actually do intelligent detective work when he can have a “feeling”?

- When did Bruce have time to rewrite his will and leave things to Robin and Selina?

Eh, he could have just had Lucious do it at some point or another.

- How did Bruce have time to carry the bomb six miles away from Gotham, eject and get six miles away from the blast radius with only five seconds left for the escape?

Who knows? The better question is why the writers bothered to include the bit about having to get six miles out to begin with, thus hamstringing themselves in terms of realism.

- How was Lucious analzying the data of a lone prototype that gpt destroyed in a nuclear explosion? There should have been no autopilot investigation because the Bat blew up.

There were apparently multiple Bats. Bruce apparently fixed the autopilot on all of them.

I came to see Batman too, and I did see Batman. Bruce Wayne is Batman, regardless of whether or not he is in the suit. Nolan captures essential parts of his character and puts him on a journey. I was so engrossed in Batman's journey throughout the film that I didn't even notice the shortened time in the suit, because that's not really what Batman is about. Batman is more than a suit and its sad that that's more than even a quibble in something that examines the character with such care. Is this really the priority of fans?

It's a fallacy to think that Batman is absent from much of the film, because Batman is the entire focus of the film whether he is seen or not. Screentime is arbitrary. It's what they choose to show. Batman is more than a suit. Batman becomes a legend that lives beyond Bruce in this film. He inspires a city to stand against evil. That's Batman. That's what Batman is about. It's sad that people don't see that

Except that people obviously wanted to see Batman in the suit operating as Batman. Not merely Bruce Wayne going through the same basic journey he’d already gone through. No amount of semantics about Bruce being Batman even out of the suit will change what people actually wanted to see.

Screentime is very much not arbitrary. It’s something that is carefully plotted and designed from script stage on.

Batman doesn’t inspire the city to stand against evil…I’m not even sure he inspires the cops to do so. He just fights with them…sort of.

People don’t see it because it’s not there…because it was a messy, half-ass script from writers who are better than that.

Which yes, is kind of sad.

I said in my initial review…I think Two-Face survived THE DARK KNIGHT and wrote THE DARK KNIGHT RISES. Because I’ve never seen a movie, especially a big movie, that was so good and reached such heights, and so disappointing in its quality at the same time.

Ever.

It’s a fascinating mixture of triumph and failure.

[DaveMoral]

Yeah, TDKR was a let down. I really liked it, but I also felt a tad bit of disconnect from it. Mostly because I followed the production way too closely, knew way too much, and twists and turns were telegraphed for me. I called Talia and the LOS before we even got set pics of Tate appearing as if she were in charge of the mercs... and I got shouted down for it, why it wouldn't happen and would be redundant yadda yadda yadda.

The 8 year gap also doesn't work for me. To me, Bruce Wayne isn't a character that would fold because he lost Rachel and because Dent died. This is a man that forged himself, over the period of a decade, into a war machine born out of tragedy. Tragedy fuels him. Rachel and Dent would just add fuel to that fire. And whatever new powers Gordon and the GCPD had after the Dent Act, Batman would have still been there. In some ways I feel like the very notion that he's been out of the game for 8 years is something Nolan did just to close the doors to anyone ever trying to do something with the character in those years. And Gordon's "we were in this together" bit to Bruce makes me thing Batman should have been there for at least 3-4 years helping Gordon by busting up the mob and any other psychos that showed their faces in those intervening years, and giving the GCPD a vigilante to chase from time to time. Bruce wouldn't give up until Gotham was as clean as could be and his body was too battered to do anymore. For him to, essentially, twiddle his thumbs for 8 years is unrealistic and uncharacteristic of Bruce Wayne even as he is presented in BB and TDK. The whole lesson of TDK, IMO, was that Batman has to keep going and endure all the pain and misery that comes his way. He has to shoulder the burden of being a pariah, while being the hero Gotham deserves.

In The Dark Knight Returns Bruce didn't even retire just because he was too old and battered to do it anymore... there was a massive government push to do away with vigilantes and vigilantism, mostly driven by Batman's methods. Superman went on government payroll, GL went to space, Green Arrow went into hiding, and Batman disappeared... after the government crack down and after Jason Todd died on the job. The federal government essentially made it impossible for Bruce Wayne to be Batman. I don't feel like TDKR set up enough of a reason for Bruce to stop for 8 years.

[Destructus86]

I thought it was a great movie...but not a great Batman movie. It's no secret i'm not really a fan of Nolan's Batman. But as a movie in general, I think the series is fantastic. And since it barely resembles the Batman of the comics anyway...i'm fine with it.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

You must hate this guy

You mean the clone of Bruce Wayne's DNA?

[Anno_Domini]

Still not technically Bruce Wayne

And the poll is 52-38, 'No's with the lead

[Fudgie]

Originally Posted by DaveMoral

Yeah, TDKR was a let down. I really liked it, but I also felt a tad bit of disconnect from it. Mostly because I followed the production way too closely, knew way too much, and twists and turns were telegraphed for me. I called Talia and the LOS before we even got set pics of Tate appearing as if she were in charge of the mercs... and I got shouted down for it, why it wouldn't happen and would be redundant yadda yadda yadda.

The 8 year gap also doesn't work for me. To me, Bruce Wayne isn't a character that would fold because he lost Rachel and because Dent died. This is a man that forged himself, over the period of a decade, into a war machine born out of tragedy. Tragedy fuels him. Rachel and Dent would just add fuel to that fire. And whatever new powers Gordon and the GCPD had after the Dent Act, Batman would have still been there. In some ways I feel like the very notion that he's been out of the game for 8 years is something Nolan did just to close the doors to anyone ever trying to do something with the character in those years. And Gordon's "we were in this together" bit to Bruce makes me thing Batman should have been there for at least 3-4 years helping Gordon by busting up the mob and any other psychos that showed their faces in those intervening years, and giving the GCPD a vigilante to chase from time to time. Bruce wouldn't give up until Gotham was as clean as could be and his body was too battered to do anymore. For him to, essentially, twiddle his thumbs for 8 years is unrealistic and uncharacteristic of Bruce Wayne even as he is presented in BB and TDK. The whole lesson of TDK, IMO, was that Batman has to keep going and endure all the pain and misery that comes his way. He has to shoulder the burden of being a pariah, while being the hero Gotham deserves.

In The Dark Knight Returns Bruce didn't even retire just because he was too old and battered to do it anymore... there was a massive government push to do away with vigilantes and vigilantism, mostly driven by Batman's methods. Superman went on government payroll, GL went to space, Green Arrow went into hiding, and Batman disappeared... after the government crack down and after Jason Todd died on the job. The federal government essentially made it impossible for Bruce Wayne to be Batman. I don't feel like TDKR set up enough of a reason for Bruce to stop for 8 years.

Aces post.

Originally Posted by Destructus86

I thought it was a great movie...but not a great Batman movie. It's no secret i'm not really a fan of Nolan's Batman. But as a movie in general, I think the series is fantastic. And since it barely resembles the Batman of the comics anyway...i'm fine with it.

See if it's not a good Batman movie then it's a failure I reckon.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

And the poll is 52-38, 'No's with the lead

Heh it's only been a week. 38 to 52 ain't a big gap. Just wait til the movie comes out and everyone is reminded how disappointing it is. The yes is gonna sky rocket.

[Anno_Domini]

Didn't say it was a big gap, nor was I saying the poll was done for after only being one week. Just stating facts man, that's all.

But, nonetheless, I do admire your ambition into thinking people will find it much more disappointing with it comes out on Blu-ray, lol. If this logic fits, then I wonder how many Spidey fans felt after TAS-M came out on Blu-ray/DVD

[BH/HHH]

Originally Posted by DaveMoral

Yeah, TDKR was a let down. I really liked it, but I also felt a tad bit of disconnect from it. Mostly because I followed the production way too closely, knew way too much, and twists and turns were telegraphed for me. I called Talia and the LOS before we even got set pics of Tate appearing as if she were in charge of the mercs... and I got shouted down for it, why it wouldn't happen and would be redundant yadda yadda yadda.

The 8 year gap also doesn't work for me. To me, Bruce Wayne isn't a character that would fold because he lost Rachel and because Dent died. This is a man that forged himself, over the period of a decade, into a war machine born out of tragedy. Tragedy fuels him. Rachel and Dent would just add fuel to that fire. And whatever new powers Gordon and the GCPD had after the Dent Act, Batman would have still been there. In some ways I feel like the very notion that he's been out of the game for 8 years is something Nolan did just to close the doors to anyone ever trying to do something with the character in those years. And Gordon's "we were in this together" bit to Bruce makes me thing Batman should have been there for at least 3-4 years helping Gordon by busting up the mob and any other psychos that showed their faces in those intervening years, and giving the GCPD a vigilante to chase from time to time. Bruce wouldn't give up until Gotham was as clean as could be and his body was too battered to do anymore. For him to, essentially, twiddle his thumbs for 8 years is unrealistic and uncharacteristic of Bruce Wayne even as he is presented in BB and TDK. The whole lesson of TDK, IMO, was that Batman has to keep going and endure all the pain and misery that comes his way. He has to shoulder the burden of being a pariah, while being the hero Gotham deserves.

In The Dark Knight Returns Bruce didn't even retire just because he was too old and battered to do it anymore... there was a massive government push to do away with vigilantes and vigilantism, mostly driven by Batman's methods. Superman went on government payroll, GL went to space, Green Arrow went into hiding, and Batman disappeared... after the government crack down and after Jason Todd died on the job. The federal government essentially made it impossible for Bruce Wayne to be Batman. I don't feel like TDKR set up enough of a reason for Bruce to stop for 8 years.

That's exactly how I feel

[HighFivingMF]

Yeah, I don't think it's a flaw that Batman stopped after finishing what he set out to do. Organized crime was gone, which means the corrupt cops are gone. He'd just be strolling around looking for muggings & break-ins that the cops have under control. And putting Gordon through having to pretend to chase him and then lose him somehow every time they encounter each other. Even then, he was still waiting to see if Gotham would get bad enough that it needs Batman again. Whatever though, more enjoyment for me.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by HighFivingMF

Yeah, I don't think it's a flaw that Batman stopped after finishing what he set out to do. Organized crime was gone, which means the corrupt cops are gone. He'd just be strolling around looking for muggings & break-ins that the cops have under control. And putting Gordon through having to pretend to chase him and then lose him somehow every time they encounter each other. Even then, he was still waiting to see if Gotham would get bad enough that it needs Batman again. Whatever though, more enjoyment for me.

But sadly, this time if Gotham needed Batman again, Bruce seemed like he was fine if he were to fight until his dying breath.

[ThePhantasm]

Originally Posted by DaveMoral

The 8 year gap also doesn't work for me. To me, Bruce Wayne isn't a character that would fold because he lost Rachel and because Dent died. This is a man that forged himself, over the period of a decade, into a war machine born out of tragedy. Tragedy fuels him. Rachel and Dent would just add fuel to that fire.

This is a great point. Well stated.

[Anno_Domini]

It's not concrete enough to say Rachel's death caused Bruce to retire as Batman. Bruce, while wearing the ski mask said Gotham didn't need Batman anymore because they won, which points to the Dent Act. Nothing really shows us that Bruce stopped being Batman because of Rachel's death.

[shauner111]

I can care less about what other people think. Polls, whatever. I love the movie 100 percent, and that's all that matters to me. It depends on what you're looking for in a Batman or comic book movie really.

With action movies there's certain things i want and certain things i can let go (in terms of plot holes or whatever) and the so-called "holes" that are spoken of in TDKR don't bother me at all. Skyfall is the deepest and the most emotional and perhaps intelligent Bond movie i've ever seen, yet there's a couple of "Action movie nitpicks" in there as well. And it doesn't bother me at all. It just reminds me to not take it as seriously as a film outside the genre. It wakes me up and i'm reminded it IS just an action movie. It IS just a James Bond movie. And sometimes you gotta relax and have fun with it. I appreciate that.

Every action movie, dumb or a little more intelligent than others...ALL have crappy acting at times or a plot-hole. It's just about the person you are, and what kind of stuff you're willing to let go.

If another Nolan flick that wasn't action based, had little errors then i would groan about it. Because it's no excuse. Same with a Kubrick film or Refn or Tarantino or Fincher or Aronofsky, WHOEVER. This is a Batman/Comic-Book/Superhero movie and i can take errors like the ones given to us by Nolans trilogy. What makes TDKR an achievement & not a let-down for ME is this....errors or not...the score, the performances, the cinematography, the direction, the use of villains, and some of the twists & turns are waaaay above most CBM's and regular action-flicks. And that's why i appreciate TDKR.

I feel the same way about Skyfall.

[Tanin]

The only letdown for me was that after the film was over I realized I wouldn't get to see 'Robin' be Batman in the next film.

What a great set up then.... Reboot

[shauner111]

Originally Posted by Tanin

The only letdown for me was that after the film was over I realized I wouldn't get to see 'Robin' be Batman in the next film.

What a great set up then.... Reboot

It's a great set-up but i dont think it needs a film to be honest. I'll be first in line if Rian Johnson directs JGL for a sequel, trust me . But Nolan probably never intended on a Batman sequel with JGL, or a Robin/Nightwing spin-off. It's just an idea that the symbol lives on through another generation. If you make a movie with Blake as the Batman, it might be useless actually. Because after that, you and me will be asking "Who does Blake pass the torch to? I wanna see THAT movie next!". It has the potential (story-wise) to never end. Which is probably why they should keep it as it is.

[BH/HHH]

It's weird I love it as a film but the things I pave states previously really bother me. I don't think anyone's denying its a good movie tbh I see it more as a missed opportunity as I've stated before to make multiple films instead of a trilogy.

[Fudgie]

In other words it was a letdown cos of the flaws.

[BH/HHH]

Originally Posted by Fudgie

In other words it was a letdown cos of the flaws.

It's hard to explain I don't think it's a flawed film as it is I just would have preferred they didn't do the 8 year gap or Bruce quitting etc, I just wish they had made a film that would have left it open for more Batfilms not ended this particular franchise. But I do love the film, it's quality sure there are some mistakes in it and Bane's voice was ridiculously stupid but it's a fantastic film.