The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 144

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Travesty

"Lawyer up" is a term for people who can't understand exactly what is being said to them, and when told they're wrong, uses the exact quotes to try and back peddle, to make themselves feel like they're right. Which is, exactly what you're doing.

If you still can't grasp what I said in my original post, nothing I say will help you. You're a lost cause, kid.

But hell, what do I know? I guess electrical motors sound exactly like a 350 V-8?

You asked me a question: did the Bat-pod make noise. I answered you. You then said it was "basically noiseless". Get over yourself, bud.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by the last son

Why was Selina thrown in a males prison? Were there no women prisons?

Originally Posted by Brain Damage

The Dent Act allowed it.

^ What he said. The Dent Act called for extreme measures and Selina Kyle fell under those measures when she continue to break out of captivity dating back to when she was 16.

Originally Posted by AnneFan

"Because she can take it. She's a silent thief, a seductive survivor...a dark cat."

[TheBat812]

I love the batpod sound. Still powerful sounding despite it being so quiet.

[georgec]

I have a random thought. When Nolan let the actors read the script, he kept out the ending. I was wondering, where do you guys think he cut it off?

My best guesses would either be right after Talia leaves Bane and Batman at City Hall, or right after the truck with the bomb crashes to the street below.

Or by ending, does he literally mean just the post-climax ending?

[Anno_Domini]

So, let's get this back on track now, shall we?

Originally Posted by milost

TDKR retcons everything.


Supposedly, Joker doesn't even exist now for all we know.

....

AGAIN with Joker. You know full well why he's not even mentioned, so why do you continue to bring the name up? It's a 'damn if you do, damn if you don't' scenario I guess when Christopher Nolan decided not to use Joker or even mentioned him as he thought it would be for the best and yet people still complain even when they know that Chris thought it was for the best. Oh well, still can't please everyone, lol.

Supposedly, there was this young boy named John Blake that saw Bruce Wayne who was visiting orphanages (despite Bruce Wayne never showing any signs of doing anything like that in Begins and Dark Knight). He saw Bruce Wayne and could feel, in his bones that he was Batman because he had the same anger and made the same faces in a mirror (creepy). Oh, and he's also an orphan and one of the few people that can put together the fact that Bruce Wayne = Batman.

I guess you just looked past the fact that Bruce Wayne was trying to make his parents proud and that included buying back Wayne Enterprises and keeping it under the right "ruling" while Earle was trying to sell it to just anyone. Him showing that initiative can easily prove that Wayne would go out for charities or what have you, unless you wanted to see it happen, and in that case, you would never be happy unless you see it and that's why you view it as a retcon, lol.

That's nothing like showing a guy with a gun and having Uncle Ben dying the next scene and then another film explains that there was another guy involved

And...Robin John Blake witnessed his father die, such as a young Bruce Wayne with his parents. You're saying that shouldn't happen when Robin feels the same pain or that there should be plenty of other orphans that witnessed their parents die as well?

Supposedly, during 2005's Batman Begins. Michael Caine was visiting Italy for the 7 years to look for Bruce. He would go to a specific cafe and buy a specific drink, each day at a certain time to see if Bruce was there. Not only Bruce, but Bruce's fictional family.

So you WANTED us to see Alfred going to Italy sometime during BB's events when it would be the most idiotic thing to show(especially when all that happens when Bruce goes missing)? Lol. Now you're making these too easy for me.

Yeah, and that's why he had him declared dead? Made funny quips about him looking "fashionable", that Bruce could borrow the Rolls if he'd like. Yeah, in Batman Begins he didn't do that Italy crap, clearly.

You should watch Batman Begins before you continue.

Earle declared Bruce Wayne dead.

And why wouldn't Alfred joke around with Bruce? And how in the hell does joking around take away the idea of him going to Italy for all those years? Reaching there now, milost.

Supposedly there was more to Ducard's story about his wife that he forgot to fill Bruce in on (despite being his best friend and greatest student during the time). Turns out he had a daughter named Talia, who had a friend named Mister Bane that were trapped in a pit that his wife went into for Ducard's crimes.

And...Ra's al Ghul(as Ducard) needed to tell Bruce those "extra bits"? Lol, again, you're reaching just to try and prove a point. Let alone, why would he try to tell all of the truth about Talia and what have you when he doesn't even tell Bruce he's the ****ing real Ra's al Ghul?

Supposedly Sandman was really the killer of Uncle Ben, not the car jacker. Sandman was the car jacker's partner and accidentally killed Uncle Ben with a gun while the car jacker ran off.

Supposedly the Osborn's butler, Bernard, witnessed Peter Parker/Spider-Man drop a dead Norman Osborn off on the couch and cleaned his wounds from his glider. He kept this news to himself and never told Norman's son, who, very openly, wanted to kill Spider-Man (who is also his best friend).

These need no replies as you're continuing to grasp unto something that isn't there.

But Blake doesn't think Batman is a killer so why not mention the Joker too?


Uh oh.

Christ, you would think someone would understand why Joker isn't mentioned when I've said it countless of times and you say you know the reason why as well. I'm starting to think you don't...

Hey man, there were more cool cops up there on the rooftop with Stephens wanting to talk to Batman.

They had beer out and everything. "Man, he doesn't want to talk to us"

Why did they want to talk to Batman there? To arrest him? C'mon. You know what I meant in my initial post.

Lol, they were "cool cops" and not just cops doing their jobs, huh? Please, tell me your theory on why you think they were "cool cops".

Let's see,

Begins had that weird kid from Game of Thornes. All the kids thought he was a loser because he believed in a bat thing or something. Batman was cool and threw him some expensive Wayne Tech device.

The Dark Knight had Jimmy Gordon who was pretty confused when his dad started getting all preachy and saying that "Batman isn't a hero, but he is a hero, but not the one it needs right now".



But I don't think they knew that Bruce was Batman like Blake did they? Did I miss something?




Yeah, I'm going to go with what I constantly see no matter how many times it's defended. The Blake "I know who you are because . . ." is convoluted and Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are much better films, especially in the script/screenplay/writing area.

Ahh, so you need to watch TDKR too as well as BB.

The orphans that believed in Batman WITHOUT knowing who the **** he is. As I said, children had a lot of faith in Batman all through Bruce's career as the caped crusader, and it's not just TDKR that drives that theme home, even if you don't want to believe it.

Really? Alrighty then.


But the fact of the matter is, he had the "truth about Harvey Dent", was ready to read it and the audience didn't even bat an eye when he stopped dead in his tracks.

So what was he going to say? Something good about the man? In that tone? At a ceremony for Dent? He doesn't even say anything great about him, just "blah, blah, blah, Blackgate".


Pretty odd but then again, Gotham isn't very bright in TDKR. Not the police force (even Gordon is slipping), not it's citizens so maybe that is a nitpick on my part.

Once again nitpicking at something that isn't there. Gordon's demeanor was fine, and while he strayed away at certain moments, it's nothing that's going to raise any eyebrows. No one raised eyebrows during Dent's press conference when Bruce was about to move as Dent called for The Batman.

No, it's not TDK's problem because TDK ends where it ends. Even if the speech and choice at the end, as over the top and melodramatic as it is, doesn't explain the ramifications of it's own action, it doesn't matter, it doesn't have to.

It probably should have ended right there, with Batman riding off in the sun set. It's a great, powerful ending. Maybe more powerful than TDKR's even as far as "BATMAN: THE DARK KNIGHT, GOTHAM'S SILENT GUARDIAN" goes.

You can't fault the ending, it's an ending after all (and impressive one at that) you have to fault the sequel. The sequel automatically takes in that baggage, (like it or not) when you have the same writers, same cast and same crew, making a SEQUEL four years later. They could do anything they wanted but they chose to screw the pooch on the aftermath, the explanations.


It's not up to The Dark Knight, it has no bearing on it. "All we know is the situation". What do we see when it flashes ahead into the future that pertains to the conspiracy?


1. Harvey Dent ceremony

2. Gordon at a televised event, smashing the Batsignal

3. Batman riding off in the night (which might not even be that night since it's unused footage from the Joker chase)


We don't know how it works or even if it does work. We don't know if the city is doubting the lie, or buying it. We don't know if Batman's active or if he's not.

That's not the point, the point is that Batman "becomes the villain" so Dent's name isn't tarnished and the city doesn't lose hope. That's pretty much it. That's all it has to say at that point in time. It's the sequels job, after it confirms that "okay, yeah, it did work", to explain how it worked.

But it doesn't. It just creates new issues (see "retcons") to distract you from what happened the last film. New situations, a pretty big time jump, exclusions, etc.



This isn't The Dark Knight's problem. As far as it's concerned, as a separate entity from TDKR, the Joker still exists and was just caught that very night, Coleman Reese is still taking in the fact that people just tried to kill him, Ramirez is waking up from being clubbed, Barbara is in tears because of what Gordon is going to make her do.

TDKR? Not resolved, not resolved, not resolved. If anything, they put even MORE emphasis on Dent, too much even, where it crushes Dark Knight. Look at what they do. "Harvey Dent Day?", "Harvey Dent Act", Blackgate, pictures of him everywhere. Woah, woah, that just makes people want to question it more. It's not very subtle at all.

I mean, yeah, TDK had the premise that if Dent were found out to be guilty of anything, those low life guys he put away would be back on the streets and there MIGHT not be 18 months of clean streets. The worst thing is that, Dent and the Mayor would be out on the streets and would be laughing stocks at what they tried to achieve. I mean, that's not what the end of TDK was all about. It wasn't "if people find out that Dent did this, this city dies". No, it was "if people find out, people will lose hope". Gotham just proved itself, WITHOUT Harvey Dent with the ferries. Dent was big, but he wasn't "peace time, no Batman" big. Not what TDKR makes it out to be. Batman takes the blame because he owes it to Dent, and Rachel. Dent did the same for him. He does it so, at that point in time, the city doesn't lose hope or think that Dent is bad. He does it so the Joker doesn't win this battle. He does it because he can take it, it doesn't matter if he's a villain or not, he was a criminal before he took the blame. He's a Dark Knight.


That's it really. I mean, those mob guys on the streets? Uhh, those guys just proved themselves (well some of them) by not blowing up the other ferries. They're really the catalyst for "peace time"? The low level guys? Who are they going to go back to? The Joker eliminated the mob utterly. The Joker was the new threat, and he's not even dead or defeated?



TDKR not only makes the mistake of not giving explanations, but being too grandiose and too big for itself to handle.


Seeing Bruce Wayne's story unfold and taking him to new places is fine, TDKR tries to do that, but come on. We get,

Dent Days and Acts, Batman statues, unspecified prison pits, huge nuclear bombs, a city closed off from the rest of the world, class wars (we never see), the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Where's The Dark Knight's PLOT resolution? It's not important? Than don't make it seem important with

Hahahaha!

I cannot take you seriously now when you don't even admit that it's TDK's problem when Batman clearly takes the blame right then and there and they don't put the blame on Joker and you continue to bash TDKR for that idea. It's a shame, really, as I thought you would be a smart one to debate with but you're clearly just nitpicking a film with no reasoning now.

You want to make it seem like the League of Shadows, again, a secret organization that nobody knows about that is a NARROWS/ARKHAM ASYLUM/INMATE ESCAPE/LED BY SAME DRUG SELLING CRANE situation, is as big and as important as the Harvey Dent lie? The thing that bridges the two films?

Okay, let's say the LoS is as big as you make it. Atleast TDK ignores it completely and doesn't make the audience question it.

TDKR is built off it!

For someone who would say the Gotham citizens are just slow, I'm surprised you don't see it as making the Gothamites slow again when they don't question anything about the monorail incident since NO ARKHAM INMATES, INCLUDING DR. CRANE were on that train and yet the LoS should be brushed off because they're a "secret organization", lol.

Do you see what I'm saying? TDK handled Batman Begins loose ends very, very well. We saw the Joker card? We got the Joker? The Narrows is lost? Scarecrow is on the loose? We got it. Escalation, we got it?

Loose is right. Zero mention of the Narrows "cleanup", zero mention of the monorail being worked on, zero mention of the LoS. If you don't want a regular citizen talking about the LoS, why not Bruce with Alfred?

At least the Ten Rings gets a nod in Iron Man 2.

What did you want, a scene where Batman says, "well, the Narrows isn't under investigation because nobody knows what the League of Shadows is, they think it's Crane and half the inmates HE FREED (Gordon says that)". Well gee, I guess that is as big as what happens between TDK and TDKR isn't it?

Yah, something like that

No, I was thinking about a mention of the Narrows by Gordon and how the cleanup is doing, by, maybe, oh, I don't know...Harvey Dent who's trying to clean up Gotham as much as Batman? And for the LoS, oh, I don't know...maybe in conversation between Bruce and Alfred?

Oh, just my two cents on it all

But see, they were already doubling up before Joker had the "make Harvey Dent a super criminal".

Dent was Joker's ace in the hole, you don't think he had even more after everything he pulled (if his story was allowed to continued)? Hell, just days before, he was trying to kill Harvey Dent. Kill him. He wanted to kill Batman at some point too. But that all changed. Joker even wiped out all of the mob.


Joker was going to do anything he could to cause chaos. The last plan we see of his is turning Dent into a bad guy, make the city lose hope. I don't think the outcome of Joker's plan, had it "failed" (can you beat the Joker?) was "if I lose, this city is going to get much, much better". Look at his hired help. Look what happened with Coleman Reese before Dent was even let loose. Chaos, chaos, chaos. Joker just kept topping himself and topping himself, win after win. One loss and that's all over?


He also said, "I think you and I are destined to do this forever", look what became of that. Sure, Batman had that little rebuttal, but are we really supposed to believe that, THE JOKER, the guy that no cage or prison could contain, was done after his reign? The guy who actually did have complete control over the city that night?

I don't think so. If his character (which is a great one, just as great and as fantastic as Batman/Bruce Wayne) is anything to go by, he'd go again and again and again, new plan after new plan, just like he did before when it was, simply, "kill public officials, kill Dent, kill Batman, take control of the city".

And how did they double up when Dent "wasn't" the criminal?

The only line during that scene that contradicts anything is Joker's "we're destined to do this forever" thing, but I can look past that one little remark if the idea was always going to retire Bruce Wayne anyways since Nolan did say they always had an idea on how to end the story.

[Anno_Domini]

Where is that monorail (the part affected) Anno? Oh that's right, the Narrows.

LOL! Really, milost?

Wayne Tower was NOT in the Narrows and the part of the monorail that was affected was NOT trashed in the Narrows.

Who is everyone questioning at Arkham Anno? Oh that's right, Crane.

They're questioning someone who's not around, milost? Interesting, hahahaha.

What did Ra's say about Crane Anno? Oh that's right, that he wanted to HOLD THE CITY RANSOM.

Who knew that besides Ra's, milost? NOBODY.

Who is the blank (and "he") in Gordon's line at the end of Begins Anno? "We still haven't picked up the half the inmates he freed". I don't think that's Ra's or the League of Shadows.

Oh Lordy, milost...to think I thought you were going to be fun to talk to.

And I never said GORDON should know about Ra's. Only that Ra's and the League should have been mentioned somehow

Who burned down Bruce's mansion Anno? Oh that's right, Bruce did.

Again, you're twisting my words around by me wanting the LoS to be mentioned

Did Batman say he was going to help Gordon "bring Gotham back" by apprehending Crane? While I'm not entirely sure, I'd say he does just that in TDK.

Yah, go with your gut more often. Bringing ONE inmate down is not bringing Gotham back when they still had to take care of the mob that was transferred to another power(Maroni) when Falcone can't do his job anymore. Him telling Gordon that WASN'T just about the Narrows.

What is Crane selling in TDK before he's caught Anno? Oh, that's right, the same stuff that poisoned ALL OF THE NARROWS!

No one knows that and nothing is given to believe that. Crane could have created his own drugs. How in the hell could it be the stuff in the Narrows when it's mentioned in BB that they got ALL OF THE DRUGS IN THE PIPES?

So what am I missing here? You really think with all your heart, that no mention of the LoS, is just as bad as what transpires (or doesn't transpire) between TDK and TDKR.


Come on, you must be joking.

I could be saying the same to you, milost.

Sure they could have? Should they have though? I ask again, you really feel like the lack of LoS mention (that secret organization) is as big as the jump between TDK and TDKR?

Or was that even a problem for you until people criticize TDKR's lack of follow up? Just curious.

Should they have? That's a big ol' YES. They are a big deal even if you say a "secret organization" shouldn't be mentioned, lol.

Yes he can. They knew he was a man, that was common knowledge and they had Coleman Reese, who just days prior, clearly stated he knew the true identity of Batman (and the city clearly knew he wasn't bluffing).


To hunt Batman, you find out who he really is. To hunt Batman, you make an investigation.


Atleast Batman Begins didn't end with the characters saying, "we're going to hunt down all those responsible for the events at the Narrows, EVERYONE". It doesn't do that.


But the Dark Knight does say, "they'll hunt me, set the dogs on me" and even ends with cops chasing down Batman until he hops on the Batpod. Do we ever see or hear that he's been hunted? Nope. (And don't be funny and say, "well last night, the dogs actually were set on him", you know exactly what I mean.


Gordon also says, "because he can take it", but obviously he can't if the last confirmed sighting of Batman is that very night and he's never heard from again. Bruce most likely hanged it up that night, no matter what fan conjecture is created.

Again, Batman cannot be hunted down when he's not around anymore. No one knows who Batman is except for Reese too and you honestly think Reese would tell? Unless you believe they will torture Reese until he spills the beans, or, you know, Reese could say he was only bluffing...but, no, you wouldn't want to think that now, would ya?

Hey, atleast it was mentioned in the virals. Pretty faithfully I might add.


Atleast in a viral we didn't get a wanted poster of Batman, with descriptions of his EYE color, height and weight but find out when we see the actual film that the police never pursued finding out who Batman actually was, chief.

Viral marketing that once again, is not canon when I don't pay attention to it, nor do the majority which is the general audience. Sad to think you're putting so much into it, lol.

Also no sightings of anyone up in there. I swear I saw the Narrows in complete chaos with everyone but Rachel, Gordon and Batman hallucinating.

Who saw who was involved with the train? Could it have been, *gasp* some of those inmates that Gordon mentions that Crane freed. OMG, why didn't I think of that before!

So when people outside of the Narrows see the train past, such as Loeb, you think he's hallucinating when his mind isn't ****ed up? Lol, oh how I enjoy how you reach there, milost.

TDKR does some pretty crazy stuff, almost seems like a different world completely. If I don't buy into it, why would it be crazy to disregard it and see it as a "what if" story? They're just movies after all. I see the whole, "I loved Begins and Dark Knight, but don't like TDKR brought often", why not disregard it?

Don't buy it then, you'd be only one person to NOT to, milost, lol.

I know you did Anno, I know you did. But I wouldn't call them 2.0.


And yeah, why wouldn't Ra's tell "his greatest student", about that guy that was too extreme and could be a potential threat to the LoS?

You said it yourself, he tells Bruce about his "wife he lost", why wouldn't he tell him about his psycho daughter (whom he was on bad terms with)? I'd say if you want somebody standing at your side to save the world, that's a pretty big thing you wouldn't want to leave out.


Nolan and Co. could have wrote that, in Begins, Bruce and Bane were brothers (which happened in the comics actually), wouldn't make it true would it?

He should have told his "greatest student" that he was really Ra's al Ghul before he talks about ex-communicating someone

Except nothing is done about the stock exchange despite the fact that it's an actual robbery, that everyone sees, in broad day light (unless you consider it night time with that 7 minute time change, lol)

You're missing the entire point. The, will call them "old" LoS was shrouded in mystery. Nobody knew about them. They operated in secrecy. They're a cult of ninjas.

You think when they ruined the economy before Wayne's time they went in, guns a blazin' with motorcycle? Ummm, no. Ra's makes it clear how the LoS opperates.


Talia and Bane are anything but that. They practically announce themselves to the world.

Hold up, did you REALLY think I meant they did the EXACT plan as shown in TDKR before when I mentioned the LoS did the financial route earlier with Gotham City before BB's events?

Fair enough. If that's how you feel.

Yep!

Ah, but I even said that was simply a scenario I presented. Like you, I presented other scenarios as well.


My gripe isn't that it went this way, or that way, it was that such an important issue with such an important thread is simply abandoned and never even given an explanation. Not that the said explanation wasn't right or appropriate.

You say it doesn't matter, I say it does.

If you find it matters, then great. To me, it doesn't. It's a dirty cop that has everything to lose and nothing to gain in telling the truth and when she isn't shown during that montage, it looked as if she just left her job as a detective.

I wouldn't mind or take offense with it. I promise you, I'm not being haughty or mad.

I think TDKR is very flawed, and while I can see Gordon attempting to do whatever he could to make it seem like Batman was really a villain (which, in and of itself would be a very, very compelling film and story), I don't buy, based on Begins and The Dark Knight, that it would just happen.

Cleveland and his family was a nice touch. That's logical, I can put that together myself. But everything else, nah, don't buy it. Can't. Won't.

I found TDK to be just as flawed, but I don't make much of a ruckus as some with TDKR, lol. And I can go with the flow of the idea of Gordon making Batman to be a bad guy because it had to work for Gordon and Batman to agree on that lie. If not, then the ending of TDK is pointless.

I'm sure we agree on a lot of things (except TDKR). I love Batman Begins and The Dark Knight for starters.

Indeed. Now, unless you say you loved Spider-Man 3...lol.

When I first saw him in Begins, my thinking (and I'm going to assume others as well) was, "someday, Gordon will be Commissioner". That was pretty much it.

I wouldn't say most thought that at all. I saw it as something was going to happen to Loeb for Gordon to get that spot and I'm glad it showed in TDK.

Oh, speaking of investigations. Even before Batman killed good old Harvey Dent, before Dent even existed, Loeb had issued a hunt against the Batman. That was before people knew he was a man and thought he was anything from a ghost to elvis though.

Your point?

Never said it was a mistake, I posted it was a insignificant, especially when there are other characters out there that are more important that don't get any such appearance or even a reference.

So when Bane needed an extra member of Wayne Enterprises, it should've been just some random guy? Bringing in Fredericks as well as the other guy in TDK played by that one senator were nice little return cameos. No one besides you would ever make such a statement that it was unnecessary.

Alright and I've stated that I understand that.

Still doesn't mean that it doesn't put a hole in the "Trilogy" and make TDK and TDKR worlds apart. Recasting after what happened to Ledger is one thing, I totally get that, but not mentioning the character that was a living breathing entity in not only TDK, but Batman Begins as well.

Alrighty then. I don't think a mention would have disrespected Heath Ledger, but, maybe that's just me.

It's a hole if you continue to think about it. It's not to me knowing why Joker's not brought up.

Well, at this point, if you've been reading what I've been posting (thank you for keeping up with me, I've never experienced something like this before), you'll know that Zsaz was out of his mind, BEFORE the fear toxin.

I'm sure he'll be a reliable witness in the oh so important investigation of the Narrows incident. Or maybe I'm just shrugging it off to make it not seem as important as, THE BATMAN BEING BLAMED FOR DENT'S CRIMES.

Reliable witness to not noticing anything as he was more fascinated on cutting up Rachel before he was knocked out? Lol.

Well at least TDK had self contained logic and didn't break it's own rules?

Instead TDK had no rules, lol.

TDKR is all over the place with what can and can't happen, not just with crime and law. Bruce can get a magical knee brace (but never used it for 8 years), he can just somehow get into Gotham despite no one being able to get in or out, etc. etc.

The knee brace is fine. It's technology from Wayne Enterprises that's out of this world as it was in TDK even.

And Bruce Wayne was taught how to be a ninja...and you question how he gets back to Gotham?

Atleast TDK distracts you with it's mumbo jumbo with it's smart writing and you aren't taken out of the film the second it happens and think, "woah, wait a second, what the heck? LOL"

Didn't distract me, lol.

Yeah, I see it brought up all the time.

I certainly don't think that. He quit because "Gotham no longer needed Batman, cuz we gots special Harvey Dent days and acts".

It gets brought up because sadly no one understands that Batman was only there from the beginning to take out the mob and the Dent Act finally achieved such.

But we know he has plan after plan, after plan and controls most of the city, from cops to the mob.

He was able to nab Rachel and Dent. How did he do it, two polar opposites. The mob and the cops.

I think he could sneak in explosives here and there, couldn't he?

He nabbed Rachel and Dent both by two dirty cops; it wasn't "polar opposites".

And sure, he can sneak in explosives, but that's lazy writing, don't ya think?

LOL


You think that's good writing? It's practically a rip off of Good will hunting (which is not only done in just one film, but is actually a very good scene with an excellent pay off). You just buy that Alfred goes on this long rant about this weird dream he had, despite how we see him in Begins and TDK (where he's actually supporting Batman).


Well, okay. Personally, I found it insulting to just plug that into the events of TDKR. I'd by lying if I said I didn't think it was a "tad" convoluted.


But hey, different strokes for different folks I guess.

Rip-off or not, it's fine writing and it would be silly to ask to see Alfred showing up in Italy when there would be no "right place" in the beginning of BB to even show it as you would like to see, lol.

Q: Why isn't Flass in or mentioned in Dark Knight, was he as crucial as Ramirez and the Joker to that film's ending.

A: He wasn't mentioned because he wasn't important. Stephens replaced him.

Stephens replaced him? How did you come up with THAT answer? Lol.

No, because, unlike you, I'm not creating made up "reasons" for why she isn't mentioned or appears in TDKR.


My gripe, and my gripe with her alone is that she isn't mentioned at all. What's this based off of? Her importance. Pardon me, but I'd have to say you're pretty crazy (in a good, funny way) if you don't think she was crucial involving the whole Dent stuff.


What does TDKR use as a jumping board? The Dent stuff.

Making up reasons like Stephens replaced Flass, haha.

Your opinion, your entitled to it. I know how you feel, and you know how I feel. Can't say I agree with you.

Likewise. But, doesn't hurt replying to all of this even if tiring as hell, haha. I'm sure you can agree to that as well.

I don't think so. You got the Dark Knight Trilogy Screenplay book? Go check it out.

There's a reason TDKR took a little longer than usual for a bat film. There's a reason Nolan said after TDK he "wasn't sure if he wanted to make another Batman film", there's a reason his brother and Goyer had to practically to convince him to use Catwoman and Bane in a potential story (they said this, not me).


It's because they were working up a story as they went along. I'm just glad they didn't pull the old George Lucas card and say "we knew from the beginning what we wanted to do, we had it all planned". With TDKR, we see, that they actually didn't. Maybe they had in it in the back of their heads how Bruce Wayne would end up, I buy that, but the transition between TDK to TDKR, nah, I don't think they knew how to get there.

Makes sense when they started TDKR right after TDK

Only if you don't. I promise bud.

Deal!

Of course. I expected nothing else!

Likewise!

And....

finished!

[Gotham's Knight]

Wow. I'm not going to get too involved in that since I think you handled it pretty well but I want to address how Bruce got back to Gotham:

We are shown how to get inside the city with the special ops agents. Why are they there? To show us that you can get into Gotham using the supply trucks. Why not just show Bruce doing it? Because his return, sneaking up on Selina and the audience, was a Batman moment and just awesome.

[milost]

Before I dig into this one and come out triumphant, the only thing I got "wrong" was about Earle declaring Bruce dead, not Alfred.

Easy mistake. Doesn't mean I need to "rewatch it" again. And I couldn't be paid to watch TDKR again, well, other than the Catwoman scenes.


So . . . here . . . we, GO!

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

LOL! Really, milost?

Wayne Tower was NOT in the Narrows and the part of the monorail that was affected was NOT trashed in the Narrows.

The train never reached Wayne tower though. Where did the situation begin. Arkham and the Narrows. Not everyone knew of the train's importance and it didn't even reach it's destination.


Remember, inmates, Crane, Gotham ransom. You mustn't forget what Ra's said like you keep continuing to seemingly ignore.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

They're questioning someone who's not around, milost? Interesting, hahahaha.

Crane wasn't caught yet, Batman was still looking for him. He's caught in Dark Knight though.

In Batman Begins, Batman, Gordon and the GCPD are looking for CRANE and HALF the inmates that HE freed.


That alone proves my point about all this. Gordon and Co. aren't saying "half the inmates that Ra's or the LoS freed", they're saying "CRANE".


CRANE, CRANE, CRANE, ARKHAM, ARKHAM, ARKHAM, INMATES, INMATES, INMATES.

It doesn't get much more clear than that. Your argument would hold much more water for TDKR and it's lack of explanations if Crane/Scarecrow was never mentioned or appeared again in The Dark Knight. But, there he was.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Who knew that besides Ra's, milost? NOBODY.

Then how come Gordon and everyone are looking for Crane and not Ra's by the end of Batman Begins? How come before that, Gordon is interrogating Crane and not getting any info out of him.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Oh Lordy, milost...to think I thought you were going to be fun to talk to.

And I never said GORDON should know about Ra's. Only that Ra's and the League should have been mentioned somehow

I'm not fun to talk to? That really hurts bro.

But I digress, I gotcha here. Time to yield.

So if Gordon doesn't know about Ra's or the LoS (he doesn't) as a Lt. and being the one involved in directly helping the Narrows situation, it's safe to say that Loeb and the rest of the force wouldn't as well, correct?


Your whole argument wasn't "why LoS and Ra's is never mentioned", you specifically stated an "investigation". LOL Ya messed up there pal.

So if everyone but Batman and Alfred are oblivious to who did what in the Narrows and on that monorail, then why should the League be mentioned. That story, that loose end, is wrapped up.


Again, it's nothing like the Dent thing by the end of TDK. You clearly just used that as an argument because you seem to think the lack of reasoning for how the whole conspiracy even worked is a okay. We don't agree there, never will, no matter how many times we quote each other.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Again, you're twisting my words around by me wanting the LoS to be mentioned

Yeah, because there's really no reason for them to be mentioned. You know it, I know it.


Only Bruce and Alfred are in the know, to everyone else like Gordon and the higher ups, it was a Narrows incident (starting specifically with Arkham) with inmates and Crane involved.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Yah, go with your gut more often. Bringing ONE inmate down is not bringing Gotham back when they still had to take care of the mob that was transferred to another power(Maroni) when Falcone can't do his job anymore. Him telling Gordon that WASN'T just about the Narrows.

I never said it was just Crane? I included Crane because of your fascination with the LoS, Ra's and Narrows events.

Of course there are other problems that need fixing, that's what TDK is all about. LOL

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

No one knows that and nothing is given to believe that. Crane could have created his own drugs. How in the hell could it be the stuff in the Narrows when it's mentioned in BB that they got ALL OF THE DRUGS IN THE PIPES?

LOL


You need to watch Begins AND Dark Knight again Anno.


Crane's compound is a derivative from the flower. Remember when Bruce clearly states he "felt those effects before" after Scarecrow gassed him. It's because Crane got a hold of it.


If you think the compound in Dark Knight is different, the way the guy is helpless on the ground losing his mind (like Batman, Rachel and everyone in the Narrows), well I don't know what to say. Scarecrow's stuff is clearly the same as the gas in Begins. It's the same stuff Ra's had Bruce breathe in during his training (but not as potent), the same stuff Scarecrow uses on Batman, and the same stuff that he sells in the Dark Knight ("I told you my compound would take you places, I never said they'd be placed you wanted me to go")




Hey, all of SHH. I think Anno has lost his head a bit, tell him I'm right! The guy doesn't even seem to get Scarecrow/Crane's involvement in the first two films!




LOL

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Should they have? That's a big ol' YES. They are a big deal even if you say a "secret organization" shouldn't be mentioned, lol.

Nope, it shouldn't because it wouldn't have fit in the Dark Knight. They mention enough events that happened in Begins, practically all of them. A Ra's mention or a LoS mention would have been totally inappropriate and you know it.

Ra's actually is mentioned subtlety with Bruce's "criminals aren't complicated" line to Bruce when he's looking at the Joker on his monitors.

So there you go.


No offense, but you're clearly finding fault with the "no LoS and Ra's" thing as a rebuttal for TDKR's failure with the events that follow TDK. Not sure what you're deal is since you even agree about Reese (which you get into down below). Can't you just admit that, as far as what we're discussing so far, that Begins followed by The Dark Knight succeeds while the events after The Dark Knight to TDKR are sloppy and messy?



I'm not the only one who has ever found fault with it. I don't remember people saying in 2008 that, "OH MY GOD, THIS IS HOW NOLAN FOLLOWS UP BATMAN BEGINS, NO MENTION OF LEAGUE OF SHADOWS?".


Nope, it's clearly different. And even if I was wrong, it's still not as big as how the Dent lie magically worked without any explanation once so ever. Especially when Nolan and Co. made Harvey Dent and the city's response of such important.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Again, Batman cannot be hunted down when he's not around anymore. No one knows who Batman is except for Reese too and you honestly think Reese would tell? Unless you believe they will torture Reese until he spills the beans, or, you know, Reese could say he was only bluffing...but, no, you wouldn't want to think that now, would ya?

Hahahahahahahaha.


"Batman cannot be hunted down when he's not around anymore."


Yes, yes he can. That's like saying, "a criminal can't be hunted because he's not around anymore". Pardon my demeanor, but do you know how stupid that sounds.


And now you've officially fallen back on something that I really haven't done, full blown conjecture. You've just lost your argument. Before, we were in agreement about Reese, but now you've totally "explained" that one too, just like you did with Ramirez.


Point of the matter is, it's never explained, and it should have been. TDKR simply sidesteps it. That's a fact. It gives us the AFTERMATH, 8 years into the future conveniently , but it never says how.


If you don't think it's important, but you're a fan of The Dark Knight, well, I guess I'm speechless.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Viral marketing that once again, is not canon when I don't pay attention to it, nor do the majority which is the general audience. Sad to think you're putting so much into it, lol.

Alright then. And no, I'm not putting too much thought into it, I'm just saying how it is.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

So when people outside of the Narrows see the train past, such as Loeb, you think he's hallucinating when his mind isn't ****ed up? Lol, oh how I enjoy how you reach there, milost.

Hahaha, me reaching?


You're the one that supposedly thinks that Loeb sees the train or cares about it.

And creating untold scenarios for not just Ramirez, but Reese now too.



Back to the Narrows situation, the fact of the matter is, the only guys that are really concerned about the train or see it is the old guy at Wayne Tower and the dude that's with him.



Hahaha, you want reaching, how about the explanation that, CRANE AND THE INMATES WERE A PART OF THE TRAIN SITUATION!


Let's remember, they didn't find anything considering the damn thing blew up. There's also, again, that conversation that you just love (or continue to disregard) between Gordon and Batman at the end of Begins.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Don't buy it then, you'd be only one person to NOT to, milost, lol.

Alright?

Majority, minority? Who cares? This is how I feel (or, from your perspective, how you feel).

There isn't a right or wrong here.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

He should have told his "greatest student" that he was really Ra's al Ghul before he talks about ex-communicating someone

No, that's different.


But not even Talia? He mentions his wife, why not the daughter that he found, but also lost later?


Point of the matter is, as far as Batman Begins, the 2005 story, and film are considered, Bane and Talia don't exist. They simply don't. Nolan and Goyer didn't have them in their head when they made it, so that's actually true. That's my point.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Hold up, did you REALLY think I meant they did the EXACT plan as shown in TDKR before when I mentioned the LoS did the financial route earlier with Gotham City before BB's events?

Of course not.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

If you find it matters, then great. To me, it doesn't. It's a dirty cop that has everything to lose and nothing to gain in telling the truth and when she isn't shown during that montage, it looked as if she just left her job as a detective.

Obviously it doesn't matter to you, which is why we're having the conversation we're having now.


Your only fault with TDKR is the fact that it's not longer (which you also defend with conjecture by saying it was the IMAX running time). So I think we both know how you feel and how you'll continue to feel here, no matter what anyone thinks or states, right or wrong.


Good for you. I mean it. That's not sarcasm. That's the way you roll I guess and that's fine. You like TDKR, you find it to be mostly fault free. Good for you.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

I found TDK to be just as flawed, but I don't make much of a ruckus as some with TDKR, lol. And I can go with the flow of the idea of Gordon making Batman to be a bad guy because it had to work for Gordon and Batman to agree on that lie. If not, then the ending of TDK is pointless.

I don't agree.


There's a reason more and more people rip TDKR in terms of story and plot, and let me tell you, it ain't "hating to hate". There are reasons for it.


Never had that problem with The Dark Knight.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Indeed. Now, unless you say you loved Spider-Man 3...lol.

Nope. Spider-man 3 was just as disappointing as TDKR. Both of them aren't as good as what preceded them. Not by a long shot.


They're not failures by any means, but they are disappointments imo.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

I wouldn't say most thought that at all. I saw it as something was going to happen to Loeb for Gordon to get that spot and I'm glad it showed in TDK.

I didn't say most either. Hahahahahaha.

I try to avoid hyperbole.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Your point?

Goes back to that "Batman isn't around so we can't hunt him" nonsense that you continue to bring up.


Before, Batman was almost mystical. By the end of TDK, everyone knows he's a man (thanks to the Joker).


Last time I checked, you can hunt a person, even if they go into hiding. Especially if you're GCPD.

[milost]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

So when Bane needed an extra member of Wayne Enterprises, it should've been just some random guy? Bringing in Fredericks as well as the other guy in TDK played by that one senator were nice little return cameos. No one besides you would ever make such a statement that it was unnecessary.

Except, as TDKR clearly shows with it's flawed script, you can basically write anything you want.

Why do you need the extra board members? Just use Fox and Talia.

Need an extra, forget the random senator who's a fan of Batman. You can literally write and choose whatever you want.


Doesn't mean it's good (in my case), doesn't mean it's bad (in yours). It's simply a choice. Most of the choices with this story I don't agree with, especially when it comes to "you chose to do this, but not that". You're the exact opposite. I'm almost convinced Nolan and Co. could have made anything and you would have liked it.

Almost.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

It's a hole if you continue to think about it. It's not to me knowing why Joker's not brought up.

And that's a familiar thing in these threads is it not. "It's not to me", "it is to me". Well, clearly we're both two different people (and different from everyone else on these boards).


For me, the Joker was pretty important in these films (well not in TDKR). In fact, I'd go as far as saying one of the most important. It also doesn't help that The Joker, and Ledger is THE best thing about these latest Batman films.

To not even mention him or allude to the idea that he's out there, somewhere, doesn't sit right with me (I'm talking about the character, not the actor). Even if the director had a problem with it. You can still respect what he had done and what had happened in 2007 even with a mention, imo.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Reliable witness to not noticing anything as he was more fascinated on cutting up Rachel before he was knocked out? Lol.

But wait a second, you brought up Zsaz, not me!


DON'T TURN IT AROUND ON ME!

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

The knee brace is fine. It's technology from Wayne Enterprises that's out of this world as it was in TDK even.

Of course it is. Everything is fine. It's all great . . . for you.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

And Bruce Wayne was taught how to be a ninja...and you question how he gets back to Gotham?

Again, of course it is. Everything is fine. It's all great . . . for you.




"Didn't distract me, lol."

Distracted me.

"Didn't bother me."


Bothered me.


"I didn't think so."


I think so.



Well no crap. I think we know where the other stands at this point. I'm not Anno, I'm milost.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

It gets brought up because sadly no one understands that Batman was only there from the beginning to take out the mob and the Dent Act finally achieved such.

Till . . . wait for it . . . (I gotta do this, you know what I'm doing)





















































THE JOKER!

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

He nabbed Rachel and Dent both by two dirty cops; it wasn't "polar opposites".

Both were associated with the mob and police, hence polar opposites.


"Does it depress you to know just how alone you really are."


Joker had control and had his hands in everything. From cops (dirty or clean, cops are cops like ducks are ducks, remember?) to the mob.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

And sure, he can sneak in explosives, but that's lazy writing, don't ya think?

Nope. He's the Joker. Nuff said really. Look at all the things he had done prior to the Hospital and Ferries.


Would have bogged down the story explaining everything.


And before you yell, "HYPOCRITICAL, HYPOCRITICAL", explanations wouldn't bog down TDKR considering it was a sequel and building off Dark Knight where it was so desperately needed (which, don't bother replying to because we both know it wasn't a problem . . . for you).

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Rip-off or not, it's fine writing and it would be silly to ask to see Alfred showing up in Italy when there would be no "right place" in the beginning of BB to even show it as you would like to see, lol.

Actually, that's not what I would have liked to have seen. I think the whole Italy thing is asinine and poor. TDKR makes Alfred look like one of the worst characters in the film, in my opinion. It's totally not the same character I saw in 2005 and 2008, in my opinion.

It didn't happen in Batman Begins because it wasn't invented until 2011 or whenever TDKR was written. Simple as that.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

So, let's get this back on track now, shall we?

AGAIN with Joker. You know full well why he's not even mentioned, so why do you continue to bring the name up? It's a 'damn if you do, damn if you don't' scenario I guess when Christopher Nolan decided not to use Joker or even mentioned him as he thought it would be for the best and yet people still complain even when they know that Chris thought it was for the best. Oh well, still can't please everyone, lol.



Heath Ledger died (Rest in peace man), not The Joker.


And again, Joker isn't the only one that isn't mentioned from TDK. Those other characters (you want me to go over them again?) bother me just as much and the actors that portrayed them didn't die.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

I guess you just looked past the fact that Bruce Wayne was trying to make his parents proud and that included buying back Wayne Enterprises and keeping it under the right "ruling" while Earle was trying to sell it to just anyone. Him showing that initiative can easily prove that Wayne would go out for charities or what have you, unless you wanted to see it happen, and in that case, you would never be happy unless you see it and that's why you view it as a retcon, lol.

I still see pretending to be a jerk, taking over restaurants, and not "caring" to the general public in the Dark Knight, so everything you just said there is moot.


Going to charities would sort of blow his playboy cover, would it not? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

That's nothing like showing a guy with a gun and having Uncle Ben dying the next scene and then another film explains that there was another guy involved

Yes it is. It's putting in something that didn't exist in the first film because you're having trouble continuing your story.

It's as simple as that. It's also called a cop out.


In the first Spider-Man, Uncle Ben was murdered by that blonde haired car jacker. IT'S that SIMPLE. That's what happened.

In Batman Begins, Alfred didn't go to Italy, there was no Blake, etc. etc.


Why is this? Because, in 2002, when Spider-Man was made. Sandman wasn't even brought up. In 2005 and 2008, there wasn't a Bane or a John Blake or any of that nonsense.

The writers just took it back and changed it up to fit their new perspective on things. In Spider-Man's case, they needed a catalyst to make Spider-Man seek revenge (because he just got the black suit). In Bruce Wayne's case? They wanted Bruce to have a happy life and put Batman away/give it to someone else.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

And...Robin John Blake witnessed his father die, such as a young Bruce Wayne with his parents. You're saying that shouldn't happen when Robin feels the same pain or that there should be plenty of other orphans that witnessed their parents die as well?

Yup, it's nonsense. Especially when he's "Robin in name only" pretty much. I think the same thing about the comics for every Robin except Dick Grayson. It's always stupid when a random stranger comes up to Bruce knowing who he is, but the people closest to him, like Rachel and Gordon, are dumbfounded (BRUUUUCE?).



[QUOTE=Anno_Domini;25377173]So you WANTED us to see Alfred going to Italy sometime during BB's events when it would be the most idiotic thing to show(especially when all that happens when Bruce goes missing)? Lol. Now you're making these too easy for me.


Nope, I didn't want to see that Italy crap at all. It's awful and convoluted.


I bet if I told you that that was going to happen, this time LAST year, you would have called me a liar, thought it was ridiculous and a joke. That's because it is. It's totally random. The writers literally just thought it up and threw it in there. That was probably the first thing they created as a jumping point, (instead of, you know The Dark Knight).

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

You should watch Batman Begins before you continue.

Earle declared Bruce Wayne dead.

Already answered this above. Easy mistake, who cares. Earle declared Bruce Wayne dead, I messed up. Alfred discusses this on the plane to Bruce (and at first, Bruce did think Alfred declared him dead and is very shocked to hear it).


Doesn't make the Italy thing more right.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

And why wouldn't Alfred joke around with Bruce? And how in the hell does joking around take away the idea of him going to Italy for all those years? Reaching there now, milost.

Because, all Alfred does is mope around and cry in TDKR. He even gives up on Bruce coldly (and wrongly) to "make him see the error of his ways" despite the city needing Batman.

It's a stark contrast to how the character in Begins and Dark Knight acts. He's an ally of both Bruce Wayne and Batman. He wants what's best for Bruce, sure, but you don't have to mess that dynamic up with crazy stories like, "going to Italy to buy a specific drink, at a specific cafe, at a specific time".


Let me ask you this. If you buy that whole exchange, why the hell is it so specifically Italy? That's just nuts and not even where Bruce ended up being. Do they ever allude that that may be where Bruce would go? No. Why would Alfred focus on that and feel disappointment when it didn't happen. The chances of that happening are slim to none.


Oh that's right, because the writers couldn't think of a climax, wrote it in so it would have a forced, dramatic punch.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

And...Ra's al Ghul(as Ducard) needed to tell Bruce those "extra bits"? Lol, again, you're reaching just to try and prove a point. Let alone, why would he try to tell all of the truth about Talia and what have you when he doesn't even tell Bruce he's the ****ing real Ra's al Ghul?

"You're reaching to try and prove a point."


And you haven't? Hilarious. I like your fan stories about Ramirez and Reese. What happened to the Joker between TDK and TDKR Anno, please tell me more. LOL LOL LOL

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

These need no replies as you're continuing to grasp unto something that isn't there.

Yes it does and I replied above. It's the same crap. Most threequels do this, that's what usually makes them so poorly written.

There are countless examples. Spider-Man did it. Scream did it. The Dark Knight Rises did it. Hell, it looks like the Hangover III is going to do it (watch the trailer, they're "going back", too). If the Hangover series is doing it, what the heck does that say?

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Christ, you would think someone would understand why Joker isn't mentioned when I've said it countless of times and you say you know the reason why as well. I'm starting to think you don't...

I do understand why, I've said that again and again and again. I don't care what Nolan thinks (especially at this point), the Joker, not Ledger is still a thread that keeps this thing from being a whole.


Everyone wants to make this seem like it's this perfect three act trilogy wrapped up in a perfect little bow. Every thing makes sense and it's all good.


The Joker keeps that from happening as do other characters and scenarios from previous films (which is what most of this conversation has devolved into and has been about).

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Lol, they were "cool cops" and not just cops doing their jobs, huh? Please, tell me your theory on why you think they were "cool cops".

Well you clearly need to watch The Dark Knight.


Just wanting to do their jobs? They weren't trying to apprehend him, which should clearly be their job. They were simply trying to talk to him. Gordon trusted in him, some of them did too. They seemingly just had a huge loss, not only did they lose their partner, the man who helped in fighting the mob, they lost their friend.

"Switch it off, he doesn't want to talk to us. God help who he does want to talk to."

They were fine with Batman, even when Barbara Gordon was yelling out, taking it out on him. If they weren't, they wouldn't have wanted to get his attention and they certainly wouldn't have clapped their hands when Dent pretended to be him, nor let Gordon let Batman waltz right into the interrogation.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Ahh, so you need to watch TDKR too as well as BB.

How so? Nice try.

The whole argument was who believed in Batman or whatever. What was it based on? Your notion and acceptance of Blake figuring out who Batman really was.

Just because I didn't include those random orphans from St. Swithins doesn't mean I missed all those orphans that believed in Batman and hoped he'd come back.

Who could miss all those ridiculous chalk bats? Or all those little orphans bringing up Batman?

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

The orphans that believed in Batman WITHOUT knowing who the **** he is. As I said, children had a lot of faith in Batman all through Bruce's career as the caped crusader, and it's not just TDKR that drives that theme home, even if you don't want to believe it.

No crap. Never denied it, just didn't include them in what I listed. Who cares?


Gotta admit though, TDKR shoves it down your throat forcefully.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Once again nitpicking at something that isn't there. Gordon's demeanor was fine, and while he strayed away at certain moments, it's nothing that's going to raise any eyebrows. No one raised eyebrows during Dent's press conference when Bruce was about to move as Dent called for The Batman.

Of course you'd say that but I don't agree with it.


LOLm wow. You're actually comparing that? Bruce at Dent's press conference who literally made a small step forward before Dent turned himself in . . . AS OPPOSED TO FREAKING GORDON STANDING UP ON A PODIUM, TELLING A HUGE GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT, "MAYBE Y'ALL AIN'T READY TO KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT DENT"?

I could see if Bruce actually said something and then said, "actually, no I'm not Batman" but he doesn't even say a word.

That's crazy. Hahahaha, and also a hypocrite, sort of. You accused me of stretching/reaching things to prove my point, yet, you do the same thing more than half the time.

Only difference?

I'm the offender, you're the defender.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

I cannot take you seriously now when you don't even admit that it's TDK's problem when Batman clearly takes the blame right then and there and they don't put the blame on Joker and you continue to bash TDKR for that idea. It's a shame, really, as I thought you would be a smart one to debate with but you're clearly just nitpicking a film with no reasoning now.

Again, it's not Dark Knight's problem. That was it's ending, that night, with a brief montage of Dent's ceremony and Gordon smashing the batpod. It ended with Batman taking the blame and being something more than an ordinary hero, (hint, it was the title of the film Anno).


I'm not nitpicking anything. How come people that love TDKR always resort to that?



Also sort of rude that you inadvertently called me "dumb" by stating that I wasn't as smart as you thought.


Oh well.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

For someone who would say the Gotham citizens are just slow, I'm surprised you don't see it as making the Gothamites slow again when they don't question anything about the monorail incident since NO ARKHAM INMATES, INCLUDING DR. CRANE were on that train and yet the LoS should be brushed off because they're a "secret organization", lol.

True, except not every Gotham citizen saw or told about "who or what" pertaining to the monorail incident, did they? It's not like they were told that "SO AND SO DID IT, BELIEVE IT, EVEN THOUGH NONE OF IT ADDS UP!", like in TDKR.

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Loose is right. Zero mention of the Narrows "cleanup", zero mention of the monorail being worked on, zero mention of the LoS. If you don't want a regular citizen talking about the LoS, why not Bruce with Alfred?

Man, you're really stuck on this Narrows thing.


I guess you needed something to latch onto and find when your precious TDKR is criticized for disregarding a major situation from the first film and only dealing with the outcome.

Let's say you're right about the Narrows (and nobody here, on this forum, will ever be right or wrong, myself included), atleast they attempted to explain bits and pieces from the previous film in the Dark Knight. Atleast Scarecrow got a mention. At least Bruce and Rachel talked about their encounter at the end of Begins. At least Reese saw the Tumbler pan-caking cars and sought it out. At least the Joker was shown after the big, cool card reveal from Batman Begins.



What does the Dark Knight Rises do, "don't pay attention to before, don't look at the man behind the curtain in the clown make up! LOOK ahead, in a world that's 8 years into the future! A world where Bruce isn't just Batman, he's not Bruce either and he's non-functioning and worthless! Look at this, Spider-Man Da --, er, Harvey Dent Day! The city is *practically* clean! Batman isn't needed! Hell, we didn't even hunt him, we didn't do anything! How did this happen? Who cares! Look at that, shrimp balls! Private Joker from Full Metal Jacket! BIG PLANE STUNT ACTION. MORE PICTURES OF HARVEY DENT (but please don't ask how this worked, we don't even know).

[georgec]

The Guard would be proud of these quote walls.

[Travesty]

Originally Posted by georgec

The Guard would be proud of these quote walls.

[milost]

Originally Posted by georgec

The Guard would be proud of these quote walls.

I'm not proud of it, not at all. I want to stop but I fear Anno will always respond and I can't let those cheap arguments win the internets!


Then again, discussing TDKR only fuels it's fire and lets it's head stay above water from falling into comic book movie obscurity (I remember coming on here to read before the film came out and the place was packed, now it's practically dead save for a small group saying that it's great and a small group saying it's not too great).

[BatLobsterRises]

Milost, as verbosely muscular as your arguments are, it just seems exceedingly clear that you wanted Rises to be more of a direct sequel to TDK than it was. Which is fine. I've already made my case as to why I think TDKR is able to get away with re-exploring elements from the first film and how expanding the story in both directions made for a more epic tale a couple of pages ago. Still waiting for your response

[JackWhite]

Let's say Heath had lived. What role would he have played, that would have made TDKR that much better?

I really can't see Nolan making another Batman vs Joker film. The Joker would have to be a secondary villain, in a grander scheme of things, to make TDKR a fresh exploration of Bruce/Batman's journey.

Then again, I think had Rises been better structured throughout the second act, and had more time to breathe and explore sub-plots; it would have been a perfect end to the trilogy, even without the Joker.

[Gotham's Knight]

Since I highly doubt you or I want me to respond to those posts, milost (I assume we both have some lives...well, maybe you have more luck with that than I do), but I just want to ask about one point.

Why do you assume, because you don't see Alfred go to Italy in Begins or Blake in Begins, that it didn't happen and he didn't exist? Showing Alfred in Italy in Begins probably wouldn't fit. Maybe if it was the opening and then we got the flashback from Alfred and then it awakens Bruce in the prison, as he was having the same dream but that's about it. Now, do I think they came up with it back in 05? No. Definitely not. But all it serves to do is show us what Alfred did while we were following Bruce on his journey. It's kind of like how, in the end of Batman 0 from the New 52, *SPOILERS, but it's an origin so you should know this already* we see what Alfred did while Bruce was away. Albeit, he never went to Italy. So, enough of my rambling and onto the question, why do you need to see Alfred take a vacation in Begins? It doesn't add to the story and it doesn't contradict anything we've seen previously so why do you find it hard to think that he went for an off screen vacation once a year?

As for Blake, we never saw Dent in Begins. Ramirez wasn't in Begins. Neither was Maroni. Or Chenchen. Or Joker. Or Stephens. Or Wuertz. Or Gambol. None of them show up because they aren't a part of the story being told, like how Blake isn't needed for the story of Begins or TDK. We didn't need those characters in Begins, so why is it that you single out Blake?

[georgec]

People still can't accept Blake was a Robin amalgam. They hated and denied it before the movie, then they refused to believe it after. He was a great character.

[Gotham's Knight]

Originally Posted by georgec

People still can't accept Blake was a Robin amalgam. They hated and denied it before the movie, then they refused to believe it after. He was a great character.

I hated the idea that Blake was Robin before going in. I was expecting that he might be Azrael though. I thought I'd hate the idea until...I watched it. I really liked the character. And I find it ridiculous that people are mad that he's a composite character of three Robins when the coveted BTAS made Jason Todd and Tim Drake into their version of Tim Drake. And this has a fine reason to it, they took the best traits from three Robins because they only had enough time for one.

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Originally Posted by Gotham's Knight

I hated the idea that Blake was Robin before going in. I was expecting that he might be Azrael though. I thought I'd hate the idea until...I watched it. I really liked the character. And I find it ridiculous that people are mad that he's a composite character of three Robins when the coveted BTAS made Jason Todd and Tim Drake into their version of Tim Drake. And this has a fine reason to it, they took the best traits from three Robins because they only had enough time for one.

Exactly. Better to use a new name than to merge them and call him Tim Drake. That's just weird.

Also, I don't see why a 'non-comic book' character received so much flak, when BBeyond had Terry McGinnis.

Nolan did the perfect thing with Robin Blake.

[Alex Logan]

Originally Posted by AnneFan

"Because she can take it. She's a silent thief, a seductive survivor...a dark cat."

[Anno_Domini]

Ahh, milost...I will get to your posts tomorrow, and I already see how much wrong you've said just by skimming over your replies(), but...that took me way too long already today, so I'm going to treat your posts just like I was in my mother's womb: I'll take my time.

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

Milost, as verbosely muscular as your arguments are, it just seems exceedingly clear that you wanted Rises to be more of a direct sequel to TDK than it was. Which is fine. I've already made my case as to why I think TDKR is able to get away with re-exploring elements from the first film and how expanding the story in both directions made for a more epic tale a couple of pages ago. Still waiting for your response

It's hilariously disappointing that it's the biggest argument about TDKR: It's not a TDK 2.0

But, TDKR has its fan base, so I'm just pleased about that.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

But, TDKR has its fan base, so I'm just pleased about that.

Indeed. The majority of folks still love the film, it's just become a bit obscured and blurred as of late for a number of reasons. That's not to say there isn't some controversy and division, obviously there is. But there's no shortage of people who genuinely love the film and aren't just blind fanboys. It's important to remember that.

The funny thing for me is, I have a certain amount of "guilty pleasure" films that I enjoy even though most people hate them. Sometimes after reading all the venom that gets spewed in TDKR's direction I start to wonder if maybe it's just one of those movies that I'm able to enjoy in spite of its problems. But every time I watch it, by the time it's over I know I've just watched a great film and feel re-affirmed in my stance on it.

On the other hand, it's also a film that I find pretty exhausting because of how bleak a lot of it is. Of course, it's all worth it in the end because it ends up being amazingly triumphant, but it's like a roller-coaster that I have to psych myself up to go on each time. Gotta be in the right mood to watch that movie, which is how I feel about TDK as well. BB I can probably throw on at almost any given time and just kick back and relax. There was a period in '06 where I'd watch it almost every night in bed as something to fall asleep to (honestly I mean that as a compliment, lol).

[Kane52630]

So. much. text.

[TheBat812]

I see kane beat me to it but this wall of text commenting is getting ridiculous. It takes days to scroll down this page.

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

BB I can probably throw on at almost any given time and just kick back and relax. There was a period in '06 where I'd watch it almost every night in bed as something to fall asleep to (honestly I mean that as a compliment, lol).

There was period recently where I watched either BB, TDK, or TDKR every night to put me to sleep. And yes, it's also a compliment.

[Brain Damage]

I will say, the thing that makes The Joker being able to magically pull his plans together off screen work vs Bruce doing magical Batman things off screen not work is consistency.

From the very scene with Joker we see him set in motion an elaborate plan and have it go off without a hitch, and this carries throughout the entire film. So, by the time the hospital/ferries scenes roll around, you're used to him being able to pull off these amazing feats of planning.

Comparatively, not only do we see how Bruce does things in TDKR (how he tracks Selina) but we also spent an ENTIRE MOVIE dedicated to how Batman does what he does in detail. So for TDKR to play the "Well, he's Batman card" felt awful cheap. To me at least.