The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 149

[The Endless]

It's not the concept or idea, it's the execution.

As much as i think it goes against the core essence of the character, i wouldn't mind seeing an adaptation of Bruce Wayne hanging up the cowl.

But for me, the execution was terrible. For the reasons already stated.

The idea of him retiring as an active Batman, but still sticking around to carry on his crusade by training, funding and acting like a surrogate father figure to Blake would have been sooooooooooooo much better. It would have been great thematically, with Bruce coming full circle and becoming what Ra's was to him, but with his own righteous methods. A happy ending where we can use our imaginations or WB can further explore the Batman Beyond idea. Plus just a great nod to the source material that made Batman worthy of the big screen in the first place.

The ending we got goes beyond contradicting the source material. It's simply bad story telling. Especially in regards to the Blake character.

[shauner111]

Bruce choosing to move on in some way, is not only his greatest accomplishment but so is making Batman a symbol that can last generations instead of dying with him. Bruce moving on, is his strongest moment. Him not moving on once he gets older, when he's barely able to continue as the batman, is a very weak way to approach Bruce Wayne. It makes him incredibly weak, i dont care how strong you are physically, at the end of the day it means **** all if your spirit remains broken. That's what he was during the 8 year hiatus from Batman, a weak man inside and out. He gets physically stronger as well as spiritually by the end of the movie..and that is a part of the arc of the character throughout the film and the trilogy.

[Senator Pleasury]

Originally Posted by Xandrea

Healing him is the most interesting and straight up daring thing he could do for this character. Far more daring than killing him.

Healing him was not interesting, it was the obvious happy ending most people would do with most troubled characters. I don't remember one person killing a superhero on screen, though, and forever. THAT would be daring. And consistent with someone who would give everything for his cause (as Batman himself said in the movie).

What was stupid was to talk so much about how Batman was an endless symbol that could endure what no person would... just to make people believe that he died.

[shauner111]

It was interesting to me. Obvious? Nobody was really expecting that kind of ending. Everyone expected Batman on a rooftop or Batman to die.

Killing him off completely, sounds like something you do just to shock an audience. It's lazy. Promoting the movie as a conclusion to Bruce's journey as Batman, then ending it where he's still Batman like every other Batman in the history of film (especially for the next century)..THAT is the least interesting thing i can think of.

[Senator Pleasury]

Originally Posted by shauner111

It was interesting to me. Obvious? Nobody was really expecting that kind of ending. Everyone expected Batman on a rooftop or Batman to die.

Well, I wasn't expecting such a lousy resolution, that's for sure. Dying was, regardless its predictability, a far braver resolution.

The ideal thing to me would have been Bruce Wayne dying but Batman living on through Blake.

Originally Posted by shauner111

Killing him off completely, sounds like something you do just to shock an audience. It's lazy. Promoting the movie as a conclusion to Bruce's journey as Batman, then ending it where he's still Batman like every other Batman in the history of film (especially for the next century)..THAT is the least interesting thing i can think of.

Yes. Keeping Bruce being Batman the same way he was, that's just calling for a sequel. But if Batman's death would be always done for shock value, then Nolan did exactly that. Only to reverse it in the last minute for the sake of a second shock.

[Two-Face]

Well when I saw the Bruce Wayne's grave I thought he died with Alfred blaming himself. Seeing Bruce with Selina left a good feeling for me.

[DACrowe]

Originally Posted by The Endless

It's not the concept or idea, it's the execution.

As much as i think it goes against the core essence of the character, i wouldn't mind seeing an adaptation of Bruce Wayne hanging up the cowl.

But for me, the execution was terrible. For the reasons already stated.

The idea of him retiring as an active Batman, but still sticking around to carry on his crusade by training, funding and acting like a surrogate father figure to Blake would have been sooooooooooooo much better. It would have been great thematically, with Bruce coming full circle and becoming what Ra's was to him, but with his own righteous methods. A happy ending where we can use our imaginations or WB can further explore the Batman Beyond idea. Plus just a great nod to the source material that made Batman worthy of the big screen in the first place.

The ending we got goes beyond contradicting the source material. It's simply bad story telling. Especially in regards to the Blake character.

But Nolan wanted to show a Bruce Wayne who could let Batman go. Batman in even Nolan's hyper-real "grounded" world can be depicted a great, nearly mythical being. But there is no way to really define this lifestyle as sane or healthy. Think of how most Batman "what if" stories conclude with him too old to continue, so he is underground training Terry McGuinness or a bunch of freaks.

He essentially reached that point "early" in his 30s in the Nolan story when he was wasting away for at least three years (he'd only been a recluse for three years, which many people seem to miss). Instead of doing that, except now with a successor/protege/heir/whatever, he was able to let go of this lifestyle before it consumed him whole.

It is a rather adult and deliberately unique reading on the character, and a refreshing one at that.

[The Endless]

Originally Posted by DACrowe

But Nolan wanted to show a Bruce Wayne who could let Batman go. Batman in even Nolan's hyper-real "grounded" world can be depicted a great, nearly mythical being. But there is no way to really define this lifestyle as sane or healthy. Think of how most Batman "what if" stories conclude with him too old to continue, so he is underground training Terry McGuinness or a bunch of freaks.

He essentially reached that point "early" in his 30s in the Nolan story when he was wasting away for at least three years (he'd only been a recluse for three years, which many people seem to miss). Instead of doing that, except now with a successor/protege/heir/whatever, he was able to let go of this lifestyle before it consumed him whole.

It is a rather adult and deliberately unique reading on the character, and a refreshing one at that.

But what i'm trying to say is him actually retiring as Batman, but sticking around to train and mentor, plus be a surrogate father figure to Blake, is a more fitting and thematically interesting end that also leaves more possibilities. I like the idea of him having an heir, so to speak. But him just leaving him up to it with no training both physically and in philosophy? Terrible story telling in my eyes.

Instead he ****s off to Italy and leaves Blake the keys to his mansion and his myth. With zero training or anything. It was liked a tacked on nod to the comics, rather than actual thought out story telling.

My idea would leave possibilities for a Batman Beyond adaptation or just let us use our imaginations. Blake finds the Bat Cave and all Bruce's tech. Then suddenly the lights come on and he's like "You're training begins now". Echoing Ra's in Batman Begins. To me that isn't just cool, it's more interesting thematically (full circle!) and a better reveal that Bruce is still alive.

[The Shape]

Originally Posted by Two-Face

Well when I saw the Bruce Wayne's grave I thought he died with Alfred blaming himself. Seeing Bruce with Selina left a good feeling for me.

You are far from the only one who reacted that way to the ending.

[shauner111]

It is definitely a more human and adult take on the character.

I know for me, when i saw the movie and it reached the point when the bomb went off, i was thinking "**** this, if it ends this way, with Batman/Bruce dying like that..that's a horrible ending". I would have walked out as dissapointed as most you who hate the film.

[Senator Pleasury]

Originally Posted by Two-Face

Well when I saw the Bruce Wayne's grave I thought he died with Alfred blaming himself. Seeing Bruce with Selina left a good feeling for me.

I was the opposite: I was thinking, "good, Nolan; no one else would have killed Batman without recoiling later on, but you did... oh, wait, you recoiled just like anyone else would have. "

[Senator Pleasury]

Originally Posted by shauner111

It is definitely a more human and adult take on the character.

I know for me, when i saw the movie and it reached the point when the bomb went off, i was thinking "**** this, if it ends this way, with Batman/Bruce dying like that..that's a horrible ending". I would have walked out as dissapointed as most you who hate the film.

How come? It would have died a heroic death, having given everything for his city and the people in it. Hardly a horrible thing or non-adult.

[The Shape]

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

How come? It would have died a heroic death, having given everything for his city and the people in it. Hardly a horrible thing or non-adult.

Him dying instead of living wouldn't have made what Batman did for the city any more heroic, would it?

He still gave everything to his city. Well, everything except his life in the end. He was was able to save an entire city, restore his city's faith in the Batman, and allowed the Batman symbol/legend to live on in the hearts and minds of Gotham's citizens through another person carrying on his legacy. He did a lot of good for Gotham, no? [Not to mention everything else he sacrificed for Gotham over the course of the trilogy]

[The Endless]

But that person carrying on his legacy will probably be dead in a couple of hours since he has zero training and struggled to incapacitate two goons whilst he had a gun.

[Senator Pleasury]

Originally Posted by theShape

Him dying instead of living wouldn't have made what Batman did for the city any more heroic, would it?

He still gave everything to his city. Well, everything except his life in the end. He was was able to save an entire city, restore his city's faith in the Batman, and allowed the Batman symbol/legend to live on in the hearts and minds of Gotham's citizens through another person carrying on his legacy. He did a lot of good for Gotham, no? [Not to mention everything else he sacrificed for Gotham over the course of the trilogy]

Well, Nolan's Batman showed to be keen on lying, as shown at the end of TDK. So now, he took that to the next level and made everyone believe he was so heroic he would give his own life for the city, so he had the whole city crying his death. But no, he would just go away on extended vacations with his girl. A true troll.

[shauner111]

Killing off Bruce would be a stupid way to shock people. It doesnt matter anyway, because all that matters is that in the eyes of Gotham (and the world) Batman died saving them. But the entire point of the film in the first place and the arc, was to have Bruce survive and move on from the darkness. "Sometimes a man rises from the darkness".

[Xandrea]

Originally Posted by The Endless

No i can surmise the true essence of Batman with one word.

Obsession.

A character isn’t very interesting if he can be summed up in one word…

Originally Posted by The Joker

You're not meant to be inspired by Batman. Can you cite me a single source where Batman is meant to inspire people at all?

Every single member of the Bat family was inspired by him. He has the largest family out of all the heroes. Just goes to show how powerful the symbol of the Bat can be. All superheroes are meant to inspire anyway. It's their only true power in the real world after all. Batman is about taking something tragic and using it as a catalyst for good. Seems inspirational to me.

Originally Posted by The Joker

There is no parallel there. Talia was seeking revenge against the man who she thinks killed her father. Bruce was seeking justice by fighting crime. "I seek the means to fight injustice. To turn fear against those who prey on the fearful".

Talia was clearly a mirror of Bruce. She was obsessed and willing to give up everything to avenge her father.

Bane, on the other hand, was a mirror for Batman. No one cared who he was before he put on the mask because he was the mask. He had no real name, no real past, and no true goals of his own. What he had was a legend with no real person underneath. That was what Bruce was in danger of becoming.

Both of them wear masks to numb their pain. It’s interesting to note that the first fight with Bane doesn’t end with the famous back-breaking scene as we would expect. It ends with Bane destroying and throwing away Batman’s mask. Batman is left behind. Bruce has to learn to work through his pain and value his own life as a person if he wants to get out of the pit. The second fight ends with Batman destroying Bane’s mask leaving him with only pain.

Originally Posted by gugumugats

Wow, I never thought of it that way, that overcoming his obsession is his greatest accomplishment.

Reminds of what Grant Morrison said; that Batman with all of his mental and martial art training and accomplishments should have been able to his rage and guilt.

http://www.dccomics.com/blog/2013/08...tman-adventure

I’m glad you mentioned him. Morrison makes some similar points as TDKR at the end of his run. He points out how, as inspiring as fighting the good fight can be, Batman is stuck doing this forever with no hope of ever growing as a person. He’s running in a hamster wheel, fighting the same villains, decade after decade, and Gotham never gets any better. The line said near the start of his run “Batman and Robin will never die!” is repeated at the end. In the beginning it was triumphant and, at the end, it’s shown to be pathetic at the same time.

[Xandrea]

Originally Posted by The Endless

But that person carrying on his legacy will probably be dead in a couple of hours since he has zero training and struggled to incapacitate two goons whilst he had a gun.

No one ever said he'd be Batman right away or didn't leave him the names of people who can train him. He's probably going to end up in Italy at some point training with Bruce.

[Kane52630]

I don't know who else still feels this way but TDKR would've worked better if it was split into two films or trimmed the story down into a smaller narrative. The only gripe I still have with this film aside from nitpicks was they packed in way too many elements into a 2 and half hour movie.

[Xandrea]

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

Healing him was not interesting, it was the obvious happy ending most people would do with most troubled characters. I don't remember one person killing a superhero on screen, though, and forever. THAT would be daring. And consistent with someone who would give everything for his cause (as Batman himself said in the movie).

What was stupid was to talk so much about how Batman was an endless symbol that could endure what no person would... just to make people believe that he died.

The standard superhero happy ending involves them continuing to watch over their city by just resetting the status quo to the way things were at the beginning of the movie. No one has ever truly ended a superhero story in a movie before this. The ending was far less expected than killing off Bruce.

Originally Posted by Kane52630

I don't know who else still feels this way but TDKR would've worked better if it was split into two films or trimmed the story down into a smaller narrative. The only gripe I still have with this film aside from nitpicks was they packed in way too many elements into a 2 and half hour movie.

This part I agree with. There was a lot of material they wanted to cover. The second movie essentially being No Man's Land would have been great.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Xandrea

Healing him is the most interesting and straight up daring thing he could do for this character. Far more daring than killing him.

No, it wasn't. Taking away the most interesting aspect of the character is not daring. It's just boring. Killing off the character, rather than giving him a cliche happy ever after, that's daring. No superhero movie has had the balls to do that.

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

Healing him was not interesting, it was the obvious happy ending most people would do with most troubled characters. I don't remember one person killing a superhero on screen, though, and forever. THAT would be daring. And consistent with someone who would give everything for his cause (as Batman himself said in the movie).

What was stupid was to talk so much about how Batman was an endless symbol that could endure what no person would... just to make people believe that he died.

Exactly

Originally Posted by Xandrea

Every single member of the Bat family was inspired by him. He has the largest family out of all the heroes. Just goes to show how powerful the symbol of the Bat can be. All superheroes are meant to inspire anyway. It's their only true power in the real world after all. Batman is about taking something tragic and using it as a catalyst for good. Seems inspirational to me.

Two things:

1. The Bat family were not inspired by him. They were taken in and trained by him. The only exceptions is the Batwomen.

2. Aside from his sidekicks, who else was inspired by him? Yeah nobody. He never set out to inspire people either. It was never part of his goal. That's a made up Nolan trait.

Talia was clearly a mirror of Bruce.

No she wasn't.

She was obsessed and willing to give up everything to avenge her father.

How is that a mirror for Bruce? He is not avenging his father.

Bane, on the other hand, was a mirror for Batman.

No he wasn't.

No one cared who he was before he put on the mask because he was the mask. He had no real name, no real past, and no true goals of his own. What he had was a legend with no real person underneath. That was what Bruce was in danger of becoming.

Bruce was a somebody before he put on the mask. "You're Bruce Wayne, the prince of Gotham. You'd have to go a thousand miles to find someone who didn't know your name"

Nothing like Bane. So how is he a mirror image of Batman?

Both of them wear masks to numb their pain. It’s interesting to note that the first fight with Bane doesn’t end with the famous back-breaking scene as we would expect. It ends with Bane destroying and throwing away Batman’s mask. Batman is left behind. Bruce has to learn to work through his pain and value his own life as a person if he wants to get out of the pit. The second fight ends with Batman destroying Bane’s mask leaving him with only pain.

The fight ended with Bane breaking Batman. Taking his boken mask off was just symbolic that he had broken the Bat. If you want to be really technical the scene ended with Bruce being dragged away, and then a parting shot of Selina backing away looking distraught.

Batman attacked Bane's mask because it was the source of his weakness. You are reaching with this point. There was no symbolism there.

[shauner111]

If you dont think that scene was symbolic then you're just not looking for it. Nolan is known for his symbolism in his movies.

Also Joker, you keep saying that the ending was boring and not interesting and claim that your way is. Well, that's fine but we're just going to be running in circles with that one because i find it more interesting personally. And so do other people.

[The Joker]

I'm looking for it, and it's not there. Can't see something that isn't there.

[shauner111]

Fine then, but we do. If we see symbolism with that scene then it exists. That's how art works. It's as simple as that. You see the connections or you dont.

[The Joker]

So if I say I see symbolism in Bane being a lackey to Talia, like how Scarecrow was to Ra's in Begins, then it's true, it exists?