The Dark Knight Rises 8 Years: Active or Retired?

[KalMart]

But then it means that Batman has been absent for 8 years, comes back, gets beaten and disappears for how many weeks/months and then comes back again? Don't you find that narrative odd?

I find it different than many would expect...but so much the better. Does it make sense? Absolutely....Bane is a killing machine, Batman could be rusty, and it takes time to recover...he's not superhuman. I think it further helps this series put a stamp of originality on things, and because it's a crew of filmmakers and storytellers like the Nolans, it's much more likely not to just be an arbitrary change for change's sake.

This is a Batman story in which we only see a few weeks' worth of Joker activity. That also goes against what many may consider a core characteristic of Batman...but it's happened, and it's been great. This is also a Batman who has been away for eight years and comes back. Let it tell its story.

 

[Gianakin_]

I find it different than many would expect...but so much the better. Does it make sense? Absolutely....Bane is a killing machine, Batman could be rusty, and it takes time to recover...he's not superhuman. I think it further helps this series put a stamp of originality on things, and because it's a crew of filmmakers and storytellers like the Nolans, it's much more likely not to just be an arbitrary change for change's sake.

Of course it makes sense, in-universe. That's not my problem with it. The way they tell the story (if you're right) is off, full of backs and forths.

This is a Batman story in which we only see a few weeks' worth of Joker activity. That also goes against what many may consider a core characteristic of Batman...but it's happened, and it's been great. This is also a Batman who has been away for eight years and comes back. Let it tell its story.

We saw Joker for a few weeks, but that doesn't mean they couldn't face each other again in those 8 years. The only reason I found the 8 year gap genius when it was announced was that Nolan skips to the end of the story without having to deal with the middle, which could be any kind of adventure the viewer could imagine. Batman just being retired... it still doesn't sit well with me. Only the movie itself may change that.

 

[KalMart]

Of course it makes sense, in-universe. That's not my problem with it. The way they tell the story (if you're right) is off, full of backs and forths.

Or very clever and dynamic, in the hands of good writers and filmmakers.

We saw Joker for a few weeks, but that doesn't mean they couldn't face each other again in those 8 years.

Of which we're skipping over.....

The only reason I found the 8 year gap genius when it was announced was that Nolan skips to the end of the story without having to deal with the middle, which could be any kind of adventure the viewer could imagine.

...and will have to because we didn't see it. Don't you think it's better that nothing happened, than something happening with the storyteller not caring enough about it to see it...or let us see it?

What if Joker escaped...or what if Killer Croc, or Penguin, or Clayface was involved....there were huge battles with Batman....and we never saw it? How would you feel about that? Talk about 'ways to tell a story'.

Batman just being retired... it still doesn't sit well with me. Only the movie itself may change that.

He's on sabbatical, which could become retirement if there's no need for him. He hasn't retired from being a human being, and is still struggling to find a peace without the cowl all these years.

Again, obviously any superhero fan won't like the basic idea of a retirement or the like...they don't like heroes because they sit around reminiscing about the good ol' days. But we do know that he WILL at least be Batman once again, and that we'll get to see/experience it. And by incorporating an eight year absence, it presents a challenge, unlike any other Batman film before, for us to see some of the human costs of being Batman for Bruce Wayne...time playing an important role in that. But since it's eight and not twenty or more, he still has enough physicality to come back and find some sort of closure that eluded him before....or it may finally kill him.

Why tell that kind of story to begin with? Because that's the kind of story that Nolan wanted to tell, an ending to this story arc to stand primarily on its own. It's his 'elseworlds' movie version.

 

[Gianakin_]

Or very clever and dynamic, in the hands of good writers and filmmakers.

That remains to be seen.

Of which we're skipping over, yes....

...and will have to because we didn't see it. Don't you think it's better that nothing happened, than something happening with the storyteller not caring enough about it to see it?

No, I don't. I want to see someone who got stuck fighting muggers because he ran out of supervillains that made him pognant and relevant. I want to see him unable to sit his ass down and dine at 21.00 because he needs to let steam out by beating the crap out of petty thugs like the one we saw at the beginning of TDK ("No, I'm not buying man, forget it").
And by "see", I mean "get the information" that he's been at it for 8 years up to the point we see him again.

He's on sabbatical, which could... ...version.

Look, I get what you're saying and, quite frankly, as time goes by all signs point to his 8 year absence. I still don't agree with the way you see it, though. If what you're saying is what will happen, hopefully the film will change my mind.

 

[KalMart]

Dear Batman Fans,

With The Dark Knight Rises starting eight years after The Dark Knight in the world of these characters, there's been a lot of speculation as to whether Batman has been retired or active during that time. Well, I'm here to answer that.

Batman has indeed been active....very active. So active, in fact, that I doubt the following does justice as to how thrilling and exhausting it was.

It began with Joker escaping from prison. There was a clinical psychologist that would visit him once a week...it seemed that Joker would simply spend his days sleeping, aside from those visits. It turned out that Joker had killed the psychologist and switched clothes, but he did it on the very first visit and continued to visit the corpse (who was believed to be the sleeping Joker) for two months afterwards, disguised as the psychologist....just to prove that he could.

Joker eventually teamed up with Killer Croc, who came very close to killing Batman, but was himself killed in the act by Joker who claimed that it was his right alone to decide whether Batman lived or died....and that it was much more fun having him alive. There was also a character based on The Penguin acting as a front for an organized crime resurrection...eventually led by Roman Sionis as Black Mask.

Joker entered into a tenuous alliance with Black Mask as well, but almost immediately began to turn the crew against themselves....using their turf wars as cover for his own diabolical plans.

Wayne took on a young ward named Richard Grayson, who would eventually join Batman in his fight against crime. In having a soul less 'tortured' than that of Wayne's, Grayson was a constant reminder to Wayne as to what could have been...and he struggles often between the mission and what very well may be doing the best he can for Grayson by 'letting him go', leaving this life of violence and trauma behind him while he can.

But he never gets that chance....Joker kills Grayson while he's apprehending Black Mask, blowing up the building in which the already dead Sionis was found. It nearly destroys Batman in grief...but emboldens his tenacity and vow to put Joker away once and for all.

Lots of other things unfold including an interesting little side story in which we backtrack and see a young woman named Selina Kyle rise from poverty to the ranks of Gotham socialites through thievery and black-market art dealership. And...I don't want to give it all away...but Batman eventually kills the Joker....in some ways not actually killing him, but very much directly responsible for it.

'Epic' is an understatement...if you look at how much was covered in the three years the first two films spanned, imagine what the next eight years could pack in! It's like a journey of galactic proportions contained right here on Earth. That's how great it was.


So anyway, this film starts after all that.

Enjoy!



Sincerely,

Chris Nolan

 

[Gianakin_]

Alrighty, I think both of us have made our points, I think it's a clear sign for me to call it quits.

 

[KalMart]

Alrighty, I think both of us have made our points, I think it's a clear sign for me to call it quits.

Don't do that...you've got at least eight great years ahead of you.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

Batman took it upon himself to become the villain of Gotham at the end of TDK. It makes no sense for him to be out there playing hero in the years after that, because it would make the city doubt he did those murders, and thus, Harvey Dent would be exposed. Also, you can't have "peacetime" in the city if its villain--Batman made his "incorruptible" symbol (Batman Begins) corrupted--is still out there operating.

In my post-TDK Batman fan-fiction, it would have been quite different, there wouldn't have been an 8 year jump, there wouldn't have been peace, Batman's name would have been cleared, Batman wouldn't have been shelved, etc. But the aggregate evidence tells me this isn't so.

 

[Carnotaur3]

Quite frankly I think either point could work for the film but it's hard to say which would be serve Nolan's Bruce Wayne because we don't have the full context.

Batman could be frozen in time being Batman but not being the hero he think that symbol should be. And he's going around beating people up, sometimes for no good reasons other than being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

On the other hand, it's more logical when you consider the last film that he is no longer Batman but has his things ready to go in case he needs to be. He should probably know that taking upon the sins of Harvey Dent, Batman can be no more (at least for now) because isn't a symbol for good. So why would Batman exist and be out prowling around? That wasn't Bruce's plan for Batman. Petty criminals ain't the larger goal for Gotham.

But frozen in time could mean that Bruce doesn't believe that there will ever become a time where Batman is needed again, because the cover up worked. Gotham is cleaned up.

Yet, deep down, Bruce knows something has not been fulfilled. Maybe that's when he turns to making Bruce Wayne the playboy into Bruce Wayne the philanthropist. What happens is he finds out that he has not gotten over his issues that spurned Batman in the first place.

And then there's this raging civil war brewing between Gotham's poor and corporations. Gotham looks like a police state. It's now the establishment that is considered corrupt. And when that Dent cover up gets known, Bane's going to use it all up for his own revolution.

 

[KalMart]

The simplest point is really why put it eight years into the future to begin with if any of that activity, if there is any, is major? It would make more sense to make a movie around that, or move only a few years later so as not to 'lose a step'. Nah..the point is to set up an absence and his comeback. They put that time in because the passage of that time is important, and even more important that he's been 'missing' during the vast majority of it. It kinda' defeats the purpose of the setup if there was important stuff that we missed, and defeats the purpose of the activity itself if it was so mundane as to skip over. Best to leave it vacant, a chasm that has to be addressed and accounted for in a final chapter. It makes Batman even more of a myth, and his reappearance more special. That's why you insert that kind of time before a story like this to being with.

 

[haikei_fw]

I am also going with semi-active. I don't think he can give up what he's doing so easliy.

 

[gorillanesthsia]

The simplest point is really why put it eight years into the future to begin with if any of that activity, if there is any, is major? It would make more sense to make a movie around that, or move only a few years later so as not to 'lose a step'. Nah..the point is to set up an absence and his comeback. They put that time in because the passage of that time is important, and even more important that he's been 'missing' during the vast majority of it. It kinda' defeats the purpose of the setup if there was important stuff that we missed, and defeats the purpose of the activity itself if it was so mundane as to skip over. Best to leave it vacant, a chasm that has to be addressed and accounted for in a final chapter. It makes Batman even more of a myth, and his reappearance more special. That's why you insert that kind of time before a story like this to being with.

I'm with you all the way.

 

[ggghhh]

Voted Retired.

But I have a bad feeling that this debate might continue beyond the film's release...

 

[BestGirl]

Voted Retired.

But I have a bad feeling that this debate might continue beyond the film's release...

I'd actually like that ambiguity. As it is I'm worried that there'll be no question that he's been retired for eight years.

 

[Nevincer]

I'd actually like that ambiguity. As it is I'm worried that there'll be no question that he's been retired for eight years.

Why would you be worried?

 

[JackWhite]

I'm really starting to think Batman has just be lying dormant for the past 8 years. The more I think about it; the more it makes sense that Bruce will be coming out of retirement to face Bane. Especially with Bale's new interview where he mentions a Batman who might not be in his prime.

 

[BestGirl]

Why would you be worried?

I would be unhappy to find out that he's only gotten to square off against seven of his most famous villains before he retires or dies. Then there's the fact that he'll have been Batman for a total of less than 12 months.

 

[Gianakin_]

Well, the EW article indicates he's been retired. I gladly eat crow, I still don't like the idea and I still hope/have faith that Nolan handles it well.

 

[Laderlappen]

I would be unhappy to find out that he's only gotten to square off against seven of his most famous villains before he retires or dies. Then there's the fact that he'll have been Batman for a total of less than 12 months.

We wouldnt see him fight with the other villains anyway if he wasnt retired.

 

[dark_b]

Well, the EW article indicates he's been retired. I gladly eat crow, I still don't like the idea and I still hope/have faith that Nolan handles it well.

so the first time we see batman in this movie is when he fights Bane for the first time? so the movie will start with the prologue and then the bat symbol .........and then nothing for 30 minutes? in a summer blockbuster where people payed a lot money for an imax ticket?

no way. no way t:

 

[Naked Shia]

He may not fight Bane immediatly, who knows/

 

[dark_b]

He may not fight Bane immediatly, who knows/

before he fights Bane we get batpod/police chase scenes. after the first Bane fight Bane defeats Bruce and he goes to that underground prison. so the police chase is before the first bane fights. i hope that the movie would start with the police chase after the prologue.

 

[Naked Shia]

before he fights Bane we get batpod/police chase scenes. after the first Bane fight Bane defeats Bruce and he goes to that underground prison. so the police chase is before the first bane fights. i hope that the movie would start with the police chase after the prologue.

I don't think the police chase will be right after the prologue, but it may come not too long after that IMO.

 

[Gianakin_]

so the first time we see batman in this movie is when he fights Bane for the first time? so the movie will start with the prologue and then the bat symbol .........and then nothing for 30 minutes? in a summer blockbuster where people payed a lot money for an imax ticket?

no way. no way t:

Well, Nolan has stated that the prologue was filled with so much action because there would be none until 30 minutes later in the movie, so...

 

[dark_b]

where did he stated that? EW?