The Dark Knight Rises 8 years of no Batman or Bruce Wayne, and NO ONE could pick up the trend?

[shauner111]

It's not an update though. An update implies progress. True, that's subjective but what's there with movie Bane other than, "protectah, looks tough, cries"? Talia stole his whole upbringing and flashback scenes in the twist. That's her development, not his.

I call bettering a character an update. His look was progress. I dont think it's just Talia's backstory. He was still born in that prison. He tells this to Batman in the first fight. He's an intelligent character so im assuming he taught himself how to read or just learnt "street smarts" along the way, if you know what i mean. For me the only that's changed is that he didnt escape the pit himself. That was done in this movie to make it seem like Bruce has more strength than Bane. Again, it's film dude. It's a different medium so they can do different interpretations. Nothing wrong with that.

The comic version shows us a kid put in a prison for a crime he didn't commit and we see that child in that type of hell. We see his mother getting thrown to sharks, we see him having to stomp the guts out of rats for food. Hell, the symbolism of the little Osito bear representing his innocence which is then cast out along with the warden/dictator/officer with the sharks just like his mother has deeper meaning than anything with movie Bane. I'm sure this isn't your intent, but you make it sound like since you were a kid reading those things and they're older, they're somehow "elementary" compared to "the superior Tom Hardy version". I read those when they first were issued and Bane was much more well rounded than he is now.

Hell, his motivations for coming to Gotham and slowly breaking down Batman's physical, emotional and mental strength is much more interesting than, "I'm getting revenge and fighting for the ideals for a gang and dead leader that called me a monster, excommunicated and banished me".

Only thing movie Bane has on comic Bane is looks, but even then, a Mr. Clean looking dude with a gas mask and ugg coat being better than a luchador looking mercenary is debatable. And I'd like to think we all care more about character development and story than we do appearance here.

I do love his story in the comics. And i prefer seeing all that stuff too but i just take it as he's practically the same in the movie, we just dont see his upbringing. We're lead to think that we're seeing it, but it's Talias. But you never know, maybe the same **** happens to Bane as it does in the comics. I wasnt expecting to see Bane smashing rats lol. Animal cruelty in a PG blockbuster for a superhero that kids could see? Maybe. But i didnt expect it.

You can probably look at every character Nolan had and say it's a watered down version from the comics. But it's just not the comics and they werent trying to do that. I like seeing something new personally, something that has a twist to a character. If i want that Bane i have no problem reading his comics. Im not the type of fan who likes to see adaptations in movies. I rather a switch that way im surprised.

Bull.

That pit was supposed to be such a "hell" but the comics and prison movies like the Shawshank Redemption do a better job of conveying that real, grim darkness. That sense of hopelessness.

Seeing a kid smashing rats to survive and having to pull up with all his strength in order to survive as to not drown is much more real than a guy wrapped with a towel around his head defend a child . . . after living in a prison his entire life (if he even did). He didn't even try to make that climb. He didn't even ESCAPE himself!

Again, it's a different take and that's what i like to see. It's to show that Bane and Batman have a lot of similarities but Batman is stronger because he escaped and Bane didn't really.

Then what is Blake exactly? A watered down version of a potential legacy Batman? That seems like unneeded fluff. I wouldn't want to see a Batman portrayed as not "really being Batman" or the Joker "not really being Joker" because then I'd question why they were included in the film at all. That's the problem with Blake. If it was "just a wink", then what's the point. Either interpret Robin or don't. Thank goodness they didn't do that with Batman or the Joker.

The robin name was the wink. The successor thing has nothing to do with that. It just falls in line with that nicely because the point of these robins in the comics is to take the mantle really, but the comics never get there because they need Bruce as Batman. But Blake taking over the legacy was a nod back to Begins where Bruce wanted to inspire people to take back their city (not gun wielding idiots with hockey pads). To stand up for gotham but he realized that there will always be crime and he doesnt want to die in the suit. Stop thinking about the source material for a second and just the story at hand. This Bruce decides to live his life and he gets the happy ending. The comics dont have a happy ending. Nolan gave people a gift, whether ppl agree with it or not. It's a gift. It's something fresh for the franchise. Especially on film, because im sure in 100 years Rises will still be the only movie that has Bruce getting a happy ending.

Blake takes the mantle because this universe shows us that it's not the man underneath. It's what the symbol stands for. So it goes from generation to generation. Which is why we dont have to see Blake in his "adventures". It's infinite. There will be a time when Bruce is dead and then there's no more Batman? I think that sucks. I like the idea of Batman being a legacy character.

 

[BatLobster]

After all the debating of this movie, I've still yet to hear any Blake/legacy haters respond to "what happens to Gotham when Bruce is dead?".

I'm just genuinely curious as to what the other side of that coin might be.

 

[shauner111]

For what it's worth, I made the same exact assumption as shauner with regards to Blake's father's death due to the line, "I remember that one...just fine." I think that line is meant for us to read between the lines.

milost, sorry bud, but you really can't call anyone out on conjecture after your "Bane is a pedo, it all adds up!" rant. If you're comfortable thinking that then I'm more than comfortable thinking that Blake very likely witnessed his father's death, and also gave some additional thought to his "Bruce Wayne is probably Batman" theory over the course of 10 years. Edit: NVM. Just saw your post where you admitted you were just trolling with that. But I still think the aforementioned assumptions are safer.

Milost create a poll to see how ppl took that line. Im actually curious.

 

[shauner111]

After all the debating of this movie, I've still yet to hear any Blake/legacy haters respond to "what happens to Gotham when Bruce is dead?".

I'm just genuinely curious as to what the other side of that coin might be.

Ive wondered about this in general. To ALL fans.

 

[BatLobster]

And I should clarify that I mean within the context of a finite story, cause I can see the "what happens to the world when James Bond/Ethan Hunt/John McClane etc. die?" retort coming a mile away. Although Ethan might already potentially have a successor lined up, heh.

 

[shauner111]

Ive always appreciated the legacy idea myself. Or Bruce training an army, spread around the world. The silliest thing would be to expect Batman to fix the city permanently. How? he can't. Also Bruce dying of old age as a miserable man who is just content (or not) with what he did...is too depressing for me. You still need a successor or else Gotham carries on through the generations as a hell hole but this time without Batman. That's just as depressing.

Even if he were to fix something for decades, it cant last forever. Batman's epic story begs for it to be a legacy character. And the hint has always been in his sidekicks and the reason behind them.

 

[milost]

After all the debating of this movie, I've still yet to hear any Blake/legacy haters respond to "what happens to Gotham when Bruce is dead?".

I'm just genuinely curious as to what the other side of that coin might be.

Nothing. Just like what happens after TDKR with Blake, absolutely nothing.

Remember, a "third one" wasn't always a sure thing (unless Nolan is contradicting himself and bluffing). So what happens after The Dark Knight when Batman drives off into the night? Nothing. It could have literally gone anywhere just like any scenario we could conjure up about anything. Little 2008 Lobster had no idea where TDKR could of been, so it's a moot point, just like the question above. The possibilities are endless because we don't know of the potential for something that doesn't exist.

It's to easy to play the, "it's just a story/film card", because as a fan of the films and the genre, we are that interested and invested. But in this case, it doesn't matter "what happens to Gotham when Bruce is dead" because TDKR could have played the card that Gotham was hopeless, or that the city itself actually stood up for themselves without the need of a Batman legacy or a physical person out there, or, or, or. And those possibilities may or may not have been more gratifying or "better" than what we actually got. So are the possibilities for after the events of the actual film, therefor it's a pointless discussion.

Unless you seriously think that there wasn't a better "third Nolan Batman film" to be made without Blake or any of the other qualities that TDKR has that are always being criticized . . .

 

[shauner111]

No but what happens to Gotham once Bruce is no longer Batman? Is there just no more Batman? I find that dull. Im sure Batman Beyond fans do as well.

 

[BatLobster]

Nothing. Just like what happens after TDKR with Blake, absolutely nothing.

Remember, a "third one" wasn't always a sure thing (unless Nolan is contradicting himself and bluffing). So what happens after The Dark Knight when Batman drives off into the night? Nothing. It could have literally gone anywhere just like any scenario we could conjure up about anything. Little 2008 Lobster had no idea where TDKR could of been, so it's a moot point, just like the question above. The possibilities are endless because we don't know of the potential for something that doesn't exist.

It's to easy to play the, "it's just a story/film card", because as a fan of the films and the genre, we are that interested and invested. But in this case, it doesn't matter "what happens to Gotham when Bruce is dead" because TDKR could have played the card that Gotham was hopeless, or that the city itself actually stood up for themselves without the need of a Batman legacy or a physical person out there, or, or, or. And those possibilities may or may not have been more gratifying or "better" than what we actually got. So are the possibilities for after the events of the actual film, therefor it's a pointless discussion.

Unless you seriously think that there wasn't a better "third Nolan Batman film" to be made without Blake or any of the other qualities that TDKR has that are always being criticized . . .

You've got a peculiar way at looking at fiction that I don't necessarily agree with. So cut and dry. Where's the fun in that?

I was curious as to what people's creative answers might be to that question, as it relates to the mythology in general. I think it's an interesting philosophical notion. Bruce's mission is supposed to be to render himself unneeded right? Well, we all know that's essentially a fool's errand. There will always be the threat of crime and corruption in urban life, right? So, is Batman inherently a tragic tale? Is he ultimately wasting his time? Will his actions echo in eternity or not?

There's no one correct way to grapple with those questions, but TDKR attempted to address that stuff in a way that was very satisfying to me. I mean as a whole too, as a piece of work. Not just Blake.

 

[milost]

No but what happens to Gotham once Bruce is no longer Batman? Is there just no more Batman? I find that dull. Im sure Batman Beyond fans do as well.

That's the conundrum of having an end to something. Something that's inescapable of the actual TDKR we got.

Dull? But think about this. Blake becomes the new Batman and that legacy goes on, correct? What happens next? Those orphans from Wayne Manor take up the mantle next? Maybe that little Mark orphan kid? And this just goes on and on and on? So Gotham will never truly be "saved" really without an orphan Batman, that's dull and definitely not as special as that original conception with Bruce Wayne.

It's the same irony of the other interpretations of Batman that is obsessed and waging a one man war on eliminating crime. There's no way to do it, it's impossible. You'll never eliminate deviant behavior and there will always be crime. Batman really has no end game, he's a byronic hero.

So in that light, does that make Batman a dull or lame character? Only if you think about it. That's the thing with legends, it's usually the same story told and interpreted differently. A legends thrives on uncertainty without real resolution. So really, a Batman that ends IS dull. Not saying it can't happen, it has, but are those stories ever the favorite ones? Not really. That's why I feel it probably would have been better to simply end with Batman riding off in the Batpod into the night, western style. That's an END to Batman.

And I see you constantly bring up Batman Beyond. Bruce was Batman to WHATEVER bitter end. There was no retirement for him. Can we really say the same about Bale Bruce? No. He never thought in his mind that he was Batman, let alone call himself that in his own conscious. Beyond Bruce, Dark Knight Returns Bruce, pretty much all the Batmen fight till the day they die. That's the difference between them and Nolan Batman. The others still have a legacy contingent, but that doesn't mean they call it quits. That to me is more fulfilling and "Batman" than handing it down to someone you barely know, without training, and going to a cafe Italy, which is what happened.

 

[BatLobster]

but are those stories ever the favorite ones? Not really.

I think Dark Knight Returns would beg to differ. Even though it's not technically an ending due to DKSA, at the time it served as an ending, and it's one of the most iconic and influential Batman stories of all time.

I think endings are powerful. Especially when legends do constantly get retold again and again. A myth really isn't complete without an ending.

 

[milost]

I think Dark Knight Returns would beg to differ. Even though it's not technically an ending due to DKSA, at the time it served as an ending, and it's one of the most iconic and influential Batman stories of all time.

I think endings are powerful. Especially when legends do constantly get retold again and again. A myth really isn't complete without an ending.

Everything has an ending though.

We're talking about Bruce's ending and questioning what is/could be more satisfying. Dark Knight Returns ends with Bruce still warring on criminals, that legacy aspect is still there, but the context is different. Bruce is down there, he's in the cavern, with the map, doing his thing. He's going to fight till the day he dies. The only difference is he HAS to do it covertly, in the shadows. He's not really quitting. It's an ending to THAT story, but is it really an ending for Bruce? No.

Nolan Bruce, is. He's done. He's set up a legacy, but so what? Blake, then the next fella, then the next guy after that. Who cares? It's the circumstances that matter. How do we leave this Bruce? He's fulfilling his Butler's dream. There's not even a nugget to suggest that he'll ever be coming back. Just that he seemingly left everything to everybody with a nice little bow and the cop that he met briefly gets the legacy because he to was an orphan. That's it. There's not even a real reassurance that things can get better after what Gotham has been reduced to. I have yet to say that a legacy or legacy character to carry the baton after Bruce is bad, I'm just saying it doesn't work with TDKR. Maybe if they left Bruce with Blake, training him or something. Blake finds the coordinates to the cave and, woah, there's Bruce to show him what he knows, but nope. Nothing. Within the film, Alfred's wish for Bruce outweighs Blake's becoming of Batman (even though it ends with him "Rising").

 

[BatLobster]

Well, to be fair, some have argued vehemently on here that Batman should not be portrayed as a legacy character ever and that it betrays the core of the character.

To me, TDKR's ending was just as fitting as DKReturn's was for that story. The trilogy centered around the power of symbols, the idea of Batman being more than just a man, getting people to rise up and not be afraid, etc. Blake is a symbol for "the common people" of Gotham answering the call.

You say so what that he sets up a legacy? I say it's a pretty fitting ending for this particular incarnation of the character. You're acting like he's fulfilling his butler's dream just as some sort of superfluous favor. You're forgetting the whole point of the movie- that he regains the will to live through relearning to fear death. He regained some of that basic humanity and is able to move on with is life, rather than die an early death. Oh yeah, and that "butler" is the closest thing he has to a father. So making him happy and proud is pretty damn awesome too.

The only criticism I could see with that is that it makes Bruce seem "soft" or something. But that's kind of the whole point. He decides to enjoy what he has left of his life, and he makes the decision to trust one of "the people" to carry on his work. I'm so glad that Bale's Bruce won't end up like the washed up, bitter old man we see in BEYOND.

...cue you saying Selina gets hit by a bus and Bruce decides to become a transvestite.

 

[shauner111]

I agree. I dont like seeing that version of Bruce in Beyond. It's quite pathetic. But it serves that super futuristic story, just not this one or any other in my opinion.

I really love the end to The Dark Knight Returns. That's pretty much an ending and it's loved and insanely influential. And im sorry but TDKR is also loved by a vast amount of people milost. It really is. The percentage is actually not that high when it comes to the fans who hated it. Remember, fans are just a piss drop in the ocean compared to the larger audience...who for the most part, seemed to love Rises.

So what if Nolan was inspired by classic trilogies instead of letting it go on and on Bond style until the studio screws it up.

He tried something new.
-"What if i can tell a full Batman story in just 3 parts?"
-"What if Bruce Wayne actually had an ending that didn't require him to be miserable for the rest of his life?"
-"What if this franchise was stand-alone and never hijacked by the studio to make countless team-ups, spin-offs, sequels for more money? Because they tried that with Burton/Shumacher and it reached a dead end at movie #4"
-"What if we didn't treat this as a villain of the week situation and only presented his career within a short timeline?"
-"What if we just focus on Bruce Wayne/Batman and not involve sidekicks who wear costumes or other superheroes?"

Im very happy that Nolan decided to ask all of these questions, especially once TDK was finished. Because 99 percent of others in the industry would not. They wouldn't have the guts as a filmmaker to try to cut something short in order to tell a story. And in order to try something out of the box.

As a fan, i got my serious/dark batman without sidekicks (my favorite comics and stories from B:TAS were without Robin). One that doesn't kill with intent, with an actual well known-billionaire family. With a Joker who has no name or origin. A Catwoman who steals and is not crazy. And more importantly, with a heartfelt ending. Something i can't read if i ever pick up a comic or watch a cartoon. It's exclusive to me, that's how it feels. I got the essentials from Batman (dark/tragic/no guns etc) but lots of changes were made too in order for everyone, including hardcore fans, to feel surprised.

 

[BatLobster]

Here here shauner. I'll drink to that.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Ok. But with that i agree. And i also agree with your interpretation of what talia also wanted to imply. But you also said other thing , that clearly conflicts with the expressed timeline of the movie (they didnt go to hiding at the same time). That was our only divergence. Supported by the text of the film. The rest , i agree with you , but i also think its a problem with the characters and its universe , more so than being confined to Rises.

I cannot argue with the text of the film, but I guess the reason I still gripe with it is because the films opens up with Bruce Wayne in a sulking state, and from a viewer's perspective it'd be easier to believe that he'd been sulking since the last time we saw him, in TDK, rather than 3 of the 5 years that's been placed in between the 2 movies.

 

[batfreakforever]

You can see that a lot of fans really do live in a bubble just by reading the comments.

 

[batfreakforever]

Just the same old conversations. Come on guys. Talk about something new.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

You can see that a lot of fans really do live in a bubble just by reading the comments.

i resent that.

I like how you call it the lazarus pit. It's pretty much Nolan's take on it.

I would like to believe that, I really would, but I do not recall Nolan ever coming out and saying that the Pit was his take on the Lazarus Pit in the comics

 

[shauner111]

He doesn't have to, we can see it as his version if we want. And we don't need the creators permission either because it's all about interpretation. Which is the point i was trying to make earlier.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

He doesn't have to, we can see it as his version if we want. And we don't need the creators permission either because it's all about interpretation. Which is the point i was trying to make earlier.

in that case, it is the lazarus pit. you don't just use the word "pit" in a batman movie and get people to not think it could have some relation to the lazarus pit

 

[BatLobster]

in that case, it is the lazarus pit. you don't just use the word "pit" in a batman movie and get people to not think it could have some relation to the lazarus pit

Yeah, and not only that but in a movie where the LoS/al Ghul storyline takes center stage. I have no doubt in my mind that it was their take on the Lazarus Pit.

 

[shauner111]

Yeah for sure. I even say that about certain lines throughout the trilogy. Many people shrug off these lines as nothing, but you dont say "it'll do just fine against cats!" to Bruce Wayne himself..without thinking that the fans might think of Catwoman. You dont make a reference to GIANT ALLIGATORS in sewers in a Batman movie...it's a Killer Croc joke for the fans. Or "cryo-sleep", that's a Mr. Freeze joke.

And you dont have a pit, attached to Ras Al Ghul. It automatically makes you think of the lazarus pit.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Yeah for sure. I even say that about certain lines throughout the trilogy. Many people shrug off these lines as nothing, but you dont say "it'll do just fine against cats!" to Bruce Wayne himself..without thinking that the fans might think of Catwoman. You dont make a reference to GIANT ALLIGATORS in sewers in a Batman movie...it's a Killer Croc joke for the fans. Or "cryo-sleep", that's a Mr. Freeze joke.

And you dont have a pit, attached to Ras Al Ghul. It automatically makes you think of the lazarus pit.

I also thought the 2face line in BB was a foreshadow to TDK and the strength line in the interrogation scene in TDK was a foreshadow to DKR.