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

[BatLobster]

What I really enjoy about the LOS connection between Begins and Rises is that it makes Begins feel like a part of something bigger and more epic, which makes the overall tale being woven in the trilogy feel more cohesive. There are certain moments in Begins that I can't help but watch differently now, like, "When someone stands in the way of true justice, you simply walk up behind them and stab them in the heart."

And not for nothing, but Ra's' line about his "great love" always felt like they were keeping the door cracked open for Talia to enter the story if they chose to go that route. It's a one-off moment of backstory in Begins that has no further payoff or relevance to the plot. It stood out to me even back then.

I was never super excited about a LOS return for a third film though- there are definitely a lot of ways it could have come off tacky and pedestrian. Thankfully that wasn't the case though, they sold me on it big time.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Nope, that's my fault for not reading it properly.

The reason why it feels similar to Begins is because it's the final piece of the story. And naturally you close things up by bringing themes full circle back to how it started. There was always a bit of a loose end anyway after Begins. The question of "what happened to Ras' wife?" and "Where is Talia? Is she in this universe? They mention her in the BB novelization.."

Bane, in the comics, is tied to Ras & Talia so it felt natural to return to the League of Shadows.

But yes, it's an interesting idea to think of Rises without the League. Just Bane. But Catwoman was absolutely necessary. She's essential to any Batman story, especially one that is complete. There needed to also be a new female presence after Rachel's death so Selina was a nice/logical touch.

So Bane, Catwoman and Riddler would have felt too cluttered.

Just Riddler and Catwoman wouldn't have worked for all the reasons i mentioned in my previous posts. And finally, just Bane with Catwoman and no League would have been cool but feeling like just another episode instead of the final chapter that wrap things in a bow by bringing it all back to how Bruce started. Which like it or not, was the involvement of Ducard/Al Ghul.

I do love the idea of Riddler as a secondary character though, without too much screentime but with plenty of importance to the plot and how we see Batman using his detective skills. Maybe that's a movie that could have been told after TDK but before TDKR. Placing Nygma as this supporting villain instead of lead antagonist lessens the "Joker similarities".

Black Mask with Riddler? Penguin with Riddler? Hugo Strange with Riddler?

I know Bane had ties to the League in the comics, however... in the Dark Knight Rises, I feel like the film itself is more about the League than Bane.

I mean like I said before, not only does it feel like the same plot but it's like the same exact movie twice... the entire METHOD of the League's siege over Gotham was? STEAL a super weapon from Wayne Enterprises and use it against the city, and plot surrounds itself with trying to disable the super weapon.

The only different for Rises is that it is an explosive, which is more diabolical so it made it seem like the stakes were higher even though they were technically the same, the view would just be more lethal.

And even before the Talia reveal, it just didn't seem fitting that Bane was doing all this for his own vendetta; he was doing this for Ra's, which again I felt like was too much focus on LoS. If they did something like, yes mention that Bane was part of LoS and that's how he got some of his fighting skills and leave it at that, that would have been better, even bring in Talia later but not have his story intertwine with hers so much.

If they went with a fresher, more original approach with Bane where they reveal he was born in raised in Pena Dura, and that his father left him and his mother died and he had to raise and educate himself, I felt like that would have been a much more full circle/mirroring image of Batman/Bruce Wayne, since both characters had very tragic upbringings, both are geniuses, and both had ties to the League as well.

I also agree, I'm not complaining too much about Catwoman although I felt like (even though Hathaway is a great actress) she wasn't a great Catwoman to me BUT I am glad that they kissed in costume.

Anyways this is a completely off topic complaint, even though it is my only other major one I have with the movie. Don't me wrong, this a great movie, but it is nowhere near the gem that TDK was. TDK in my opinion is not only the second greatest superhero/comic book film (after Avengers), it is just one of the greatest hollywood films.

 

[Victarion]

Bane wasn't doing it for Ra's, so much as he broke Batman and carried out Ra's plan on a grand scake for his own benefit. When you look at Bane's reaction to Bruce's "You were excommunicated by a gang of psychopaths" and take it together with visual cues like the jacket grip Bane shared with Ra's and the full story about his time with the League, it's apparent that Bane's jealous of what Bruce had with the League. Ra's had rescued Bane and Bruce from similar circumstances, but threw out Bane in favor of Bruce. Then Bruce threw away the opportunity he'd been given by Ra's. On the side, there's Bane's line to Daggett about power that indicates he had some stake in the social revolution.


Now, if Bane tried to build a mob of followers juiced on a Nolanverse take on his classic Venom, I'd say it was more a repeat of BB.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Bane wasn't doing it for Ra's, so much as he broke Batman and carried out Ra's plan on a grand scake for his own benefit. When you look at Bane's reaction to Bruce's "You were excommunicated by a gang of psychopaths" and take it together with visual cues like the jacket grip Bane shared with Ra's and the full story about his time with the League, it's apparent that Bane's jealous of what Bruce had with the League. Ra's had rescued Bane and Bruce from similar circumstances, but threw out Bane in favor of Bruce. Then Bruce threw away the opportunity he'd been given by Ra's. On the side, there's Bane's line to Daggett about power that indicates he had some stake in the social revolution.


Now, if Bane tried to build a mob of followers juiced on a Nolanverse take on his classic Venom, I'd say it was more a repeat of BB.

"I am here to fulfill Ra's al Ghul's destiny!"

you can say all you want, but with Bane saying that twice in the film I am more than convinced that he was doing this for Ra's and Talia. The contrast with him and Batman is just to add some depth to their antagonism.

and I'm not saying they had to go flat out venom and mobsters in DKR, I'm sure Nolan could have came up with something great with a hispanic Bane if he wanted to go that route. I don't see venom that being such a bad idea, since he was defeated the exact same way in the comics (having his supply cut off).

 

[Victarion]

"I am here to fulfill Ra's al Ghul's destiny!"

you can say all you want, but with Bane saying that twice in the film I am more than convinced that he was doing this for Ra's and Talia. The contrast with him and Batman is just to add some depth to their antagonism.

and I'm not saying they had to go flat out venom and mobsters in DKR, I'm sure Nolan could have came up with something great with a hispanic Bane if he wanted to go that route. I don't see venom that being such a bad idea, since he was defeated the exact same way in the comics (having his supply cut off).

And so he was, thereby striving to succeed d where Ra's failed. Instead of being a premade villain ala Knightfall, we get to see Bane clawing his way to the top, as it were. By revealing Gotham's corruption to the rest of world on a greater scale than what Ra's did. Ra's needed fear gas. Bane didn't do anything except present the city with the truth and the power to "Retake Gotham from the corrupt."

The fact that Ra's never gave Bane a fair shot -we get this from Talia's story about Ra's seeing Bane as more a monster than a human- leads me to believe that Bane didn't owe Ra's any kind of loyalty. Hence one-upping Ra's with his social revolution.

I didn't mean to imply that Venom was needed. Instead I was giving an example scenario that I would call a repeat of BB's fear gas stuff.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

And so he was, thereby striving to succeed d where Ra's failed. Instead of being a premade villain ala Knightfall, we get to see Bane clawing his way to the top, as it were. By revealing Gotham's corruption to the rest of world on a greater scale than what Ra's did. Ra's needed fear gas. Bane didn't do anything except present the city with the truth and the power to "Retake Gotham from the corrupt."

The fact that Ra's never gave Bane a fair shot -we get this from Talia's story about Ra's seeing Bane as more a monster than a human- leads me to believe that Bane didn't owe Ra's any kind of loyalty. Hence one-upping Ra's with his social revolution.

I didn't mean to imply that Venom was needed. Instead I was giving an example scenario that I would call a repeat of BB's fear gas stuff.

I disagree completely, to me, Bane WAS a premade villain with all of the LoS crap put forth before him in the movie. ANd him revealing Gotham's corruption or whatever to the rest of the world was just his way of running the show. As Ra's tried to make out in BB, as some illuminati **** by saying they were the ones behind Rome, the plague, and London.

And all the Talia reveal to me was just showing Bane being in love with Talia and doing all this for her. Looking into it more may bring some connections but at the end of the day it is just reaching, and that's all it is to me.

Oh boy, the LoS makes DKR more of a repeat than BB than anything else can, and I've already stated why I believe that. The only thing that would make venom similar to scarecrow's toxin is the fact that they're both super drugs. But scarecrow's is an intoxicator, and bane's is a steroid. the plot would have panned out nowhere near the same if venom was incorporated.

 

[shauner111]

I disagree that it's a repeat, just a parallel. But if it is indeed a repeat, i felt it was awesome to end things by returning to the first film. Like a bookend. The beginning story and end story, mirroring each other, with a crime epic in the center.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

I disagree that it's a repeat, just a parallel. But if it is indeed a repeat, i felt it was awesome to end things by returning to the first film. Like a bookend. The beginning story and end story, mirroring each other, with a crime epic in the center.

if that's the way I were to look at it, then TDK is just filler. great filler, but unfortunate filler to the batman trilogy, since the harvey dent plot honestly had very little to do with it. yes, that's why all the cops were out chasing batman that one night but that moment of glory in the film ended quickly, and it showcased the cops making the same mistake twice, first in tdk for not taking joker seriously at first and then not taking ben seriously at first

and yes, bane reveals harvey dent's true colors to gotham but honestly... did the people of gotham really have time to react? was there really a reaction seen to the people besides blake? hardly... they were living under a warlord, they had greater concerns.

so if they were to bring back the league, they should have done it sequentially, i.e. in the second film. since TDK was a standalone departure from BB, I expected another standalone with DKR.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

I am a fan of Nolan's Batman trilogy, but it was particularly and definitely at its best with TDK and I'm sure I ain't the only one that thinks that. Amongst the complaints I have with the successor, this is one of the biggest complaints I have.

So after 2Face's death, Batman goes in to hiding. At the same time, Bruce Wayne sulks in his palace and doesn't come out. This goes on for 8 years. Then one night, Bruce Wayne cleans up and goes back out into the public. The very next night, Batman returns... but not a single soul in Gotham could put the 2 and 2 together?

That's why I feel the secondary villain for this film, if they were to keep an 8 year Batgap plot like that, would have been the Riddler, instead of having all this focus on the return of LoS. This is similar to BB, where Bruce Wayne returns to Gotham and soon after comes Batman, but the plot unveiled there was more understandable. Here in DKR it is just silly. In my opinion.

As people pointed out, Bruce Wayne goes into hiding after 5 years post-TDK. The reasoning they wrote for this I found to be silly (who couldn't have predicted a fusion reactor could be used a weapon? Evidently the same type of people that couldn't foresee airplanes being used as missiles.) but it gives some space.

Antagonists are as good as what they bring out of the protagonists, what they mirror about the protagonists, and how they are a catalyst for the development of the protagonists. The return of the League of Shadows is Bruce having to confront his past that contributed to the way he was as Batman. They wrote/used Bane and Talia in a way to demonstrate that being someone's protector is road to suffering and death (Bane) and that being wealthy and fulfilling what your father wanted (Talia) could be/were bad things, etc. And in the end Bruce gives up being Gotham's protector and gives up trying to follow in his father's footsteps since that could be the road to an early grave. Instead someone else who was neither rich nor ever influenced and trained by the League of Shadows (Blake) would be the new guardian of the city. I'm not saying the latter excited me ('cause it didn't) but I get what was up.

I've made better posts in the past defending parts of the movie but it's late and at this point not too many care.

 

[shauner111]

That's a great point Magnar.

We have to remember that Nolan did not want these movies to be about the villains. It's all Bruce Wayne when you strip it down (comparing screentime is irrelevant). The villains are chosen only if they serve as a reflection to Bruce/Batman, and is a character that Bruce could become if he didnt reign himself in.

Which is why Freeze, Ivy, Riddler, etc were never the choice. Some of them couldnt be anyhow because of the tone, but this is why Talia/Bane were chosen. As well as Catwoman.

 

[BatLobster]

I do think that most of the major Batman rogues gallery does reflect some aspect of Bruce/Batman in a twisted mirror sort of way. I mean, even The Penguin in Batman Returns has elements of that.

But I also feel that the return of the new supporting characters chosen for TDKR were the best choices for a final chapter of this particular Batman story, which was a classic hero's journey cycle.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

As people pointed out, Bruce Wayne goes into hiding after 5 years post-TDK. The reasoning they wrote for this I found to be silly (who couldn't have predicted a fusion reactor could be used a weapon? Evidently the same type of people that couldn't foresee airplanes being used as missiles.) but it gives some space.

Antagonists are as good as what they bring out of the protagonists, what they mirror about the protagonists, and how they are a catalyst for the development of the protagonists. The return of the League of Shadows is Bruce having to confront his past that contributed to the way he was as Batman. They wrote/used Bane and Talia in a way to demonstrate that being someone's protector is road to suffering and death (Bane) and that being wealthy and fulfilling what your father wanted (Talia) could be/were bad things, etc. And in the end Bruce gives up being Gotham's protector and gives up trying to follow in his father's footsteps since that could be the road to an early grave. Instead someone else who was neither rich nor ever influenced and trained by the League of Shadows (Blake) would be the new guardian of the city. I'm not saying the latter excited me ('cause it didn't) but I get what was up.

I've made better posts in the past defending parts of the movie but it's late and at this point not too many care.

This was a good post but I still cannot say I agree.

First off, I've already stated that the conversation Talia has with Bruce at the masquerade ball was just a hint to show she knew that he was Batman.

And like I said before, if the return of LoS was all about mirroring the protagonist then it totally makes TDK seem like filler, great filler at that, I talked about it four posts up. What you say about Bane and Talia makes sense but at the end of the day, I don't think it perfectly mirrors Batman as good as a Santa Priscan Bane could have. All I say was vengeance from an evil organization that brought up a twisted daughter and a psycho muscle man who was in love with her.

And the whole thing with Blake I found to be very contradictory, with in TDK Batman saying he didn't need help from the copybats and then making a full 180 with the whole "hero can be anyone" thing in Rises, just having it be all about will power

 

[Victarion]

I still think that even with this interpretation of TDKR, TDK is essential to Bruce's arc. The irony of Bruce's longing for the cowl in TDKR is that in TDK he was hellbent on escaping the mantle of the Batman. And, in a way, Dent was still able to play the role of Gotham's hero indirectly via the Dent Act. This is what Bruce wanted at the beginning of TDK: a hero with a face so that he could move on and build a life with Rachel. The Dent Act wouldn't have happened without Dent's actions against the mob and the Joker in TDK. So TDK is still integral to the trilogy's story.

I respect your opinion about maintaining the Santa Priscan origin. I don't see any contradiction in Bruce's speech and the copybats in TDK. The copybats weren't doing anything heroic at all. They were homebodies who thought they could put down a dangerous drug dealer. In contrast, Blake was a trained officer with a working knowledge of the Law. That's not to say the fakebats couldn't be heroes. If you'll recall, Bruce referenced Gordon comforting him when he made his "hero can be anyone" speech. Anyone can be a hero, but not everyone can be the Batman. That's what I got from the speech and flashback to Gordon with young Bruce.

 

[shauner111]

This was a good post but I still cannot say I agree.

First off, I've already stated that the conversation Talia has with Bruce at the masquerade ball was just a hint to show she knew that he was Batman.

And like I said before, if the return of LoS was all about mirroring the protagonist then it totally makes TDK seem like filler, great filler at that, I talked about it four posts up. What you say about Bane and Talia makes sense but at the end of the day, I don't think it perfectly mirrors Batman as good as a Santa Priscan Bane could have. All I say was vengeance from an evil organization that brought up a twisted daughter and a psycho muscle man who was in love with her.

And the whole thing with Blake I found to be very contradictory, with in TDK Batman saying he didn't need help from the copybats and then making a full 180 with the whole "hero can be anyone" thing in Rises, just having it be all about will power

Bane wasnt IN love with her, he loved her since she was a child, as a protector.

And about Blake? No. It was always set from Begins, that Bruce was creating batman as a symbol to inspire. It was never permanent. The copycats were extremely different. Bruce never wanted a bunch of people to dress up in cheap bat suits, holding guns. That's not how you take back your city. It has nothing to do with the symbol he wanted to pass onto Blake. And it's never said clearly that Blake actually becomes Batman. For all we know, the symbol is put back up for Gordon to turn on at night, to leave on, to inspire the city. As a constant reminder and to keep the urban myth going for criminals incase theyre thinking of acting out. Bruce didnt know that Blake was going to throw his badge in the river. He couldnt have. So Blake could have been brought into the cave to use the tech. Or it could simply be to become the next batman if he's up to it. It's open ended.

It's no 180. It was said in Begins that training means nothing compared to the will power that you need. Anybody CAN be Batman, that was told to us since the beginning. But not everybody will, because almost nobody had the will power in Gotham to step up. Blake, like Bruce, had the will. And that's what you need.

 

[Tequilla]

I took that dialogue as Miranda sleekly revealing that she knew he was batman

You could interpret the subtext in many ways (it obviously draws a parallel and reinforces the failure he is , as Bruce and Batman) but it still doesnt change the text of the films.

The timelines between the absence of Batman and Bruce going into hiding is very distant.

 

[shauner111]

She's taking a jab at Bruce's alter ego but she's still discussing the topic at hand with Bruce. Which is about the clean energy project and the timeline. I have no idea how that goes over some people's heads..

 

[BatLobster]

Yeah, that one really isn't a matter of opinion. Those are the facts presented by the film. Therefore this whole thread is based on a (common) misreading of the movie.

 

[milost]

For my money, I don't care what lame message TDKR was trying to send, there's only one man that can be Batman, and that's Bruce Wayne. Nobody else can be him. That's why Nolan and Co. should have ended it with The Dark Knight where Batman was that silent guardian, watchful protector instead of this weird, mopey, twerp that hangs everything up and hands his legacy over to someone he knew for less than a week so he can travel to Italian cafes with a woman he barely knew for a week that almost got him killed. Now don't get me wrong, I like when Batman as a myth inspires others, like recently with that San Francisco kid. That was a nice, heartfelt story. But in the actual context of a fictional Batman story with a character we've been following for 5 years?? No, there's only Bruce Wayne. They would have been better off just killing him just to show how dedicated and obsessed he was with his persona and mantle. Depressing? Sure, but not without a cause. But Bruce Wayne's story and motivation has never really been a happy one. It'd be far better than tricking everyone into thinking there was no autopilot in your vehicle, or lying and rigging the game again to create a false "inspirational" victory. That pipe dream of Alfred's and Bruce's own hopeful folly in Begins and the beginning of TDK with Rachel is so not Batman. If anything, they should have sent him Bruce/Batman into darker territory than some closed off foyer in Wayne Manor with a silly bullseye target.

As for the "legacy" in the story, I'd like to imagine that Blake accidentally trips and falls over that rail as it rises. Then his jacket catches on one of the rails as it goes back down in the water causing him to drown. Thank goodness a goofy Joseph Gordon Levitt donning the cape and cowl is left to our imaginations and will never become a reality.

And I definitely interpret Bane as this pedo in terms of his companionship with Talia. "The only crime was that he loved me". Oh yeah, I bet. If Bane did grow up in that prison from birth (which I doubt considering the twist is that it's Talia's origin instead) there's no way he'd have some moral compass to protect an "innocent" little kid. "Innocence must be stamped out", right? Or is all that lame exposition we're told for naught? If Bane cared about the well being of kids, he wouldn't have threatened to kill Pavel's children or help plant a bomb in a city full of innocent orphans. He clearly only had eyes for Talia, probably because she looked like a young boy, just like him in prison. So yeah, Liam Neeson knew what was up. He cast out that sicko and his warped daughter because he knew they were both damaged goods.

 

[shauner111]

For my money, I don't care what lame message TDKR was trying to send, there's only one man that can be Batman, and that's Bruce Wayne. Nobody else can be him. That's why Nolan and Co. should have ended it with The Dark Knight where Batman was that silent guardian, watchful protector instead of this weird, mopey, twerp that hangs everything up and hands his legacy over to someone he knew for less than a week so he can travel to Italian cafes with a woman he barely knew for a week that almost got him killed. Now don't get me wrong, I like when Batman as a myth inspires others, like recently with that San Francisco kid. That was a nice, heartfelt story. But in the actual context of a fictional Batman story with a character we've been following for 5 years?? No, there's only Bruce Wayne. They would have been better off just killing him just to show how dedicated and obsessed he was with his persona and mantle. Depressing? Sure, but not without a cause. But Bruce Wayne's story and motivation has never really been a happy one. It'd be far better than tricking everyone into thinking there was no autopilot in your vehicle, or lying and rigging the game again to create a false "inspirational" victory. That pipe dream of Alfred's and Bruce's own hopeful folly in Begins and the beginning of TDK with Rachel is so not Batman. If anything, they should have sent him Bruce/Batman into darker territory than some closed off foyer in Wayne Manor with a silly bullseye target.

As for the "legacy" in the story, I'd like to imagine that Blake accidentally trips and falls over that rail as it rises. Then his jacket catches on one of the rails as it goes back down in the water causing him to drown. Thank goodness a goofy Joseph Gordon Levitt donning the cape and cowl is left to our imaginations and will never become a reality.

And I definitely interpret Bane as this pedo in terms of his companionship with Talia. "The only crime was that he loved me". Oh yeah, I bet. If Bane did grow up in that prison from birth (which I doubt considering the twist is that it's Talia's origin instead) there's no way he'd have some moral compass to protect an "innocent" little kid. "Innocence must be stamped out", right? Or is all that lame exposition we're told for naught? If Bane cared about the well being of kids, he wouldn't have threatened to kill Pavel's children or help plant a bomb in a city full of innocent orphans. He clearly only had eyes for Talia, probably because she looked like a young boy, just like him in prison. So yeah, Liam Neeson knew what was up. He cast out that sicko and his warped daughter because he knew they were both damaged goods.

All im hearing is SHOULD HAVE THIS AND THAT. Sorry but they told their story the way they wanted to tell it. They dont owe anybody anything. It's their interpretation just like the thousands of different ones in the comics. They wanted to tell THEIR ending story if Batman had a true ending, which it never really does in the comics.

It's "not batman".......and who are you to say this? Everybody has their own batman, none is wrong. So you should rephrase that to IT'S NOT MY BATMAN.

I still enjoy TDKR more than any other comic book movie, so i guess im liking a film that has nothing to do with Batman? I guess somebody like Michael Uslan who has been following this character since forever, who is in his 60s, he loved a movie that got Batman all wrong?? You guys are bold. It's simple, it's not your Batman and that's fine. But it's MY Batman and ive been a fan of this character since i was 3 buddy. I know who batman is, im just aware the medium of film can do things differently. IMO they changed things but still respected the essence of Batman.

Anyone who says that the essence of Batman is to be Batman til he's old and grey and never give up the mantle, has no idea what theyre talking about because he's written that way for a reason. To sell their comics, the story needs to continue. Even people in the business have said this.

Anyone who thinks Blake getting the mantle was B.S, sorry but it was set up all the way back in Batman Begins that this version of Batman was to continue until he inspired somebody to stand up for their city. Until the people fought evil (Bane's revolution). So i guess the next thing you'll say is "cops were the only ones!"...well are they not people of Gotham? They're citizens of Gotham and breathe like anybody else. Batman still has to continue though because there's always crime. So what happens when Bruce is 90, are you saying that nobody should be Batman?? So Batman Beyond is rubbish?? Sorry but thousands/millions would disagree. Again...it's not YOUR Batman..

If i may be so bold to all the people who couldnt stand Rises. The comics are only one way of telling his story. Theyre not definitive. Nothing is. Batman has become something more, told through different mediums. Which all have the potential to tell THEIR take on Batman as they see fit. Just as valid as the so-called source material. Comics go through writers like crazy, film will too, it's all the same. And ill say that i believe Nolan's ending showed the respect that Bruce Wayne truly deserved as a character by giving him a happy ending since the comics CAN'T do this themselves. Theyre not allowed to.

Nolan tried something different (God forbid somebody tries something fresh! )

Hey, i love when batman's doing it for 20 years straight and has this mentality of never quitting...but he still passes the mantle to somebody. It sure as bad place doesnt die with Bruce. But Nolan showed balls and integrity when he payed respect to Bruce, after all he's been through, by giving him peace, instead of condemning him to bad place to sell more issues.

BTW your last part wasnt even funny. The fact that you came up with that stuff tells me YOU'RE the one who is a little sick lol. So an adult can't love and care for a child? Get outta here!

 

[BatLobster]

As always, the idea that Bruce Wayne is the only living soul on the whole planet that could ever be Batman (or at least someone *roughly* as effective as him) is really depressing to me because whether you admit it or not, it implies that Gotham is pretty much f***ed once he croaks. Unless one is naive enough to think he can actually definitely WIN in his war on crime and inspire a happily ever after Gotham.

All the "I like to imagine Blake died immediately" stuff from TDKR haters is really bitter and spiteful IMO. Grow up.

I for one, thought it took pretty huge balls to end the Batman story on such a positive and triumphant note for Bruce. And you can't say it wasn't an earned happy ending after everything he went through in this trilogy. Inner peace is what Bruce truly deserved and that's what he got. Forget cafes and all the bells and whistles. The inner peace and shedding of his demons is what it's all about. And the fact that Alfred can go to his grave free of the guilt that he failed Thomas and Martha is also pretty awesome.

 

[Shikamaru]

Shauner, milost, BLR, etc....whenever I run into you on a TDKR-related thread, I start to realize how much I miss our routinely discussions.

 

[shauner111]

Haha i KNEW you would come on here soon Shikamaru. Dude, sometimes i would pull my hair out but I also miss the back and forth discussions with you dudes. We gotta bring it back after Batman vs Superman. Im sure we'll nitpick the **** out of that one. Or what if we all agree on it!?!? Could it be!? t:

 

[BatLobster]

Yeah man, we got a LOT of discussion mileage out of this one. I've never debated a movie more in my life. End of the day just shows how much we all love the character.

Who knows, maybe the sides will be all jumbled up for BvS and it'll be me and Shika arguing against milost and shauner.

BOOM, inception.

 

[Snow Queen]

As BLR said, Bruce as the only one who could ever be Batman never sat well with me either. It seems rather short sighted of Bruce to not pass on the mantle once he felt he had done his part (be it like in Rises or just getting too old). He can't stop crime entirely and I don't like to think that he's dumb enough to think that he can. You'd need someone else doing his job in a city like Gotham.

 

[Shikamaru]

Haha i KNEW you would come on here soon Shikamaru. Dude, sometimes i would pull my hair out but I also miss the back and forth discussions with you dudes. We gotta bring it back after Batman vs Superman. Im sure we'll nitpick the **** out of that one. Or what if we all agree on it!?!? Could it be!? t:

Yeah man, we got a LOT of discussion mileage out of this one. I've never debated a movie more in my life. End of the day just shows how much we all love the character.

Who knows, maybe the sides will be all jumbled up for BvS and it'll be me and Shika arguing against milost and shauner.

BOOM, inception.

Technically I was here from the beginning (see page 1) . Also the same thing goes for me. I don't think I ever debated a movie more in my life either, though TASM comes close. It was for about an entire year and more specifically, for about an entire year of in-depth long analytical debates.

However, I would argue it wasn't just our love for the character that caused it. It was also the fun and the unpredictability. I still have a passion for Batman. I don't know about your opinions, but I'm not really looking forward to BvS. Every new announcement they make makes the film look like a bigger train wreck and film pushed by suits than the previous one. Yet despite still loving the character and BvS looking way worse than TDKR ever did to me, I rarely discuss the film on here (and when I do, my rants are more short and to the point). Why? Because the unpredictability factor is gone, which makes the fun go away too. We could never predict what any of us would have said next, which made things interesting.

On the other hand, the "new guys" in the BvS thread can almost be read like a book. If I go to the main thread and leave a post reflecting a negative impression of the film, I can already predict the replies I will get. The vast majority of them would sound almost exactly like these:

"Why can't you give the film a chance?"
"I think you're just trying to hate the movie."
"How do you know for sure it will be bad? Do you have a time machine or something?"
"No, actually Goyer and Snyder have been planning this for months."
"Why is this being released prematurely? Because you don't like it? Because you would have done something different?"
"x and/or y being present in the film doesn't mean the film will be bad."
"Have you seen The Town/Argo?"