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

[BatLobster]

i'm sorry but I still see that as talia being subtle with the fact that she knows he's batman. she knows gotham city is his world and how desperately he wanted to salvage it and that 2face put a hiccup in that idea.

and i'm not even saying that bruce and batman was a ridiculous secret, I just thought it was silly how one returned after the other in this movie and no one picked it up.

regardless though, it's interesting this thread has picked up 5 pages but that's partially due to the fact that it just became a thread culminating of complaints about the film which I could have foreseen happening

i said it once and I'll say it again. this is a good movie, but it is seriously flawed, is all.

This is honestly is no more of an issue than the fact that Bruce Wayne mysteriously disappearing for 7 years during the events Batman Begins and then shortly after his return Gotham, The Batman emerges.

It's just a conceit of the overall mythology, not really a flaw of any of the particular films. If you could explain why in BB this isn't " a serious flaw", I'd love to hear it.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

If you could explain why in BB this isn't " a serious flaw", I'd love to hear it.

my friend, I already have stated it before in this post but I'll just say again... when Bruce Wayne came back, Batman didn't appear the following night. It took a few nights since he was making modifications to his getup. The possible suspicion was addressed in the movie when Alfred gave Bruce the green drink and when presented with the Batman idea, Bruce was quick to dismiss it and give it respect.

 

[BatLobster]

my friend, I already have stated it before in this post but I'll just say again... when Bruce Wayne came back, Batman didn't appear the following night. It took a few nights since he was making modifications to his getup. The possible suspicion was addressed in the movie when Alfred gave Bruce the green drink and when presented with the Batman idea, Bruce was quick to dismiss it and give it respect.

It was still probably no less than a few weeks and no more than a few months. Hardly an impossible leap for someone to make.

The bottom line is that we are meant to believe that the playboy facade prevents 99% of Gotham from putting two and two together because they simply think a man so vain, shallow and hedonistic could never do something as selfless as risking his life on a nightly basis to make the city a better place. That means that when Bruce and Batman's activity or inactivity seem to be mirroring one another, most people don't even go there.

Also, in TDKR, it's not as if Batman's return was the very night after Bruce's. It's unclear exactly how much time passes between Bruce getting the knee brace and Bane's attack on the stock exchange. Just like it's unclear exactly how much time passes between Bruce returning to Gotham in BB and his first appearance at the docks. Yes, I realize the latter is likely a longer time gap, but there's still no definitive way to prove it.

 

[shauner111]

It was still probably no less than a few weeks and no more than a few months. Hardly an impossible leap for someone to make.

The bottom line is that we are meant to believe that the playboy facade prevents 99% of Gotham from putting two and two together because they simply think a man so vain, shallow and hedonistic could never do something as selfless as risking his life on a nightly basis to make the city a better place. That means that when Bruce and Batman's activity or inactivity seem to be mirroring one another, most people don't even go there.

Also, in TDKR, it's not as if Batman's return was the very night after Bruce's. It's unclear exactly how much time passes between Bruce getting the knee brace and Bane's attack on the stock exchange. Just like it's unclear exactly how much time passes between Bruce returning to Gotham in BB and his first appearance at the docks. Yes, I realize the latter is likely a longer time gap, but there's still no definitive way to prove it.

Yes, and another would be....the time between Ras' death and the rooftop scene at the end of Begins.

 

[Tequilla]

i'm sorry but I still see that as talia being subtle with the fact that she knows he's batman. she knows gotham city is his world and how desperately he wanted to salvage it and that 2face put a hiccup in that idea.

and i'm not even saying that bruce and batman was a ridiculous secret, I just thought it was silly how one returned after the other in this movie and no one picked it up.

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.

 

[milost]

Bottom line, Batman couldn't exist in the real world. People would know that Bruce Wayne was Batman. With the kind of technology we have now and the modern government and media, he wouldn't last a week. It might have been plausible in the 30s and 40s, but once the 60s came along with espionage, there was no way. That's why Adam West Batman was a deputized Batman, a super cop with a badge. The vigilante, secret identity shtick would never work, no matter how rich someone was. It certainly couldn't be "just one man". He'd be done, even Nolan's Bruce.

But it's a movie, so who cares. Best not get caught up in those ideas and suspend your disbelief and enjoy (except when you dumb down the whole city . . . yet this total stranger that happened to see Bruce one time, as a kid, just knows, now THAT is stupid).

 

[shauner111]

In this day and age, you're right. But that's why Nolan said these movies were never meant to be realistic. It's heightened reality. "Relatable" was his word of choice.

I still stand by Blake's reasoning. And i still believe that he had years to investigate and confirm what he thought. I can guarantee that if the character was named Dick Grayson right off the bat, that the scene would have been fine for half of the fanbase who originally didnt like the scene. Id bet so much money on that it's not even funny.

I also like to think that a kid in his place, at that moment, being an orphan..could have deduced his identity. Like all of you said, the suspension of disbelief here has a lot to do with this fact that Gothamites can't look past Bruce the "dip**** billionaire". Id like to think that any orphan who has experienced the things Bruce did, are more likely to relate and figure out his identity. Even without being a cop. In many ways Batman is a hero for all orphans across the world. And what would probably be more relatable to kids who lost their parents, more than the average person.

 

[milost]

Id like to think that any orphan who has experienced the things Bruce did, are more likely to relate and figure out his identity. Even without being a cop. In many ways Batman is a hero for all orphans across the world. And what would probably be more relatable to kids who lost their parents, more than the average person.

That's . . . goofy.

Batman, the hero of all little orphan Annies is just corny. We're all orphans at some point in our lives. The biggest fear a child has is the loss of a parent, especially when we're young. So no, Batman shouldn't be a "hero for all orphans across the world", because he's not.

There's a difference between Wayne and other orphans, and that's the fact that he was there. That's what separates him from other orphans. He witnessed the brutal murder of his parents with his own eyes. He saw the screams, blood on the pavement, the pearls, the killer, everything. The same can be said with Richard Grayson. Blake didn't even see his parents die. What, his mom got killed in a car crash and his dad died later on because of a gambling debt with the mob? I'm not saying that isn't tragic, but it is different. What makes Blake stand out from the other little orphans in Gotham? Nothing. Everyone experiences loss, Bruce Wayne's is just unique. Same goes for the other comic heroes (who are mostly orphans as well). What makes Peter Parker unique? The fact that he has guilt over not stopping that thief, who in turn kills his uncle. There's a tragedy there, just like Batman.

It's like that episode Justice League set in the Batman Beyond Universe, to create Batman, Amanda Walker tries to recreate the event that Bruce experienced with Terry Mcginnis' parents and the Phantasm. There's a certain drive and motivation to become Batman, and only someone that experiences what Bruce has experienced can have that journey. They try and force feed it with Blake, but it just doesn't work. He didn't see his parents die, he wasn't born into privileged, he didn't travel the world and build himself up to this high standard with years of training. He lived in an orphanage, like other similar orphans and grew up to be a cop. Now, somehow this cop . . . dislikes guns? Yet he uses one later on? Forced.

 

[shauner111]

He is. And i dont think that's corny.

And no other orphans have witnessed the deaths of their parents??

Blake DID see his father die. He says he remembered it just fine, in other words he saw it happen. He was probably under the bed or hiding in a closet. It's no different than Bruce.

It wasn't about him not liking guns. It was the fact that he realized he killed somebody.

 

[milost]

Blake DID see his father die. He says he remembered it just fine, in other words he saw it happen. He was probably under the bed or hiding in a closet. It's no different than Bruce.

It wasn't about him not liking guns. It was the fact that he realized he killed somebody.

Pure conjecture.

He said he doesn't remember his mom dying (too small to), but he remembers his dad. Remembering doesn't equal witnessing in any sense. I remember when one of my loved ones died, I didn't witness it. I sure as hell never witnessed walking down an alley with my parents and seeing a mugger shoot my dad in the chest and my mom in the throat over pearls.

Gun, killing, whatever. He's a cop. He wanted to do it, he went to the academy and learned it. Every cop does. That was clearly shown there to establish that, "hey, this is just like Bruce, see", just like when he feels he can't work in the system after the obnoxious bridge cop who blows the bridge and the whole throwing of his badge after the fact. There's also the not so subtle, "I went into the cave, just like Bruce".

Fact is, he didn't see his parents die in cold blood like Wayne or Grayson. He ain't rich and he never trained. There isn't even the childhood trauma of falling into a well and seeing those bats, or other interpretations where a bat flies through the study. It's forced. Out of all the other orphans in Gotham (and there's a ton of em. Like I said, we all lose our parents and a lot of times it happens when we're young), why Blake? How come other orphans didn't figure out? Surely they all have the special "orphan facade" sadness/anger powers in a city full of idiots? What makes him so special? The will? The will to "do what is necessary"? There's more to Batman than that. Not anyone can just become that character. Only Bruce Wayne and others that share a similar journey like Grayson or other proteges can do that. Bruce isn't even training him. He met him once and is like, "up, this is the one". For all he knows, he might have another Harvey Dent on his hands with the right push.

 

[shauner111]

No, it's not conjecture.

See, my mom died when I
was small. Car accident, I don’t
really remember it. But a couple of
years later my dad was shot over a
gambling debt. I remember that one....just
fine.

You can call it conjecture but i take that line as he witnessed his father's death.

Most cops dont actually ever shoot their gun or kill a person and could go their entire career not doing so. He had to use defense in that situation and killed two people, and he didnt like that feeling obviously. Which a lot of cops end up having to experience. He's not a killer and didnt like using his gun on a person. That's one of many reasons as to why he didnt continue his career later on. The final nail in the coffin was Quinn from Dexter as the cop who didnt let the kids pass the bridge + Bruce saving the city. But between that, he still was a cop and went forth to the hospital to protect Gordons life. As anyone in his position would do. Even if he didnt like his circumstances.

And so yes, he did witness his father being killed. Not forced at all.

And many Bat-fans may disagree with me on this but it's my stance. That anybody CAN be Batman. It's not realistic in our day and age, but if some circumstances (security, etc) were different...anybody could be Batman if they had the will to become that character. The point is, he's a man not a super-powered being. He has training (ppl can do this), he has money (certain ppl can as well. In Blake's case he has the technology handed over to him). He has the will to stand up for people (most dont). So yes anybody can be Batman. At least A VERSION of the Batman. The ultimate Batman? No, that's Bruce Wayne. He is absolutely unique. He's the original Batman who created the symbol. Nobody else can go through his exact story. But the concept of Batman could be done by a person in real life. In the comic/movie world though..there's a suspension of disbelief. So let's say Bruce/Batman could exist there. Yes. The mantle could be passed off. Blake has the means, could get the training, create the suit, go out and beat the piss out of criminals until he passes that very mantle to the next generation. And on it goes. That's the point of Nolan's world. It's not always like this in the comics and people may not like that take on the character but i do and i think in that world it works.

Nobody can imitate Bruce Wayne's Batman. But anybody could become a version of that character. None of us could become Spider-Man, Superman, etc. It's just more of a possibility with Batman because he's a human being in a suit. This is the message.

 

[milost]

How does that equate to "I saw him die"? It doesn't!

You had that whole spiel that he could have been under the bed, or in the other room . . . but all he states is he remembers that his dad died! He doesn't remember his mom dying because he was too young, does that mean lil' Blake was in the car with her? NO!

That IS conjecture, pure and simple. I was too young to remember when John Lennon was shot when I was a kid, did I see it? Nooooooo. I wasn't born for Kennedy , but my dad remembers that one "just fine". It's completely different. There's nothing in that scene that says he witnessed either of his parents dying. None. Not like Bruce who saw them both get gunned down in cold blood. The only thing out of that for the audience to take away is Blake basically saying, "yo bro, I know that feel, I'm an orphan too and I know your secret", but there's more to it than that. Think of ALL the orphans in Gotham. Why is Blake the only one that could see that Bruce was Batman from a damn LOOK on his face and feeling that anger in his rib bones? We all wear "masks" and have facades. It's ludicrous and asinine in a city that doesn't put two and two together except a sleazy accountant. Even Gordon and Selina are too stupid. Yet, here's our main man Blake, a character we've never seen, and literally the second scene he's in talking about Batman he knows who he is. Insane.

 

[The Joker]

How does that equate to "I saw him die"? It doesn't!

You had that whole spiel that he could have been under the bed, or in the other room . . . but all he states is he remembers that his dad died! He doesn't remember his mom dying because he was too young, does that mean lil' Blake was in the car with her? NO!

That IS conjecture, pure and simple. I remember when John Lennon was shot when I was a kid, did I see it? Nooooooo. I was too young for Kennedy, but my dad remembers that one "just fine". It's completely different. There's nothing in that scene that says he witnessed either of his parents dying. None. Not like Bruce who saw them both get gunned down in cold blood.

This is true. I remember when relatives of mine died when I was a kid, but I wasn't in the room with them when they actually passed away.

 

[shauner111]

That's how you interpret it. I interpret it differently. You're not right and im not wrong, and vice versa. There's nothing direct there. It could mean my way or yours milost. I just always took that line as him seeing it happen.

 

[shauner111]

How does that equate to "I saw him die"? It doesn't!

You had that whole spiel that he could have been under the bed, or in the other room . . . but all he states is he remembers that his dad died! He doesn't remember his mom dying because he was too young, does that mean lil' Blake was in the car with her? NO!

That IS conjecture, pure and simple. I was too young to remember when John Lennon was shot when I was a kid, did I see it? Nooooooo. I wasn't born for Kennedy , but my dad remembers that one "just fine". It's completely different. There's nothing in that scene that says he witnessed either of his parents dying. None. Not like Bruce who saw them both get gunned down in cold blood. The only thing out of that for the audience to take away is Blake basically saying, "yo bro, I know that feel, I'm an orphan too and I know your secret", but there's more to it than that. Think of ALL the orphans in Gotham. Why is Blake the only one that could see that Bruce was Batman from a damn LOOK on his face and feeling that anger in his rib bones? We all wear "masks" and have facades. It's ludicrous and asinine in a city that doesn't put two and two together except a sleazy accountant. Even Gordon and Selina are too stupid. Yet, here's our main man Blake, a character we've never seen, and literally the second scene he's in talking about Batman he knows who he is. Insane.

Because Blake is a special character amongst these other people. Which is why he's in the movie and not some character named Tim Balito. He's a cop but he's the only one who seems to question authority and the past. Others turn a blind eye to it. He is also an homage to characters like Grayson, Drake, etc.

I have zero problem with that scene and why he could tell it by the look on his face. Still to this day i get emotional watching that scene and from the moment i saw it in the cinema i said "that makes sense, any of us would be able to see right through that character if we were in that situation." When you add it all up plus years of being a cop and having this hunch since you were in that orphanage, following it up, going through patterns which im sure he did. Pretty logical to me. Only when i got home to check the internet, that's when i saw people not believing the story. But i follow my gut, and it told me in that cinema that it made sense.

Makes sense to me so we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

 

[milost]

So you're interpreting things that aren't there to make it feel better for you? That'd be like me trying to interpret that Alfred didn't really see Bruce at the cafe and just imagined him there and that the whole movie is just a dream that Alfred conjured up (I wish).

I know film is all about interpretation but sometimes you can go a little over board. There's absolutely NOTHING there to say that Blake saw his dad die. Nothing. I could see if you thought you were seeing subtext in a movie, that's different. We all see things differently. But you're stating something that is literally not there.

Okay, I'm Blake. I don't remember that my mom died in the car crash because I was just a little kid. My dad however? I remember that one . . . just fine because I was older. How the hell does that mean, "oh man, I saw him get shot down as I hid under my bed Kill Bill style as the blood dripped down my face. I saw it, I SAW IT ALL!". It doesn't. There's no context there to even interpret that idea. There's just the idea that he was old enough to remember the loss of a parent and at that point, he was truly an orphan without a mother and father.

I'm not ripping you, I get interpretation and all that. But you ARE wrong. There's just not enough there. It's not like "oh, I never saw a character go to the bathroom, so that means they don't go", it's completely different. There's just absolutely no hint at the idea, not even scripts, or deleted scenes. It'd be like me saying that Batman implemented a "no kill" rule in Batman Returns because of what happened with Selina, or that Bale Batman was still out there night after night those 8 years prior to TDKR. It just didn't happen.

 

[shauner111]

No, you're just too stuck on this notion that others can't have different interpretations of things than you.

You COULD interpret the ending as a dream, even Jonathan Nolan said this. That's up to you.

You can interpret that Batman was around for a bit of those 8 years too, why? Because Blake said no CONFIRMED sightings. That means if an audience member wants to believe that he was out there under the radar, or some ppl thought they saw him and didnt report it..then that's what it is. See how it works?

And yes, i feel like there's enough context to say that Blake witnessed what happened to his dad. I took the delivery, the pause "and i remember that one...just fine". That one? It could be interpreted as that death, that murder, that scene. Whatever you or i want it to be.

 

[milost]

He is also an homage to characters like Grayson, Drake, etc.

He's a poor man's Grayson and Drake just like Bane is a poor man's version of comic Bane from the 90s.

As a Batman fan and a fan of film, you don't even think that "I dig that name, ROBIN" was forced? Robin John Blake. C'mon. All she needed to do was wink at the camera.

He's a cop but he's the only one who seems to question authority and the past.
I have zero problem with that scene and why he could tell it by the look on his face. When you add it all up plus years of being a cop and having this hunch since you were in that orphanage, following it up, going through patterns which im sure he did. Pretty logical to me.

See the whole "he's a cop", "he's a detective" thing doesn't fly. He literally says that he knew as a kid. He wasn't a cop as a kid. "Right then when I saw you I knew who you really were". There it is. Not, "I deduced it after a few years", not "my hunch was proven correct after I found this", no, he JUST knew. A hunch is a premonition, it could be wrong. In the actual context of the film though, Blake says that he just knew from a look on his face. All the things they could have went on (which Nolan and Goyer were pretty good about) like "your wealth", "your demeanor", or all the other things we fan boys have discussed in this very thread. But no, his friggin' eyes and a bone deep feeling. It's lame.

Great performance by Levitt, even I can admit that. But it's a silly damn scene and concept no matter how you slice it. Atleast with Coleman Reese he backed it up with "pancaking cop cars on the evening news", folks questioned that since before Dark Knight in '08. Nobody was doubting Batman's fictional plausibility thinking of unseen orphanage meetings with the Angel's in the Outfield kid though.

 

[milost]

You COULD interpret the ending as a dream, even Jonathan Nolan said this. That's up to you.

And they'd be wrong. That would completely defeat the intent of the movie and everything that comes before that ending and you know it. It's not Memento and it's not Inception, it's cut and dry what happens in the film.

Jonathan Nolan helped write the damn thing. You don't put in the little hints of the auto pilot or the missing pearls to say that Wayne died and what Alfred saw was just a vision. That's not how it works (unless we say that the whole film is from Alfred's perspective, but than that means Bruce is still a mopey hermit up in his daddy's bathrobe upstairs doing nothing).

There's more weight in my argument about Bane being a pedo (prison, considered a monster by Ra's, etc. certainly more to it than a pause in speech) than there is in any of the things we just discussed here, but even I know that interpretation is BS on my part and simply conjecture for me not liking/caring about Bane. I KNOW you think so too based on past replies.

 

[shauner111]

He's a poor man's Grayson and Drake just like Bane is a poor man's version of comic Bane from the 90s.

You call it poor man's, i call it an updated version of Bane. I like Hardys version more than the comic and ive liked Knightfall since i was in elementary school. It's just a different interpretation of these Batman characters if they were existing in a more realistic world than the comics or cartoons. But it's fine that you find it watered down, because i say the same about the Keaton version of Bruce Wayne as well as Nicholsons Joker.

As a Batman fan and a fan of film, you don't even think that "I dig that name, ROBIN" was forced? Robin John Blake. C'mon. All she needed to do was wink at the camera.

I see how people dont like that. I get it. It's not for everybody. But as a Batman fan who never cared for Robin that much but respects his involvement in the mythology, i was perfectly fine with that scene. Because it literally was a wink-wink scene. He's not literally Robin. He's just a wink at the end of the series. I enjoy that scene.

See the whole "he's a cop", "he's a detective" thing doesn't fly. He literally says that he knew as a kid. He wasn't a cop as a kid. "Right then when I saw you I knew who you really were". There it is. Not, "I deduced it after a few years", not "my hunch was proven correct after I found this", no, he JUST knew. A hunch is a premonition, it could be wrong. In the actual context of the film though, Blake says that he just knew from a look on his face. All the things they could have went on (which Nolan and Goyer were pretty good about) like "your wealth", "your demeanor", or all the other things we fan boys have discussed in this very thread. But no, his friggin' eyes and a bone deep feeling.

Great performance by Levitt, even I can admit that. But it's a silly damn scene and concept no matter how you slice it. Atleast with Coleman Reese he backed it up with "pancaking on the evening news", folks questioned that since before Dark Knight in '08. Nobody was doubting Batman's fictional plausibility thinking of unseen orphanage meetings with the Angel's in the Outfield kid though.

Fair enough. Even with that, i find it OK. Also i always take into consideration that a lot of us say things in the moment like "i KNOW that this is the case" but that could end up wrong. No doubt, even if he carried himself throughout his teens like "yup Bruce is Batman i just know it" he damn sure still checked into it as a cop. It's just human nature. And he could have been wrong after. But he wasnt. So like most of us do, he'll say YUP I KNEW IT!! I F'N KNEW IT FROM THE MOMENT I SAW HIM!

Nobody was doubting Batman's fictional plausibility thinking of unseen orphanage meetings with the Angel's in the Outfield kid though.

Nice!

 

[shauner111]

And they'd be wrong. That would completely defeat the intent of the movie and everything that comes before that ending and you know it. It's not Memento and it's not Inception, it's cut and dry what happens in the film.

Jonathan Nolan helped write the damn thing. You don't put in the little hints of the auto pilot or the missing pearls to say that Wayne died and what Alfred saw was just a vision. That's not how it works (unless we say that the whole film is from Alfred's perspective, but than that means Bruce is still a mopey hermit up in his daddy's bathrobe upstairs doing nothing).

There's more weight in my argument about Bane being a pedo (prison, considered a monster by Ra's, etc. certainly more to it than a pause in speech) than there is in any of the things we just discussed here, but even I know that interpretation is BS on my part and simply conjecture for me not liking/caring about Bane. I KNOW you think so too based on past replies.

I would agree, but you know what? Im wrong. Because ppl can see it the way they want. Who am i or the creators to tell a person what a lyric means or what a scene means? It's up to the viewer. All art is subjective. You see something in a painting that i dont, and it doesnt mean you're wrong.

The Bane-pedo thing?? Lmao! Come on man. That's some crazy stuff. How does that even compare to a scene where it could literally be interpreted as Blake seeing his father die or just talking about the feeling of knowing his father died? lol nevermind.

But anyways, Jonah Nolan can say what he wants because it's true. A person can believe the end was a dream, that's up to them. Doesn't mean they're wrong. Maybe they see patterns within the movie that we all dont see. A million people not seeing something in a painting but 65 people do. That doesnt mean the 65 people are wrong.

Im with you on the ending. But i can see how a person can go "Nope! It's months later so maybe Blake set up the bat signal, or Bruce did whatever..but there's no proof that bruce fixed both Bat-Wings. Maybe he just fixed the one that wasn't painted, you know, the one Fox sees in the R&d Department at the end. And Alfred imagines Bruce at the end with Selina because he knows Selina stole the pearls earlier".

And i can respond with "Umm no dude, the evidence is there. He fixed the autopilot, set up the signal, Alfred couldnt know he was with Selina, blah blah". Doesn't matter what i say, it's THEIR interpretation. And who the F am i to tell him otherwise.

 

[milost]

You call it poor man's, i call it an updated version of Bane. I like Hardys version more than the comic and ive liked Knightfall since i was in elementary school.

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.

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". Is that an opinion, sure, but I question the tastes of someone who thinks other wise. What is complex about movie Bane? What makes him more superior? Or is it because Nolan interpreted it and Hardy performed it? That's not fair when we get so caught up in the "mythology" and "story" parts of what makes Batman and his universe great. Comic Bane, just in his first couple of appearances is more rounded out than the movie.

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.

It's just a different interpretation of these Batman characters if they were existing in a more realistic world than the comics or cartoons.

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!

But as a Batman fan who never cared for Robin that much but respects his involvement in the mythology, i was perfectly fine with that scene. Because it literally was a wink-wink scene. He's not literally Robin. He's just a wink at the end of the series. I enjoy that scene.

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.

 

[BatLobster]

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]

Of course you do Lobster, of course you do. I bet Anno did too!

milost, sorry bud, but you really can't call anyone out on conjecture after your "Bane is a pedo, it all adds up!" rant.

I clearly mentioned that a few posts up. Shauner can acknowledge that. So I'm covered.

 

[BatLobster]

You'll have to forgive me for skimming your posts these days.