The Dark Knight Rises Agree or Disagree: John Blake is the root of the problems in TDKR

[The Joker]

Oh, I understand the characters quite well, because I'm actually going by what the movies have told us, and I'm not filling in the gaps with pure conjecture. If you actually gave proof to your claims other than saying things like "to me/in my opinion", then maybe I could see more validity to your claims, but it seems like you're just filling in the gaps yourself, and completely dismissing what the other movies have told us explicitly.

Well said

I feel like that's all I've been reading the last 24 hours in this forum. Conjecture based on nothing to try and explain away the crater sized holes in the story.

 

[Travesty]

Yeah, and I can't help it if you don't "get it", either.

See how easy that is to dismiss your post?

 

[ultimatefan]

Yes, but TDK drove that idea even further, and showed us that Bruce didn't want any masked Batmen running around trying to be the hero. That was shown to us explicitly in TDK, and the main theme of the movie was to give the people of Gotham a hero with a real face --the true hero of Gotham. Yes, Bruce thought of his endeavor as being finite, and yes, he wanted to shake the people out of apathy, but at the same time, he didn't want people running around as superheros, as he didn't want to create more escalation. He wanted the people of Gotham to stand up against the crimes themselves...real people, actual citizens, not masked vigilantes. The "symbol" he was talking about wasn't an actual Batsymbol(as he never even created it yet), or a vigilante symbol, it was a symbol of truth, hope and justice. Something that was lost on the city at the time. And you know who also represented that symbol before Blake? Gordon, Rachel, Harvey, police officers etc. Why was Blake needed again? Oh, so Batman could retire with a twist ending, and then contradict a main theme in both BB and TDK?

Now cut to TDKR, and we have a contradiction of the main themes represented with the other movies. Bruce never even wanted other masked vigilantes taking over, which was spelled out very clearly in TDK when Alfred mentioned more Batmen sightings, and then Bruce says, "that's not what I had in mind when I said I wanted to inspire". Bruce wanted the system to work properly(and normally), which is why he appointed Harvey to be the new face of Gotham, because he was the hero he could never be. Why all the sudden is he now instructing Blake to wear masks when he goes out to fight? At first Bruce didn't want Batmen running around Gotham, he wanted a hero with a face like an ordinary citizen, but now he wants a "hot head" running around with a mask on, who is apposed to working within the system itself? I mean, which movie got it wrong: TDK or TDKR? Why is Blake's character needed again, when not only were we shown other characters just like him in this series, but his character contradicts everything that was setup before it? It's like the Nolans remembered to implement the mentioning of Harvey and Rachel in TDKR, but forgot what the characters actually represented, and then added Blake into the equation, which contradicts so many things before it.

I mean, seriously, if Batman was just going to retire and give over his cape to someone else, what was the entire point of covering up Harvey's crimes? What was the point of the entire movie of TDK? Because if all he wanted was to have a Batman or a masked vigilante running around the streets cleaning up crimes, why didn't he just do it himself, instead of giving so much emphasis over to Havery while taking the blame and having to retire right afterwords? Did John Blake's character work in TDKR? Ummm, if you forget about the other two movies, then sure, his character makes "perfect sense".

To me the apparent death of Batman, his heroic sacrifice that saved the whole city, and his statue meant that Batman managed to be a symbol of hope that, previously, he could never be.

Batman´s intent with Harvey failed when Bane revealed him to be a farse, that he was Two-Face. John Dagget proved that a more insidious form of evil manifested in Gotham beneath its apparent peace that Batman and Gordon´s lie had achieved.

That, and Blake´s increasing frustration with the system and official law enforcement, lead for Bruce to realize that, in some way, Batman will always be needed, even if Gotham is now a more peaceful city than when he was around. Yet, he´s got a guy who´s a little more grounded, a little less of a dark soul than himself, and someone he knows can do the job.

It´s not a contradiction, in the sense that Bruce realized what he intended with Harvey didn´t turn out the way he initially envisioned it.

 

[Travesty]

It´s not a contradiction, in the sense that Bruce realized what he intended with Harvey didn´t turn out the way he initially envisioned it.

Of course it's a contradiction. At the end of TDKR, Batman tells Gordon "anybody can be the symbol, that's the point of Batman". If that was the point of Batman, then there was no point for taking Harvey's crimes to begin with. He should have kept on fighting to be the symbol of Gotham, while showing Gotham that he'll fight against villains like Joker and Two-Face. And again, taking the blame for Harvey's crimes DID work. There was peace time because of it. So therein lies another dilemma. If Bruce made this so called "realization" that was never told to us, where did he come up with this idea? There is no rational around it. Harvey being a symbol worked. Sure, he turned to Two-Face, which was out of Batman's control due to The Joker(which is another reason why Batman wanted to retire the persona, due to the escalation of villains), but the theory of a normal citizen with a face being the hero works. Bruce didn't want people running around with masks stirring up escalation, and creating more crazy villains like The Joker. I mean, if it wasn't for Batman, Bane and Talia wouldn't even be in Gotham in the first place, and you're telling me that Bruce's bright idea for giving peace to Gotham is to hand over his Batman persona to a kid he barely knows, because now "he can see how The Batman persona could work", even though it was all because of him that Bane came to destroy Gotham?

I just don't buy that, and I don't see where in the movie that was told to us. To me, it's just a blaring mistake that the Nolans either forgot about, or tried to work around in the story.

 

[BatLobster]

When Batman decides to take the blame at the end of TDK, that is the moment he gives up on the original intention of his symbol and decides that the symbol is malleable and can be shaped to fit the needs of Gotham. It's not something he wanted to do. It's something he felt he had to do in order for Gotham to have a fighting chance. That's what's so powerful about it, he sacrifices the original intention of his mission.

That doesn't mean he can't still talk about what the point of Batman was originally. And when he says to Blake, "Batman could be anybody...that was the point!", you hear the regret and longing in his voice. One of my favorite Bale moments in the film.

Through the events of TDKR, and particularly through the Blake character, he gets back in touch with what it was all about in the first place and sees there are still people who believe in what Batman was about. And also that there will always be a need for a Batman-like figure who can operate outside the law if Gotham faces a time of crisis.

 

[TheBat812]

When Batman decides to take the blame at the end of TDK, that is the moment he gives up on the original intention of his symbol and decides that the symbol is malleable and can be shaped to fit the needs of Gotham. It's not something he wanted to do. It's something he felt he had to do in order for Gotham to have a fighting chance. That's what's so powerful about it, he sacrifices the original intention of his mission.

That doesn't mean he can't still talk about what the point of Batman was originally. And when he says to Blake, "Batman could be anybody...that was the point!", you hear the regret and longing in his voice. One of my favorite Bale moments in the film.

Through the events of TDKR, and particularly through the Blake character, he gets back in touch with what it was all about in the first place and sees there are still people who believe in what Batman was about. And also that there will always be a need for a Batman-like figure who can operate outside the law if Gotham faces a time of crisis.

 

[Goku Goes Crazy]

Robin was one of the best parts of the movie. JGL did a great job.

 

[MAKAVELI25]

Oh, I understand the characters quite well, because I'm actually going by what the movies have told us, and I'm not filling in the gaps with pure conjecture. If you actually gave proof to your claims other than saying things like "to me/in my opinion", then maybe I could see more validity to your claims, but it seems like you're just filling in the gaps yourself, and completely dismissing what the other movies have told us explicitly.

A lot of posts defending the movie have been filled with conjecture. There's way too many posts filled with "In My Opinions" or "The way I see it".

 

[Alex Logan]

Blame dopey Gordon for that. Carrying a written confession around on him while he's on the job. Holy plot convenience.

No, actually I'll blame Harvey Dent for that.

I read it. Don't agree with a word of it. Travesty's was way better and more factual than yours.

Not really, but okay.

Actually it did, I don't see how you can say otherwise, unless you saw a different TDKR where Bruce never retired, because of his "failed plan".

No, it didn't work. It seems you guys are confusing these two movies and contradicting yourselfs.

Bruce's plan in TDK, which was get normal people to stand up and take control of Gotham so he could stop being Batman, did not work. Dent destroyed any hope of that happening, which in turn forced Batman to lie. Dent proved that any normal man could fall from grace. A normal citizen with normal ties cannot stand up for Gotham because eventually they will be destroyed by a force like the Joker.

Bruce's plan in TDKR worked prefectly, but it's also not the same plan he had in TDK. Anyone who thinks it was is missing something.

 

[The Joker]

Of course it's a contradiction. At the end of TDKR, Batman tells Gordon "anybody can be the symbol, that's the point of Batman". If that was the point of Batman, then there was no point for taking Harvey's crimes to begin with. He should have kept on fighting to be the symbol of Gotham, while showing Gotham that he'll fight against villains like Joker and Two-Face. And again, taking the blame for Harvey's crimes DID work. There was peace time because of it. So therein lies another dilemma. If Bruce made this so called "realization" that was never told to us, where did he come up with this idea? There is no rational around it. Harvey being a symbol worked. Sure, he turned to Two-Face, which was out of Batman's control due to The Joker(which is another reason why Batman wanted to retire the persona, due to the escalation of villains), but the theory of a normal citizen with a face being the hero works. Bruce didn't want people running around with masks stirring up escalation, and creating more crazy villains like The Joker. I mean, if it wasn't for Batman, Bane and Talia wouldn't even be in Gotham in the first place, and you're telling me that Bruce's bright idea for giving peace to Gotham is to hand over his Batman persona to a kid he barely knows, because now "he can see how The Batman persona could work", even though it was all because of him that Bane came to destroy Gotham?

I just don't buy that, and I don't see where in the movie that was told to us. To me, it's just a blaring mistake that the Nolans either forgot about, or tried to work around in the story.

Exactly

A lot of posts defending the movie have been filled with conjecture. There's way too many posts filled with "In My Opinions" or "The way I see it".

I'm glad I'm not the only one who's noticed this. It's gotten to the point where I have to ask not to include conjecture when asking for a response about something factual in the movie.

 

[Alex Logan]

I just don't buy that, and I don't see where in the movie that was told to us. To me, it's just a blaring mistake that the Nolans either forgot about, or tried to work around in the story.

Is that conjecture?

A lot of posts defending the movie have been filled with conjecture. There's way too many posts filled with "In My Opinions" or "The way I see it".

Well said

I feel like that's all I've been reading the last 24 hours in this forum. Conjecture based on nothing to try and explain away the crater sized holes in the story.

What you all fail to see is that conjecture is going on both sides of this debate. You can't "see this" and others can't "see that". No one is right or wrong and it's all up to interpretation. The thick headed attitudes in this place are getting really old. The only person who has made any sense is shauner111, atleast he's capable of seeing other people view points.

 

[Travesty]

Conjecture?

I'm talking about the Nolans mindset, which I can't explain. Can you? Although, I can explain what is told to us from their stories, just not how they rationalized their decision.

Cute, but not the same thing that you guys are trying to do.

What you all fail to see is that conjecture is going on both sides of this debate. You can't "see this" and others can't "see that". No one is right or wrong and it's all up to interpretation. The thick headed attitudes in this place are getting really old. The only person who has made any sense is shauner111, atleast he's capable of seeing other people view points.

Heh, "he can see other peoples view points"? He's said about 2-3 times now how nobody "gets it", but maybe you and few others. And where is this other "conjecture" coming from, aside from what you're trying to pin on me?

 

[Doc Samson]

Of course it's a contradiction. At the end of TDKR, Batman tells Gordon "anybody can be the symbol, that's the point of Batman". If that was the point of Batman, then there was no point for taking Harvey's crimes to begin with. He should have kept on fighting to be the symbol of Gotham, while showing Gotham that he'll fight against villains like Joker and Two-Face.

When he says that to Gordon, just like when he tells Blake "Batman could be anybody" he's saying anybody can be a hero, not literally that anybody can be a crime-fighting vigilante. He's saying anybody can make a difference, and that's why he reveals who he is to Gordon at that point, because Gordon was a hero to him, by just consoling him and telling him everything would be alright on the night his parents were killed.

His whole reasoning for covering up Dent's crimes was about keeping the people's faith alive in their elected officials, as well as not letting the Joker win. Just like he says to Dent over dinner "who appointed the Batman?" Well, nobody technically. He became a necessary deterrent as a result of the criminal element, but the public appointed Harvey Dent to make the real change. Bruce assumed if they witnessed Dent become a vile criminal in his own right, they may have lost hope in the political process altogether. It's probably a blanket statement, but he deals with absolutes. And that's the dichotomy of Batman. To Bruce Wayne, there's just good & bad, with him (and to a small extent Catwoman) as the only gray area.

And again, taking the blame for Harvey's crimes DID work. There was peace time because of it. So therein lies another dilemma. If Bruce made this so called "realization" that was never told to us, where did he come up with this idea? There is no rational around it. Harvey being a symbol worked. Sure, he turned to Two-Face, which was out of Batman's control due to The Joker(which is another reason why Batman wanted to retire the persona, due to the escalation of villains), but the theory of a normal citizen with a face being the hero works. Bruce didn't want people running around with masks stirring up escalation, and creating more crazy villains like The Joker. I mean, if it wasn't for Batman, Bane and Talia wouldn't even be in Gotham in the first place, and you're telling me that Bruce's bright idea for giving peace to Gotham is to hand over his Batman persona to a kid he barely knows, because now "he can see how The Batman persona could work", even though it was all because of him that Bane came to destroy Gotham?

Well it's not like he asked Gordon if he wanted to help him save the city either. He broke into his office, and pretty much put that burden on him because he knew him to be a good, honest man. He was monitoring Harvey Dent before he ever spoke with him, already envisioning him as the successor Gotham needed. At least this time he had some real conversations with Blake beforehand lol.

But I agree, if Blake is supposed to be a literal vigilante, it's somewhat irresponsible to just leave him like that. Although I imagine he would be in contact with him in a mentor "Batman Beyond" kind of way, if for nothing else, to ensure Gotham is still on the right track...

 

[Travesty]

When he says that to Gordon, just like when he tells Blake "Batman could be anybody" he's saying anybody can be a hero, not literally that anybody can be a crime-fighting vigilante. He's saying anybody can make a difference, and that's why he reveals who he is to Gordon at that point, because Gordon was a hero to him, by just consoling him and telling him everything would be alright on the night his parents were killed.

Right, and that was one of the main points to TDK: that anybody can be a hero.

His whole reasoning for covering up Dent's crimes was about keeping the people's faith alive in their elected officials, as well as not letting the Joker win. Just like he says to Dent over dinner "who appointed the Batman?" Well, nobody technically. He became a necessary deterrent as a result of the criminal element, but the public appointed Harvey Dent to make the real change. Bruce assumed if they witnessed Dent become a vile criminal in his own right, they may have lost hope in the political process altogether. It's probably a blanket statement, but he deals with absolutes. And that's the dichotomy of Batman. To Bruce Wayne, there's just good & bad, with him (and to a small extent Catwoman) as the only gray area.

Of course he didn't want to crush Gotham's spirit, but at the same time, he had it in place to hand everything over to Harvey--a hero with a face for Gotham--because that's what he wanted all along. To shake Gotham out of apathy, and to set justice in motion to an actual citizen of Gotham, which was Harvey. Again, he said many times that he wanted a hero who didn't wear a mask.

 

[Doc Samson]

Of course he didn't want to crush Gotham's spirit, but at the same time, he had it in place to hand everything over to Harvey--a hero with a face for Gotham--because that's what he wanted all along. To shake Gotham out of apathy, and to set justice in motion to an actual citizen of Gotham, which was Harvey. Again, he said many times that he wanted a hero who didn't wear a mask.

True, and this is one of the reasons why I struggle to imagine Blake actually becoming some sort of masked vigilante. He said as much to Batman himself, about not being afraid to show his face to criminals. Maybe Batman's response about protecting those close to him rang true though too. However I agree with you, it's one of the looser elements to the whole Blake idea.

 

[BatLobster]

"Conjecture" is necessary to emerge with a fully formed interpretation of the movie. We're talking about a film that omits how Bruce's journey from the other side of the world with no money back to Gotham. They left a lot of blanks for our minds to fill in, and that includes recalling things from the previous films. If the film tried to explain every little meaning behind everything in the film, it would have been 16 hours long. This is what makes analysis and interpretation a worthwhile endeavor, and it's why many of us are here in the first place.

 

[Travesty]

"Conjecture" is necessary to emerge with a fully formed interpretation of the movie. We're talking about a film that omits how Bruce's journey from the other side of the world with no money back to Gotham. They left a lot of blanks for our minds to fill in, and that includes recalling things from the previous films. If the film tried to explain every little meaning behind everything in the film, it would have been 16 hours long. This is what makes analysis and interpretation a worthwhile endeavor, and it's why many of us are here in the first place.

Yes, but when it contradicts major plot points and themes brought up in the other movies, then it seems to be more of a stretch or just a character hole.

 

[MAKAVELI25]

"Conjecture" is necessary to emerge with a fully formed interpretation of the movie. We're talking about a film that omits how Bruce's journey from the other side of the world with no money back to Gotham. They left a lot of blanks for our minds to fill in, and that includes recalling things from the previous films. If the film tried to explain every little meaning behind everything in the film, it would have been 16 hours long. This is what makes analysis and interpretation a worthwhile endeavor, and it's why many of us are here in the first place.

There is nothing wrong with analyzing movies and coming up with your own interpretation of events. My problem with it when you start using YOUR interpretation as evidence for your argument, which a lot of posters have been doing.

 

[ultimatefan]

Of course it's a contradiction. At the end of TDKR, Batman tells Gordon "anybody can be the symbol, that's the point of Batman". If that was the point of Batman, then there was no point for taking Harvey's crimes to begin with. He should have kept on fighting to be the symbol of Gotham, while showing Gotham that he'll fight against villains like Joker and Two-Face. And again, taking the blame for Harvey's crimes DID work. There was peace time because of it. So therein lies another dilemma. If Bruce made this so called "realization" that was never told to us, where did he come up with this idea? There is no rational around it. Harvey being a symbol worked. Sure, he turned to Two-Face, which was out of Batman's control due to The Joker(which is another reason why Batman wanted to retire the persona, due to the escalation of villains), but the theory of a normal citizen with a face being the hero works. Bruce didn't want people running around with masks stirring up escalation, and creating more crazy villains like The Joker. I mean, if it wasn't for Batman, Bane and Talia wouldn't even be in Gotham in the first place, and you're telling me that Bruce's bright idea for giving peace to Gotham is to hand over his Batman persona to a kid he barely knows, because now "he can see how The Batman persona could work", even though it was all because of him that Bane came to destroy Gotham?

I just don't buy that, and I don't see where in the movie that was told to us. To me, it's just a blaring mistake that the Nolans either forgot about, or tried to work around in the story.

Batlobster explained it well, I´ll get a little more into it. In TDK, Batman realized his symbol wasn´t getting to be what he initially wanted it to be, which is why he tried for Harvey, for the "hero with a face", legal, but he turned into Two-Face and nearly ruined the plan that brought peace to Gotham, which is why Batman took the blame, feeling that he could never be that kind of hero, that kind of symbol. It was better to be deemed a criminal than to let the city fall into the hands of the criminal and corrupted again.

But in TDKR he had to realize that dread built up beneath that peace, Bane had help from a crooked Gotham businessman to achieve his goals and do even more damage than the others. The lie was exposed. Harvey´s symbol didn´t ultimately work cuz it got way more corrupted than Batman thought his symbol was.

To beat Bane, Batman needed to literally, and figuratively, climb out of the darkness, cease to embrace the self-destruction he was falling into, even act during the day - the darkness was even more a friend of Bane than his - and see in John Blake that there still was something to his original idea of the Batman symbol, that there were those who could carry it on in the way that he intended, and he found out all he needed to know about Blake, how the kid acted under extreme pressure and tough circumstances, always trying to do the right thing no matter what he was ordered, always capable. That was the spirit of "anyone could be Batman", anyone worthy.

His apparent sacrifice was the ultimate evidence, for the people of Gotham, that there was more to Batman than a dark, violent vigilante, that he ultimately was a true hero, a true inspiration.

And seeing the peace fall apart for forces beyond his control, he realized there would always be that kinda evil whether Batman was retired or not, whether that evil wore a mask or not, so someone had to carry on the legacy.

 

[Fudgie]

What dread built up beneath the peace? Bane didn't help crooked business men do squat. He used one dishonest business man to unknowingly help lace the city with explosives. Daggett never got anything out of it except his neck broken.

The Harvey Dent lie was working. The LOS decide to come back 8 years later to blow apart a city that was crime free and peaceful. They're the only reason things went bad. That and Dumb Gordon having a written confession on him about Harvey Dent when he was out on the job. The night he gets captured by Bane. Very convenient.

Pity Bane had already decided to waste Gotham by then. Can't use the Dent lie as an excuse for Gotham going to be blown up. Nope. Bad writing is to blame on that one. So what the hell were they doing back here in the first place? Oh yeah that's right they wanted to get revenge on Batman by killing his city. Great LOS ideals there. Not.

 

[Kansiov]

John Blake and Miranda Tate are easily the worst characters in the whole trilogy. I never thought it was possible to do worse than Rachel Dawes but these two managed to do the impossible-- steal the movie and drive it off a cliff.

 

[ultimatefan]

What dread built up beneath the peace? Bane didn't help crooked business men do squat. He used one dishonest business man to unknowingly help lace the city with explosives. Daggett never got anything out of it except his neck broken.

The Harvey Dent lie was working. The LOS decide to come back 8 years later to blow apart a city that was crime free and peaceful. They're the only reason things went bad. That and Dumb Gordon having a written confession on him about Harvey Dent when he was out on the job. The night he gets captured by Bane. Very convenient.

Pity Bane had already decided to waste Gotham by then. Can't use the Dent lie as an excuse for Gotham going to be blown up. Nope. Bad writing is to blame on that one. So what the hell were they doing back here in the first place? Oh yeah that's right they wanted to get revenge on Batman by killing his city. Great LOS ideals there. Not.

The evil businessman wanted to take a huge multinational corporation with thousands of employees, a lot of investors and probably a ton of money in salaries, pensions and whatnot by ruthless, criminal, vicious fraud. If you don´t think that´s evil and dread, go back and check the news from 2008. And that alone is crooked enough for a fanatic like Bane to think things deep down are still rotten.

Gordon had the speech cuz the lie was eating him up inside, cuz he was still in his heart a honorable man, and he was going to get fired in favor of a glory hound who cared more about the publicity of capturing Batman than capturing criminals who took hostages.

The League Of Shadows is a terrorist organization. Terrorist organizations by definition believe they have high goals but use methods that pretty much defeat whatever nobility they claim to stand for. Again, just read some news.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

JGL has way more screentime than Christian Bale (the guy who is supposed to be the lead) or any other character does in the last 4% of the story. Leaves a bad after-taste; he also gets the final shot of the film and trilogy. You only see Christian Bale for 4 seconds in the last roughly 6 minutes.

 

[Travesty]

And seeing the peace fall apart for forces beyond his control, he realized there would always be that kinda evil whether Batman was retired or not, whether that evil wore a mask or not, so someone had to carry on the legacy.

Peace fell apart because of The Batman persona--"I meant to inspire good...not madness, not death". If there was never a Batman, then Bane and Talia would never have come to Gotham, and the same can be said about Rachel's death--"you spat in the faces of Gotham's criminals. Didn't you think there might be some casualties". And in TDK, Bruce wanted to get rid of The Batman persona because of that very reason--an escalation of villains combating against a masked Batman. Which again, was one of the main plot points/themes in TDK, ie. to give the people of Gotham a true hero with a face.

Look, I understand why John Blake is in this movie. I get it quite well. But my point is that it contradicts other themes/ideas brought up in the other movies. Hell, it contradicts the entire movie of TDK. If this was a stand alone film, sure, I could buy it. But its not, it's part of a trilogy, so looking at the entire trilogy as a whole, his character doesn't hold up to the other films in that regard.

It's very similar to Alfred's characterization in TDKR, as well. His character contradicts what we saw in the other movies. In BB, Bruce looks defeated when his house is burning to the ground, then Alfred gives him the "why do we fall" speech, and then he asks Alfred "you haven't given up on me", to which he replies "nevah". Well, apparently "nevah" means "unless I see that you're not fit to do what I want from you, you're not allowed to pick yourself up, because I'll give up on you forevah". And again, I see why Alfred decided to leave(Bruce is older and he doesn't want to see him die blah blah blah), but it still contradicts his character and what he promised Bruce in the other movies. In BB & TDK, he's the one pushing Bruce into being The Batman when he didn't want to, and even said he would never give up on him, and then the second Bruce wanted to be The Batman, he was not only against the idea, but he gave up on him right on the spot. Now, if those other movies didn't build up Alfred to be the voice of reason, or the one who wouldn't give up on Bruce, sure, I could buy his characterization in this film, but once again, it's like the Nolans totally forgot about their other films. The character progression doesn't really make sense from what was told to us before it.

 

[MAKAVELI25]

The evil businessman wanted to take a huge multinational corporation with thousands of employees, a lot of investors and probably a ton of money in salaries, pensions and whatnot by ruthless, criminal, vicious fraud. If you don´t think that´s evil and dread, go back and check the news from 2008. And that alone is crooked enough for a fanatic like Bane to think things deep down are still rotten.

Gordon had the speech cuz the lie was eating him up inside, cuz he was still in his heart a honorable man, and he was going to get fired in favor of a glory hound who cared more about the publicity of capturing Batman than capturing criminals who took hostages.

The League Of Shadows is a terrorist organization. Terrorist organizations by definition believe they have high goals but use methods that pretty much defeat whatever nobility they claim to stand for. Again, just read some news.

1. The bolded is conjecture. The movie never says anything about how Bane feels about Daggett's actions, he does aid him after all. All that we know is that he killed him after he no longer found him useful. Obviously Bane doesn't find him endearing, but the movie never states Daggett's crimes are what makes Bane think Gotham is still corrupt enough to destroy.

2. The movie never even states that Gordon knows he is going to get fired.