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

[ultimatefan]

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.

The peace wouldn´t have existed without the Batman persona either. The lie was believed because Batman already was an outlaw vigilante, in spite of his good intentions.

What you´re not understanding is that a story is meant to evolve and to take different turns as it progresses. TDK wasn´t the definitive statement of what the TDK trilogy was about, it was a step in the journey. An arc only exists if the character´s beliefs change, evolve, go full-curcle. TDK was, much like ESB in the original SW trilogy, the darker point, the one where the hero´s beliefs are thrown at his face and it looks like he´ll never come out of it. Blake was the new hope, the one who carries the legacy ahead, in that sense he perfectly fits into being part of the last chapter, not the previous ones. He wouldn´t have served that purpose in TDK.

In spite of how much Alfred supported Bruce, at that point he saw a man who didn´t only want to save Gotham or revenge his parents, he saw a death wish, he saw him going into the battlefield again without preparation, way past his prime, someone who already seemed dead inside just going for the suicide move. He wasn´t literally giving up on him, he was trying to give him a wake up call, "I helped you before cuz I believed in what you stood for, I believed you had some kind of plan, now all you want is to kill yourself, and I won´t help you with it".

 

[kvz5]

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.

Nolan has the biggest ***** on the John Blake character. He floves him.

I love parts of the ending but that last shot killed it for me. I would've preferred if they re-ordered it and ended it with Gordon seeing the Batsignal, the unveiling of the Batman statue, or the cafe scene. That last shot pales in comparison to BB's and TDK's for me. Oh well.

 

[BatLobster]

=Travesty;24354295]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

If there was never a Batman, they would have never needed to, as Ra's wouldn't have been stopped in his mission. I think what you're saying is true for The Joker's existence, not the LOS's return. Talia explicitly states that revenge is just "a reward for her patience" and it's about finishing her father's work. Bane/Talia are there to represent the concept of evil always rising again to threaten Gotham, which ends up reaffirming the need for a Batman-like figure to protect it in the future. There seems to be no way to have this discussion without falling into the cycle of "but Gotham was clean!"/"the LOS's goals go beyond ending crime!" back and forth though. It's clear that this is an irreconcilable issue between both sides of the argument, so I'm not sure what else to say on the matter.

Also, about the Alfred thing...this is just my own sappy interpretation that I want to share, not an argument...but I always thought the fact that he still goes to the cafe at the end shows that he still hadn't fully given up on Bruce. I like to imagine the thought bubbles for their final wordless exchange as "Still haven't given on me?"...."NEVAH". Again, that's just what mind was buzzing with as I got swept up in the overwhelming emotion of that finale.

 

[kvz5]

Also, about the Alfred thing...this is just my own sappy interpretation that I want to share, not an argument...but I always thought the fact that he still goes to the cafe at the end shows that he still hadn't fully given up on Bruce. I like to imagine the thought bubbles for their final wordless exchange as "Still haven't given on me?"...."NEVAH". Again, that's just what mind was buzzing with as I got swept up in the overwhelming emotion of that finale.

I like that too especially considering that the two didn't part on good terms. Bruce showing up is the forgiveness from his side that I would think Alfred has been seeking and would've forever sought for had Bruce died.

 

[ultimatefan]

If there was never a Batman, they would have never needed to, as Ra's wouldn't have been stopped in his mission. I think what you're saying is true for The Joker's existence, not the LOS's return. Talia explicitly states that revenge is just "a reward for her patience" and it's about finishing her father's work. Bane/Talia are there to represent the concept of evil always rising again to threaten Gotham, which ends up reaffirming the need for a Batman-like figure to protect it in the future. There seems to be no way to have this discussion without falling into the cycle of "but Gotham was clean!"/"the LOS's goals go beyond ending crime!" back and forth though. It's clear that this is an irreconcilable issue between both sides of the argument, so I'm not sure what else to say on the matter.

Also, about the Alfred thing...this is just my own sappy interpretation that I want to share, not an argument...but I always thought the fact that he still goes to the cafe at the end shows that he still hadn't fully given up on Bruce. I like to imagine the thought bubbles for their final wordless exchange as "Still haven't given on me?"...."NEVAH". Again, that's just what mind was buzzing with as I got swept up in the overwhelming emotion of that finale.

Exactly, the LOS intended to destroy Gotham from the beginning, with or without Batman. In Fact, they trained Bruce for him to LEAD the destruction of Gotham. And they were only seeking revenge cuz he stopped them the first time.

 

[Travesty]

The peace wouldn´t have existed without the Batman persona either. The lie was believed because Batman already was an outlaw vigilante, in spite of his good intentions.

Yes, it would, because Harvey was going to be the one combating against the criminals, which he was doing before his transformation. Harvey was the entire plan from the beginning. Not some afterthought, like you're trying to allude to. Yes, Batman took the fall, but only because of what he had already set out to do before hand. Which, you're still not explaining one thing: if Bruce thought The Batman persona was so worthy, then what was the point of taking the fall to begin with? If The Batman persona was the only thing that could have inspired, then the entire movie of TDK is irrelevant.

What you´re not understanding is that a story is meant to evolve and to take different turns as it progresses. TDK wasn´t the definitive statement of what the TDK trilogy was about, it was a step in the journey. TDK was, much like ESB in the original SW trilogy, the darker point, the one where the hero´s beliefs are thrown at his face and it looks like he´ll never come out of it. Blake was the new hope, the one who carries the legacy ahead, in that sense he perfectly fits into being part of the last chapter, not the previous ones. He wouldn´t have served that purpose in TDK.

Heh, he doesn't fit perfectly into anything, when what was told before doesn't match up. You can use your Star Wars analogies all day, but it's not the same thing we're arguing here. Yes, ESB was the darker of the movies, but at the same time, it didn't contradict what came before it, which is what I'm talking about. I understand character and story progression, in fact, that's what I'm arguing--that it doesn't make sense with what was told before.

In spite of how much Alfred supported Bruce, at that point he saw a man who didn´t only want to save Gotham or revenge his parents, he saw a death wish, he saw him going into the battlefield again without preparation, way past his prime, someone who already seemed dead inside just going for the suicide move. He wasn´t literally giving up on him, he was trying to give him a wake up call, "I helped you before cuz I believed in what you stood for, I believed you had some kind of plan, now all you want is to kill yourself, and I won´t help you with it".

Actually, he very much was giving up on him, because he literally did. And if it was only for a "wake up call", it didn't work at all, because Bruce suited up regardless of the fact. Again, poor handling of the character. And that quote you just threw out doesn't serve anything, because if Bruce hadn't of suited up, Gotham would be rubble. He did have a plan. It's not like he suited up for some joy ride on the Batpod to relive the "good 'ol times". He had a purpose. Again, a hole in the characterization.

 

[BatLobster]

Yes, it would, because Harvey was going to be the one combating against the criminals, which he was doing before his transformation. Harvey was the entire plan from the beginning. Not some afterthought, like you're trying to allude to. Yes, Batman took the fall, but only because of what he had already set out to do before hand. Which, you're still not explaining one thing: if Bruce thought The Batman persona was so worthy, then what was the point of taking the fall to begin with? If The Batman persona was the only thing that could have inspired, then the entire movie of TDK is irrelevant.

But Harvey wouldn't have been able to take the astronomical leaps in his fight against the mob without the aid of Gordon and especially Batman. The mob was still too powerful and were always one step ahead. Batman was the equalizer.

 

[Fudgie]

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.

"You only care about money, Mr Daggett, and the power it brings"

All Daggett wanted was the $$$$ and power from owning W.E.

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.

I know why he had the speech. I also know he was the reason the lie got find out by Bane because hew as walking around with it while he as on the job.

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.

This organization were making sense in Batman Begins. Even by criminal standards. They used extreme methods to get a job done but at least ya could understand why they wanted to kill Gotham even though it was a wicked method to use.

Bane and Talia were two idiots who's plan was a big pile of dumb that didn't make sense.

 

[Fudgie]

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.

Quoted for truth.

 

[MAKAVELI25]

This organization were making sense in Batman Begins. Even by criminal standards. They used extreme methods to get a job done but at least ya could understand why they wanted to kill Gotham even though it was a wicked method to use.

Bane and Talia were two idiots who's plan was a big pile of dumb that didn't make sense.

Exactly, all the villains in the trilogy have been motivated by something logical. Even if Ra's was very off kilter, one understand why he would do what he did. This is even more so with the Joker, you completely buy everything he does because there is a logic behind it. I just don't see the same thing with TDKR's villains.

 

[The Joker]

I just don't see the same thing with TDKR's villains.

That's because it's just not there. No matter what way you look at it given what was established in Batman Begins with the LOS, Bane and Talia really had no sound reasoning to be back in Gotham 8 years later to try and destroy it.

I will never understand why Nolan did not use the Harvey Dent cover up and their motive to come back. At least then the LOS would know that the peace time was all based on a fraud and that means Gotham was never really fixed. I mean when you watch the Ra's cameo he says to Bruce "All you managed to achieve was based on a lie. You see now why Gotham is beyond saving and must be allowed to die".

 

[Nevincer]

The overindulgence of the Blake character was only part of the problem. He wasn't even that bad persay, it's the fact that they experimented with a character like him so late in the franchise that IMO he spoilt several other already-established characters and how their potential storylines could have worked with TDKRs setup.

If you ask me the root of this film's problems is how much ambition it has, trying to do too many things for a part of the franchise that ultimately has the objective of bringing all the stories to a close. Many of the things that they implemented in the film were exciting in hindsight but because of the obnoxious pace didn't do anything for me, so the problem for me became either craving more of the epic things or wishing some of the arcs and subplots were given more attention as well as characters.

 

[BatLobster]

That's because it's just not there. No matter what way you look at it given what was established in Batman Begins with the LOS, Bane and Talia really had no sound reasoning to be back in Gotham 8 years later to try and destroy it.

I will never understand why Nolan did not use the Harvey Dent cover up and their motive to come back. At least then the LOS would know that the peace time was all based on a fraud and that means Gotham was never really fixed. I mean when you watch the Ra's cameo he says to Bruce "All you managed to achieve was based on a lie. You see now why Gotham is beyond saving and must be allowed to die".

It's because given the story he wanted to tell, moving 8 years later, with the LOS already being back in Gotham with an underground army and Talia having assumed a false identity for years, there was no way to have that be their primary motive without somehow explaining it in exposition, which the movie had plenty of to begin with. And honestly, Bane coming upon the truth and using it as ammunition was the lesser of two evils in that case. Or suppose they did a flashback scene of Bane confronting Ramirez or something, interrogating her and finding the truth out (just a for instance). This would imply some kind of implicit suspicion about Harvey Dent from the start, which is kind of at odds with the point about how the LOS should have left Gotham alone since the Dent Act cleaned it up. There was no paper trail that could lead to the truth. Bruce, Gordon, Alfred and I guess Lucius know the truth. And The Joker...but he was off limits. In my mind, the ideal scenario for Bane and the LOS to find out would have involved The Joker but that just wasn't to be sadly.

Also, regarding the point about The League being suspicious- I do think they had every reason to be suspicious. Bruce Wayne, the man that betrayed them because he thought himself morally superior, murders the D.A. that he was working with and four others? Something should sound off about the official story right away to them. If Blake is smart enough to assume that Bruce had to have taken the fall for some unknown reason, why wouldn't the LOS be any less perceptive? And believe me, it was not easy to bring up that Blake plot point in this particular thread knowing how much some people hate it, but there it is...haha. But hey, it's the only part of the post that's actually somewhat on topic

 

[The Joker]

The overindulgence of the Blake character was only part of the problem. He wasn't even that bad persay, it's the fact that they experimented with a character like him so late in the franchise that IMO he spoilt several other already-established characters and how their potential storylines could have worked with TDKRs setup.

If you ask me the root of this film's problems is how much ambition it has, trying to do too many things for a part of the franchise that ultimately has the objective of bringing all the stories to a close. Many of the things that they implemented in the film were exciting in hindsight but because of the obnoxious pace didn't do anything for me, so the problem for me became either craving more of the epic things or wishing some of the arcs and subplots were given more attention as well as characters.

An avatar back in your user name and a great post to go with it.

Welcome back, Nev

It's because given the story he wanted to tell, moving 8 years later, with the LOS already being back in Gotham with an underground army and Talia having assumed a false identity for years, there was no way to have that be their primary motive without somehow explaining it in exposition, which the movie had plenty of to begin with.

Or showing it in a flashback how they find out, and having them deliberately return on the anniversary of Dent's death as a poetic kind of return to coincide with when the lie began.

Lets not pretend Nolan was trapped narratively here and this was the only way he could have done it. He had many options and chose one of the weakest ones.

And honestly, Bane coming upon the truth and using it as ammunition was the lesser of two evils in that case.

What two evils? A futhermore how it was handled really diluted it. We never saw Gotham's reaction to this. Only Blake's. What did Bane use it for, to free a bunch of murderers, thieves and rapists who were not allowed get early parole. Some how Gordon managed to keep his job even though he was involved in an illegal conspiracy for 8 years?

That's the lesser of two evils for you?

Or suppose they did a flashback scene of Bane confronting Ramirez or something, interrogating her and finding the truth out (just a for instance). This would imply some kind of implicit suspicion about Harvey Dent from the start, which is kind of at odds with the point about how the LOS should have left Gotham alone since the Dent Act cleaned it up. There was no paper trail that could lead to the truth. Bruce, Gordon, Alfred and I guess Lucius know the truth. And The Joker...but he was off limits. In my mind, the ideal scenario for Bane and the LOS to find out would have involved The Joker but that just wasn't to be sadly.

This goes back to how the whole thing was handled to begin with. Batman should not have been retired for 8 years. He should have been active still fighting crime. The LOS knowing Batman like they do from Begins, and how he was so opposed to taking a life and being an executioner, should be suspicious to the max that he's wanted for several murders including one of the D.A. of Gotham that everyone seems to love. Bruce is not lifting a finger to prove his innocence despite him still being active as Batman. All of this should have prompted the LOS to do some digging and find out the truth. From there finding out who was there when Dent died, meaning Gordon and his family, how awesome would it be if they used Gordon, or Gordon's family to get the truth. Kidnap his wife, his kids, or all of them, or make a direct bee line for Gordon and get the truth out of him by threatening to kill his family.

Anything like that would have been better than how TDKR handled it.

]Also, regarding the point about The League being suspicious- I do think they had every reason to be suspicious. Bruce Wayne, the man that betrayed them because he thought himself morally superior, murders the D.A. that he was working with and four others? Something should sound off about the official story right away to them. If Blake is smart enough to assume that Bruce had to have taken the fall for some unknown reason, why wouldn't the LOS be any less perceptive? And believe me, it was not easy to bring up that Blake plot point in this particular thread knowing how much some people hate it, but there it is...haha. But hey, it's the only part of the post that's actually somewhat on topic

Exactly. That's what I've been saying. If Blake knew it in his bones whatever that Bruce took the fall for Dent, and he doesn't know Bruce at all, then the LOS, who knows him intimately, should have known something was off about the whole 'Batman is a killer/Dent is a hero' story.

 

[Doc Samson]

Honestly I don't even know how many leftovers there are between Ras' LoS & Bane's regime anyway. Al Ghul's faction were basically clandestine ninjas using more theatrical and mysterious means. And I can't recall any of them using traditional weapons.

Bane's men on the other hand freely walk around toting firearms, wear completely different apparel & don't seem all that interested in secrecy. Even with Bane's underground plot, his right hand man was firing shots at the police with ill regard.

 

[jmc]

The overindulgence of the Blake character was only part of the problem. He wasn't even that bad persay, it's the fact that they experimented with a character like him so late in the franchise that IMO he spoilt several other already-established characters and how their potential storylines could have worked with TDKRs setup.

If you ask me the root of this film's problems is how much ambition it has, trying to do too many things for a part of the franchise that ultimately has the objective of bringing all the stories to a close. Many of the things that they implemented in the film were exciting in hindsight but because of the obnoxious pace didn't do anything for me, so the problem for me became either craving more of the epic things or wishing some of the arcs and subplots were given more attention as well as characters.

Totally agree. It's a very ambitious movie, I'll give it an A for that, but it needs either to have less or more, less going on to make it a tighter story, or more time allocated to it to properly tell the story they were trying to tell. There's enough story in this film to span an entire 12 episode HBO series.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

BB didn't focus on the mercs, but they're there...

Spoiler

BB concept art

Spoiler

The mercs in TDKR wear the same red bandanas or scarves or whatever too

Spoiler

 

[Doc Samson]

BB didn't focus on the mercs, but they're there...

Spoiler

BB concept art

Spoiler

Ahhhh, very astute

 

[Alex Logan]

This can fixed very easily...

Those of you who think Nolan made a poor film... never speak of it, don't buy it and never watch it again. It's Spiderman 3 and Blade 3 combined into one, it's total crap and it doesn't exsit. You hate this film.

Those of you who think Nolan made fantastic film... yell from the mountain tops, buy an hundred copies and watch it unilt the end of time. It's Citizen Kane and Metropolis combined into one, it's the greatest thing since sliced bread and it will live forever. You love this film.

Problem solved, argument over, lock thread forever. Thank you.

 

[Travesty]

This can fixed very easily...

Those of you who think Nolan made a poor film... never speak of it, don't buy it and never watch it again. It's Spiderman 3 and Blade 3 combined into one, it's total crap and it doesn't exsit. You hate this film.

 

[Human Torch]

You have a point,and I agree to an extent.It seems that most people have an all or nothing opinion about this film.Either it's a flawless masterpiece that shall not be spoken against or it's the worst garbage put on film since B&R.

I do think there's a large, perhaps less vocal segment like myself,that see it as a somewhat flawed,though greatly enjoyable,film.

 

[The Joker]

This can fixed very easily...

Those of you who think Nolan made a poor film... never speak of it, don't buy it and never watch it again. It's Spiderman 3 and Blade 3 combined into one, it's total crap and it doesn't exsit. You hate this film.

Those of you who think Nolan made fantastic film... yell from the mountain tops, buy an hundred copies and watch it unilt the end of time. It's Citizen Kane and Metropolis combined into one, it's the greatest thing since sliced bread and it will live forever. You love this film.

Problem solved, argument over, lock thread forever. Thank you.

 

[Alex Logan]

You have a point,and I agree to an extent.It seems that most people have an all or nothing opinion about this film.Either it's a flawless masterpiece that shall not be spoken against or it's the worst garbage put on film since B&R.

I do think there's a large, perhaps less vocal segment like myself,that see it as a somewhat flawed,though greatly enjoyable,film.

Exactly.

Nice try, but you fail.

 

[The Joker]

Nice try, but you fail.

At what? Posting a gif that illustrates my reaction to how ridiculously dramatic and foolish that rant you made was?

 

[BatLobster]

Exactly. That's what I've been saying. If Blake knew it in his bones whatever that Bruce took the fall for Dent, and he doesn't know Bruce at all, then the LOS, who knows him intimately, should have known something was off about the whole 'Batman is a killer/Dent is a hero' story.

And I'm saying nothing in the story contradicts this viewpoint. If they knew something was "off" about the whole story, then they don't need to actively try and sniff out the truth. Their time can be better spent on preparing their attack. These are extremists who act on the power of belief, utterly convinced of the justness of their own cause. They're not really the types to fact check. And suppose they couldn't find the proof they were looking for (which honestly, would have been extremely difficult to find)...would they then just give Gotham a free pass?

From there finding out who was there when Dent died, meaning Gordon and his family, how awesome would it be if they used Gordon, or Gordon's family to get the truth. Kidnap his wife, his kids, or all of them, or make a direct bee line for Gordon and get the truth out of him by threatening to kill his family.

Anything like that would have been better than how TDKR handled it.

That's an awesome idea. But it would drastically change the rhythms of Act 1 of the movie, and shift around a lot of things in general really. I know that for you and many others, that would be a good thing. And that's just it...from all the arguments I've seen hurled against the film, it seems to me that a lot of people wanted a drastically different film than the one we got. One without an 8 year gap and/or a Batman coming out of retirement angle, one without Miranda/Talia and/or Talia being less evil and more of a grey character, one where John Blake didn't get as much focus, where the revolution is the primary goal and there's no nuke endgame, etc.

These things would drastically change the entire fabric of the movie. So it's funny, people talk about TDKR nitpickers. In a lot of cases, I don't think it's nitpicking, I think a good chunk of you guys wanted a substantially different film, as the criticisms always seem to come back to fundamental decisions the Nolans made with how they setup the story. And that's fine, I respect the consistency in the arguments there. I think you and I are destined to do this forever

Spoiler

But not really, eventually I imagine the debate will get boring for both sides

There's enough story in this film to span an entire 12 episode HBO series.

That I totally agree with. But I think to be fair, TDK had enough story for like an 8 to 10 episode HBO miniseries. It had that truncated feel too in areas, particularly with how Dent was handled. TDKR just took that compressed style even further with its grander scope. I understand the desire for more though, that's for sure.