The Dark Knight Rises Anne Hathaway vs Michelle Pfeiffer

[milost]

To the same extent that you're saying the coverup was brushed over, you could argue that the LOS was brushed over and ignored in TDK. I mean Gotham had its entire water supply poisoned, all of Arkham's inmates were freed and their best lead on who carried out the attack is a single psychiatrist at Arkham when it's obvious it had to be a huge operation? Maybe that's bigger than the GCPD and maybe the CIA are looking into it....but my point is, TDK took a huge detour from all this stuff to focus on the next thematically relevant idea. Just like TDKR does in the aftermath of TDK. In both cases I feel we're spared all the boring, tedious stuff of tying up all the rather small loose ends from the third act of the previous film. And TDKR manages to flesh out the LOS/Ra's in a way that makes the saga feel more complete.

But TDK does go over the loose ends from Batman Begins. That's the problem, TDKR just jumps ahead, leaves crucial things behind while creating new scenarios. Everyone had questions after TDK, everyone. Where are all these people now? Where are the people from 2008 with all their inquiries like "how will this work, what happens now?" Didn't Jonah Nolan even say early on, "all will be revealed". Not even TDKR answers them. The events just conveniently happen and were thrown into a new situation. We never even got to see a young Blake, or that failed project that prevents Bruce from even being BRUCE.



TDK Visually, thematically and story wise, it's way different than Batman Begins. They did take a detour, I agree, but not out of the plot. Remember Scarecrow being a loose end at the end of Begins? The Narrows was lost, they couldn't find him or half the inmates that escaped from Arkham.

What happens in TDK? Well, we see what Scarecrow is up to and he ends up being apprehended by Batman. How about the Arkham patients? Well, we see some of them are working for the Joker. That's wrapped up.


Carmine Falcone? He's a loose end at the end of Batman Begins, but, we find in TDK, early in the film, that Maroni has taken his place. makes sense, the crime families do this. We even hear about Arkham again. That's finished, not left behind.


Rachel is back, they're chatting up about "you know that day you once to me about, when Gotham would no longer need Batman". Makes sense. The joker card we see at the end of Batman Begins? The guy that's wanted for arm robbery and double homicide? Well, he's a crucial element in TDK.

How about Finch, the DA from Begins? He's killed by the mob, a fate that most good people suffer from in Gotham. What happened there? Oh, Gotham just got a new elected DA, Harvey Dent in TDK.

We even hear that Gotham is being rebuilt. Even the Begins suit is back. That theme, escalation? That's the very essence of The Dark Knight.






So what's that leave? Ah yes, the League of Shadows. Why aren't they mentioned? Well, aren't they the same group that secretly and covertly burned London to the ground, ruined Gotham financially, etc (funny how in TDKR, they completely different, they're not even stealthy or secretive). Aren't they ninjas disguised as actual SWAT members? Didn't their leader meet his end on the monorail? Nobody knew what was going on in Begins, so after the situation is taken care of, why would Bruce, who is trying to fight the mob and this "Joker guy" make reference to what happened last film? It was a Narrows situation that was taken care of. In fact, the virals for TDK went into this heavily as well.


The fear toxin gas? Narrows is lost, it's lost in TDK. What is the Scarecrow selling in TDK? Oh, that's right, the same drug. The microwave emitter is gone, obliterated why mention that in TDK, nobody knows about it? It was stolen, now it's gone. The Fear gas? The events are attributed to drugs and the Arkham breakout. Scarecrow is selling them and there are tons of inmates out on the loose. Why can't Crane be blamed? He was the patsy after all. He thought that they were going to hold the city hostage. With all the things he knew/did, it seems logical. He used inmates to poison the water. How about the Tumbler going on it's rampage on the evening news? Coleman Reese, part of Wayne Enterprises figures that out. That was a question everyone had in Begins.


I think the only thing left is Mr. Earle, but, is he really as big as the HARVEY DENT CONSPIRACY? Hardly. He's done.





It wraps it all up in TDK in the first hour. Maybe less than that. Yes, TDK is different from Begins, especially the way it's structured. I agree. It's almost like a different film completely. But nothing from Begins is left hanging like it is in TDKR. TDKR is all messed up. It's structure? How could anyone argue that it feels right after TDK?

 

[Anno_Domini]

It just goes back to the fact that TDKR's job wasn't just to be a sequel to TDK, but a sequel to BB AND TDK...which are two very different films. I think it's emotionally more of a sequel to TDK, while plot-wise it's more of a sequel to BB.

To the same extent that you're saying the coverup was brushed over, you could argue that the LOS was brushed over and ignored in TDK. I mean Gotham had its entire water supply poisoned, all of Arkham's inmates were freed and their best lead on who carried out the attack is a single psychiatrist at Arkham when it's obvious it had to be a huge operation? Maybe that's bigger than the GCPD and maybe the CIA are looking into it....but my point is, TDK took a huge detour from all this stuff to focus on the next thematically relevant idea. Just like TDKR does in the aftermath of TDK. In both cases I feel we're spared all the boring, tedious stuff of tying up all the rather small loose ends from the third act of the previous film. And TDKR manages to flesh out the LOS/Ra's in a way that makes the saga feel more complete.

So true. One should bring up the zero mention of the LoS in TDK when the leader brought down the freaking monorail for Christ's sake, lol. But, nothing, zilch.

What happened to Flass though? He tried to gun down a kid under the hallucination and was knocked out. I don't think he'd be coming back.

So you're fine with Flass being knocked out and not returning, but not Ramirez when last we see of her is her being knocked out?

Stephens? He survived.

And that's not the point. I said each film just has a new bunch of officers, so I never thought he would return.

And how do we know Ramirez booked? Just because she isn't in a a few second montage scene? What if she's behind Stephens, the only real cop you see other than Gordon amidst all those reporters and media people. Maybe she didn't go up there because she didn't want to get wet? Maybe she was visiting her mom? We know what happened to Gordon's family (who knew, I'm surprised Jimmy Gordon didn't spill the beans, wouldn't that have made for nice conflict instead of a written speech?), why not Ramirez, she was just as crucial, she made the call and was deeply sorry about it.

If Ramirez didn't run, she would've been there in that little bit of montage where we see cops which made up of pretty much the MCU if Stephens was there as well. She wasn't, so the best guess is that she fled.

Maybe she didn't go up there because she didn't want to get wet?

Hopefully you're making a joke.

And the kids don't really matter when Jim's wife left him with the kids in tow.

And the SWATs would think Batman kidnapped the Gordon's prior to the siege (where Batman saved everyone) and Harvey would call and tell Gordon that Batman kidnapped him? The guy that is supposed to be in there? The guy who was supposedly kidnapped by the Joker himself.

Batman saved everyone? That's not the way it's called out during the events of TDKR at all, so it's not too extreme to think they could have still made Batman to be the bad guy that indeed kidnapped a family and Harvey Dent beforehand.

That's nuts. A random kid character, written into the events that's a cop 8 years later thought there was something fishy about that "night 8 years ago, where I mention SWATS being taken down by Batman, but not clown hostages or the Joker" (what's up with that by the way), but highly trained cops don't question it? Nobody questions it, even pro-Batman supporters? That's crazy.

Again, there is a reason Joker isn't mentioned. Stop trying to make that a point when we know the point of why the character isn't mentioned.

And one cop who knew Batman is Bruce Wayne all along that didn't believe he would just become a murderer. That's different from cops that still believe Batman wasn't out to do good even during TDK's events.

Hell, Mayor Garcia KNEW that Dent was no where to be found, certainly not with the Joker. What did Batman do to get the "murderous thug" label? Oh, that's right, he killed Harvey Dent and I guess those other people that Dent really killed. How did they find Dent? With the suit he wore at the time of Rache's Dent, certainly not his hospital gown like the other hostages. How about that pistol (though Gordon probably confiscated it, couldn't it be traced back as Dent's gun from the victims, or as Joker's gun, hmmmmm).
Who are all the people that died? Dirty cops, possibly Maroni. Witnesses? Cell phone calls (used a lot).

Garcia knew Dent was no where to be found...so how does that help the idea that Batman couldn't have kidnapped him and also killed him in "cold blood"?

No investigations? I would have loved to have seen Gordon explain all this or try and shoot down any attack/man hunt on Batman. Or even the Joker spilling the beans (which, why wouldn't he do that at his obvious trial?).

I don't see why you're so worked up on that but you're fine that there is zero mentioning of the League of Shadows in TDK.

 

[Anno_Domini]

But TDK does go over the loose ends from Batman Begins. That's the problem, TDKR just jumps ahead, leaves crucial things behind while creating new scenarios. Everyone had questions after TDK, everyone. Where are all these people now? Where are the people from 2008 with all their inquiries like "how will this work, what happens now?" Didn't Jonah Nolan even say early on, "all will be revealed". Not even TDKR answers them. The events just conveniently happen and were thrown into a new situation. We never even got to see a young Blake, or that failed project that prevents Bruce from even being BRUCE.



TDK Visually, thematically and story wise, it's way different than Batman Begins. They did take a detour, I agree, but not out of the plot. Remember Scarecrow being a loose end at the end of Begins? The Narrows was lost, they couldn't find him or half the inmates that escaped from Arkham.

What happens in TDK? Well, we see what Scarecrow is up to and he ends up being apprehended by Batman. How about the Arkham patients? Well, we see some of them are working for the Joker. That's wrapped up.


Carmine Falcone? He's a loose end at the end of Batman Begins, but, we find in TDK, early in the film, that Maroni has taken his place. makes sense, the crime families do this. We even hear about Arkham again. That's finished, not left behind.


Rachel is back, they're chatting up about "you know that day you once to me about, when Gotham would no longer need Batman". Makes sense. The joker card we see at the end of Batman Begins? The guy that's wanted for arm robbery and double homicide? Well, he's a crucial element in TDK.

How about Finch, the DA from Begins? He's killed by the mob, a fate that most good people suffer from in Gotham. What happened there? Oh, Gotham just got a new elected DA, Harvey Dent in TDK.

We even hear that Gotham is being rebuilt. Even the Begins suit is back. That theme, escalation? That's the very essence of The Dark Knight.






So what's that leave? Ah yes, the League of Shadows. Why aren't they mentioned? Well, aren't they the same group that secretly and covertly burned London to the ground, ruined Gotham financially, etc (funny how in TDKR, they completely different, they're not even stealthy or secretive). Aren't they ninjas disguised as actual SWAT members? Didn't their leader meet his end on the monorail? Nobody knew what was going on in Begins, so after the situation is taken care of, why would Bruce, who is trying to fight the mob and this "Joker guy" make reference to what happened last film? It was a Narrows situation that was taken care of. In fact, the virals for TDK went into this heavily as well.


The fear toxin gas? Narrows is lost, it's lost in TDK. What is the Scarecrow selling in TDK? Oh, that's right, the same drug. The microwave emitter is gone, obliterated why mention that in TDK, nobody knows about it? It was stolen, now it's gone. The Fear gas? The events are attributed to drugs and the Arkham breakout. Scarecrow is selling them and there are tons of inmates out on the loose. Why can't Crane be blamed? He was the patsy after all. He thought that they were going to hold the city hostage. With all the things he knew/did, it seems logical. He used inmates to poison the water. How about the Tumbler going on it's rampage on the evening news? Coleman Reese, part of Wayne Enterprises figures that out. That was a question everyone had in Begins.


I think the only thing left is Mr. Earle, but, is he really as big as the HARVEY DENT CONSPIRACY? Hardly. He's done.





It wraps it all up in TDK in the first hour. Maybe less than that. Yes, TDK is different from Begins, especially the way it's structured. I agree. It's almost like a different film completely. But nothing from Begins is left hanging like it is in TDKR. TDKR is all messed up. It's structure? How could anyone argue that it feels right after TDK?

The League of Shadows is the biggest thing that happened in BB and it's left out. Make it a big deal as you're trying to make it a big deal of any investigation or what not regarding Batman being a murderer.

 

[BatLobster]

So what's that leave? Ah yes, the League of Shadows. Why aren't they mentioned? Well, aren't they the same group that secretly and covertly burned London to the ground, ruined Gotham financially, etc (funny how in TDKR, they completely different, they're not even stealthy or secretive). Aren't they ninjas disguised as actual SWAT members? Didn't their leader meet his end on the monorail? Nobody knew what was going on in Begins, so after the situation is taken care of, why would Bruce, who is trying to fight the mob and this "Joker guy" make reference to what happened last film? It was a Narrows situation that was taken care of. In fact, the virals for TDK went into this heavily as well.

Yes but...in a modern society (more sophisticated than the older ones they attacked), it just doesn't quite make literal sense to think that they can accept one guy as a patsy for actions that clearly required a lot of coordination and conspiracy. And Rachel can testify to seeing Falcone's overseeing the inmates dumping toxin into the water supply. What is Crane's connection to the mob? Why would the mob take orders from a single psychiatrist at Arkham for something so risky? And HOW did Crane manage to vaporize the entire city's water supply? It's all a situation that never quite adds up. Completely dropped, because it would have marred down TDK in too many tedious details.

The way it did address all these things that you mentioned? Those were great. They were nice little touches. It still falls apart when you really think about it though. I simply can't believe that Crane is a believable figurehead for something of that scale. I can suspend my disbelief and go with it, but when I really think about it I don't buy that there isn't a larger investigation happening (I like to think there is). It's the same with the Dent coverup. Something like that would probably never work, and would be too leaky. But I can suspend my disbelief for the sake of the movie and accept that it does, and that Gordon managed to plug up all the holes.

Also, I agree with you that virals went into this...but be careful here when bringing it into an argument as 'canon'. I've gotten slammed for that in the past when it comes to supporting my TDKR arguments with viral materials.

Lastly- I think the LOS being different in TDKR was part of the point. I like to think of it as, Bane/Talia took the League of Shadows...out of the shadows. It was about evil rising.

TDKR is all messed up. It's structure? How could anyone argue that it feels right after TDK?

Ultimately, the 8 year gap worked for me because TDK ended on a note of real finality (many people including Nolan have noted that it's a satisfying enough ending to work as a definitive conclusion). The passage of time honored that finality and put it into a fictionally historical context. That's why I never had a problem with it. It takes a satisfying ending, gives it room to breathe, and then deconstructs it (metaphorically, not literally)

 

[DACrowe]

But though he lacked a clear origin, even the elements of The Joker were explained in some sense. The suit, the makeup, etc.

We never know why he has scars or why he wears make-up, beyond that he was inspired by Batman to start dressing theatrically. Yes, we find out he bought the suit with mob money, but are you really holding it against TDKR that Selina doesn't explain when she made/purchased her costume? Otherwise their motifs are equally (un)explained.

In no way does that suggest that she, or her “vaguely cat-like motif” which she may not even be trying to accomplish on purpose, is inspired by Batman.

But she does. She clearly has a fangirl thing for the Batman. She is excited when he returns and evidently Geeks out when she is in his car. As you pretty much elude to, it is a subtle (for Nolan) implication that her style and appearance is at least somewhat influenced by the guy in a cape.

Except that this theme was largely ignored in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES. Which I find criminal. You don’t introduce a brilliant idea like that, and a core idea of the Batman mythos, and then put a SLIGHT NOD to it in the sequel. That’s just lousy carryover from film to film.

It's a slight nod, because this isn't a Selina Kyle origin story. She comes fully formed when the movie starts. It builds off that sense from the first two (escalation in BB and REAL theatrical escalation in TDK), but it isn't the focus of the film. It is not poor carry-over themes. Nolan isn't trying to tell the same story twice. He EXTENSIVELY explored the concept of escalation and Batman's (negative) influence on Gotham's crime world with the Joker, a drug dealing Scarecrow and the "Batmen" Hockey Team in TDK. He is going in a different, largely unexplored (for Nolan and the genre) direction with TDKR. He slyly develops Catwoman's past by relying on staging, imagery and Hathaway's performance to put across all that is needed. Again, the movie thematically is not about escalation, so it is used in the most economical ways to explain why Selina has a cat motif. Just because you want to revisit that subject does not mean Nolan does and it should not be considered a blight on the film that it chose to go in a direction separate from your taste. Just saying.

No…it’s quite obvious they want you to think Selina is a badass. And they do so very visibly. A gunbattle, using her heels to stab Dagget…the fighting… the whole “I’m too tough and too much of a selfish loner to help others” angle, etc.

Yep. And she never once has to lick Batman's face, do battle with a chauvinistic boss who won't let her get promoted (and then tries to kill her), get berated by ex-lovers and mothers on the cell phone, or destroy her doll houses and stuffed animals as youth to signify she is letting go of girlhood. She also never has to say horrible lines like "I'm Catwoman...hear me roar" and "All men in my life try to kill me." Why? Because Burton made a great, but dated, character study that explains HOW a modern career woman can be tough and WHY she has to fight. And since, many Hollywood producers have revisited that theme with laziness and stupidity as seen in nearly every action film starring a woman in the last 20 years, including the horrendous Catwoman movie. Nolan, refreshingly creates a badass who is especially cool, even to women, because it isn't drawing attention to itself that she's a woman. The action scenes are not designed to say "SEE WOMAN CAN KICK ASS TOO!" like Batman Returns did. Instead, she simply kicks ass and is cool. But other than those two motorcycle shots which Hathaway critics harp on, there is nothing in the movie that draws real attention to the fact she is a woman being a badass anymore than there is to Bruce Wayne or BAne being men. That is refreshing and nice.

 

[Snow Queen]

For a filmmaker who is never subtle, Nolan does put it all in there, just in terms surprisingly subdued for himself. She is clearly influenced by Batman as she watches him on the TV when he returns with amusement ("Well, what do you know."). Similarly, when she rides with him in the Bat, she has a look on her face that is not dissimilar to a fangirl going on a ride with a childhood idol.

As Joker said in the second movie, "You changed things." Or as Gordon said in the first, "escalation." Batman's appearance has caused criminals in Gotham to escalate towards theatricality. Nolan's Catwoman is clearly influenced, even somewhat in awe-inspired, by the Batman. So, as a cat thief, she adds a theatrical element to her look. The mask is to conceal identity, the heels are a weapon and the ears are goggles. The suit, while sexualized, is not that different from the skin tight outfits usually associated with cat burglars well beyond the confines of comic books or Nolan movies.

It is all there. He just does not spell it out, which is somewhat odd but refreshing for him. It is an economical way of developing why she dresses like this. Again, her motives for going there are not that different from Joker, who is an anarchist inspired by Batman to start dressing like a clown and upping his game in the Nolan universe. Selina is a thief inspired by Batman to add a motif to her look.

And again, it is nice for a supposedly strong empowered female to be all those things without the audience pointing a beacon at her being tough and expecting applause, which is what Selina, like all heroines of that decade, did in the Burton movie of that era.

I didn't pick up on the fangirl angle myself, good points all around.

Also, I think I'm in the minority here but I really don't like Pfeiffer's Catwoman.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Also, I agree with you that virals went into this...but be careful here when bringing it into an argument as 'canon'. I've gotten slammed for that in the past when it comes to supporting my TDKR arguments with viral materials.

I don't even recall half of TDK's viral marketing to even insist it on being canon myself, so just by those three films, TDK did nothing to salvage up the plot point of the LoS or even the clean up that's going on in the Narrows, sadly.

Also...the gap between TDK and TDKR is eight years and the gap between BB and TDK, while obviously speculative, is 9 months to a year, and it's way less of a gap to NOT mention something. And if Ledger had still been alive, I'm sure the name would have at least been mentioned even if Joker wouldn't be in the film(although all signs point to Joker having been in TDKR if Heath was still alive).

Lastly- I think the LOS being different in TDKR was part of the point. I like to think of it as, Bane/Talia took the League of Shadows...out of the shadows. It was about evil rising.

I'd like to think of it just being The League of Shadows 2.0 as this group was vastly different. Nothing of a hint of the LoS being ninjas anymore and were far more suicidal. If anything, Talia and Bane's version of the LoS felt the closest to an actual terrorist group that we've seen in a CBM so far, even more than how the Ten Rings were shown in Iron Man.

 

[The Joker]

We never know why he has scars

Yes, we do. Though he tells two conflicting stories the theme of it is something terrible happened to him that they were either self inflicted or someone else did it to him, and it made him snap mentally.

or why he wears make-up

Henchman #1 "So why do they call him the Joker?"
Henchman #2 "I heard he wears make up"
Henchman #1 "Make up?"
Henchman #2 "Yeah to scare people. You know like war paint"

 

[DACrowe]

So you're saying someone needed to say:

"I heard she wears ears."

"You mean like a cat?"

"Yeah, but they're goggles she uses to crack safes and stuff."

or

"I heard she wears a mask."

"A mask?"

"Yeah like to hide her identity."

Her costume is very clearly made to be self-explainatory. Why does she make her cat burglar outfit somewhat theatrical? Like the Joker, we never hear the specifics but she is clearly influenced by Batman. To take it a step further, we also hear that she is a thief because she "had to do what I had to." Not quite as iconic as the Joker speeches, but in the same vein. We know something bad happened to him which drove in madness-inducing scars. We know she came from poverty and a rough life whch drove her to crime.

It is really the same playbook in that regard.

 

[The Joker]

I'm not saying anything of the sort. I'm refuting your false statement that we were never given any reason why Joker wears make up.

I'm sorry, but there is nothing to suggest that she is "clearly" influenced by Batman. The copycats are the types clearly influenced by Batman. The Joker is clearly the logical response to Batman given he is first brought up at the end of Begins as part of Batman's effect on Gotham. Batman caused waves and Joker was the big splash. Gotham suddenly had a theatrical law enforcer, so the underworld had an equally theatrical evil doer. Even Nolan flat out said many times Joker was the logical criminal response to Batman. Did he ever say anything like that about Selina or her costume being inspired by Batman?

In TDKR Batman had been gone for 8 years. Selina never even mentions Batman until she hears on the news that he's back, and seems pleased by it. But that in no way implicates she is dressed up the way she is because of him.

I personally loved Anne's costume, and didn't give two hoots none of it was given any validation, or that she was never named Catwoman. But to lump the Joker's theatrical elements in with hers is plain wrong. Joker's theatricality was given plenty of validation in TDK.

 

[DACrowe]

I simply disagree that because Nolan didn't spell it out that he didn't put it in the movie. Everyone criticizes him for writing everything in the dialogue, but when he doesn't do it, people deny the obvious.

Nolan said several times during filming that he liked Hathaway because she had to convey the character's backstory through her acting, because we'll never actually see it. Then we get scenes like this:

Spoiler

Sometimes acting does say it all. He clearly is an inspiration or some type of idol to her as she would have been a teenager during the events of BB and TDK (if she's 27 in TDKR, as said in her police itel, then would have been 18-20 during the events of the first two). As Joker said, "You changed things."

It is not spelled out, but it is there. Kind of like how we know the make-up is "war paint." Why a clown? Why do those scars actually exist? We just know that they are how he internalized the escalating theatricality of Gotham's criminal world. It works.

 

[BatLobster]

I simply disagree that because Nolan didn't spell it out that he didn't put it in the movie. Everyone criticizes him for writing everything in the dialogue, but when he doesn't do it, people deny the obvious.

Nolan said several times during filming that he liked Hathaway because she had to convey the character's backstory through her acting, because we'll never actually see it. Then we get scenes like this:

Sometimes acting does say it all.

I agree with all of that so much that it hurts.

 

[milost]

Alright, I got this.

So true. One should bring up the zero mention of the LoS in TDK when the leader brought down the freaking monorail for Christ's sake, lol. But, nothing, zilch.

Why does the LOS need to be mentioned in TDK? Because of the destruction of the monorail? Inmates escaped Arkham which is in the Narrows. It was tampered with in the narrows. Who poisoned the water? Crane and his inmates. Again, Crane was a patsy. If accused, would Crane deny that he poisoned the water, stole the microwave emitter and let the inmates roam free. Doesn't sound as convoluted or questionable as, "BATMAN KILLED ALL THESE PEOPLE, AND DENT, LET'S NOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT".

The League of Shadows is supposedly untraceable, correct? They're a secret organization. What evidence did Ra's leave behind that they were behind any of it? They went in with stealth (disguised as SWAT), just like they had done centuries before (unlike TDKR). Oh, that's right, he left Crane behind, the patsy, the one who thought they were going to hold the city ransom. They're ninjas with training remember (again, unlike the unfaithful TDKR).


Are we really comparing the events in the narrows to that of the Harvey Dent conspiracy? Really? Okay, let's see. If there was an investigation from the events in Begins, it goes all the way back to Crane, who isn't caught yet by TDK. He's SELLING the same compound that was distributed in the Narrows, he was also associated with the mob. There you go. Atleast the people involved weren't conveniently excluded like it is with TDKR.

I mean in TDK, aren't they still trying to clean it up the streets? Scarecrow still hasn't been apprehended, nor the inmates that have escaped.

Or do you think Bruce should have been going on and on about Ra's while he's trying to defeat the mob? I mean, there is even that reference to Ra's with the "criminals aren't complicated line". This lack of mention of the secret League of Shadows organization is NOTHING compared to where TDKR starts out after TDK. 8 years in the future with lame, convoluted explanations, if there are explanations at all.

Think of all the loose ends from Begins that are nicely, perfectly wrapped up in The Dark Knight. It's not convenient or convulted or unexplained. They're different films and stories, but they flow nicely. It's also about a year after Begins, not 8 year without any sense of it.

So you're fine with Flass being knocked out and not returning, but not Ramirez when last we see of her is her being knocked out?

Flass was a dirty cop, most people were well aware of it. Gotham finest weren't exactly squeaky clean, remember that. Is he involved with the grand scheme of things? Nope, only on the bottom level, not in the big League of Shadows scheme. Not even Falcone is involved despite desperately "wanting in". Gordon even knew that Flass was crooked.

So what becomes of him? Well, he breathes in the toxin and tries to kill a couple of innocent kids. Gordon sees this, knocks him out and handcuffs him to a pole. What really needs to be said? Stephens takes his place.


Now Ramirez? She ain't no Flass, is she? She's pretty damn integral to the plot in the end of TDK isn't she. Yes, she's also a "dirty cop", but is Flass as important as her in Begins? No. Ramirez is the reason that our hero's childhood friend is killed and the reason why Harvey Dent snaps. That's a pretty big role.

To top it off though, she is actually SPARED by the coin flip and lives to "fight another day". Now, had the outcome of TDK been different, I'd say that, she wasn't that important to the sequel BUT, the film ends with a COVER UP where Batman has taken the blame for the people Harvey Dent killed. Ramirez is also the reason the CLIMAX of the film even happens.


But then in the sequel, never a mention again? How did she feel? I'm sure she regretted it (and it was understandable, considering her mother), but she also got hit in the face by Dent's pistol? Was that forgivable? What's stopping her from ratting out Gordon and Batman, how does she even know what to say, we never see them converse. Would it ruin her reputation? Not really, everyone knows that she's "scum", we know this is a possibility in TDK.


We can make up explanations, but we don't know what happens. That IS a LOOSE end. She's much bigger than Flass, wouldn't you say?

And that's not the point. I said each film just has a new bunch of officers, so I never thought he would return.

Loeb returned from Begins. The Mayor returned from TDK. Friggin Fredericks who really has no bearing on the story other than making Bruce guilty is back for TDKR. Crane? His story ends in TDK as far as I'm concerned since he's barely used for TDKR.

Stephens is easy to replace and not mention (though it would have been cool to see more of him, he reminded me of a potential Bullock), I'll give you that. But Ramirez? Not even a mention? She's one of the reasons what transpires, transpires, along with the Joker. I don't care what Gordon would do, or wouldn't do. She literally called the Gordon's, telling them where to meet and other officers heard Gordon talking to Dent about his family. That ain't no small thing in my opinion.

Again, Gordon, like the audience knew, you can't just "sweep this up". He SAYS that. Batman also says he'll be hunted (obviously). But somehow in TDKR, it is just swept up? It is neat and tidy, no questions involved? Batman is never hunted? An investigation and man hunt on Batman never comes to fruition.

Huh?



I mean, we all knew their plan would never work, even though Batman went in with the best and noblest of intentions. It was going to fall apart, you can't just sweep it up. That's what was interesting about it. "How the hell are they going to manage that".


But TDKR makes it magical, it just magically works (like a lot of things in TDKR). They fast forward, they don't deal with the event itself, just the outcome. And how does it fall apart? Gordon, stupidly and conveniently left a letter in his pocket telling the truth. Which he kept there for days/nights and the newest, random, baddie finds it and reads it on public television. In fact, when the truth is revealed, the city that supposedly cares oh so much doesn't even react! If they do we never get to see it! Instead, we see Blake's reaction, this new character that wasn't even THOUGHT of in 2005 or 2008.


Really? That's cool with you?

If Ramirez didn't run, she would've been there in that little bit of montage where we see cops which made up of pretty much the MCU if Stephens was there as well. She wasn't, so the best guess is that she fled.

How do we know she ran. How do we know she isn't behind Stephens? How do we know she isn't in the hospital from being pistol whipped? Who found Ramirez? How does she feel about what happened the following night? Does she feel guilty?


I'd be inclined to say "who cares", but again, she's pretty damn important, for and against the whole "DENT CONSPIRACY" which TDKR has. It miraculously worked. How?

Hopefully you're making a joke.

I am. But still. Just because she isn't there, we're supposed to just figure she quit? Or was was forced out?

Other than being associated with the mob because of her mother, she seemed like a good cop. There's guilt in her face when she lets Dent go. She doesn't want to give the Gordon's away to Dent. Gordon seems pretty fond of having her in their group despite all the accusations against her.

So what happened to her?

And the kids don't really matter when Jim's wife left him with the kids in town.

To Cleveland. Yeah, I know.

That's another thing that would have been nice to have seen. It's implied that the lie ruined Barbara and Jim's marriage. Would have been nice to have seen it instead of a throwaway line. You know, some good tension and story telling. How did Gordon get all these people to shut the hell up?

He got Joker to keep his mouth shut? Reese? Engel? SWATS? Ramirez? His wife and kids (Barbara seemed to be pretty fed up with all this stuff, including Batman). All this stuff is avoided. But, before TDKR, it was certainly a pretty big deal.

Batman saved everyone? That's not the way it's called out during the events of TDKR at all, so it's not too extreme to think they could have still made Batman to be the bad guy that indeed kidnapped a family and Harvey Dent beforehand.

TDKR retcons everything and has a random like John Blake be the scripts tool for TDK's doubts and reactions.

I'm talking about TDK. Even with Batman taking the blame, how wouldn't people doubt it at the Prewitt siege? Alright, lets start with him on the rooftop.

He's been an ally thus far, Gordon puts all of his trust in him. His men (SWAT, Stephens, Ramirez, they all see this). Most were there and saw what happened at the interrogation. Batman hasn't let them down before, even though they're weary of him/blame him since the Joker makes threats because of Batman's existence.

So they're up on the rooftop. Batman has given them the location to the Prewitt building, all of them think that Dent is with them. Now, before they go in, Batman suggests they wait and let him go in, it's never that easy with the Joker. This seems pretty reasonable, right? Batman's learned from his mistakes and let's remember, he helped catch the Joker and save Dent in the first place. He just wants 5 minutes before they barge in and converge (I know Gordon is feeling guilty, but that just doesn't seem right for him to pull his gun out on Batman, after all they've been through).

So he goes in, these guys are ready to blow away the Clown thugs. Without warning, they go in. They hear Gordon talking to Harvey Dent specifically, asking where is family is. But, Dent is in there, in the Prewitt building as far as they're concerned. Then Gordon leaves. Do you see where I'm coming from?



So, they go in, but they see Batman there still. He's clearly seen protecting the "enemy" clowns, fighting the hospital "hostages, and carefully subduing threatening SWAT members. Batman DOES save everyone from harm because the SWAT end up seeing the switch, that Mike Engel and the real hostages were disguised as enemy clowns with masks with their hands taped and that the REAL enemies, the thugs were pretending to be hospital doctors.

They REALIZE this, they even say that. To top it off, Batman leaves the Joker hanging there for them to capture, they even got the spotlight on them.





So, yeah, Batman saved everyone. Any person with a brain would understand this once they saw that the clowns were really hostages. Look how many lives Batman just saved. AND he captured the Joker, the guy that's been killing cops and innocent civilians left and right.

Oh, and Dent isn't there. And some of them heard Gordon talking to Dent asking "where his family is". So what happened? What was the story that Gordon gave? We never know.


How did the lie work? That's all I'm asking. I know it does, but it shouldn't. And this isn't The Dark Knight's problem either, because it ends there. We don't see the repercussions. But TDKR? It doesn't tell us ANYTHING. It leaves you hanging. That just isn't comparable to something as minor as Flass or the secretive League of Shadows. It just isn't. There's way too many people involved including . . . THE JOKER.

The Joker just gave up? Just took a loss and is never heard from again. He's be questioned, unless the SWAT team just blew his brains out when he got up there. But the thing is, we never know. We hear Blake talking about "that night, that night 8 years ago", but it doesn't mean anything to TDK because he wasn't involved for one, and they don't go into detail of how it worked.

Again, there is a reason Joker isn't mentioned. Stop trying to make that a point when we know the point of why the character isn't mentioned.

Yeah, and the reason is Nolan didn't feel comfortable involving anything Joker I guess. I totally get that.

But story wise, that doesn't help TDKR, not the events that unfold. How are you going to mention Dent (numerous, numerous times), Rachel, Ra's (who gets a hallucination no less), the League of Shadows, Thomas Wayne, but never the Joker? The Joker is like the black sheep, the elephant in the room or whatever. HE EXISTED IN THE DARK KNIGHT.

I understand that Ledger had passed, I for one didn't want a recast or anything like that. But not even mention? Supposedly the events of TDK exist in TDKR, correct? We have Blake blabbing on about that "night 8 years ago", but no Joker?


Joker wouldn't be questioned? How did Dent get away when Joker was in the hospital? Who gave him the suit? Who gave him the gun (again, Gordon probably confiscated that but they could trace the 5 kills). Any investigation would show that something weird happened that before the conspiracy. Joker, Dent, Gordon, Batman, Ramirez.

Alright, Batman takes the blame. The city is upset. What then? A Commissioner doesn't run everything. What happened? How did this work with something as big AS THE JOKER?

And one cop who knew Batman is Bruce Wayne all along that didn't believe he would just become a murderer. That's different from cops that still believe Batman wasn't out to do good even during TDK's events.

So every cop then? Every cop felt that way. What about Stephens? Ramirez? Did they like Batman? Sure, at times they doubted him (like Ramirez at the crime scene), but what about when they were on the rooftop when Gordon "died". "He doesn't want to talk with us". They wanted to chat with him. They put their trust in him as an ally. Hell, Stephens is clapping when Dent "turns himself in" while a few other cops like Wuertz is shaking his head?

Uhhhhhhh?


So the only person that ever believed in Batman in TDK is a character we never see (in either Begins or TDK), but is also an orphan at the time, is familiar with Bruce because he can "feel it in his bones" and he saw him one time at an orphanage? (by the way, when in Begins or Dark Knight does Bruce show any signs of doing charities? I thought he was partying all the time? Making a fool of himself? Let Fox run everything? We never see him visiting orphanages? The public "Bruce Wayne" didn't care about that crap?)


I'm sorry, but to me, that's not only convoluted and convenient, but bad writing compared to the great stuff we see in Batman Begins and the Dark Knight.

Garcia knew Dent was no where to be found...so how does that help the idea that Batman couldn't have kidnapped him and also killed him in "cold blood"?

Or the Joker for that matter? Right?

It couldn't have been the Joker. I mean, it's not like he kidnapped Dent before? He'd never take Jim Gordon's family while being in a different location. It's not like the Joker was capable of grabbing Dent and Rachel while he was caged (which they Mayor clearly saw).



Naaahhhhhhh. Had to be Batman even though everything pretty much contradicts it being him. Everything really.



It's also funny at the "Harvey Dent Day" ceremony that Gordon BLATANTLY states that he's about to tell the "truth" about Harvey Dent in a worried, negative demeanor and NOBODY at the ceremony is like "hey, what are you saying, that Dent was a bad guy? Whaaaaaaat?"

But some random, made up character played by Joseph Levitt Gordon knows the whole deal and is the only one that questions it.

I don't see why you're so worked up on that but you're fine that there is zero mentioning of the League of Shadows in TDK.

Begins is wrapped up in Begins and The Dark Knight.

You're telling me, the League of Shadows and monorail (something that is easily blamed on Arkham and Crane, especially considering Crane and the inmates are on the loose and Crane planned on ransom as told by a secret organization that no one knows exists) is as big and important and unresolved as Batman taking the blame for not only the murder of Harvey Dent (which might be acceptable), but also all the people Harvey murdered? And even then, nobody would investigate and try and catch Batman? No bounty hunters? No rewards? The city wouldn't hunt down Batman and want his blood?


As the Joker would say, HA-HA-HA.


C'mon.

And besides. Not everyone thought Dent was the cleanest or greatest white night in Gotham City. What was that name everyone in the department had for him? Hmm. Initially, not even Batman and Gordon trusted him. "The less someone knows about these operations, the better". Not everyone bought into him. He even jacked an ambulance and threatened an inmate. Where would that nick name come from?



Think of that situation at 250 52nd street (where Rachel died by the way). Think of how they found Dent. Think of the people who were killed (cops at the hospital that Joker killed where Dent was), Maroni, Wuertz, etc. Think of the time frame. Batman at the Prewitt building saving everyone. The Joker. Gordon's story.

Then tell me how TDKR's explanations, or lack thereof, is anything like "oh my, what happened at the Narrows, do you think that secret organization that no one knows about is involved?" and that TDKR's story (when dealing with) Dark Knight events is any good?


Surely I'm not the only one who thinks this and I really don't think something this crucial is nitpicking. Anyone else agree with me?



















Also, I'm aware this is the Catwoman vs. Catwoman thread. I'd be happy to move this conversation elsewhere as I don't want to be off topic. There are several other places we could discuss this in I think. So just let me know.

 

[Snow Queen]

Loeb returned from Begins. The Mayor returned from TDK. Friggin Fredericks who really has no bearing on the story other than making Bruce guilty is back for TDKR. Crane? His story ends in TDK as far as I'm concerned since he's barely used for TDKR.

I won't bother responding to most of your points as I seriously don't have the time or care enough to but I just wanted to respond to this part:

The Mayor and Loeb both return to serve the same purpose in different films: to show that the villain is able to topple some of the highest figures in the city.

Crane returns as just a cameo instead of shoving a random guy into his role because it's more fun. It's not like taking him out and putting Stephens into the movie would have done anything. You'd still need someone running the court and Stephens would add to the running time which would be impossible with IMAX limitations. It's not like Stephens really adds anything to the story anyway.

And Fredricks was needed to activated the bomb in the story. Out of the story, they could have used a random guy but:
A) He probably worked for cheaper as he's Nolan's uncle
B) It's a little touch to bring it back to Begins some more
C) It's a nice little cameo

 

[milost]

You sort of missed my point, but whatever. Loeb I completely understand. After all Dark Knight takes place shortly after Begins. Gordon is just a Lt.
Plus, that's the Joker MO. He killed off important public officials in the comics too. It was great in The Dark Knight. Why does Bane do it?


Garcia though? Nope. You could easily get someone else to play the mayor, especially with a story that's 8 years later. There's a different mayor in all of the Batman films, and in other comic book films. Who cares about the Mayor? In fact, why did Bane kill them? The people in that press box? What would the Mayor do that Gordon couldn't? And if you think about it, that's another thing about TDKR. It just "borrows" from Begins and Dark Knight. If you saw it in Begins and Dark Knight, chances are, you saw TDKR without really having to "see it". It's essentially a movie entry that just goes bigger and louder, with nothing really new. The whole "full circle" thing was more of like "we ran out of ideas" imo. They couldn't top the Joker and for some reason they refused to make it smaller and more meaningful, which probably should have been the direction they went in. Cutting off the city, using a cliched nuclear threat device? Weird for this series, I'd expect that in your run off the mill comic book film.

As for the, "villain needed to take out public figure", that was EXCLUSIVELY the Joker's thing. Why does Bane have a prologue? That was Joker's thing as well. Batman Begins didn't have one. Why is the very next scene after the prologue a panning night shot of Gotham with Mayor Garcia V.O. talking about the city and Batman, just like in TDK? How come TDKR's montage ending is literally an exact copy of the TDK's ending montage, music and all? Batman Begins wasn't like that, it was it's own thing. How come the League of Shadows are back again? Didn't Bruce Wayne learn to not let the Wayne Enterprises equipment fall into the wrong hands? Tate/Talia = Ducard/Ra's? Bane = a poorly written smashed together Joker and Ra's with no real motive of his own? I feel like it's a fan story using Begins and Dark Knight as a template and filling in the blanks with stuff. Atleast the jump between Begins to Dark Knight was new and exciting. TDKR is, "been there, done that".




And, maybe I'm the only one who never cared about Fredericks? Was he really crucial to the story, they couldn't let Fox deal with all of it? Did anyone care if Nolan's uncle appeared again? I doubt it. I'd say Ramirez is way crucial to anything that goes on than him. Would of been cooler to see Earle return or smething.

 

[DACrowe]

Just long story short Bane wants to create a power vacuum. Hence, taking out Garcia and sending those guys after Gordon in the hospital. Likely many of the people who first went before Bane's tribunal court were also leaders of the established order given that it is all based on the French Revolution. One could even argue that explains Bane's motives just as much as Joker's, though it is clear they are echoing that. But it is also meant to show Bane has a larger scale plan as what was one of the planned high points for the Joker was the opening overture for Bane in the next movie.

 

[Snow Queen]

You sort of missed my point, but whatever. Loeb I completely understand. After all Dark Knight takes place shortly after Begins. Gordon is just a Lt.
Plus, that's the Joker MO. He killed off important public officials in the comics too. It was great in The Dark Knight. Why does Bane do it?


Garcia though? Nope. You could easily get someone else to play the mayor, especially with a story that's 8 years later. There's a different mayor in all of the Batman films, and in other comic book films. Who cares about the Mayor? In fact, why did Bane kill them? The people in that press box? What would the Mayor do that Gordon couldn't? And if you think about it, that's another thing about TDKR. It just "borrows" from Begins and Dark Knight. If you saw it in Begins and Dark Knight, chances are, you saw TDKR without really having to "see it". It's essentially a movie entry that just goes bigger and louder, with nothing really new. The whole "full circle" thing was more of like "we ran out of ideas" imo. They couldn't top the Joker and for some reason they refused to make it smaller and more meaningful, which probably should have been the direction they went in. Cutting off the city, using a cliched nuclear threat device? Weird for this series, I'd expect that in your run off the mill comic book film.


As for the, "villain needed to take out public figure", that was EXCLUSIVELY the Joker's thing. Why does Bane have a prologue? That was Joker's thing as well. Batman Begins didn't have one. Why is the very next scene after the prologue a panning night shot of Gotham with Mayor Garcia V.O. talking about the city and Batman, just like in TDK? How come TDKR's montage ending is literally an exact copy of the TDK's ending montage, music and all? Batman Begins wasn't like that, it was it's own thing. How come the League of Shadows are back again? Didn't Bruce Wayne learn to not let the Wayne Enterprises equipment fall into the wrong hands? Tate/Talia = Ducard/Ra's? Bane = a poorly written smashed together Joker and Ra's with no real motive of his own? I feel like it's a fan story using Begins and Dark Knight as a template and filling in the blanks with stuff. Atleast the jump between Begins to Dark Knight was new and exciting. TDKR is, "been there, done that".




And, maybe I'm the only one who never cared about Fredericks? Was he really crucial to the story, they couldn't let Fox deal with all of it? Did anyone care if Nolan's uncle appeared again? I doubt it. I'd say Ramirez is way crucial to anything that goes on than him. Would of been cooler to see Earle return or smething.

Regarding Garcia and your bit on Bane and Joker, it's not Joker's thing to take out an important figure. That's a fairly typical villain thing. Bane takes out the person in charge of the city to show that he can get to anyone, even the man in charge. He was going to take out Gordon too but we saw how that worked out. And why not have a different mayor? Why do you need to? Does that really make a difference?

Can't say I've seen a CBM where a terrorist takes over the hero's city, casts him out and holds it hostage with a nuclear device. Which CBM are you referring to?

It's not Joker's thing to have a prologue action scene to kick off the movie. That's like saying that after 2001: A Space Odyssey, nobody can have a movie set in space because it's 2001's thing. BB didn't have a prologue like that most likely because it wasn't needed. You could say Bruce in prison was the prologue though, if you wanted. Joker's showed us how he operates and set in motion the plot with the mob and it's money. Bane's showed us how he operates and sets in motion the nuclear bomb plot. Joker wanted the money because...he can. Bane wanted Pavel so that he had someone to convert the reactor into a bomb. They each serve a purpose and bring you into the story.

I recommend relistening to the soundtrack, the ending in TDK and TDKR had different music. I listen to the soundtrack constantly, the only similarity is that very last cue (when Batman is speeding off and Alfred looks up to see Bruce) and that's one I associate with the entire series as much as Molossus so personally I don't mind it.

Ra's hijacked a shipment, Talia spent years getting close to Bruce, investing in this project and gaining his trust. How was he supposed to know that she would use it as a bomb?

Mayor Garcia's V.O. is just a way for both movies to have exposition to set the scene for you. The mayor's a pretty easy character to do this with because of he's in charge of Gotham and, in the case of TDKR, he'd be the one opening the ceremony.

What you don't realize is that the Fredricks in TDKR was Ra's reincarnated. I thought that was obvious.

 

[milost]

What you don't realize is that the Fredricks in TDKR was Ra's reincarnated. I thought that was obvious.

Where's his mustache then?

t:

 

[Snow Queen]

Where's his mustache then?

t:

He shaved it. And, if any of you watch Person of Interest, you can see what he was up to between TDK and TDKR.

 

[milost]

He shaved it. And, if any of you watch Person of Interest, you can see what he was up to between TDK and TDKR.

lol I was thinking of that actually. Good one.




Oh and I meant to reply to your bit about the similarities. Sorry about that. The endings are pretty much the same. Montage? Check. Jumping forward in time? Check? Music and score? Check.





http://youtu.be/GDQob4AOCsQ?t=1m48s

http://youtu.be/mLhiX9kPQ2Q



As soon as Blake goes into the cave, that's when Gordon's son "Batman!", "he didn't do anything wrong. Everything before that too. The very end at the cafe? That's when Gordon says, "he can take it", and he rides off. Same, same, same.


As for the prologue, I always associated that as something special with the Joker. His big reveal. It was really cool and original. Batman Begins didn't have any thing like that. We have some kids running around in a garden. They obviously used it again because of Dark Knight's success. Just swap out Joker with Bane. Instead of revealing/unmasking a random bank robber, unmask a mercenary thug. Etc. etc. Almost sounds like Why So Serious during the panning shot with the car up to the plane too. Even after the sequence, we once again get a panning shot of the city with Mayor Garcia.



Not saying it's a terrible, terrible thing, but for me, it does reek of "ripping yourself off trying to recapture 2008". It could have ended with The Dark Knight, that said it all really.

 

[Snow Queen]

lol I was thinking of that actually. Good one.




Oh and I meant to reply to your bit about the similarities. Sorry about that. The endings are pretty much the same. Montage? Check. Jumping forward in time? Check? Music and score? Check.





http://youtu.be/GDQob4AOCsQ?t=1m48s

http://youtu.be/mLhiX9kPQ2Q



As soon as Blake goes into the cave, that's when Gordon's son "Batman!", "he didn't do anything wrong. Everything before that too. The very end at the cafe? That's when Gordon says, "he can take it", and he rides off. Same, same, same.


As for the prologue, I always associated that as something special with the Joker. His big reveal. It was really cool and original. Batman Begins didn't have any thing like that. We have some kids running around in a garden. They obviously used it again because of Dark Knight's success. Just swap out Joker with Bane. Instead of revealing/unmasking a random bank robber, unmask a mercenary thug. Etc. etc. Almost sounds like Why So Serious during the panning shot with the car up to the plane too. Even after the sequence, we once again get a panning shot of the city with Mayor Garcia.



Not saying it's a terrible, terrible thing, but for me, it does reek of "ripping yourself off trying to recapture 2008". It could have ended with The Dark Knight, that said it all really.

I'm going to start by addressing the prologue thing. Beyond the unmasking bit (which is different in each situation as in Bane's he's been 'captured' and in Joker's he's just showing off), I don't see any similarities. Bane and his men take over a plane in midair, have a blood transfusion to fake the death of Dr. Pavel (a bit of a stretch but I can suspend my disbelief that much) and then leave, sending the plane to smash into the ground. Joker's involves him and his men robbing a bank and being constantly backstabbed by each other until the last one is standing: The Joker. No real similarities as far as I can see besides the main villain being concealed and then unmasked.

And then for Garcia, I understand your gripe but I feel as if they made that choice to show how the city's changed. In TDK, we're shown criminals running in fear at the mere sight of the Batsignal in the sky. Then we get to TDKR and we're shown a city that's progressed to an all time low crime rate. Now, you could say that's just because they don't focus on it but I say that's the point. They don't show it because the crime rate's down.

Now, as for the ending. I did point out in my original response (I believe) about the very end of the music being the same. But I don't see why the music part should be a problem, considering it's a theme that is recognizable from the series and this is the very last scene of the last movie of the series. As for them both ending in a montage, when you have to show how characters are all moving on and where they are going at the end of the series, can't go wrong with a monatage.

 

[The Guard]

We never know why he has scars or why he wears make-up, beyond that he was inspired by Batman to start dressing theatrically. Yes, we find out he bought the suit with mob money, but are you really holding it against TDKR that Selina doesn't explain when she made/purchased her costume? Otherwise their motifs are equally (un)explained.

He is dubbed “The Joker” in the film.

The reason he dresses like a clown is clear, given the name.

What he’s supposed to be…is clear. A clown.

The reason he took the name “the joker” is also clear by the end of the film, given his thoughts on life, justice, chance, fate, etc.

They even bothered to show where he got the money for the suit, and presumably some other stuff he uses. Mob money he stole.

We are given three possible origins for the scars, enough to know that something tragic and or psych9ologically damaging happened, and we are given psychological motivation for him as a character.

He also basically tells Batman that he inspired him.

No. Their motifs are not “equally unexplained”.

But she does. She clearly has a fangirl thing for the Batman. She is excited when he returns and evidently Geeks out when she is in his car. As you pretty much elude to, it is a subtle (for Nolan) implication that her style and appearance is at least somewhat influenced by the guy in a cape.

No. She clearly is attracted to and/or messing with him, and she thinks “the car” is cool. That’s it. I don’t know what “Fangirl” even means, unless you're referring to the Carrie Kellie type, and the movie certainly doesn’t show anything along those lines. She likes to have fun, and she likes adventure. That’s all the film shows, subtleties or otherwise.

And no. There is nothing to suggest that her style, a skintight black latex/rubber catsuit with designer gloves and boots is in any way influenced by a man in high tech armor and a cape.

You could MAYBE argue that his use of a stylized mask influenced her…but it’s treated as a coincidence, and is nowhere to be found in the film. Half the time she doesn't even wear the thing.

t's a slight nod, because this isn't a Selina Kyle origin story.

I’m talking about essentially abandoning themes the franchise developed through two films, period, and in doing so, not handling the transition of themes to the third film very well, not about how it applies to Selina. This franchise absolutely attempted to carry the themes of escalation over for all three films. You can see it in the nature of the storylines.

Nolan, refreshingly creates a badass who is especially cool, even to women, because it isn't drawing attention to itself that she's a woman. The action scenes are not designed to say "SEE WOMAN CAN KICK ASS TOO!" like Batman Returns did. Instead, she simply kicks ass and is cool. But other than those two motorcycle shots which Hathaway critics harp on, there is nothing in the movie that draws real attention to the fact she is a woman being a badass anymore than there is to Bruce Wayne or BAne being men. That is refreshing and nice

I don’t really see how Catwoman’s BATMAN RETURNS action scenes are any more “see, women can kick ass too” than TDKR’s are. A woman kicking ass is a woman kicking ass. Catwoman just happens to be a character who can kick ass. The movie isn’t making a statement about all women. Just Selina.

Refreshing…riiight. Are we really going to pretend that seeing a woman act badass without overtly drawing attention to herself that she’s a woman is a new or rarely used approach on film?

Mind you, you’re talking about the movie where she resorted to crying and screaming like, yup, “a woman”, to get out of her first major sticky situation.

I’m sorry…Anne Hathaway smiling and blushing and whatnot in The Bat and with Batman tells me she smiles, and that she likes Batman. Not that she idolizes him, or was inspired by him.

Or do we always lead those who we idolize to the slaughter?

 

[Anno_Domini]

Alright, I got this.






Why does the LOS need to be mentioned in TDK? Because of the destruction of the monorail? Inmates escaped Arkham which is in the Narrows. It was tampered with in the narrows. Who poisoned the water? Crane and his inmates. Again, Crane was a patsy. If accused, would Crane deny that he poisoned the water, stole the microwave emitter and let the inmates roam free. Doesn't sound as convoluted or questionable as, "BATMAN KILLED ALL THESE PEOPLE, AND DENT, LET'S NOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT".

The League of Shadows is supposedly untraceable, correct? They're a secret organization. What evidence did Ra's leave behind that they were behind any of it? They went in with stealth (disguised as SWAT), just like they had done centuries before (unlike TDKR). Oh, that's right, he left Crane behind, the patsy, the one who thought they were going to hold the city ransom. They're ninjas with training remember (again, unlike the unfaithful TDKR).


Are we really comparing the events in the narrows to that of the Harvey Dent conspiracy? Really? Okay, let's see. If there was an investigation from the events in Begins, it goes all the way back to Crane, who isn't caught yet by TDK. He's SELLING the same compound that was distributed in the Narrows, he was also associated with the mob. There you go. Atleast the people involved weren't conveniently excluded like it is with TDKR.

I mean in TDK, aren't they still trying to clean it up the streets? Scarecrow still hasn't been apprehended, nor the inmates that have escaped.

Or do you think Bruce should have been going on and on about Ra's while he's trying to defeat the mob? I mean, there is even that reference to Ra's with the "criminals aren't complicated line". This lack of mention of the secret League of Shadows organization is NOTHING compared to where TDKR starts out after TDK. 8 years in the future with lame, convoluted explanations, if there are explanations at all.

Think of all the loose ends from Begins that are nicely, perfectly wrapped up in The Dark Knight. It's not convenient or convulted or unexplained. They're different films and stories, but they flow nicely. It's also about a year after Begins, not 8 year without any sense of it.




Flass was a dirty cop, most people were well aware of it. Gotham finest weren't exactly squeaky clean, remember that. Is he involved with the grand scheme of things? Nope, only on the bottom level, not in the big League of Shadows scheme. Not even Falcone is involved despite desperately "wanting in". Gordon even knew that Flass was crooked.

So what becomes of him? Well, he breathes in the toxin and tries to kill a couple of innocent kids. Gordon sees this, knocks him out and handcuffs him to a pole. What really needs to be said? Stephens takes his place.


Now Ramirez? She ain't no Flass, is she? She's pretty damn integral to the plot in the end of TDK isn't she. Yes, she's also a "dirty cop", but is Flass as important as her in Begins? No. Ramirez is the reason that our hero's childhood friend is killed and the reason why Harvey Dent snaps. That's a pretty big role.

To top it off though, she is actually SPARED by the coin flip and lives to "fight another day". Now, had the outcome of TDK been different, I'd say that, she wasn't that important to the sequel BUT, the film ends with a COVER UP where Batman has taken the blame for the people Harvey Dent killed. Ramirez is also the reason the CLIMAX of the film even happens.


But then in the sequel, never a mention again? How did she feel? I'm sure she regretted it (and it was understandable, considering her mother), but she also got hit in the face by Dent's pistol? Was that forgivable? What's stopping her from ratting out Gordon and Batman, how does she even know what to say, we never see them converse. Would it ruin her reputation? Not really, everyone knows that she's "scum", we know this is a possibility in TDK.


We can make up explanations, but we don't know what happens. That IS a LOOSE end. She's much bigger than Flass, wouldn't you say?







Loeb returned from Begins. The Mayor returned from TDK. Friggin Fredericks who really has no bearing on the story other than making Bruce guilty is back for TDKR. Crane? His story ends in TDK as far as I'm concerned since he's barely used for TDKR.

Stephens is easy to replace and not mention (though it would have been cool to see more of him, he reminded me of a potential Bullock), I'll give you that. But Ramirez? Not even a mention? She's one of the reasons what transpires, transpires, along with the Joker. I don't care what Gordon would do, or wouldn't do. She literally called the Gordon's, telling them where to meet and other officers heard Gordon talking to Dent about his family. That ain't no small thing in my opinion.

Again, Gordon, like the audience knew, you can't just "sweep this up". He SAYS that. Batman also says he'll be hunted (obviously). But somehow in TDKR, it is just swept up? It is neat and tidy, no questions involved? Batman is never hunted? An investigation and man hunt on Batman never comes to fruition.

Huh?



I mean, we all knew their plan would never work, even though Batman went in with the best and noblest of intentions. It was going to fall apart, you can't just sweep it up. That's what was interesting about it. "How the hell are they going to manage that".


But TDKR makes it magical, it just magically works (like a lot of things in TDKR). They fast forward, they don't deal with the event itself, just the outcome. And how does it fall apart? Gordon, stupidly and conveniently left a letter in his pocket telling the truth. Which he kept there for days/nights and the newest, random, baddie finds it and reads it on public television. In fact, when the truth is revealed, the city that supposedly cares oh so much doesn't even react! If they do we never get to see it! Instead, we see Blake's reaction, this new character that wasn't even THOUGHT of in 2005 or 2008.


Really? That's cool with you?





How do we know she ran. How do we know she isn't behind Stephens? How do we know she isn't in the hospital from being pistol whipped? Who found Ramirez? How does she feel about what happened the following night? Does she feel guilty?


I'd be inclined to say "who cares", but again, she's pretty damn important, for and against the whole "DENT CONSPIRACY" which TDKR has. It miraculously worked. How?






I am. But still. Just because she isn't there, we're supposed to just figure she quit? Or was was forced out?

Other than being associated with the mob because of her mother, she seemed like a good cop. There's guilt in her face when she lets Dent go. She doesn't want to give the Gordon's away to Dent. Gordon seems pretty fond of having her in their group despite all the accusations against her.

So what happened to her?



To Cleveland. Yeah, I know.

That's another thing that would have been nice to have seen. It's implied that the lie ruined Barbara and Jim's marriage. Would have been nice to have seen it instead of a throwaway line. You know, some good tension and story telling. How did Gordon get all these people to shut the hell up?

He got Joker to keep his mouth shut? Reese? Engel? SWATS? Ramirez? His wife and kids (Barbara seemed to be pretty fed up with all this stuff, including Batman). All this stuff is avoided. But, before TDKR, it was certainly a pretty big deal.





TDKR retcons everything and has a random like John Blake be the scripts tool for TDK's doubts and reactions.

I'm talking about TDK. Even with Batman taking the blame, how wouldn't people doubt it at the Prewitt siege? Alright, lets start with him on the rooftop.

He's been an ally thus far, Gordon puts all of his trust in him. His men (SWAT, Stephens, Ramirez, they all see this). Most were there and saw what happened at the interrogation. Batman hasn't let them down before, even though they're weary of him/blame him since the Joker makes threats because of Batman's existence.

So they're up on the rooftop. Batman has given them the location to the Prewitt building, all of them think that Dent is with them. Now, before they go in, Batman suggests they wait and let him go in, it's never that easy with the Joker. This seems pretty reasonable, right? Batman's learned from his mistakes and let's remember, he helped catch the Joker and save Dent in the first place. He just wants 5 minutes before they barge in and converge (I know Gordon is feeling guilty, but that just doesn't seem right for him to pull his gun out on Batman, after all they've been through).

So he goes in, these guys are ready to blow away the Clown thugs. Without warning, they go in. They hear Gordon talking to Harvey Dent specifically, asking where is family is. But, Dent is in there, in the Prewitt building as far as they're concerned. Then Gordon leaves. Do you see where I'm coming from?



So, they go in, but they see Batman there still. He's clearly seen protecting the "enemy" clowns, fighting the hospital "hostages, and carefully subduing threatening SWAT members. Batman DOES save everyone from harm because the SWAT end up seeing the switch, that Mike Engel and the real hostages were disguised as enemy clowns with masks with their hands taped and that the REAL enemies, the thugs were pretending to be hospital doctors.

They REALIZE this, they even say that. To top it off, Batman leaves the Joker hanging there for them to capture, they even got the spotlight on them.





So, yeah, Batman saved everyone. Any person with a brain would understand this once they saw that the clowns were really hostages. Look how many lives Batman just saved. AND he captured the Joker, the guy that's been killing cops and innocent civilians left and right.

Oh, and Dent isn't there. And some of them heard Gordon talking to Dent asking "where his family is". So what happened? What was the story that Gordon gave? We never know.


How did the lie work? That's all I'm asking. I know it does, but it shouldn't. And this isn't The Dark Knight's problem either, because it ends there. We don't see the repercussions. But TDKR? It doesn't tell us ANYTHING. It leaves you hanging. That just isn't comparable to something as minor as Flass or the secretive League of Shadows. It just isn't. There's way too many people involved including . . . THE JOKER.

The Joker just gave up? Just took a loss and is never heard from again. He's be questioned, unless the SWAT team just blew his brains out when he got up there. But the thing is, we never know. We hear Blake talking about "that night, that night 8 years ago", but it doesn't mean anything to TDK because he wasn't involved for one, and they don't go into detail of how it worked.





Yeah, and the reason is Nolan didn't feel comfortable involving anything Joker I guess. I totally get that.

But story wise, that doesn't help TDKR, not the events that unfold. How are you going to mention Dent (numerous, numerous times), Rachel, Ra's (who gets a hallucination no less), the League of Shadows, Thomas Wayne, but never the Joker? The Joker is like the black sheep, the elephant in the room or whatever. HE EXISTED IN THE DARK KNIGHT.

I understand that Ledger had passed, I for one didn't want a recast or anything like that. But not even mention? Supposedly the events of TDK exist in TDKR, correct? We have Blake blabbing on about that "night 8 years ago", but no Joker?


Joker wouldn't be questioned? How did Dent get away when Joker was in the hospital? Who gave him the suit? Who gave him the gun (again, Gordon probably confiscated that but they could trace the 5 kills). Any investigation would show that something weird happened that before the conspiracy. Joker, Dent, Gordon, Batman, Ramirez.

Alright, Batman takes the blame. The city is upset. What then? A Commissioner doesn't run everything. What happened? How did this work with something as big AS THE JOKER?




So every cop then? Every cop felt that way. What about Stephens? Ramirez? Did they like Batman? Sure, at times they doubted him (like Ramirez at the crime scene), but what about when they were on the rooftop when Gordon "died". "He doesn't want to talk with us". They wanted to chat with him. They put their trust in him as an ally. Hell, Stephens is clapping when Dent "turns himself in" while a few other cops like Wuertz is shaking his head?

Uhhhhhhh?


So the only person that ever believed in Batman in TDK is a character we never see (in either Begins or TDK), but is also an orphan at the time, is familiar with Bruce because he can "feel it in his bones" and he saw him one time at an orphanage? (by the way, when in Begins or Dark Knight does Bruce show any signs of doing charities? I thought he was partying all the time? Making a fool of himself? Let Fox run everything? We never see him visiting orphanages? The public "Bruce Wayne" didn't care about that crap?)


I'm sorry, but to me, that's not only convoluted and convenient, but bad writing compared to the great stuff we see in Batman Begins and the Dark Knight.








Or the Joker for that matter? Right?

It couldn't have been the Joker. I mean, it's not like he kidnapped Dent before? He'd never take Jim Gordon's family while being in a different location. It's not like the Joker was capable of grabbing Dent and Rachel while he was caged (which they Mayor clearly saw).



Naaahhhhhhh. Had to be Batman even though everything pretty much contradicts it being him. Everything really.



It's also funny at the "Harvey Dent Day" ceremony that Gordon BLATANTLY states that he's about to tell the "truth" about Harvey Dent in a worried, negative demeanor and NOBODY at the ceremony is like "hey, what are you saying, that Dent was a bad guy? Whaaaaaaat?"

But some random, made up character played by Joseph Levitt Gordon knows the whole deal and is the only one that questions it.




Begins is wrapped up in Begins and The Dark Knight.

You're telling me, the League of Shadows and monorail (something that is easily blamed on Arkham and Crane, especially considering Crane and the inmates are on the loose and Crane planned on ransom as told by a secret organization that no one knows exists) is as big and important and unresolved as Batman taking the blame for not only the murder of Harvey Dent (which might be acceptable), but also all the people Harvey murdered? And even then, nobody would investigate and try and catch Batman? No bounty hunters? No rewards? The city wouldn't hunt down Batman and want his blood?


As the Joker would say, HA-HA-HA.


C'mon.

And besides. Not everyone thought Dent was the cleanest or greatest white night in Gotham City. What was that name everyone in the department had for him? Hmm. Initially, not even Batman and Gordon trusted him. "The less someone knows about these operations, the better". Not everyone bought into him. He even jacked an ambulance and threatened an inmate. Where would that nick name come from?



Think of that situation at 250 52nd street (where Rachel died by the way). Think of how they found Dent. Think of the people who were killed (cops at the hospital that Joker killed where Dent was), Maroni, Wuertz, etc. Think of the time frame. Batman at the Prewitt building saving everyone. The Joker. Gordon's story.

Then tell me how TDKR's explanations, or lack thereof, is anything like "oh my, what happened at the Narrows, do you think that secret organization that no one knows about is involved?" and that TDKR's story (when dealing with) Dark Knight events is any good?


Surely I'm not the only one who thinks this and I really don't think something this crucial is nitpicking. Anyone else agree with me?



















Also, I'm aware this is the Catwoman vs. Catwoman thread. I'd be happy to move this conversation elsewhere as I don't want to be off topic. There are several other places we could discuss this in I think. So just let me know.

So SHH! was being a moron and didn't even send my reply of all of these and that took me a couple of minutes too while trying to balance my checkbook right now...

I disagree with all of this though, lol, as well as you're now just repeating yourself again

Maybe when I have time I'll get to it, but your post is way too damn long to answer it again as I'm already bored of the subject.

 

[The Joker]

milost, I like your style. A very warm welcome to SHH

 

[Snow Queen]

So SHH! was being a moron and didn't even send my reply of all of these and that took me a couple of minutes too while trying to balance my checkbook right now...

I disagree with all of this though, lol, as well as you're now just repeating yourself again

Maybe when I have time I'll get to it, but your post is way too damn long to answer it again as I'm already bored of the subject.

If you used the advanced version and not quick reply, you can get it back with backspace and/or reopening the closed tab (and using backspace if necessary) and/or pulling it up in your history.