The Dark Knight Rises Anyone else think they overrated Harvey Dent's importance to the story?

[shauner111]

I didn't think she stole his thunder. Bane was already beaten; I didn't see what else there was to do with him. Tate was hung up on her daddy's death. Like how Bruce was brooding and angry over his parents' deaths. Bruce created an outlet for it in Batman. In TDKR, Bruce wanted desperately to return to the Batman. To an outlet for his anger over his parents' death. Talia was symbolic of what he could've become if he didn't move on from his anger. As Bane was symbolic of what he could've become if he fully embraced the League's philosophy. Talia herself states that she wanted to honor Ra's by finishing his work. That makes Bane's speech in the sewer fight his M.O. for going to Gotham: revenge on Bruce for betraying the League, throwing away something Bane strove for and was denied.

I will be back in two-ish months to essentially restate the above.

 

[shauner111]

BatLobster, id quote every single one of your replies the same way, but i would soon run out of clapping gifs

 

[BatLobster]

So he's a "kinda, sorta, 2/3 of the film" villain of the week?

Then I guess we all acknowledge that Talia steals his thunder and takes his balls from him then huh? How come all those times we argue the "crying, lackey who had his origin stolen from him" angle falls on deaf ears or we get the "well Bane was his own man" then? Which is it?

This is one of the reasons that I think the Bane and Talia duo drag it down for people. They're both in such a weird, undeveloped territory where it would have just been better to give one of them the axe for a more cohesive story. I think of all the villain team ups (Catwoman/Penguin, Two-Face/Riddler, Freeze/Ivy, Ra's/Scarecrow") they're the worst because they try to compliment each other in the end they just cancel each other out. I think Tate could have easily been cut and made for a better story. She's in there literally for the sake of a twist (that people saw coming from a mile away).

Whaaat?

Haha dude, just because I don't think Talia "takes his balls from him" doesn't mean I don't acknowledge her importance in the movie. She's obviously an important character and her relationship with Bane is a crucial component of both characters. That'd be silly of me to deny, which is why you'll never see me denying it. I see the two of them as different parts of one entity, certainly not the "lackey" thing. So it's a bit more complicated than "villain of the week" or "not a villain of the week", black and white parameters.

But of course...I said the "T" word, so I'm not surprised that now the discussion has moved on to why she should've been cut from the story. Round and round we go.

 

[milost]

Villain of the week doesn't mean a new villain lol. Does Bane just come out nowhere, do bad things without any connection to anything whatsoever, just a new plot that is unrelated to anything previously? No. Obviously our definition of the term is completely different.

Well, you clearly don't know what this trope means.


"a term that describes the nature of one-use antagonists in episodic fiction . . . there is often a new antagonist to forward the plot of each week's episode. The main characters usually confront and vanquish these characters, often leaving them never to be seen again"

"Episodes where the characters fight a villain and the whole story is wrapped up at the end, and the villain is never dealt with again."

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Villain+of+the+week


Bane =/= Ra's Al Ghul


Bane is a new villain. Bane is a new opponent. Bane is a new character. You even acknowledged how the LoS isn't the same League we saw in Begins. Bane and Talia were excommunicated and their scheme is completely different than what Ra's had tried. Despite their relations, they were not on the same team.

Again, Bane is a new villain, with a new gimmick and is most certainly not recurring. Ra's is dead, he lost. He was the villain of the week in his own film. Bane is not Ra's. Bane got his big, "new villain" prologue debut and was a completely different threat to Batman.

Nolan and Co. Chose Bane for his physicality. They felt that Batman had yet to be challenged physically and that this NEW villain Bane would fit the bill.

http://www.nme.com/filmandtv/news/nolan-dark-knight-rises-villain-had-to-be-completely/275770

A. New villain in the episode
B. Not recurring
C. Protagonist fights an opponent they never fought before


Bane succeeded Joker, a completely different villain. He is the villain of the week. Let's say Bane wasn't involved and the new villain was the Riddler. If the Riddler just happened to be the little brother of the Joker (who was not present to the story), he would still be the villain of the week. Likewise, if Mr. Freeze was the villain (your example) and he was once a member of the league of shadows, trained by Ra's Al Ghul himself, he'd still be the villain of the week. They never appeared in Begins or Dark Knight. They're new villains with a new scheme and character traits/gimmick. That is a villain of the week.


Damn it.

 

[Shikamaru]

Bane was very much villain of the week, much like the rest of the Nolan villains. The only exceptions were maybe Ra's al Ghul and Scarecrow due to the first film being an origin film and the villain being tied to the hero's origin, which is a common thing these days with CBM's (see BB, IM1, TASM, MOS, etc.). But the majority of villains we've seen in each live-action superhero franchise have been the "villain of the week" types. That's just the nature of the superheroes. They're specifically designed to have ongoing "villains of the week". You cannot completely separate a superhero from that no matter how hard you try.

However, it is neither a good or bad thing. This is what I don't understand: What is so wrong/bad about having a villain-of-the-week story? Why does everyone fall for the misconception that "villain of the week" = episodic story/filler material? There is no reason why a "villain of the week" story can't progress the story, themes, and overall direction of the franchise altogether.

"Villain of the week" also doesn't mean the villain doesn't get a backstory.

 

[BatLobster]

That's why the whole conversation is kind of pointless, I think we all agree that a villain of the week isn't an inherently a good or bad thing.

But I do think when you have an evil organization that multiple villains can be aligned to and familial ties within that organization (like the League of Shadows/Assassins in the Batman lore or something like the Foot Clan in TMNT), I think it does allow writers to create the feeling of a more interconnected world, rather than a bunch of random, isolated incidents.

 

[Walt Bickle]

Villain of the week meaning: there's a new villain out of nowhere and it has nothing to do with anything other than it being a new gimmick/character that is doing bad **** and Batman needs to stop him. And it goes on and on..

"Batman is not supposed to end"? Says who? The comics? The fans? It's not their movie, Nolan wanted to give him an ending for his interpretation. Because it's not the comics, and he can. "Supposed to" means nothing in film.

Cool, but Ledger died, so that's that. Replacing him with another actor would have felt cheap.

Never started his career? That's your problem right there man. You see it as a career like the comics, but the Nolans have said that it wasn't their intention to show the complete story of Batman. It was never built to show the "career" of Batman. It's actually a temporary plan that Bruce has. He doesn't vow to his parents to be Batman forever while he goes after every mugger he sees for the next 3 decades. He stays in Gotham until Gotham's citizens can become inspired to take back their city. And yes, cops are citizens (and people) too t:

He could have checked out after TDK. When the Dent Act came into place. But he doesn't because he's a screwed up individual. Gotham becomes a mess again, and so he takes Alfred's advice and his own from that plane scene in Begins, and finally decides to end his reign and leave town. This is why Bale and Nolan keep referencing that plane scene as their favorite from the trilogy. Because it's the key to everything.

I know Nolan was doing a realistic approach but in doing so he took away a lot of batman's character in doing so. Batman NEVER gives up, it's a big part of who he is so he would never retire.

I found it even cheaper that they didn't replace him, it was ludicrous that the character wasn't even mentioned. they said they did it in respect of heath but I'm sure he would have preferred to continue his characters story arc rather then wiping him out of existence. And I'm not saying they should have made him a main villain again, a shadowy cameo would suffice, or a joker card followed by a laugh followed by batman looking up at batsignal and going off into the night... something like that.
they dropped the ball not getting joseph gordan levitt to do a joker cameo.. they have the same bone structure and everything.

Batman should never be at peace ( sorry I know you don't like 'should' ha ha ) so even when the dent act comes into play he should still be out there after muggers and stuff, he only got rid of the mob, i'm sure things are still rough down the narrows, gotham is still in poverty.

I appreciate the plane scene in begins, but I hate in TDK he says I can't put others in danger, if I do this I must do it alone (not a direct quote) and then in TDKR he's going around sayin anyone can be batman blah blah and wants someone to replace him. these two ambitions contrast big time.

I'd consider Ra's the main, but even then it's murky territory. You have fake Wannabe Ra's, a random Asian "Ra's" at Wayne Manor (I'll still never understand the point of that one) QUOTE]

ha ha

I didn't think she stole his thunder.

she took his origin and motivation away.

Who saw the twist from a mile away? The fans? The fans that know about Talia as a character and the ones who saw the set photos. These movies weren't made for that crowd really.

that's another thing they dropped the ball with. I always thought that they should have called her Katelynn Kaine or something instead of Miranda and pretend that they were setting up batwoman , this way you could make her able to fight without fans getting suspicious...even give her some bat armor, then to reveal her as thalia.

could have made the film into two parts 'the dark knight falls' and 'the dark knight rises'.

this way we could have gotten all the characters developed and a better and more developed plot.....(while fitting in joker cameo :-p)

 

[shauner111]

I know Nolan was doing a realistic approach but in doing so he took away a lot of batman's character in doing so. Batman NEVER gives up, it's a big part of who he is so he would never retire.

I found it even cheaper that they didn't replace him, it was ludicrous that the character wasn't even mentioned. they said they did it in respect of heath but I'm sure he would have preferred to continue his characters story arc rather then wiping him out of existence. And I'm not saying they should have made him a main villain again, a shadowy cameo would suffice, or a joker card followed by a laugh followed by batman looking up at batsignal and going off into the night... something like that.
they dropped the ball not getting joseph gordan levitt to do a joker cameo.. they have the same bone structure and everything.

Batman should never be at peace ( sorry I know you don't like 'should' ha ha ) so even when the dent act comes into play he should still be out there after muggers and stuff, he only got rid of the mob, i'm sure things are still rough down the narrows, gotham is still in poverty.

I appreciate the plane scene in begins, but I hate in TDK he says I can't put others in danger, if I do this I must do it alone (not a direct quote) and then in TDKR he's going around sayin anyone can be batman blah blah and wants someone to replace him. these two ambitions contrast big time.

But in this version Batman was a symbol not an individual male. So technically, for this version, batman didn't retire or quit.

In the classic sense though..

Batman doesn't retire? He did in The Dark Knight Returns. For 10 years. But like i said, this is Nolan's film version, so he goes by whatever rules he wants to set up. He wanted to give Bruce's journey a true ending where he walks away from the cowl and all that it represents completely. The mission, everything. It was fresh, and id rather watch a fresh story than the same one regurgitated over and over. Bruce/Batman looking over his city..that has happened and will happen for decades to come. Maybe centuries for all we know. Im happy Nolan decided to change things up. And it was a deserved ending. The amount of anger, depression, loss that he suffered, it was well-deserved.

JGL as Joker sounds a bit corny.

You misinterpreted. In TDK he doesn't want copycats with guns going around wearing ridiculous suits doing things that are against the code and meaning of Batman. In TDKR, he's not saying anybody can just be batman...he's saying that anybody can fight for their city and themselves and do good..that's what Batman is all about in a nutshell. But if you want to be direct about it, it also means that anyone can be Batman if they really wanted it but not everybody has the balls to actually do it.

that's another thing they dropped the ball with. I always thought that they should have called her Katelynn Kaine or something instead of Miranda and pretend that they were setting up batwoman , this way you could make her able to fight without fans getting suspicious...even give her some bat armor, then to reveal her as thalia.

could have made the film into two parts 'the dark knight falls' and 'the dark knight rises'.

this way we could have gotten all the characters developed and a better and more developed plot.....(while fitting in joker cameo :-p)

Batwoman? meh.

2 parts...more development...i would have loved that.

 

[Walt Bickle]

But in this version Batman was a symbol not an individual male. So technically, for this version, batman didn't retire or quit.

In the classic sense though..

Batman doesn't retire? He did in The Dark Knight Returns. For 10 years. But like i said, this is Nolan's film version, so he goes by whatever rules he wants to set up. He wanted to give Bruce's journey a true ending where he walks away from the cowl and all that it represents completely. The mission, everything. It was fresh, and id rather watch a fresh story than the same one regurgitated over and over. Bruce/Batman looking over his city..that has happened and will happen for decades to come. Maybe centuries for all we know. Im happy Nolan decided to change things up. And it was a deserved ending. The amount of anger, depression, loss that he suffered, it was well-deserved.

JGL as Joker sounds a bit corny.

You misinterpreted. In TDK he doesn't want copycats with guns going around wearing ridiculous suits doing things that are against the code and meaning of Batman. In TDKR, he's not saying anybody can just be batman...he's saying that anybody can fight for their city and themselves and do good..that's what Batman is all about in a nutshell. But if you want to be direct about it, it also means that anyone can be Batman if they really wanted it but not everybody has the balls to actually do it.

Batwoman? meh.

2 parts...more development...i would have loved that.

yeah he retired after a 20 year career in Returns after robin was killed but when he did he had nightmares and hallucinations of batman telling him to return and that he can't fight it etc, it becomes more of an addiction for him then anything. I get the symbol version they are doing in the Nolan series and I can't argue to much with your points because they are good valid ones and I respect that they attempted to spin things a bit... but it's just the way things turned out a lot of batmans character becomes lost which is important to me.
In BB it's all character which I love, in the TDK his character takes a back seat but understandably so but in rises there is nothing about him that is batman... I even find him kind of dumb..

but basically I respect TDKR. But as you said it's more of a film for the GA rather then the fans of the character.

no I didn't take the batman can be anyone quote literal. but I don't see why the guys in the hockey pants aren't going by his code, I know they have guns but they don't kill as far as I know? why can blake do the deed but they can't? bruce didn't know that blake gave up using guns and at the end of rises he motivates gotham to fight criminals although I know he didn't have much choice, but I just didn't get the difference of what the other guys were doing in TDK.

Not saying to actually use batwoman, it would annoy me to... but it would have been a red herring that would have made the 'twist' more shocking.

 

[shauner111]

He still retired. The years mean nothing, it's what he accomplished in those years. A 20 year career happens because they have to keep telling stories in order to sell their issues. He had nightmares in Returns, it was like an addiction. We may not have seen the nightmares, but it was also an addiction in Rises. Goyer even says it. Plus it's shown in the film that he has a deathwish, he's dying to get out there and be Batman again. I wonder what the guy dreams about? Probably being Batman, needing Batman, his parents, his best friend, Joker. He's depressed so im sure he's not dreaming about daisies and flying over treetops havin' a blast like Superman.

Well, i wouldnt call it a film for the general audience and not for its fans. It certainly doesn't care too much about what the fans want. Snyder's version might because he's a full-on fanboy. But Nolan just made the movie he wanted to make/see. Im sure he didn't worry about what people thought. And at the end of the day, the fans are a minority anyway, so you can't compromise what you want to see just to please some comic book readers. I mean, the focus has always been about character with him and what he wants to do with it. WB gave him that control for Batman. Snyder at this point, has to do what WB want, which is to make the focus about box-office in order to combat Marvel. Story comes second over there, even if they turn up with something good. When a director has a vision and control to do what he wants (and Nolan is no fanboy) then he can write Bruce the way he wants to. You might not agree but that's OK. He's probably well aware that a dissapointed fan can just wait a few years and see a new Batman movie done by somebody else. So why shouldn't he do his own thing?

As for the hockey nerds...it's because they have guns, and aren't trained to use a gun (look at their aim lol). They could hurt people because they're not thinking straight. They dont have the equipment/gadgets either. Look at what they're wearing, they could die. This is sending the wrong message. Blake might not have ninja training (yet), but he knows how to use a firearm, he's not an idiot, and he understands the code/ meaning of Batman. A part of that is to not use a gun anyhow. He doesn't care about wearing some mask, but Bruce makes him understand the meaning. The other guys are throwing on masks like it's a halloween costume, they dont care who they hurt, if they get hurt, they're careless.

 

[Walt Bickle]

He still retired. The years mean nothing, it's what he accomplished in those years. A 20 year career happens because they have to keep telling stories in order to sell their issues. He had nightmares in Returns, it was like an addiction. We may not have seen the nightmares, but it was also an addiction in Rises. Goyer even says it. Plus it's shown in the film that he has a deathwish, he's dying to get out there and be Batman again. I wonder what the guy dreams about? Probably being Batman, needing Batman, his parents, his best friend, Joker. He's depressed so im sure he's not dreaming about daisies and flying over treetops havin' a blast like Superman.

Well, i wouldnt call it a film for the general audience and not for its fans. It certainly doesn't care too much about what the fans want. Snyder's version might because he's a full-on fanboy. But Nolan just made the movie he wanted to make/see. Im sure he didn't worry about what people thought. And at the end of the day, the fans are a minority anyway, so you can't compromise what you want to see just to please some comic book readers. I mean, the focus has always been about character with him and what he wants to do with it. WB gave him that control for Batman. Snyder at this point, has to do what WB want, which is to make the focus about box-office in order to combat Marvel. Story comes second over there, even if they turn up with something good. When a director has a vision and control to do what he wants (and Nolan is no fanboy) then he can write Bruce the way he wants to. You might not agree but that's OK. He's probably well aware that a dissapointed fan can just wait a few years and see a new Batman movie done by somebody else. So why shouldn't he do his own thing?

As for the hockey nerds...it's because they have guns, and aren't trained to use a gun (look at their aim lol). They could hurt people because they're not thinking straight. They dont have the equipment/gadgets either. Look at what they're wearing, they could die. This is sending the wrong message. Blake might not have ninja training (yet), but he knows how to use a firearm, he's not an idiot, and he understands the code/ meaning of Batman. A part of that is to not use a gun anyhow. He doesn't care about wearing some mask, but Bruce makes him understand the meaning. The other guys are throwing on masks like it's a halloween costume, they dont care who they hurt, if they get hurt, they're careless.

RE nightmares and addiction etc, this is what I want to see when bruce is at this stage, it's one of the interesting things about his character. I didn't think he was dyin to get back out there that much, Gordon and fox had to beg at one stage practically. the deathwish didn't cut it for me, infact I found it corny. 'he couldn't escape the pit because he didn't fear for his life? gimme a break.'. I wanted more turmoil for the character.

how were the hockey nerds sending the wrong message? they may have been ill prepared but as far as bruces message they were spot on. one of them even declares batman is a symbol for people to stand up to scum like you when captured by the joker.

I think it would have been more plausible for him to take in the hockey nerds and train them while he is in his peak to prepare for the day he can no longer be batman rather then giving all his stuff to a rookie cop that he only met twice no longer then half an hour and then leaving gotham and hope for the best that blake doesn't fall off a building and break his neck. the nerds knew the code just as much as blake did, and bruce didn't know that blake wasn't gonna use a gun cos he was present when blake made that decision.

 

[Travesty]

That's the purpose of Batman, anybody can be him...unless you're wearing "HOSKEY PADZZZ".

 

[Senator Pleasury]

RE nightmares and addiction etc, this is what I want to see when bruce is at this stage, it's one of the interesting things about his character. I didn't think he was dyin to get back out there that much, Gordon and fox had to beg at one stage practically. the deathwish didn't cut it for me, infact I found it corny. 'he couldn't escape the pit because he didn't fear for his life? gimme a break.'. I wanted more turmoil for the character.

how were the hockey nerds sending the wrong message? they may have been ill prepared but as far as bruces message they were spot on. one of them even declares batman is a symbol for people to stand up to scum like you when captured by the joker.

I think it would have been more plausible for him to take in the hockey nerds and train them while he is in his peak to prepare for the day he can no longer be batman rather then giving all his stuff to a rookie cop that he only met twice no longer then half an hour and then leaving gotham and hope for the best that blake doesn't fall off a building and break his neck. the nerds knew the code just as much as blake did, and bruce didn't know that blake wasn't gonna use a gun cos he was present when blake made that decision.

I think it's a well known fact among Gothamites that Batman doesn't kill. Maroni confirms it. So untrained people that kills criminals are not Batman's message. Harvey Dent and Blake are another thing. They have the means to fight crime (Harvey through law), the will and a sense of justice. Blake proved to have what's needed.

Still, IMO, Bruce should never be able to retire, no matter if he wants it or not.

But Batman in the movie, no matter how Bruce emphasized he could be anyone, retired when he faked his death and had the city unveil that statue. He let them know he died, so he stopped being this symbol and became a mortal being for everyone. Which is one of my big problems with the movie.

 

[milost]

RE nightmares and addiction etc, this is what I want to see when bruce is at this stage, it's one of the interesting things about his character. I didn't think he was dyin to get back out there that much, Gordon and fox had to beg at one stage practically. the deathwish didn't cut it for me, infact I found it corny. 'he couldn't escape the pit because he didn't fear for his life? gimme a break.'. I wanted more turmoil for the character.

how were the hockey nerds sending the wrong message? they may have been ill prepared but as far as bruces message they were spot on. one of them even declares batman is a symbol for people to stand up to scum like you when captured by the joker.

I think it would have been more plausible for him to take in the hockey nerds and train them while he is in his peak to prepare for the day he can no longer be batman rather then giving all his stuff to a rookie cop that he only met twice no longer then half an hour and then leaving gotham and hope for the best that blake doesn't fall off a building and break his neck. the nerds knew the code just as much as blake did, and bruce didn't know that blake wasn't gonna use a gun cos he was present when blake made that decision.

Wrong. Brian Douglas and those other Batmen were cops, police officers. Batman's heroics inspired them to throw on the gear and become vigilantes.

Say what you will, but Brian Douglas knew what Batman stood for all too well, even if he was a fat cop "WHEARIN HOCKEY PADZ".


"Batman's a symbol that we don't have to be afraid of scum like you."

The only problem is that wasn't what Bruce wanted. He didn't want vigilantes or copy cats, he wanted police, DA's, the citizens, etc.


Bruce's actions at the end of TDKR were completely contradictory. Bruce wasn't interested in a legacy character in Begins and Knight, he wanted the city to stand up for what was right. Instead, he encourages Blake to be a vigilante by educating him about the mask and giving this ex-cop (who had enough of the system and threw his badge in the river) all his gear. Way to go Bruce. That was never "the point". Bruce didn't achieve jack when the people he wanted to stand up to crime hid in their houses or helped crucify people in the kangaroo court. No, Batman had to intervene and the story ends with Bruce giving his legacy to someone else to take the reigns, something he was dead against in film 1 and 2. Thus Bruce accepts and promotes vigilantism when that wasn't his goal at all. Contradictory is an understatement.

 

[Walt Bickle]

That's the purpose of Batman, anybody can be him...unless you're wearing "HOSKEY PADZZZ".

ha ha :-D

I think it's a well known fact among Gothamites that Batman doesn't kill. Maroni confirms it. So untrained people that kills criminals are not Batman's message. Harvey Dent and Blake are another thing. They have the means to fight crime (Harvey through law), the will and a sense of justice. Blake proved to have what's needed.

Still, IMO, Bruce should never be able to retire, no matter if he wants it or not.

But Batman in the movie, no matter how Bruce emphasized he could be anyone, retired when he faked his death and had the city unveil that statue. He let them know he died, so he stopped being this symbol and became a mortal being for everyone. Which is one of my big problems with the movie.

But the hockey pad nerds don't kill either otherwise they would have been in jail. I don't see how blake proved he was worthy. we as an audience saw he was... but all bruce saw was him saying I know your batman cos your sad like me and I believe in you and whatnot. yeah I agree with you there to, as nice as the statue thing was it condradicts the whole symbol thing.

Wrong. Brian Douglas and those other Batmen were cops, police officers. Batman's heroics inspired them to throw on the gear and become vigilantes.

Say what you will, but Brian Douglas knew what Batman stood for all too well, even if he was a fat cop "WHEARIN HOCKEY PADZ".


"Batman's a symbol that we don't have to be afraid of scum like you."

The only problem is that wasn't what Bruce wanted. He didn't want vigilantes or copy cats, he wanted police, DA's, the citizens, etc.


Bruce's actions at the end of TDKR were completely contradictory. Bruce wasn't interested in a legacy character in Begins and Knight, he wanted the city to stand up for what was right. Instead, he encourages Blake to be a vigilante by educating him about the mask and giving this ex-cop (who had enough of the system and threw his badge in the river) all his gear. Way to go Bruce. That was never "the point". Bruce didn't achieve jack when the people he wanted to stand up to crime hid in their houses or helped crucify people in the kangaroo court. No, Batman had to intervene and the story ends with Bruce giving his legacy to someone else to take the reigns, something he was dead against in film 1 and 2. Thus Bruce accepts and promotes vigilantism when that wasn't his goal at all. Contradictory is an understatement.

thank you!!!

 

[The Joker]

Wrong. Brian Douglas and those other Batmen were cops, police officers. Batman's heroics inspired them to throw on the gear and become vigilantes.

Say what you will, but Brian Douglas knew what Batman stood for all too well, even if he was a fat cop "WHEARIN HOCKEY PADZ".


"Batman's a symbol that we don't have to be afraid of scum like you."

The only problem is that wasn't what Bruce wanted. He didn't want vigilantes or copy cats, he wanted police, DA's, the citizens, etc.


Bruce's actions at the end of TDKR were completely contradictory. Bruce wasn't interested in a legacy character in Begins and Knight, he wanted the city to stand up for what was right. Instead, he encourages Blake to be a vigilante by educating him about the mask and giving this ex-cop (who had enough of the system and threw his badge in the river) all his gear. Way to go Bruce. That was never "the point". Bruce didn't achieve jack when the people he wanted to stand up to crime hid in their houses or helped crucify people in the kangaroo court. No, Batman had to intervene and the story ends with Bruce giving his legacy to someone else to take the reigns, something he was dead against in film 1 and 2. Thus Bruce accepts and promotes vigilantism when that wasn't his goal at all. Contradictory is an understatement.

milost, I love you

 

[BatLobster]

There's a difference between contradiction and evolution. Bruce also wanted Batman to be a simple one and done type of thing that would put Gotham back on track. That turned out not to be true when The Joker showed up. The only way he was able to dig himself and Gotham out of that hole was with a lie. But that had its obvious problems too.

So, by the end of Rises he's decided that the symbol of Batman must go on. He's faced head-on with his mortality in a way he wasn't in the previous two films and that humbles and changes him. He realizes and accepts that he can't/won't be Batman forever, but also finally accepts that as long as Gotham is standing there will always be threats that face it, whether it be internal or external. And that's why the symbol of Batman must go on, and the next Dark Knight must rise if Gotham is threatened by the forces of evil in the future.

There's also a big difference between people throwing on makeshift gear, using automatic weapons recklessly with intent to kill, making a mess of things, endangering themselves and others and trying to do Batman's job for him, and Batman himself appointing a successor whose moral compass he trusts and giving him some of the tools of the trade. Sure, you can point out that he didn't know Blake that well, but he knew that he was a good cop with great instincts, and one of the main heroes of Bane's siege. I'm sure he read up on his file too (we know from both TDK and TDKR that he can access police files on the Bat-computer). Most importantly though, he saw himself in Blake and this is always the classic, fundamental reason for Bruce to take in a Robin in the comics. Is it a bit cheesy? Maybe. But I like the idea that "Batman" isn't just something anyone can dress up and do. It ends up being this moniker (like the title of "Ra's al Ghul" probably is in these films) that has to be bequeathed upon the one who is deemed worthy by the current owner of the cowl. Now that's a way to establish longevity, from generation to generation.

Oh, and in case Travesty reads this...eh ohs, faces and stuff.

 

[Shikamaru]

Ugh, I'm so annoyed by the "it was Nolan's vision" excuse at this point. It isn't even a proper argument. It is a straw man.

Yes, Nolan should be (and was) allowed to do with TDKR however he pleased. No one was stopping him from doing whatever he wanted. He legally and rightfully has the right to do whatever he wants with his films. If he wanted TDKR to be entirely about Bruce taking a s***, he should have every right to do that. However, Nolan whatever he wants does not automatically mean any of the following:

-That the story is good.
-That there weren't much better ideas than what we got.
-That the story works in in the context of this universe.
-That the story fits with what came before (in this case, BB and TDK).

My argument has never been that Nolan shouldn't have been allowed to do TDKR the way he did, but that what he did was stupid. The very first impressions/criticisms I had of TDKR was how much it didn't work as a sequel. Generally speaking, I think it is a bad sequel. I think it has far more problems as a sequel than it does as both a Batman film and just a film. Nothing with the film fits in the context of the universe IMO. The characters are out of character based on what we've seen of them in BB/TDK and entire themes/messages/character arcs are contradicted or ignored.

In other words, I wasn't happy with TDKR because it went against Nolan's "vision". The vision that was already established - BB/TDK. Not everything has to be like the comics, but you have to at least play by the rules of whatever universe you established. TDKR, in my honest opinion, did not.

It is one of the most annoying ad hominem on these boards. I've seen people use it even on those that have script issues. It is getting ridiculous.

 

[milost]

I knew that's what your retort would be Lobster.

Don't you (and Shauner and your pro-TDKR ilk) always bring this scene up though?


http://youtu.be/9J6J5BcHFCs


[YT]9J6J5BcHFCs[/YT]






You guys always use that as a spring board for everything that happens in TDKR as a means to justifying it. Now you're all "well, the character evolved". Myself and others have used that "evolution" argument FOR Dark Knight's ending as to why he'd NEVER give up Batman or quit, and yet, you guys always throw that plane scene in our faces. Well which is it?

I'm sorry, but that's a bunch of bull. Bruce says RIGHT there that he wants the people, not vigilantes, to stand up against crime and corruption. "Anyone can be a hero", NOT Batman. He sees the folly of this in Dark Knight, right? Bruce is a vigilante in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, but that isn't something he wants the city to do! He wants the Jim Gordon's, he wants the Rachel Dawes', he wants the Harvey Dent's! That's the whole point with putting his faith with the people on the ferries. He doesn't want someone to have to throw on the body armor or use the expensive gadgets. That's not the point, right? Batman in these Nolan films is treated as a harmful thing for the most part. It takes it's toll on Bruce, physically, mentally and emotionally. It creates copy cats and inspires evil. Now Batman can be a tool used for good, but there are always consequences and repercussions.

So we're meant to believe, after all the years of isolation, that Bruce just SUDDENLY thinks Batman should live on and someone else should take up the mantle? Even after Alfred as a "voice of reason"? Even after Rachel's strong words? What the hell? Bruce even says in the CAR with Blake that "that wasn't the point", but then, an hour or two into the film it is? Which is it? If it's the latter, and Bruce promotes vigilantism, then that means Bruce's original plan ON THE PLANE was just BS and he failed. People can't stand up for what's right, they'll always need a Batman to protect them. What kind of message does that send? Batman doesn't inspire good, and if he does, it's continually based on a lie (the Dent conspiracy, "no auto pilot"). What kind of hero is that? And really, Bruce is going to let Blake subject himself to a harmful life under that mantle that just wrecked him? That's just insane. It's either about the people, or it's about Batman. If not, the story is sending a murky message of what it means to be a hero.

That's half the problem with the stories here, you CANNOT have your cake and eat it too. These ARE contradictions from film to film. Okay, "evolution of character". So it would be completely appropriate if, for TDKR, Bruce decided he wanted to suddenly be transvestite, right? I mean why not, as long as it was "written well" and we could make sense of it, right? It seems like anything can happen as long as the director and writers have a "unique vision" about something.

You guys justify it all too. The no kill policy with the wish washy kills. This hope for the people vs. Batman thing. If all this can go either way with it's different messages and view points, is this Batman that strong of a hero? I know different interpretations can bend, but just ONE interpretation going through that many "ifs" and "buts"? WHICH IS IT? Begins is evoking a message. The Dark Knight is evoking a message. TDKR is evoking a message. But y'all want this cohesive story tied in a bow. That can't be, not with characterizations that are so varyingly different. Either our hero is schizophrenic or the writers threw everything on the wall, hoping something would stick. I'd say it's the latter. I don't see how people can gobble it all up when it's so inconsistent. I mean, hey, who's to say what happens after the events of TDKR right? Maybe a "Nolan Batman 4" would have Bruce coming back because this "happy" life is boring him and he wants to be that Batman that always needs to be there? Let's not forget the LoS 3.0 (since they can never be defeated) or the terrible condition the city's in from that last battle (i.e. financially bankrupt). Yeah, I bet that would lead to a brighter tomorrow where everyone is singing kumbaya around a gaudy Batman statue and reading exerts from a Tale of Two Cities. Yeah!

 

[BatLobster]

He also talks about becoming everlasting in that scene.

But it's both. It's a fusion. He's evolving throughout the series and it's the resolution of these conflicting ideas. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. That's the evolution. The symbol and Bruce's relationship with that symbol is in play for the whole trilogy, until the end. Any murkiness about the merits of vigilantism, I suspect, is very much part of the point. Batman operates in a grey world, that's one of the defining hallmarks of the character. It never was going to be a black and white thing. That's why I consider the ending of TDKR to be a (lighter) shade of grey and not just pure optimism and rainbows like you seem to.

Honestly though milost...that's as far as I'm willing to take this until you at least do me the respect of admitting you were wrong about the other thing. It doesn't mean you lose that debate or anything, but if I brought an incorrect fact with no source to back it up into a debate and you debunked me, you better believe I'd own up to it.

 

[Travesty]

But it was Nolan's vision, this isn't the comics, brahhhh.....

 

[milost]

He also talks about becoming everlasting in that scene.

But it's both. It's a fusion. He's evolving throughout the series and it's the resolution of these conflicting ideas. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. That's the evolution. The symbol and Bruce's relationship with that symbol is in play for the whole trilogy, until the end. Any murkiness about the merits of vigilantism, I suspect, is very much part of the point. Batman operates in a grey world, that's one of the defining hallmarks of the character. It never was going to be a black and white thing. That's why I consider the ending of TDKR to be a (lighter) shade of grey and not just pure optimism and rainbows like you seem to.

So Batman can be everything, anyone (but only certain people) and mean anything. That's terrific, very thought provoking. That's why I'll never see how someone can say this "TDKT" characterization is stronger than say, the staunch, Animated Series Batman that is consistent from season 1 of BTAS all the way through Justice League Unlimited. Never understand it.

Honestly though milost...that's as far as I'm willing to take this until you at least do me the respect of admitting you were wrong about the other thing. It doesn't mean you lose that debate or anything, but if I brought an incorrect fact with no source to back it up into a debate and you debunked me, you better believe I'd own up to it.

Wrong about what?

 

[BatLobster]

No, the point is to make it FEEL like Batman can be anyone to the people Gotham, thus inspiring them. It's a reminder that the actions of the individual do matter and can change society for the better. Heck, that's what inspires US about Batman as fans! When you were a kid, it felt like you could be Batman when you grew up, even though it's ridiculous. It's just taking one of the major, core appeals of Batman as a character and putting it right into the fabric of the story. I think that's awesome.

As far as TDKT characterization vs. the comics/BTAS (essentially one and the same IMO), it's simply the difference between a more or less static character (staunch as you said) and a more dynamic character arc. It's fine to prefer one over the other. Some hardcore Bond fans I know hated Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace because they didn't want to see Bond so vulnerable and flawed. They just wanted to see classic, smooth, professional Bond where nothing gets in the way of the mission. If you prefer your Batman to be always be the fully formed Batman, the perpetual badass, that's a fine opinion to have. And that's probably what we're going to get next. I love that Batman too, who here doesn't? I don't see TDKT as better or worse, just different...and a bit more human and relatable. It's something that fits if you're trying to tell the story with a more "real world" bent to it.

As far as the other thing...I was referring to the Jonathan Nolan link you brought up yesterday. I thought you were ignoring my posts but maybe you just somehow missed it all?
http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=472353&page=13

 

[milost]

Oh, I see. The whole "TALIA WAS BRANDED FOR INITIATION!" from the other day. I didn't see the little yippy dog posts questioning me for the authenticity of "J-Nols" quotes.

I'm not a walking, talking college paper of sources. The Joker (and maybe you and others from the Batman World threads) can attest to this. That's why I make sure whenever I state something coming from someone else, I don't quote it exactly and try my best to say that it is from something for certain. It's not in the screenplay book? Are you sure? I remember when I was being called a liar on here when I stated that "even the Nolans and Goyer admitted Batman killed and broke his rule, look in the screenplay book" and had a bunch of pro-TDKR fanboys ridicule me for that not being true. That was, until someone dropped in with some page scans.

If it isn't in the screenplay book, it's in an article somewhere. I don't just make things up. The Trilogy art book perhaps? He mentions the branding, he mentions Talia, even mentions how adamant he was about Rachel's death within the same passage of whatever it is I'm recollecting. I just tried googling it now and haven't found squat.

Either way, who ever is "right" (I'd admit I was wrong), that's another one of those plot points that isn't even clearly defined in the ACTUAL film. I'm sure we could all agree on that. That's what I'm talking about, you'd think with all this crazy exposition that TDKR has for themes and characters (what does it all mean), they'd give us some explanations of the little, dumb things in the stories like what the hell the branding stick is for. Something that is sort of just there in Begins but has no meaning unless you read early drafts of the screenplay or some article in a book where the writer explains the intent (unless I just "created" that up). Otherwise it just looks like "Wannabe" Ra's is just poking that at Bruce for the hell of it.

Either way, I trust my brain. I said comments that were uncertain in the past, things that I "heard" or read before about like Tim Burton or about what some actor said, and had people come to my rescue with sources there. I'm confident in myself. Worst case, I'm wrong. If I just imagined it, I want the proof that brand tool is used for initiation. I think even in the 2005 video game it was just there to set off fireworks (right before you escort the farmer prisoner out of the flaming monastery).

 

[BatLobster]

Well look, I was being cute about it but the truth is I was legitimately curious about that quote because I do consider myself pretty well-versed when it comes to what the Nolans have said in interviews about all 3 movies. If that quote exists, it's very much something I would like to have seen because I would've gladly admitted I was wrong and, just for the sake of my own knowledge I wouldn't want to be arguing a point that is directly contradicted by Jonathan Nolan himself.

When I read the screenplays interview on Amazon and it wasn't there, I figured that closed the case on it. If you're adamant that this quote is real, I hope we can find it at some point because again, that's just something that would interest me. Until then, I'm going to continue with my assumption that it's a mistake. I have the trilogy book as well, so at some point I'll flip through that again too. I'm certain that I have no recollection of the Nolans ever talking about Talia, probably because they're such spoiler-phobes. And yes, it's not clearly defined in the film(whether Talia was ex-communicated along with Bane or not)...my argument was that this made it open to interpretation, but you slammed the door on that by bringing out that quote.

You have to realize though, from a debating standpoint it's not the best form to bring up a potential game-changer like that and then not seal the deal with proof. It has nothing to do with lying, I don't think you would, but we all remember things wrong sometimes.