I was going to reply to these sooner, but I didn't want to interrupt the fun discussion over milost.
Which proves our point. BB and TDK spelled out well Batman's intentions, TDKR took a big dump on them, that's why your friends were like hang on a tick that isn't what they said in the last movies. It's not a case of a lack of explanation it's just a case of contradictory messages in the third movie.
That's my point. Because they never directly say it in the last movies, doesn't that mean it isn't all spelled out? I think you and I have completely different views on what it means to spell out everything, or rather to explain everything to the tee.
Well specifically it was "Nothing. No matches on prints, DNA, dental. Clothing is custom. No labels. Nothing in his pockets but knives and lint. No name. No other alias"
Pretty much spelling out the Joker is a mystery from all angles.
Fair enough. I didn't have a problem with it though. The dialogue seemed natural to me. That's one of the major reasons why I don't have a problem with the "expository dialogue" in the Nolan films. They mostly come from detectives, lawyers, attorneys, criminal masterminds, etc. I would kinda expect them to have a bit more of a complex dialect than normal folks. If we heard it from an average Joe like Jonathan Kent, then I would understand why it would be more of an issue (no offense to anyone).
I don't agree, Shika. I don't think it had anything to do with Rachel's death. Heck Alfred had to tell him that Gotham still needs him when he was mourning Rachel's death and blaming himself for bringing it on her. A man out to get the Joker at all costs wouldn't have hesitated in putting the cowl back on to catch Joker. To me that just makes Batman look like a guy who is motivated by revenge.
I like that Nolan depicted it as Batman having learned from his previous experience with the Joker and trying to catch him. Joker is a trickster. Nothing is ever as it seems with him. Learned that the hard way. So he saw through the Prewitt building set up. He can't find Joker by trying to shake down criminals for info. He didn't act against Joker until Joker made his moves first. He protected Mr. Reese. Then he went about finding Joker himself after he made his city wide threat. National Guard was called in. Gotham was being evacuated. Desperate situation. I don't think Batman making the sonar device had anything to do with Rachel's death.
I think it was Batman upping his game because Joker upped his.
I should be clearer in that case.
I don't think it was revenge. Instead, I think it is something Batman does all the time. Something that I would argue is perhaps his greatest strength: the ability to turn negative feelings like revenge/pain/suffering into positive ones like strength and motivation. Yes, it is Batman upping his game because the Joker upped his, but I thin it's because Rachel's death (at least partly) made him do so.
Not in a revenge way, but more in a justice way. More in a "I really have to catch this guy no matter what because he is this dangerous" way. That's what I meant when I brought up Rachel. I didn't mean he was driven by vengeance.
Regardless, my point still stands. You don't hear Lucius say "You're upping your game because the Joker upped yours". The whole conversation is filtered through social commentary on privacy vs. security (other than the line "I have to catch this man, Lucius" at the beginning) but all that stuff I brought up is still there and is the point of that scene.
Then again, I did just finish saying how I think you and I have different definitions on what it means to spell out everything to an audience.
They're explanations, just poor ones. "I could not forgive my father until you murdered him. I honor my father by finishing his work". Flimsy two dimensional explanations but an explanation nonetheless.
Unlike with the Joker, where they never had to tell the audience Joker's a blank slate when it came to his identity. They just chose to confirm that to us.
Yes, but is it an "explanation to the tee?" That's what I'm arguing over. The idea that Nolan explains every single little and big thing that there is to explain in his dialogue. That he does this so that no one leaves with a single question to think about. Which based on the reactions and speculations regarding Talia's supposed motivation and backstory, he miserably failed in that case.
The only time I recall them bringing up the question of why Bane's men are so loyal is when Daggett and Stryver are conversing about the men the Cops caught at the stock exchange, and Stryver says Bane assures them they would die before talking, and Daggett says "Where does he find these guys?".
It's not just brought up in the dialogue. The movie as a whole constantly draws attention to it. To the fact that Bane's men are so loyal to him. It intentionally wants its audience to question that and it never gives an answer to that question. Or even an answer on what Bane's men believe in the first place.
Bane was not in love with Talia. He loved her. From what is presented in the film, there's no hints at anything romantic. They dont kiss or anything when she leaves, she says goodbye. Done. It could very well be that he loves her like a daughter, sister, friend. They work together but it's more like two friends who have each others back.
Again, I'm not saying it is a clear fact. Just that it's possible.
Also when she leaves, she gently touches his mask while he gives her googly eyes. Just saying.
What you think? well I already see many online stores they are filled with bane costume for example [FONT="]http://goo.gl/3NSsbg[/FONT] this one, That shows they are completely success to designs. 
t:
