Better Trilogy: TDK or Captain America?

[Flint Marko]

Batman should only exist because Batman is necessary. Which is the conundrum of the comics. Gotham is a never ending sea of crap, that Bruce never improves. It only in theory gets worse. The idea here is he, "fixed it", but in the process, there is an underlying problem, that Bane and Talia come in a exploit.

Should Batman go around beating up pick pockets? No. The idea is he made Gotham manageable for the police. It goes with the mission statement from Begins, where it was basically about getting rid of the gangs who had Gotham in a perpetual state of horror.

But, and this is just a fundamental problem I have with the film, I don't buy the jump from where TDK ended to 8 years later where they're trying to sell that Batman was rendered unnecessary. All organized crime was apparently wiped out off screen? I have trouble buying that as an organic extension of where we last left things off.

I could ultimately forgive that if I felt it aided the story, but I don't feel it ultimately does. He has a limp... that's magically fixed with a knee brace and never brought up again. He musters up the strength and courage to face Bane... but loses and has to muster up the strength and courage again to face him again. It just seems unnecessary.

I understand what it's trying to accomplish from a thematic perspective, I just ultimately feel that it's garbled and half-baked in the execution, especially compared to it's two predecessors.

And to reiterate, I've actually defended TDKR from people before who flat out call it a bad movie because I don't think it's a bad movie. It's a movie that does a lot right while also doing a lot wrong.

 

[FunkMiller]

But, and this is just a fundamental problem I have with the film, I don't buy the jump from where TDK ended to 8 years later where they're trying to sell that Batman was rendered unnecessary. All organized crime was apparently wiped out off screen? I have trouble buying that as an organic extension of where we last left things off.

This has always been one of the things that sat very poorly with me in this movie. Even if organised crime had been stopped, Batman would still be waging his war against other criminals. Muggers, murderers, burglars etc.

The 8 years off was a bad character beat then, and it’s still bad now.

 

[Brother Jack]

But, and this is just a fundamental problem I have with the film, I don't buy the jump from where TDK ended to 8 years later where they're trying to sell that Batman was rendered unnecessary. All organized crime was apparently wiped out off screen? I have trouble buying that as an organic extension of where we last left things off.

I saw it as an extension of Dent's RICO case against the mob in Knight. Dent was able to do serious damage to the mob, putting away a ferry's worth of low-level guys, and after death his pristine "white knight" symbol is exalted to beget the Dent Act, effectively finishing the work he, Gordon, and Batman set out to do (and turning Gotham into a mild police state).

Also, it should be noted that Bruce was a hermit for three years, not eight. It might seem like semantics, but I think there's room in the five years before that for Bruce to have gone out as Batman. That's kind of my own head canon, given that there were apparently unconfirmed sightings of Batman, and the fact that the cave was completed.

 

[DACrowe]

But, and this is just a fundamental problem I have with the film, I don't buy the jump from where TDK ended to 8 years later where they're trying to sell that Batman was rendered unnecessary. All organized crime was apparently wiped out off screen? I have trouble buying that as an organic extension of where we last left things off.

I could ultimately forgive that if I felt it aided the story, but I don't feel it ultimately does. He has a limp... that's magically fixed with a knee brace and never brought up again. He musters up the strength and courage to face Bane... but loses and has to muster up the strength and courage again to face him again. It just seems unnecessary.

I understand what it's trying to accomplish from a thematic perspective, I just ultimately feel that it's garbled and half-baked in the execution, especially compared to it's two predecessors.

And to reiterate, I've actually defended TDKR from people before who flat out call it a bad movie because I don't think it's a bad movie. It's a movie that does a lot right while also doing a lot wrong.

Just a few things.

I don't think Batman never rode again after the end of TDK. I mean... he finished the Batcave at the beginning of TDKR and Alfred says, "You haven't been down here in a while." Other things, like "last confirmed sighting of the Batman," lead me to believe he was helping behind the scenes some or returning to his more shadowy presence of a vigilante during the "war years."

But either way, yes, he hasn't suited up as Batman in 5-8 years at the beginning of the film. But that seems like the point. Most major cities are not as broken as Gotham, and it reached a point where the cops didn't need his help.

The other thing I'd point out is that Batman didn't "muster the courage to face Bane" the first time. He ran in, presumptuous and angry. He had something like a death wish. He wasn't thinking about a life after Bane. The difference is the second time, he wanted to live and didn't want to just only be Batman. I know that sounds arbitrary, but is like the difference in Mr. T fights in Rocky III.

 

[Travesty]

Well in my opinion, "Planet-Sized plot holes" is pretty ridiculous.

Plot holes might be too far. I can't recall any major plot holes. There are a ton of outright stupid moments though. Maybe that's a fairer description.

No plot holes by definition. Just tons of narrative contrivances, logic fallacies, and missing scenes that are needed to show A to B.

Bruce's knee is a huge plot hole. We're told by a doctor that he has no cartilage in his knee, so he gets a super, duper, ultra combo style knee brace that he never really uses to his advantage, and when he fights Bane, he strips him of all his equipment, yet, his knee is fixed, along with his back...by dangling from a magic rope. And while trying to escape, wouldn't the fall from the pit with the rope re-break his back, or straight up kill Bruce? Maybe he was using the magic rope that healed his back and filled his knee with Super Cartilage?

I also think the nuke is a pretty big plot hole. I know there's an "auto-pilot", but the movie shows us that Batman is still in the cockpit with 5 seconds before detonation, and he survives the blast. No auto-pilot will save anyone from a nuke blast with 5 seconds to spare. Survival of the blast alone goes against the flow of logic. Or maybe Bruce's new Super Cartilage made him swim back to shore faster than the blast radius of the nuke?

 

[honestbharani]

The answer to everything of course, is Batman's utility belt.

 

[Awest66]

This has always been one of the things that sat very poorly with me in this movie. Even if organised crime had been stopped, Batman would still be waging his war against other criminals. Muggers, murderers, burglars etc.

The 8 years off was a bad character beat then, and it’s still bad now.

I recommend you watch The Dark Knight again because in that movie, Bruce makes it clear he's gonna give up being Batman and pass the responsibilities of protecting Gotham onto Harvey Dent before the Joker shows up. Could Harvey stop all muggers, murderers and burglars? Of course not.

"Whoever the Batman is, he doesn't want to do what he's doing for the rest of his life, How could he?, He's looking for someone to take up his mantle"

 

[spider-neil]

One of the inmates literally pushes Bruce's vertebra back into place, fixing his broken back.
I'm not making this **** up.

 

[FunkMiller]

I recommend you watch The Dark Knight again because in that movie, Bruce makes it clear he's gonna give up being Batman and pass the responsibilities of protecting Gotham onto Harvey Dent before the Joker shows up. Could Harvey stop all muggers, murderers and burglars? Of course not.

How exactly is this an argument against my point? I said it doesn't ring true to the character of Batman for me that he would quit just because organised crime in Gotham had ended. That plays out in The Dark Knight Rises, not The Dark Knight. It's a character inconsistency that has its roots in TDK, but only plays a part in the narrative of TDKR.

 

[Awest66]

One of the inmates literally pushes Bruce's vertebra back into place, fixing his broken back.
I'm not making this **** up.

He didn't have a broken back. The vertebrae itself was the problem.

 

[Awest66]

How exactly is this an argument against my point? I said it doesn't ring true to the character of Batman for me that he would quit just because organised crime in Gotham had ended. That plays out in The Dark Knight Rises, not The Dark Knight. It's a character inconsistency that has its roots in TDK, but only plays a part in the narrative of TDKR.

My point is that it's consistent with the portrayal of the character from the previous two films. In Batman Begins, Bruce learns the real problem affecting Gotham is the corruption that creates men like Joe Chill and that he needs to go after the disease itself rather than tackle the symptoms.

The Batman from the previous two movies really doesn't strike me as someone who'd waste time going after criminals the police can deal with on their own especially if the system that results in street crime isn't a problem anymore.

 

[DACrowe]

Bruce's knee is a huge plot hole. We're told by a doctor that he has no cartilage in his knee, so he gets a super, duper, ultra combo style knee brace that he never really uses to his advantage, and when he fights Bane, he strips him of all his equipment, yet, his knee is fixed, along with his back...by dangling from a magic rope. And while trying to escape, wouldn't the fall from the pit with the rope re-break his back, or straight up kill Bruce? Maybe he was using the magic rope that healed his back and filled his knee with Super Cartilage?

I also think the nuke is a pretty big plot hole. I know there's an "auto-pilot", but the movie shows us that Batman is still in the cockpit with 5 seconds before detonation, and he survives the blast. No auto-pilot will save anyone from a nuke blast with 5 seconds to spare. Survival of the blast alone goes against the flow of logic. Or maybe Bruce's new Super Cartilage made him swim back to shore faster than the blast radius of the nuke?

I'm only half-kidding too. To me the biggest mistake in TDKR is not having Bruce say that when Bane asks, "So you came back to die with your city?" "No, I came back because I'm Batman" would've been so much cooler than what they used.

P.S. The movie does not show him in the cockpit with five seconds left. It shows him in the cockpit, then cuts to it flying out to sea, and then cuts to five seconds left. There is a time jump there. Trixy Nolan editing is trixy.

 

[DACrowe]

He didn't have a broken back. The vertebrae itself was the problem.

This is actually true. They say in the movie it is fractured. Which is a lot different from a break.

Is it still ******** he was healed by hanging in place for presumably upwards of a month or two? Of course, but less so than a full break... plus he's Batman.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

But, and this is just a fundamental problem I have with the film, I don't buy the jump from where TDK ended to 8 years later where they're trying to sell that Batman was rendered unnecessary. All organized crime was apparently wiped out off screen? I have trouble buying that as an organic extension of where we last left things off.

I could ultimately forgive that if I felt it aided the story, but I don't feel it ultimately does. He has a limp... that's magically fixed with a knee brace and never brought up again. He musters up the strength and courage to face Bane... but loses and has to muster up the strength and courage again to face him again. It just seems unnecessary.

I understand what it's trying to accomplish from a thematic perspective, I just ultimately feel that it's garbled and half-baked in the execution, especially compared to it's two predecessors.

And to reiterate, I've actually defended TDKR from people before who flat out call it a bad movie because I don't think it's a bad movie. It's a movie that does a lot right while also doing a lot wrong.

The Joker literally does that at the end of TDK. He takes out all the bosses, leaving the mob in chaos. Which is why the quick enactment of the Dent act would stop it from being able to come back in force.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

This has always been one of the things that sat very poorly with me in this movie. Even if organised crime had been stopped, Batman would still be waging his war against other criminals. Muggers, murderers, burglars etc.

The 8 years off was a bad character beat then, and it’s still bad now.

At what point does he do that in the trilogy? His entire operation works on a marco level, which is why we continue to see him fighting the mob, and not random muggers, murderers and burglars. It takes him 18 months to even go after the Joker in a meaningful way until he hits a mob bank, which gets him tied in with the... you guessed it. The mob. And then he starts attacking the city on the macro level. Even the opening of TDK is Batman trying to stop the mob.

What is interesting is this all ties into his encounter with Rachel in the first film. With Chill. It makes it clear that Chill isn't the problem, he is the result of what the mob has done to the city. They make the criminals in mass. They have corrupted the government. Emphasized with how corrupt everyone is, including Gordon's own partner. Look at Ramirez. This all works for and against Ra's intentions in the first film.

 

[henzINNIT]

I recommend you watch The Dark Knight again because in that movie, Bruce makes it clear he's gonna give up being Batman and pass the responsibilities of protecting Gotham onto Harvey Dent before the Joker shows up. Could Harvey stop all muggers, murderers and burglars? Of course not.

It's the same film that deals with escalation, villainy beyond the mob. The same film that punishes Bruce's plans for early retirement by killing off the woman he see's a future with. The same film where Joker promises that he and Batman are destined to clash forever, and ends with Batman choosing to endure as Alfred told him earlier.

 

[The Joker]

It's the same film that deals with escalation, villainy beyond the mob. The same film that punishes Bruce's plans for early retirement by killing off the woman he see's a future with. The same film where Joker promises that he and Batman are destined to clash forever, and ends with Batman choosing to endure as Alfred told him earlier.

None of that was contradicted in Rises. It was clearly established Batman had retired because he simply was not needed any more. Not because he wanted to retire. Crime stats had fallen so low they even say Gordon was going to be dumped by the Mayor. Blake makes light of the fact that crime is so low they'll soon be chasing overdue library books etc. Batman tried to help the city as Bruce Wayne with the clean energy project, sinking all his money into it, but that fell through. So he just went into a reclusive slump as he was not able to help as Wayne or Batman. When Bane showed up, another significant threat to Gotham, he stepped up again as Batman.

The Joker saying he thinks he and Batman are destined to clash forever is merely just that. Saying what he thinks. If Heath Ledger had not sadly passed away, I'm sure Rises would have been a different movie. But as it stands, going against what the Joker thinks doesn't make any difference. He was simply telling Batman what he believes. Not what will definitely be.

You're talking like it pulled a Spider-Man 3 and did some stupid retcon equivalent to Sandman being Uncle Ben's killer or something.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It's the same film that deals with escalation, villainy beyond the mob. The same film that punishes Bruce's plans for early retirement by killing off the woman he see's a future with. The same film where Joker promises that he and Batman are destined to clash forever, and ends with Batman choosing to endure as Alfred told him earlier.

The film which ends with him taking on the villain role, so Dent's heroic memory can live on and save the city.

 

[InCali]

I don't think TDKR is a great film....but to be honest, most CBM's aren't in my opinion, and that includes most of the MCU.

Also, MCU fans shouldn't be accusing anyone of being easily triggered. Forget actual discussion of the films themselves, an MCU fan will feel some type a way if an MCU film doesn't win a "Vs." poll.

Silly comment as almost all over generalizations are. I happen to be an MCU fan who gave an edge to the Nolan Trilogy.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

What is an MCU fan as opposed to a Nolan fan, to a DC fan? Because I like them all.

 

[henzINNIT]

The film which ends with him taking on the villain role, so Dent's heroic memory can live on and save the city.

Mm'yes, and I'm not the only one who assumed that this heroic sacrifice meant more than Batman riding home and immediately retiring. Quite a common and reasonable complaint with the film I think.

This choice was jarring to me but not film derailing. I quite liked the creepy recluse Bruce (heh that rhymes) at the start of the film. Hathaway is great fun in the robbery sequence too.

None of that was contradicted in Rises. It was clearly established Batman had retired because he simply was not needed any more. Not because he wanted to retire. Crime stats had fallen so low they even say Gordon was going to be dumped by the Mayor. Blake makes light of the fact that crime is so low they'll soon be chasing overdue library books etc. Batman tried to help the city as Bruce Wayne with the clean energy project, sinking all his money into it, but that fell through. So he just went into a reclusive slump as he was not able to help as Wayne or Batman. When Bane showed up, another significant threat to Gotham, he stepped up again as Batman.

The Joker saying he thinks he and Batman are destined to clash forever is merely just that. Saying what he thinks. If Heath Ledger had not sadly passed away, I'm sure Rises would have been a different movie. But as it stands, going against what the Joker thinks doesn't make any difference. He was simply telling Batman what he believes. Not what will definitely be.

You're talking like it pulled a Spider-Man 3 and did some stupid retcon equivalent to Sandman being Uncle Ben's killer or something.

No, nothing retcon level I can think of, nothing that directly contradicts the previous films. Just a few moments that undermine them. The Joker was an unfortunate casualty of real life. That doesn't change the fact that when he said he and Batman would be at it forever, it wasn't just what he thought, it was an exchange with the audience. Rises doesn't contradict this, but it does deflate it substantially. Something has been lost since it happened.

Rises did a number of things that inadvertently harmed the series. Closing the book on Batman is bold, but needing to have him 'out of action, back in action, out of action, back in action, out of action' in one film is excessive. You lose the impact of Bruce finally retiring when he's been portrayed as a part-time vigilante. Returning to the League of Shadows is a logical choice if you are attempting a trilogy closer but a boring, world-shrinking choice when you're mining from such an impressive roster. The Joker could not return, but there were more interesting alternatives than the League's ideology again. Bane was 100% more interesting when his motives and plot was mysterious and seemingly his own.

I think Nolan got trapped in a no win situation paying off TDK. He had to find a way to allow Dent's legacy resonate, but also had to set up another dramatic incident. In short, I think he botched it.

 

[The Joker]

No, nothing retcon level I can think of, nothing that directly contradicts the previous films. Just a few moments that undermine them. The Joker was an unfortunate casualty of real life. That doesn't change the fact that when he said he and Batman would be at it forever, it wasn't just what he thought, it was an exchange with the audience. Rises doesn't contradict this, but it does deflate it substantially. Something has been lost since it happened.

Rises did a number of things that inadvertently harmed the series. Closing the book on Batman is bold, but needing to have him 'out of action, back in action, out of action, back in action, out of action' in one film is excessive. You lose the impact of Bruce finally retiring when he's been portrayed as a part-time vigilante. Returning to the League of Shadows is a logical choice if you are attempting a trilogy closer but a boring, world-shrinking choice when you're mining from such an impressive roster. The Joker could not return, but there were more interesting alternatives than the League's ideology again. Bane was 100% more interesting when his motives and plot was mysterious and seemingly his own.

I think Nolan got trapped in a no win situation paying off TDK. He had to find a way to allow Dent's legacy resonate, but also had to set up another dramatic incident. In short, I think he botched it.

I don't think audiences expected Batman and Joker to be at it forever after Heath passed. Nobody with two brain cells to rub together would believe Nolan was going to recast him. Honestly, who would want him to be recast. If TDKR was dropping lines that says Batman and Joker have been constantly clashing since TDK, I think it would not only make audiences despair that they never got to see it, it would also raise questions as to why Joker never tried to expose the Dent cover up himself when he was free.

I think you're over exaggerating it. Batman was not out of action after TDK because he chose to be. He was out of action because he was forced to be. He also had not moved on mentally. As Alfred said he never went on to find a life, to find someone to be with. He sat waiting, hoping for things to go bad again so he could be Batman and have a purpose. When Peter Parker quit being Spider-Man in SM-2, the ghost of his responsibility hung over him, no matter how much he tried to ignore it (chat with Uncle Ben, saving the child from the burning building, turning his back on a mugging etc). It was the same with Bruce. He may not have been wearing the cape and cowl, but he had not moved on. So when he finally did at the end, it had impact.

Bane's motives were known almost from the get-go. He told Bruce he was there to fulfill Ra's Al Ghul's destiny. His motives were never mysterious. So I'm not sure what you're talking about there.

I'm not going to debate you on your own personal taste of what you find boring. That's your own opinion. You're clearly a Spider-Man 3 fan, so you know exactly what I mean.

 

[InCali]

What is an MCU fan as opposed to a Nolan fan, to a DC fan? Because I like them all.

Yeah. I was thinking something along those lines when I wrote my last post. I'm an MCU "fan" because I like the movies. I was a big Nolan/Batman fan because I liked the movies (well, sorta TDKR). I guess I'd be a Crapformers fan if I liked those movies, but they sucked. LOL.

 

[henzINNIT]

I don't think audiences expected Batman and Joker to be at it forever after Heath passed. Nobody with two brain cells to rub together would believe Nolan was going to recast him. Honestly, who would want him to be recast. If TDKR was dropping lines that says Batman and Joker have been constantly clashing since TDK, I think it would not only make audiences despair that they never got to see it, it would also raise questions as to why Joker never tried to expose the Dent cover up himself when he was free.

I think you're over exaggerating it. Batman was not out of action after TDK because he chose to be. He was out of action because he was forced to be. He also had not moved on mentally. As Alfred said he never went on to find a life, to find someone to be with. He sat waiting, hoping for things to go bad again so he could be Batman and have a purpose. When Peter Parker quit being Spider-Man in SM-2, the ghost of his responsibility hung over him, no matter how much he tried to ignore it (chat with Uncle Ben, saving the child from the burning building, turning his back on a mugging etc). It was the same with Bruce. He may not have been wearing the cape and cowl, but he had not moved on. So when he finally did at the end, it had impact.

Bane's motives were known almost from the get-go. He told Bruce he was there to fulfill Ra's Al Ghul's destiny. His motives were never mysterious. So I'm not sure what you're talking about there.

I'm not going to debate you on your own personal taste of what you find boring. That's your own opinion. You're clearly a Spider-Man 3 fan, so you know exactly what I mean.

I'm conflating some points there. Obviously I agree that you shouldn't be expecting a Joker return. Recasting would have been tasteless and universally hated. I'm not mad that Joker's pledge wasn't upheld for the tragic circumstances. It was a great Batman moment. The first 2 Nolan movies gave you a ton of scenes that acted as the formation of the Batman legend. Batman's career was severely truncated in the third film, like we jumped from his origin to his retirement. I point to the Joker line as an example of the general feeling of potential I had coming away from TDK, a feeling that evaporated in the sequel.

I don't think I'm exaggerating. Naturally we'll disagree. As I said before, Nolan was in a no-win situation with the Dent Act. I can't fully buy that Batman could be put out of work in Gotham when a scene or two later Bane has decimated the city, but I'll happily give it a pass because: movie. Investing so much time in Batman's first return to action seems redundant to me when he'll have to do it all again later. His hiatus struck me as complacency, which is not what I ever see in Batman. Wayne is constantly reminded by everyone that he is out of touch in both of his lives. I didn't really feel any impact at the end. Bruce was lost on me in Rises.

Bane is initially a terrifying enigma who inspires insane loyalty in his followers. He's later perceived to be a rogue ex-League member, too extreme for the extremists. He's even teased as the demonic prodigal son of Ras for a little while. Ultimately I was massively underwhelmed by him by the time the film closes, not helped by weak final scenes.

Oh hell yeah. I like Spider-Man 3 more than Rises, horrible retcon and all. I'm used to disagreement.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

I love that the difference in votes is rather small in this poll, gives me hope that we'll see a superhero trilogy that can be better than Nolan's Batman.