The Dark Knight Rises Characterization of the Knight - Nolan and Bale's Bruce Wayne/Batman - Part 2

[The Joker]

I don't know, I still think that Bruce could have continued on as Batman if he wished to. It was just the opportunity to retire, that he sort of forced himself into it. Because isn't that what he wanted all along?

He got what he wanted according to the dialogue in TDKR. He wasn't needed any more as Batman. It wasn't about the opportunity to continue on as Batman. It was that according to him he wasn't needed, and Gordon agreed with that by saying it was based on a lie. Meaning the Dent cover up worked all too well. Unbelievably well.

 

[BatLobster]

I think it's all about getting us to sympathize with Bruce. Sure, him being retired is "more lame" than him being Batman for the whole time, but that's kind of the point right? It's surely not the retirement he envisioned for himself, it is pretty much thrust upon him by the Dent Act and it renders him kind of impotent when he still has that itch to scratch and the internal need to be Batman. That made me really feel sorry for the guy, because it's clear that he still wants to be Batman as much as we all want him to be. Instead he's left to rot into this pathetic shell of himself. To me that's a worse fate than him getting lost in the monster for 8 years, because even though it would take a toll on his body and mental health, he'd still be doing the thing he loves most (namely beating the snot out of criminals). He'd still be exorcizing his demons. In the retirement, those demons are free to eat away at him.

I don't know, I mean I understand the character has been in publication for 70 years and we all expect a certain longevity to Bruce's mission, but I don't think it's a fault of the films to make it more condensed. For me it's not a question of how many hours he clocked in under the cape and cowl, it's just "did Batman have a profound impact on Gotham City that will be felt for generations?"....and I think the answer is yes.

 

[The Joker]

I still can't believe that he was retired at the beginning of the movie, and by the end *surprise* he retires.

I know it was repetitive.

As for the injuries excuse for him retiring, if he can get over a broken back in a rotten prison pit, then what ever injuries he sustained from TDK could have been easily sorted.

 

[Travesty]

I know it was repetitive.

That's basically my gripe with it. If he was retired at the beginning, then by the end he should have kept working, or if he was working at the beginning, he could have retired at the end.

It just felt like lazy storytelling. I remember coming out thinking "oh, so he retired....again". The entire movie just felt like that, "oh, so the LOS came to destroy Gotham with a doomsday device....again".

 

[BatLobster]

It's not..."oh, whoops, now he's retired again! Just forget that he was retired before lol"

It's about the contrast between the two. The first time he tried to live a life apart from Batman, he looked like hell and was utterly miserable. The second time, he looked healthier and happier than he probably ever has.

By making the movie a "one last mission" story, it makes retirement his "default" mode, and it's more about Bruce's emotional state.

 

[BlueLightning]

I know it was repetitive.

As for the injuries excuse for him retiring, if he can get over a broken back in a rotten prison pit, then what ever injuries he sustained from TDK could have been easily sorted.

I don't want to read much into this, but in the Pit Bruce needed to heal and overcome his pain. Whereas in his seclusion at the manor, he dwelled into it.
It wasn't that simple, there were many factors that kept him numb all those year, both physically and spiritually. TDKR was about overcoming all of that. Not everybody thinks the same though, and that is fine too. But for me, it made sense.

 

[The Joker]

That's basically my gripe with it. If he was retired at the beginning, then by the end he should have kept working, or if he was working at the beginning, he could have retired at the end.

Exactly.

It just felt like lazy storytelling. I remember coming out thinking "oh, so he retired....again". The entire movie just felt like that, "oh, so the LOS came to destroy Gotham with a doomsday device....again".

That's one of my gripes about TDKR. The lack of creativity and repetitiveness.

I don't want to read much into this, but in the Pit Bruce needed to heal and overcome his pain. Whereas in his seclusion at the manor, he dwelled into it.
It wasn't that simple, there were many factors that kept him numb all those year, both physically and spiritually. TDKR was about overcoming all of that. Not everybody thinks the same though, and that is fine too. But for me, it made sense.

You said:

Well, there is also the physical toll that required him to be Batman too. He took a really good beating in the first two films, and as TDKR pointed out (with Bruce walking with a cane and all) those things have consequences. He had a good run as Batman, and even the films point out to some things we didn't see.

There is no injuries he sustained that could not have been easily cured. The problem is he had no reason to in TDKR because Batman was not needed any more in Gotham because it had become a candy land free of crime. The injuries were not something that inhibited him from being Batman if he wanted to. But he didn't because he wasn't needed.

"The Batman wasn't needed any more. We won".

If you call less than a year as a good run as Batman then you and I clearly have different standards of what a good run as Batman is.

 

[BlueLightning]

I also said "there is also", I mean he was using a cane too. And yes I'm fine with the Batman career displayed on film. I must admit at first I was a little wary about the eight year gap, and when there was I realized that the Batman was gone for most of those years, I didn't like it at first. But it made sense in the context of the story, and at the end I liked it. It is not like he didn't do anything as Batman. He did much in the films, and the story that surrounds them. He ultimately did what he set out to do, took Gotham from the hands of criminals, becoming a figure that could inspire their people.

I do understand that we are accustomed to the "Same Bat-Time, Same Bat-Channel" way of thought. I love that too. In comics and most animated series, you can imagine the hero having adventures to the infinite. Batman stories most likely will be told beyond our time. But in the context of the films and the story it tells, you can go on forever.

In those eight years Batman could have faced more elements of his rogue gallery? Sure, and sometimes I like to think that at first he was doing this same thing while hunted reluctantly by Gordon and the GCPD. But then where would be the payoff of the sacrifice made at the end of TDK? Things had to be better for Gotham, Batman's actions were to have significance.

 

[Anita18]

That's basically my gripe with it. If he was retired at the beginning, then by the end he should have kept working, or if he was working at the beginning, he could have retired at the end.

It just felt like lazy storytelling. I remember coming out thinking "oh, so he retired....again". The entire movie just felt like that, "oh, so the LOS came to destroy Gotham with a doomsday device....again".

Except that when Bane and Talia did it, they did it much more slowly and personally to Bruce. They could blown up the city and razed it to the ground the minute they weaponized the fusion reactor, but they wanted to torture Bruce and make him suffer, as well as extend the suffering of Gothamites. That was one step beyond BB's LOS, where Ra's plan only involved one night of Fear Toxin destroying the city. Bane and Talia were extending it over 5 months. So it's like BB, sure...only worse.

Pain only begets more pain, and Bruce saw what revenge could do to someone, and he was adamant on breaking the cycle before he became what they were.

 

[The Joker]

I also said "there is also", I mean he was using a cane too.

Yes, after letting his body's injuries fester and worsen for 8 years.

And yes I'm fine with the Batman career displayed on film. I must admit at first I was a little wary about the eight year gap, and when there was I realized that the Batman was gone for most of those years, I didn't like it at first. But it made sense in the context of the story, and at the end I liked it.

It made sense, but it was creatively boring, when a more interesting alternative could have been done which would also have made sense.

It is not like he didn't do anything as Batman. He did much in the films, and the story that surrounds them. He ultimately did what he set out to do, took Gotham from the hands of criminals, becoming a figure that could inspire their people.

All in a short space of time. The time as Batman in Bruce Wayne's life feels like a blip on the radar. He actually spent years more time preparing for being Batman than actually being Batman. Hilarious.

I do understand that we are accustomed to the "Same Bat-Time, Same Bat-Channel" way of thought. I love that too. In comics and most animated series, you can imagine the hero having adventures to the infinite. Batman stories most likely will be told beyond our time. But in the context of the films and the story it tells, you can go on forever.

I'm not talking about going on forever. I am totally fine with him settling down at the age of 40 with Selina Kyle at the end of TDKR. It's the lazy 8 year gap between TDK and TDKR that is the creatively poor element of the story.

What would be more interesting to see; imagining Bruce face the challenges of being Batman while he's a wanted fugitive, tackling new villains, out running the law etc? Or imagining him moping around Wayne Manor for years?

I know which I'd rather see. I know which makes for a stronger and more interesting character, too, and it's not TDKR's version.

In those eight years Batman could have faced more elements of his rogue gallery? Sure, and sometimes I like to think that at first he was doing this same thing while hunted reluctantly by Gordon and the GCPD. But then where would be the payoff of the sacrifice made at the end of TDK?

The sacrifice was to keep hope alive in Gotham. Keep the image of Harvey Dent preserved. Don't let all his good work as D.A. get undone. Why should Batman still being hunted by the law while fighting criminals diminish the effectiveness of Dent's legacy?

When you walked out of TDK did you honestly think Batman was headed for retirement and Gotham was about to become completely free of crime? None of that was mentioned or even implied in TDK's ending. That was all TDKR's creation.

 

[BlueLightning]

I get your point of view, I also thought that way. It could be said that it hinder imagination by obstructing by the introduction of that seemingly useless time gap. I don't mind imagining that you could have a few Batman stories here and there after TDK ending as I said before, but not much so it wouldn't hinder the impact of TDKR.

The sacrifice was to keep hope alive in Gotham. Keep the image of Harvey Dent preserved. Don't let all his good work as D.A. get undone. Why should Batman still being hunted by the law while fighting criminals diminish the effectiveness of Dent's legacy?

Well, because the mere idea of a vigilante is outside the law. Harvey Dent was the hope for a new future for Gotham, Bruce viewed him that way too. He wanted a Gotham that would not need Batman, while Harvey's legacy would inspire the Dent Act and provide means to finally end crime. It felt like all of the efforts of Batman to save Gotham had succeeded, at least for a while.

When you walked out of TDK did you honestly think Batman was headed for retirement and Gotham was about to become completely free of crime? None of that was mentioned or even implied in TDK's ending. That was all TDKR's creation.

Actually, things were improving by the beginning of TDK, it seemed that, if not for The Joker's antics, things eventually would get better. To be honest, when I saw the ending of TDK I envisioned an endless opportunity for stories. You know, new villain shows up to challenge our hero and stuff. And it turned me around in an unexpected way, and I liked it. They did the unexpected, they choose to end the story, bringing things in full circle, making a continuation of the themes they layered before. It was an appealing idea for me.

 

[The Joker]

Well, because the mere idea of a vigilante is outside the law. Harvey Dent was the hope for a new future for Gotham, Bruce viewed him that way too. He wanted a Gotham that would not need Batman, while Harvey's legacy would inspire the Dent Act and provide means to finally end crime. It felt like all of the efforts of Batman to save Gotham had succeeded, at least for a while.

It had nothing to do with being a vigilante outside the law. Batman was always that and it never stopped him from thinking he could repair Gotham by inspiring them. What he saw in Harvey was something even better; a hero with a face. Someone who can inspire people by standing up against crime and being a face and not a mask.

Given how bad Gotham was it should have taken years for Gotham to reach a state where Batman wasn't needed. Keeping hope alive and giving Gotham a foot hold against crime thanks to Dent's work is one thing, but turning Gotham into a completely crime free zone where Batman is unneeded is an unbelievable and boring idea. The Dent Act was just this quick fix idea. Worst of all it's never elaborated on how it worked. All we're told is it denies convicted criminals parole and makes them serve their full sentences.

Actually, things were improving by the beginning of TDK, it seemed that, if not for The Joker's antics, things eventually would get better. To be honest, when I saw the ending of TDK I envisioned an endless opportunity for stories. You know, new villain shows up to challenge our hero and stuff. And it turned me around in an unexpected way, and I liked it. They did the unexpected, they choose to end the story, bringing things in full circle, making a continuation of the themes they layered before. It was an appealing idea for me.

Things had improved in that Batman had got the criminals scared, but not gone. They just refined their tactics like bringing attack dogs with them, meeting in day time etc.

Yes, the Joker made things worse, but Joker was the consequence of that escalation Gordon mentioned at the end of Begins when he handed Batman that Joker card. As Nolan said Joker was the logical reaction to Batman's presence in Gotham.

The lines spoken in TDK don't ever send a message of how things turned out in TDKR. The complete opposite in fact. Rachel's letter claims Bruce will always need Batman and that's why she cannot wait for him any more and is moving on with Dent. Joker says he and Batman are destined to do their feud forever. Joker said he's going to give Gotham a new class of criminal, strongly hinting more freak criminals like him are going to come. Gordon's monologue at the end suggests Batman will be hunted and chased because he can take it. But if he just retires then he's not being hunted or chased. He's sitting at home in safety.

What we got was 8 years of a retired recluse Bruce and a happy crime free Gotham. I could not think of a more boring result to TDK's events.

 

[BatLobster]

The way I see it, Gotham is like a volcano. It's been bubbling under the falseness of the Dent Act, and ready to erupt when we catch up with the story in TDKR. I got no indication that your average, every day Gothamite was happier now than they were 8 years ago. Only that the police were free from mob corruption, but still not immune to political corruption. The mayor is standing up there on the podium praising Harvey Dent and Jim Gordon, while secretly planning to fire Gordon for political points. The Senator is more concerned with banging the cocktail waitress than celebrating Harvey. Daggett using the event as an opportunity to schmooze with Miranda Tate, on the very property of the guy he's trying to muscle out. The rich hiding in their decadent nests, etc. etc. Regardless of whether it's based on a lie or not, they're holding this man up on a pedestal, and people in power are leaning on it and benefiting from it for selfish reasons, rather than trying to embody the virtue that he supposedly stood for.

I remember one interpretation of TDK wherein Harvey Dent represented the soul of Gotham, with Batman and The Joker kind of playing a tug of war with him.

Well, if you carry that interpretation over to TDKR, Two-Face is exactly what Gotham has become. On the surface, squeaky clean, but there's this whole undercurrent of hatred and evil that is building up while it's in this pacified state. There's definitely two sides to the coin there.

So, personally I don't think that's boring at all. I think it's pretty rich and fascinating.

 

[BlueLightning]

What I'm trying to say could be summed up in this quote from an interview with Christopher Nolan.

“It will make a lot more sense to people when they see the film," Nolan explains. "But it's not a great mystery — it's the jumping-off point for the film — but it's hard for me to articulate it. I think the mood at the beginning of the film will make a lot of sense. If I had to express it thematically, I think what we're saying is that for Batman and Commissioner Gordon, there's a big sacrifice, a big compromise, at the end of the 'The Dark Knight' and for that to mean something, that sacrifice has to work and Gotham has to get better in a sense. They have to achieve something for the ending of that film — and the feeling at the end of that film — to have validity. Their sacrifice has to have meaning and it takes time to establish that and to show that, and that’s the primary reason we did that. It's a time period that is not so far ahead that we would have to do crazy makeup or anything — which I think would be distracting — but it gave them something to get their teeth into, particularly Christian in terms of [portraying] this guy who has been frozen in this moment in time with nowhere to go. He really has done an incredible job figuring out how to characterize that and express that."

I would add that in my opinion, it is not like all the doors were shut, and immediately Bruce went into seclusion. It wasn't instantly. As I said before, Bruce still tried to help people with the energy project and with the Wayne Foundation (something that I longed to happen in the films), but as the project was deemed to dangerous, he shut it down, deemed a failure that added to his pain. Gotham gained slowly his security, while Bruce lost eventually all hope. So he was stuck immobile in time, no Batman needed, no future for Bruce Wayne. In a way, it is a parallel at how in the comics Batman cannot overcome the pain of his parents death, but it is enhanced on film by losing the opportunity of a normal life.

Something that is overlooked is how much damage the Joker managed to do to Gotham and Batman in the second film. He manages to harm Batman deeply, most importantly by killing Rachel, and also by taking the blame for Two-Face crimes (originated by the Joker) and relieving Gotham from the consequences of the truth. All of this taking its toll tacitly in the next film.

 

[The Joker]

The way I see it, Gotham is like a volcano. It's been bubbling under the falseness of the Dent Act, and ready to erupt when we catch up with the story in TDKR.

Where did you get that impression?

I got no indication that your average, every day Gothamite was happier now than they were 8 years ago. Only that the police were free from mob corruption, but still not immune to political corruption.

That's because we never got to see how the every day Gothamites felt. Unlike BB and TDK, TDKR didn't dig into the every day Gothamites and how they felt about what was going on in Gotham. Not about the peace time, or the Dent cover up being revealed or anything else.

The mayor is standing up there on the podium praising Harvey Dent and Jim Gordon, while secretly planning to fire Gordon for political points.

The Mayor did not praise Gordon, and he was planning to let Gordon go because Gordon wasn't needed any more. Even Gordon found the tasks he was being given at work beneath him. Political points had nothing to do with it and was never implied it was being done for that. Conjecture there on your part.

The Senator is more concerned with banging the cocktail waitress than celebrating Harvey.

Celebrating Harvey how? He was there at the event. Listened to the speech. If there was a round of applause afterward I'm sure he joined in. If there was any donations being made in Harvey's name I'm sure he contributed something.

What else did you expect him to do at this event? He wasn't shown to be doing any more or less than Foley or the others there.

Daggett using the event as an opportunity to schmooze with Miranda Tate, on the very property of the guy he's trying to muscle out.

But we all know Daggett was out to get his hands on W.E. anyway through amoral means by making deals with Bane.

The rich hiding in their decadent nests, etc. etc.

Hiding? How were they hiding? And from who or what?

Regardless of whether it's based on a lie or not, they're holding this man up on a pedestal, and people in power are leaning on it and benefiting from it for selfish reasons, rather than trying to embody the virtue that he supposedly stood for.

There was a memorial day event for Harvey Dent at Wayne Manor. Dent's legacy had done all it could do. Gotham was cleaned up.

How were these people in power using that to their advantage?

I remember one interpretation of TDK wherein Harvey Dent represented the soul of Gotham, with Batman and The Joker kind of playing a tug of war with him.

Well, if you carry that interpretation over to TDKR, Two-Face is exactly what Gotham has become. On the surface, squeaky clean, but there's this whole undercurrent of hatred and evil that is building up while it's in this pacified state. There's definitely two sides to the coin there.

So, personally I don't think that's boring at all. I think it's pretty rich and fascinating.

That idea would be fascinating if it were true but it's not. The only bad things happening in Gotham were down to the LOS. There was no corruption in Gotham's police force. There was no crime on the streets. The only bad eggs in TDKR that hailed from Gotham were Daggett and Stryver, and all they were was two greedy CEO's who wanted to muscle in on Wayne Enterprises for $$$$. They had no idea what Bane was really up to or that he was with the LOS.

 

[The Joker]

What I'm trying to say could be summed up in this quote from an interview with Christopher Nolan.

I didn't need Chris Nolan to tell me that Bruce is frozen in time in TDKR. He's moping around Wayne Manor on a cane with pictures of Rachel around his home, and thinking she had been his last shot at happiness and a normal life.

I would add that in my opinion, it is not like all the doors were shut, and immediately Bruce went into seclusion. It wasn't instantly. As I said before, Bruce still tried to help people with the energy project and with the Wayne Foundation (something that I longed to happen in the films), but as the project was deemed to dangerous, he shut it down, deemed a failure that added to his pain.

So he gave up on Wayne Enterprises because one deal went under. What a great business man and humanitarian.

Something that is overlooked is how much damage the Joker managed to do to Gotham and Batman in the second film. He manages to harm Batman deeply, most importantly by killing Rachel, and also by taking the blame for Two-Face crimes (originated by the Joker) and relieving Gotham from the consequences of the truth. All of this taking its toll tacitly in the next film.

How is that being overlooked when they make it blatantly clear in the movie that the events of TDK is why Bruce is the way he is? That's not the issue. It's the fact that they chose to make Bruce pack it all in for 8 years because of that. That they made Batman useless because Gotham went crime free.

 

[BlueLightning]

I didn't need Chris Nolan to tell me that Bruce is frozen in time in TDKR. He's moping around Wayne Manor on a cane with pictures of Rachel around his home, and thinking she had been his last shot at happiness and a normal life.

Well if you strip down everything to the barebones, yes.

So he gave up on Wayne Enterprises because one deal went under. What a great business man and humanitarian.

A deal that made the company loss a great deal of money.

How is that being overlooked when they make it blatantly clear in the movie that the events of TDK is why Bruce is the way he is? That's not the issue. It's the fact that they chose to make Bruce pack it all in for 8 years because of that. That they made Batman useless because Gotham went crime free.

First, I was specifically referring to the Joker acts, which lack of mention in TDKR was a point of discussion. And, well you see it that way, but that was the point. Getting to a Gotham that doesn't need Batman, in which the police is capable to get things under control, and made the city a safer place.

I think we are running in circles here. Obviously, we view things in different lights, its better to agree to disagree.

 

[Brother Jack]

It's about the contrast between the two. The first time he tried to live a life apart from Batman, he looked like hell and was utterly miserable. The second time, he looked healthier and happier than he probably ever has.

That's probably what I like the most about that plot point. Instead of showing what a decade of being Batman would do to Bruce, which in itself would have been a very interesting avenue to go down, they show what nearly a decade of not being Batman would do to Bruce. To me that's just as interesting because it illustrated in an ironic way how much Bruce needed Batman. Without Batman or Rachel and the possibility of a normal life (one that I always found to be an illusion because Rachel in the end rejected him) he's empty; emotionally, mentally, and physically wounded. He really only stops because he feels it's best for Gotham, and at least in the short term it was. But I think the films make it clear that it's not truly what he wants, hence why he jumps back into the costume when the opportunity arises filled with confidence that leads to his undoing by Bane.

 

[Fudgie]

I actually like the fact that Bruce retires at the end of TDKR. But I'll never like the 8 year exile. The movie missed a great opportunity by not showing how being Batman for a number of years would affect a real person, can you imagine if Bruce had actually become lost in the Batman persona as opposed to just becoming a recluse? I really don't like the fact that this Bruce spends a little more than a year of his life being Batman, it just doesn't bode well with me

I don't think people are missing any point, I just think some people don't like the kind of style Nolan went for with Batman. To me, it's a very subpar version of the character. I mean, this isn't a nonfictional movie here. Who cares what would happen in real life? And I'm not saying you can't show the pain of being Batman, but at least try to give us an accurate version of the character.

He retires for eight years, then puts the cape back on for one last "hurrah", and then retires again? I think they missed a very vital element to the character of Batman. I loved how they treated him in BB, but then TDK was kinda screwy for me, cause I didn't like how Bruce kept trying to retire with Rachel, although, by the end of TDK, I thought he was going to continue to be Batman. Then TDKR comes out, and it made his character that much worse. This whole "it's a more realistic version of Batman/Batman wouldn't be able to last in the real world" is just a cop out excuse, because a Batman wouldn't be able to survive more than a week in the real world. It all relies on how the character is written, and to me, it's not a proper adaptation of the character. It's so weird how sooo much emphasis is placed on Batman's "no guns" rule, but then the part about Bruce making a promise to his parents and having to fight the same criminals that put his parents in the grave, is fallen by the wayside.

I blame everything on Rachel Dawes.

I didn't buy it since his first retirement was forced on him by the unbelievable situation that crime ceased completely in Gotham thanks to Harvey Dent's legacy, making Batman (and eventually Gordon it seems) surplus to requirements.

Gordon: "We were in this together and then you were gone"
Batman: "The Batman wasn't needed any more. We won"
Gordon: "Based on a lie"

It wasn't a decision he made when he was still needed in any kind of capacity in Gotham. He was just rendered useless as Batman. A better and more plausible scenario would have been Gotham becoming a more safer city after the truth about Dent is revealed, Batman redeems himself by stopping Bane and saving Gotham, and the city is inspired to pick itself up. Couple that with Bruce learning that his one chance of happiness did not die with Rachel when he learns she chose Dent over him, and he can not only move on with Selina, but he can hang up the cape and cowl in his older years now he as Batman has inspired Gotham into becoming a better city.

Then we still get the great ending only it's from a Bruce Wayne who's spent years fighting as Batman, and not one who had a very brief career as Batman, spent 8 years moping in Wayne Manor, then came back again for one last brief hurrah before retiring yet again.

Give these guys cigars

It's like hey how can we follow up from the great ending where Batman is taking the fall for Two Face? I know lets make him a sad loner who quits being Batman because this magical law got passed under Harvey Dent's name that means if you can't get parole in Gotham City's jails then crime will vanish altogether. Abracadabra.

What lousy writing.

The way I see it, Gotham is like a volcano. It's been bubbling under the falseness of the Dent Act, and ready to erupt when we catch up with the story in TDKR. I got no indication that your average, every day Gothamite was happier now than they were 8 years ago. Only that the police were free from mob corruption, but still not immune to political corruption. The mayor is standing up there on the podium praising Harvey Dent and Jim Gordon, while secretly planning to fire Gordon for political points. The Senator is more concerned with banging the cocktail waitress than celebrating Harvey. Daggett using the event as an opportunity to schmooze with Miranda Tate, on the very property of the guy he's trying to muscle out. The rich hiding in their decadent nests, etc. etc. Regardless of whether it's based on a lie or not, they're holding this man up on a pedestal, and people in power are leaning on it and benefiting from it for selfish reasons, rather than trying to embody the virtue that he supposedly stood for.

I remember one interpretation of TDK wherein Harvey Dent represented the soul of Gotham, with Batman and The Joker kind of playing a tug of war with him.

Well, if you carry that interpretation over to TDKR, Two-Face is exactly what Gotham has become. On the surface, squeaky clean, but there's this whole undercurrent of hatred and evil that is building up while it's in this pacified state. There's definitely two sides to the coin there.

So, personally I don't think that's boring at all. I think it's pretty rich and fascinating.

It's only in your mind.

 

[BatLobster]

It's only in your mind.

Cute. Though it's interesting, it's a new phenomenon we have here where if you bring up subtext or interpretation, it gets shot down as just making things up.

Last time I checked, this forum and this thread in particular has been full of people offering up their interpretations of this telling of the Batman mythos and this was something that was encouraged. Compound that with Nolan being the type of filmmaker that always leaves you something to chew on and figure out on your own, and this dismissive attitude about filling in blanks is pretty mind boggling. That has always been a huge part of the fun, and a big reason I love discussing these films on a forum in the first place.

For instance- so what if Daggett and Stryver are the only corrupt businessmen we saw in the film? In Batman Begins, the only high level mobster we see is Falcone. Did I ever assume he was the only game in town, no way. We don't hear a thing about the Chechen's gang or Gambol's gang in BB, but yet there they are in TDK. It's not too much of a stretch to assume that Daggett and Stryver are there to represent the idea of white collar sharks, plenty of whom exist in the real world and would reside in a city like Gotham. In fact, Lau was another example of one.

 

[The Guard]

The way I see it, Gotham is like a volcano. It's been bubbling under the falseness of the Dent Act, and ready to erupt when we catch up with the story in TDKR. I got no indication that your average, every day Gothamite was happier now than they were 8 years ago.

That's because the writers didn't bother to show the perspective of the everyday Gothamite. Just a few lines from orphans and some stuff about criminals and five minutes of politicians.

Only that the police were free from mob corruption, but still not immune to political corruption. The mayor is standing up there on the podium praising Harvey Dent and Jim Gordon, while secretly planning to fire Gordon for political points.

That's not political corruption. That's letting a veteran cop retire because his work as a "war hero" is done.

The Senator is more concerned with banging the cocktail waitress than celebrating Harvey.

Like any red blooded male...

Regardless of whether it's based on a lie or not, they're holding this man up on a pedestal, and people in power are leaning on it and benefiting from it for selfish reasons, rather than trying to embody the virtue that he supposedly stood for.

That's not corruption. That's "posing".

On the surface, squeaky clean, but there's this whole undercurrent of hatred and evil that is building up while it's in this pacified state. There's definitely two sides to the coin there.

Except the only undercurrent of hatred and evil seems to be coming from Bane and Dagget based on what we're shown. So, the League of Shadows and its recruitments, and Dagget, who is also kind of recruited by Bane, but is still only one man.

 

[BlueLightning]

Well, maybe I don't agree with all the points BatLobsterRises makes. But one thing I would point out is that there is symbolism in his perspective. I do agree that the peace forged in Gotham is based on a lie, its built on falseness. It worked for a while but its foundations are weak, crumbling. It is literalized with Bane's army being underground. Harvey's reputation, the Dent Act, worked for a while. But eventually it would crumble.

Gordon wanted to handle this situation with his prepared speech, finally confiding Gotham with the truth with the hope they would be able to cope with it. But it backfired when Bane discovered this, and added to the fuel of his false-hope revolution. The compromise made by Batman and Gordon did well, but only for some time. The exploration of the consequences of this are also literalized in Bruce Wayne state at the beginning of the TDKR.

 

[Polaris23]

It makes me sad that TDKR was such a let down :/. I remember Nolan addressing the fact that most movie trilogy's 3rd film isn't the best, and he wanted to take on that challenge..

 

[BatLobster]

Except the only undercurrent of hatred and evil seems to be coming from Bane and Dagget based on what we're shown. So, the League of Shadows and its recruitments, and Dagget, who is also kind of recruited by Bane, but is still only one man.

Well yeah, because that's what the LOS kind of symbolize in the story. "Now this evil rises from where we tried to bury it".

It's there in Selina too, who clearly thinks the rich and powerful deserve the revolution that she knows is coming their way.

I don't know if this is a commonly accepted theory or not, but I think the LOS took in new recruits while building their underground army, based on the orphan's remark about their being work down there. The guys who brought Gordon to Bane spoke in American accents if I'm not mistaken, and definitely didn't seem fit to be ninjas or anything.

Like any red blooded male...

Fair enough, but it's safe to assume he's a married man. Perhaps I used the term corruption a bit liberally in all these instances...it's really just a lot of phoniness and sleaziness. That's just politics in a nutshell though...the point is after 8 years I don't think anyone in Gotham really "took the torch" from Harvey in a political sense, and the people in power have become very complacent. They're throwing a big party in honor of Dent, the great champion of justice, and the film focuses on all the sleazeballs that are there and what they're up to. That stood out to me big time.

I think the point is simply that Dent is perhaps not as potent a symbol as Batman would have liked to believe he could be. He might be able to get the laws re-written, but he doesn't seem to inspire people on that gut-level that Batman can. That it's all based on a lie is almost beside the point. At least that's what I took from it.

Well, maybe I don't agree with all the points BatLobsterRises makes. But one thing I would point out is that there is symbolism in his perspective. I do agree that the peace forged in Gotham is based on a lie, its built on falseness. It worked for a while but its foundations are weak, crumbling. It is literalized with Bane's army being underground. Harvey's reputation, the Dent Act, worked for a while. But eventually it would crumble.

Gordon wanted to handle this situation with his prepared speech, finally confiding Gotham with the truth with the hope they would be able to cope with it. But it backfired when Bane discovered this, and added to the fuel of his false-hope revolution. The compromise made by Batman and Gordon did well, but only for some time. The exploration of the consequences of this are also literalized in Bruce Wayne state at the beginning of the TDKR.

Exactly. I think Nolan was trying to imbue the story with a sense of grandeur and establish an epic tone by relying so much on symbolism and subtext (in some cases literary subtext) to inform the narrative with this one. Personally I loved it, but obviously this wasn't everyone's cup of tea.

 

[spanky_jones]

I know it was repetitive.

As for the injuries excuse for him retiring, if he can get over a broken back in a rotten prison pit, then what ever injuries he sustained from TDK could have been easily sorted.

Even professionals in SWAT and Delta Force get old. Eventually they quit , move into desk jobs or start teaching. Its time to pass the torch.