Daredevil's 3 Seasons Equal Or Surpass TDK Trilogy And Feige Had Nothing To Do With It... Discuss.

[1627523]

Film is a show me, don't tell me medium. The difference between Talia and Two-Face is Talia was a secret villain all along, while the Two-Face was a cog in the Joker's plan. So Batman is still combating the Joker even if he isn't physically there. Their battle was about ideology. Even when Two-Face dies, Batman says "But the Joker cannot win." Their battle is still on-going in the climax with Two-Face. The battle for Gotham's soul. That's not the case with Bane. The movie can say they were equals and such in the dialogue all they want, but the fact is once she is revealed, Bane is dead in seconds and she is now the sole focus. Again, the film is showing me she is now the real threat and the important plot element. Bane is killed in the corner frame. He no longer matters. That is discarding him and it does devalue past accomplishments. If the movie still works for you, that is great. Good for you. But this is a very big problem for me.

I dont necessarily have a position in this argument, but your post helped win me over.

 

[FunkMiller]

I don't think Nolan really wanted to do Rises. He put the work in, but the heart isn't there. Can't blame him after TDK became bigger than god and Ledger's passing.

I don’t think it’s that he didn’t want to make Rises. That wasn’t the problem.

The problem was that Nolan wanted to tell a story that doesn’t really fit with who and what Batman is. In his overwhelming desire to tell a story with a definite end, he lost his grip on the character of Batman. Everything about that movie is about trying to squeeze a round peg into a square hole. Every plot device and narrative decision is geared toward that definitive ending for Batman, even though that probably shouldn’t have been the way to go.

In essence, Batman was more important than Nolan in Begins and The Dark Knight.

But Nolan became more important than Batman in Rises.

 

[Awest66]

The movie can say they were equals and such in the dialogue all they want, but the fact is once she is revealed, Bane is dead in seconds and she is now the sole focus. Again, the film is showing me she is now the real threat and the important plot element.

That to me is like saying Loki wasn't important to the first Avengers movie because his defeat wasn't the endgame, stopping the Chitauri was or how Ultron wasn't important to AOU or Zemo wasn't important to Civil War because their deaths/defeats were basically footonotes. Bane and Talia both desired the exact same thing (fullfilling Ras Al Gul's destiny) ,their never in conflict with one another, Bane never has a goal that doesn;t allign with Talia's and vice versa. Talia is still working towards that shared goal at the end. So I don't agree that it devalues Bane because Talia is still doing what he wanted.

 

[Awest66]

The problem was that Nolan wanted to tell a story that doesn’t really fit with who and what Batman is

Says who? There's no actual rule that says Batman can't have an actual ending and for this film series (the first two movies taken into account), It's fully appropriate. Remember what Harvey said in The Dark Knight about Batman not wanting to do what he's doing for the rest of his life or in Batman Begins where Bruce states his intention to become an everlasting symbol.

Every plot device and narrative decision is geared toward that definitive ending for Batman, even though that probably shouldn’t have been the way to go.

What should he have done then? Another early years Batman story where he fights the Riddler?

 

[fan4stic]

I don’t think it’s that he didn’t want to make Rises. That wasn’t the problem.

The problem was that Nolan wanted to tell a story that doesn’t really fit with who and what Batman is. In his overwhelming desire to tell a story with a definite end, he lost his grip on the character of Batman. Everything about that movie is about trying to squeeze a round peg into a square hole. Every plot device and narrative decision is geared toward that definitive ending for Batman, even though that probably shouldn’t have been the way to go.

In essence, Batman was more important than Nolan in Begins and The Dark Knight.

But Nolan became more important than Batman in Rises.

But there have been stories where Batman has had an end and in the case of this movie, I think that was what basis for it happening in this one was. The Batman in these movies was always someone who talked about not being Batman forever. I think what they do is consistent with that.

 

[FunkMiller]

Says who? There's no actual rule that says Batman can't have an actual ending and for this film series (the first two movies taken into account), It's fully appropriate. Remember what Harvey said in The Dark Knight about Batman not wanting to do what he's doing for the rest of his life or in Batman Begins where Bruce states his intention to become an everlasting symbol.

No, there isn’t. And no one is suggesting there is. The point is that Nolan was very keen on giving Batman a definitive ending... and didn’t really do that good a job of it, when you get right down to it.

 

[FunkMiller]

But there have been stories where Batman has had an end and in the case of this movie, I think that was what basis for it happening in this one was. The Batman in these movies was always someone who talked about not being Batman forever. I think what they do is consistent with that.

Such as? What would you say are the stories Nolan is directly referencing?

 

[Spider-Fan]

That to me is like saying Loki wasn't important to the first Avengers movie because his defeat wasn't the endgame, stopping the Chitauri was or how Ultron wasn't important to AOU or Zemo wasn't important to Civil War because their deaths/defeats were basically footonotes. Bane and Talia both desired the exact same thing (fullfilling Ras Al Gul's destiny) ,their never in conflict with one another, Bane never has a goal that doesn;t allign with Talia's and vice versa. Talia is still working towards that shared goal at the end. So I don't agree that it devalues Bane because Talia is still doing what he wanted.

The examples you're providing me are fairly bad ones in counter. The Chitari winning would have still saw Loki ruling Earth per his agreement with Thanos, Ultron was actively the bad guy all throughout AoU, and Zemo's plan was closer to the Joker in execution. Zemo is still treated as the guy who created the battle between Cap/Iron Man (even has a monologue as it commences). Regardless if their interests align, the film in the end makes Talia seem and feel like the more important character and relegates Bane to underling. Even if that is not the way it is phrased, that is how it looks in execution.

We can agree to disagree on this, but that is the way I see it.

 

[fan4stic]

The examples you're providing me are fairly bad ones in counter. The Chitari winning would have still saw Loki ruling Earth per his agreement with Thanos, Ultron was actively the bad guy all throughout AoU, and Zemo's plan was closer to the Joker in execution. Zemo is still treated as the guy who created the battle between Cap/Iron Man (even has a monologue as it commences). Regardless if their interests align, the film in the end makes Talia seem and feel like the more important character and relegates Bane to underling. Even if that is not the way it is phrased, that is how it looks in execution.

We can agree to disagree on this, but that is the way I see it.

Bane shows himself to be a man with his own agenda, when Talia tells him to let Bruce live, only for Bane to immediately try to disobey her. I think the philosophy of Bane comes from Bane. I'd argue the physical breaking and imprisoning was Bane's idea. Talia is shown to try to get Bruce out of Gotham differently I think. I see Bane as someone who wanted to be Ra's son, his heir, even adopted more refined sensibilities, but was cast out in shame and hates Batman based on his betrayal because Batman was handed what he wanted and Ra's wouldn't give him, his respect.

I'm not gonna say the movie's not decently flawed. Bane's character as I see it isn't an idea fleshed out in the movie much. But I do think the idea of Bane's character doing his own thing is pretty much there.

Such as? What would you say are the stories Nolan is directly referencing?

More directly, The Dark Knight Returns, in concept. I think we all know that the reason he doesn't quit in comics is to keep his character in the comic, so he's made to be obsessive. But that's not the character the previous movies showed.

 

[Awest66]

No, there isn’t. And no one is suggesting there is. The point is that Nolan was very keen on giving Batman a definitive ending... and didn’t really do that good a job of it, when you get right down to it.

What should have been the story then?

 

[Brother Jack]

The problem was that Nolan wanted to tell a story that doesn’t really fit with who and what Batman is. In his overwhelming desire to tell a story with a definite end, he lost his grip on the character of Batman. Everything about that movie is about trying to squeeze a round peg into a square hole. Every plot device and narrative decision is geared toward that definitive ending for Batman, even though that probably shouldn’t have been the way to go.

I mean, he was very loosely adapting Dark Knight Returns, which is as close to a definitive ending for Batman as has ever been done. The idea that the story of Bruce/Batman cannot have a hard end is something I just can't agree with, regardless of execution. And I think the actual ending he gave of Bruce moving on from Batman has a clear through-line in the other two films.

 

[FunkMiller]

I mean, he was very loosely adapting Dark Knight Returns, which is as close to a definitive ending for Batman as has ever been done. The idea that the story of Bruce/Batman cannot have a hard end is something I just can't agree with, regardless of execution. And I think the actual ending he gave of Bruce moving on from Batman has a clear through-line in the other two films.

The comic with two sequels, you mean?

 

[FunkMiller]

What should have been the story then?

I would have preferred the darker, more tragic and solemn ending... that Bruce realises he can’t stop. That no matter how hard he tries, he can never achieve what he wants. That Gotham will always need a Batman. He can never be free. Never be happy.

It actually fits far better with the tone of BB and TDK than the ending we got.

 

[Awest66]

I would have preferred the darker, more tragic and solemn ending... that Bruce realises he can’t stop. That no matter how hard he tries, he can never achieve what he wants. That Gotham will always need a Batman. He can never be free. Never be happy.

It actually fits far better with the tone of BB and TDK than the ending we got.

The Dark Knight already had a pretty solemn ending, The end of the trilogy needed to have a more hopeful one.

For me, The Dark Knight Rises (2012) is specifically and definitely the end of the Batman story as I wanted to tell it, and the open-ended nature of the film is simply a very important thematic idea that we wanted to get into the movie, which is that Batman is a symbol. He can be anybody, and that was very important to us. Not every Batman fan will necessarily agree with that interpretation of the philosophy of the character, but for me it all comes back to the scene between Bruce Wayne and Alfred in the private jet in Batman Begins (2005), where the only way that I could find to make a credible characterization of a guy transforming himself into Batman is if it was as a necessary symbol, and he saw himself as a catalyst for change and therefore it was a temporary process, maybe a five-year plan that would be enforced for symbolically encouraging the good of Gotham to take back their city. To me, for that mission to succeed, it has to end, so this is the ending for me, and as I say, the open-ended elements are all to do with the thematic idea that Batman was not important as a man, he's more than that. He's a symbol, and the symbol lives on

.

 

[FunkMiller]

The Dark Knight already had a pretty solemn ending, The end of the trilogy needed to have a more hopeful one.

.

Well, as far as your concerned. Many, like me, would have preferred something more tragic. Instead of the rather ... shall we say ... campy ending the film had. It jars with what was established with TDK.

Look, I’m not saying TDKR is a bad film. I’m not sure Nolan could make a bad film. But, it does feature some unfortunate things that spoil it somewhat. The upbeat, all tied up neatly in a bow ending is one of those things.

 

[fan4stic]

Well, as far as your concerned. Many, like me, would have preferred something more tragic. Instead of the rather ... shall we say ... campy ending the film had. It jars with what was established with TDK.

Look, I’m not saying TDKR is a bad film. I’m not sure Nolan could make a bad film. But, it does feature some unfortunate things that spoil it somewhat. The upbeat, all tied up neatly in a bow ending is one of those things.

TDK established Bruce as someone who wanted to quit. I think TDKR doesn't contradict that. I don't see that as campy.

The comic with two sequels, you mean?

That story seems to me to be designed as an end.

 

[FunkMiller]

TDK established Bruce as someone who wanted to quit. I think TDKR doesn't contradict that. I don't see that as campy.That story seems to me to be designed as an end.

It established him as someone who wanted to quit when the job was done.

The central tragedy of Batman, is that the job is never done. And that he believes he must keep going, because no one can do a better job than him.

Nolan misses the point of this. He instead goes for the easy ending... which for Nolan is very unusual, and out of narrative character.

 

[fan4stic]

It established him as someone who wanted to quit when the job was done.

The central tragedy of Batman, is that the job is never done. And that he believes he must keep going, because no one can do a better job than him.

Nolan misses the point of this. He instead goes for the easy ending... which for Nolan is very unusual, and out of narrative character.

Bruce was ready to quit in TDK. Bruce's goal as established in BB isn't stopping all crime. It was to show the people that their city doesn't belong to the criminals and the corrupt.

The Dark Knight Returns showcases Bruce as someone who thinks others can.

I don't think it's a point and that it's an idea that's put into the comics to keep the character in the story. But The Dark Knight Returns didn't do this, twice, and Batman Beyond had him quit.

 

[henzINNIT]

I still to this day do not understand why Nolan opened TDKR with Batman retired. It's massively deflating after TDK, and slows the film right down. *shrugs*

 

[Awest66]

I still to this day do not understand why Nolan opened TDKR with Batman retired. It's massively deflating after TDK, and slows the film right down. *shrugs*

To show that Batman taking the blame for Harvey Dent's crimes actually amounted to something beyond making Batman a wanted fugitive again and ensuring the police will put catching him as priority over the actual criminals.

 

[FunkMiller]

I still to this day do not understand why Nolan opened TDKR with Batman retired. It's massively deflating after TDK, and slows the film right down. *shrugs*

So they could do the TDKR “you’re in for a show tonight, son” moment later.

And because for some reason, they decided that organised crime was the only thing Batman cared about... one of the missteps of the movie, in my opinion.

 

[fan4stic]

So they could do the TDKR “you’re in for a show tonight, son” moment later.

And because for some reason, they decided that organised crime was the only thing Batman cared about... one of the missteps of the movie, in my opinion.

Bruce's goal as stated in BB isn't stopping all crime. It was to show the people that their city doesn't belong to the criminals and the corrupt.

 

[FunkMiller]

Bruce's goal as stated in BB isn't stopping all crime. It was to show the people that their city doesn't belong to the criminals and the corrupt.

Yes. Notice how he doesn’t say organised crime? Sorry, but it’s a mistake to represent Batman as a character only interested in stopping crime bosses and corrupt officials.

 

[henzINNIT]

To show that Batman taking the blame for Harvey Dent's crimes actually amounted to something beyond making Batman a wanted fugitive again and ensuring the police will put catching him as priority over the actual criminals.

This is understood, but Batman retiring wasn't the only (or best) way to pay off the characters' decisions of The Dark Knight. This is especially the case when Nolan wants to play to Bruce's self-destructive tenancies: the toll it's taken on his body, the Wayne persona disintegrating, Alfred pleading with him to stop and so on. All of this would have been more effective if Bruce hadn't quit, and the ending with him actually surviving to live a healthy life would have all the more cathartic for it.

The whole "Dent Act" plot is really limp to me. There was clearly a struggle to give the previous events their due repercussions. I never fully buy Gordon's speech about plunging his hands into the "muck". It seems as though it was a pretty clean lie that had immediate positive effect with no innocent casualties. I suppose if Batman was caught and Bruce Wayne suffered the consequences, there would have been some interesting fallout. Bane's antics in Gotham had little if anything to do with it, he would have attacked anyway. Then the truth came out, and had no noticeable affect (Gordon is still commissioner at the end right?). It doesn't really work.

 

[fan4stic]

Yes. Notice how he doesn’t say organised crime? Sorry, but it’s a mistake to represent Batman as a character only interested in stopping crime bosses and corrupt officials.

In BB Bruce was driven to do more by his talk with Carmine Falcone and Rachel in regards to organized crime. I think Bruce's perception comes from that and to him taking them out gets rid of the problem. I think it's not out of the question that showing the people that their city doesn't belong to the criminals and the corrupt applies to that. In TDK Bruce was directly focused on taking down the mob and when that was happening, Bruce was thinking about quitting.

This is understood, but Batman retiring wasn't the only (or best) way to pay off the characters' decisions of The Dark Knight. This is especially the case when Nolan wants to play to Bruce's self-destructive tenancies: the toll it's taken on his body, the Wayne persona disintegrating, Alfred pleading with him to stop and so on. All of this would have been more effective if Bruce hadn't quit, and the ending with him actually surviving to live a healthy life would have all the more cathartic for it.

The whole "Dent Act" plot is really limp to me. There was clearly a struggle to give the previous events their due repercussions. I never fully buy Gordon's speech about plunging his hands into the "muck". It seems as though it was a pretty clean lie that had immediate positive effect with no innocent casualties. I suppose if Batman was caught and Bruce Wayne suffered the consequences, there would have been some interesting fallout. Bane's antics in Gotham had little if anything to do with it, he would have attacked anyway. Then the truth came out, and had no noticeable affect (Gordon is still commissioner at the end right?). It doesn't really work.

I think also there was a showcase of the idea of the false hope of being with Rachel that Bruce and how it effected him. Which played with the idea of false hope Gotham had for Harvey Dent and how that allowed the city to, in spite of it seeming okay, allowed for Bane to take advantage of it.

It's a lie no matter what and I think the movie plays with the idea of having a false idol in Dent and how that knowledge negatively effected Jim.

Bruce's depression, being defeated by Bane and being in the pit are repercussions. I can see the idea of Jim not facing strong reprecussions, but I think the movie shows that Jim's life is lonely.

I think the false hope of Rachel and the Dent act made it so Bruce's depression and anger overpowered better judgement and drove him to go out, in his mind, in a blaze of glory.