The Dark Knight Rises How does TDKR make you feel? How do you feel about TDKR? Hate it?

[shauner111]

After the Joker killed Rachel he should be thrown himself into Batman, his parents death inspired him to become Batman. Rachel's death should have solidified that stance.

That's what he did.

 

[BH/HHH]

That's what he did.

No he didn't, he stopped the Joker then had to deal with Dent, the he quit.

 

[ThePhantasm]

After the Joker killed Rachel he should be thrown himself into Batman, his parents death inspired him to become Batman. Rachel's death should have solidified that stance.

Exactly. It runs counter to the character for him to be depressed to the point of inaction.

Throughout the trilogy Alfred warns Bruce about "losing himself" in this persona of the Batman, but we never get the feeling that Bruce is ever at risk of doing that. Instead throughout TDK and TDKR he tries to give up being Batman every chance he has. Bruce giving it up at the end of TDKR isn't the end of some long arc, its just more of the same status quo. He always wanted to give it up, he just needed a girlfriend to spend time with (enter Catwoman, stage right).

Its very odd because the trilogy pays lip service to a "character struggle" that is ultimately only expository and never actually shown to be true on screen. It makes it seem like Alfred is continuously missing the point, rather than talking Bruce off of the edge of the abyss.

 

[shauner111]

No he didn't, he stopped the Joker then had to deal with Dent, the he quit.

Maybe you meant more time, but that's because you're thinking about the comics which doesn't necessarily have to be adapted. You said he should have dove into Batman after Rachel died, i answered with "he did" because he did dive further into Batman after her death. Whether it was a day, a week or 19 years, he still did. Look at how he chose to find Joker? That's probably the deepest he ever was as the Batman.

 

[shauner111]

Exactly. It runs counter to the character for him to be depressed to the point of inaction.

Throughout the trilogy Alfred warns Bruce about "losing himself" in this persona of the Batman, but we never get the feeling that Bruce is ever at risk of doing that. Instead throughout TDK and TDKR he tries to give up being Batman every chance he has. Bruce giving it up at the end of TDKR isn't the end of some long arc, its just more of the same status quo. He always wanted to give it up, he just needed a girlfriend to spend time with (enter Catwoman, stage right).

Its very odd because the trilogy pays lip service to a "character struggle" that is ultimately only expository and never actually shown to be true on screen. It makes it seem like Alfred is continuously missing the point, rather than talking Bruce off of the edge of the abyss.

But he wasn't depressed to the point of inaction. He didnt stop being Batman because he was depressed, so that sentence doesn't make much sense. There was nothing to do as Batman during his time as a recluse. If it was set-up from the get-go, in 2005, that his purpose for being Batman was just like the comics where he's going to swear on his parents grave to get rid of every little criminal in Gotham until he dies, then i would agree with you 100 percent. But it was never established like that. It was always to strike fear into the mob because he felt it starts with them. They're the reason why people are so desperate. And when he can inspire regular citizens to stand up for what they believe in and not just go with the bad flow, then he can be done. For "as long as it takes".

 

[BH/HHH]

Exactly. It runs counter to the character for him to be depressed to the point of inaction.

Throughout the trilogy Alfred warns Bruce about "losing himself" in this persona of the Batman, but we never get the feeling that Bruce is ever at risk of doing that. Instead throughout TDK and TDKR he tries to give up being Batman every chance he has. Bruce giving it up at the end of TDKR isn't the end of some long arc, its just more of the same status quo. He always wanted to give it up, he just needed a girlfriend to spend time with (enter Catwoman, stage right).

Its very odd because the trilogy pays lip service to a "character struggle" that is ultimately only expository and never actually shown to be true on screen. It makes it seem like Alfred is continuously missing the point, rather than talking Bruce off of the edge of the abyss.

Exactly, you get it

Maybe you meant more time, but that's because you're thinking about the comics which doesn't necessarily have to be adapted. You said he should have dove into Batman after Rachel died, i answered with "he did" because he did dive further into Batman after her death. Whether it was a day, a week or 19 years, he still did. Look at how he chose to find Joker? That's probably the deepest he ever was as the Batman.

Of course I meant more time, the only thing he did was stop the Joker and then Harvey Dent which he knew he has to do. I'm talking about making sure this happens to no one else by carrying on and stopping future potential threats.

 

[shauner111]

Only thing? By just judging the story and not how much it took from the comics...

He did quite a bit. He captured the Joker. How long was Joker locked up for? Years. Maybe decades. Making sure this doesn't happen to everyone else? Making sure what happens?? Like i said, it was never established that he was in this to "make sure any murder or crime doesn't happen to another kid". It was always centered on organized crime which created situations for Joe Chill.

He triggered the whole Dent act, which fantastical in concept or not wiped out the mob in Gotham. For 8 years. Probably a little more after what Bane did. He did a lot just by diving deep into Batman for a little bit longer at the end of TDK.

Stop judging it based on time and how long he was Batman in the comics.

 

[I Am The Knight]

maybe because I posted the same thing in the wrong forum thinking it was for pet peeves with specific films. You obviously can't stand me criticising this film and you obviously have no counter to my feelings towards it (that I am entitled to). Get over it!

Eh, no. Go ahead and search my posts, silly. I have plenty of criticism for TDKR (Just look at my avvy) but thank you for proving to me why you bumped this thread

 

[ThePhantasm]

Your avvy is a criticism of TDKR? Even if I loved TDKR to death I'd still find that gif funny.

 

[I Am The Knight]

So?

 

[BH/HHH]

Only thing? By just judging the story and not how much it took from the comics...

He did quite a bit. He captured the Joker. How long was Joker locked up for? Years. Maybe decades. Making sure this doesn't happen to everyone else? Making sure what happens?? Like i said, it was never established that he was in this to "make sure any murder or crime doesn't happen to another kid". It was always centered on organized crime which created situations for Joe Chill.

He triggered the whole Dent act, which fantastical in concept or not wiped out the mob in Gotham. For 8 years. Probably a little more after what Bane did. He did a lot just by diving deep into Batman for a little bit longer at the end of TDK.

Stop judging it based on time and how long he was Batman in the comics.

Agree to disagree, I'm juspdging it basing what was set up in the first two films. I don't think Rises stayed true to what happened in the previous films. Rachel dying to me was Bruce losing that last part of him that could be normal and it plays out like that in TDK. The ending of the Dark Knight, we'll chase him etc they don't deliver on that. The only thing they do is give us a chase in the film, yet it's like what happened to the search for Batman after TDK? It's really poorly done in my opinion. They didn't deliver.

 

[BH/HHH]

Eh, no. Go ahead and search my posts, silly. I have plenty of criticism for TDKR (Just look at my avvy) but thank you for proving to me why you bumped this thread

Yeah I bumped it because I posted the info in the wrong thread, the pet peeves thread which I thought was after specific things forms specific films but it wasn't. So I thought I'd post that information here as I already said.

 

[ThePhantasm]

So?

Huh?

 

[I Am The Knight]

Huh?

Er, sorry about that. Carry on.

 

[shauner111]

So?

Your avatar is one of the greatest on this forum.

Agree to disagree, I'm juspdging it basing what was set up in the first two films. I don't think Rises stayed true to what happened in the previous films. Rachel dying to me was Bruce losing that last part of him that could be normal and it plays out like that in TDK. The ending of the Dark Knight, we'll chase him etc they don't deliver on that. The only thing they do is give us a chase in the film, yet it's like what happened to the search for Batman after TDK? It's really poorly done in my opinion. They didn't deliver.

Fair enough. But you're saying Rachel dying was Bruce losing the last piece of humanity. That was true, for about 9 years. You wanted it to last forever. From that moment on, he has no humanity left, and dives into Batman for the long run. Thing is, people/characters discover new ways of thinking, they develop, minds change, they grow older. I love that comics interpretation but it doesn't have to be done in every single live-action version. Nolan didn't want to just have Bruce go through character development in the first 2 movies, and then NONE in the next 4. Cuz that's what a lot of you guys are asking for really. You want him to completely stop his development and growth as a character after Rachel dies. And want the next film, or the next multiple films to have Bruce just act as Batman and that's it. Nolan wanted each film he made to have character development for the protagonist.

You dont have to like it but i think we should all understand that there's more than one way of doing things and telling Batman's story.

Also, if there was no chase scene in Rises, where the police are chasing him on his bat-pod, i would have been pissed. For my tastes, i didn't care if i saw that chase scene a year after the events of TDK (which wouldn't make sense, why would he keep going out if he needs to be looked at as a murder, and not a heroic figure?).....or if it was later that night, or 8 years later. As long as it happened.

Did the seach for Batman continue after TDK? Obviously. He just wasn't found. I didnt need to see a bunch of cops looking for him, without him being there? Or him hiding in a damn tree.

 

[BH/HHH]

Your avatar is one of the greatest on this forum.

Fair enough. But you're saying Rachel dying was Bruce losing the last piece of humanity. That was true, for about 9 years. You wanted it to last forever. From that moment on, he has no humanity left, and dives into Batman for the long run. Thing is, people/characters discover new ways of thinking, they develop, minds change, they grow older. I love that comics interpretation but it doesn't have to be done in every single live-action version. Nolan didn't want to just have Bruce go through character development in the first 2 movies, and then NONE in the next 4. Cuz that's what a lot of you guys are asking for really. You want him to completely stop his development and growth as a character after Rachel dies. And want the next film, or the next multiple films to have Bruce just act as Batman and that's it. Nolan wanted each film he made to have character development for the protagonist.

You dont have to like it but i think we should all understand that there's more than one way of doing things and telling Batman's story.

Also, if there was no chase scene in Rises, where the police are chasing him on his bat-pod, i would have been pissed. For my tastes, i didn't care if i saw that chase scene a year after the events of TDK (which wouldn't make sense, why would he keep going out if he needs to be looked at as a murder, and not a heroic figure?).....or if it was later that night, or 8 years later. As long as it happened.

Fair enough, I do think there's a lot to like in Rides but on the flip side theres a lot not to like too and some of the critiscms maybe be my own personal feelings however I still feel that this film didn't fit in with the other two and I think it ultimately betrayed some of the promises of the previous two.

 

[shauner111]

I dont mind if you have personal feelings that don't line up with the movies. I was just responding to how some of your criticisms like the Rachel/Retirement thing was inaccurate.

 

[BH/HHH]

I dont mind if you have personal feelings that don't line up with the movies. I was just responding to how some of your criticisms like the Rachel/Retirement thing was inaccurate.

Again though from my perspective that still seems a factor in it. One thing would not be the whole of his decision.

 

[shauner111]

If Rachel had anything to do with his decision, which it didn't, it would have influenced him to be Batman for longer. He wouldn't just stay at home knowing that Rachel was dead. He would have nothing. So him retiring had nothing to do with Rachel, strictly based on the Dent Act and the lie. He made his decision purely based on the fact that organized crime was going bye-byez, and Gotham didn't need him anymore.

 

[BH/HHH]

If Rachel had anything to do with his decision, which it didn't, it would have influenced him to be Batman for longer. He wouldn't just stay at home knowing that Rachel was dead. He would have nothing. So him retiring had nothing to do with Rachel, strictly based on the Dent Act and the lie. He made his decision purely based on the fact that organized crime was going bye-byez, and Gotham didn't need him anymore.

Agree to disagree, it's the way I inteprerit in the film

 

[shauner111]

I would be fine with that, but it sounds like you're going against what is actually told to you point blank in the film, in order to simply dislike it. I don't know but it sounds very weird that we're all telling you the same thing, even the people who have issues, and you just refuse to hear it. All because it's your "interpretation" of it. Nolan spelled that part out, we are too, and you're like "Nope, sorry! Ill just choose to believe it's this way".

 

[BH/HHH]

I would be fine with that, but it sounds like you're going against what is actually told to you point blank in the film, in order to simply dislike it. I don't know but it sounds very weird that we're all telling you the same thing, even the people who have issues, and you just refuse to hear it. All because it's your "interpretation" of it. Nolan spelled that part out, we are too, and you're like "Nope, sorry! Ill just choose to believe it's this way".

If you read above you will see I don't dislike this film, I dislike aspects of it and Batman quitting which happens after the Dark Knight ruins it for me. I definitely believe Rachel dying was a factor in the film. Not everything has to be told directly, it's clear Rachel's death broke him and was a factor in him quitting. Just the fact he goes back to been Batman and he clearly wants Bane to kill him tells you that.

 

[shauner111]

 

[BatLobster]

Fair enough, I do think there's a lot to like in Rides but on the flip side theres a lot not to like too and some of the critiscms maybe be my own personal feelings however I still feel that this film didn't fit in with the other two and I think it ultimately betrayed some of the promises of the previous two.

The Dark Knight Rides

Spoiler

 

[JackWhite]

Miranda Tate: You have a practiced apathy, Mr. Wayne. But a man who doesn't care about the world doesn't spend half his fortune on a plan to save it. And isn't so wounded when it fails that he goes into hiding. Have a good evening, Mr. Wayne.

Yeah, Bruce became a recluse because of Rachel dying, guys.