The Dark Knight Rises How long did Nolans Batman actually fight crime?(SPOILERS)

[Macphisto]

He's limping badly after taking the fall at the end of TDK. That's all I got with regards to the leg injury (that magically disappears).

 

[KalMart]

I'm not opposed to the concept.

But tell me why did he rebuild the batcave and why did he go down there for years later (note Alfred saying "You haven't been down here for a while")?.

In case he did have to come back....but the need never arose until eight years later.

Why did he have such a bad leg injury?

He was shot. If that shattered the bone and affected nerves it could be a lifelong issue....especially if he tried to treat the injury himself and hide it from going to a hospital.

The story certainly says eight years, but there are enough questions about what happened in those eight years that are not explained.

They don't need to be, except for someone who for whatever reason is looking for more than what this movie is presenting. That's the someone's cross to bear, not the film's.

 

[Mysteryman]

It's hard to be more specific than the writers including a line that deliberately references the timeframe.

By the way, I agree completely that we aren't to take it by the letter. It's not 12 months on the dot and in that sense Joker's generalising.

But of course that line didn't make it in their accidentally. It was written in. Every line is drafted, re-drafted, and poured over. So, we know that the writer intentionally chose that specific amount of time. Had he felt the period was 2 years, then he would have written the line as 2 years.

So questioning it is somewhat strange.

If there were a 2 year frame than the 1 year period period The Joker referred to could be right after Batman showed up,
The end of BB.
Things were still in flux back then.

 

[the_monk]

I think some people are being too liberal with this "last confirmed sighting" terminology. "Last confirmed" most likely implies that, as you would expect, people reported sightings that were false. You know, like how there aren't any "confirmed sightings" of Bigfoot.

I'm willing to bet he stopped going out as Batman after the night Dent was killed, and devoted his time to rebuilding the Batcave, in case Batman was needed again.

 

[Homer J. Fong]

I take it that there's a year at most from the time Batman first appears to the time The Dark Knight begins. Batman Begins only seems to span a couple of weeks or so, and The Dark Knight maybe a couple months. I'm guessing, as I've never noticed or sought out the specifics. I don't particularly care about how long Bruce acts as Batman - someone employed the quote, "It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage," which is not only a great line and reference, but a great, succinct summation of it.

I do care about when Bruce stopped acting as Batman after the end of TDK, though. Now, the film clearly implies that Bruce did not act as Batman after Dent died. I'm one of those people clinging to that "confirmed" because I can't make sense of some things or can't deal with some things (and I'm pretty sure that word "confirmed" is in there partly so that we can do some theorizing, because if Nolan was super-committed to saying Dent's last night was also Batman's last night for eight years, he wouldn't have let the phrase "confirmed sighting" stay through draft after draft). I complained about it on the thread about the eight-year gap idea, but let me explain my issues here:

1) It seems awfully out of character for him to promptly hang up the cape and cowl after the night of Dent's death, his crimes, and agreeing to take the fall for those crimes. He can take it...and then he decides he can't? Or does he just decide not to?

2) As has already been pointed out, well, at length, the Dent Act couldn't possibly have gone into effect quickly - not in this universe. If this were the form of reality presented in the Burton or Schumacher movies, I'd go with that, but it's not. And if Batman retired long before the Dent Act was enacted, then I have to go back to the "feels out of character" argument. I'd like to know how long after Dent's death the Dent Act was created, passed, what have you.

3) This one is much smaller, but I too have to ask: Why complete the Batcave if it's not going to be used? Now, one could argue that Alfred's, "You haven't been down here in a long time," line does make sense if he and Bruce were building it before/up to the creation of the Dent Act, but afterward it was never properly used. I don't know if that entirely works, but the question of, "Why is the Batcave complete if he retired right after Harvey died?" is not the biggest of these.

4) It nags at me that I can't even imagine this Batman and this Joker encountering each other again after the events of TDK. As I've said before, I know that the, "I think you and I are destined to do this forever," line was more a nod to that eternal battle that we know so well from the overall Batman mythology than an atual promise for this Batman-Joker, but with Batman swiftly retiring after Harvey's downfall and death, I can't even imagine that they even encountered each other again. Again, this is a minor quibble, but still.

The intent is clearly to say that Bruce/Batman has been out of action for eight years. Not five, not seven, eight. That seems - and these are probably weird ways to put it - too easy or simple, though. That he would stop right after the events of the TDK finale, that no major crimes would occur in the intervening eight years, that the Dent Act would come about and do its job so quickly...I have a hard time buying in to all of this. So even though it's kind of against what's onscreen, I have to cling to that word "confirmed" and try to believe that Batman did his thing for a while - I'm like to think a year or so - after the end of TDK, but with the utmost care and secrecy, only even contacting Gordon once or twice. That has to mean there were no more "freak villains" on the level of The Joker, because if there were, there would also have to be confirmed sightings of Batman, right? Other people above me have made these points more eloquently, and other people below me probably will too, but there are my thoughts.

 

[Broker]

In case he did have to come back....but the need never arose until eight years later.

Exactly. The Batcave and Wayne Manor were being re-built prior to, and at the time of, TDK. We don't know how close they were to completion.

Bruce gave up being Batman after TDK, that is made quite explicit to us, but I am sure he still monitored Gotham for a period from the Batcave, and went down there less frequently as time wore on.

He was shot. If that shattered the bone and affected nerves it could be a lifelong issue....especially if he tried to treat the injury himself and hide it from going to a hospital.

It is also heavily hinted that it is partly phychosomatic.

 

[Broker]

The intent is clearly to say that Bruce/Batman has been out of action for eight years. Not five, not seven, eight. That seems - and these are probably weird ways to put it - too easy or simple, though. That he would stop right after the events of the TDK finale, that no major crimes would occur in the intervening eight years, that the Dent Act would come about and do its job so quickly...

I understand exactly what you are saying and you made your points very well.

As you say, when broken completely down, it does not 100% follow. The ending of TDK led us to believe that Batman would continue even though he was to be hunted, but then in TDKR we are presented with a Batman that apparantly finished directly after TDK - and the reason given - because the Dent Act made him null and void. As you say, it's is unlikely such an Act would come in to effect quite that quickly.

Of course, as the audience there is much that we are not privy to that we are to imagine happened off-screen.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle all of this and I think at some point you have to step back from the fine details and think what the true intention of the Writer/Director really was.

Looking at things now, my opinion is that Bruce stopped being Batman immediately after TDK. This is alluded to quite specifically in TDKR. In TDK organised crime had been seriously disrupted, both by Batman/Gordon but also through the Joker killing two of the major kingpins. The city, as we saw, had also chosen to fight back and there was undoubted momentum to clean up the city.

With the Police handling low level crime, the Dent Act was passed relatively soon afterwards which formalised how they would treat organised crime.

So I suspect that Bruce found himself very quickly in a position where his services were not required.

Given the timespan of at least a year between BB and TDK I think it is reasonable to assume that the cave was nearing completion at the time of TDK. If an explanation as to why it was ultimately completed is required then I would suggest this was because there was always the possibility he may need it again (we see in TDKR that he is waiting for such a moment when the city would need him).

 

[Mysteryman]

I tend to agree with the theories posted above.
However, I was reading the new Dark Knight Technical Manual,
And , there was a note from Bruce that said after 5 years of being Batman, he redesigned his suit ,
It is the TDK Batsuit .
Unfortunately, I dont have a scan of it, but the book is currently in stores .

 

[Ultimatehero]

Some time DID pass between BB and TDK - SHADOW OF THE KNIGHT tie-in dvd shows that he did fight criminals in between.

 

[Broker]

Some time DID pass between BB and TDK - SHADOW OF THE KNIGHT tie-in dvd shows that he did fight criminals in between.

As said above, the Joker tells us that roughly a year has passed.

 

[I Am The Knight]

I tend to agree with the theories posted above.
However, I was reading the new Dark Knight Technical Manual,
And , there was a note from Bruce that said after 5 years of being Batman, he redesigned his suit ,
It is the TDK Batsuit .
Unfortunately, I dont have a scan of it, but the book is currently in stores .

So it took him 5 years to "look into" the Joker?

Altough, the 5 year gap would explain why Rachel looked so rough in TDK ...

 

[ThePhantasm]

He was shot. If that shattered the bone and affected nerves it could be a lifelong issue....especially if he tried to treat the injury himself and hide it from going to a hospital.

I thought he got shot in the abdomen? I figured the leg injury was from his fall after pushing Dent over the edge. I don't see why Dent would shoot him in the leg when Batman wasn't standing that far away.

 

[zmystico]

Considering the physical toll it takes to be Batman fighting crime, it makes quite a lot of sense for him to be Batman in only the limited time he was. And it's not like it translated into Batman appearing in each film for only 2 minutes so I don't see why it really matters. Heightened realism is obviously at the forefront of Nolan's Batman movies so this would translate into a real man fighting crime for this long. Everyone saw the damage he had suffered in TDKR from just the limited he was Batman and that was before the events of TDKR!

I agree with this, you just cannot physically do what Batman does night in and out without incurring some serious damage. Also, even though he wasn't active in those 8 years, cartilage does not grow back, once you start damaging and losing it...it only deteriorates.

 

[ALP]

So it took him 5 years to "look into" the Joker?

Altough, the 5 year gap would explain why Rachel looked so rough in TDK ...

LOLZ

 

[KalMart]

I thought he got shot in the abdomen?

Judging by the massive limp he had at the end if TDK, but very well could have penetrated lower into the pelvic and upper leg.

I figured the leg injury was from his fall after pushing Dent over the edge. I don't see why Dent would shoot him in the leg when Batman wasn't standing that far away.

He still just pointed and didn't aim. Plus, although Batman's armor may not have been completely bulletproof, it still could have deflected a bullet headed toward the lower abdomen enough to veer off and, again, penetrate into the pelvic/leg region...especially at the less-protected seams between plates where movement is needed. If it went into that very critical joint area between hip and leg bone, it could be really bad and much harder to heal since it's so hard to restrict that movement.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I remember reading an article once, before Batman Begins was ever released, on the theory of a real superhero.

Conceptually, the pitch was that if the hero is like Batman, a human being and not endowed with super powers, then the closest approach to how his career would or could go would be by comparing it to an all-star athlete. The guy wouldn't be able to last 30 years or anything, because eventually the bumps and bruises would build up. So either he'd catch a bullet or just not be able to get up in the morning. And the idea would also be that there'd be a peak, where he would be an absolute beast. He'd be at peak physical condition, very confident and sure of himself, and be completely healthy. In his prime, around his early 30's. And then it'd just kinda go downhill after that.

I think Nolan's films, more or less, kinda followed that type of trajectory. Bruce became Batman was pretty much leaped into it in his prime. He was probably Batman for about 3 or 4 years. But, I guess he got a ton done. Aside from Bane, Ra's, Scarecrow, and the Joker...who all had a hand in major plans, Batman's biggest opponent in Gotham was organized crime. With the Dent Act getting passed, probably a few years after Dent died, that was it for organized crime in Gotham.

The film did seem to emphasize that Bruce was not exactly forced into retirement by his injury. His injury wasn't really holding him back. The first whiff of anything big had him ready to roll. He retired because he and Jim had won. He definitely got usage out of the Batcave, which I assume wasn't ready during TDK since it hadn't been seen.

 

[lordofthenerds]

So it took him 5 years to "look into" the Joker?

Joker retired from crime for 5 years.

 

[hafizbat]

Judging by the massive limp he had at the end if TDK, but very well could have penetrated lower into the pelvic and upper leg.


He still just pointed and didn't aim. Plus, although Batman's armor may not have been completely bulletproof, it still could have deflected a bullet headed toward the lower abdomen enough to veer off and, again, penetrate into the pelvic/leg region...especially at the less-protected seams between plates where movement is needed. If it went into that very critical joint area between hip and leg bone, it could be really bad and much harder to heal since it's so hard to restrict that movement.

If the injury was that bad like the way you describe it, how was he able to recover so quickly when he needed to be Batman again?? I know he used the brace thing in his first comeback but he doesn't have that in the pit yet he not only walks but makes a huge jump to escape the pit. And he walks perfectly fine as Bruce Wayne. So how did he recover?

 

[KalMart]

If the injury was that bad like the way you describe it, how was he able to recover so quickly when he needed to be Batman again?? I know he used the brace thing in his first comeback but he doesn't have that in the pit yet he not only walks but makes a huge jump to escape the pit. And he walks perfectly fine as Bruce Wayne. So how did he recover?

You mean the pit that the was in for months, was treated by the doctor, and worked himself physically back into shape moreso than when he suited up earlier?

 

[hafizbat]

You mean the pit that the was in for months, was treated by the doctor, and worked himself physically back into shape moreso than when he suited up earlier?

Mhm, I guess it just goes to show the role will and motivation plays. Because theoretically if he was able to fully recover in a few months in the pit (when he had far more sever injuries back etc) then he could've healed himself all these 8 years or whenever his leg went bad. But I don't know something doesn't add up here. So either his leg was that bad that he was on a cane for 8 years, which makes his full recovery in the few months in the pit a bit unrealistic or his leg wasn't that bad in the first place as seen by his full recovery post-pit which muddles why he needed a cane for 8 years.....I think the latter is the better scenario, as at least his use of the cane/not healing leg can be attributabed to his disheartened, defeated state of mind.

 

[piccolo]

They don't have doctors and floors for pushups in Gotham?

And that was after a broken back. He should have easily been able to recover from his TDK injuries within a couple months if thats all it took in a 3rd world cave with a prison "doctor".

 

[FlawlessVictory]

They don't have doctors and floors for pushups in Gotham?

And that was after a broken back. He should have easily been able to recover from his TDK injuries within a couple months if thats all it took in a 3rd world cave with a prison "doctor".

That's the power of belief! He didn't have that before. I sort of kid, I see your point.

 

[Broker]

Mhm, I guess it just goes to show the role will and motivation plays. Because theoretically if he was able to fully recover in a few months in the pit (when he had far more sever injuries back etc) then he could've healed himself all these 8 years or whenever his leg went bad. But I don't know something doesn't add up here. So either his leg was that bad that he was on a cane for 8 years, which makes his full recovery in the few months in the pit a bit unrealistic or his leg wasn't that bad in the first place as seen by his full recovery post-pit which muddles why he needed a cane for 8 years.....I think the latter is the better scenario, as at least his use of the cane/not healing leg can be attributabed to his disheartened, defeated state of mind.

I think a good degree of the issue is psychosomatic.

 

[KalMart]

Mhm, I guess it just goes to show the role will and motivation plays. Because theoretically if he was able to fully recover in a few months in the pit (when he had far more sever injuries back etc) then he could've healed himself all these 8 years or whenever his leg went bad. But I don't know something doesn't add up here. So either his leg was that bad that he was on a cane for 8 years, which makes his full recovery in the few months in the pit a bit unrealistic or his leg wasn't that bad in the first place as seen by his full recovery post-pit which muddles why he needed a cane for 8 years.....I think the latter is the better scenario, as at least his use of the cane/not healing leg can be attributabed to his disheartened, defeated state of mind.

Yeah, I don't think he has as much to 'shoot for' during those 8 yrs.

There's a lot that doesn't quite add up in this rather overstuffed storyline, but you just kinda' go with it.

 

[KneelBeforeZod]

Here's the timeline I prefer. There are inconsistencies ... but this lines up the best, and makes the most sense to me ...

-- Bruce returns from Princeton when he is 21 (in 1996), and disappears for seven years after Joe Chill is killed (gone between 1996 and 2003);
-- He returns to Gotham when he is 28, in 2003, and becomes Batman for the first time.
-- The Ras al'Ghul attack happens on his 30th birthday in 2005. The first Joker robberies happen in the same year (calling card at the end of BB);
-- Between 2005 and 2008, Joker gains notoriety and Batman works his way up the mob ladder (wearing the original BB suit), and Rachel Dawes does not age well ... she looks awful come 2008.
-- Events of TDK happen in 2008 ... new suit, Joker killings, death of Harvey Dent. Last appearance of Batman, age 33.
-- Batman in retirement from 2008-2016.
-- Events of TDKR occur in 2016 -- Bruce is now 41.

That would leave Bruce as Batman from age 28 to 33 (2003-2008), and again at age 41 (2016). Those years make sense to me, those ages makes sense ... and the five-year timeline before retirement is more satisfying than the 18-months or whatever people are using. Also leaves a reasonable off-screen gap for an active Batman between BB and TDK.

There are some inconsistencies. The new book cites Harvey Dent's injuries as occurring in 2004. There is something about TDKR referencing 2014. But, the above seems to line up the best. Here is a more detailed timeline I got off of another board ...

Maybe Batman Begins from his first night out to defeating Ra's does actually take place over a couple years, as Zach suggested:

--and it is from:

2003 - 2005

Things that suddenly fit if we accept this, and assume that TDK takes place in 2008:

2003 - Bruce Wayne returns to Gotham City, has his first night out, begins prowling as the Batman.

2003 - Jimmy is a two year-old infant when Batman visits Gordon at home.

2005 - Batman defeats Ra's Al Ghul on the train. Remember this is on the SAME NIGHT that he has his 30th birthday party.

2005 - 2008 - Offscreen, Batman wages war on crime, working his way up to the big fish of the mob. Assuming this is true conveniently explains several things:

- (1) Like SnakeDoc suggests, it is not until a year before TDK that he is finally having an impact that is really hurting them and making them take notice.

- (2) All during this time, while Batman is building his reputation, Joker commits random crimes and builds up his own legend among criminals. This is where we get the "So why do they call him the Joker?" "I heard he wears makeup..to scare people...y'know, war paint" lines. It makes sense that it takes a while to build up that kind of rumormill/reputation. It also explains the "Two-bit wack job, cheap purple suit" line from Maroni and the "Him again" line from Batman. Joker wasn't wearing the purple suit during the bank robbery, so Maroni must have seen/heard of him before. Like Batman, dispite his crimes, he views him as just a minor nuisance to be dealth with later.

- (3) Guestimating this three-year gap between the films also neatly explains the line in The Dark Knight Manual that he was wearing the Original Suit for 5 years---he was---from 2003 to 2008.

- (4) Finally, this 3 year gap ages little Jimmy almost perfectly. If he is two years-old in 2003, then he is seven in 2008. It doesn't take much stretching in either direction to make him an 8 year-old, or to even just assume he is supposed to be seven in that film.

The Dark Knight Rises is eight years later.

2016 Now I know the Gotham Civil War poster contradicts this, with the date of the exhibit ending in 2014. But this is the only really hard-set date we know of (as of now anyway), and it's not really clear if it even appears noticeably on-screen or if a hard-set date of 2014 appears in the final film on screen, so I'm willing to overlook it. Also, I realize this is just an excuse, but that poster could be an "old" ad that was never taken down, or pasted over with something else newer that is peeling off. It certainly doesn't look like it's supposed to be in new condition. Just sayin'.

Working backward from the above dates, we can make the milestones in Bruce's life fit too.

2003 - Bruce Wayne returns to Gotham. Based on the above that he turns 30 in 2005, he turns 28 in 2003. Since we know he was away for seven years, he dropped out of Princeton at 21 (or 20, depending on his birthday) as an undergrad in his senior year, just shy of graduation.

Working farther back and using the casefile of the Wayne murders in The Dark Knight Manual

November 8, 1983 - The Waynes are gunned down. Bruce is 10 or 11 years old (again, depending on his birthday)

1972 or 1973 - Bruce Wayne is born.

So,to answer the question, that would leave Bruce Wayne fighting crime between 2003 and 2008 , and then again in 2016 ... about six-years total before the end of TDKR.

Whether you want to think he eventually comes back after TDKR is up to you.

KBZ