The Dark Knight Rises How Long Was Bruce Wayne Actually Batman in this Trilogy?

[BlueLightning]

I think there is much evidence pointing to Bruce having a relatively short time as Batman. However, in the context of the films it makes perfect sense, and not without a merit. I think the gripe is that we are accustomed to a serialized form of narrative where nothing ever ends. But I love Rises because we get an amazing ending that works even on a meta level.

 

[chugaphot]

When did Bruce actually got the limp? He got shot and fell off the building towards the end of TDK, but he seemed to be ok afterwards. That can only mean that he continued to be Batman after the events of TDK and somehow injured his leg which caused his limp. He just hasn't been seen since Dent's death, it doesn't mean that he isn't working behind the scenes.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

Christopher Nolan specifically said in the TDKR special features that Batman injured his leg in the fall at the end of the TDK. His next line he speaks is that he is walking with a cane. He wanted to give the movie a sense of gravity, he said, or something like that.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

It essentially disappeared throughout the events of TDK, though. Dent did get most of the criminals off the streets for a year and a half and the top guys died one by one in the film as well. Enough time to have created the Dent Act, put it into action and send any other mobsters to prison.

What about the time between the end of The Dark Knight and the Dent Act. Plenty of time for Bruce to actually see how futile his mission is becoming. Also gives people the ability to infer that other things happened to Bruce. Much like jakinj's webcomics are doing, enriching the universe that was created, rather than limiting it.

And while I agree that the LoS could have definitely ended in BB, there is a daughter that Ra's had in the comics which could have made her way into Nolan's universe and she did.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

 

[BlueLightning]

When did Bruce actually got the limp? He got shot and fell off the building towards the end of TDK, but he seemed to be ok afterwards. That can only mean that he continued to be Batman after the events of TDK and somehow injured his leg which caused his limp. He just hasn't been seen since Dent's death, it doesn't mean that he isn't working behind the scenes.

If you pay attention to TDK's ending, Batman is clearly limping when running away from the cops. It's also scripted:

Batman hurries off. LIMPING into the shadows.

What about the time between the end of The Dark Knight and the Dent Act. Plenty of time for Bruce to actually see how futile his mission is becoming. Also gives people the ability to infer that other things happened to Bruce. Much like jakinj's webcomics are doing, enriching the universe that was created, rather than limiting it.

It was already taken care of.

"It won't matter. The head guys make bail, sure... but the mid-level guys, they can't, and they can't afford to be off the streets long enough for trial and appeal. They'll cut deals that include some jail time. Think of all you could do with 18 months of clean streets."


With Dent's "heroic" death, and setting up the Dent Act, the police had enough power to round up the leftovers. Though it would have taken some time, at least those 18 months. It's naive to think all would have been done instantly.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

It was already taken care of.

"It won't matter. The head guys make bail, sure... but the mid-level guys, they can't, and they can't afford to be off the streets long enough for trial and appeal. They'll cut deals that include some jail time. Think of all you could do with 18 months of clean streets."


With Dent's "heroic" death, and setting up the Dent Act, the police had enough power to round up the leftovers. Though it would have taken some time, at least those 18 months. It's naive to think all would have been done instantly.

When I say the audience can infer other things happened to Bruce, I mean guys the Police can't handle. Again, see jakinj's webcomic. Bruce makes 9 major appearances as Batman and so far, one of those is against Mr Freeze. Again, allowing the audience to use their imagination to create a richer, grander, more filled universe.

Then you can go into the Police rounding up small time criminals and Batman having a further diminished presence in Gotham.

 

[BatLobster]

I always felt the "last confirmed sighting" line by Blake sparked the imagination because it makes Batman's disappearance a mystery to us just as it is to Gotham. It instantly made me wonder if there were any unconfirmed or completely unreported/unseen appearances. Jakinj's webcomic shows how it's possible to imagine these things without contradicting the movie.

 

[BlueLightning]

I have read them, I actually love them. But on film, I would have feel a little cheated if they said that there were more, ahm, "super criminals" in the interim between TDK and Rises. Because I would have wanted to see them, specially see the Nolan's take on them. Since Nolan desired to end the story, instead of infinitely blowing up the balloon and expanding the story, I found appropiate his creative choices. Those gaps are opportunities, yes. But then, we would need another director, and perhaps his vision would compromise the themes of the trilogy, who knows?

I was the first on the line who have wanted to see the Riddler in the sequel. I wanted him badly. See for example this great fan film:

[YT]9_ioQP1XU3s[/YT]

As a short tale, it can fit easily in the Nolan Batworld, but really deserves a bigger canvas. But while giving the story the weight it deserves, it would change the ending in a big way.

Having a villian would serve a similar purpose like The Joker in TDK, because that's why there are so many villians on the comics. Not because they are similar, but because probably the feeling would be the same. Just like with the previous films and the comics, and the cartoons, the question would be "Which villian would Batman fight next?". There is nothing wrong with it, in fact I love it. It's a different form of telling a story, but from a storytelling standpoint, as films it would follow the same template. Nolan with the three films explored different themes, and they are quite different and cohesive at the same time.

There is a need for Batman to fight adversaries in a regular basis, because the format demands it. On film, not so much... unless you are willing to go the high road and make a long string of films, which is hard work. Perhaps now we can see a Batman with a vision that allows for a greater world, but in my opinion and experience, it would be hard to find the emotional resonance that Nolan achieved with his films.

 

[Tequilla]

Its looking at videos like that (because how silly they look , like a bad porn) , that i give huge credit to the visual department of this trilogy. All of them , from the director , dp , props , costumes , visual effects , etc , just a fantastic work.

 

[BatLobster]

Well in all fairness Tequilla, that's the difference between an amateur film and a $200 million + budget.

 

[Anno_Domini]

What about the time between the end of The Dark Knight and the Dent Act. Plenty of time for Bruce to actually see how futile his mission is becoming. Also gives people the ability to infer that other things happened to Bruce. Much like jakinj's webcomics are doing, enriching the universe that was created, rather than limiting it.

What about between TDK and the Dent Act? As I said, the Dent Act could have easily been purposed, created, et cetera within that year and a half that the mobsters are in jail so what more could Bruce be doing with most of the crime diminished? Imo, Nolan's Batman was not one to mess with the random purse snatcher so Bruce was intent on just waiting until something bad happens next which is what Alfred alluded to in TDKR.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

Of course, but, imo, I'm glad they did.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

What about between TDK and the Dent Act? As I said, the Dent Act could have easily been purposed, created, et cetera within that year and a half that the mobsters are in jail so what more could Bruce be doing with most of the crime diminished? Imo, Nolan's Batman was not one to mess with the random purse snatcher so Bruce was intent on just waiting until something bad happens next which is what Alfred alluded to in TDKR.

That's my point, hint to some things that were worthy of Bruce's attention. But when they are gone. He keeps being Batman, trying to stop "small" crimes like murders, rapes, carjackings, but they aren't worth the toll on his body.

Of course, but, imo, I'm glad they did.

Bringing in the League seemed like trying to arbitrarily tie it to Batman Begins.

I have read them, I actually love them. But on film, I would have feel a little cheated if they said that there were more, ahm, "super criminals" in the interim between TDK and Rises. Because I would have wanted to see them, specially see the Nolan's take on them. Since Nolan desired to end the story, instead of infinitely blowing up the balloon and expanding the story

It's not infinitely blowing up the balloon though, the story would have still ended. It's keeping Bruce as Batman within the timeline of the film series. Did you feel cheated that The Dark Knight hinted towards confrontations between Batman and Scarecrow between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight? I sure as hell didn't.

I found appropiate his creative choices. Those gaps are opportunities, yes. But then, we would need another director, and perhaps his vision would compromise the themes of the trilogy, who knows?

Would we? Hints towards events doesn't mean we have to see them. Like Joker's origin for example.

 

[theman]

i gotta admit this is the one thing i do not like about the newer movies. the whole deal with batman quitting, then not quitting on and off again was rediculous. the "real" batman, as in the comics, would not keep quitting or trying to look for a reason to quit. batman of the comics, and of the original films, was a super determined person who was literally obsessed with his batman creation and everything from this suit, vehicles, weapons, etc reflected this obsession. I DO understand that the new batmans are trying to be realistic and not trying too hard to be just like the comics, so i guess in a way they get a "free pass" from the fans because of this. but christian bales batman didnt seem nearly as obsessed with batman and his parents murder as he should have been. yes i Begins he did seem so but in the sequels he seemed to be looking for a reason to quit being batman which to me isnt batman at all. val kilmer seemed to get it more right in that deleted scene where he discovers he must be batman "forever" not because he has to be but because he "chooses to be". THATS batman. but in TDK bruce is hopeing harvey dent will be able to take his mantle so batman wont be needed. so your saying once gotham is "fixed", bruce wayne will no longer need to be batman? cmon. evil always is out there. theres always thugs and people to fight. batman wouldnt just leave it up to the police. didnt he try to do something like this in "mask of the phantasm", he'll give more money to the police but he is still haunted by his parents death.

 

[BlueLightning]

It's not infinitely blowing up the balloon though, the story would have still ended. It's keeping Bruce as Batman within the timeline of the film series. Did you feel cheated that The Dark Knight hinted towards confrontations between Batman and Scarecrow between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight? I sure as hell didn't.

Well I didn't saw it hinted towards it, because I already saw that confrontation. Still, we saw that in TDK.For example, I don't think a montage of various Batman villains being taken down in that time span would have been worthy. Many of the rogues in the gallery deserve more screentime than just that. My point being is that the feeling would have been similar to TDK, not because the villians are similar, but the format is.

Would we? Hints towards events doesn't mean we have to see them. Like Joker's origin for example.

That's seems just a little arbitrarly, because most of us know that the Joker doesn't have a past per se. Those little tidbits helped to strenghtend that notion and were true to the character. Also, we are talking about characters, not events. On a greater canvas like films, I for one would have wanted to see more rogues on the loose. But as I said, the feeling would be similar, and the storytelling would be rehashing the format. Would they be great movies? Of course! But were they necessary to tell the story? Perhaps not.

 

[shauner111]

i gotta admit this is the one thing i do not like about the newer movies. the whole deal with batman quitting, then not quitting on and off again was rediculous. the "real" batman, as in the comics, would not keep quitting or trying to look for a reason to quit. batman of the comics, and of the original films, was a super determined person who was literally obsessed with his batman creation and everything from this suit, vehicles, weapons, etc reflected this obsession. I DO understand that the new batmans are trying to be realistic and not trying too hard to be just like the comics, so i guess in a way they get a "free pass" from the fans because of this. but christian bales batman didnt seem nearly as obsessed with batman and his parents murder as he should have been. yes i Begins he did seem so but in the sequels he seemed to be looking for a reason to quit being batman which to me isnt batman at all. val kilmer seemed to get it more right in that deleted scene where he discovers he must be batman "forever" not because he has to be but because he "chooses to be". THATS batman. but in TDK bruce is hopeing harvey dent will be able to take his mantle so batman wont be needed. so your saying once gotham is "fixed", bruce wayne will no longer need to be batman? cmon. evil always is out there. theres always thugs and people to fight. batman wouldnt just leave it up to the police. didnt he try to do something like this in "mask of the phantasm", he'll give more money to the police but he is still haunted by his parents death.

Sure but then the movies never end, they can do 10 movies Bond style, with re-casts and director changes over the course of 25 years and just have Batman never wanting to quit. On and on he goes fighting every villain you can think of. We've seen it before in the animated series, we can read it in the comics. We saw the sequels line up with the Burtons & Shumachers and look at how the quality went down with each sequel. We'll probably get THAT Batman as well in the reboot.

Nolan was trying to tell HIS story. How they interpret Batman as if he was living in our world. With consequences to each action. With a human body that just wouldn't be able to be Batman for several years at a time. I understand that you dont have to make a zillion sequels to show the themes of Batman never wanting to quit. BUT Nolan wanted to bring something different to the film franchise.

It's a franchise that will most likely be the next James Bond. We'll see it go to 50 plus years with many different versions. Hopefully we can get as many different interpretations as possible. And even the haters will at least remember Nolans trilogy as something that was unique compared to the rest and a different story that was told within 20 + movies.

 

[Tequilla]

Well in all fairness Tequilla, that's the difference between an amateur film and a $200 million + budget.

Absolutely. Its unfair to compare them directly. What i was trying to say was , the approach Nolan choose for the character , its tone , is very hard to conciliate with a visual style that allows to take the material seriously without downgrading it....and they absolutely nailed. And they didnt need to hide it in the shadows.

Altough i have to say , a lot of big budget movies look very ridiculous. So sometimes money is not everything. Composing beautiful photography is a gift.

 

[BatLobster]

Absolutely. Its unfair to compare them directly. What i was trying to say was , the approach Nolan choose for the character , its tone , is very hard to conciliate with a visual style that allows to take the material seriously without downgrading it....and they absolutely nailed. And they didnt need to hide it in the shadows.

Altough i have to say , a lot of big budget movies look very ridiculous. So sometimes money is not everything. Composing beautiful photography is a gift.

Ah, I read ya now. Very fair points.

 

[JDonaldD]

He wasn't Batman for very long. I can't remember which one, but I read an interview after the movie where Nolan said he treated Bruce being Batman as a finite, no more than a 5 year plan. The same could be inferred about Blake. Nolan might have taken away from the longevity element I like about the comic Bats but what he added in place is the idea that Batman is a phase for certain capable angry young men that also helps society.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Well I didn't saw it hinted towards it, because I already saw that confrontation. Still, we saw that in TDK.

Scarecrow becoming a drug dealer and Batman saying "Don't let me catch you out here again". Again is the keyword there, Batman never caught Scarecrow out there before.

For example, I don't think a montage of various Batman villains being taken down in that time span would have been worthy. Many of the rogues in the gallery deserve more screentime than just that. My point being is that the feeling would have been similar to TDK, not because the villians are similar, but the format is.

Who said anything about a montage? That's not hinting. That is outright showing.

That's seems just a little arbitrarly, because most of us know that the Joker doesn't have a past per se.

Batman has as many "pasts" as Joker.

Those little tidbits helped to strenghtend that notion and were true to the character.

And hinting towards further characters would have been true to those characters and strengthened the notion of a universe based on Batman's mythology.

Also, we are talking about characters, not events.

What defines characters?

On a greater canvas like films, I for one would have wanted to see more rogues on the loose. But as I said, the feeling would be similar, and the storytelling would be rehashing the format. Would they be great movies? Of course! But were they necessary to tell the story? Perhaps not.

I'm not asking for more films. I said let the audience use their imagination. Hint towards it, and let the audience imagine what happened. Then it is the best for everyone.

 

[Uroboric Forms]

I assume the 'don't let me catch you out here agian' was directed mainly at the Batmen, since one of them responds to it.

 

[BatLobster]

It all comes down to how one interprets that "Last confirmed sighting" line. Sounds like a lot of people took it as Nolan slamming the door shut on any possible Batman appearances between TDK and TDKR. I found it to be the opposite. The way Blake words it immediately brings to mind the possibility of "unconfirmed" sightings.

 

[JDonaldD]

I would have loved TDKR starting with a montage sequence showing us all the rouges he has been fighting while being hunted, catching us up to the 8 year point where he is now busted up and no longer needed. Then he retires. Bruce has has continued being Batman, "lost in his monster" and develops his death wish. It would also explain his over-confidence when Bane finally shows up because in a way he's been waiting for someone who could beat him.

Just brainstorming but it might have been interesting if Bane takes over and unleashes all the criminals we glimpsed in flashbacks and have fleshed out more. I really think the only reason Bane doesn't involve Arkham is because it would make Joker's absence very obvious.

 

[JDonaldD]

It all comes down to how one interprets that "Last confirmed sighting" line. Sounds like a lot of people took it as Nolan slamming the door shut on any possible Batman appearances between TDK and TDKR. I found it to be the opposite. The way Blake words it immediately brings to mind the possibility of "unconfirmed" sightings.

I can see that, especially since he went ahead and built the Batcave and Alfred mentions him not having been down there in a while. But when Bruce meets Gordon in the hospital, it seems pretty clear that since they "won" at the end of TDK, Batman disappeared and they haven't talked since then, which is a bit odd because the time gap is so large. But I don't think there's anything in the film to suggest he was Batman after TDK.

I think the issue is that they tried to do too many thing with the time jump. This movie feels like it takes place 2 years after TDK max. But they wanted the Dent act to be significant and they wanted to age Blake and also do the Howard Hughes Bruce and have TDK Returns vibe for the final film so his return feels much greater. It does most of these things pretty well but why would Bruce have a busted knee for 8 years and do nothing about it? Why would it take Alfred so long to say something to Bruce about Rachel? And no communication with Gordon for 8 years? It's just too long.

 

[BlueLightning]

Scarecrow becoming a drug dealer and Batman saying "Don't let me catch you out here again". Again is the keyword there, Batman never caught Scarecrow out there before.

I think that he referred to the copycat batmen though.

Who said anything about a montage? That's not hinting. That is outright showing.

That's how I imagined it, just my personal vision. Let's say that they hinted towards it. What happens? We never get to see those confrontations, and even if we imagined them, we would have been left wanting for more. Not exactly the right thing when making a closure.

Batman has as many "pasts" as Joker.

That's not true. The core elements of Batman's origin story are pretty set on stone. Whereas with the Joker is completely the opposite, which suits the character.

And hinting towards further characters would have been true to those characters and strengthened the notion of a universe based on Batman's mythology.

Perhaps, but how it would have strengthen the characters? What would bringing them to the table serve?

What defines characters?

I'm not quite sure what you are referring here. But for one thing, some characters needs development. Some villians aren't fit for Nolan's vision of Gotham. This is just my opinion of course but the top guys he left unused where the Riddler, the Penguin and Hugo Strange. They easily could be done, but the only one who can bring something to the series would be perhaps Strange. The Riddler would offer a fun romp, but like I said before the feeling would be similar to TDK in the sense of "episodicness". With the Penguin, they would have to make him a mob boss of sorts, but we already saw that. The other ones like Black Mask, Firefly, Deadshot, and my personal favorite the Ventriloquist, don't seem particularly fit for a movie treatment. Most of the rest of the rogues are a little more sci-fi oriented.

So perhaps Nolan's Batworld is limited in this regard, but you could see why they opted to go this route,

I'm not asking for more films. I said let the audience use their imagination. Hint towards it, and let the audience imagine what happened. Then it is the best for everyone.

But it is really necessary? For the story that they told, I don't think it would have been necessary.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

I think that he referred to the copycat batmen though.

But if he wasn't. Then it was Scarecrow, which means there were intermediary clashes.

That's how I imagined it, just my personal vision. Let's say that they hinted towards it. What happens? We never get to see those confrontations, and even if we imagined them, we would have been left wanting for more. Not exactly the right thing when making a closure.

Only as much as the time between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight was, it would suggest Bruce had a near full career as Batman. But hinting towards a brand new Batman isn't blowing the balloon up?

That's not true. The core elements of Batman's origin story are pretty set on stone. Whereas with the Joker is completely the opposite, which suits the character.

Joker has almost always gone through a tragic occurrence in his past which fractures his psyche. Bruce has sometimes had both parents shot, sometimes he was raised by Uncle Philip Wayne for a while, he's sometimes had a brother. Also, I never said "origin" I said "past" which opens up even more pathways.

Perhaps, but how it would have strengthen the characters? What would bringing them to the table serve?

But you wouldn't bring them to the table. You'd hint to them. What did Zsasz in Batman Begins serve that couldn't be filled with any other random crazy Arkham inmate? The purpose is to develop Bruce, not them.

I'm not quite sure what you are referring here. But for one thing, some characters needs development. Some villians aren't fit for Nolan's vision of Gotham. This is just my opinion of course but the top guys he left unused where the Riddler, the Penguin and Hugo Strange. They easily could be done, but the only one who can bring something to the series would be perhaps Strange. The Riddler would offer a fun romp, but like I said before the feeling would be similar to TDK in the sense of "episodicness". With the Penguin, they would have to make him a mob boss of sorts, but we already saw that. The other ones like Black Mask, Firefly, Deadshot, and my personal favorite the Ventriloquist, don't seem particularly fit for a movie treatment. Most of the rest of the rogues are a little more sci-fi oriented.

You clearly aren't reading at all now. I never said do a film based around any of these characters. I'm not even saying to show the characters. I'm saying hint towards them. Hint. Suggest they could exist.

So perhaps Nolan's Batworld is limited in this regard, but you could see why they opted to go this route/

I see a reason. Not one good enough for me though. Like you said, it's limited.

But it is really necessary? For the story that they told, I don't think it would have been necessary.

Was it necessary to use Talia Al Ghul in the film? No. Bane? No. 8 year gap? No. But there they all were.