The Dark Knight Rises In hindsight what changes would you do - Part 1

[BatLobster]

The Dark Knight's ending isn't about a sacrifice that somehow makes the city 100% better and cured of disease and peace time. It's about Batman taking on a different meaning to not tarnish Dent's name and give the city some hope.

Nope, it's not. But in these movies, actions have consequences. The Dent coverup was a big, game-changing decision. It made sense for it to have huge consequences when you're dealing with a sequel.

Just like how Batman's emergence had consequences in TDK. The only reason we expected that is because BB has an epilogue telling us blatantly where the next movie will go. TDK didn't have that kind of ending.

 

[milost]

Gotham being thrust into panic because of the Joker, being forced to choose between loved ones and strangers, attempting to kill Reese, etc, is not the same as people being inspired by the Joker or convinced of his philosophy. It's them being victims of the Joker.

no one was shown to be inspired by the Joker in TDK, or made insane, other than Dent. The citizens wanting to kill Reese, and blow each other up was just highlighting what the Joker already believed (aka what they would have always done, regardless of any 'inspiration').

The only reason Dent went off the edge is because the Joker went after him specifically, killing his girlfriend, toying with him, coming to him personally, etc.

So you're basically saying that everyone in the city was afraid of the Joker and couldn't wait to see him go? Nobody would get bent out of shape and turn into freaks being threatened? Some crazy out there wouldn't dig all of the Joker's broadcasts and speeches? Some Gothammites wouldn't buy his ideals and philosophies?


We got copy cat Batmen pretty quick. Pretty much just a year into Batman's career. What's stopping the other side of the coin copy catting the Joker? Just because Dent didn't? That's stupid.

How about all his goons, most of which were from Arkham? Do they just disappear too like the Joker?

I just don't see how the city not finding out about "Two-Face" equates to good things, peace time and Harvey Dent days. Remember when the Joker's plan was to simply kill off Batman and Dent? What would have happened then? What if the Joker killed Batman off in the Tumbler, then caught up with the Joker and killed him?

The city is still good?


And like I said, some people should have been unhinged by the idea of Batman killing Dent and cops. We saw them "taking matters" into their own hands before. If they cared that much, what would stop them from snapping too?

 

[milost]

Nope, it's not. But in these movies, actions have consequences. The Dent coverup was a big, game-changing decision. It made sense for it to have huge consequences when you're dealing with a sequel.

Just like how Batman's emergence had consequences in TDK. The only reason we expected that is because BB has an epilogue telling us blatantly where the next movie will go. TDK didn't have that kind of ending.

Yeah, and that's the debate at hand.


"Would that be the true consequence in The Dark Knight's world".


Some people think so, some don't.



Let's also remember, the ending of the Dark Knight doesn't really insinuate that everything is going to get better somehow or that Batman is going to go away. It seemed like a small, personal victory that other people aren't going to know about. Plus, with things like "he can take it" (he doesn't, not well anyway), "they'll hunt me" (not really, unless you count a chase by Foley and his men 8 years later), "condemn me" (never saw a man hunt on Batman or even people, other than the mayor, think that Batman had to be brought down), it does make the events of TDKR seem like a contradiction to what happened before.

He's not a silent guardian or a watchful protector. He's riding home to lick his wounds for 8 years in a world that doesn't need or really seem to care about whether he's still out there or not.

 

[BatLobster]

I don't think anything worse or even approaching the level of The Joker would have emerged. Nothing that a Gordon-run GCPD couldn't handle. Unlike the previous movies, Gotham now has a very competent police commissioner and the only thing holding him back was internal corruption, which is no longer a problem in new Gotham.

I hate the idea of Batman insisting his presence upon a city that doesn't need him and where he might just be disrupting things by showing up. At least for this particular version of the character.

 

[milost]

Well you can write anything really. I never thought there'd be the threat of a NUCLEAR BOMB after the Joker either. Certainly not one made by Bruce Wayne/Wayne Enterprises.


What's stopping another cunning wacko from trying to top what the Joker did. Escalation right?

Plus, sure Ledger couldn't return, but the Joker would just take the loss and sit idly by? He seemed to always have a plan up his sleeve. That was the Joker's style. He didn't have another plan the night the SWAT team members cut him down? How must he have felt when Batman took the blame and nobody found out what he did to Dent?

Unlike the previous movies, Gotham now has a very competent police commissioner and the only thing holding him back was internal corruption, which is no longer a problem in new Gotham.

Until the third entry where all the cops in the city are trapped for 5 long months because of a commissioner's bumbling incompetence.

I hate the idea of Batman insisting his presence upon a city that doesn't need him and where he might just be disrupting things by showing up. At least for this particular version of the character.

I hate the idea of "Harvey Dent Day" and the oh so convenient "Dent Act".

You're right though. It's true. HOWEVER, what about a city that wants Batman's HEAD for the murders he committed? If Dent was so damn important to everyone, why aren't the police and the people of Gotham knocking down people's doors for information on The Batman? They know he's human, hell, days prior a legitimate source said they knew who Batman was. No man hunt? They just gave up and didn't have any leads after chasing him away from where Dent died?

No investigations? Really? How about all those people with the "NO MORE DEAD COPS" mentality? They're just going to stand by when they find out the guy that was the cities protector just snaps and goes on a killing spree? Nobody in Gotham would want blood?



How about people that don't buy Gordon's lie? We never really see that? Yet, people in Gotham seem pretty cool with Batman's return (except Foley). We have cops that appear to believe in Batman and think he's one of the good guys. Huh? Where's the conflict and struggle?

 

[Shikamaru]

Well I think "the plan" can just refer to his mission as Batman and what he set out to accomplish in the first place. "The plan" was always for Batman not to be needed. So again, TDKR is exploring the idea of what if the plan worked? Where would that leave a damaged Bruce Wayne?

We already discussed this multiple times. Yes, Bruce's original plan was for Batman not to be needed and find a replacement. Yes, once that replacement is found, he was going to hook up with Rachel. But all that changes in TDK.

First, Rachel dies. Rachel was in many ways an obstacle in his way to fully embracing his Batman persona.

Second, the man he thought would be a replacement for the Batman - Harvey - turned out to easily be corrupted. That showed Bruce that there can be no true replacement for the Batman because at the end of the day, Harvey and every other good man was just a man as opposed to just "more than just a man" like Batman. The rise of the freaks - the higher class of criminal - also adds to this because it makes Bruce realize that only Batman can handle that higher class of criminal that has now been born in Gotham.

Basically, Bruce's original plan is to quit but his entire character arc in TDK is about coming to the realization that he has to be Batman forever. He can never have that happiness with Rachel he always wanted. This is his burden to carry and no one else's. His original plan to only be Batman temporarily was all a delusion, a delusion that broke by the end of the movie. Nolan himself even talks about this when he said in an early TDK interview that Bruce's original plan was to only be Batman temporarily but as he is about the learn, "it wouldn't be so easy".

TDK's message is in fact the exact opposite of TDKR's message. Not anyone can be Batman. Only Bruce can carry that burden and handle all of that. Some people always say that Nolan's Batman is no different than the average vigilante but I always disagreed with that. If anything, TDK shows exactly what separates Batman from any other vigilante and district attorney. BB does as well. BB tells you the difference while TDK shows you the difference.

We've discussed all of this before though so I won't go into further detail than that.

These things were all paid lip service to, but I never took these things as promises that Gotham was going to become overun by supervillains to the point where it became a near replica of the comic book world. Only that the criminals would respond. And they did respond by turning to The Joker. No higher class of criminal existed in TDK. Crane was a like a precursor to a TRUE freak like The Joker, and there were also the fake Batmen that showed how things had escalated in Gotham.

But The Joker himself was the embodiment of "freaks". He was the ultimate freak. Rather than having the entire rogues gallery rise from the madness of Gotham, he existed to personify it all. And why shouldn't he, he's Batman's greatest villain. You can't really escalate higher than The Joker in terms of freaks emerging from Gotham.

Yes, Joker was the ultimate freak but that doesn't mean he was the only freak nor does it mean that he was the first. He was just the biggest of them all. Not every freak has to be on the same level as the Joker; just on the same larger-than-life level that both Batman and the Joker have crossed. Scarecrow was a freak as well, without a doubt.

He talks about people losing their minds because of all the damage HE was causing the city, like making civilians try to kill Reese. When Joker talks about giving the city a better class of criminal, I always thought that he was talking about himself.

I disagree. The Joker wanted to spread as much madness as possible. That's what he was all about. I think he saw the irony in a city relying on a masked avenger in a cape to save to uphold justice and wanted to exploit that by plunging the city into chaos. And while he didn't have a plan to create a surge of freak criminals, he did send out Gotham's D.A. on a killing spree. He just wanted chaos. He wanted Gotham to know that "a murdering psycho could be anyone".[/QUOTE]

Yes, the Joker did want to spread as much chaos and madness as possible. However, I'm talking about the scenes where he specifically talks about the rise of the freaks. He doesn't sound like he is talking about a plan. He sounds like he made a prediction/came to a conclusion drawn from what he analyzed was happening around him. Those scenes always sounded, at least to me, that he wasn't talking about some plan he had but the actual thing that was happening because of Batman. Him wanting to spread madness and chaos was an entire thing altogether. The was his main shtick while his belief in the rise of the freaks was something that he was born out of since Batman gave spark to it, making Batman responsible for him being around doing the things he does to begin with. Also, people started losing their minds before he even showed up i.e. Crane's descent into insanity, the Arkham breakout, Gordon alluding to not just the Joker at the end of BB, etc. Things also first started to escalate with the release of the fear gas into the air. People have started losing their minds before the Joker made his debut, or at least before he made his first major debut.

And as far as the pre-TDK escalation, I do not count Scarecrow as a true full-on freak. He's a blip on the radar compared to The Joker. I see him as the guy who was bridging the gap between common thug and freak. Remember, he didn't actually think the LOS wanted to kill everyone, he thought they were just holding the city to ransom. He was a bit deranged, and enjoyed exploiting the fears of others, but ultimately he didn't have a dedication to a "cause"...he was driven by the same base greed of the common mobsters in Gotham. As far as the escaped Arkham inmates, many of them were employed by The Joker. If any of them had original ideas about becoming a supervillain of their own, TDK would have been the opportune time to step up.

If you want to get technical, every Batman villain is a blip on the radar compared to the Joker. He is the ultimate freak but that doesn't mean he is the only freak, let alone the first.

Scarecrow was a freak. The main 2 characteristics a freak has in the Batman mythos is having some sort of insanity and being much larger-than-life & operating on a far bigger scale than the mob. Scarecrow was just that. Someone like Black Mask and Penguin would still count as "freaks" even though they're part of the mob. Crane descended into insanity after he was hit by his own fear gas and as Joker already said, he was making a name for himself going around the underworld wearing the Scarecrow mask, having his own gang, and poisoning the underworld with his fear toxin.

The Arkham inmates would count as freaks but not every single one of them would become major freaks i.e. Joker, Riddler, Mad Hatter, and the rest. There are both major and minor freaks. Also, not all the freaks in BB and TDK come from Arkham either hence the references to how Gotham citizens are losing their minds and the references to the freak thing being something born with Batman as opposed to something locked up in Arkham for decades.

Probably because they felt they had said all they needed to say about the "escalation" angle, and wanted to have the story turn a corner so they could arrive at their ending.

From the way the entire escalation theme was set up and introduced, there was no way to just drop it much like how there was no way you could drop the theme of fear since it was so ingrained into this franchise. From the start of this franchise up until the end of TDK, one of the things both the first 2 movies have consistently been about was the relationship between fear and insanity. Rises had fear but forgot all about insanity.

As for them wanting to turn have the story turn a corner so that they could end it, this is another discussion we've had before. As I said in one of my older posts, I believe that Nolan had to contrive a story despite everything in BB and TDK pointing to Bruce being Batman for a long time just so that he could say he is done and doesn't want to do any more Batman movies. As I argued before, the first 2 films do not look like they're building into a trilogy at all. It isn't a proper 3-act trilogy like how Star Wars and LOTR are. The first 2 are independent stories that look like the first 2 films in an ongoing continuity when put together. I'm not saying I wanted this franchise to continue after Nolan left; just that TDKR being "the epic conclusion to this epic trilogy!" as opposed to just the third movie in this franchise like how BB and TDK were the first and second films in this franchise respectively felt really forced to me. We've had this discussion before though so we should stay on the topic of the "freaks".

I think you can read between the lines of what Nolan said to mean "this is as close as we're getting" to the fully formed Batman of the comics. You can approximate 70 years worth of adventures and knowledge in a movie, you can't actually approach that, especially when you're trying to tell a 3 part story that starts at the very beginning. He was the Batman of the comics in the same sense that Spider-Man was the Spider-Man of the comics in Spider-Man 2.

Nolan also said this was still the "young Batman" when TDK came out. Plus, I don't understand how Batman at the start of TDK can be as close as you get to the Batman of the comics when Batman is still growing throughout TDK and has an even bigger leap in growth towards the end of the third act. The realism also plays a factor into this. Realistically speaking, one cannot be the fully formed Batman of the comics if he is still in his first year. One would still have much room for growth. Heck, the Batman of the comics was not the Batman of the comics we are thinking of in his first year. lol

I hate to say this, but that is conjecture. How do we know Bruce is more motivated than ever? Again, if he was so motivated to be Batman forever he should have said, "The Joker cannot win. Harvey's case may be destroyed, but we can STILL take Gotham back. I will not let the scum run the streets again on my watch. I'll be the symbol Gotham needs AND deserves to keep hope alive. BECAUSE I AM THE GODDAMN BATMAN."
*credits*

The whole point is, TDK's ending did not allow us to emotionally check in with Bruce. It was focused on a choice he was making as Batman, trying to make the best out of a crappy situation. We are not privy to Bruce's internal emotions about this, or how he plans to proceed with his life.

Despite the popular belief, not everything in Nolan's films is spelled out to the audience. I came to that conclusion though by analyzing that happens throughout the movie, as well as by analyzing certain things in Begins.

Does it though? This is just where fundamental differences of opinions are taking over. To me, using a sonar machine to track down The Joker, taking out an entire SWAT team while they're going after the wrong people and saving all the hostages, and then capturing The Joker, all while placing complete trust in the citizens of Gotham not to kill one another was totally peak Batman kinda stuff. I didn't watch these movies in hopes of seeing the comics, cartoons or video games replicated. It was a decidedly more grounded take, so Batman at his peak is inevitably going to be more subdued. It wasn't like I walked out of TDK thinking, "Man I can't wait to see how much more of a badass Batman becomes!" To me, he already was at legendary status. Just like Keaton's Batman in 89. How long had he been Batman before the start of the movie? Certainly less than a year I would say. But by the end of that movie he still feels like 'the' Batman. Bale's Batman felt like "the" Batman at the end of TDK. Not just because of his sacrifice, but because of everything he had done and dealt with in the movie. For me, it was never a question of wanting to see him become "more" Batman-like from that point, only a question of how he would be redeemed in the eyes of Gotham.

I felt that Batman was the Batman we all know and love by the end of TDK. However, when I say that, I am just talking about his mentality. He has the same mentality as the Batman we all know and love by the end of the film. In terms of his abilities, he still isn't fully there though but the mentality is mainly what counts.

There are things throughout BB and TDK that push Batman closer and closer to becoming the Batman we know but it is mainly events in the story that push him that push him closer to that on top of the time. However, since he finally gains the mentality of THE Batman towards the end of TDK, no more events occurring in the story (i.e. Rachel's death) are needed to push him towards becoming Batman we all know. By the end of TDK, literally the only thing that would keep him away from being THE Batman is time. Once enough time passes (and it shouldn't take years), he would pretty much be THE Batman. Problem in TDKR is that time passed Bruce wasn't out there being Batman in order to become THE Batman.

 

[Shikamaru]

I don't think anything worse or even approaching the level of The Joker would have emerged. Nothing that a Gordon-run GCPD couldn't handle. Unlike the previous movies, Gotham now has a very competent police commissioner and the only thing holding him back was internal corruption, which is no longer a problem in new Gotham.

The mob was pretty much left open for all the freaks to come in. The Joker took over all the mobs at the end of TDK. His arrest made the underworld an open game.

 

[BatLobster]

Well you can write anything really. I never thought there'd be the threat of a NUCLEAR BOMB after the Joker either. Certainly not one made by Bruce Wayne/Wayne Enterprises.


What's stopping another cunning wacko from trying to top what the Joker did. Escalation right?

And I'm saying The Joker was positioned to represent the pinnacle of escalation within Gotham. Given his status in the mythology, it's a fitting role for him in a more stripped down Bat-universe. That's why I felt the return of the LOS/a threat outside of Gotham was the best possible way to raise the stakes without undermining Joker's role as the ultimate freak response to Batman.

It's not that they couldn't have written it. I'm just saying that I personally wouldn't have wanted to see Joker dethroned as the top freak in Gotham, so I'm glad his legacy was left intact, and his overall archetype in the story left to him alone. That's why I don't mind there being a period of calm after/before the storm after Joker's rampage in Gotham. The night is darkest before the dawn, etc.

I don't even want to get into the debate of what happened to The Joker. There's a lot of possibilities. Maybe Batman taking the blame and disappearing sent him into a near catatonic depression ala DKReturns. Maybe he was executed as a federal criminal. It's left a complete mystery.

Until the third entry where all the cops in the city are trapped for 5 long months because of a commissioner's bumbling incompetence.

Lol, I knew that was coming, but even still- chalk it up to too much morphine, plus he was dealing with an entire underground army was out of his league. That's the kind of stuff he needed Batman for.

I hate the idea of "Harvey Dent Day" and the oh so convenient "Dent Act".

You're right though. It's true. HOWEVER, what about a city that wants Batman's HEAD for the murders he committed? If Dent was so damn important to everyone, why aren't the police and the people of Gotham knocking down people's doors for information on The Batman? They know he's human, hell, days prior a legitimate source said they knew who Batman was. No man hunt? They just gave up and didn't have any leads after chasing him away from where Dent died?

No investigations? Really? How about all those people with the "NO MORE DEAD COPS" mentality? They're just going to stand by when they find out the guy that was the cities protector just snaps and goes on a killing spree? Nobody in Gotham would want blood?



How about people that don't buy Gordon's lie? We never really see that? Yet, people in Gotham seem pretty cool with Batman's return (except Foley). We have cops that appear to believe in Batman and think he's one of the good guys. Huh? Where's the conflict and struggle?

You're assuming a lot there. One of the complaints about TDKR is that Gotham didn't have as much of a voice. We don't know what the city's response to Batman's return is really. We see that the mayor is still vilifying him in his speeches. Yet, we also see that some of the younger generation are aware of his legend and still view his symbol positively.

Things are never so black and white. Maybe that cop didn't hate Batman because a lot of cops didn't like Dent due to how he earned his rep in IA. Foley on the other hand, seemed more like a political player.

And as far as investigations, how do we know there weren't any? 8 years passed. A lot could have happened. Those investigations obviously have to hit dead ends at some point. Maybe Gordon assigned a task force out of the remaining MCU people that he could trust and just had them spin their wheels. I realize I'm just throwing conjecture out there, but it's intentional. The movie just shifted its focus to tell a new story. It doesn't mean that nothing happened in 8 years.

 

[Shikamaru]

I want to answer this first:

We never saw a very amateur Batman to even begin with. You mentioned this in the Arkham Origins thread, but I still don't get how you think we got a 'Year One' Batman when Bruce seemed like a pro from the very beginning of it. We got this capable Batman from the beginning who then just became better during TDK's events. He never felt inexperienced at all except for his first confrontation with Scarecrow.

Yes, in TDKR, he lost his touch, but this is natural for the route of not making Bruce this Bat-god character unlike The Dark Knight Returns. Bruce waits for something to go wrong in Gotham again, but he becomes egotistical and underestimates Bane from the beginning.

Being inexperienced does not automatically equate to making mistakes. A young inexperienced Batman is still very larger-than-life and capable of being Gotham's protector as well as of being far capable than the GCPD. A young inexperienced Batman simply means he hasn't shown his true potential yet. Sure that Bruce seems like a pro from the beginning but he would technically become an even bigger pro as time passes by and he gains experience.

Other than the fact that Bruce's abilities continue to develop throughout the first 2 films, the main thing I base the "Young Batman" thing on is how Bruce grows as a person throughout the first two films. It isn't just that his skills in general improve; he grows as a character and gets more into the proper Batman mentality as the story progresses. It is not just his abilities but also the choices he makes and the mindset he is in that parallels those of the Year One Batman.

But now with everything else, I can easily see how TDKR works from BB and TDK. You don't, and that's your opinion, but I simply do. In Batman Begins, Bruce is wanting to create something everlasting, and a hope for Gotham City and he unwisely thinks Dent could bring this hope to Gotham without continuing this Batman legacy, but the face of Gotham was Batman all along(as given with Gotham building a statue at the end of TDKR). Bruce was wanting to move on with this once it's done in the first place, but the woman he wanted to move on with died, and that kept Bruce from moving on when he should have when the Dent Act started. Instead he waits for when Batman is needed again and is actually doing the smart thing by not going out just whenever and wasting the GCPD's time.

Now you say, a "rise of freaks" should have happened, but I don't see that as clear as you do. I see one freak, Joker, trying to create another and cause a stir with Gotham's soul, but Joker's "protege" is kept a secret, thus no "rise of freaks" as Gotham's soul is left intact. Joker is sent to Arkham Asylum and Dent is favored as a saint to Gotham City.

Fair enough. I respect your opinion. I don't want to force my views on anyone and I hope that I don't sound like I am either. If I do sound like that though, I deeply apologize to everyone here.

 

[Schrute]

A relatable tale of a man dressed in a costume to take down an element of criminality and only that(the mobs)...I think a year is plenty enough.

See what I don't like about this is that it was Joe Chill, a regular criminal, who killed his parents and not the mob. In BB he says he wants to show the people of Gotham that their city no longer belongs to the criminals and the corrupt. He starts with the mob in that 1 year time frame and then just...quits? After Harvey and Rachel were betrayed by corrupt cops also? And then we are told that there are still criminals even though organized crime is done?

It just seems weird that his goal then was to only stop the mob when clearly there is still crime in Gotham without the mob

 

[Schrute]

And I agree with Shikamaru. In BB and TDK Bruce wants an end to Batman, but the death of Rachel and corruption of Harvey kind of sealed the deal that he would always have to be Batman b/c no one else can. Hell, you'd think after the death of Rachel it would drive him even further into the monster he created.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Crane wasn't insane, was he?. The mask he uses was simply a weapon.

Would a sane doctor start wearing a burlap sack to scramble with the minds of his patients? I would say that yes, Crane was definitely insane. But that doesn't mean only insane people are "freaks" in the world of Gotham City. While Zsaz wasn't insane, I would still consider him to be a freak as he was a butcher for the mob. Only a "freak" would enjoy their job as a human butcher.

There was definitely a rise of the freaks message in TDK. Starting at the end of Begins when Gordon said Batman's presence is going to cause escalation and then presenting him with the Joker card.

Zsasz was not proper freak. Zsasz was just a hired killer for the mob. He didn't dress outlandishly, or look like a freak, and Rachel even argued he wasn't insane and said he deserves to be in prison not Arkham. Zsasz in the comic is nuts and belongs in a straightjacket.

Crane was. After Batman Begins he was going around the underworld wearing the Scarecrow mask and poisoning the underworld with his fear toxin. He was making a name for himself. He had his own gang. Another rise of a freak.

When Joker said he was bringing Gotham a better class of criminal, of course he meant himself but not just himself. He wanted to turn Gotham on it's head and make everyone like him. Drag out that inner ugliness he believed was inside all of them. That includes the underworld. Why else did he want the Chechen's men working for him? They'd all be following his example.

Joker equated himself to being like Batman. A freak. He expected to Gotham to turn that way, too. Hence why he said he and Batman could share a padded cell because they would be doubling up at the rate Gotham's inhabitants will start losing their minds, just like Dent did. Another freak.

TDK was the changing point in Gotham. Rise of the freaks. I was expecting Joker's reign of terror to have inspired more freaks like Batman inspired the Joker and the copycats. I didn't expect Batman to be done when Dent died, and Gotham was magically eradicated of all crime.

That is the antithesis of the message TDK and it's ending sent.

As much as I view that a rise of freaks wouldn't be followed after TDK's events being just opinion, I feel it's just an opinion as well to think a rise of freaks could have followed TDK's events. There is just as much to say there would as much as there is to say there wouldn't. The truth about Dent is kept a secret and for that, Joker's plan of stirring the pot of Gotham's soul is intervened.

And I'd say after the terror the Joker caused, especially with most of his hired help being Arkham patients, Gotham would be more inspired by the Joker than Batman (and the response to Batman was pretty damn extreme).

Most of his help? It was only two Arkham patients, weren't there?

Being inexperienced does not automatically equate to making mistakes. A young inexperienced Batman is still very larger-than-life and capable of being Gotham's protector as well as of being far capable than the GCPD. A young inexperienced Batman simply means he hasn't shown his true potential yet. Sure that Bruce seems like a pro from the beginning but he would technically become an even bigger pro as time passes by and he gains experience.

Other than the fact that Bruce's abilities continue to develop throughout the first 2 films, the main thing I base the "Young Batman" thing on is how Bruce grows as a person throughout the first two films. It isn't just that his skills in general improve; he grows as a character and gets more into the proper Batman mentality as the story progresses. It is not just his abilities but also the choices he makes and the mindset he is in that parallels those of the Year One Batman.

Inexperience should mean mistakes. Even in Mask of the Phantasm, we see a Batman making mistakes and growing into the phenomenon he is today, and we don't see that in Batman Begins, the real Year One story of the trilogy, but instead he's already this manifestation and that's why it felt like BB and TDK both showed this experienced, fully capable Batman. Even BB doesn't show the conventional look of Batman just starting out.

Fair enough. I respect your opinion. I don't want to force my views on anyone and I hope that I don't sound like I am either. If I do sound like that though, I deeply apologize to everyone here.

Nothing of the sort. Batman fans are proud of their characters and I understand why many are so strong on how they feel

See what I don't like about this is that it was Joe Chill, a regular criminal, who killed his parents and not the mob. In BB he says he wants to show the people of Gotham that their city no longer belongs to the criminals and the corrupt. He starts with the mob in that 1 year time frame and then just...quits? After Harvey and Rachel were betrayed by corrupt cops also? And then we are told that there are still criminals even though organized crime is done?

It just seems weird that his goal then was to only stop the mob when clearly there is still crime in Gotham without the mob

Rachel Dawes said that organized crime, guys like Carmine Falcone, are the reason why there are guys like Joe Chill. That's the root of the problem with Gotham City hailing back at BB and that's Bruce's goal.

And I agree with Shikamaru. In BB and TDK Bruce wants an end to Batman, but the death of Rachel and corruption of Harvey kind of sealed the deal that he would always have to be Batman b/c no one else can. Hell, you'd think after the death of Rachel it would drive him even further into the monster he created.

It drove him differently. It drove him into becoming this sulking Bruce Wayne that never moved on because there was only one woman he loved and he waits until the day Gotham City needs help. But the point of TDKR was that Bruce had to move on, because not doing such was wrecking him.

 

[BatLobster]

Honestly, I understand why some people might have expected a rise of the freaks angle explored in the third film. Heck, in the early days of speculation I myself theorized the possibility of there being no one main villain and it was just a Gotham overrun with freaks.

But I think Nolan hit the nail on the head when he said that in order for ending of TDK to have meaning, the plan has to work to a degree and Gotham has to get better. If Gotham doesn't improve in the aftermath of the coverup, it would feel like Batman sacrificed his reputation for nothing. He gives the city a martyr to look up to, yet it's plunged further into hell while the GCPD is perpetually hunting and never catching the one guy who might be able to clean it up? Thematically I think that would have be too muddled and confused. I always wondered how they would justify the coverup in the third film and show that Gotham is better off with a dead white knight. The Dent Act and Harvey Dent Day answered those questions for me.

It's just interesting how some feel the direction of TDKR flies in the face of the ending of TDK, while others feel the direction of TDKR was the perfect way to protect the integrity of TDK's ending. Because as we can all agree, for as much as we're speculating about where the third film could have gone...TDK's ending in and of itself was a satisfying ending. It could have ended there. For some of you, it's best to think it ended there.

But what Nolan did was, rather than make just "another chapter", he allowed that ending to stick, made time pass, and then told a story that deconstructed it. I think it was a bold move, but I can understand how it wasn't everyone's cup of tea. But for me, it was dead on because it didn't contradict the feeling of closure you get at the end of TDK. The story did kind of end for a while...until a new/old evil rises.

 

[Schrute]

Rachel Dawes said that organized crime, guys like Carmine Falcone, are the reason why there are guys like Joe Chill. That's the root of the problem with Gotham City hailing back at BB and that's Bruce's goal.



It drove him differently. It drove him into becoming this sulking Bruce Wayne that never moved on because there was only one woman he loved and he waits until the day Gotham City needs help. But the point of TDKR was that Bruce had to move on, because not doing such was wrecking him.

Bruce never really said in BB or TDK that his main mission was to stop the mob though right?, he said "to show the people of Gotham their city no longer belongs to the criminals and the corrupt". The starting point, or main priority, was of course the mob. The mob could have created Joe Chill, but it doesn't create all crime which is exactly what TDKR tells us (no city is without crime, but we are without organized crime).

Harvey also tells us that Bruce doesn't want to be Batman forever but then what happens..the woman he loves is killed, his citizens are shooting at each other, and the person he was going to leave Gotham to becomes corrupt and a murderer, leaving Batman "truly incorruptible".

The ending of TDK is so fantastic and heroic b/c it tells us that even after everything, Batman will still fight for the people of Gotham even though he will be hated and hunted because "he can take it", b/c he is The Dark Knight.

....but actually he doesn't keep fighting for Gotham, he really quits that night and sits on his ass while crime still goes on in Gotham.

I don't really think the mob was his main goal. I think he and Gordon wanted to obviously stop any crime in Gotham, starting with the mob.

And as for Bruce waiting for the day GC would need help, well the Mayor does say that the city still has crime, so why didn't he help then?

I dont know, it just seemed like BB and TDK were moving the story in one direction, but then TDKR took it somewhere else for me, oh well still not a bad flick.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

So you're basically saying that everyone in the city was afraid of the Joker and couldn't wait to see him go? Nobody would get bent out of shape and turn into freaks being threatened? Some crazy out there wouldn't dig all of the Joker's broadcasts and speeches? Some Gothammites wouldn't buy his ideals and philosophies?

We got copy cat Batmen pretty quick. Pretty much just a year into Batman's career. What's stopping the other side of the coin copy catting the Joker? Just because Dent didn't? That's stupid.

so is that what you expected for the sequel? Joker impersonators, etc? if there weren't joker impersonators in the sequel, it's somehow illogical and going against the trajectory of the story?

I would agree if the story felt like it was suggesting that the Joker was going to inspire people. But I never got that from TDK.

BB had that bit about "and you're wearing a mask, jumping off rooftops" suggesting that Batman is inspiring the Joker. There's nothing in TDK to suggest that the Joker is inspiring others; or at least, not to the point where we would expect to see Joker-inspired 'freaks' in the sequel and call it out if there weren't.

This is the way I always saw it anyways. Just my views.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Bruce never really said in BB or TDK that his main mission was to stop the mob though right?, he said "to show the people of Gotham their city no longer belongs to the criminals and the corrupt". The starting point, or main priority, was of course the mob. The mob could have created Joe Chill, but it doesn't create all crime which is exactly what TDKR tells us (no city is without crime, but we are without organized crime).

Harvey also tells us that Bruce doesn't want to be Batman forever but then what happens..the woman he loves is killed, his citizens are shooting at each other, and the person he was going to leave Gotham to becomes corrupt and a murderer, leaving Batman "truly incorruptible".

The ending of TDK is so fantastic and heroic b/c it tells us that even after everything, Batman will still fight for the people of Gotham even though he will be hated and hunted because "he can take it", b/c he is The Dark Knight.

....but actually he doesn't keep fighting for Gotham, he really quits that night and sits on his ass while crime still goes on in Gotham.

I don't really think the mob was his main goal. I think he and Gordon wanted to obviously stop any crime in Gotham, starting with the mob.

And as for Bruce waiting for the day GC would need help, well the Mayor does say that the city still has crime, so why didn't he help then?

I dont know, it just seemed like BB and TDK were moving the story in one direction, but then TDKR took it somewhere else for me, oh well still not a bad flick.

Blake also said that Gordon and Dent(being the Dent Act) cleaned Gotham up so well that they will soon have to go after overdue library books. The essential idea is that yes, the mobs carry most of the weight when it comes to criminal activity and that idea is why there are people living under the sewers and how Bane quickly formed alliances besides his men and before he even stormed Blackgate and freed the inmates.

 

[RAINMAKER]

When Joker talks about giving the city a better class of criminal, I always thought that he was talking about himself.

I believe he was. He then says, "...and I'm going to give it to 'em". Great line and scene with the fire in the background. That was the "rise" of the Joker. He's the "Boss" now.

Crane descended into insanity after he was hit by his own fear gas and as Joker already said, he was making a name for himself going around the underworld wearing the Scarecrow mask, having his own gang, and poisoning the underworld with his fear toxin.

Remember how nuts he was when Gordon was talking to him in Arkham? Then in TDK and TDKR, he seemed normal?

And as for the Joker talking about Crane, when did he say that?

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Pretty sure he means the poster here who uses the title "The Joker".

 

[JackWhite]

So I'm currently reading the script for TDKR, and I never knew about this particular line being cut out.

ALFRED
That was then. And you can strap up
your leg and put the mask back on.
But it won’t make you what you
were.

WAYNE
Which was?

ALFRED
Someone whose anger at death made
him value all life. Even his own.

Even though that line didn't make the film, that is still an extremely powerful line of dialogue.

 

[Shikamaru]

I believe he was. He then says, "...and I'm going to give it to 'em". Great line and scene with the fire in the background. That was the "rise" of the Joker. He's the "Boss" now.

I don't think I ever said that line that you're quoting.

Yes, Joker was talking about himself in that scene but I'm talking about whenever he is talking about freaks in general or is alluding to the rise of the freaks.

Remember how nuts he was when Gordon was talking to him in Arkham? Then in TDK and TDKR, he seemed normal?

And as for the Joker talking about Crane, when did he say that?

Yes, I remembered. But he didn't fully seem normal in TDK and TDKR.

I was talking about the user on these boards called The Joker, not about the actual Joker.

 

[BatLobster]

I don't think I ever said that line that you're quoting.

Yes, Joker was talking about himself in that scene but I'm talking about whenever he is talking about freaks in general or is alluding to the rise of the freaks.

Haha, yeah that was me who said that. Guess he accidentally quoted you for it.

 

[Shikamaru]

Inexperience should mean mistakes. Even in Mask of the Phantasm, we see a Batman making mistakes and growing into the phenomenon he is today, and we don't see that in Batman Begins, the real Year One story of the trilogy, but instead he's already this manifestation and that's why it felt like BB and TDK both showed this experienced, fully capable Batman. Even BB doesn't show the conventional look of Batman just starting out.

Actually, inexperience means both. Bruce is not experienced enough mentally throughout BB and TDK constantly grows into being more and more like the Batman we know mentally. Also, he still screws up in many moments in BB and TDK. He fails to save his home from being burned down, gets knocked unconscious by the Joker, etc. His skills also double/triple in that sonar scene at the end. You see the growth of Batman physically, mentally, and emotionally throughout the first 2 films. Or at least I see it.

Nothing of the sort. Batman fans are proud of their characters and I understand why many are so strong on how they feel

We hate because we love t:.

 

[JackWhite]

lol, when did Batman get KO'd by the Joker Shikamaru?

 

[Shikamaru]

Honestly, I understand why some people might have expected a rise of the freaks angle explored in the third film. Heck, in the early days of speculation I myself theorized the possibility of there being no one main villain and it was just a Gotham overrun with freaks.

But I think Nolan hit the nail on the head when he said that in order for ending of TDK to have meaning, the plan has to work to a degree and Gotham has to get better. If Gotham doesn't improve in the aftermath of the coverup, it would feel like Batman sacrificed his reputation for nothing. He gives the city a martyr to look up to, yet it's plunged further into hell while the GCPD is perpetually hunting and never catching the one guy who might be able to clean it up? Thematically I think that would have be too muddled and confused. I always wondered how they would justify the coverup in the third film and show that Gotham is better off with a dead white knight. The Dent Act and Harvey Dent Day answered those questions for me.

It's just interesting how some feel the direction of TDKR flies in the face of the ending of TDK, while others feel the direction of TDKR was the perfect way to protect the integrity of TDK's ending. Because as we can all agree, for as much as we're speculating about where the third film could have gone...TDK's ending in and of itself was a satisfying ending. It could have ended there. For some of you, it's best to think it ended there.

But what Nolan did was, rather than make just "another chapter", he allowed that ending to stick, made time pass, and then told a story that deconstructed it. I think it was a bold move, but I can understand how it wasn't everyone's cup of tea. But for me, it was dead on because it didn't contradict the feeling of closure you get at the end of TDK. The story did kind of end for a while...until a new/old evil rises.

Sir, I want to congratulate you on the excellence of this post . You are right about TDK's ending. I remember saying when the film first came out that even if there was no sequel, I wouldn't mind due to the epic ending.

Regarding Batman's sacrifice being for nothing, first of all, I don't think the alternative with the Dent Act that just wipes out organized crime made any more sense than what you fear would've happened especially since not only is the act, in my opinion, a complete deus ex machina act that makes no sense but also because they had to drop an entire theme developed and set up in the first two movies due to it which is not how good and consistent storytelling works. Second, I don't think Batman would sacrifice his reputation for nothing. Dent gave the city hope to fight off against the crime that was poisoning their city for decades. They no longer needed Batman for that but Batman would still operate in the shadows taking out the rest of the freaks before they would rise to accomplish something as big as what the Joker accomplished. Gotham's citizens wouldn't be aware of this, of course. I trust overall that Nolan would've found a way to make it work even if he said he couldn't, because I believe that Nolan's heart was not in this movie and that he did not give it his best. I think this is mainly due to Heath's death. I'm not talking mainly from a story point of view but from an emotional point of view. Someone from WB/the production crew (can't remember which) has said that Heath's death had such an impact on Nolan that he was surprised Nolan even came back for a third film.

One thing that really bugs me about TDKR is the wasted potential I believe it had. I'll admit that it is superior to the other 3rd comic book movies - Spider-Man 3, X-Men 3, Superman 3, etc. - but at the same time, it is also a far bigger dissapointment than them due to the sheer amount of wasted potential IMO. Given all the things set up in BB & TDK and the foundations TDKR had to build upon, it had the potential to be so much better than what we got IMO. Whenever I bring this up though, a lot of people just dismiss me by saying that I expected it to be just as good as TDK and that I dislike it because it's not. I find that to be an incredibly stupid claim and just a way to dismiss criticism not only because I stated many times that TDKR didn't need to be on TDK's level to still be a great film but also because I stated many times that I don't even find TDKR to be on BB's level.

 

[Shikamaru]

lol, when did Batman get KO'd by the Joker Shikamaru?

When he fell off the Batpod. It was right before the reveal that Gordon was alive.