The Dark Knight Rises Is "The Dark Knight Rises" as grounded in reality as its predecessors?

[Micromind]

In the real world a masked vigilante like Batman would be arrested after his first night in Gotham City. He would not have a batsignal on Police HQ, he would not be sitting in the interrogation room of Police HQ interrogating a psychopathic terrorist, and he certainly wouldn't be working with the D.A. and the Police Commissioner. e would not be able to kidnap a prominent business man from a foreign country and haul him back to Gotham to use in a RICO case etc.

Stop trying to apply realism of people's behavior to unrealistic situations. Your logic can be stamped out every time in these movies.

I don't view Nolan's Batman trilogy as some sort of realistic take on the character ( Darren Aronofsky wanted to make one such movie.) but it is certainly more "Grounded" than any of the past Batman movies. Real world elements have been included in a fictional city to make it look believable.

I mean, the way Gotham is portrayed is closer to a real world City, that does not mean that fictional character cannot exist.

This gives the director certain advantages, he can pick the elements from real world when they make sense to his story (carry the story in the direction he wants) or leave the real world situations and go with what happens in the fictional world of batman's Gotham (again to move his story forward)

In the end it is a director's decision, the movie will still be considered as a grounded take as it contains some elements from real world.

 

[TheBat812]

What citizens? The only citizens they attempted to get to safety was the orphans. With minutes left on the bomb timer. Do you think several million people were getting out of the city in that space of time? They were just trying to get the kids out. The rest of Gotham had not budged.

I was also talking about the fact that they're using this as a distraction to get the bomb out of the city, thus getting them out of harms way.

Citizens were being massacred anyway in this five month siege. The body count was already high, and the city was minutes away from being blown up. So what alternatives has he got? Increase the chances of survival of the city by having as much support as possible by out numbering Bane's men, or just use the bare minimum available?

You'll have to show me where they show every day citizens getting massacred, because that wasn't in my version of the movie thta I can remember. The only people they were killing were those they sent to exile, which from what I remember were only high ranking people within Gotham's economic and political infrastructure.

The idea is the city rising up with Batman. Not hiding like frightened sheep. Isn't that what Batman is about? To inspire.

Not for the average citizen to go get obliterated by terrorists, no. The point of these movies is for him to inspire everyday people to have courage in their system. By having Foley and the police be inspired by Batman out of hiding is the real point to do their rightful duties as protectors of the citizens (something they showed earlier to not be the case when they chose to pursue Batman instead of Bane).

Nobody was asking the people of Gotham to put on Batman costumes and start hopping around the rooftops.

Worse, you're asking for them to walk head on into death.

There's a difference between a few hapless citizens facing a super powered super villain as opposed to an army of citizens fighting along side an army of Cops.

Although funny you mention Spider-Man. In Spider-Man 1 the citizens saved Spidey's life from the Green Goblin, and they aided him in The Amazing Spider-Man with the cranes. They also saved his bacon on the train when he nearly fell to his death from passing out.

Yes, the difference is that they are only fighting one crazy maniac. These citizens would have faced thousands of armed mercenaries and convicts.

Also, personally I don't want a retread of Spiderman elements, I was happy they were found a more resonant way of dealing with the themes and story than a typical depiction of the same thing.

This movie has far worse laps of logic and realism than that.

disagreed, and none would have pulled me out of the movie more than seeing batman let innocent civilians get slaughtered as a distraction to save their ass. It seems like defeating the purpose. The point is that the police put themselves in an unwinnable situation to let Batman have a distraction so he could save teh citizens by removing the bomb.

You've obviously never read No Man's Land.

Fair enough, I shouldn't have worded it that way. There is no way the Bruce that Nolan has presented us with would have done that. Yes, he does cross his first rule of killing, but that is a terrorist. There is no way he risks the lives of innocent untrained civilians. In fact he says as much in TDK. The police who fight alongside are at least trained and have sworn oaths to serve and protect the people.

 

[Tequilla]

I don't. Particularly in Rises, starting with the whole city just taking the word of a masked terrorist telling them their beloved Harvey Dent was a fraud.

The whole city did that ? Really ? The city goes from being completely left out in the movie to fully characterizing every single citizen . Damn !

If im remembering correctly (and i might say i already dont have this movie fresh in my mind , i saw it only a couple times almost 3 months ago) , the only character whom we actually see reacting directly to the event his ...Blake . The same character we're shown in the beginning being very suspicious of that night. Every shot and scene in this movie is earned . The pillage and some anarchy we're shown is a typical case of societies that lack order. I don't think everybody reacted the same way to Bane's words , much less according to Dent's story. Hell , a lot of them probably didnt even care.

And off course the reaction i was talking about was the apathy and stillness of the city.

 

[Tequilla]

All three films definitely asserted themselves as being based in reality, even if they weren't in actuality. But I do think given a series of "what ifs", a lot of the peoples' behavior in the three films comes off as plausible.

Not only the film clearly establishes the plausibility , the friggin director a lot of times talked about what it means the series being grounded in reality.

But hey...its just the director/writer of the whole thing ! What the hell does he know t:

 

[Micromind]

I was also talking about the fact that they're using this as a distraction to get the bomb out of the city, thus getting them out of harms way.

The Original plan was to use the distraction of Batman's Army Vs Bane's Army fight to disable / stabilize the core so that it's countdown could be stopped

You'll have to show me where they show every day citizens getting massacred, because that wasn't in my version of the movie thta I can remember. The only people they were killing were those they sent to exile, which from what I remember were only high ranking people within Gotham's economic and political infrastructure.

Yup.

Not for the average citizen to go get obliterated by terrorists, no. The point of these movies is for him to inspire everyday people to have courage in their system. By having Foley and the police be inspired by Batman out of hiding is the real point to do their rightful duties as protectors of the citizens (something they showed earlier to not be the case when they chose to pursue Batman instead of Bane).

Worse, you're asking for them to walk head on into death.

Batman inspired the Cops to fight against Bane, ordinary citizens had no chance against trained armed mercenaries, assassins and criminals.

Yes, the difference is that they are only fighting one crazy maniac. These citizens would have faced thousands of armed mercenaries and convicts.

Also, personally I don't want a retread of Spiderman elements, I was happy they were found a more resonant way of dealing with the themes and story than a typical depiction of the same thing.

I was thankful that Nolan did not include the scenes like ordinary Homeless man, a ordinary student charging towards the Bane's army and then getting killed in the gun-fire from Bane's army.

disagreed, and none would have pulled me out of the movie more than seeing batman let innocent civilians get slaughtered as a distraction to save their ass. It seems like defeating the purpose. The point is that the police put themselves in an unwinnable situation to let Batman have a distraction so he could save teh citizens by removing the bomb.

Agreed.

Fair enough, I shouldn't have worded it that way. There is no way the Bruce that Nolan has presented us with would have done that. Yes, he does cross his first rule of killing, but that is a terrorist. There is no way he risks the lives of innocent untrained civilians. In fact he says as much in TDK. The police who fight alongside are at least trained and have sworn oaths to serve and protect the people.

Cops were prepared both physically and mentally about what was going to happen, we see Foley changing his mind and joining them. He was aware of the risks involved.

 

[The Joker]

I don't view Nolan's Batman trilogy as some sort of realistic take on the character ( Darren Aronofsky wanted to make one such movie.) but it is certainly more "Grounded" than any of the past Batman movies. Real world elements have been included in a fictional city to make it look believable.

That's great. So stop expecting it to follow the rule book of real world circumstances when the movies certainly don't.

I mean, the way Gotham is portrayed is closer to a real world City, that does not mean that fictional character cannot exist.

In what way is it portrayed as a real world city any more than New York is in Spider-Man?

This gives the director certain advantages, he can pick the elements from real world when they make sense to his story (carry the story in the direction he wants) or leave the real world situations and go with what happens in the fictional world of batman's Gotham (again to move his story forward)

Nolan made the choices he decided he wanted for his story. Not just with Gotham but with the characters. To say he was following realism is as laughable as saying Batman's whole premise in Gotham was plausible.

In the end it is a director's decision, the movie will still be considered as a grounded take as it contains some elements from real world.

In the end the creative choices of that director are not always the best ones. Case in point of why so many of us missed Gotham City's people being such a prominent part of the story, when Nolan used them so much in the last two movies.

I was also talking about the fact that they're using this as a distraction to get the bomb out of the city, thus getting them out of harms way.

Same difference. To get to the bomb they had to keep Bane's men busy. To do that they needed a major distraction, and the more people they have, the more they out number Bane's men, and therefore the less body count. It's basic math and simple strategy.

You'll have to show me where they show every day citizens getting massacred, because that wasn't in my version of the movie thta I can remember. The only people they were killing were those they sent to exile, which from what I remember were only high ranking people within Gotham's economic and political infrastructure.

Rich citizens lives are some how of less value than the middle class or the poor?

Not for the average citizen to go get obliterated by terrorists, no. The point of these movies is for him to inspire everyday people to have courage in their system. By having Foley and the police be inspired by Batman out of hiding is the real point to do their rightful duties as protectors of the citizens

But this was not the same situation. This was a siege where the city was under attack from a nuclear threat that could destroy them all. Belief in the system is not going to save them here.

something they showed earlier to not be the case when they chose to pursue Batman instead of Bane

That was all Foley. He was in charge of that chase and he was the idiot who chose to catch "the son of a ***** who killed Harvey Dent" over "some bank robber"

Worse, you're asking for them to walk head on into death.

No you're asking them to fight to to prevent death.

Yes, the difference is that they are only fighting one crazy maniac. These citizens would have faced thousands of armed mercenaries and convicts.

Millions of citizens vs thousands of mercenaries in comparison to a few unarmed citizens versus a super villain who can throw cars around like toys.

Very good analogy.

disagreed, and none would have pulled me out of the movie more than seeing batman let innocent civilians get slaughtered as a distraction to save their ass.

You mean fighting to save their city from being blown to smithereens. How many Cops did you see dead at the end of that fight?

]It seems like defeating the purpose. The point is that the police put themselves in an unwinnable situation to let Batman have a distraction so he could save teh citizens by removing the bomb.

And you saw all the Cops having the LOS captured at the end on the city hall steps. Seems like you are severely over estimating their odds.

Fair enough, I shouldn't have worded it that way. There is no way the Bruce that Nolan has presented us with would have done that.

Why not? What was so different about him and Batman of the comics? No Man's Land was a desperate situation for the whole city were law and order no longer applied and the Police had no authority. In a desperate situation you use the resources available to you to save the many, even if it means sacrificing a few.

As Batman said it was war. War has casualties no matter what. As Alfred said in TDK, you spat in the faces of Gotham's criminals. There was always going to be casualties to make things better.

Same scenario here. In fact even worse than what was happening in Begins and TDK.

 

[The Joker]

The whole city did that ? Really ? The city goes from being completely left out in the movie to fully characterizing every single citizen . Damn !

That's what the movie implies, otherwise why did they bother to have Bane discover it and reveal it in the first place?

Blake believed it. Why shouldn't the rest of the city?

If im remembering correctly (and i might say i already dont have this movie fresh in my mind , i saw it only a couple times almost 3 months ago) , the only character whom we actually see reacting directly to the event his ...Blake . The same character we're shown in the beginning being very suspicious of that night.

That was down to Blake's faith in Batman, not down to a lack of faith in Harvey Dent or Jim Gordon. We know why that is, because Blake "knows" Batman because he could see it in Bruce's face one time;

http://whatculture.com/film/the-dark-knight-rises-5-major-problems-with-the-plot.php/3



The issue is he bought it at face value that Harvey turned killer, Gordon was involved in a massive conspiracy for 8 years. He just bought everything Bane said.

If he did, then Gotham must have, too. Otherwise there was no point in doing it other than using it as an excuse to release some inmates on the streets which could have been done anyway.

I don't think everybody reacted the same way to Bane's words , much less according to Dent's story.

Oh but I thought Blake was supposed to be our token reaction in replacement to seeing Gotham react?

Hell , a lot of them probably didnt even care.

Really? So the whole heroic image and savior they made out of Dent was pointless if most of them didn't care.

Is that what you're trying to say?

 

[TheBat812]

Let's put it this way, they were successful without involving ANY civilian casualties. Why bother risking their lives at all?

Once again, the point of Batman was about being able to believe in the system and that those in power can be trusted to use power to help the citizens not to corrupt it. To inspire hope in the system, that they would not have to fear it, that they would be protected by it. TDKR deals with this part of it head on, and using the police as the shield for the citizenry is the best way to represent that in the film. This is what Nolan is trying to say. You want him to say something different, but that does not mean what he did does not work or does not make sense.

 

[Fudgie]

The rain was a growing factor in identifying the Narrows though. And as I said, it could've been at least CLOSE to the Narrows where Batman interrogated Flass.

Nope. The rain was used once with the Narrows. In the second scene that had the Narrows in it.

Of course Gotham City is bigger. Hence why each film dealt with a specific area within Gotham, but BB focused mostly on the Narrows and around it. Heck, the first Wayne Tower was even pretty damn close to the Narrows where the other building is not shown in TDK and TDKR.

Nope. Narrows was on an island. That's how they were able to cut it off by closing the bridges to it. Wayne Tower wasn't near it.

We had named characters giving their side to further the plot as opposed to TDK where we had strangers showing their emotions like they were hanging off their sleeves.

I'd love to see you in a room full of people where ya all are facing the threat of being killed and see how emotionally quiet y'all would be.

Only characters to further the story, but they weren't as important and that's why BB felt mostly like a film around the poor.

But ya were just shown all the characters who were not rich heads. So it wasn't about the poor.

Again, as a story point, that's it. Nothing to really show an identity for Gotham except for furthering a story.

How can ya say that showing the people of Gotham and what they do ain't giving it an identity? What the hell else gives a city an identity other than it's different kinda people.

Complete strangers suggesting their fear of what's happening. THAT'S what made TDK the only film that really gave Gotham an identity because they weren't even minor characters to further along the plot as is with BB and TDKR.

In other words ya didn't know diddly about them as people ya just saw their fear and their reactions to the situations. Same kinda stuff ya saw in BB. People in the circumstances of the city. The crime and despair and the corruption. Same thing.

Flass definitely felt like a small time villain because he was working along with the thugs and one of the cogs that kept the crimes going untouched.

He was still a Cop. Just a corrupt one. That's a fact.

That is the biggest reason why I didn't mind any other Gothamite being within Batman's "army" because it was much better in having the police rallying behind Batman going up against Bane's army of League of Shadows and criminals..

Ehhh yeah cos Cops with no weapons are so useful against trained ninjas, guns and Tumblers. Ya have more people, ya get a better survival chance to out number the bad guys. One Cop and three citizens vs one LOS guy is better odds than one Cop vs one LOS guy.

But you aren't living in a fictional city with a costumed hero whose one and main goal is to inspire the people to stand up and do something.

The last act of TDKR was time for Nolan to put that point into action.

Batman standing with an of cops. Yeah fine it LOOKS good. Batman standing with an army of cops and citizens fighting for their city MEANS a lot.

Quoted for truth.

Exactly

Time and again we're reminded in this movie this is about the people of Gotham City and they are completely omitted from this.



Neither. You're trying to apply a real life situation in a whole country to the fantastical situation in a fictional city in a comic book movie. I don't need to distort anything for that.



Yes, that's a theme. Terrorism. It doesn't mean all the real world aspects of it are followed to the letter. We're watching a comic book movie where a city gets saved by a millionaire in a bat suit.



Because how it happened was FAR less interesting and powerful than what we could have gotten. What Deserena said is a perfect example of what would have been a better alternative. Batman standing with an army of cops and citizens fighting for their city MEANS a lot.

We're already being asked to buy nonsense like that Gotham City just bought Bane's revelation about Harvey Dent on face value. We're already being asked to buy the city is saved by a man in a bat suit and a cat burglar. Does all this sound like real word terrorism to you?

We've been following a world where ninjas in the Himalayas construct schemes to destroy a city with fear gas and a microwave emitter. Where a psychopath dressed as a clown has such omnipotence that he can dominate an entire city "with a few drums of gas and a couple of bullets". Where the hope of a whole city hinges on a district attorney. Now you're trying to sell the idea that citizens of Gotham uprising against a fascist dictator is too unreal?

Sorry, not buying that for a second.

Quoted for truth again.

There is no rule book that can predict the behavior of ordinary citizens reactions under extra-ordinary conditions

Yup. But I find it more easy to see people fight for their lives and families than all of them being wusses who wouldn't fight back after being sick of being stuck in months of tyranny.

What the hell did they think was gonna happen at the end all of this? Bane was gonna wave goodbye and say thanks for having me over.

 

[Fudgie]

The whole city did that ? Really ? The city goes from being completely left out in the movie to fully characterizing every single citizen . Damn !

If im remembering correctly (and i might say i already dont have this movie fresh in my mind , i saw it only a couple times almost 3 months ago) , the only character whom we actually see reacting directly to the event his ...Blake . The same character we're shown in the beginning being very suspicious of that night. Every shot and scene in this movie is earned . The pillage and some anarchy we're shown is a typical case of societies that lack order. I don't think everybody reacted the same way to Bane's words , much less according to Dent's story. Hell , a lot of them probably didnt even care.

And off course the reaction i was talking about was the apathy and stillness of the city.

Bane finding out about the Dent thing was big load of waste of time if the only person who bought it was Blake.

 

[Fudgie]

Not only the film clearly establishes the plausibility , the friggin director a lot of times talked about what it means the series being grounded in reality.

 

[BatLobster]

Blake buying it doesn't necessarily mean every last Gothamite did. He's in the same room as Gordon when Bane outs him and Gordon says nothing to object, and then doesn't deny it when Blake confronts him. The rest of Gotham doesn't get that absolute confirmation.

In a symbolic sense, sure, it might mean many Gothamites believed it. But I don't think we can make an absolute assessment here. Heck, I always felt even before I saw the film that some Gothamites wouldn't necessarily trust the TDK lie in the first place.

 

[Tequilla]

That's what the movie implies, otherwise why did they bother to have Bane discover it and reveal it in the first place?

Blake believed it. Why shouldn't the rest of the city?

"Why shouldnt ?" You make the craziest generalizations regarding the movie.

That was down to Blake's faith in Batman, not down to a lack of faith in Harvey Dent or Jim Gordon. We know why that is, because Blake "knows" Batman because he could see it in Bruce's face one time;

http://whatculture.com/film/the-dark-knight-rises-5-major-problems-with-the-plot.php/3



The issue is he bought it at face value that Harvey turned killer, Gordon was involved in a massive conspiracy for 8 years. He just bought everything Bane said.

Yes , and ? The scene previously alludes that he was already suspicious about that night . Off course the moment Bane starts talking about that specific moment he will believe in it. We are shown that he had already checked some facts regarding it.

As for the crappy site , yes the scene between Blake and Bruce is great. Not only its lit magnificently , its well acted , and it gives so much information about these two character. The nuance in it his beautiful.

If he did, then Gotham must have, too. Otherwise there was no point in doing it other than using it as an excuse to release some inmates on the streets which could have been done anyway.

Another crazy assumption based on nothing.

Oh but I thought Blake was supposed to be our token reaction in replacement to seeing Gotham react?

Just like with Gotham , now you make users generalizations.

Really? So the whole heroic image and savior they made out of Dent was pointless if most of them didn't care.

Is that what you're trying to say?

I wrote a lot , not most of them. Please , you can't distort that. It was also you who said they all believed. Not me. You generalize according to how you want , and not how its portrayed in the movie.

 

[Fudgie]

Let's put it this way, they were successful without involving ANY civilian casualties. Why bother risking their lives at all?

Cos they didn't know they would win. It was a huge ass gamble on millions of lives. It was just written to work out hunky dory for the nice happy sweety ending.

Once again, the point of Batman was about being able to believe in the system and that those in power can be trusted to use power to help the citizens not to corrupt it. To inspire hope in the system, that they would not have to fear it, that they would be protected by it. TDKR deals with this part of it head on, and using the police as the shield for the citizenry is the best way to represent that in the film. This is what Nolan is trying to say. You want him to say something different, but that does not mean what he did does not work or does not make sense.

The system was exposed as a big 'ol fraud for 8 years thanks to Batman and Gordon being big fat liars about Harvey Dent and the whole Dent Act thing locking guys up and not letting them get parole. Brilliant way of showing how the system is good.

Now ya say he doesn't think using the people to help their odds of survival from a bomb is a good way of saving them all from being a smoking crater.

Ehhh yeah don't think so.

 

[Tequilla]

Actions. Reactions. Grounded.Dictionary.


You miss the part where i said the whole actions of the trilogy are FANTASY. Not the conflicts. Not the characterizations. Not the reactions. Not the behaviors. The actions.

I think it was you the guy who posted or said Nolan didnt understand the movie. You're a funny guy.

 

[Fudgie]

Blake buying it doesn't necessarily mean every last Gothamite did. He's in the same room as Gordon when Bane outs him and Gordon says nothing to object, and then doesn't deny it when Blake confronts him. The rest of Gotham doesn't get that absolute confirmation.

If there was doubters then they should have been shown. We shoulda seen Gotham wasn't buying Bane's crap. But nooooooo ca 't have Gotham have a personality in this. I mean the whole revolution is only about them. Lets' ignore 'em.

In a symbolic sense, sure, it might mean many Gothamites believed it. But I don't think we can make an absolute assessment here. Heck, I always felt even before I saw the film that some Gothamites wouldn't necessarily trust the TDK lie in the first place.

Ya never saw anyone except Robin have doubts that the Bat did it. But he felt it in his bones and all. Psychic powers where a rich guy looking angry because his folks are dead means he's Batman.

Heh.

 

[BatLobster]

Actions. Reactions. Grounded.Dictionary.


You miss the part where i said the whole actions of the trilogy are FANTASY. Not the conflicts. Not the characterizations. Not the reactions. Not the behaviors. The actions.

I think it was you the guy who posted or said Nolan didnt understand the movie. You're a funny guy.

QFT. Everybody pretty much takes Dent's injury in stride, not drawing attention to it defying how a burn like that would actually work. It's the reactions that sell the "realism" of it.

 

[Fudgie]

Actions. Reactions. Grounded.Dictionary.

Actions, reactions, are not grounded. Ya won't find a city in the world that would have Batman running around in it. He wouldn't have to kill their D.A. to have his ass hunted.

Ya have that as a starting point then any other reactions to the other stuff is just as crazy. Fighting back for your city ain't crazy though.

You miss the part where i said the whole actions of the trilogy are FANTASY. Not the conflicts. Not the characterizations. Not the reactions. Not the behaviors. The actions.

Yup I saw it and I''m here to tell ya your reactions and behaviors excuse is phony cos Batman having carte blanche and not being hunted like a dawg ain't real either.

I think it was you the guy who posted or said Nolan didnt understand the movie. You're a funny guy.

Flattered by the accusation but that was in a review. Not my words.

 

[The Joker]

"Why shouldnt ?" You make the craziest generalizations regarding the movie.

Haven't you done a good job justifying why.

Yes , and ?

And it makes no sense. Having suspicions is one thing. Buying the word of a murderous masked psychopathic terrorist on face value is another.

The scene previously alludes that he was already suspicious about that night . Off course the moment Bane starts talking about that specific moment he will believe in it.

Why will he suddenly believe it just because Bane is talking about it?

We are shown that he had already checked some facts regarding it.

Where?

As for the crappy site , yes the scene between Blake and Bruce is great.

No, it's not. It's contrived fluffy nonsense and is completely unbelievable. Batman's identity being cracked by a recognition of angry emotional pain. I feel angry and upset my little brother passed away. Does that make me Batman?

Not only its lit magnificently , its well acted , and it gives so much information about these two character. The nuance in it his beautiful.

Nice lighting and good acting. It takes a lot more than that to sell me on illogical plot points that have no credibility.

Another crazy assumption based on nothing.

In what way is it crazy or based on nothing? Bane wanted to start a revolution yes? He didn't know about the Harvey Dent lie until after he came to Gotham and put his plan in motion. How different do you think his siege would be with or without releasing the Blackgate inmates?

Just like with Gotham , now you make users generalizations.

No, I'm not. This is the excuse that gets thrown around for Gotham's people being omitted in favor of using the main characters as their voice.

To which I always respond name me one movie where that does not use the main characters reacting to the events in the story lol.

I wrote a lot , not most of them. Please , you can't distort that. It was also you who said they all believed. Not me. You generalize according to how you want , and not how its portrayed in the movie.

I'm not distorting or generalizing anything. Drop the stupid accusations because you're having difficulty defending your position by trying to discredit me.

A lot of people, or most of them, what's the major difference? You're saying a big portion of the people wouldn't care, which begs the question why would they bother to make such an idol out of Dent in the first place if a lot of the citizens don't even care?

I thought symbols were supposed to be everlasting. How can they be if a lot of the city don't even care about it in the first place?

Cos they didn't know they would win. It was a huge ass gamble on millions of lives. It was just written to work out hunky dory for the nice happy sweety ending.

The system was exposed as a big 'ol fraud for 8 years thanks to Batman and Gordon being big fat liars about Harvey Dent and the whole Dent Act thing locking guys up and not letting them get parole. Brilliant way of showing how the system is good.

Now ya say he doesn't think using the people to help their odds of survival from a bomb is a good way of saving them all from being a smoking crater.

Ehhh yeah don't think so.

Exactly.

 

[Tequilla]

Haven't you done a good job justifying why.

Wait , you make the crazy generalizations and i am the one who have to justify them ? Me ? lol

And it makes no sense. Having suspicions is one thing. Buying the word of a murderous masked psychopathic terrorist on face value is another.

He already know something was up about that night.

Why will he suddenly believe it just because Bane is talking about it?

No , because he was already suspicious. If you remember , he actually poses a question to Gordon (something about men being locked at blackgate , if that was based on a lie) , and he confirms it (Gotham needed a hero.)

Where?

He recalls that night with Gordon.

No, it's not. It's contrived fluffy nonsense and is completely unbelievable. Batman's identity being cracked by a recognition of angry emotional pain. I feel angry and upset my little brother passed away. Does that make me Batman?

It goes back to the roots of Bruce's problem. It alludes to the way he' been conflicted ever since. Creating a fake persona is something Bruce knew away before Batman. It also accentuates the relationship between characters , at the same time showing their differences. It his one hell off a scene ! Technically is stupendous. The writing is also amazing.

You dont like it. Its your loss.

In what way is it crazy or based on nothing? Bane wanted to start a revolution yes? He didn't know about the Harvey Dent lie until after he came to Gotham and put his plan in motion.

Now its Bane who knows everything about the citizens. eheh

He did because he takes the friggin paper out of Gordon pockets.

You generalize , i ask where the movie alludes to that and you dont even try.

No, I'm not. This is the excuse that gets thrown around for Gotham's people being omitted in favor of using the main characters as their voice.

To which I always respond name me one movie where that does not use the main characters reacting to the events in the story lol.

You're not ? I never said that . NEVER. You grabbed someone else opinion to try to put down mine like i agreed to it.At least apology or something.

I'm not distorting or generalizing anything. Drop the stupid accusations because you're having difficulty defending your position by trying to discredit me.

A lot of people, or most of them, what's the major difference? You're saying a big portion of the people wouldn't care, which begs the question why would they bother to make such an idol out of Dent in the first place if a lot of the citizens don't even care?

I thought symbols were supposed to be everlasting. How can they be if a lot of the city don't even care about it in the first place?

First , its not an accusation. Its a fact. You're not quoting me right. You change sentences to help you argue against whatever you want to argue. So please stop doing that. Its already difficult to answer with all these crazy quotes , when you keep adding lies to what i said , its even more difficult.

You said everyone believed. I said the movie never showed that. You keep going circles around that , because you simply cant state that. I said a lot , not most of them. Most is some kind of majority. A lot...is a lot. The director intentions are clear. We are shown a city in complete apathy. You also dont like that. Ok. Send wb a letter.

 

[TheBat812]

Cos they didn't know they would win. It was a huge ass gamble on millions of lives. It was just written to work out hunky dory for the nice happy sweety ending.



The system was exposed as a big 'ol fraud for 8 years thanks to Batman and Gordon being big fat liars about Harvey Dent and the whole Dent Act thing locking guys up and not letting them get parole. Brilliant way of showing how the system is good.

Now ya say he doesn't think using the people to help their odds of survival from a bomb is a good way of saving them all from being a smoking crater.

Ehhh yeah don't think so.

You just proved my point. They were specifically showing that the system they had built was NOT good. The Dent Act fraud is exactly what Foley, Gordon and the police redeem by fighting for the people instead of fighting for accolades and good stats that are not true hope and change.

Once again, the point of Batman was about being able to believe in the system and that those in power can be trusted to use power to help the citizens not to corrupt it. To inspire hope in the system, that they would not have to fear it, that they would be protected by it. TDKR deals with this part of it head on, and using the police as the shield for the citizenry is the best way to represent that in the film. This is what Nolan is trying to say. You want him to say something different, but that does not mean what he did does not work or does not make sense. You just wanted something else. Not being able to accept that is extremely stubborn.

 

[The Joker]

Wait , you make the crazy generalizations and i am the one who have to justify them ? Me ? lol

I said you have not justified why I am making crazy generalizations. You just accuse me of it and leave it at that.

He already know something was up about that night.

Again having suspicions is one thing, taking the word of a MURDERING TERRORIST on nothing but face value is something else.

He just accepts that:

1. Batman took the blame for Harvey's crimes
2. Harvey was a fraud
3. Gordon betrayed everything he believed in

He's willing to accept all of that on the say of Bane. And that's how the movie displays it by having Bane reveal the truth just by saying he is reading a letter from Gordon. Here watch this video, it completely points out the nonsense of all of this;

[YT]AXpcYvnV6GY[/YT]

See this is how showing how the people felt would have not made look so stupid by not giving them any voice or personality. The kind of things they are saying in this video is the kind of thing you would expect to hear them say.

No , because he was already suspicious. If you remember , he actually poses a question to Gordon (something about men being locked at blackgate , if that was based on a lie) , and he confirms it (Gotham needed a hero.)

Yes, because he wanted to hear him admit it.

It goes back to the roots of Bruce's problem. It alludes to the way he' been conflicted ever since. Creating a fake persona is something Bruce knew away before Batman. It also accentuates the relationship between characters , at the same time showing their differences. It his one hell off a scene ! Technically is stupendous. The writing is also amazing.

Have you any idea how many people but on a brave face a fake smile, pretend to be happy just to hid they are hurting about something?

It's as common as rain.

Bruce Wayne losing his parents as a child is common knowledge. Still hurting over it years later would be equally common. Putting a brave face on it also common.

Yet Blake works out based on Bruce hiding his pain that he is Batman. It has to be some of the worst writing I've ever seen.

You dont like it. Its your loss.

No, trust me when I say that is my gain. If someone discovers Batman identity, I like it to have some credibility to it. Mr. Reese in TDK finding out, that was good writing.

This was flimsy emotional fluff.

Now its Bane who knows everything about the citizens.

What?

He did because he takes the friggin paper out of Gordon pockets.

I know that. What is your point?

You generalize , i ask where the movie alludes to that and you dont even try.

Where the movie alludes to what?

You're not ? I never said that . NEVER. You grabbed someone else opinion to try to put down mine like i agreed to it.At least apology or something.

I never said YOU said it. Here is what I said;

"This is the excuse that gets thrown around for Gotham's people being omitted in favor of using the main characters as their voice"

I never mentioned you.

First , its not an accusation. Its a fact. You're not quoting me right. You change sentences to help you argue against whatever you want to argue. So please stop doing that. Its already difficult to answer with all these crazy quotes , when you keep adding lies to what i said , its even more difficult.

What have I lied about?

You said everyone believed. I said the movie never showed that. You keep going circles around that , because you simply cant state that. I said a lot , not most of them. Most is some kind of majority. A lot...is a lot.

Hang on a second. Why can you say a lot of people didn't believe even though the movie didn't show that, but I can't say Gotham believed it, even though the movie didn't show that either?

What the movie did show is Blake believed it, and by implication if he was listening to Bane, then why shouldn't the rest of Gotham? It also begs the question that why would Nolan even bother have Bane find out Dent and expose it if it's not going to be believed by the people?

We are shown a city in complete apathy. You also dont like that. Ok.

I have no problem seeing the city in apathy. What I wanted was some samplings of this apathy, like we got samplings of the despair and chaos in Begins and TDK.

 

[Tequilla]

I never said YOU said it. Here is what I said;

"This is the excuse that gets thrown around for Gotham's people being omitted in favor of using the main characters as their voice"

I never mentioned you.

This is what you said previously.

I don't think everybody reacted the same way to Bane's words , much less according to Dent's story.

Oh but I thought Blake was supposed to be our token reaction in replacement to seeing Gotham react?

So yes , you're either a blatant liar , or you dont even remember what you wrote.

Now you can go distort someone else's quotes. Be my guest.

 

[The Joker]

This is what you said previously.

Yes, and where does that say you said that? I even put a question mark at the end to show you I was asking if you believed that, not making the statement that you said it.

So yes , you're either a blatant liar , or you dont even remember what you wrote.

It's neither.

Now you can go distort someone else's quotes. Be my guest.

Spare me the attitude. One troll already got a stint on probation yesterday for getting all offensive like you are now. It's a damn stupid thing to get in trouble over.

Act civil or do us both a favor and don't reply at all.

 

[Tequilla]

Yup , misquoting and distorting my words is very civil. Very.

"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

LOL