TheDarkKnight08
genius
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2008
- Messages
- 2,186
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
While I do agree that we should've seen Gotham's reaction to the occupation a bit more (one of my very limited minor gripes with the film), it's not like we didn't get anything at all. We see citizens huddling around garbage cans, trying to keep warm, as well as the montage showing the convicts and poor alike overtake the city. We see these things happening, but to show it too much would take away from Bruce's story and struggle. They didn't waste any time on anything else, as everything is even thrown at us in the 2nd act. I understand people wanting to see more of this, but it really isn't something that affects the overall quality of the film for me, as what caught my attention most was Bruce. Showing the citizens protest a man who was on the verge of blowing their city up wouldn't have been a smart move: if they protest or rebel against him, Bane will just blow them up. So what could we have been shown? The only reason Bane and Talia didn't pull the trigger in the end was to spite Bruce and show him that he failed, as melodramatic as that sounds.
The city's economic state was covered as much as it needed to be. We saw enough of Gotham over the course of the first two films to understand that it really is a broken city, ruled by fear. So to really nitpick a point that the films were trying to make anyway really just seems like that: a nitpick. The point of Batman was that he was the one that would bring them hope. Without him, they'd be lost, just as they were lost when he was gone. When he returned, he brought it on. That, to me, was the point Nolan was trying to make. Again, maybe there will be those who'll disagree, but really, who cares?
The city's economic state was covered as much as it needed to be. We saw enough of Gotham over the course of the first two films to understand that it really is a broken city, ruled by fear. So to really nitpick a point that the films were trying to make anyway really just seems like that: a nitpick. The point of Batman was that he was the one that would bring them hope. Without him, they'd be lost, just as they were lost when he was gone. When he returned, he brought it on. That, to me, was the point Nolan was trying to make. Again, maybe there will be those who'll disagree, but really, who cares?