Yeah and the shot when Bruce walks in to the party too!!
Can't tell you how happy I am to see you all loving my gif!
Obviously, the one I'm most proud of now thanks to you guys wanting it on every page![]()
Of course he can still be sad about it, but its not normal to having to go 8 years before moving on with his life. They were not even in a relationship. That would be alot harder for me to believe than the football scene in the trailer. Even it this could happen, what would be the point of having him still cry for Rachel?
8years is enough to move on . You can still grieve but I think we don't need a scene where Bruce is feeling guilty for kissing Selna/Talia .
I dont have anything against characters grieving for their past love ones. But since Rachel is not in the movie and Bruce is getting romantic to maybe two women, I just dont see the point of grieving about Rachel. Where would they go with that?
By that standard shouldn't he have moved on from his parents murder too? It's Bruce Wayne. He doesn't grieve well.
Marion's face looks funny. Sort of pudgy like her cheeks are made of unbaked cookie dough.
He did not cry about his parents in TDK. Infact as far as I can remember, he did not even mention them.By that standard shouldn't he have moved on from his parents murder too? It's Bruce Wayne. He doesn't grieve well.
This discussion is extremely frustrating for me because you are not arguing why he should still be crying about Rachel's death. Ive said a number of times now I dont see the point of it, I dont see why they should go that direction. There are several of you now arguing for the movie to go that direction, why are none of you giving any reasons for it?You seem to have a major hang up about the idea that if a character is not physically in the movie that means their impact should be ignored regardless of how important they were.
No offense but I really hope Chris Nolan doesn't think that way.
He did not cry about his parents in TDK. Infact as far as I can remember, he did not even mention them.
Lets be clear here for a minute, just because he has moved on doesnt mean that he doesnt still have scars.
This discussion is extremely frustrating for me because you are not arguing why he should still be crying about Rachel's death. Ive said a number of times now I dont see the point of it, I dont see why they should go that direction. There are several of you now arguing for the movie to go that direction, why are none of you giving any reasons for it?
This discussion is extremely frustrating for me because you are not arguing why he should still be crying about Rachel's death. Ive said a number of times now I dont see the point of it, I dont see why they should go that direction. There are several of you now arguing for the movie to go that direction, why are none of you giving any reasons for it?
I think you might confuse what I mean by moving on. By moving on doesnt mean that those wounds have healed. Moving means that Rachel and her death does no longer stop him from getting interested in other women and wanting to start a relationship. He can go on a date and go to bed with a woman without his brain going 'I cant do this, Im not over Rachel'. For Bruce not having to move on after 8 years in that sense, is not realistic.I'm not saying we should have a scene of him crying. I'm saying that the assumption that Bruce should have moved on is inherently flawed because it's not a part of his character thus far as shown in BB and TDK. I'm arguing that Rachel will be mentioned in TDKR because of the fact that Bruce Wayne has trouble moving on from his pain. Seeing Bruce acknowledge and deal with his pain and move on will be central to his eventual 'rise'.
Thanks for giving a reason. Personally Im not interested in seeing this but thats just me.Because Bruce is stuck in an emotional stand still. At least according to Nolan. Having Bruce still shrouded in the pain and misery he was feeling 8 years ago, and unable to move on from that in the 8 years of being hunted and hated as Batman puts him in a position to evolve as a character in this movie. To learn to deal with that pain and over come it. I bet that's what characters Selina and Tate will do in some way.
I think you might confuse what I mean by moving on. By moving on doesnt mean that those wounds have healed. Moving means that Rachel and her death does no longer stop him from getting interested in other women and wanting to start a relationship. He can go on a date and go to bed with a woman without his brain going 'I cant do this, Im not over Rachel'. For Bruce not having to move on after 8 years in that sense, is not realistic.
Thanks for giving a reason. Personally Im not interested in seeing this but thats just me.
Bruce is not over his parents death.
That's pretty clear.
But he is going on with his life .... We don't need Bruce to be mopey over a girl he kissed twice 8 years ago .... I seen many spouses get married after losing a spuse in less time . You can have scars and be functional
But he is going on with his life .... We don't need Bruce to be mopey over a girl he kissed twice 8 years ago .... I seen many spouses get married after losing a spuse in less time . You can have scars and be functional
Don't tell me we won't see such scenes...I never said he wasn't functional just that he's going to be struggling with it.
I'm pretty sure of it, this isn't a normal man. This is a man who is also Batman and has been "frozen in time"
This ought to lead you to some conclusions, it's 8 years later but he hasn't healed a day.
This is almost exactly what Nolan says.
All I said was that he wasn't over rachel. Crying and moping over her came out of other people's mouths, you jumped to conclusions
Don't tell me we won't see such scenes...
![]()
![]()