The Dark Knight Nolan Describes TDK Plot as 'Grim.'

[Ronny Shade]

He meant it in a different way. In the sense of having a dark side and to some extent indulging it, he is like most people or even more.

He meant it in a lot of ways.

 

[Ronny Shade]

Ra's was beyond saving though.

You obviously don't understand Batman. No one is beyond saving.

 

[Ronny Shade]

Yeah, but he is referring to people in the DC Universe.

Me and Nolan are referring to people in the real world.

Problem: Batman exists in the DC universe. Not in the real world.

 

[ultimatefan]

He meant it in a lot of ways.

But not in the sense that he´s a saint.

 

[Ronny Shade]

I never said he was a saint.

 

[ultimatefan]

I never said he was a saint.

Yeah, but this whole "Batman is so noble he wouldn´t let a villain die even if it cost his own life" is a bit high-and-mighty. Batman obviously has a hatred of criminals and lives in conflict between his noble intentions and his darker impulses. If he had saved Ra´s, I wouldn´t have cared much for the ending, it´d be bland and cliché goody good guy stuff. The dubiousness of the ending is what makes it interesting.

 

[Ronny Shade]

If they'd made it dubious, I'd be siding with you on that. The way they presented it, though was very bland and cliché good guy stuff: The hero fights the villain. The villain dies without the hero compromising his values because hey look! Batman didn't actually kill him! :cheese: No regret! Happy ending kisses girl. get back the company. rebuild the house tralala. True they did have Rachel leave. Good move. But most of that was what you just said it wasn't. There was no impact from Bruce's decision. No hesitation. No deliberation. No regret, no AMBIGUITY. It was a flat tying up of the plot.

 

[Crooklyn]

Yeah, but this whole "Batman is so noble he wouldn´t let a villain die even if it cost his own life" is a bit high-and-mighty. Batman obviously has a hatred of criminals and lives in conflict between his noble intentions and his darker impulses. If he had saved Ra´s, I wouldn´t have cared much for the ending, it´d be bland and cliché goody good guy stuff. The dubiousness of the ending is what makes it interesting.

There's nothing wrong with having Bats TRY to save Ra's however. They can still come up with the same exact ending if they wanted to.

 

[Ronny Shade]

I'd be good with that. In fact, I wanted Batman to try to save Ra's, but Ra's won't allow it and he falls to his "death"

(I still don't think Ra's is actually dead)

 

[ultimatefan]

If they'd made it dubious, I'd be siding with you on that. The way they presented it, though was very bland and cliché good guy stuff: The hero fights the villain. The villain dies without the hero compromising his values because hey look! Batman didn't actually kill him! :cheese: No regret! Happy ending kisses girl. get back the company. rebuild the house tralala. True they did have Rachel leave. Good move. But most of that was what you just said it wasn't. There was no impact from Bruce's decision. No hesitation. No deliberation. No regret, no AMBIGUITY. It was a flat tying up of the plot.

Hah, that was so goody good guy stuff and non-ambiguous the morality of his action has been questioned since the movie opened, including by you. The hero letting him die doesn´t compromise his values in anyway? That contradicts everything you been saying for God knows how many pages...

 

[ultimatefan]

There's nothing wrong with having Bats TRY to save Ra's however. They can still come up with the same exact ending if they wanted to.

But it wouldn´t have the dubiousness, which was the point of that ending. THAT would be cliché goody good guy stuff, Batman tried to save him but Ra´s brought his terrible destiny on himself...

 

[Ronny Shade]

This is going nowhere

 

[CConn]

As long as they dont make wayne the 1 dimnensional ******* he was in the comics....

Y'know, normally I'd agree with that, but I must say, it can be done to some effectiveness in a single story - and it's certainly not one-dimentional. DC just overdid it by 20 years or so.

If they handled Batman being an ******* for a movie like, say, they handled it in Batman: Fugitive, I wouldn't mind it at all.

 

[Ronny Shade]

You going to input on the "I don't have to save you" argument, C?

 

[Crooklyn]

But it wouldn´t have the dubiousness, which was the point of that ending.

Come again? What exactly was so dubious about that ending? It's very clear cut and dry.

THAT would be cliché goody good guy stuff, Batman tried to save him but Ra´s brought his terrible destiny on himself...

You minds as well call every story involving Batman capturing the villain and returning them to Arkham at the end of the day, hackneyed and contrived.

I personally was fine with the ending, but to actually have to read people justifying Batman's actions as somehow "in-character" is unbelievable. Anyone who has read any of the major stories knows if Batman is in a situation where he has the ability to save a life, NO MATTER who it is....he will. Now, he might succeed or fail, it doesn't matter, the fact is he tried. It's part of the damn character and I'm surprised this fact is even being debated.

At this point in the game, I couldn't care less about BB's ending. It's done with, beaten to death with arguments, and is frankly...going in circles. If Nolan and co. decide to leave this ending as is, and don't plan to revisit it in the future, I admit I will be disappointed. The only reason I don't have a problem with it is because it has so many possibilities in developing Bruce's character. But I digress...

 

[Ronny Shade]

well this whole thing'll be a moot point when Ra's returns

 

[ultimatefan]

This is going nowhere

Finally something we agree about. If you simply don´t like Batman letting Ra´s die cuz that´s not the way you like the character, fine. But there are plenty of arguments within the frame of the movie and even in the comics to justify it. Batman has had many interpretations, there´s not only one way to see the character anyway. The way I see it, it makes sense for him to act that way.

 

[Ronny Shade]

Agree to disagree I guess

 

[Silver Souper]

Hah, that was so goody good guy stuff and non-ambiguous the morality of his action has been questioned since the movie opened, including by you. The hero letting him die doesn´t compromise his values in anyway? That contradicts everything you been saying for God knows how many pages...

you know The Shade- you've changed my mind. Well argued. They should've had Batman TRY to save Ra's, and then Ra's in his stubborness say something like "my battle ends here" and he's fall willingly to his "death."

that would've been WAY more consistent with batman's justice sense. i don't hate how they did it as is, but it's still weak compared to what they could've done. they took the easy middle road. not deliberate murder, not saving grace.

 

[Ronny Shade]

I just wish they wouldve really pushed the "If you don't kill me I am going to kill everyone in your city and everyone you love" angle if they were going to end it like that.

 

[COMPO]

it was implied

 

[Ronny Shade]

not nearly well enough

 

[raybia]

Well I think its great that there is a camp that thinks its ok that Batman left him and one that think he should have saved him.

Batman's methods are constantly being questioned in the DC Universe. Remember Brother Eye?

Nolan is a genius for creating this morally play.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Location: was borderline for a while then crossed the border

LOL.

Does your girlfriend live in the corner penthouse of Spook Central?

 

[ultimatefan]

not nearly well enough

It was crystal clear. "Are you finally gonna do what´s necessary?" The man was going to cause a wave of massic panic that was going to destroy the whole city. He had the trouble of going to Wayne Manor and burning it to the ground before executing his plan to settle the score. It´s as clear as it needs to get.