Rorschach II
Must investigate further.
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2007
- Messages
- 683
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 11
I wanna start off by saying that I absolutely loved the film, but I feel like the last few minutes leave a few glaring (but forgivable) plot holes:
1. At what point did Batman eject from the Bat? If he wasn't in it flying over the ocean, why would Nolan insert a shot of him taking a deep breath in the Bat seconds before the explosion?
2. When, and why, did Bruce Wayne decide to leave the mantle of the Bat to John Blake? He definitely showed the detective skills, idealism, and pain (from being an orphan) that it takes to be Batman, but he never really gave any evidence of being physically able to assume the role. If they were going to end the film by suggesting he eventually becomes a new Batman, they should've shown him winning a fight without a gun AT SOME POINT, to make it an easier pill to swallow.
3. MY Bruce Wayne would never permanently leave Gotham behind, but I will accept that Nolan/Bale's interpretation is a slightly different Bruce Wayne who would. Fine. But what I do not accept is the plausibility of it. The film goes out of its way to show that Bruce Wayne is completely broke. This is unnecessary, because what the plot needed was for Miranda Tate to take over Wayne Enterprises. A hostile take-over would be possible without leaving Bruce Wayne without a cent to his name, and all it does is make it implausible that he and Selina could run away to Europe to live happily ever after. You could counter that Bruce Wayne was "broke" in the billionaire's sense of the word broke, meaning he probably still had a few million stashed away somewhere, but the film goes out of its way to show the power going off in Wayne manor, and to mention that all of his family's possessions are being sold to pay off his massive debt.
Yes, they did have Martha Wayne's pearl necklace, but how far would that take them? How much could it possibly be worth? Bruce Wayne going broke was unnecessary, and all they did by including that detail is write themselves into a corner where an otherwise lovely ending now has glaring plot-hole right through it.
EDIT:
4. How is John Blake expected to take up the mantle of the Bat, when the Batcave is now underneath an orphanage? Come on now.
A couple of complaints:
1. It would've been good to have a short scene, could've been twenty seconds, to show where Alfred was during the 5 month "no man's land" period in Gotham. If he left Gotham after leaving Wayne's employment, they could've easily had a shot of him watching events unfold on television from somewhere, just to give the audience on update on where he was. Seemed a bit weird to have him play a big part early on in the film and then just disappear until the end.
2. When John Blake goes to find out if Bruce left anything in his Last Will for him, and he asks the lady to search under his birth name, I was waiting for him to say "Richard Grayson". That would've been pretty cool. Instead, they patronized the audience by having his actual birth name be "Robin." That was silly. I mean, come on. Maybe they were worried most people wouldn't know who "Grayson" was, but this is 2012. If you weren't watching the movie with someone who got the reference, hit up Google, or IMDB, or Wikipedia. I just thought it was silly and kind of talking-down to the audience to make the guy's name Robin John Blake. Honestly.
Those are my plotholes/complaints. If these issues had been addressed before being committed to the final cut, I may have walked out of the theater thinking I had just seen the greatest "Batman" film ever made. That title, for now, still belongs to "The Dark Knight."
1. At what point did Batman eject from the Bat? If he wasn't in it flying over the ocean, why would Nolan insert a shot of him taking a deep breath in the Bat seconds before the explosion?
2. When, and why, did Bruce Wayne decide to leave the mantle of the Bat to John Blake? He definitely showed the detective skills, idealism, and pain (from being an orphan) that it takes to be Batman, but he never really gave any evidence of being physically able to assume the role. If they were going to end the film by suggesting he eventually becomes a new Batman, they should've shown him winning a fight without a gun AT SOME POINT, to make it an easier pill to swallow.
3. MY Bruce Wayne would never permanently leave Gotham behind, but I will accept that Nolan/Bale's interpretation is a slightly different Bruce Wayne who would. Fine. But what I do not accept is the plausibility of it. The film goes out of its way to show that Bruce Wayne is completely broke. This is unnecessary, because what the plot needed was for Miranda Tate to take over Wayne Enterprises. A hostile take-over would be possible without leaving Bruce Wayne without a cent to his name, and all it does is make it implausible that he and Selina could run away to Europe to live happily ever after. You could counter that Bruce Wayne was "broke" in the billionaire's sense of the word broke, meaning he probably still had a few million stashed away somewhere, but the film goes out of its way to show the power going off in Wayne manor, and to mention that all of his family's possessions are being sold to pay off his massive debt.
Yes, they did have Martha Wayne's pearl necklace, but how far would that take them? How much could it possibly be worth? Bruce Wayne going broke was unnecessary, and all they did by including that detail is write themselves into a corner where an otherwise lovely ending now has glaring plot-hole right through it.
EDIT:
4. How is John Blake expected to take up the mantle of the Bat, when the Batcave is now underneath an orphanage? Come on now.
A couple of complaints:
1. It would've been good to have a short scene, could've been twenty seconds, to show where Alfred was during the 5 month "no man's land" period in Gotham. If he left Gotham after leaving Wayne's employment, they could've easily had a shot of him watching events unfold on television from somewhere, just to give the audience on update on where he was. Seemed a bit weird to have him play a big part early on in the film and then just disappear until the end.
2. When John Blake goes to find out if Bruce left anything in his Last Will for him, and he asks the lady to search under his birth name, I was waiting for him to say "Richard Grayson". That would've been pretty cool. Instead, they patronized the audience by having his actual birth name be "Robin." That was silly. I mean, come on. Maybe they were worried most people wouldn't know who "Grayson" was, but this is 2012. If you weren't watching the movie with someone who got the reference, hit up Google, or IMDB, or Wikipedia. I just thought it was silly and kind of talking-down to the audience to make the guy's name Robin John Blake. Honestly.
Those are my plotholes/complaints. If these issues had been addressed before being committed to the final cut, I may have walked out of the theater thinking I had just seen the greatest "Batman" film ever made. That title, for now, still belongs to "The Dark Knight."
Last edited:
