The Dark Knight Rises TDKR SPOILERS (read at your own risk) - Part 5

[Midnight Black]

Spoiler

hollywoodrape

"I'm Gotham's Reckoning" t:

He is unnecessary evil

 

[The Guard]

[quoteOr he didn't actually think Alfred would leave him.

You ever get into a fight with a close family member, say things like they said, say you'll never talk again... And then the next day, one of you is just about over it but the other isn't?

It's kind of like that.[/quote]

No. Because I choose my words carefully.

Bruce spoke very calmly to Alfred. He obviously knew the weight of the moment.

During this franchise, it kind of bothers me that Alfred never really comes to the realization that for Bruce, Batman IS living.

They keep treating Batman as this horrible thing Bruce does, but rarely does the film explore the freedom that it gave him, as an outlet for his pain, as a transformation into something more compassionate than a revenge driven young man.

Alfred wants him to "live", but what Bruce wants (historically) is to be Batman. I just find it odd that this never really comes up. Its kind of one of the key elements of the mythos.

 

[NoBozos]

They keep treating Batman as this horrible thing Bruce does, but rarely does the film explore the freedom that it gave him, as an outlet for his pain, as a transformation into something more compassionate than a revenge driven young man.

Alfred wants him to "live", but what Bruce wants (historically) is to be Batman. I just find it odd that this never really comes up. Its kind of one of the key elements of the mythos.

One of the few things I liked in "Batman Forever" is when he said that he is Batman "not because I have to be but because I CHOOSE to be"

 

[Robin91939]

Or he didn't actually think Alfred would leave him.

You ever get into a fight with a close family member, say things like they said, say you'll never talk again... And then the next day, one of you is just about over it but the other isn't?

It's kind of like that.

No. Because I choose my words carefully.

Bruce spoke very calmly to Alfred. He obviously knew the weight of the moment.

During this franchise, it kind of bothers me that Alfred never really comes to the realization that for Bruce, Batman IS living.

They keep treating Batman as this horrible thing Bruce does, but rarely does the film explore the freedom that it gave him, as an outlet for his pain, as a transformation into something more compassionate than a revenge driven young man.

Alfred wants him to "live", but what Bruce wants (historically) is to be Batman. I just find it odd that this never really comes up. Its kind of one of the key elements of the mythos.

I don't know how to argue with you on this then. If you're going to retort with, "No. Because I choose my words carefully." As grounds for what characters in a movie should or shouldn't do -- then I really can't come back at that. It's human nature (for most humans, I guess) to say things that they don't mean when caught up in the emotions of a fight...even when seemingly calm. If that's not something you've ever done, then you're a better man than I am...and apparently Bruce Wayne as well...

(To which you'll say that you're a better man than Nolan's version of Bruce Wayne in this film, but not a better version of the Bruce Wayne that you know from the comics).

-R

 

[Blue_Scholar]

I don't know how to argue with you on this then. If you're going to retort with, "No. Because I choose my words carefully." As grounds for what characters in a movie should or shouldn't do -- then I really can't come back at that. It's human nature (for most humans, I guess) to say things that they don't mean when caught up in the emotions of a fight...even when seemingly calm. If that's not something you've ever done, then you're a better man than I am...and apparently Bruce Wayne as well...

(To which you'll say that you're a better man than Nolan's version of Bruce Wayne in this film, but not a better version of the Bruce Wayne that you know from the comics).

-R

Yeah this guy is the perfect human being, you didn't know that? Everything actually is what he says it is and not what he thinks it is. Consider yourself educated...

 

[NoBozos]

everyone is taller, wiser, better looking, richer, etc etc on the internet.

 

[The Guard]

I don't know how to argue with you on this then. If you're going to retort with, "No. Because I choose my words carefully." As grounds for what characters in a movie should or shouldn't do -- then I really can't come back at that. It's human nature (for most humans, I guess) to say things that they don't mean when caught up in the emotions of a fight...even when seemingly calm. If that's not something you've ever done, then you're a better man than I am...and apparently Bruce Wayne as well...

I don't know why you'd argue with me on it anyway. I'm looking at context. The film doesn't show Bruce "taking it back" or "not having meant it"...the film shows Bruce not realizing Alfred isn't there at first.

This wasn't an emotional spat where things were said that they didn't mean. This was a very clear split between them, and the father leaving his son to his own devices.

They were both relatively calm when Alfred left. They weren't shouting at each other. Their words were carefully chosen and had meaning. I don't buy that Bruce would wake up the next morning and "not have meant it" based on the scene I saw. I buy that he would have not remembered what happened right away as he woke up.

 

[BuckeyeBatman]

He said this was the best War movie since the silent era which I don't even have words to describe this BS quote.

http://screencrush.com/dark-knight-rises-silent-film/



Ego ruined him. Period. His movie has script 101 flaws.

biggest is different from best... fyi... was there a film more hyped than this one? was there a film you were more disappointed then because of the amount of hype you had allowed into your viewpoint?

also meant in grand scheme of things... 11,000 extras... dont know of a film that had that going for them. i dont think he said at all that it was the best.

 

[Reikowolf]

I don't know why you'd argue with me on it anyway. I'm looking at context. The film doesn't show Bruce "taking it back" or "not having meant it"...the film shows Bruce not realizing Alfred isn't there at first.

This wasn't an emotional spat where things were said that they didn't mean. This was a very clear split between them, and the father leaving his son to his own devices.

They were both relatively calm when Alfred left. They weren't shouting at each other. Their words were carefully chosen and had meaning. I don't buy that Bruce would wake up the next morning and "not have meant it" based on the scene I saw. I buy that he would have not remembered what happened right away as he woke up.

IMO it was simply to show how dependent he was on Alfred, what he said may have simply been instinctual. The events of the evening prior may not have sunk completely.

the D*** move everyone keeps talking about is justified as well IMHO as Bruce even tells Alfred how he "destroyed his world"

The ramification of the note play out very quickly.

- His sleeps with Miranda
- He fights Bane without planning properly
- He wants to die

In the end, he pulled himself out of the pit. What words could they have shared? If anything, Bruce seeked Alfred out at the Cafe, having remembered the story he told him.

again, IMHO it felt like Bruce, without words, was saying "You were right." and I think that was enough for both of them. The smiles reflect the forgiveness from each of them.

 

[TheVileOne]

Now granted I think the movie is extremely flawed, but to me that moment was Bruce sort of out of habit of waking up expecting Alfred and it messed him up Alfred wasn't there. And it was like, "Oh right. Alfred left."

Sort of like a prematurely senior moment for Bruce.

 

[Themanofbat]

It's foolish to try and say whether Avengers or TDKR are a better film. They are both excellent, 5/5 IMHO.

Avenger's captures a much larger idea of the superhero - it's essentially about mankind thrusting itself into a new era of prosperity, where we have to band together and realize our greatest strengths to defeat powerful enemies we have never and could never have imagined before.

TDKR is a realistic, character piece about a man who sacrifices everything for the people around him and overcoming his own personal, mental anguish while defeating forces of HUMANITY which threaten to break society at it's core.

Both are incredible movies with incredible takes on what it means to be a superhero. They are both near perfect films, but very different in approach. When you say one is better than the other, you are not looking at the movies objectively. You are expressing opinion. Don't express opinion as fact: that is bothersome to many.

Of course, all of this is just my humble opinion. Some people may not be able to see in these movies what I have, so they will mean different things to different people.

I agree completely.

TDKR actually made me appreciate TA even more due to the complimentary contrast it creates.

I just saw TDKR today... it's an excellent film to an excellent trilogy.

I probably enjoyed it as much as I enjoyed the Avengers...

I liked BOTH movies a LOT... for completely different reasons....

The incessant bickering between the two factions are ridiculous... I'm just happy that I can finally watch movies based on characters that I have loved since the early 70's that are neither campy nor stupid... and I'm going to enjoy the ride for as long as it lasts...

 

[Midnight Black]

I just saw TDKR today... it's an excellent film to an excellent trilogy.

I probably enjoyed it as much as I enjoyed the Avengers...

I liked BOTH movies a LOT... for completely different reasons....

The incessant bickering between the two factions are ridiculous... I'm just happy that I can finally watch movies based on characters that I have loved since the early 70's that are neither campy nor stupid... and I'm going to enjoy the ride for as long as it lasts...

Here here

 

[rogue trooper]

I was very much convinced Miranda would be the one for Bruce, until......

I also just want to say that Denny O'Neill at one point stated that if Batman were to retire, he would start a life with Talia.

 

[Owlman]

another is he won't be hounded by paparazzi. he can live pretty normally as long as he keeps a low profile.

This. Who would want a life where every time you leave your home you're surrounded by people who are trying to invade your life?

I dont really agree with this. He was trying to tell him that Gotham is better served by Bruce Wayne then it is by batman. He didn't want to see bruce be killed as batman. Bruce obviously wasnt listening and if Alfred stuck around to keep on helping him, he would never understand that. Was he wrong, maybe, but its not selfish to want the best for a person even if it involves some tough love.

Alfred has left Batman in the comics before. I can't find the title or issue number, but Batman couldn't even do the laundry because he spent his entire life training to become Batman and never learned how to do "normal life" activities. Alfred eventually put an ad in the newspaper stating that Wayne Manor was looking for a butler so he could answer it and have an excuse for returning to Wayne Manor, seeking employment, as a way of returning to Bruce. This issue was probably sometime in the 90s.

During this franchise, it kind of bothers me that Alfred never really comes to the realization that for Bruce, Batman IS living.

They keep treating Batman as this horrible thing Bruce does, but rarely does the film explore the freedom that it gave him, as an outlet for his pain, as a transformation into something more compassionate than a revenge driven young man.

Alfred wants him to "live", but what Bruce wants (historically) is to be Batman. I just find it odd that this never really comes up. Its kind of one of the key elements of the mythos.

Agreed.

 

[GalleryOfRogues]

I'm just happy that I can finally watch movies based on characters that I have loved since the early 70's that are neither campy nor stupid... and I'm going to enjoy the ride for as long as it lasts...

i'd actually like to see a couple of really campy modern CBMs. with the effects we have today you could bring some really really crazy stuff to life on the big screen. and if you keep it cheesy, you can make a really fun and whimsical style film. it'd have to be like a popcorn flic, a nod to the fact that comic books aren't just windows to deep or inspiring ideas. they can just be fun escapes from reality.

i'm not saying i don't like CBMs that try to put themselves in a real world setting, just that a couple of out-there movies would be fun to watch and have in my blu-ray collection some day

for the majority, realism is obviously the way to go, and Nolan's direction of the dark knight trilogy will probably set the benchmark in that regard for years to come (IMHO)

 

[Robin91939]

Yeah this guy is the perfect human being, you didn't know that? Everything actually is what he says it is and not what he thinks it is. Consider yourself educated...

I wouldn't say that. Guard is a good, solid poster. And I usually agree with most of what he says, and it's not like what he is saying now isn't thoughtful, or even believable... I just happen to not agree with it. Even though he has, what I consider to be, legitimate reasons to back his claims, just as I feel my theories are equally (if not better) thought out and legitimate. We don't have to make it personal on Guard and attack him, as he has never done to any of us... His points and opinions, however, are fair game

I don't know why you'd argue with me on it anyway. I'm looking at context. The film doesn't show Bruce "taking it back" or "not having meant it"...the film shows Bruce not realizing Alfred isn't there at first.

This wasn't an emotional spat where things were said that they didn't mean. This was a very clear split between them, and the father leaving his son to his own devices.

They were both relatively calm when Alfred left. They weren't shouting at each other. Their words were carefully chosen and had meaning. I don't buy that Bruce would wake up the next morning and "not have meant it" based on the scene I saw. I buy that he would have not remembered what happened right away as he woke up.

Just because they are calm and not yelling/screaming at one another doesn't mean that they weren't overly emotional. Alfred, after all, was crying... Bruce himself was choking up.

Bruce has always been a stubborn son of a *****. Alfred said he was going to leave, then pissed him off by bringing up the woman he loved and who he felt he was responsible for's death and you can see him get visually angry. He may not be screaming but you can see that he snaps and is hurt/angry/sad and says, "Goodbye, Alfred."

Maybe he did mean it. Maybe he wanted Alfred to "Go **** himself," maybe he didn't. You don't have to be yelling and screaming to be emotional and say something that you don't mean or that you'll later regret. Just because the volume of their voices was low doesn't mean their emotions weren't high.

Bruce waking up thinking Alfred would still be there is indicative of this. Alfred was ALWAYS by Bruce's side, there is definitely a chance that Bruce didn't actually believe that Alfred would leave. Him waking up and calling out "Alfred" makes this clear. It also goes to the theme of "consequences" that Nolan spoke about with this film. Bruce had a fight with Alfred and said things that he will ultimately regret and wakes up not thinking that there will be consequences for what he said -- and now he sees the consequence of that fight the next morning.

Again, just because these two weren't yelling and screaming at each other doesn't mean that they weren't highly emotional or somewhat irrational. Especially when you see the emotion in their eyes and the tears they are fighting back...

And Guard, yeah -- I'm happy to do battle with you

-R

 

[Broker]

I don't know why you'd argue with me on it anyway. I'm looking at context. The film doesn't show Bruce "taking it back" or "not having meant it"...the film shows Bruce not realizing Alfred isn't there at first.

This wasn't an emotional spat where things were said that they didn't mean. This was a very clear split between them, and the father leaving his son to his own devices.

They were both relatively calm when Alfred left. They weren't shouting at each other. Their words were carefully chosen and had meaning. I don't buy that Bruce would wake up the next morning and "not have meant it" based on the scene I saw. I buy that he would have not remembered what happened right away as he woke up.

I certainly think he meant it in the moment - Alfred too.

But I also think, as I am sure everyone who has ever had an argument with a family member or spouse can attest, that Bruce did not think truely that this would be the end of their relationship.

They could say those things to one another only because they were so close.

 

[Broker]

Again, just because these two weren't yelling and screaming at each other doesn't mean that they weren't highly emotional or somewhat irrational. Especially when you see the emotion in their eyes and the tears they are fighting back...

Indeed, and I think the context of the situation is very important for both men. Bruce had just come back from his first night out as Batman in 8 years, and Alfred had just seen his 'son' become the Batman again and risk his life.

 

[GalleryOfRogues]

During this franchise, it kind of bothers me that Alfred never really comes to the realization that for Bruce, Batman IS living.

They keep treating Batman as this horrible thing Bruce does, but rarely does the film explore the freedom that it gave him, as an outlet for his pain, as a transformation into something more compassionate than a revenge driven young man.

Alfred wants him to "live", but what Bruce wants (historically) is to be Batman. I just find it odd that this never really comes up. Its kind of one of the key elements of the mythos.

in the real world, batman was a pretty terrible thing. it's boarder line split personality disorder, not a healthy lifestyle. he was a psychopath - batman is him taking whatever fear was still inside him and using it against the criminals who he blames for the injustice in gotham under the guise of batman. in this trilogy nolan uses that as his basis for batman's entrance into crime fighting, but by the end of BB he learns from the real Ra's that the LoS (by way of economic terrorism) have been at the heart of the spreading corruption in gotham. corruption runs deeper than just the criminals and mob bosses - we all have some corruption/evil in our hearts.

this is a major step in his growth in the nolanverse - how does this psychopath try and reconcile his broken psyche? in BB we see batman face the realization that his alter ego can never truly succeed because corruption is inherent in society. from there we see events unfold in which we see batman become a true legend, something that can be everlasting, always there to make sure the corrupt have reason to look over their shoulders at night. at the same time, we see bruce wayne find a path to happiness and freedom from the cowl.

i personally love this type of exploration of the character -

 

[GalleryOfRogues]

to me - nolan is saying that bruce has deluded himself into thinking that batman is his life. but it is really isn't - it's an extension of himself. the part of himself that cannot get over the loss of his parents, and the fact that "justice" as he saw it was not served (joe chill was released). to nolan i think batman may represents bruce wayne seeking an end to a suffering he doesn't really understand in the beginning of BB. that seems to be where he ends up with the concept by TDKR.

 

[UaalaDan]

That's the thing. I dont like the ending because there is NEVER an end to his suffering, at least in my concept of Batman. The battle is never-ending. It would be more in character for Bruce to stay in Gotham and help train Blake while still living his life as Bruce Wayne with Selina. This happy ending, imo, made no sense. It may fit Nolan's vision of the character but that is not the one I've read in the comics all these years so I simply don't agree with it. I understand it but I don't like it.

Moreover, it was shown in TDK that not everyone can be Batman. Those wannabees also had will to do what is right but something was missing. And then, in this movie, he says that anyone can be Batman and that he is just a symbol. Makes no sense.

No! Batman is not just a symbol. Bruce Wayne is Batman and he can never get over the pain and simply quit and leave Gotham for a better life. That is BS!

 

[UaalaDan]

During this franchise, it kind of bothers me that Alfred never really comes to the realization that for Bruce, Batman IS living.

They keep treating Batman as this horrible thing Bruce does, but rarely does the film explore the freedom that it gave him, as an outlet for his pain, as a transformation into something more compassionate than a revenge driven young man.

Alfred wants him to "live", but what Bruce wants (historically) is to be Batman. I just find it odd that this never really comes up. Its kind of one of the key elements of the mythos.

Exactly. Nolan, because of this fact, never got the character completely right, imo. It's his movies and his vision but I certainly don't like the ending or agree with it. That IS NOT the Batman I've been reading in the comics all these years. Bruce would never quit Gotham and start a new life in a new country. He could've quit being Batman because he is old and his body doesnt support that kind of life but the Bruce Wayne I know and love would have stayed in the city and helped train Blake because the fighting for true and justice is never-ending and he clearly needs training.

 

[Broker]

It may fit Nolan's vision of the character

And that's the key issue.

 

[Broker]

Moreover, it was shown in TDK that not everyone can be Batman. Those wannabees also had will to do what is right but something was missing. And then, in this movie, he says that anyone can be Batman and that he is just a symbol. Makes no sense.

He was speaking metaphorically... ie that Batman could be anyone because Batman is a symbol, not that anyone could be Batman. There is an important distinction.

 

[GalleryOfRogues]

Moreover, it was shown in TDK that not everyone can be Batman. Those wannabees also had will to do what is right but something was missing. And then, in this movie, he says that anyone can be Batman and that he is just a symbol. Makes no sense.

not anyone can be batman. blake doesn't try and take up batman's mantle on his own. he works in the justice system and sees the corruption from the inside. he turns his back on it. he has the will, and also the understanding of justice that a dark knight will need. the dark knight's story isn't over, but bruce wayne's story is. batman lives on in the spirit of whatever form blake's version of the dark knight will become (might not even be a masked vigilante, perhaps looking over the manor and working with the orphans is more symbolic of blake become a protector of the future and the innocent people who are hurt my corruption)

i agree it's way different from any interpretation of batman i know, but i like that. every entry into batman's mythos has it's own alterations. this one was just focused more on realism and taking the character development beyond what has been done before. batman isn't just a torn man - he is a torn man seeking solace, even if he doesn't realize it himself.

the idea of someone taking up batman's mantle, making sure the dark knight continues to evolve to the needs of the citizens of gotham, can also be seen as symbolic of what batman as a figure in pop culture can be. every new interpretation tells us something about the world we live in - what we feel it means to be corrupt, to be righteous, to be afraid. perhaps the end of TDKR is a symbolic gesture meant to represent the fact that in our world, batman is as much a legend as in the nolanverse. timeless, always a vehicle for helping us make sense of what's wrong with our world.