The Dark Knight Rises - letdown or not?

[shauner111]

Terry was mentored and trained by Bruce, different scenario.

I think Wayne and Blake had about two conversations.

3 i think, but in those conversations they basically spilled their guts to each other. Plus im sure there was a lot of detective work between the two guys. There was an immediate trust and bond between the two in their first encounter. Sometimes you meet people in this world and it takes forever to bond with them, if at all. And sometimes there's an INSTANT connection. Batman & Robin always had an instant connection in the comics, even if one of them refused help in the beginning out of stubborness/denial.

The essence of that relationship was done here, and i was satisfied. Everything else was thrown out the window and i love that. I love this movie and trilogy as a whole because a lot of times Nolan kept the essence of a character or relationship then put it in a blender...and came up with something else on the other end. Not a straight-up adaptation of the comics.

We didn't get a Robin in red/yellow/green tights with a cape nor did we get a perma-white dancing Joker. A full-blown Scarecrow, immortal Ra's Al Ghul bathing in a green pool, a Two-Face who exists for years with that kind of infection running around as a mob-boss practically. A luchadore Bane with steroid tubes, a whip & cowl Catwoman. Gosh what else!?? Daggetts first name wasn't Roland. No Wayne Manor, batcave, bats, smoke bombs in TDK. A BRUCE WAYNE THAT WANTED OUT AS BATMAN EARLY IN HIS CAREER ALSO IN TDK!! That wasn't true to that part of the character, yet you keep insisting TDK was accurate and TDKR was not.

Something like that is not true to the comics, it's true to Nolans version. While other things are very true, just not on the surface. And that pisses off a lot of purists. I'm no purist.

I will defend the choice to include Blake. That he is the essence of what a successor to Batman is. And Robin has always been Batman's successor. It's just the comics barely get to it cuz they have more issues to sell, hence why Batman & Robin have so many adventures together instead of getting to the point. Which is for Batman to pass the mantle onto this kid so he can retire. TDKR didn't need to show Batman training the guy because he's in his mid-20s, he's had a bit of training as a cop, and he has many years ahead of him to find more training so he can deal with criminals his own way. Because the man is not Bruce Wayne, he's his own man. His own Batman.

Bruce and Selina was way more believable than in Returns in my opinion. For this story i believed they could leave together.

It's irrelevant whether Bruce was active for 2-3 years. This is not the comics where he's invincible and he fights forever cuz once again the issues have to sell. With Rises especially (the other 2 as well) things are tossed but other aspects of Wayne's character is done correctly. Much more than the Burton/Shumachers.

So if ur gonna hate, hate..but at least appreciate this trilogy because as far out as you think it is, it's still the most accurate depiction (in terms of characterization not visually) thus far. And who knows if they'll **** it up in the reboot or become 100 % comic-accurate.

 

[Brita21]

No, no, no

 

[James]

I loved it and it was a perfect end to the trilogy, no movie can be perfect that if you go analyzing every mistake that takes the fun out of watching the movie.

Lighten up to all those nitpicking dorks!

It's not "nitpicking" if the mistakes, plot holes and generally lazy writing are starring you in the face before the film is even halfway done.

TDKR was a huge letdown for me. After enjoying Batman Begins and TDK even more so, I was expecting something pretty incredible. If not incredible, something at the very least entertaining. TDKR not only bored me before the end of the first act, but the entire film fell apart from a myriad of poorly thought out characters and various plot points.

I'm not even the type of person who goes into a film looking to do anything but enjoy the hell of it. TDKR's failings stood out so blatantly even a happy-go-lucky movie goer like myself noticed them without any trouble at all. I wanted to love this film, but it did so much wrong from start to finish I left the theater knowing I'd never bother watching it again.

 

[Human Torch]

Terry was basically functioning as an extension of Bruce's will. It was different. Bruce was too old to fight so he guided Terry to handle the physical aspects of Batman. They worked together.

With Blake, Bruce uncharacteristically retired in his prime (again) and just left everything to Blake, a man he had two conversations with.

Even funnier is that it costs millions to maintain all those gadgets and 'tools' that Bruce left him. On top of lacking the training, Blake lacks the financial means to be Batman as well.


It was elements like that which made this film seem half-assed. BB and TDK did a great job explaining most things in a grounded, logical and believable manner. TDKR was rather sloppy from a scripting point of view. Goyer and the others got too cocky after TDK.

BB and TDK seemed fairly true to the source material and to the character. TDKR (especially the ending) felt like an Elseworlds tale. I really didn't want to ultimately see Bruce viewing 'Batman' as a burden he must eventually give up in order to attain 'happiness.' It ruined so much about what made TDK great, about Batman enduring in the face of adversity.

I'd agree with that.

 

[ЯɘvlveR]

it kinda was. but i felt the same about avengers, but at least avengers was the first of as three.

 

[Deathstroke]

3 i think, but in those conversations they basically spilled their guts to each other. Plus im sure there was a lot of detective work between the two guys. There was an immediate trust and bond between the two in their first encounter. Sometimes you meet people in this world and it takes forever to bond with them, if at all. And sometimes there's an INSTANT connection. Batman & Robin always had an instant connection in the comics, even if one of them refused help in the beginning out of stubborness/denial.

The essence of that relationship was done here, and i was satisfied. Everything else was thrown out the window and i love that. I love this movie and trilogy as a whole because a lot of times Nolan kept the essence of a character or relationship then put it in a blender...and came up with something else on the other end. Not a straight-up adaptation of the comics.

We didn't get a Robin in red/yellow/green tights with a cape nor did we get a perma-white dancing Joker. A full-blown Scarecrow, immortal Ra's Al Ghul bathing in a green pool, a Two-Face who exists for years with that kind of infection running around as a mob-boss practically. A luchadore Bane with steroid tubes, a whip & cowl Catwoman. Gosh what else!?? Daggetts first name wasn't Roland. No Wayne Manor, batcave, bats, smoke bombs in TDK. A BRUCE WAYNE THAT WANTED OUT AS BATMAN EARLY IN HIS CAREER ALSO IN TDK!! That wasn't true to that part of the character, yet you keep insisting TDK was accurate and TDKR was not. .

And that was another big problem with Bruce suddenly handing everything off to Blake.

BB and TDK was basically 'Batman:Year One.' We got a rookie Batman. A Batman beginning.

TDKR was Bruce at the end of his career, Batman retiring. The problem is he was at his prime and there was no middle to his career. TDKR should have been the middle. It was too soon to see him give everything up. All we saw of Bruce's development as Batman was his first few missions, then he retires for 8 years.

TDKR should have ended with Bruce as Batman finally being accepted by Gotham and beginning his glory days as the protector of the city.

This whole 'trilogy' should have been about Batman beginning and establishing himself.

TDKR went too far to END Bruce's Batman, and toss it over to Blake (a character randomly introduced in this film that audiences aren't connected with). It was a poor decision.

It's irrelevant whether Bruce was active for 2-3 years. This is not the comics where he's invincible and he fights forever cuz once again the issues have to sell. With Rises especially (the other 2 as well) things are tossed but other aspects of Wayne's character is done correctly. Much more than the Burton/Shumachers.

So if ur gonna hate, hate..but at least appreciate this trilogy because as far out as you think it is, it's still the most accurate depiction (in terms of characterization not visually) thus far. And who knows if they'll **** it up in the reboot or become 100 % comic-accurate

It's not the trilogy as a whole. BB and TDK were perfect. They were true to the comics and really gave us 'Batman Year One.'

This film just undermined the first two. It wasn't horrible, but it was very wasted potential. Once the hype dies down, more people will see it as the weakest installment.

 

[shauner111]

Meh, i dont see Batman Begins and TDK as being true to the comics while TDKR ventures off in a different direction. I see all 3 of them as being inspired by the 80's Frank Miller graphic novels with hints of Jeph Loeb, Dennis O'Neill and Chuck Dixon thrown in for good measure. It's influenced somewhat by those, but even the first 2 of the trilogy isn't exactly comic book accurate the entire time. They ALL venture off.

I disagree that the first 2 movies are "Year One". Batman Begins was the Year-One of the trilogy. TDK represented Batman in his prime (in this universe). And TDKR represents past his prime. Maybe if it were the comics then you would be right.

The problem is that fans like yourself have an expectation that traces back to the comics. It's simply not the comics so he doesn't have to have a 5, 10, 15, 20 year career. It's the movies and in this universe the Batman never existed that long but he got a heck of a lot of **** done. So Batman operating for a few years in total is just something we have to take, because it's not the comic world. It was told to us in Begins that this is if Batman existed in real life. With his injuries i doubt he would go much longer anyhow. Of course you're gonna have thoughts that lead back to comics, my point was not every element has to be there..

Even Keatons Batman might not have been operating for that long. Seeing the Batman in person seemed like a brand new thing for Commissioner Gordon in 89'. And Batman was probably in his late 30s. Same with Nicholson, the guy became Joker around the age of 50. If it's all the same universe (im talking about Shumacher now) then they made Bruce younger with Kilmer but who knows? Maybe that batman existed for only a few years before Robin came into play. Film is just a different universe, and you shouldnt expect it to be faithful to every aspect of the Bat.

At least Bruce tried using his resources as "Bruce Wayne" for 5 of those 8 years off. And then for 3 years, he was mentally in Batmans dark world. Wanting to get back out there, looking for an excuse to be Batman during those years, but he just couldn't. Once he did get back out there it made for a powerful moment. Maybe not to you, but for me it was.

 

[Deathstroke]

Considering Bane completely slipped under Bruce's radar, he really wasn't that engrossed in his Batman duties during those years at all.


And I disagree that TDK is Batman in his prime. TDK happened just a few months after Batman Begins. He's still in his first year of being Batman. He's still in year one. He's still a rookie. It felt like the continuations of his origins.


IMO the 8 year gap was another mistake, especially if Bruce was basically static during that whole time period. They could have used flashbacks to utilize that time gap better.

It was too soon for Bruce to retire. The first two films showed his that his story was just beginning. The third one just abruptly ended it in a way that drastically deviated from the source material.

 

[Micromind]

IMO the 8 year gap was another mistake, especially if Bruce was basically static during that whole time period. They could have used flashbacks to utilize that time gap better.

It was too soon for Bruce to retire. The first two films showed his that his story was just beginning. The third one just abruptly ended it in a way that drastically deviated from the source material.

This is Nolan's Batman trilogy Not a faithful adaption of some of the Batman graphic novel. It can be considered as an Elseworlds tale.

What source material ?

If the movie is not following comics closely but loosely then it can deviate in many places.

For examples I will just list some of the "complaints" from some posters where they want This movie to address them differently but same poster have no complaints about similar deviations from source material in TDK and BB.

"Talia should not be in this movie"
Talia ties into the story arc carried over from BB, at least she has some background that we know of unlike Rachel Dawes, who was there in BB for some unknown reason.

"Bane should have been a solo villain."
Fine, but how will he get an army of trained soldiers, some will say he did work in small African nations as a mercenary, but then why would he go after Gotham City ? Why not some other City, and why would he have a something against batman / Bruce Wayne ?

Sure all that could be addressed in the story too, but then it would need even longer run time, tying it all up with LOS, Ras Al Ghul and Talia is better as it references the elements introduced in the earlier films.

"Why Eight year gap ?"
Bruce Wayne was not the same man after the events of TDK, Gotham was not in the same state after the events in TDK. Gotham city was a much safer place thanks to Dent Act.

Bruce Wayne wanted to help the city by giving them an alternative Green energy, but even after five years of research and after he spent huge portion of money on the project, the project remained a failure, that made him a recluse, he personally blamed himself for deaths of Rachel and Dent and he blamed himself for the failure of clean energy project, he could not be Batman again either, as Batman was not needed, he went into a shell.

All this took some time, it cannot happen within a short time period of say Two years. (Research and development of clean energy project and then its subsequent failure.) and its psychological impact.

Such issues are explained if anyone cares to look deeply within the movie, it is Not part of TDKR's problems.

 

[Deathstroke]

When has Bruce ever retired indefinitely in his 30s in the comics or other mediums, and handed everything over to someone else?

There are cases in the comics where Bruce temporarily escapes from the Batman but he always comes back to it. It's part of who he is.

Nolan's film ending with Bruce giving up Batman, with no chance of us ever seeing him return, really betrays what Bruce Wayne is.



And while I understand the logic of an 8 year gap to show us a different Gotham, it was executed poorly when it came to Bruce's characterization. He basically did nothing for 8 years. They could have at least had him tracking the LoS and Bane. It was wasted.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Terry was basically functioning as an extension of Bruce's will. It was different. Bruce was too old to fight so he guided Terry to handle the physical aspects of Batman. They worked together.

With Blake, Bruce uncharacteristically retired in his prime (again) and just left everything to Blake, a man he had two conversations with.

Even funnier is that it costs millions to maintain all those gadgets and 'tools' that Bruce left him. On top of lacking the training, Blake lacks the financial means to be Batman as well.


It was elements like that which made this film seem half-assed. BB and TDK did a great job explaining most things in a grounded, logical and believable manner. TDKR was rather sloppy from a scripting point of view. Goyer and the others got too cocky after TDK.

BB and TDK seemed fairly true to the source material and to the character. TDKR (especially the ending) felt like an Elseworlds tale. I really didn't want to ultimately see Bruce viewing 'Batman' as a burden he must eventually give up in order to attain 'happiness.' It ruined so much about what made TDK great, about Batman enduring in the face of adversity.

Definitely a matter of opinion, but I am fine with Nolan's Wayne wanting a successor as this isn't your typical CBM with Bruce Wayne where we see him stay as Batman forever. This is a story of a man creating a symbol and that symbol is carried down from generation to generation. Sure, Wayne could have kept being Batman until he was very old, but it had to fit with Nolan's story, and I'd rather TDKR have been just eight years away from TDK's events then eighteen to make Bruce even older.

And you're right, TDKR feels like a elseworld's tale, but so do BB and TDK when you take the trilogy for what it is and it's all one giant tale, so the entire trilogy can be considered as some elseworld's story, not just the last film.

I myself rather enjoyed a director taking liabilities to a comic book character. More directors should reach pass the boundaries.

 

[Micromind]

And you're right, TDKR feels like a elseworld's tale, but so do BB and TDK when you take the trilogy for what it is and it's all one giant tale, so the entire trilogy can be considered as some elseworld's story, no just the last film.

Agreed.

I myself rather enjoyed a director taking liberties to a comic book character. More directors should reach pass the boundaries.

Fixed.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Thanks. Liberties was what I was trying to say, my bad.

 

[Squaremaster316]

In some aspects, TDKR has qualities that are not only better than TDK and BB, but arguably better than any film Nolan had directed before.

The female supporting character in this film, Selina Kyle, IMO is the best female character Nolan has ever presented. Strong, smart, layered, she's got it all. Other female characters he's written have varied in their strengths and weaknesses, but His Catwoman may not only be his best written female character ever, but the best female character in any of the CBM films this year.

Alfred gave the best performance out of the 3 films. He was always a solid supporting character but here is where he really gets to stretch his dramatic chops. True, I wish he was in the second half a bit more, but he definitely gave a great performance with the screen time he was given.

Blending of Batman Begins/Dark Knight atmosphere: While the 3 films exist in the same universe, Batman Begins and Dark Knight each seemed to have a noticeably unique style from each other. This film manages to blend both of them together into one uniform tone.

Bane was a physical force unlike any Batman had faced previously, Stronger than Ghul or Joker and not subject to any of the theatrics that Batman uses against other opponents. I like the contrast of how the darkness failed to be a benefit to Batman during the first fight, so he abandons it during the day time.

More comic book shout outs than the first two without them seeming out of context within the film. While the first two films had comic story lines interwoven into the films, this has some of the more infamous ones, arguably making it the most comic booky of the three. The BB/TDK detractors who complained about there not being enough references in the first two have nothing to b*tch about here.

...and, unlike other films that try to incorporate comic story lines (IM2/Demon in a Bottle), these were actually done justice.

While there are aspects of the film that are worse than the previous two (shoehorned Robin reference, the final Batman/Catwoman kiss cliche), it's still an overall satisfying experience and the first true 3rd installment to shatter the CBM curse.

 

[Micromind]

In some aspects, TDKR has qualities that are not only better than TDK and BB, but arguably better than any film Nolan had directed before.

The female supporting character in this film, Selina Kyle, IMO is the best female character Nolan has ever presented. Strong, smart, layered, she's got it all. Other female characters he's written have varied in their strengths and weaknesses, but His Catwoman may not only be his best written female character ever, but the best female character in any of the CBM films this year.

Alfred gave the best performance out of the 3 films. He was always a solid supporting character but here is where he really gets to stretch his dramatic chops. True, I wish he was in the second half a bit more, but he definitely gave a great performance with the screen time he was given.

Blending of Batman Begins/Dark Knight atmosphere: While the 3 films exist in the same universe, Batman Begins and Dark Knight each seemed to have a noticeably unique style from each other. This film manages to blend both of them together into one uniform tone.

Bane was a physical force unlike any Batman had faced previously, Stronger than Ghul or Joker and not subject to any of the theatrics that Batman uses against other opponents. I like the contrast of how the darkness failed to be a benefit to Batman during the first fight, so he abandons it during the day time.

More comic book shout outs than the first two without them seeming out of context within the film. While the first two films had comic story lines interwoven into the films, this has some of the more infamous ones, arguably making it the most comic booky of the three. The BB/TDK detractors who complained about there not being enough references in the first two have nothing to b*tch about here.

...and, unlike other films that try to incorporate comic story lines (IM2/Demon in a Bottle), these were actually done justice.

While there are aspects of the film that are worse than the previous two (shoehorned Robin reference, the final Batman/Catwoman kiss cliche), it's still an overall satisfying experience and the first true 3rd installment to shatter the CBM curse.

Good points.

 

[shauner111]

When has Bruce ever retired indefinitely in his 30s in the comics or other mediums, and handed everything over to someone else?

This isn't the comics, or other mediums like animation. It's an elseworlds tale.

There are cases in the comics where Bruce temporarily escapes from the Batman but he always comes back to it. It's part of who he is.

Yes it's a part of who he is....in the comics. Get over it. This is only loosely based off the comics. Burtons and Shumachers movies are even more loose in their approach. But people actually take them for what they are...a different story for Batman.

Nolan's film ending with Bruce giving up Batman, with no chance of us ever seeing him return, really betrays what Bruce Wayne is.

No it doesn't. Ok it may betray who he is in most comic books and animation, but for the 80th time..this is a different interpretation for a different medium. It does NOT betray what they set up with Bruce Wayne ever since Batman Begins. From the get-go he didn't want to be Batman forever, he wanted to inspire people and pass the torch. It's the opposite of betrayel for this universe, it's following through.

And while I understand the logic of an 8 year gap to show us a different Gotham, it was executed poorly when it came to Bruce's characterization. He basically did nothing for 8 years. They could have at least had him tracking the LoS and Bane. It was wasted.

The bolded part is your opinion and i respect it, so i wont comment on that. But he did do something in the 8 years. Gotham didn't need Batman because in this elseworlds tale it was more about Bats targeting organized crime, not every little thief in the city. No organized crime= no Batman in this tale. In the 8 years, he dedicated 5 of them to his clean energy project. He tried being that heroic Batman through his everyday Bruce Wayne persona. Using his resources. But that failed so he went into isolation for the remaining 3 years. A recluse for 3 years...depressed and trapped in his mind as the Batman without an outlet.

How could he track Bane if he only ever heard of him once the 8 years were over?

 

[Deathstroke]

This isn't the comics, or other mediums like animation. It's an elseworlds tale.

Yes it's a part of who he is....in the comics. Get over it. This is only loosely based off the comics. Burtons and Shumachers movies are even more loose in their approach. But people actually take them for what they are...a different story for Batman.

No it doesn't. Ok it may betray who he is in most comic books and animation, but for the 80th time..this is a different interpretation for a different medium. It does NOT betray what they set up with Bruce Wayne ever since Batman Begins. From the get-go he didn't want to be Batman forever, he wanted to inspire people and pass the torch. It's the opposite of betrayel for this universe, it's following through.

The bolded part is your opinion and i respect it, so i wont comment on that. But he did do something in the 8 years. Gotham didn't need Batman because in this elseworlds tale it was more about Bats targeting organized crime, not every little thief in the city. No organized crime= no Batman in this tale. In the 8 years, he dedicated 5 of them to his clean energy project. He tried being that heroic Batman through his everyday Bruce Wayne persona. Using his resources. But that failed so he went into isolation for the remaining 3 years. A recluse for 3 years...depressed and trapped in his mind as the Batman without an outlet.

This Elseworlds excuse doesn't fly. Elseworlds is a complete reimagining of the character that can deviate from the DNA of the character.

The DNA of Bruce/Batman was very much intact with BB and TDK. They did an amazing job of showing us Batman's origins. It wasn't Elseworlds. All the core elements needed for Batman's origins were there. The broad strokes were true to the comics and to Batman.


TDKR, however, especially with that ending, was Elseworlds for all the reasons mentioned above (especially that ending and Bruce retiring). It went off track from the previous films in that regard. It was disappointing to me mainly for that reason, and the laziness of the script.

TDK was as close to a perfect CBM as any film can get. TDKR was inferior.

IMO it didn't break the curse of the third films. Relative to Nolan's Bat films, TDKR was the weakest one. Once the hype dies down, I'm certain that's how it will be remembered.

How could he track Bane if he only ever heard of him once the 8 years were over?

Batman would have made it 'his business to know' early on.

 

[BH/HHH]

My biggest problem with this film was how it kind of ruins the Dark Knight for me. To think he quits after that film really bugs me but most if all, I think Nolan could've finished off his trilogy without making it so final, Batman could definitely have gone the James Bond route n kept making films in n ongoing series. I don't buy that people talk about other directors would have had to have copied Nolan's style, the Bond movies are very different from each other at points in the series.

 

[Deathstroke]

My biggest problem with this film was how it kind of ruins the Dark Knight for me. To think he quits after that film really bugs me but most if all, I think Nolan could've finished off his trilogy without making it so final, Batman could definitely have gone the James Bond route n kept making films in n ongoing series. I don't buy that people talk about other directors would have had to have copied Nolan's style, the Bond movies are very different from each other at points in the series.

That's what I was hoping would happen. It would have been the best move.

Instead we get a solid foundation with BB and TDK, completely destroyed by the events of TDKR.

 

[shauner111]

You'll probably get that with the reboot. Im sure they wont touch the origins, or the Joker,etc for a long while. And if they bring Joker back, im guessing he'll exist already in the story and he'll break out of Arkham with Harley Quinn or something. It'll almost be like the stories that could have taken place post-TDK if Bruce hadn't retired.

Bruce will be young, in his prime, established, facing off against new villains. Some fantasy thrown in.

Why not look at it like TDKR is one-way the story could have gone and the reboot as the other direction it could have gone?

 

[BH/HHH]

You'll probably get that with the reboot. Im sure they wont touch the origins, or the Joker,etc for a long while. And if they bring Joker back, im guessing he'll exist already in the story and he'll break out of Arkham with Harley Quinn or something. It'll almost be like the stories that could have taken place post-TDK if Bruce hadn't retired.

Bruce will be young, in his prime, established, facing off against new villains. Some fantasy thrown in.

Why not look at it like TDKR is one-way the story could have gone and the reboot as the other direction it could have gone?

I hope we do film companies are obsessed with trilogies these days but comic properties are a great fit for the Bond formula. Of course we don't need the origin again but I would be shocked to see a flashback or two in the reboot.

I just feel Begins and TDK left such a great foundation, I really don't think Nolan intended to do a third Batfilm after the 2nd one.

 

[Human Torch]

The biggest problem for me (and I'm sure this will draw the ire of Nolan fans) is that Nolan made it his Batman in the end.When I saw BB,I was floored.It set the stage for the first "proper" Batman film series.

Then,TDK rolls around....and I had mixed feelings.Two-face dies after existing for about 24hrs,Joker wears smeared on make-up.....but hey!It was a great story,so I was willing to let it pass.


Now,with TDKR,I can see how some people are feeling like it's a bit too much to take at this point.(Bruce retired for 8 years,dropping the mantle like a hot potato to a successor whom he barely knew,Alfred ditching Bruce after all the "You haven't given up on me" & "Endure" speeches of the previous films,etc)

If Nolan would've left it open-ended instead of giving us the "end" of the "Batman Legend" it would've been a great way to have the "Bond series" style that many of us wanted,since BB left a great foundation.

 

[Zeerola]

For me TDKR was total letdown. I saw it once and I have no intentions of seeing it again. To be fair it wasn't bad movie but I just expected better.

My problems as they follow:
Bruce's retirement - Why did he retired? Okay it was explained in the film-related material but not during the actual movie.
Catwoman - Bland and boring one-dimensional character, annoing anti-establishment hipster.
Talia - Also kinda boring, her actions and motives makes little no sense
Bane - I liked Bane but his actions stopped making sense when talia was revealed.
John Blake - Such a Mary Sue I hated him wholeheartedly.
Plot Holes - Lot of them.
Ending - Stupid mushy hollywoodlike happy ending. I hated it.

 

[Squaremaster316]

When has Bruce ever retired indefinitely in his 30s in the comics or other mediums, and handed everything over to someone else?

Mask of the Phantasm had him retiring before he even donned the cape and cowl

 

[Anno_Domini]

My biggest problem with this film was how it kind of ruins the Dark Knight for me. To think he quits after that film really bugs me but most if all, I think Nolan could've finished off his trilogy without making it so final, Batman could definitely have gone the James Bond route n kept making films in n ongoing series. I don't buy that people talk about other directors would have had to have copied Nolan's style, the Bond movies are very different from each other at points in the series.

Imo, any series could go on the James Bond way, but they just don't. Spider-Man, Superman, Batman, etc....they've all had a series and they've all gone through reboots. It was only natural for Nolan's series to end as much as it was natural to move on from Raimi's Spider-Man.

The biggest problem for me (and I'm sure this will draw the ire of Nolan fans) is that Nolan made it his Batman in the end.When I saw BB,I was floored.It set the stage for the first "proper" Batman film series.

Then,TDK rolls around....and I had mixed feelings.Two-face dies after existing for about 24hrs,Joker wears smeared on make-up.....but hey!It was a great story,so I was willing to let it pass.


Now,with TDKR,I can see how some people are feeling like it's a bit too much to take at this point.(Bruce retired for 8 years,dropping the mantle like a hot potato to a successor whom he barely knew,Alfred ditching Bruce after all the "You haven't given up on me" & "Endure" speeches of the previous films,etc)

If Nolan would've left it open-ended instead of giving us the "end" of the "Batman Legend" it would've been a great way to have the "Bond series" style that many of us wanted,since BB left a great foundation.

A lot of people, mostly anti-Nolan fans, did not appreciate the origin he gave Batman, so some would argue that going on from Nolan's origin is not the best way to go.

And also for the 'Nolan making Batman his'...it's that way for every director giving their take on a superhero. It's their take. People love it, people like it, people hate it.