Well, the Christ figure/savior allegory of the finale (that wasn't even that subtle) went right over your head. Of course, when I pointed it out you poo-poo'd it like I was wasting your time, even though you'd never mentioned it once in any of your novellas committed to insulting the film and the intelligence and talents of the filmmaker.
To quote Homer SImpson, "Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand".
Bruce's sacrificial elements are obvious.
You'll have to show me where it went over my head though. I'm keenly interested in that information.
You also let the fact that Bruce Wayne would go undetected fairly easily in a foreign country go over your head. I've beate, the point to death, I know, but how many of us can think of what any of the hundreds or thousands of billionaire playboys in the world look like?
Umm...no. I don't believe I've ever been someone who was involved in that argument on either side. Again...I just don't care about that aspect of the film.
Bruce's "final fate" at the cafe is not interesting enough for me to care that much about it beyond the basic idea that he is happy and Alfred knows he's alive, nor is the execution of it particularly interesting.
I care more about the fact that the film never bothers to set up a reason for Bruce wanting to fake his own death.
Then there was the whole "why would Bruce Wayne want to give up his life in Gotham" thing. Really? The place where his parents were murdered, the Joker killed his love and put him in a situation that resulted in him murdering Harvey Dent (more ridiculous Joker magic that is as out-there as anything in TDKR), and then crumbled around him after he was crippled by Bane, resulting in him being incarcerated in a pit halfway around the world, only to have to get out, come back to Gotham, and save the city from nuclear destruction. Got stabbed by his new girl in there too. Seems like a lot of painful memories for one human to handle. Batman is human after all.
No no no.
I understand why Bruce would want to (though it flies in the face of the Wayne Legacy that the first two films tried to establish, and Bruce Wayne's character as he's been presented, period)...but the film does not do a good job showing or telling us why he ultimately makes that decision at the end of TDKR. It is an abruptly, akwardly handled element, and as a result, feels very forced. And that is what I have discussed, ad nauseum, and that has been my issue with it. It's not that I don't understand he could have his reasons for wanting to start over or abandon his Bruce Wayne persona...its that the film never bothers to explore them or to show this rather important aspect, or to crystallize this rather important piece of character development. It just happens.
Then there's that little post you spent scoffing at how Nolan telegraphed the ending of the movie by showing Alfred in the cafe earlier when he explained his dreams. You even went so far as to question the Nolans' abilities as screenwriters while puffing up your own supposed expertise.
They did telegraph the ending. It was a horrible, expository and awkward piece of writing.
"Puffing up my own supposed expertise? Sounds like you have a distinct memory of this. Where, pray tell, did I, as an amateur writer/fan of movies puff up my "supposed expertise"?
Funny thing is, you read the whole thing wrong. Its pretty clear, especially given the way Nolan likes to mislead audiences and end his films with possibilities, that Nolan used that scene early on, quite cleverly I think, to manipulate the audience. By doing so he was able to leave the end a bit more ambiguous.
What did I read wrong now?
That they were telegraphing the cafe? That this was foreshadowing to the end? I really fail to see how I read that wrong.
Nolan was misleading us? Uh...no. Nolan was putting something earlier in the film so that Bruce showing up at a cafe with Selina and Alfred understanding that this means he is happy would make sense at the end of the film.
The end is not ambiguous in the least, other than what John Blake's actual fate/decision will be.
Bruce ends up at that cafe, just as we all knew he might when Alfred randomly brought it up at the beginning of the film.
Some folks think Bruce Wayne may have actually died and that Alfred fantasized seeing Bruce and Selina. That finale loses his ambiguity if you don't see the same scene earlier.
Those folks are wrong. The film goes out of its way to show that Bruce Wayne survived.
Did I read it that way? Not really, but I'm not sure. And that's why it wasn't a mistake at all, but quite clever. It gives the viewer something to chew on once the film is over. You can interpret however you like.
No...that's fanboys overthinking an obvious piece of filmmaking.
Beyond the story basics, there's nothing "quite clever" about the resolution of Bruce going to the cafe. Its broadcast early in the film, and handled with almost pure exposition and a nod to an earlier conversation at the end.
No point in attempting to reason with the guy who writes novellas that praise the Green Lantern movie with in-depth analysis, and then writes novellas criticizing everything about Nolan's Batman series (especially TDKR). He misses the point of everything, over-analyzes things that a child can understand, and claims that Nolan's Batman bares very little resemblance to the Batman of the comic books. Quite frustrating and silly.
Speaking of things a child can understand...
Do you honestly not see how Nolan's Batman differs from the comics?
Hyperbolize much? I don't criticize everything about Nolan's Batman franchise, nor did I praise everything about GREEN LANTERN.
Do you always get frustrated by other people having opinions?
t:
