Fail after fail. No, Nolan didn't telegraph the ending and it wasn't an example of shoddy writing.
Yes he did...and yes it was.
It was such a random thing for Alfred to bring up, with no payoff at the end of the first time its mentioned...that its OBVIOUS thats where the writers are going.
And then its never mentioned again until POOF, there he is. Its very awkward writing.
As I already explained, the cafe scene was inserted early on so that when it is shown in the end, and the viewer sees that it is the exact same cafe that Alfred had imagined, doubt is allowed to creep in, and the audience is given the option of believing what they want. Maybe Bruce died and Alfred is fantasizing about Bruce being alive. Maybe, and more likely, Bruce did indeed fake his death. But to deny the intentional ambiguity makes you look both stubborn and foolish.
Where is this intentional ambiguity?
Nevermind the fact that after his death, Bruce Wayne apparently managed to fix the Bat Signal.
That after his death, he put legal action into effect that set up the manor as an orphanage.
Nevermind that we're told he repaired the autopilot, which is the reason he was going to die in the first place, because The Bat had none...
These are all ambiguities? Things that were imagined? By all the characters in the film?
You are too arrogant for your own good. You don't care about the Christ allegory in the finale? Oh, okay man. That's pretty much the summation of the entire trilogy, but you're above that, right? As others have pointed out, you continually miss the obvious intentions of the writers and director of TDKR and its really strange, as you are obviously a very intelligent person. You're just miserable at reading films.
Its got nothing to do with me being "above it". I just don't care. I don't find it all that interesting, and it wasn't handled in an interesting way.
I don’t see myself as arrogant at all. I see myself as a rational person.
You call it a Christ allegory, but from what I recall, Christ actually died. Batman faked his death.
A sacrifice theme is a sacrifice theme, but this wasn't even a real sacrifice. If they’re not even going to explore the concept, if they’re going to have him fake his sacrifice, why should I care about a half-baked Christ allegory?
I get it. Batman falls a couple times, he gets stabbed, he sacrifices himself and ascends…kind of.
So?
Depends on which comics we're talking about. I know this, there were many times during that trilogy that I felt like I was watching the very best elements of The Dark Knight Returns, Batman: Year One, and The Long Halloween coming to life on the screen before my very eyes.
That statement, you saying "many times", that really makes me question what you think the best elements of these comics are.
He's talking about the characterization, not certain plot elements from different stories.
Yes I am. Since that was the context of the original discussion.
I read the post you mention. The rope literally serves the purpose of a safety precaution and figuratively as a crutch or inhibition. Bruce tugs the rope once on the first climb and from that instance you deduce that the "rope appears to be designed to physically hold people back"? Would inspecting the rope to serve its literal purpose seem an implausible scenario for the movie? If yes, you should discard your rappelling harness.
No...I infer that the rope is designed to physically hold people back because the film SHOWS people being held back by the rope when they try to climb.
The whole "Make the climb as the child did...without the rope" thing isn't just about Bruce and fear. Its about it being physically impossible to escape without being free of the rope. Its literal...and its metaphor.
"I’m saying the 'you have to have fear to succeed' bits are mumbo jumbo. It has no basis in psychological fact." You misconstrue the doctor's statement. He equates the fear of death with the the survival instinct. Bruce loses the power to control terror from or fear of death when he loses to Bane.
That may be...and that is so...so stupid.
It's like facing Bane and being broken by him didn't change him at all.
Why would he not gain a respect and fear of death after he faces something that should make him afraid?
Seems like a missed opportunity for character exploration to me. Not that the film wasn't already chock full of those.
Consequently, he relies on the rope due to such an inhibition rather than harness the power of the survival instinct or sympathetic nervous system. How else can you explain those stories of people performing superhuman feats under tremendous stress?
How would I explain it? The way scientists and doctors do. Adrenaline. Determination.
"By dying to the desire to cling to life for fear of death, we are liberated from the fear of death. That is to say, if you can obtain a mental state of accepting that you have nothing tethering you to this earth or this life, then you've got nothing to lose, for if you possess no attachments in this world, then there is nothing that would cause you to live in fear of losing them" (John Little)
That...has little to nothing to do with what happens in the film.
Supposedly Bruce didn't fear death already. But then he had to learn to fear death...to overcome fear of death? Thats so convoluted and nonsensical to me. Which is basically what all the "you must learn fear again" stuff was. Nonsense. Its philosophical mumbo jumbo, but its not based in anything tangible.
"Like everyone else, you want to learn the way to win, but never to accept the way to lose. To accept defeat--to learn to die--is to be liberated from it. Once you accept, you are free to flow and harmonize" (Bruce Lee).
I feel like if this is what the film was dealing with...then the film should have been more about Bruce learning to deal with failure...and not vague ideas about fear.
I loved the film and the Guard's spot on. The cafe thing WAS shoddy. There was no need to so overtly telegraph the ending.
Or...the film could have at least handled it well.
The movie tries to be like THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, but the execution of it is awful.
Alfred tells Bruce a story...not just about a cafe, but about the cafe the Waynes met at, where Alfred goes once a year on holiday. Something more than "Tum ta teedle dee...I'd always hoped you'd end up there"
Bruce tells Selina about his parents at some point. They discuss their desire to start over...to be free of their existing shackles, etc. Because, you know, there needed to be a scene where they actually bond, not just flirtatious dialogue and repetitive winks about "Your powerful friend"
That way, when Bruce does show up at the cafe, the cafe isn't a forced as hell element anymore. Its thematicaly relevant, part of the story, and connected to the Waynes, Alfred, Batman AND Selina.
Instead of just being a cafe Alfred told Bruce about that telegraphs the ending before the first third of the film is over.
Because its really, really stupid and amateaur to give away the biggest twist and the resolution to your franchise that early on.
In fact, I'd have rather had Alfred have a chat with Fox who confirms the trace of the necklace is beeping in Europe. Alfred chases it down only to find Bruce with Selina.
This, too
Well, there is little point complaining that Nolan's Batman does not fully resemble the comics when the comics themselves do not create a consistant picture.
A. I’m not. Other people are accusing me of doing so, but I haven’t actually done this.
B. In terms of characterization…the comics, while showing character change and development, and presenting different versions of Batman, still more or less DO present a consistent picture of Batman and his characterization, especially the modern comics.
I don't think that this makes much sense at all. Had the rope been physically preventing them from reaching the ledge then it would have been obvious because they would have felt it going taught around their waists as they lept.
You would think so, but apparently not.
The point of not using the rope is not that it physically stopped him reaching the ledge, but that it mentally prevented him.
Pretty sure its both.
Seeing as how most of the other story points in Nolan's franchise are just "metaphysical nonsense", I don't think this element is, either.
This might be breaking news but Batman is melodrama. melodramatic nonsense is pretty much an essential ingredient.
Batman is not any one thing. Just because Batman is at heart, melodrama, that doesn’t make a script that ONLY uses this approach good writing, or even its content good melodrama.
I think it would have been in danger of falling further into the category of melodrama, which we know that you are critical of.
Nah. Its all in the execution.
It would have been interesting though; perhaps Nolan considered this too heavy even for his Batman.
I don't think Nolan and his brother thought things through nearly as much as people think. The end result of TDKR and the various logic and execution issues in this script more or less indicate that.
That's because you aren't good at reading films. Directors are very intelligent and use symbolism and meaningful subtext to enhance the surface narrative. Chris Nolan does this. In every film. He's no Tarkovsky, Kubrick, or Lynch, but he does work in this manner. It's very disheartening to see that folks actually believe that TDKR is nothing more than an action-driven Batman movie, void of poetry or ambiguity, and that any powerful connections to archetypes and mythology have gone right over their heads. That's precisely why things aren't the most logical. He wasn't as concerned with building an air-tight screenplay that felt like the real world as he was setting a mood, implementing ideas, and connecting to very old myths to nudge the viewer into a place where they feel the movie more than they think about the movie.
I don't think the mythology and symbolism goes over people's heads at all. I think Nolan is just vague about it, but at the same time tries to tell you exactly what's going on in the film via the dialogue and storytelling, and there are inconsistencies as a result. Although this is one of the better elements about Nolan's Batman franchise. His use of those storytelling elements. Its a shame that the scripts weren't a bit tighter as well.
Also, I have been a jerk in my last several posts, especially to The Guard, and I hope he'll accept my apology. There's no reason to take a stranger's opinions on a film so seriously.
Apology accepted.
Oh, okay. Bruce's parents were murdered in front of him. He trained with the League of Shadows. He decided that he would not murder and that he would seek out true justice. He returned to Gotham to use his vast wealth, resources, and newly honed fighting skills to combat crime and corruption. He was a flawed hero, very human, and was beaten both physically and mentally at different points, but found the strength to rise above that and do what he had to do to protect Gotham from danger.
Sounds like Batman to me.
Sounds like Batman to me, too. Except that it sounds like the Nolan Batman at points, and much of this describes only the very basics of Batman. And a lot of these things apply to a lot of other heroes/characters, etc.
THANK YOU! Exactly! People need to get over the idea of this movie not being as "realistic" as The Dark Knight. Anyone who thinks that Harvey Dent can get up and walk around with his face that eaten up and that the Joker can be truly that much of a mastermind outside of being a comic book character needs to read up on the word "realistic". It's funny, though, how the more people see TDKR on repeat viewings, the more they like it, because they are finally discovering what Nolan is hiding behind all the explosions and the *pew pew pew*. It's a spiritual journey disguised as a disaster movie.
I don't think most people have issues with the smaller, less important elements of realism, like whether Dent could survive his injuries...they have issues with the absolutely ABSURD story elements, like Gotham City sending its entire damn police force underground during a time of crisis.
There's suspending your disbelief...and then there's suspending your disbelief.
Also, for those people who think its entirely unrealistic for Blake to figure out Bruce Wayne is Batman from his mannerisms...it's really not.
It's not a quesiton of it being unrealistic. Its a question being lazy writing.
Realistically, anyone who meets Bruce and Batman should be able to tell they're the same person. Heck, in the comics Silver St. Cloud figured out Bruce was Batman due to his jaw being the same.
The whole "I sensed your orphan pain, and knew you were an orphan too, and therefore must be Batman" is absurd.
It's just not a logical assumption to make. Not all orphans hide a secret pain, and its just far too convenient. And its more an issue of it being awful writing, and more or less thematically irrelevant. Batman is a detective. You'd think Blake, being a "detective" type, who was going to inherit this "detective's" legacy storywise, would use detective elements, not his "magic orphan gut", and deduce, as the comics showed, the various elements that tie Bruce to Batman. You would think the Nolans would want Blake to seem smart AND intuitive, instead of just guessing well.
As has been pointed out, its just lazy, expository writing with no interesting procedural element to it. It pales in comparison to countless similar situations in the comics over the years, and to similar scenes in film and television. Had it been "I recognized your inner pain" AND something additional, that would have been fantastic.
The theme of Bruce WANTING to fail or perhaps wanting to die even was a pretty strong theme in the subtext of the film i thought. Alfred brings it up as what he fears, and Bruce validates that with his actions... Overconfidence against Bane, never considers that he may lose or die. When he is defeated he asks Bane why he didnt just Kill him... if thats not obvious enough i dont know what is...
Except that Batman has been doing this kind of thing since BATMAN BEGINS just by operating as Batman, and this film shows no major changes to his approach before suddenly presenting us with the idea that he may wish to fail via Alfred's exposition. Being overconfident...not caring that he may lose or die...all these things apply in BEGINS and TDK. Was he also wanting to fail and or die in the previous films?
Its just not handled well in TDKR. Alfred suggesting that Bruce may want to fail/die does not a good exploration of a concept make. Its just stating an idea, but the idea is never explored or crystallized.
To climb out of the pit Bruce has to accept his fear of death and no longer march towards it fearlessly like he had been doing the whole film.
Except that the film just shows Batman being Batman after he comes back. It doesn't show him "marching toward death". It shows him being overconfident more than it shows him with any kind of a death wish.
Even the ending of the film with Batman taking the bomb out over the bay in the Bat suggests this is the end he'd been yearning for almost... but alas... more Nolan mis-direction as of course we find out the auto-pilot was indeed fixed... he chooses to LIVE and not become a true martyr and have a life of his own! That was Bruces arc... accepting that he doesnt belong dead like rachel but deserves a life of his own!
Except there's never a moment where Bruce decides he wants to live. Only one where he regained his fear of dying/overcame his fear/related metaphysical nonsense and stared off into the sun. You'd think that would be an important scene, wouldn't you?
Its funny because i know if they had played up the theme of him craving death ANY more than they did a lot of us would complain just like we did with the overemphasis of "fear" in Begins.
There’s a world of difference between being annoyed with dialogue that beats you over the head with exposition and recognizing it as lazy writing, and whining about being shown actual character exploration/development. I wouldn’t complain about the latter. I don't know that many would.
