The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion & Speculation Thread - Part 43

[Compi716]

I'm starting to see a real disparity between the Batman lives/Batman dies groups, so I have a general question: which version of Bats do you prefer? The comicbook character or the Nolan adaptation?

From what I see, those who want Batman to succeed and continue with his mission (myself included) are fans of the classic character and read the books regularly. The dead/retire group seems to be newer fans, with their general introduction to - and subsequent love for - the character stemming from the Nolan films.

Where do you lie?

 

[Yurka]

I'm starting to see a real disparity between the Batman lives/Batman dies groups, so I have a general question: which version of Bats do you prefer? The comicbook character or the Nolan adaptation?

From what I see, those who want Batman to succeed and continue with his mission (myself included) are fans of the classic character and read the books regularly. The dead/retire group seems to be newer fans, with their general introduction to - and subsequent love for - the character stemming from the Nolan films.

Where do you lie?

I appreciate both outcomes, being a fan of both the comics and the Nolan films, but recognizing the Nolan films for what they are, I realize this Batman needs a definitive end so I lie more on the Dies/FakesDeath/Retires side.

 

[KRIM]

I wouldn't say it doesn't exist. Initially in TDK he's looking for a way out, by the end, he sacrifices himself on the notion that people will lose hope if they find out what Harvey did. He's lost faith in the citizens and decides to lie to them to protect them instead of being honest and trust them to make their own decisions. I would agree that throughout BB and most of TDK he is not, but by the end of TDK, he has gained a new perspective.

The perspective has been changed, but we've yet to see how much that has really affected the viewpoint of his role in the city and its citizens. That's what TDKR is for. It is far too early to call him cynical or dead-set on continuing this crusade infinitely. That hasn't been established.

I'm starting to see a real disparity between the Batman lives/Batman dies groups, so I have a general question: which version of Bats do you prefer? The comicbook character or the Nolan adaptation?

From what I see, those who want Batman to succeed and continue with his mission (myself included) are fans of the classic character and read the books regularly. The dead/retire group seems to be newer fans, with their general introduction to - and subsequent love for - the character stemming from the Nolan films.

Where do you lie?

In the faction that desires to see a resolution that is internally consistent and simultaneously progressive, from the previous 2 films. I personally don't care whether he lives, dies, or retires -- I just want it executed well.

 

[The_Raganork]

I'm starting to see a real disparity between the Batman lives/Batman dies groups, so I have a general question: which version of Bats do you prefer? The comicbook character or the Nolan adaptation?

From what I see, those who want Batman to succeed and continue with his mission (myself included) are fans of the classic character and read the books regularly. The dead/retire group seems to be newer fans, with their general introduction to - and subsequent love for - the character stemming from the Nolan films.

Where do you lie?

I don't think so.

It seems to me that some people cannot get over comic book Batman and accept that there can be more done with him other than what the comic books suggest he can do.

It has nothing to do with Nolan really, just that Batman is a creative character not a scientific equation.

It not about preference (or at least it shouldn't be) if one can't conceive Batman retiring at the end of this series because it's not something the comics would do, that's a failing in their thinking, not in the characterization in the film.

I honestly can see it going any of the three ways and neither seem more or less Batman than the other.

He's not a rigid tool, there are creative ways to use this character that aren't dominated by expectations from comics. Doesn't make them better or worse just makes them independent and not striving to be Comics.

 

[Nevincer]

I definitely consider myself a newage fan. I don't have the knowledge of the comics like most of you here, and I grew up on the Burton films and Batman Animated series, and saw my interest in the character revitalized as an adult by what Nolan has done with the franchise.

Saying that, I honestly don't think it comes down to what type of fan you are. I've seen some posters who are obviously longtime comic fans advocate the death/retires side of the debate, not because they love Nolan's version more, but because observable things scattered around the promotion as well as what it's hinging on from previous movies show it pointing in that direction, much like the presence of the LOS in this film which was constantly denied by posters before it became undeniable, and for the most part their purpose in the story as a creative decision makes sense and for a lot of people a finite ending to the trilogy does too. It's just another way of perceiving the character than previous material and him accomplishing something not seen before to add to his character growth and the rest of the mythos, and because this is more of an elseworld trilogy than some people are willing to admit it's perfectly acceptable.

 

[Nevincer]

I don't think so.

It seems to me that some people cannot get over comic book Batman and accept that there can be more done with him other than what the comic books suggest he can do.

It has nothing to do with Nolan really, just that Batman is a creative character not a scientific equation.

It not about preference (or at least it shouldn't be) if one can't conceive Batman retiring at the end of this series because it's not something the comics would do, that's a failing in their thinking, not in the characterization in the film.

I honestly can see it going any of the three ways and neither seem more or less Batman than the other.

He's not a rigid tool, there are creative ways to use this character that aren't dominated by expectations from comics. Doesn't make them better or worse just makes them independent and not striving to be Comics.

Awesome post. Especially what I highlighted. All three can be great storytelling decisions, they're just different, and there's no "superior" way to handle the character IMO The only reason it's even a topic isn't because people specifically hate the idea of him maintaining the status quo, it's just the direction seems different, which is fair and can have potential to be good just like any device Nolan uses so long as it's done in a powerful way.

 

[vaden78]

Awesome post. Especially what I highlighted. All three can be great storytelling decisions, they're just different, and there's no "superior" way to handle the character IMO The only reason it's even a topic isn't because people specifically hate the idea of him maintaining the status quo, it's just the direction seems different, which is fair and can have potential to be good just like any device Nolan uses so long as it's done in a powerful way.

The trickster is a very important archetype in the history of man. He is a god, yet he is not. He is the wise-fool. It is he, through his creations that destroy, points out the flaws in carefully constructed societies of man. He rebels against authority, pokes fun at the overly serious, creates convaluted schemes - that may or may not work - plays with the Laws of the Universe and is sometimes his own worst enemy. He exists to question, to cause us to question & not accept things blindly. He appears when a way of thinking becomes outmoded needs to be torn down built anew. He is the Destroyer of Worlds at the same time the savior of us all. In dreams {and myth} the trickster can be seen asThe FoolThe MagicianThe ClownThe JesterThe VillianThe Destroyer

 

[Nevincer]

The trickster is a very important archetype in the history of man. He is a god, yet he is not. He is the wise-fool. It is he, through his creations that destroy, points out the flaws in carefully constructed societies of man. He rebels against authority, pokes fun at the overly serious, creates convaluted schemes - that may or may not work - plays with the Laws of the Universe and is sometimes his own worst enemy. He exists to question, to cause us to question & not accept things blindly. He appears when a way of thinking becomes outmoded needs to be torn down built anew. He is the Destroyer of Worlds at the same time the savior of us all. In dreams {and myth} the trickster can be seen asThe FoolThe MagicianThe ClownThe JesterThe VillianThe Destroyer

Right... is this supposed to be actually related to my post?

 

[vaden78]

Right... is this supposed to be actually related to my post?

no. I just can't seem to post anything from my phone without replying. my apologies.

 

[Nevincer]

Ah, cool. Well that is interesting because it sounds almost exactly like Nolan's interpretation of the Joker and what he represented in The Dark Knight.

 

[The_Raganork]

Not to sidetrack this but the thing I love most about TDK Joker is that he forces you wonder how much of what he says do you believe
not surface issues like how he got the scars but about the human condition and the human mind.

Then to take that a step further how much of what Ra's said was true?

It such a stark reality to me when I examine that a lot of what Ra's and Joker say ring true to me but I ultimately still side with Batman in these cases.

 

[vaden78]

Ah, cool. Well that is interesting because it sounds almost exactly like Nolan's interpretation of the Joker and what he represented in The Dark Knight.

I was reading about jungian archetypes after watching batman begins again. the description I posted is listed under "the trickster" archetype.

 

[KRIM]

Not to sidetrack this but the thing I love most about TDK Joker is that he forces you wonder how much of what he says do you believe
not surface issues like how he got the scars but about the human condition and the human mind.

Then to take that a step further how much of what Ra's said was true?

It such a stark reality to me when I examine that a lot of what Ra's and Joker say ring true to me but I ultimately still side with Batman in these cases.

Their examinations of the human condition and nature of man are sound, which is why it can be understood and related to by many. However, ultimately their methods in resolving those (personal) issues through extremist ideologies, tips them over the edge into "full-blown whacko" territory.

A shame. Such gifted minds full of potential.

 

[The_Raganork]

Their examinations of the human condition and nature of man are sound, which is why it can be understood and related to by many. However, ultimately their methods in resolving those (personal) issues through extremist ideologies, tips them over the edge into "full-blown whacko" territory.

A shame. Such gifted minds full of potential.

haha, yes. It's ultimately their actions that make them undesirable not to say Wayne's actions aren't "full blown Whacko"

 

[Nevincer]

haha, yes. It's ultimately their actions that make them undesirable not to say Wayne's actions aren't "full blown Whacko"

They are without a doubt.

 

[vaden78]

Ah, cool. Well that is interesting because it sounds almost exactly like Nolan's interpretation of the Joker and what he represented in The Dark Knight.

I was reading about jungian archetypes after watching batman begins again. the description I posted is listed under "the trickster" archetype.

 

[vaden78]

sorry for the double post.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

@The Joker:

Why? Why is it detrimental that Nolan's/Bale's Batman be denied of redemption? Why must he continue to serve his self-fulfilling prophecy? A Grand Death is not a requirement for every interpretation of Batman. Crime has been present long before Bruce conceived the mantle, and it'll be present long after he retires and/or dies.

For Bruce to hand over the albatross and responsibility of Gotham's well-being to its citizens, it doesn't diminish Batman's message -- I believe it enhances it. Batman, the symbol and legend, is entrusting the people of Gotham to stand up against corruption and fear by using the mantle as a vessel.

Yes, atrocities, greed, corruption and depravity won't cease to exist, even with Batman's sacrifice. Yet, that is human nature, and Bruce can't change it no matter how many nights he's prowling the rooftops.

Keep in mind, Nolan's Batman was designed as an emblem to inspire good and to motivate the people themselves to take back their own debased city.

 

[DKDetective]

I don't think so.

It seems to me that some people cannot get over comic book Batman and accept that there can be more done with him other than what the comic books suggest he can do.

It has nothing to do with Nolan really, just that Batman is a creative character not a scientific equation.

It not about preference (or at least it shouldn't be) if one can't conceive Batman retiring at the end of this series because it's not something the comics would do, that's a failing in their thinking, not in the characterization in the film.

I honestly can see it going any of the three ways and neither seem more or less Batman than the other.

He's not a rigid tool, there are creative ways to use this character that aren't dominated by expectations from comics. Doesn't make them better or worse just makes them independent and not striving to be Comics.

Wow, I'm usually a fan of your posts, but this is some of the worst arrogant, patronizing stuff I've ever seen on these forums. It is not a failure in someone's thinking to be displeased with a characterization he or she believes is illegitimate. Yes, Batman is a creative character and subject to interpretation. The character has over 70 years of different interpretations in the comics and other media. Comics fan are aware that there is no single perfect version of the character. They do not fail to see the possibilities that the character holds.

Rather, what they are arguing against you is that if you change a character enough, it's not the same character anymore. This is a perfectly reasonable position. It has nothing to do with a failure of thinking. For some, a Bruce Wayne who happily retires and walks off into the sunset is not Batman, not the same character. It arguably changes the core of the character, the core of his personality and psychology. Batman is more than just a billionaire orphan who runs around meting out justice with his fists. What defines Batman is open to interpretation. Others may disagree with you about the character's defining traits, that is not a reason to talk down to them and tell them that they fail to understand the character and are wedded to the constraining idea of "comic book Batman". There are numerous comic book Batmans. Some may just disagree with you about what characteristics unify those interpretations and what constitutes the hard core of the character's identity.

 

[Fudgie]

Batman should never retire. The night never ends for Batman no matter how many battles he's won and how many criminals he stops. Gotham's crime is eternal.

 

[AnneFan]

It seems to me that some people cannot get over comic book Batman and accept that there can be more done with him other than what the comic books suggest he can do.

It has nothing to do with Nolan really, just that Batman is a creative character not a scientific equation.

I know what you mean. It's pushing the comic narrative to the limit. For example, in the comics the public would never, ever find out about Batman's identity because those are never ending stories, thus the writers don't do it. But what if they did it? How would the public in the film universe respond? The situation might not have happened before, but the way in which the character responds to it can still be very true to the character.

 

[Bane.]

Christ we need some news soon! Something! ANYTHING!

*Just to note I check this site and Batmannews about 12 times a day*


Help me.

 

[Yurka]

The perspective has been changed, but we've yet to see how much that has really affected the viewpoint of his role in the city and its citizens. That's what TDKR is for. It is far too early to call him cynical or dead-set on continuing this crusade infinitely. That hasn't been established.

The most recent decision this Batman made, was to lie to the citizens of Gotham because he lacks the faith in their ability to handle the truth. He may not be entirely cynical, but the seeds are planted. It will be interesting to see how his attitude develops in that 8 year window.

 

[KRIM]

The most recent decision this Batman made, was to lie to the citizens of Gotham because he lacks the faith in their ability to handle the truth. He may not be entirely cynical, but the seeds are planted.

Said decision was rationalized as a means of providing for Gotham. Cynicism isn't defined solely by lack of faith, but rather mistrust as a result of questioning motives and a general pessimistic worldview. That's a very important distinction.

"Sometimes the truth isn't good enough. Sometimes people deserve more. Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded."

Those aren't the words of a man who has lost all hope. They're words of someone willing to tell a white lie in order to protect and preserve goodness. Those aren't traits of cynicism. A cynic would have done away with any modes of guidance and left the people to their irredeemable lives.

 

[weezerspider]

Speaking of TDKReturns, if tweaked a little, it can credibly follow up the Nolan-verse in a Gotham that has gone to hell again. The only problem is Harvey Dent. Which can be cut out.

Oh, and Robin.

Honestly, I think the perfect time to make a TDKReturns film adaption is right after TDKR. Depending on the ending of TDKR, it could even be adjusted and incorporated in the same continuity. Or, IMO, they should just make a straight up adaption of it. The general public would probably be very interested in it and it would allow DC to buy some more time between Nolan's films and the next true re-boot while still releasing a Batman film. The real issue would be if TDKR incorporates many elements of TDKReturns (Fake death, police after Batman) would a TDKReturns film seem too repetitive to the GA?