The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - - - - Part 140

[CConn]

Plus it was kind of all out war at that point.

Killing is kinda different when it's war.

 

[The Batman]

Wow... you're really something dude.

I'd be facepalming too if I had no argument.

You totally missed the point of that scene. I guess Batman should have let the bomb go off instead of contradicting himself by talking one man's life.

Or the Nolans could learn not to blatantly contradict what their characters say or do. People can say "Batman's at war, so things are different and he alters his code" all they want, that idea is never actually expressed in the movie, and I'd have no problem with Batman suddenly killing the driver if that idea were expressed. And I expect someone to come in with some long winded response to that, but at this point. I do not care.

 

[Micromind]

Or the Nolans could learn not to blatantly contradict what their characters say or do. People can say "Batman's at war, so things are different and he alters his code" all they want, that idea is never actually expressed in the movie, and I'd have no problem with Batman suddenly killing the driver if that idea were expressed. And I expect someone to come in with some long winded response to that, but at this point. I do not care.

What happened to "Show not tell" principle of movies that many posters are insist on so that unwanted exposition could be minimized ?

 

[The Knight]

Why didn't Batman take the military's help in the end of TDKR? In the movie he basically takes down Bane's army with his own officers' army which acts as a distraction as in the backdrop Gordon jams the bomb. But when Batman proclaims his return(the burning bat scene),he risks Bane's detonation of the bomb in fear of failure of his plan at Batman's hands who could have stopped Bane(and at that time the device is not jammed).

So,in my opinion,the best and most logical plan for Batman would have been to explain to the Government the situation and to arrange for a cooperated attack. In this attack Batman would jam the device(instead of Gordon) and then signal the military to launch an attack(most probably aerial as the bridges were down). In this way,Bane would be caught off guard and chances of success would be higher if Talia's treachery is not taken into account which wasn't taken into account anyway by Batman when he made his plan.Someone please point out the flaws in my plan,if any exist.

After pondering over my proposal of the military plan,I have come up with the following drawback.

If the whole cops army is not created,Bane's men would be scattered in Gotham.If the military attacks and takes the bomb into protection after Batman has jammed it,Bane's men (roughly a thousand) will wreck havoc in Gotham as the military can't restore order in the city so quickly.Ordinary citizens may suffer as Bane's men may take several citizens hostage.Thus,the scenario will reduce from a city held hostage to several buildings and people held hostage.The city will be bailed out of a severe situation but will still remain in a critical scenario.The movie plan overcomes this as Bane's army is neutralized at one spot.

 

[Brain Damage]

What happened to "Show not tell" principle of movies that many posters are insist on so that unwanted exposition could be minimized ?

Exposition is one thing, not explaining that your character has made a critical change in his code that he's kept through the last two movies and most of this one is something else.

Now, personally, I don't think Batman's changed his code to allow killing, I honestly think it's just a plot hole (like the truck driver in TDK who gets pancaked), but if he had changed, explaining so would not be the kind of exposition people are complaining about.

Alfred's wikipedia summary about Bane, that's the kind of exposition people (myself included) have problems with.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

What happened to "Show not tell" principle of movies that many posters are insist on so that unwanted exposition could be minimized ?

I believe when he said express it more in the film he meant, obviously, visually. Any other way would be lazy.

 

[Alex Logan]

I'd be facepalming too if I had no argument.

Then facepalming away because you don't have an argument. However, you do have a great attidude and sunny disposition toward others.

Or the Nolans could learn not to blatantly contradict what their characters say or do. People can say "Batman's at war, so things are different and he alters his code" all they want, that idea is never actually expressed in the movie, and I'd have no problem with Batman suddenly killing the driver if that idea were expressed. And I expect someone to come in with some long winded response to that, but at this point. I do not care.

Yes it was, you just missed it because you were too busy picking apart every aspect of the film.

And there you have it, perfect sentence structure and a line that will end any argument. Debate over, you're full of win, close the book. Good night eveyone, don't forget to tip your waitress.

 

[Alex Logan]

What happened to "Show not tell" principle of movies that many posters are insist on so that unwanted exposition could be minimized ?

They don't care because they are better filmmakers than anyone in Hollywood. Don't you know that?

 

[Aaron O.]

Plus it was kind of all out war at that point.

Killing is kinda different when it's war.

Exactly.

"What next?" "War."

All bets are off during a war. People are always going to die. Batman is smart enough to realize what he's saying when he says war.

 

[747]

Exactly.

"What next?" "War."

All bets are off during a war. People are always going to die. Batman is smart enough to realize what he's saying when he says war.

Yep, it's not a coincidence he is using that word. All bets and rules are off.

Amazing moment by the way.

 

[BatLobster]

Batman is smart enough to realize what he's saying when he says war.

One would hope!

But yeah, I thought it was pretty clear that for all three films, the filmmakers were playing with a tension between Batman's "I won't kill" rule and the fact that he often finds himself in positions where he has to take life, or that his mere his existence is bringing out about death.

If you've ever listened to that Creative Screenwriting Magazine podcast with Jonah Nolan, he himself says that Batman wanting to do fulfill his mission without killing "is the reason we all love Batman"...but at the same time it's something of a weakness and therefore something that should be tested and challenged from a writing standpoint. I think Alfred's, "Didn't you think that there would be some casualties?" line in TDK sums it up.

The "war" remark shows that Batman has no illusions about the nature of the conflict by TDKR's end.

 

[Aaron O.]

One would hope!

But yeah, I thought it was pretty clear that for all three films, the filmmakers were playing with a tension between Batman's "I won't kill" rule and the fact that he often finds himself in positions where he has to take life, or that his mere his existence is bringing out about death.

If you've ever listened to that Creative Screenwriting Magazine podcast with Jonah Nolan, he himself says that Batman wanting to do fulfill his mission without killing "is the reason we all love Batman"...but at the same time it's something of a weakness and therefore something that should be tested and challenged from a writing standpoint. I think Alfred's, "Didn't you think that there would be some casualties?" line in TDK sums it up.

The "war" remark shows that Batman has no illusions about the nature of the conflict by TDKR's end.

Great post. That sums it up there. He had no illusions, people were about to die, perhaps himself included.

 

[The Guard]

Or the Nolans could learn not to blatantly contradict what their characters say or do. People can say "Batman's at war, so things are different and he alters his code" all they want, that idea is never actually expressed in the movie, and I'd have no problem with Batman suddenly killing the driver if that idea were expressed.

This.

The writers explored some different aspects/issues of Batman's desire not to kill pretty well in two prevous films, and even set it up as an issue in the third film, after which they apparently just forgot about it until it was time for him to blow stuff up. That's not terribly interesting exploration of a theme, and the resolution of the whole issue just wasn't well handled. "Show VS tell" is all well and good...but simply having Batman decide to kill someone without showing its impact on him, etc, is not a compelling way to "show" his ideas about killing changing.

 

[Micromind]

Exactly.

"What next?" "War."

All bets are off during a war. People are always going to die. Batman is smart enough to realize what he's saying when he says war.

You have hit the nail. It sums up what Batman was prepared to do.

 

[shauner111]

Ughh here we go again. When Batman says war, he means war. Do you need your hand held so you can understand what that means a little more?? Jesus. Use your heads people, there's millions of people's lives at stake versus a truck driver who is driving a truck with a bomb inside that's ready to dismantle said 'millions of people'. Are you really going to argue that Batman is contradicting his morals when he kills the driver!?

Good lord almighty. The ones who complain about too much exposition always turn around and complain some more when something wasn't spelled out for them, when it's just not needed.

Did you need Batman to have a scene where he growls:

"War...Which means...my code is put to the side...i never kill....but this is an exception because there's a bomb that can't go off....i have to stop that bomb from killing millions....so i have to put my code to the side for now....because the bomb..."
Gordon "...OK shut up Batman we get it, just go get the bomb, you said WAR, i understand what that means".

Batman would feel extremely guilty taking a life if he could lock them up in Blackgate or Arkham instead. But in this case Batman would go to sleep regretting a whole lot more if he didn't save millions because he chose not to kill a couple of Bane's men. Heck, he wouldnt even be alive to feel that regret. Talk about nitpicking to the extreme....

 

[CConn]

Sometimes things aren't explained in movies because anyone with a modicum of common sense can/will understand it without having it explained to them.

But okay, it's their fault that you didn't understand.

 

[BatLobster]

Personally I thought Batman just saying the word "war" was stark enough to express the theme. In a sense he's been at war the entire trilogy, but this is the only time he actually utters the word. It definitely stood out.

Not to mention it was badass.

 

[shauner111]

Tell me about it CConn! People are unreal...

 

[The Joker]

This.

The writers explored some different aspects/issues of Batman's desire not to kill pretty well in two prevous films, and even set it up as an issue in the third film, after which they apparently just forgot about it until it was time for him to blow stuff up. That's not terribly interesting exploration of a theme, and the resolution of the whole issue just wasn't well handled. "Show VS tell" is all well and good...but simply having Batman decide to kill someone without showing its impact on him, etc, is not a compelling way to "show" his ideas about killing changing.

Exactly. TDKR is guilty of a lot of that kind of shoddy writing.

 

[Alex Logan]

One would hope!

But yeah, I thought it was pretty clear that for all three films, the filmmakers were playing with a tension between Batman's "I won't kill" rule and the fact that he often finds himself in positions where he has to take life, or that his mere his existence is bringing out about death.

If you've ever listened to that Creative Screenwriting Magazine podcast with Jonah Nolan, he himself says that Batman wanting to do fulfill his mission without killing "is the reason we all love Batman"...but at the same time it's something of a weakness and therefore something that should be tested and challenged from a writing standpoint. I think Alfred's, "Didn't you think that there would be some casualties?" line in TDK sums it up.

The "war" remark shows that Batman has no illusions about the nature of the conflict by TDKR's end.

Exactly. For some reason people are just fine with the choices Batman made in the first two films, but TDKR is a totally different story for them. There's one example in each of Nolan's films that direct go against what Batman stands for. There's no difference and anyone who thinks so is lying to themselves.

On a side not, it's pretty funny that same people are always attacking this film.

 

[shauner111]

I'm noticing how it's always the same little group of people who take the scenes that make perfect sense and don't need exposition shoved down our throats (because it's not difficult to understand) and they say it's "bad writing" or "should have been explained more".

What a joke.

I can't wait to see some of you guys when the reboot happens. I'm gonna laugh my ass off. The nitpicking will probably multiply.

"Bad writing!!" yeaaaaah put these movies next to the former Batman movies and tell me what is true bad writing. Maybe Batman on film fans will just never be happy with what they're given.

 

[BatLobster]

Also, I can almost guarantee that if Batman were to verbalize the fact that he understands that he must kill, or it were more strongly emphasized in any way, people would be crying "blasphemy" and that it rapes the Batman mythos. You can't win either way.

 

[shauner111]

Also, I can almost guarantee that if Batman were to verbalize the fact that he understands that he must kill, or it were more strongly emphasized in any way, people would be crying "blasphemy" and that it rapes the Batman mythos. You can't win either way.

Exactly.

 

[The Batman]

Then facepalming away because you don't have an argument. However, you do have a great attidude and sunny disposition toward others.

The argument was clear. Even a condescending guy like you could understand, though at this point, I'm starting to doubt it. You weakly compared two different versions of Batman as if they are the same. They are not. The early version of Batman HAD no specific moral code, that's why him killing hugo's truck driver is not the same as Nolan's Batman doing it. Finger/Kane's Batman is NOT contradicting himself in those early stories.

Yes it was, you just missed it because you were too busy picking apart every aspect of the film.

Where does Batman acknowledge that he must break his one rule? When he says "War"? So either Nolan dosen't have him acknowledging that he must kill, or he did it in a shoddy, nearly nonexistent way.

And there you have it, prefect sentence structure and a line that will end any argument. Debate over, you're full of win, close the book. Good night eveyone, don't forget to tip your waitress.

If you're going to be sarcastic and pedantic about my "prefect sentence structure", at least make sure your own grammar is sound.

This.

The writers explored some different aspects/issues of Batman's desire not to kill pretty well in two prevous films, and even set it up as an issue in the third film, after which they apparently just forgot about it until it was time for him to blow stuff up. That's not terribly interesting exploration of a theme, and the resolution of the whole issue just wasn't well handled. "Show VS tell" is all well and good...but simply having Batman decide to kill someone without showing its impact on him, etc, is not a compelling way to "show" his ideas about killing changing.

Agreed.

But Batman said "War", so obviously Nolan captured the idea absolutely flawlessly, and if you don't agree then you don't "Get it", a statement I'd actually consider taking seriously if it wasn't constantly said by apologist snobs on an internet message board.

 

[Great Mind(s)]

Wait wait, people actually THINK Batman killing the driver and Talia and prepared to kill Bane is a plothole? Seriously!? You don't need these things explained to you, when millions of souls are about to be vaporized, you know Batman is going to let a few pawns die. They would have died in the explosion ANYWAY! Also, didn't Batman tell Bane he was going to kill him basically? "When I have the detonator you have my permission to die!" Come on, Batman's "no kill" rule is about executing people when they're defenseless.