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

[BatLobster]

The Joker was a terrorist as far as the people of Gotham are concerned. He's a guy making threats and then carrying them out to cause people to panic. That's a terrorist alright. You don't have to be a foreigner working for an organization or a jihadist in order to be considered a terrorist. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist. Ra's, Joker and Bane were all pretty much terrorists in their own ways.

Just like Batman says war, and then we see a war take place in the streets of Gotham. Honestly, I don't see what's up for interpretation here. Did he not know there was going to be a war even though he himself said it and orchestrated it?

It's not untrue that the previous films dealt with themes of urban war. But we're talking about the climax of the whole trilogy here. Escalation. By the end of the film, there is no doubt, the film is dealing with actual war, in the oldest sense.

Nothing abstract there. Even the marketing was preparing us for elements of a war film.

 

[Brain Damage]

Reading the last few pages has made me want to laugh and cry. Oh, we fanboys sure are a dedicated bunch.

Personally, I agree with most everything The Joker has said so far. Batman killing that plot driver is either a plot hole, or just poorly executed story telling.
For one, you can't have a character suddenly turn against a code established over 7 hours of screentime ago in the last twenty minutes of a movie if you're going to do it with him saying one line.
Batman saying "war" does not equal Batman saying "I'll do anything it takes".
War has rules. If you don't think so, look up this little thing called the Geneva Convention. And yes, some sides choose to break the rules of war, but Batman should be a character who is above that. He should be someone who follows his own code, no matter the circumstance. In TDK, this is shown when he catches the Joker even though by letting him go he is potentially risking the lives of innocent citizens (as the Joker did already prove that being captured by the police isn't a huge problem for him).

One of my creative writing professors often talked about "the fictive dream", which is the state we find ourselves in when we get really absorbed into a work of fiction, completely inhabit that world and forget we're experiencing a product (book, film, whatever). When something breaks the fictive dreams it pulls you out of that world and makes you remember that you're watching a movie or reading a book, etc. Batman killing that truck driver pulled me out of the fictive dream and made me say "wait, did that just happen?"

If Batman being okay with breaking his code due to the circumstance had been established prior to that moment, beyond a single word, it wouldn't have happened.

 

[Batman]

Reading the last few pages has made me want to laugh and cry. Oh, we fanboys sure are a dedicated bunch.

Personally, I agree with most everything The Joker has said so far. Batman killing that plot driver is either a plot hole, or just poorly executed story telling.
For one, you can't have a character suddenly turn against a code established over 7 hours of screentime ago in the last twenty minutes of a movie if you're going to do it with him saying one line.
Batman saying "war" does not equal Batman saying "I'll do anything it takes".
War has rules. If you don't think so, look up this little thing called the Geneva Convention. And yes, some sides choose to break the rules of war, but Batman should be a character who is above that. He should be someone who follows his own code, no matter the circumstance. In TDK, this is shown when he catches the Joker even though by letting him go he is potentially risking the lives of innocent citizens (as the Joker did already prove that being captured by the police isn't a huge problem for him).

One of my creative writing professors often talked about "the fictive dream", which is the state we find ourselves in when we get really absorbed into a work of fiction, completely inhabit that world and forget we're experiencing a product (book, film, whatever). When something breaks the fictive dreams it pulls you out of that world and makes you remember that you're watching a movie or reading a book, etc. Batman killing that truck driver pulled me out of the fictive dream and made me say "wait, did that just happen?"

If Batman being okay with breaking his code due to the circumstance had been established prior to that moment, beyond a single word, it wouldn't have happened.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

with regards to "war", and Batman's killing rule:

He didn't come in with the Bat and shoot everyone (Bane included).

He still would rather not kill if he doesn't have to. Batman wasn't trying to kill Talia and the driver so much as get them to turn or whatever.

 

[shauner111]

You mean like the Joker's and the underworld versus the Cops? Like how they called Joker a terrorist?

No. That's not what i mean.

Keep your close minded views to yourself if you really believe that.

It has nothing to do with being close-minded. There's room for interpretation for a lot of things in this movie, that's what i've been arguing over the past few months. But in this case it's different. It's a war in the traditional sense. 1 army vs 1 army. Tanks, you name it. The military had their say. It's literally war, no interpretations, it's spelled out for you in the film. Batman says it, maybe you should listen up. And i dont know about you, but when it's time for war, it's about winning that war at all costs. Batman tries his best to fight his way through this war, but you dont see him stopping any cops from killing these mercenaries. He doesn't have time for it, he has to get the bomb. He also doesn't have time to figure out a way to get the bomb without sending a missile through that truck. Time is running out. He's trying to stop the truck, and like what happened with the death of Two-Face, he chooses the right thing to do. He fires at the truck. The driver dies and it beats not saving millions of lives.

I dont know what else to say to you people who dont like it. You can have your opinion in the sense that you dont like the way it played out. But to call it bad writing, or it doesnt make sense that Batman would behave this way (when he has no choice) is just really stupid. To say it's up to interpretation whether it's a war or not....WHATEVER you guys are saying...it's just wrong.

Sorry but it's a war, and Batman has no choice but to save Gotham and it doesnt matter at that point who dies. There's no different interpretations about it. You go on and on about "give me facts"...THESE ARE THE FACTS. Im not talking conjecture. It's right in front of your face so watch the movie again.

Before the movie there was a war theme in the marketing, the trailers showed a civil war of some kind and i even thought "i have a feeling Batmans gonna have to break his one rule on purpose and kill Bane in cold blood this time". That didnt happen but look at what did. When there's a lead up to there being a war, and Batman even says it, and there's an atomic bomb about to go off, i think you should use your head and think how Batman has to evolve.

and YES Feed..he wasnt even trying to kill them.

 

[BatLobster]

Reading the last few pages has made me want to laugh and cry. Oh, we fanboys sure are a dedicated bunch.
Personally, I agree with most everything The Joker has said so far. Batman killing that plot driver is either a plot hole, or just poorly executed story telling.
For one, you can't have a character suddenly turn against a code established over 7 hours of screentime ago in the last twenty minutes of a movie if you're going to do it with him saying one line.
Batman saying "war" does not equal Batman saying "I'll do anything it takes".
War has rules. If you don't think so, look up this little thing called the Geneva Convention. And yes, some sides choose to break the rules of war, but Batman should be a character who is above that. He should be someone who follows his own code, no matter the circumstance. In TDK, this is shown when he catches the Joker even though by letting him go he is potentially risking the lives of innocent citizens (as the Joker did already prove that being captured by the police isn't a huge problem for him).

One of my creative writing professors often talked about "the fictive dream", which is the state we find ourselves in when we get really absorbed into a work of fiction, completely inhabit that world and forget we're experiencing a product (book, film, whatever). When something breaks the fictive dreams it pulls you out of that world and makes you remember that you're watching a movie or reading a book, etc. Batman killing that truck driver pulled me out of the fictive dream and made me say "wait, did that just happen?"

If Batman being okay with breaking his code due to the circumstance had been established prior to that moment, beyond a single word, it wouldn't have happened.

Yeah, it seems we fanboys are just doomed to quibble over every detail. Not just bat-fans, fans of anything really...but maybe especially us Bat-fans

First of all, I respect your opinion and appreciate the way you stated it. I will offer the counter-argument that the code was never established as dogma, or that Batman had been particularly successful at following it over the course of the movies. Certainly not in the case of Ra's or Harvey.

We have a contradiction with this character. He doesn't want to kill, yet he has in all of the movies. This starts the moment he refuses the LOS initiation and ends up blowing up the monastery. He goes on to use military vehicles with an extraordinary amount of firepower. Now, I know some posters like The Guard will just come out and say that this element was poorly handled in all three movies- that's fine. Personally, I found the tension between Batman's ideals and the reality of what he wants to accomplish to always be there. The Joker (poster) is right, the themes of war have been in the language of this trilogy the whole time. Alfred calls Rachel a "casualty". In TDKR, it goes to the next level and becomes very literal. The Joker may have been a threat, but he's not Bane/Talia in TDKR. He wasn't going to nuke the city. He wanted to continue playing the game with Batman. Bane/Talia wanted to end Gotham. And it was minutes away from happening.

 

[Batman]

The counter-argument there is that the code was never established as dogma, or that Batman had been particularly successful at following it.

Then he's not Batman. He's a ****-up.

 

[BatLobster]

Then he's not Batman. He's a ****-up.

Batman is human and flawed. That's kinda why I like him.

Saving The Joker was definitely the big moment in this trilogy where "the code" triumphed, as Brain Damage pointed out. But it wasn't perfect. It didn't always work out like that.

 

[Batman]

Batman is human and flawed. That's kinda why I like him.

Batman is noble, heroic, goes out of his way to protect all forms of life, and is still allowed to be human and flawed. That's kinda why I like him.

 

[Brain Damage]

Nowhere in the Geneva Convention is there anything about not being allowed to kill your enemies either.

And nowhere did I say anything about Batman having to follow the Geneva Convention. That was in response to a post I read earlier where a member said that as soon as it turns into war, all rules go out the window. In fact, I said that Batman should act by his own rules, no matter the circumstance.

And again, if you're gonna have Batman break his own rules, fine. But you have to establish that in a better way than just having Batman say "war".

And if your response is "What else was Batman supposed to do in that situation?", the answer is, if I'm the writer, I simply would not have put him in that situation. As a writer, you decide how the plot evolves and there are plenty of possibilities of getting to the plot point "Batman stops the trucks" that do not involve him killing the driver.

 

[georgec]

It's not necessarily that he understands he must kill. It's implicit that Batman will always do what's within his power not to take life. If this wasn't the case then he would have blown away all those LOS mercenaries with the Bat when they formed in the streets.

It's simply an acknowledgement that they are at war. He tells Blake, "you've given me an army." Batman is clearly thinking of himself as the leader of this army. If he's expecting them to kill, why should he not be prepared to do the same IF the situation calls for it?

To me this was actually explored visually, because we see Batman fighting side by side with the police in daylight. Something completely stark and different for this or any Batman (minus Adam West, sorta). It's a completely different tone and it shows that this battle is different from all of his previous ones.

Your thoughtful posts always give me a *****.

 

[shauner111]

Because he's human and flawed. He makes mistakes but it's not his intention to kill a person. When it happens it's usually to save lives, when he doesnt have much of a choice. Dent, the bombtruck.

The monastary? I would argue that he's not trying to kill anyone, it was a distraction and his only way out of the situation. Did he put lives in danger? Yes. Did he end up killing people? Yes most likely. But he's going through a learning period and he just didnt want to execute a human being just because they were bad. It's different.

Ras Al Ghul? I will argue that what Batman says is true. He's not killing him in cold blooded murder. He didnt put him on that train. Was it a suicide mission? Batman didnt kill him, he just didnt save him. Ras put himself on that train and it wasnt going to stop anyway.

If there were back and forth moments of whether he should kill or not. If it happened by accident or not. It's what i love about it, it made it more interesting. **** happens and sometimes it's his fault even if he didnt intend on executing a guy....he's a flawed person. If you want the godly Batman who knows everything, no flaws, "i dont kill" and then we never see him kill and it's done. Read the comics or watch other movies, no problem. It's ALL great, but these movies showed a different angle.

Again, not the comics.

 

[BatLobster]

Batman is noble, heroic, goes out of his way to protect all forms of life, and is still allowed to be human and flawed. That's kinda why I like him.

And of course, I love him for the same reasons. And he was in the film, IMO. My point is that Batman is someone who is not a murderer, who is constantly facing off with murderous enemies. This makes him noble and heroic and flawed all at once.

If he fails at living up to his own standard sometimes, that doesn't make him a total f*** up, it makes him human. But still something more than just a regular man, because the standard he sets for himself is ridiculously high and can't be reasonably expected to be followed to the letter in every situation. Sometimes things go wrong. Make a move on Harvey or risk letting the coin fall on tails. Neutralize the truck driver or risk Gotham getting blown away.

In fact, knowing Batman has the capacity to kill makes me appreciate the fact that it's something he consciously makes an effort to avoid, even if the effort is imperfect.

And if your response is "What else was Batman supposed to do in that situation?", the answer is, if I'm the writer, I simply would not have put him in that situation. As a writer, you decide how the plot evolves and there are plenty of possibilities of getting to the plot point "Batman stops the trucks" that do not involve him killing the driver.

And my response to that is I'd rather the film deal with the cold hard truth of the matter rather than let Batman get off scott-free. It's a war, there should be blood on his hands too, the cops shouldn't be the only ones who have to kill. That's just my raw emotional reaction to it, and I think that's what a lot of it comes down to on both sides.

But I do understand what you're saying in a writing mechanics sense. Again, it comes back to whether or not the "war" theme is explored enough or not for our various tastes. Personally, I like it when Batman isn't too talky and is just right to the point, so I liked the brevity of that moment and felt like it set the tone.

 

[Kane52630]

Batman is noble, heroic, goes out of his way to protect all forms of life, and is still allowed to be human and flawed. That's kinda why I like him.

But...I thought you were Batman?

My god, I've been lied too!

 

[The Guard]

No one needs to have why Batman used weapons and chose to kill explained. We all understand the stakes of the final battle/nuclear threat.

The issue we have is that, in a franchise where Batman's moral code was a KEY CHARACTER ELEMENT, suddenly it's not really given any thematic weight. Suddenly its reduced to things Batman is doing so there can be badass action or comedy. There's no moment where Batman realizes he's going to have to kill and steels himself to that fact, there's no moment where he deals with the consequences of it, or thinks about what he's done. There's no associated human moment at all. He just sort of does it because there are action scenes required by the third act.

Yes, there's a contradictory nature to Batman's refusal to kill. And that's all well and good, but it's a contradiction that was EXPLORED in previous films. The exploration of Batman's morality was fairly well handled until the very end of THE DARK KNIGHT, where he suddenly breaks his rule, kills Harvey Dent, and never truly deals with the consequences of that moral choice. That kind of half-ass character development/change in behavior seems to have carried over into TDKR. Because in TDKR, any real exploration of the concept is more or less forgotten about.

Question the quality of the writing or the execution of it in TDKR and too many posters here automatically assume that we don't "get" it. It's not hard to get. It's not presented in a complex manner. Batman has to do what he does so that an entire city full of people don't die.

But the thing is, it's not presented that way. It's not really presented or developed at all.

CConn said that it's an extremely minute part of the film to be discussing. Batman's morality is an "extremely minute" part of the film? It's a core aspect of his character, and has been throughout the entire franchise. It's also once again set up to be a core aspect of his character in the film, when he expressly says to Catwoman "No guns. No killing" (The payoff there apparently only being that she makes a quip to him later in the film about it).

And then he just sort of changes his mind. One line about the stakes, or about going to war does not good exploration of a moral concept make. And yes, I get why he would choose to act the way he does, but as a character, we never see that process happen. He just changes his behavior.

That's not good writing. It's not good character work or good character development. It's also not remotely as compelling as the execution or exploration of the concept of Batman's morality and Batman's rules found in BEGINS and THE DARK KNIGHT.

So it's incompletely handled. It's insufficiently handled. It's a compelling character issue that is reduced to badassery, when it could have been really solid character development with real thematic and emotional weight, and that's a shame.

 

[Brain Damage]

No one needs to have why Batman used weapons and chose to kill explained. We all understand the stakes of the final battle/nuclear threat.

The issue we have is that, in a franchise where Batman's moral code was a KEY CHARACTER ELEMENT, suddenly it's not really given any thematic weight. Suddenly its reduced to things Batman is doing so there can be badass action or comedy. There's no moment where Batman realizes he's going to have to kill and steels himself to that fact, there's no moment where he deals with the consequences of it, or thinks about what he's done. There's no associated human moment at all. He just sort of does it because there's action scenes required by the third act.

Yes, there's a contradictory nature to Batman's refusal to kill. And that's all well and good, but it's a contradiction that was EXPLORED in previous films. The exploration of Batman's morality was fairly well handled until the very end of THE DARK KNIGHT, where he suddenly breaks his rule, kills Harvey Dent, and never truly deals with the consequences of that moral choice. That kind of half-ass character development/change in behavior seems to have carried over into TDKR. Because in TDKR, any real exploration of the concept is more or less forgotten about.
Question the quality of the writing or the execution of it in TDKR and too many posters here automatically assume that we don't "get" it. It's not hard to get. It's not presented in a complex manner. Batman has to do what he does so that an entire city full of people don't die.
But the thing is, it's not presented that way. It's not really presented or developed at all.

CConn said it's an extremely minute part of the film to be discussing. Batman's morality is an "extremely minute" part of the film? It's a core aspect of his character, and has been throughout the entire franchise. It's also once again set up to be a core aspect of his character in the film, when he expressly says to Catwoman "No guns. No killing" (The payoff there apparently only being that she makes a quip to him later in the film about it).

And then he just sort of changes his mind. One line about the stakes, or about going to war does not good exploration of a moral concept make. And yes, I get why he would choose to act the way he does, but as a character, we never see that process happen. He just changes his behavior.

That's not good writing. It's not good character work or good character development. It's also not remotely as compelling as the exploration of the concept of Batman's morality and Batman's rules found in BEGINS and THE DARK KNIGHT.

So it's incompletely handled. It's insufficiently handled. It's a compelling character issue that is reduced to badassery, when it could have been really solid character development with real thematic and emotional weight, and that's a shame.

THIS.
Also, BatLobsterRises, I disagree with your opinion, but I respect the way you go about expressing it. And that's a rarity amongst these parts.

 

[BatLobster]

Personally, I think the coldness and matter of factness with which it was handled spoke to the "cost of war" themes just as much as any more pronounced dialogue could have. War is brutal and disorientating, and that's how it felt in the film.

Plus, Batman retires at the end. So he's obviously had enough and is ready to step away from his personal crusade/war. It has some payoff in that regard, I thought.

That said though, as always, eloquently stated The Guard. However, there was definitely some needless debating over what Batman meant when he said "war". That's where it starts to seem like there's a disconnect between how people are interpreting the movie.

THIS.
Also, BatLobsterRises, I disagree with your opinion, but I respect the way you go about expressing it. And that's a rarity amongst these parts.

Ditto.

 

[The Guard]

Personally, I think the coldness and matter of factness with which it was handled spoke to the "cost of war" themes just as much as any more pronounced dialogue could have. War is brutal and disorientating, and that's how it felt in the film.

Agreed, to a point.

I don't think it's an issue with there needing to be more dialogue. I don't think we needed Batman to speechify about what was going on, or what he was going to have to do, and we didn't need another character to lecture him. It could have been as simple as him reacting to what he is about to do, or what he has done, for just a few seconds at some point. Something. Anything. Although the whole theme/idea needed to be set up and initially explored better than one line between him and Catwoman in almost the middle of the movie to begin with.

 

[BatLobster]

Yeah, I mean I certainly wouldn't have opposed a quick little "Dammit!", or something. It's just not make or break for me, as I don't assume Batman took any joy in what he was doing.

 

[The Joker]

Reading the last few pages has made me want to laugh and cry. Oh, we fanboys sure are a dedicated bunch.

Personally, I agree with most everything The Joker has said so far. Batman killing that plot driver is either a plot hole, or just poorly executed story telling.
For one, you can't have a character suddenly turn against a code established over 7 hours of screentime ago in the last twenty minutes of a movie if you're going to do it with him saying one line.
Batman saying "war" does not equal Batman saying "I'll do anything it takes".
War has rules. If you don't think so, look up this little thing called the Geneva Convention. And yes, some sides choose to break the rules of war, but Batman should be a character who is above that. He should be someone who follows his own code, no matter the circumstance. In TDK, this is shown when he catches the Joker even though by letting him go he is potentially risking the lives of innocent citizens (as the Joker did already prove that being captured by the police isn't a huge problem for him).

One of my creative writing professors often talked about "the fictive dream", which is the state we find ourselves in when we get really absorbed into a work of fiction, completely inhabit that world and forget we're experiencing a product (book, film, whatever). When something breaks the fictive dreams it pulls you out of that world and makes you remember that you're watching a movie or reading a book, etc. Batman killing that truck driver pulled me out of the fictive dream and made me say "wait, did that just happen?"

If Batman being okay with breaking his code due to the circumstance had been established prior to that moment, beyond a single word, it wouldn't have happened.

Batman is noble, heroic, goes out of his way to protect all forms of life, and is still allowed to be human and flawed. That's kinda why I like him.

And nowhere did I say anything about Batman having to follow the Geneva Convention. That was in response to a post I read earlier where a member said that as soon as it turns into war, all rules go out the window. In fact, I said that Batman should act by his own rules, no matter the circumstance.

And again, if you're gonna have Batman break his own rules, fine. But you have to establish that in a better way than just having Batman say "war".

And if your response is "What else was Batman supposed to do in that situation?", the answer is, if I'm the writer, I simply would not have put him in that situation. As a writer, you decide how the plot evolves and there are plenty of possibilities of getting to the plot point "Batman stops the trucks" that do not involve him killing the driver.

No one needs to have why Batman used weapons and chose to kill explained. We all understand the stakes of the final battle/nuclear threat.

The issue we have is that, in a franchise where Batman's moral code was a KEY CHARACTER ELEMENT, suddenly it's not really given any thematic weight. Suddenly its reduced to things Batman is doing so there can be badass action or comedy. There's no moment where Batman realizes he's going to have to kill and steels himself to that fact, there's no moment where he deals with the consequences of it, or thinks about what he's done. There's no associated human moment at all. He just sort of does it because there are action scenes required by the third act.

Yes, there's a contradictory nature to Batman's refusal to kill. And that's all well and good, but it's a contradiction that was EXPLORED in previous films. The exploration of Batman's morality was fairly well handled until the very end of THE DARK KNIGHT, where he suddenly breaks his rule, kills Harvey Dent, and never truly deals with the consequences of that moral choice. That kind of half-ass character development/change in behavior seems to have carried over into TDKR. Because in TDKR, any real exploration of the concept is more or less forgotten about.

Question the quality of the writing or the execution of it in TDKR and too many posters here automatically assume that we don't "get" it. It's not hard to get. It's not presented in a complex manner. Batman has to do what he does so that an entire city full of people don't die.

But the thing is, it's not presented that way. It's not really presented or developed at all.

CConn said that it's an extremely minute part of the film to be discussing. Batman's morality is an "extremely minute" part of the film? It's a core aspect of his character, and has been throughout the entire franchise. It's also once again set up to be a core aspect of his character in the film, when he expressly says to Catwoman "No guns. No killing" (The payoff there apparently only being that she makes a quip to him later in the film about it).

And then he just sort of changes his mind. One line about the stakes, or about going to war does not good exploration of a moral concept make. And yes, I get why he would choose to act the way he does, but as a character, we never see that process happen. He just changes his behavior.

That's not good writing. It's not good character work or good character development. It's also not remotely as compelling as the execution or exploration of the concept of Batman's morality and Batman's rules found in BEGINS and THE DARK KNIGHT.

So it's incompletely handled. It's insufficiently handled. It's a compelling character issue that is reduced to badassery, when it could have been really solid character development with real thematic and emotional weight, and that's a shame.

Well said, gents. Well said

Also, BatLobsterRises, I disagree with your opinion, but I respect the way you go about expressing it. And that's a rarity amongst these parts.

I agree. He's the only one who's earned any respect from the opposing side of the argument here, IMO. It's mainly why I don't feel the need to engage him in a debate because he presents his opinions as just that. And he does it in a civil way.

 

[TheBat812]

No one needs to have why Batman used weapons and chose to kill explained. We all understand the stakes of the final battle/nuclear threat.

The issue we have is that, in a franchise where Batman's moral code was a KEY CHARACTER ELEMENT, suddenly it's not really given any thematic weight. Suddenly its reduced to things Batman is doing so there can be badass action or comedy. There's no moment where Batman realizes he's going to have to kill and steels himself to that fact, there's no moment where he deals with the consequences of it, or thinks about what he's done. There's no associated human moment at all. He just sort of does it because there are action scenes required by the third act.

Yes, there's a contradictory nature to Batman's refusal to kill. And that's all well and good, but it's a contradiction that was EXPLORED in previous films. The exploration of Batman's morality was fairly well handled until the very end of THE DARK KNIGHT, where he suddenly breaks his rule, kills Harvey Dent, and never truly deals with the consequences of that moral choice. That kind of half-ass character development/change in behavior seems to have carried over into TDKR. Because in TDKR, any real exploration of the concept is more or less forgotten about.

I think they do explore this with TDKR. Bruce lies to himself that Harvey's sacrifice and his killing of him was worth it, that the city no longer needs Batman and Gotham will be okay. The lie represents his loss of purpose and one rule and his desperation to hold onto that world and that's why he's a cripple and a shut in. Because he betrayed himself by failing harvey, then lying - his whole purpose as a symbol was to shoot good people into action not fool them. The joker's pull was stronger in TDK, and it resulted in him breaking his only rule. So when we come back to him, he doesn't have a soul almost, he's dead just waiting to die. That is the repercussion of him breaking his one rule. TDKR goes on to explore the idea that it was just a veil of security, that the truth needed to have its day.



It would have been weak writing to have him in shambles because he killed harvey, which is too isolated. The reason for not killing goes beyond just extinguishing a life, it's tied to his idea of Batman. So the idea was to expand what that moment meant - the loss of his belief that batman's gotham is the true gotham and so that's why they focused on the lie part, and the soullessness and emptiness of it. Then they bring it full cirle and say that it's because of that that his ideal gotham can never exist and the world will always be between the two extremes - therefore batman actually must exist. So it goes from being the failure of batman to actually the purpose of him.




I do wish there had been a more detailed look at how Batman affected the people of Gotham, but I think ultimately they chose to make this movie about Bruce, not Batman, and I think that was the right choice.

 

[Alex Logan]

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.

Just as I thought, your facts are what's not clear:

I knew there was almost zero chance you had read the story I was talking about. All you've done is read the general facts about the character during that era on the internet. In this case, you couldn't be more wrong.

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.

He never acknowledged that he must break his one rule and he didn't have to, not every little thing needs to be spoonfeed to the audience. Perhaps, he only wanted to stop the tuck and killing the driver was an unfortunate side effect. It's no different from the choice he made in TDK which resulted in the death of Harvey Dent. But you're okay with that right?

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

You took a crack at me so I returned the favor. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Fudgie]

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.

No one needs to have why Batman used weapons and chose to kill explained. We all understand the stakes of the final battle/nuclear threat.

The issue we have is that, in a franchise where Batman's moral code was a KEY CHARACTER ELEMENT, suddenly it's not really given any thematic weight. Suddenly its reduced to things Batman is doing so there can be badass action or comedy. There's no moment where Batman realizes he's going to have to kill and steels himself to that fact, there's no moment where he deals with the consequences of it, or thinks about what he's done. There's no associated human moment at all. He just sort of does it because there are action scenes required by the third act.

Yes, there's a contradictory nature to Batman's refusal to kill. And that's all well and good, but it's a contradiction that was EXPLORED in previous films. The exploration of Batman's morality was fairly well handled until the very end of THE DARK KNIGHT, where he suddenly breaks his rule, kills Harvey Dent, and never truly deals with the consequences of that moral choice. That kind of half-ass character development/change in behavior seems to have carried over into TDKR. Because in TDKR, any real exploration of the concept is more or less forgotten about.

Question the quality of the writing or the execution of it in TDKR and too many posters here automatically assume that we don't "get" it. It's not hard to get. It's not presented in a complex manner. Batman has to do what he does so that an entire city full of people don't die.

But the thing is, it's not presented that way. It's not really presented or developed at all.

CConn said that it's an extremely minute part of the film to be discussing. Batman's morality is an "extremely minute" part of the film? It's a core aspect of his character, and has been throughout the entire franchise. It's also once again set up to be a core aspect of his character in the film, when he expressly says to Catwoman "No guns. No killing" (The payoff there apparently only being that she makes a quip to him later in the film about it).

And then he just sort of changes his mind. One line about the stakes, or about going to war does not good exploration of a moral concept make. And yes, I get why he would choose to act the way he does, but as a character, we never see that process happen. He just changes his behavior.

That's not good writing. It's not good character work or good character development. It's also not remotely as compelling as the execution or exploration of the concept of Batman's morality and Batman's rules found in BEGINS and THE DARK KNIGHT.

So it's incompletely handled. It's insufficiently handled. It's a compelling character issue that is reduced to badassery, when it could have been really solid character development with real thematic and emotional weight, and that's a shame.

Quoted for truth. Guard tells it like it is.

 

[Fudgie]

Just as I thought, your facts are what's not clear:

I knew there was almost zero chance you had read the story I was talking about. All you've done is read the general facts about the character during that era on the internet. In this case, you couldn't be more wrong.

Batman's post said this to you a few pages ago and all you did was facepalm even though he's right;

I read the comics Alex. And your useless post is made even more useless by the fact that the 1939/1940 Batman never contradicted himself by having a "I don't kill people" rule, then killing. The story you mention was just another day at the office for early Batman. The only contradiction there was that he admits that he hates killing, even though a year earlier he punches a guy into a vat of acid and just says "A fitting end for his kind".

Saying he doesn't like taking life doesn't mean he won't do it. He never said he doesn't kill or execute. Bale's Batman did.

Big LOL at him telling Selina earlier "No guns. No killing" then he goes and blasts the hell out of Talia's driver.

 

[Alex Logan]

You mean like how it's the same people always attempting to defend it's flaws?

You're right, that is pretty funny.

Yes, that's exactly what I was talking about and thank you for proving another one of arguments.

The people who are constantly attacking this film always feel the need to drop some condescension into the mix.

Defender: This is a great film!
Attacker: You don't know what a great film is.

By using words like attempting you're suggesting that no one has provded a solid counter argument and that you don't care about anything but your own opinions. This not only makes people dismiss your opinions, but will casue them to lose repect for you as well. This is just about the most ridiculous and totally insulting thing I have seen on here... ever. You should be ashamed for even saying something like this.