The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 144

[BlueLightning]

Here is my humble opinion on the matter of TDK's ending and how it relates to Rises.

When I watched the film's ending for the first time, I've got the (now somewhat naive) impression that Bruce would keep being Batman, being hunted by the Gotham Police. However, seeing the bigger picture... How could Bruce keep being Batman with all the reactions that happened in the film? Seeing that now Batman would be seen as a villain, not only by the public, but now again being actively pursued by the police and Gordon. The matter of Batman being charged with Dent's murder was not to be taken lightly. If Batman would come out, it was a sure thing that no resources would be spared to capture him, much to Gordon dismay. I don't think that Bruce would have wanted to put Gordon in that position. Not even Nolan wanted this, that's why I think they charged Foley that task on the script. And, as expected, they went after Batman on full force.

There is the other matter that the city was in the finishing process of being cleaned up from the mob. Batman's actions forced them into a corner all together, and with Dent's and Gordon's aid it was just a matter of time of making a difference for the city, to return some equilibrium. The Joker came, did his stuff, and the rest is history. But Batman's sacrifice made it all worth it. Criminals wouldn't be free, and in time Gordon and the police would have rounded up the mob. Batman had no reason to return.

The Dent Act made it possible, and while I don't think it was a good thing (ultimately became an extreme tool forced upon people who didn't see the full picture such as Mayor Garcia, but that's for another comment), cemented the door for Batman's return. Ultimately the lie worked, but it was meant only for a time, it stretched for too long, and Gordon realized this.

Another thing was Bruce health. Being Batman was perhaps the most extenuating activity for anyone to do. All the damage he sustained, and his limp, would have rendered him static at least for a time after TDK's ending. So immediately, he couldn't return, and when he healed, why would he do it?

So it could have gone either way. If some other maniac would have been thrown into the fray after TDK's ending, no matter what, Bruce would have donned the cape and cowl again. But it didn't, and when evil arises eight years later he didn't doubt to get back into action. But now it was more interesting, because the circumstances of the city and his life weren't the same.

So that's my two cents (whatever that means)

 

[shauner111]

Yup.

And I think joker's prediction was that Two-Face would go on a massacre until he was caught and maybe even murdered, but to the point of no return where his actions would be seen by the police. Gotham would lose hope. I think Joker had no problem with this because Batman would keep doing his thing but the city would then be flooded with more criminals, freaks and hopelessness. In that case, sure, if TDK ended that way we could have had a third movie with freaks all over the place and with Batman still out there taking care of business. But TDK ended with Gordon/Batman covering the whole thing up, and I imagine Joker did NOT like that. His prediction didn't come true. Dent's false heroism led to the Dent Act which slowly wiped out organized crime, which was the main cause of desperation within the city.

Joker was then locked up for nearly a decade, with less corruption, tighter security, hope on the streets. No way out for him. Predictions that just became fantasies in his mind.

And great posts Georgec, Anno and BatLobster. Interesting that your friend was sure of himself that Bruce would be retired at the start of TDKR. I guess he really saw through all the fanboy "wishes" that we all had when we left TDK.

 

[georgec]

Thanks for the discussion, guys. Usually I read these threads and take a back seat as others often echo my own thoughts, but sometimes I can't resist.

When I saw TDK, there was no doubt in my mind that Batman's activity would decline significantly, and over time he would retire assuming the cover-up about Dent achieved the goal Batman and Gordon hoped it would.

I thought Batman might still be active and try to help a little bit in the wake of everything that transpired in TDK, that he would still try to assist Gordon in stabilizing the situation on the streets. But being labeled a cold-blooded murderer would have created too large a risk for Batman to be seen. It could have caused further escalation or even created an anti-Batman mob.

The best thing for Batman to do was stay out of the picture and allow Gordon to focus on crafting the public perception of Harvey Dent, rather than complicate this by causing emotional confusion among Gothamites. Let them hate Batman, but don't allow that hatred to obfuscate or stand in the way of what the real goal is with what would become the Dent Act.

I fully expected Bruce to be 'retired' at the start of the third entry. The only question was when exactly he'd retire. Becoming "The Dark Knight" ultimately meant sacrificing Batman's purpose and role for the greater good. And it makes total sense to me why Bruce decided that it was unnecessary and risky to have Batman attract any further attention.

 

[The Joker]

I call BS on several of these arguments. For starters, what risk is there for Batman to be seen? As long as Harvey Dent's reputation and work stays intact there is no risk for Batman being around. If he can pancake and flip over Cop cars on TV, then he can still go on fighting crime with a murder rap on his head.

Second, his health. If he can heal himself up in a filthy prison pit in the ground after getting a whupping and severe back injury, then he could have done it even more easily after TDK's lesser injuries and with proper medical care.

Third, I do not believe for a single second that anyone thought Bruce was heading for a retirement after TDK. No way. There wasn't a whisper about it after TDK came out, it was not implied in any way at the end of the movie, and nobody was actively thinking of it as a serious possibility until Nolan confirmed TDKR was set 8 years later. After that happened you had some people saying "Oh well I thought that was going to happen/I knew that would happen". Funny how you people were very silent about this between 2008 and 2012.

That's just one of many problems with TDKR. It doesn't feel like an organic continuation of the story. It just makes up ridiculous consequences of TDK's events - a virtually crime free city, Batman rendered useless after the night Dent died, a Dent Act getting rid of all organized crime (as if the crime vacuum created by this would not attract more opportunistic criminals) etc.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I call BS on several of these arguments. For starters, what risk is there for Batman to be seen? As long as Harvey Dent's reputation and work stays intact there is no risk for Batman being around. If he can pancake and flip over Cop cars on TV, then he can still go on fighting crime with a murder rap on his head.

Second, his health. If he can heal himself up in a filthy prison pit in the ground after getting a whupping and severe back injury, then he could have done it even more easily after TDK's lesser injuries and with proper medical care.

Third, I do not believe for a single second that anyone thought Bruce was retired after TDK. No way. There wasn't a whisper about it after TDK came out, it was not implied in any way at the end of the movie, and nobody was actively thinking of it as a serious possibility until Nolan confirmed TDKR was set 8 years later. After that happened you had some people saying "Oh well I thought that was going to happen/I knew that would happen". Funny how you people were very silent about this between 2008 and 2012.

That's just one of many problems with TDKR. It doesn't feel like an organic continuation of the story.

I second this. Anyone who tries to claim they called Bruce being retired after TDK is full of it. I saw a lot of people speculating that the next film may "end" the Batman story, but nobody called that it would take place an extended amount of time in the future, or that Bruce would be retired. Nearly everyone I saw on here thought it would take place fairly soon after TDK. Anywhere from directly after to not more then a year or two after.

And I agree with Joker. TDKR wasn't a bad "ending" story, but it felt like another movie should have come between TDK and TDKR. For a good "end" story for Batman to have the gravitas I expect (Like The Dark Knight Returns) I think you need a Batman who was active for a while. So he has that history and his legend is firmly in place. That was part of what made the moment where Batman comes back in The Dark Knight Returns so powerful. It really was the legend returning. Rises didn't have that same feel, because the Batman in that world was only active two...to maybe three years tops.

 

[Anno_Domini]

He said "People are dying, Alfred. What would you have me do?", to which Alfred responds "Endure, Master Wayne. Take it. They'll hate you for it. But that's the point of Batman. He can be the outcast".

How can Batman be enduring anything if he's not Batman any more? No endurance required if you've quit.

"Well today I found out what Batman can't do. He can't endure this. Today you get to say "I told you so.""

And Bruce was about to quit anyways even after Alfred told him to endure this. If you want to take it for what it means in the end of TDK with Batman taking the blame for Dent's crimes, he did end up becoming the outcast as Alfred even mentioned during that bit of dialogue. He just decided to quit at the end of it all because Batman wasn't needed.

 

[The Joker]

I second this. Anyone who tries to claim they called Bruce being retired after TDK is full of it. I saw a lot of people speculating that the next film may "end" the Batman story, but nobody called that it would take place an extended amount of time in the future, or that Bruce would be retired. Nearly everyone I saw on here thought it would take place fairly soon after TDK. Anywhere from directly after to not more then a year or two after.

Exactly. The 8 year gap surprised us all. Even when we found out, kvz did a poll to see who thought he was active or retired in that 8 year gap, and active came out on top: http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=379863&highlight=retired

And I agree with Joker. TDKR wasn't a bad "ending" story, but it felt like another movie should have come between TDK and TDKR. For a good "end" story for Batman to have the gravitas I expect (Like The Dark Knight Returns) I think you need a Batman who was active for a while. So he has that history and his legend is firmly in place. That was part of what made the moment where Batman comes back in The Dark Knight Returns so powerful. It really was the legend returning. Rises didn't have that same feel, because the Batman in that world was only active two...to maybe three years tops.

A year tops. Joker's line in TDK at the mob meeting about how a year ago the mob was untouchable and the Cops and lawyers wouldn't dare cross them gives a time frame for that. That all changed in Begins.

"Well today I found out what Batman can't do. He can't endure this. Today you get to say "I told you so."

Which he learned was not true. Batman could endure it. And he did. He went on fighting. Even after Joker killed Rachel and mutilated Dent.

And Bruce was about to quit anyways even after Alfred told him to endure this.

But he didn't. That's the point. Intentions and actions are two different things. Just like how he didn't end up shooting Chill and become a murderer, even though he had intended to. He had a moment of crisis where he felt too guilty about all of these people Joker was killing because of him. As he said to Rachel he had enough blood on his hands and he wasn't going to have any more. But he didn't end up quitting and giving into Joker. He ended up fighting on. Even after Joker killed Rachel and mutilated Dent. His darkest hour. But like a true hero he fought on.

If you want to take it for what it means in the end of TDK with Batman taking the blame for Dent's crimes, he did end up becoming the outcast as Alfred even mentioned during that bit of dialogue. He just decided to quit at the end of it all because Batman wasn't needed.

That's a TDKR related issue.

 

[Snow Queen]

Which he learned was not true. Batman could endure it. And he did. He went on fighting. Even after Joker killed Rachel and mutilated Dent.

Batman did endure in the hearts of the citizens. Batman in this trilogy isn't just a guy fighting crime, it's a symbol. And that symbol keeps going. Batman endures. Bruce Wayne, however, cannot endure being that symbol.

 

[The Joker]

Batman did endure in the hearts of the citizens.

When was this? At the end of TDKR after the truth about Dent had come out and Batman saved the city from oblivion?

Batman in this trilogy isn't just a guy fighting crime, it's a symbol. And that symbol keeps going.

That symbol was destroyed at the end of TDK and tarnished for 8 years. The image of Gordon smashing the batsignal symbolized that his hero symbol status was destroyed.

Batman endures. Bruce Wayne, however, cannot endure being that symbol.

When you write tripe like Batman being made redundant for 8 years, and Bruce Wayne as someone who for god knows what reason never sorted out his limp in those 8 years, yeah you have a Bruce Wayne who has no endurance.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Which he learned was not true. Batman could endure it. And he did. He went on fighting. Even after Joker killed Rachel and mutilated Dent.



But he didn't. That's the point. Intentions and actions are two different things. Just like how he didn't end up shooting Chill and become a murderer, even though he had intended to. He had a moment of crisis where he felt too guilty about all of these people Joker was killing because of him. As he said to Rachel he had enough blood on his hands and he wasn't going to have any more. But he didn't end up quitting and giving into Joker. He ended up fighting on. Even after Joker killed Rachel and mutilated Dent. His darkest hour. But like a true hero he fought on.



That's a TDKR related issue.

And I'm just saying that part of "endure" is only meant for Bruce quitting because of Joker and when Dent took the fall, Batman continued to fight. That "endure" part, I do not take with TDK's ending. I watched TDK when it first came out and I never knew what would come out of the ending, and Bruce quitting as Batman because he accomplished his goals through the Dent Act felt very progressive with the story(although I would have personally used Coleman Reese again as an ally and would've done something with Joker). Batman still endured, but just not the way some wanted to see; he endured by continuing to keep the name of Batman as a criminal when he wasn't.

 

[The Joker]

And I'm just saying that part of "endure" is only meant for Bruce quitting because of Joker and when Dent took the fall, Batman continued to fight. That "endure" part, I do not take with TDK's ending. I watched TDK when it first came out and I never knew what would come out of the ending, and Bruce quitting as Batman because he accomplished his goals through the Dent Act felt very progressive with the story(although I would have personally used Coleman Reese again as an ally and would've done something with Joker). Batman still endured, but just not the way some wanted to see; he endured by continuing to keep the name of Batman as a criminal when he wasn't.

But that's just it, there is no endurance required when you've quit. He's thrown in the towel.

No effort or endurance required for an alias you're not using any more. That's why it didn't feel like a progressive story.

 

[Travesty]

But that's just it, there is no endurance required when you've quit. He's thrown in the towel.

No effort or endurance required for an alias you're not using any more.

But he had to endure walking on that bum leg, while also looking in the mirror with that gross depression beard.

 

[BatLobster]

The thing is, The Dark Knight is a movie largely about being confronted with a moment of crisis and the hard decisions that have to be made in such a time. "Endure" never meant "be Batman forever". Alfred never would've wanted or advocated that for Bruce. He just was trying to get him to stick the course and do what was necessary to stop The Joker. He recognized it as Bruce's responsibility because Bruce started this "war" in Gotham.

Secondly, the theme of the power of symbols is such a strong one throughout the whole trilogy that I think it's important to consider what that means in terms of TDK's ending. I don't find it useful to view the movie in a vacuum anymore since it's ultimately part of a larger story.

The anonymity of being Batman is what gave him his power as a symbol. THAT is why he can do what Dent can't and take the fall. When Batman says "I can do those things...because I'm not a hero"...it's not just about the fact that he's a guy in a costume who works outside the law. It's about what that means to Gotham. He's not a face to Gotham. Throughout TDK the city's view of his symbol was walking that razor's edge between hope and fear, and he nudged it fully into darkness because it became necessary. That's the power of a symbol. It can still hold meaning in the absence of the men that created them. Even when he's gone and Batman is no more, "Batman" is still the thing standing in the way between Gotham and the truth about Dent. That is why Batman can "take it". He's more than just a man. A man, such as Harvey can be destroyed and corrupted. To me this was a big component of the ending. It almost didn't matter so much whether he continued as Batman or not, because either way he's still making a huge sacrifice by giving up the entire original purpose of his symbol, and he's still providing Gotham with its martyred white knight to keep the RICO case alive and hopefully help usher in better times for the city.

Third, I do not believe for a single second that anyone thought Bruce was heading for a retirement after TDK. No way. There wasn't a whisper about it after TDK came out, it was not implied in any way at the end of the movie, and nobody was actively thinking of it as a serious possibility until Nolan confirmed TDKR was set 8 years later. After that happened you had some people saying "Oh well I thought that was going to happen/I knew that would happen". Funny how you people were very silent about this between 2008 and 2012.

I hope you don't think I'm lying here, cause I'm being 100% honest when I say that a buddy of mine was absolutely convinced that Bruce was done being Batman by the end of TDK. There is absolutely no reason for me to lie here because I don't think one guy's opinion proves anything, I just think it's interesting to share. He's not a message board guy, but he's a big fan of the franchise. It's important to remember that there are lines of thought out there outside of this little bubble we know as internet fandom. Perhaps not reading so much discussion on the movie is what gave him some objectivity. Now, he was clearly a minority opinion at the time and I initially completely disagreed with him, but I have to give credit where it's due because he correctly intuited where the story was heading based on an ending that left some questions hanging.

“Our telling of the Batman legend has always been centered on Bruce Wayne’s story. We somewhat left the audience hanging at the end of the last film in terms of Bruce’s story and we want to bring it full circle and have a complete tale. We’ve a great ending we’ve been wanting to tell for some years now. We’re just thrilled to have been able to bring our story around to its conclusion.

-Christopher Nolan

That, to me shows that the ending was more about Gotham's relationship with the symbol of Batman and the evolution it undergoes than it was any sort of literal statement about how much time Bruce was going to be spending in the cowl from there on.

 

[Anno_Domini]

But that's just it, there is no endurance required when you've quit. He's thrown in the towel.

No effort or endurance required for an alias you're not using any more. That's why it didn't feel like a progressive story.

Again, I don't take the "endure" part mentioned by Alfred to even involved the ending of TDK, but being viewed as the "bad guy" for eight years is enough endurance if you ask me instead of wasting the GCPD's time where there's nothing for him to do since the Dent Act cleaned up Gotham.

 

[BlueLightning]

I call BS on several of these arguments. For starters, what risk is there for Batman to be seen? As long as Harvey Dent's reputation and work stays intact there is no risk for Batman being around. If he can pancake and flip over Cop cars on TV, then he can still go on fighting crime with a murder rap on his head.

Second, his health. If he can heal himself up in a filthy prison pit in the ground after getting a whupping and severe back injury, then he could have done it even more easily after TDK's lesser injuries and with proper medical care.

Third, I do not believe for a single second that anyone thought Bruce was heading for a retirement after TDK. No way. There wasn't a whisper about it after TDK came out, it was not implied in any way at the end of the movie, and nobody was actively thinking of it as a serious possibility until Nolan confirmed TDKR was set 8 years later. After that happened you had some people saying "Oh well I thought that was going to happen/I knew that would happen". Funny how you people were very silent about this between 2008 and 2012.

That's just one of many problems with TDKR. It doesn't feel like an organic continuation of the story. It just makes up ridiculous consequences of TDK's events - a virtually crime free city, Batman rendered useless after the night Dent died, a Dent Act getting rid of all organized crime (as if the crime vacuum created by this would not attract more opportunistic criminals) etc.

Just a little nitpick. You usually bring good arguments and present them in a well thought fashion. But you often say that Rises it's the source of problem and, in the "health" issue you bring the Pit plot point from Rises to defend your view. It doesn't add up.

And the city being crime free? It didn't happened overnight, I summed it up in another post, but it was a gradual process. If you didn't like it, that's fine and all. I view it as an nice change of set up, different form what we have seen it before. Perhaps the problem is that we are thrown into a different time in Gotham, with little glimpses of what happened in the interim.

 

[Ryan]

I call BS on several of these arguments. For starters, what risk is there for Batman to be seen? As long as Harvey Dent's reputation and work stays intact there is no risk for Batman being around. If he can pancake and flip over Cop cars on TV, then he can still go on fighting crime with a murder rap on his head.

Second, his health. If he can heal himself up in a filthy prison pit in the ground after getting a whupping and severe back injury, then he could have done it even more easily after TDK's lesser injuries and with proper medical care.

Third, I do not believe for a single second that anyone thought Bruce was heading for a retirement after TDK. No way. There wasn't a whisper about it after TDK came out, it was not implied in any way at the end of the movie, and nobody was actively thinking of it as a serious possibility until Nolan confirmed TDKR was set 8 years later. After that happened you had some people saying "Oh well I thought that was going to happen/I knew that would happen". Funny how you people were very silent about this between 2008 and 2012.

That's just one of many problems with TDKR. It doesn't feel like an organic continuation of the story. It just makes up ridiculous consequences of TDK's events - a virtually crime free city, Batman rendered useless after the night Dent died, a Dent Act getting rid of all organized crime (as if the crime vacuum created by this would not attract more opportunistic criminals) etc.

Amen

 

[Anno_Domini]

I could see how many view that Batman need to stick around, but I feel TDK's ending is so ambiguous, it could've turned towards so many different directions, but I found what Nolan did to be very progressive with his tale, even if risky. I wouldn't have minded a shorter time gap between TDK and TDKR so Bruce has only stopped being Batman for two or three years, but I do like the idea that Bruce did quit as Batman when Gotham City was cleaned up. I will always think the eight year gap was for the character of John Blake to grow up into becoming a cop.

 

[The Joker]

But he had to endure walking on that bum leg, while also looking in the mirror with that gross depression beard.

Ten times worse than being hunted by the GCPD

I hope you don't think I'm lying here, cause I'm being 100% honest when I say that a buddy of mine was absolutely convinced that Bruce was done being Batman by the end of TDK. There is absolutely no reason for me to lie here because I don't think one guy's opinion proves anything, I just think it's interesting to share. He's not a message board guy, but he's a big fan of the franchise. It's important to remember that there are lines of thought out there outside of this little bubble we know as internet fandom. Perhaps not reading so much discussion on the movie is what gave him some objectivity. Now, he was clearly a minority opinion at the time and I initially completely disagreed with him, but I have to give credit where it's due because he correctly intuited where the story was heading based on an ending that left some questions hanging.

No no, I don't think you're lying. You're one of the few who's word I would take at face value over just about anything. You're not even saying it was you who believed it. I think you're being genuine about your friend.

Just a little nitpick. You usually bring good arguments and present them in a well thought fashion. But you often say that Rises it's the source of problem and, in the "health" issue you bring the Pit plot point from Rises to defend your view. It doesn't add up.

Thank you. However I'm confused. What part doesn't add up and why?

And the city being crime free? It didn't happened overnight, I summed it up in another post, but it was a gradual process.

How do you know? The movie states definitively that the last time Batman was seen in Gotham was the night Dent died.

Nolan, being the King of exposition would have made it clear if Batman had been active after that. But he doesn't. But he does make it clear Batman was done the night after Dent died.

Again, I don't take the "endure" part mentioned by Alfred to even involved the ending of TDK, but being viewed as the "bad guy" for eight years is enough endurance if you ask me instead of wasting the GCPD's time where there's nothing for him to do since the Dent Act cleaned up Gotham.

I'm not talking about TDK's ending either. I'm talking about endurance in general. If you have quit then you are not enduring anything. Batman being labelled a bad guy for 8 years, when he's not even Batman in those 8 years, is not any form of endurance.

He'd have to still actively be Batman to be enduring that. But he wasn't.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Bruce seemed like he needed Batman though, kind of a nod to when Rachel said Bruce will never need Batman, and I feel that was hurting Bruce a lot more than just a bum leg.

 

[georgec]

Alfred is referring to Bruce "enduring" through the events of TDK, in dealing with the Joker. He's not referring to perennially being Batman. That would conflict with the idea in BB that being Batman is not a permanent thing.

Then, after TDK Gotham doesn't need Batman anymore. There is no reason for Bruce to suit up and go out as Batman. The threat of the Joker is contained, and the mob has already suffered losses. He doesn't "give up" entirely. He focuses his energy to do good and help the city on his role as Bruce Wayne. I'd say that's endurance.

.....

^ I just don't think some people are ever going to view the thread from TDK to TDKR this way. That's fine. I'm not saying who's 'right' and who's 'wrong'. But it seems we're destined to do this dance forever.

 

[shauner111]

Im curious as to what people wanted Batman to keep doing after TDK? It doesn't really add up to me. This trilogy was never about Batman being so obsessed with the role to the point where he NEVER wanted an out, even in Begins and TDK he was saying it was temporary AND it was never about Batman stalking a thief on a street corner. He had bigger plans in this trilogy. Even if that's what he was doing off screen for months on end, it was never shown or talked about.

If it was all about organized crime, then what would he need to be doing if he's supposed to be the villain and NOT doing good deeds??

 

[BlueLightning]

Thank you. However I'm confused. What part doesn't add up and why?

Sorry, I was just saying that you stated that the problem when discussing the eight years and how it doesn't seem like a natural progression to the ending of TDK lies with the plot of Rises (to which I disagree). But when I brought the fact that Bruce's injuries prevented him from returning as Batman, you dismissed it bringing the fact that Bruce healed himself inside of the pit, using reasoning from the other film, not from TDK.

How do you know? The movie states definitively that the last time Batman was seen in Gotham was the night Dent died.

Nolan, being the King of exposition would have made it clear if Batman had been active after that. But he doesn't. But he does make it clear Batman was done the night after Dent died.

I didn't said that Bruce was active. He wasn't. What I was saying is that Bruce didn't have a good reason to come back as Batman. If he had, let's say a powerful criminal that the police couldn't handle arises, he would had returned. As the ending of TDK there were very few loose ends, that were taken care by Gordon, and eventually the Dent act.

 

[georgec]

Im curious as to what people wanted Batman to keep doing after TDK? It doesn't really add up to me. This trilogy was never about Batman being so obsessed with the role to the point where he NEVER wanted an out, even in Begins and TDK he was saying it was temporary AND it was never about Batman stalking a thief on a street corner. He had bigger plans in this trilogy. Even if that's what he was doing off screen for months on end, it was never shown or talked about.

If it was all about organized crime, then what would he need to be doing if he's supposed to be the villain and NOT doing good deeds??

I really have no idea.

It's been said over and over that with the external threat (League of Shadows) seemingly nonexistent and the internal threat (mob, Falconi, Maroni) under control, there isn't any pragmatic reason for Batman prowl the streets unless to beat up petty thugs.

I keep trying to view this from a different perspective but it never makes sense to me that Bruce would continue being Batman full-time after TDK, given what Batman was intended to fight in the films (organized criminals). At most I thought he might have limited presence in the aftermath of TDK to help Gordon out with some of the remaining escalation, but once things were more or less under control and the Dent Act was underway Batman would step aside.

 

[shauner111]

I do think that this Batman fought petty thugs, I just don't think it was his focus and that's why Nolan didn't show it because it's quite an obvious feature for Batman but it doesn't serve the story theyre trying to tell. It's also a reason why I believe he could have been out there post-TDK, fighting the odd thug, but it wasn't referenced because it doesn't matter. Nolan even had a line where Blake says "the last confirmed sighting of the batman"...he gets the point across so we can move on to the main focus, but he does say "confirmed sighting". Probably because it's the goddamn batman, and there's always that possibility that there were unconfirmed sightings.

But it doesn't really serve the story for them to get into it. Whether he stopped completely or he went out for less than 5 years as a master ninja to stop a rapist or a petty thief in the night...it doesn't really matter does it?

 

[BatLobster]

No no, I don't think you're lying. You're one of the few who's word I would take at face value over just about anything. You're not even saying it was you who believed it. I think you're being genuine about your friend.

Haha, ok cool. Very kind of you to say. Just wanted to make sure.

And yeah, if I had been posting more often pre-TDKR you'd have seen that I was very pro-Bruce being active as Batman in the 8 years. To the point where I was coming up with ways to rationalize ways he could have been partially active even after Nolan's first quote popped up about him hanging up the cape and cowl. I was very attached the whole idea that there could be stories told in the 8 year gap in another medium that showcased other rogues.

It's funny, a lot of times people say this movie had good ideas but the execution was off, but for me this was an instance where I kind of hated the idea on paper but the execution won me over. I just became so immediately invested in Bruce's character when I saw the shape he was in at the start of the movie. Everything just hit home like..."Damn...this man has truly lost everything." It kind of solidified my feeling that The Dark Knight was ultimately a tragedy. Because the way we see Bruce in the aftermath of it is just plain tragic.