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

[georgec]

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?

I'm in agreement with you. I should clarify I never meant to imply that Batman never fought the lower street thugs. I just meant that with the bigger business taken care of, he decided it was best to not exacerbate criminal activity and just allow the police to do their job in the wake of Dent's "heroism".

 

[Just_Human]

good stuff

 

[Just_Human]

Yep. Even if the scar wasn't there I wouldn't take it as a dream.

As regwec said - with an edit from me



Yes. That was a possible future for Bruce, based on his condition at that time.

thanks thats what I thought

 

[The Joker]

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.

No, you misunderstand. You said Bruce's injuries at the end of TDK would have prevented him from being active right away after TDK. I'm saying that doesn't mean anything. He doesn't have to be back on the job the very next night, and it doesn't take him years to recover from injuries like these, especially when he overcame even worse injuries under terrible circumstances like in the pit. If he wanted he could have had his knee sorted ASAP and be back out on the job. I'll never understand why he just left his knee injured for 8 years.

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.

That's the problem with TDKR and how it continued the story. It wasn't a natural progression of TDK. It's like Nolan was asking us to ignore half the things said in TDK like Rachel's letter saying Bruce was always going to need Batman, Joker saying he and Batman were destined to battle forever, Gordon's final lines about Batman enduring being chased, hated, and hunted.

TDK was sending a message that Batman was going to go on for longer. None of that happened. TDKR contradicts it by saying once Dent popped his clogs Batman hung up his cape and cowl.

People ask what did they expect to happen after TDK? That should be obvious. For a start crime should not have been eradicated so efficiently that Batman never needed to come back after Dent died. The Joker should have inspired more freak criminals; "This town deserves a better class of criminal and I'm going to give it to them", "It's not about money. It's about sending a message". If Batman inspired copycats, then Joker should have inspired more freaks.

Harvey Dent's legacy should not have created a virtually crime less Gotham. That was such total BS. A crime vacuum that large would attract more opportunistic criminals to fill the void. Like how Maroni just stepped in and took over Falcone's empire just like that.

Who ever said they like to think Batman was out on the job fighting thugs in the 8 year gap, I have to lol at that notion. This Batman never ever bothered with low rent thugs. He always went after the big fish. He still had his busted knee, so what did you think he was doing going around hitting them over the head with his cane? If he was going around taking on thugs then there would be lots of more confirmed sightings of him etc.

Batman was done after the night Dent died. Gotham was magically healed of organized crime. Awful unbelievable, unnatural continuation of the story, IMO.

 

[milost]

The knee and healing thing is just crazy. Why wouldn't Fox off him that special, super duper, magical knee brace prior to those 8 years? Why would Wayne just walk around that way?


As for the whole question of "what could Batman do after TDK", the possibilities are endless and only limited to thought process and imagination. I for one would have loved to have seen him actually be "hunted". Put all the Rogues gallery and freaks behind for a second, logically, Gotham's finest should have been hunting this guy down and looking for him. Find a theme for that story and that could be almost an entire film, especially the dynamic between Gordon and Batman.

It was about as obvious to people as the Joker appearing in TDK after Batman Begins. It just felt like the natural direction. Then, by July 20th that simply wasn't the case.

 

[BatLobster]

You could have easily made a film about Batman being hunted and the stress that puts the Batman and Gordon relationship under. It's just a question of, would that movie have been the right one to end the story?

Cause, let's get real...no matter what happened at the end of the third movie, Batman's symbol and reputation were going to be restored. We all knew this. I always felt that focusing on Batman being a fugitive too much would narrow the scope of the story and draw too much attention to the obvious conclusion of Batman being able to finally get redeemed in the public eye.

In the actual movie, it's not that they ignored that element entirely (we got a great chase scene out of it), it's just they put so much more on the table and delivered things in a way you wouldn't expect. For instance, even though I said Batman's reputation being cleared was a given...I never expected it to be because the villain exposes the truth of the whole coverup to Gotham in a propaganda speech before plunging the city into a full scale revolution. And Batman's reputation being cleared is only one aspect of how the movie concludes, tying into a much larger idea of his symbol becoming the everlasting force it was intended to be.

It's that balance of giving you what you want in an unexpected way. Same could apply for the state Bruce is in at the start of the movie. Rachel's letter was correct. The day came that Gotham no longer needed Batman, but Bruce never stopped needing Batman. Hence we find him in a completely frozen and fractured state.

At the end of the day, the third film was always going to be whatever story Nolan and Goyer wanted to tell, especially after Ledger's death. And anyone who disagreed with them bringing back the League of Shadows and using Bane in conjunction with them...well, based on what we've heard that was probably one of the first decisions that was made. Goyer was hinting at using a villain that wasn't on the TV show for the next film as far back as TDK's premiere, as well as having a theme in mind for the movie.

I think it has to be acknowledged that for better or worse, Goyer and the Nolans creatively own this story. This isn't a case of studio meddling or too many cooks in the kitchen. The same three guys who wrote the first two films sat down and imagined what they felt was the best possible way to conclude their story. It's theirs top to bottom. Even for those who disagree with the direction it took, there's no sense in wondering what could've been because no one forced them to make this movie. This was the movie that interested them the most creatively and the one that Nolan felt was worthy of coming back for. And the one they're all very proud of now.

 

[bilbo baggins]

Yup.

Nolan's trilogy makes it very clear in the beginning that there are two threats:

Internal threat = organized crime (Maroni & Falconi families)
External threat = League of Shadows

For all Bruce knew the LoS was dismantled after Ra's died. And in the time between BB and TDK he and Gordon focus on the mob bosses. After TDK Dent's legacy allows Gotham PD to take care of the mob as well as lower-level criminals. So, in the couple years after TDK both the internal and external threats are taken care of.

Therefore, there was no need for Batman in the time between TDK and TDKR. The way I always imagined it was in the couple of years after TDK, Bruce still followed criminal activity and maybe hacked into GPD servers. He saw that crime was going down and Batman taking the fall for Dent was more or less serving the purpose Bruce meant it to serve. Naturally Bruce was able to focus more on the fusion reactor as he was less worried about crime...until Pavel's paper and so on.

Anyway, the point is that Nolan's Bat Universe doesn't have this endless rogue's gallery that the world can constantly throw at Bruce to perpetually force him into being Batman. At the end of TDK Bruce decides that his job as Batman has pretty much served its purpose. Hell, he decided the same thing in the middle of TDK, but nobody had a problem with that.

Comic Bruce doesn't retire because DC has to keep telling stories and making money. That's really all it is. People can keep pointing to the comics and saying, "Bruce would never quit," but that's only because the show must go on.

The groundwork is laid in BB for Batman being a temporary pursuit. TDK further explores Bruce's contemplation of moving past the cowl. TDKR deals with the aftermath - the emptiness Bruce feels as a result of all the things that have transpired.

BB = Fear
TDK = Chaos
TDKR = Pain

God I love this trilogy. It saddens me that hardcore Batfans didn't like how it ended. I'm not trying to be rude, but for reasons explained above I just think a lot of people couldn't set aside the more improbable fantasies of the comics and appreciate the story Nolan told. A good friend of mine even admitted so. He said he just couldn't be rational about things he didn't like in TDKR because of his emotional attachment to certain aspects of the comics. I love Batman just as much as anyone. I haven't read anywhere near the amount of source material others have, but I'm a lifelong B:TAS and Beyond fan.

That said, I was always able to view Nolan's trilogy as a certain interpretation of Batman. A little more grounded and cerebral. Quite frankly Nolan took the best aspects of Batman and put them into the best live action depiction the character will ever see for a long time. In a strange way it reminds me of Jackson's LOTR and how he took the most interesting aspects of those books and made those movies. Both directors got to the heart of what matters most in each set of stories. For Batman it was always Bruce's personal journey in dealing with his anger and grief. I don't mean that to be condescending or disapproving, but I can't fathom why people who are so invested into this character couldn't appreciate what it meant for Bruce to finally, literally climb out of a pit of hellish despair and choose a life beyond Batman. I can understand if people value the idea but didn't like aspects of the execution. Then again I feel all the reasoning and development are established in the films. But if there's one thing I would say, it is:

The real giving up would have been remaining as Batman.

now this is great stuff> and i totally agree 100%

 

[the last son]

No, you misunderstand. You said Bruce's injuries at the end of TDK would have prevented him from being active right away after TDK. I'm saying that doesn't mean anything. He doesn't have to be back on the job the very next night, and it doesn't take him years to recover from injuries like these, especially when he overcame even worse injuries under terrible circumstances like in the pit. If he wanted he could have had his knee sorted ASAP and be back out on the job. I'll never understand why he just left his knee injured for 8 years.



That's the problem with TDKR and how it continued the story. It wasn't a natural progression of TDK. It's like Nolan was asking us to ignore half the things said in TDK like Rachel's letter saying Bruce was always going to need Batman, Joker saying he and Batman were destined to battle forever, Gordon's final lines about Batman enduring being chased, hated, and hunted.

TDK was sending a message that Batman was going to go on for longer. None of that happened. TDKR contradicts it by saying once Dent popped his clogs Batman hung up his cape and cowl.

People ask what did they expect to happen after TDK? That should be obvious. For a start crime should not have been eradicated so efficiently that Batman never needed to come back after Dent died. The Joker should have inspired more freak criminals; "This town deserves a better class of criminal and I'm going to give it to them", "It's not about money. It's about sending a message". If Batman inspired copycats, then Joker should have inspired more freaks.

Harvey Dent's legacy should not have created a virtually crime less Gotham. That was such total BS. A crime vacuum that large would attract more opportunistic criminals to fill the void. Like how Maroni just stepped in and took over Falcone's empire just like that.

Who ever said they like to think Batman was out on the job fighting thugs in the 8 year gap, I have to lol at that notion. This Batman never ever bothered with low rent thugs. He always went after the big fish. He still had his busted knee, so what did you think he was doing going around hitting them over the head with his cane? If he was going around taking on thugs then there would be lots of more confirmed sightings of him etc.

Batman was done after the night Dent died. Gotham was magically healed of organized crime. Awful unbelievable, unnatural continuation of the story, IMO.

Who cares what Rachel's letter and who cares about what Gordon said, and about what Joker said. I hated the 8 year plot but I hate the argument your using. Who said Joker could predict the future? Maybe Rachel was wrong along with Gordon. I want Batman to be Batman forever but not because of what 3 people though in a movie. I don't care what direction TDK went in the Batman should always be Batman.

 

[The Joker]

The knee and healing thing is just crazy. Why wouldn't Fox off him that special, super duper, magical knee brace prior to those 8 years? Why would Wayne just walk around that way?

Exactly. I just do not get that at all. When he was all invested in helping everyone for those 5 years with the energy project, he had not given up yet so why was he being so stupid and leaving his knee like that?

Such stupid writing.

As for the whole question of "what could Batman do after TDK", the possibilities are endless and only limited to thought process and imagination. I for one would have loved to have seen him actually be "hunted". Put all the Rogues gallery and freaks behind for a second, logically, Gotham's finest should have been hunting this guy down and looking for him. Find a theme for that story and that could be almost an entire film, especially the dynamic between Gordon and Batman.

It was about as obvious to people as the Joker appearing in TDK after Batman Begins. It just felt like the natural direction. Then, by July 20th that simply wasn't the case.

Hear hear

Who cares what Rachel's letter and who cares about what Gordon said, and about what Joker said.

Nolan did. Otherwise he wouldn't have used three prominent characters to send the message in his movie.

I hated the 8 year plot but I hate the argument your using.

Tough because it's valid. Unless you can offer a valid explanation why Nolan would have three of the major characters send the same incorrect message to the audience?

I want Batman to be Batman forever but not because of what 3 people though in a movie. I don't care what direction TDK went in the Batman should always be Batman.

That's the direction TDK was going until TDKR contradicted it. So what are you complaining about?

 

[Travesty]

Who said Joker could predict the future?

Well, he did do a lot of that in the movie.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I guess the knee thing and the prison were more metaphorical than literal. But the series (and Nolan) has been painfully literal this far, you can't expect the fans to suddenly accept a curveball with metaphorical storytelling as opposed to the practical and expository nature of the first two.

 

[Anno_Domini]

The knee and healing thing is just crazy. Why wouldn't Fox off him that special, super duper, magical knee brace prior to those 8 years? Why would Wayne just walk around that way?

Bruce should have indeed fixed his knee eight years prior, but that wouldn't have made him returned as Batman regardless because Bruce quit for a reason. The bun knee was Christopher Nolan's way of reflecting this bad shape Bruce Wayne is in eight years later with being this recluse now.

You could have easily made a film about Batman being hunted and the stress that puts the Batman and Gordon relationship under. It's just a question of, would that movie have been the right one to end the story?

Cause, let's get real...no matter what happened at the end of the third movie, Batman's symbol and reputation were going to be restored. We all knew this. I always felt that focusing on Batman being a fugitive too much would narrow the scope of the story and draw too much attention to the obvious conclusion of Batman being able to finally get redeemed in the public eye.

In the actual movie, it's not that they ignored that element entirely (we got a great chase scene out of it), it's just they put so much more on the table and delivered things in a way you wouldn't expect. For instance, even though I said Batman's reputation being cleared was a given...I never expected it to be because the villain exposes the truth of the whole coverup to Gotham in a propaganda speech before plunging the city into a full scale revolution. And Batman's reputation being cleared is only one aspect of how the movie concludes, tying into a much larger idea of his symbol becoming the everlasting force it was intended to be.

It's that balance of giving you what you want in an unexpected way. Same could apply for the state Bruce is in at the start of the movie. Rachel's letter was correct. The day came that Gotham no longer needed Batman, but Bruce never stopped needing Batman. Hence we find him in a completely frozen and fractured state.

At the end of the day, the third film was always going to be whatever story Nolan and Goyer wanted to tell, especially after Ledger's death. And anyone who disagreed with them bringing back the League of Shadows and using Bane in conjunction with them...well, based on what we've heard that was probably one of the first decisions that was made. Goyer was hinting at using a villain that wasn't on the TV show for the next film as far back as TDK's premiere, as well as having a theme in mind for the movie.

I think it has to be acknowledged that for better or worse, Goyer and the Nolans creatively own this story. This isn't a case of studio meddling or too many cooks in the kitchen. The same three guys who wrote the first two films sat down and imagined what they felt was the best possible way to conclude their story. It's theirs top to bottom. Even for those who disagree with the direction it took, there's no sense in wondering what could've been because no one forced them to make this movie. This was the movie that interested them the most creatively and the one that Nolan felt was worthy of coming back for. And the one they're all very proud of now.

Agree. A third film COULD have had the GCPD hunt down Batman, but what would be an ending for the film in a way that Nolan would have had his Bruce finally move on from the cape and cowl? Be hunted for a good chunk of the film, then face the villain of said film?

Would the idea be of someone like Bane teaming with the GCPD in hunting Batman down? Or Hugo Strange?

I'd like to see some ideas on how exactly the film could've been played besides just saying "this should've been how the film was".

 

[Anno_Domini]

Well, he did do a lot of that in the movie.

Being right about one thing, the GCPD tossing Batman out like a leper, isn't necessarily a lot, lol.

 

[Marvolo]

Not trying to write a story around tying everything in a nice bow would have been a great start.

He became the Dark Knight in his prime in TDK and it left us with an intriguing premise at the end then in TDKR they blow right past it and have Bruce as an aged worn out recluse. Cause that is totally what I was looking forward to after the ending of TDK. It was Nolan's choice, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna say it was the best idea for a Batman movie.

 

[Anno_Domini]

But Nolan wanted to tie everything up since he was done with the series after the third movie.

 

[Travesty]

Being right about one thing, the GCPD tossing Batman out like a leper, isn't necessarily a lot, lol.

That's not exactly what I was referring to, but ok. t:

 

[The Joker]

Being right about one thing, the GCPD tossing Batman out like a leper, isn't necessarily a lot, lol.

He predicted Batman would get Lau. That Lau was a squealer who would rat on the mob. He predicted Batman would choose to save Rachel and not Dent.

 

[the last son]

@The Joker. Well my complaint is people saying they didn't like the retirement because Joker was wrong and I say who cares about him being wrong? I mean really. I hated it because I want to see Batman and that should be good enough. Not because they want Joker to be right about every single thing.

 

[The Joker]

@The Joker. Well my complaint is people saying they didn't like the retirement because Joker was wrong and I say who cares about him being wrong? I mean really. I hated it because I want to see Batman and that should be good enough. Not because they want Joker to be right about every single thing.

I see what you mean, but it's not that the Joker himself was wrong, it's that Nolan was sending a message to the audience via Joker, Rachel, Gordon, and even Alfred that he didn't deliver upon in TDKR. Otherwise why would he have several of the major characters say it?

That's what Nolan does. He sends his themes and messages through the dialogue of the characters.

 

[the last son]

Yes Bane should have teamed with the police. It's pretty obvious. Bane works better as a villain who obsesses over batman and can gain his identity on his own and has no ties to him other than being hired to capture him to gain respect. Then bane turns on police after he takes out batman. batman returns and saves the day,

 

[Marvolo]

But Nolan wanted to tie everything up since he was done with the series after the third movie.

That's well and good, but just because we want something doesn't make it a good idea. Trying to tie everything in a bow limited story ideas.

Batman is a sandbox and Nolan was playing in it. It wasn't his place to try to put a lid on that sandbox. I would never have presumed it was my place to try to end Batman's story regardless of whether it was my last film or not. It doesn't belong to me, and I would have felt arrogant and completely unworthy of doing so. The character is bigger than any one director. Nolan sees it different obviously and I can't fault him for knowing what he wanted, but I think it was a mistake to go the route he did.

 

[the last son]

I'm not a Nolan fan but I still don't see this pretty bow everyone talks about. All it takes is for one villain to track Bruce down and Bam the story continues.

 

[Marvolo]

I'm not a Nolan fan but I still don't see this pretty bow everyone talks about. All it takes is for one villain to track Bruce down and Bam the story continues.

This actually makes it worse. Now Bruce has lost Wayne Enterprises, his fortune, his house, his resources and has been vacationing so if he does get tracked down he is ****ed. Its not even a decent bow. Its a crappy bow that leaves our character in a precarious position.

Bruce didn't need to retire, fake his death, or survive a nuclear blast. And the movie plot sure as hell didn't need to try to lead to all that crap.

 

[georgec]

I've struggled with a knee injury for a couple years and I'll say this - the pain and issues are worse when I'm inactive for long periods of time.

If Bruce was still active as a businessman, then he was still moving around. The knee might have afflicted him a bit, but if he had no plans to be Batman again I doubt he cared to see someone about the knee.

But once he became a hermit 5 years later and stopped pretty much doing anything, that high level of inactivity is most likely what made his knee problem worse.

 

[Anno_Domini]

He predicted Batman would get Lau. That Lau was a squealer who would rat on the mob. He predicted Batman would choose to save Rachel and not Dent.

Who said Joker could predict the future?

I took 'the future' as in what could happen after the events of TDK and to that, Joker was only right about one thing. That's what I meant, lol.

That's well and good, but just because we want something doesn't make it a good idea. Trying to tie everything in a bow limited story ideas.

Batman is a sandbox and Nolan was playing in it. It wasn't his place to try to put a lid on that sandbox. I would never have presumed it was my place to try to end Batman's story regardless of whether it was my last film or not. It doesn't belong to me, and I would have felt arrogant and completely unworthy of doing so. The character is bigger than any one director. Nolan sees it different obviously and I can't fault him for knowing what he wanted, but I think it was a mistake to go the route he did.

Nolan was playing with his version of Batman also too. The version of Batman that was never this prime character of knowing everything about everything. The version of Batman that he took liberties with almost everything about the character that stripped him down to the bare essence of a human being and not like the comics. Giving him that and ending and changing up the format of The Batman that is more like a legacy that's passed down was fitting for Nolan's version.

Many directors take their own liberties. Raimi's Spider-Man didn't have to witness George or Gwen Stacy die by his greatest villains, [BLACKOUT]Shane Black made the Mandarin a ****ing joke(lol)[/BLACKOUT]...Nolan just had Bruce Wayne quit as Batman and passed the mantle down.