The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 146

[ThePhantasm]

I think an active yet still hunted Batman was what most people expected when they heard about the gap. I almost feel like Nolan and Goyer set up the 8-year "retirement" simply as a way of giving us something we didn't expect. Which I think the movie suffered for

We didn't even need the gap, because there's already a gap built into the story with Bruce in the pit. So they really had two gaps, which is awkward. How many triumphant returns does Batman have to have in one movie?

 

[Shikamaru]

The 8 year gap was brilliant but the retirement vs no retirement angle could have went either way. Both made sense and both honored the ending to TDK which is why that ending was such a great cliffhanger. The third was left to the imagination, the only thing that had to be there was Batman on the run as a fugitive and depressed from the deaths of Dent and Rachel. But retirement versus no retirement? Was all up to Nolan.

I disagree. I don't think the retirement honored the ending of TDK or Batman's character arc in that film. I also don't think it made a lot of sense based on certain events in BB and TDK. However, this is a discussion we've had multiple times by now. You already know what I'm going to say and I know what you're going to say so I won't repeat myself.

I think the problem with making Bruce stay as Batman (and no Dent Act either) for 8 years or even half of that time.....is that WB would FOREVER be making prequels to Rises. And I do mean FOREVER. Nolan would have no control because he would have dug his own grave if he was against it.

WB would have never rebooted for the longest time and just made a trilogy or more movies that show Batman in his prime like the comics taking out villain after villain.

I totally see the appeal Shika. But I see Nolan's point of wanting a tight trilogy with an ending.

You can bet ur ass WB would have re-cast Bale and the others, done prequels and fit Justice League and everything.

Don't you hate that you have to think so politically though?

I do agree with you. Had it not been for the retirement gap, they would have done just that. However, I wouldn't have had a problem with sequels to TDKR had the gap not been there and the ending would've been different. But assuming that Nolan would have done the 8 year gap without retiring Batman, yes that would have been the case.

It is a really shame that we have to think of things so politically. It would have been nice for Nolan if he could have just walked away without having to worry about that. But then again, he shouldn't have been building a universe in the first place if he didn't want WB to continue his franchise. That's the interesting thing about BB and TDK. If you look at the way BB and TDK are set up, they are set up from the standpoint of building a massive universe. You have a lot of villains being kept alive, tons of references to other Batman characters (there is a Riddler reference in TDK), the timeline from BB to TDK moves slow, there is the whole theme of "freaks" being set up so that any character could come in, there are side villains like Scarecrow and Zsasz on the side, and the list goes on. On top of the interviews with Nolan and the production crew pre-TDKR, this is also partly why I don't buy Nolan having planned this to be a trilogy from the beginning and if he did, then he did a pretty bad job of building it into trilogy. The first 2 films had the foundation of an expanded universe.

I think an active yet still hunted Batman was what most people expected when they heard about the gap. I almost feel like Nolan and Goyer set up the 8-year "retirement" simply as a way of giving us something we didn't expect. Which I think the movie suffered for

I find the 8-year retirement gap and the ending to be just plot contrivances so that Nolan would have an excuse to not come back. BB and TDK were originally considered the first two films in the current Batman franchise, not in a trilogy. BB was not considered the first part in a trilogy much like MOS is not considered the first part in a trilogy at the moment. That was one of the things that annoyed me about TDKR - how it tries to act as if, in context, this was always meant to be a trilogy from the start when it is in fact not a natural trilogy. In a franchise that established and hinted that this Batman would be Batman for a long time, Nolan had to contrive a story that would have closed all doors even if it didn't make sense when aligned with the first two films (which it doesn't IMO). He knew he couldn't just end things with Bruce being Batman with a bit over a year without WB touching his universe.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Its interesting that Nolan seemed to build something with the first two films that could be continued by anyone... they were open ended and he wasn't sure if he'd do any more. Then the success of TDK came and suddenly he didn't want anyone else to touch that universe.

I actually wonder a little if that decision wasn't due to Heath. It would be tough to keep someone from bringing back that version of the character later down the line, unless the story was closed off so no one could touch it.

 

[shauner111]

There's a Riddler reference in TDK?

Also im curious to see what people would have liked more prequels from WB (recast most likely with different directors) if the 8 year gap had Bats working for the bulk of those years, or all of it.

 

[Scarecrow_King]

Only if you read into something way more than you actually should.

 

[Shikamaru]

There's a Riddler reference in TDK?

Also im curious to see what people would have liked more prequels from WB (recast most likely with different directors) if the 8 year gap had Bats working for the bulk of those years, or all of it.

I'm pretty sure the name "Edward Nashton" appears in a newspaper in TDK. It is a blink-it-and-miss-it scene. It's not a surprise. Edward Nashton was one of the authors in the Gotham Times for TDK's viral campaign.

The Iceberg Lounge was also referenced in the viral campaign.

Its interesting that Nolan seemed to build something with the first two films that could be continued by anyone... they were open ended and he wasn't sure if he'd do any more. Then the success of TDK came and suddenly he didn't want anyone else to touch that universe.

I actually wonder a little if that decision wasn't due to Heath. It would be tough to keep someone from bringing back that version of the character later down the line, unless the story was closed off so no one could touch it.

Both the ending to BB and TDK were done that way. What I loved about BB and TDK is that despite the fact that they were building up certain things and setting up for sequels, they were still their own stand-alone stories and their endings were good enough to end things there. People usually struggle to find that balance. Most other CBM's don't set up anything or set up so much to the point that the film at hand becomes episodic and the success of future films determine its quality. BB and TDK didn't have that.

I really think Heath's death had a major impact on Nolan. If things would have continued after TDKR, there is no way the Joker wouldn't have been recast. Batman is not Batman without the Joker being there. Future directors would have brought him back.

 

[shauner111]

I'm pretty sure the name "Edward Nashton" appears in a newspaper in TDK. It is a blink-it-and-miss-it scene. It's not a surprise. Edward Nashton was one of the authors in the Gotham Times for TDK's viral campaign.

The Iceberg Lounge was also referenced in the viral campaign.

The viral marketing stuff I knew but if there's a Nashton reference in TDK not only have I missed it all these years, I would lose my mind to see something like that!

 

[Victarion]

Yeah. The mob wasn't as afraid of Batman anymore... they knew he wouldn't kill. Once word got out that the Batman killed Dent, criminals would have been scared to death of him again. The end of TDK really made it seem like Batman's career was about to hit full stride. That's why the beginning of TDKR is so jarring... apparently Gordon was wrong when he said "he can take it."

I liked the inversion there in Batman not being able to "take it." However, after seeing TDK, I expected the 3rd film to open with Batman taking on the mob like an enraged beast, similar to the opening of Dark Victory. That and using fear against them (instilled by Batman "murdering" Dent).

 

[Snow Queen]

I never actually felt that BB and TDK were building a big universe for an ongoing franchise myself, as it seems to have come off to others.

 

[Shikamaru]

I never actually felt that BB and TDK were building a big universe for an ongoing franchise myself, as it seems to have come off to others.

I think a lot of people think of things like Star Wars and the MCU when they think of building up universes. That is not necessarily the case. I never believed BB and TDK were building a big DC universe with Superman present in there and the rest but I really felt like they were building the Gotham side of the DC universe.

 

[shauner111]

I never actually felt that BB and TDK were building a big universe for an ongoing franchise myself, as it seems to have come off to others.

Ive had back and forth feelings actually. I remember thinking at points during the BB/TDK days that they would do a trilogy then other times thinking Nolan would do 2 or 3 movies and plan it out so another director can take over and bring in Robin + other villains, recast Joker, etc.

At the end of the day ill take TDKR over the possible prequel films that could have happened during the 8 year gap or the possible sequels that could have followed if Nolan passed the torch. All because I have such a weird emotional attachment to the movie & ending.

But im just as intrigued as others about what Batman could have accomplished if he was battling villains in the gap. I also wont lie, id be ECSTATIC if Nolan passed the 3rd movie and beyond to a different filmmaker.

Hypothetically Shikamaru (and whoever else wants to chime in) what villains would you use and how would you progress the story if say Nolan passed the 3rd film off to other people so they can get into the primed up world's greatest detective?? Bring Dick into it or no?

 

[Snow Queen]

I think a lot of people think of things like Star Wars and the MCU when they think of building up universes. That is not necessarily the case. I never believed BB and TDK were building a big DC universe with Superman present in there and the rest but I really felt like they were building the Gotham side of the DC universe.

That's what I thought you meant but I never felt that. Had they called the club in TDK "The Iceberg Lounge" or mentioned his childhood friend Thomas Elliot or shown Jervis Tetch in Arkham Asylum or made Reese into Nashton/Nygma or have Harleen Quinzell at Arkham, I'd see it. But I didn't really feel that way. Scarecrow was wrapped up in the beginning of TDK, Zsasz I can see why people would say that but I just felt it was a small role in the film and not necessarily attempting to build a larger universe. Aside from those two things, I can't really see anything hinting towards a larger Gotham.

EDIT: You did mention that there was a Riddler reference in TDK, do you remember where it was? I'm curious about this now.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

I never actually felt that BB and TDK were building a big universe for an ongoing franchise myself, as it seems to have come off to others.

Batman Begins felt like it could have been in a larger universe. The sequels less so, but I'd still believe they could be if, hypothetically, Nolan and Bale were to return for a shared universe.

 

[ThePhantasm]

EDIT: You did mention that there was a Riddler reference in TDK, do you remember where it was? I'm curious about this now.

I'm pretty sure the name "Edward Nashton" appears in a newspaper in TDK. It is a blink-it-and-miss-it scene. It's not a surprise. Edward Nashton was one of the authors in the Gotham Times for TDK's viral campaign.

I remember this from the viral campaign, never saw it in the movie though (might have missed it).

 

[Ryan]

I find the 8-year retirement gap and the ending to be just plot contrivances so that Nolan would have an excuse to not come back. BB and TDK were originally considered the first two films in the current Batman franchise, not in a trilogy. BB was not considered the first part in a trilogy much like MOS is not considered the first part in a trilogy at the moment. That was one of the things that annoyed me about TDKR - how it tries to act as if, in context, this was always meant to be a trilogy from the start when it is in fact not a natural trilogy. In a franchise that established and hinted that this Batman would be Batman for a long time, Nolan had to contrive a story that would have closed all doors even if it didn't make sense when aligned with the first two films (which it doesn't IMO). He knew he couldn't just end things with Bruce being Batman with a bit over a year without WB touching his universe.

I feel the exact same way. Although I was curious to see who the villains would be in TDKR, I was more curious to see how they could possibly deal with Dent's death and the coverup. What was built up as this big sacrifice at the end of TDK, seemed to mean so little in terms of consequence in TDKR.

On the 8 year gap note, I would have preferred that Wayne would have headed down that paranoid route that he was travelling in TDK and had become militant like in TDKReturns.

 

[shauner111]

I feel the exact same way. Although I was curious to see who the villains would be in TDKR, I was more curious to see how they could possibly deal with Dent's death and the coverup. What was built up as this big sacrifice at the end of TDK, seemed to mean so little in terms of consequence in TDKR.

On the 8 year gap note, I would have preferred that Wayne would have headed down that paranoid route that he was travelling in TDK and had become militant like in TDKReturns.

It meant a lot. He sacrificed himself, made himself out to be the villain, while citizens went on with their nice lives honoring Dent and moving on, he basically was still batman in his mind: trapped in darkness without a way to move on or channel all the emotions inside him. TDKR was all about consequences.

 

[regwec]

For me, the 8-year holiday is something that Batman would just never do. TDKR's story does not even require it. It's a crappy decision to out-crap all others.

 

[ThePhantasm]

For me, the 8-year holiday is something that Batman would just never do. TDKR's story does not even require it. It's a crappy decision to out-crap all others.

Exactly. If you want the uplifting / badass moment where Batman returns, you've already got his escape from the pit. You don't need two such moments.

I don't think he would have ever done it either. Honestly if they wanted to close off the story they should have just made it take place immediately after TDK. No gaps.

 

[The Shape]

We didn't even need the gap, because there's already a gap built into the story with Bruce in the pit. So they really had two gaps, which is awkward. How many triumphant returns does Batman have to have in one movie?

How could anyone describe the first return of Batman in TDKR (stock exchange chase, Bane beat down) as "triumphant"? The point was that it was anything BUT triumphant and his mind was not in the right place, clearly.

 

[regwec]

Which is another reason it didn't need to be a 'return' at all. Batman could merely have lost his focus with an absence of significant opponents.

 

[The Shape]

Which is another reason it didn't need to be a 'return' at all. Batman could merely have lost his focus with an absence of significant opponents.

Far enough.

 

[Ryan]

It meant a lot. He sacrificed himself, made himself out to be the villain, while citizens went on with their nice lives honoring Dent and moving on, he basically was still batman in his mind: trapped in darkness without a way to move on or channel all the emotions inside him. TDKR was all about consequences.

What I mean is that the big reveal didn't seem to have any impact. Here was this massive sacrifice that Gordon and Bats were willing to do, that they didn't want anyone to find out about. Something that they feared would tear Gotham apart if the truth came out. When Bane 'outed" them, I didn't see that it really meant anything at all. How did Gotham feel? I'm guessing they could care less with a nuclear bomb in their midst. I never quite got any feeling one way or the other. In fact, Gordon seemed to carry on fairly well, leading the rescue teams etc. He tore into Foley later in the movie, and yet, Foley could have said so much more back. Only Blake gives Gordon a bit of a dressing down. At the end of the movie Gordon is there for the big monument reveal and is back (i'm guessing) with the police force as he's up at the batsignal again. I always felt that they didn't do Gordon justice in TDKR. I never got the sense that he paid for the crime of covering up, nor was ever able to redeem himself. Ya I know he lead the teams, helped stop the bomb timer, but I never got that "moment" where he was vindicated by the citizens or by fellow officers. I guess I was just disappointed by how the problem of the Dent coverup was resolved and was more a loose string to tie up, in the face of the greater threat....a nuclear bomb.

 

[The Joker]

For me, the 8-year holiday is something that Batman would just never do. TDKR's story does not even require it. It's a crappy decision to out-crap all others.

Exactly

 

[georgec]

Nolan's Bat Universe doesn't have an endless sea of villains to require Batman to constantly be active.

BB clearly states the primary focus of Bruce's efforts is to take down the mob. They are the internal threat. Later on the League of Shadows is the external threat.

After TDK the police have the tools to continue what Batman started. Falconi and Maroni aren't a threat anymore. Many of the mobsters are disemminated. Joker is detained. Batman is a wanted murderer. His presence would only complicate things.

Batman's sacrifice is all about taking the heat for Dent's murder so that Gordon can keep the public and police focused on continuing what Dent was doing as a district attorney - helping to clean up the streets.

It makes perfect sense that Batman retires at the end of TDK. He is simply not needed anymore. Mob is under control (or about to be). Nobody knows the League is preparing to return. No Penguins, Riddlers, Mad Hatters, or other villains that would require Batman's service.

 

[ThePhantasm]

How could anyone describe the first return of Batman in TDKR (stock exchange chase, Bane beat down) as "triumphant"? The point was that it was anything BUT triumphant and his mind was not in the right place, clearly.

Obviously the Bane beat down was not triumphant. I was talking about the parking garage / chase etc. where it was clearly played up to be a badass moment in the film.

Yeah, his mind wasn't in the right place, but this is a guy who fights crime dressed like a bat, so that's kinda a moot point.