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

[regwec]

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.

That's backward reasoning. Nolan's Batman doesn't have an endless sea of villains because the decision was made to have him take an eight year holiday. The unconvincing plot device of the Dent Act is used to allow the eight year holiday to happen.

So, I would argue that the eight year holiday is a "primary" bad decision from which other bad decisions necessarily flow.

A Batman who is able just to throw the towel in is not Batman at all.

 

[Tequilla]

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.

I don't remember any of that (nashton name in the film).

 

[georgec]

That's backward reasoning. Nolan's Batman doesn't have an endless sea of villains because the decision was made to have him take an eight year holiday. The unconvincing plot device of the Dent Act is used to allow the eight year holiday to happen.

So, I would argue that the eight year holiday is a "primary" bad decision from which other bad decisions necessarily flow.

I'd say your reasoning is backwards.

Nothing in the first two films suggests any threat to Gotham other than mobsters or the LoS. And the "realism" of the Nolanverse rules out a significant number of villains and plots from the comic mythology.

Nolan's Batman retires because Bruce's goal from BB to contain the mob has been nearly accomplished, and his sacrifice puts the remainder of the task in Gordon's hands. This is so that the controversial presence of Batman doesn't muddle public confidence in Gordon's efforts.

I don't look at the eight year hiatus as a 'holiday'. I'll give you that the Nolans needed a way to pass the time and revisit Bruce years later, since that's the story they wanted to tell, but I don't see any unnatural progression from the stories of BB and TDK. The Dent Act, the reason for retirement, etc. all make sense in context of what BB and especially TDK explored.

A Batman who is able just to throw the towel in is not Batman at all.

That doesn't make sense. The "ability" to throw in the towel isn't a character fault of Nolan's Batman. It's necessitated by external circumstances established in the two films. The decision to retire makes logical sense in the aftermath of TDK for reasons explained in my previous post.

Comic Batman doesn't retire because DC needs to make money. The idea of Batman always being Batman and always having villains to fight does not translate well to film or Nolan's "realism", especially in an enclosed trilogy with a definite end. I'm glad Nolan dared to give Bruce an exit from an endless hell of fighting criminals at night.

You can argue against or disagree with the decision the Nolans made for TKDR's story, since they took the first two in stride rather than planning a trilogy. But what they decided works for the story in the films and that incarnation of Batman.

This argument has gone in circles for a year, so I really don't want to engage in it past this. People aren't going to agree on this, and it'll probably end in a dogpile.

 

[Ryan]

Here's a pic from the TDK viral newspaper that has nashton's name. They also mention the Iceberg Lounge and the suspicious deaths of Carnival Performers.
Uploaded with

ImageShack.com

 

[shauner111]

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.

Holiday? I don't think so. First of all, Bruce right from the get-go in Begins made it clear that it was supposed to be a temporary thing.

Alfred: Are you coming back to Gotham for long sir?
Bruce: As long as it takes. Im going to show the people of Gotham that their city doesn't belong to the criminals and the corrupt

At the end of TDK he and Gordon lie and try to show Gotham to believe in Harvey Dent, their hero, their white knight, showing them that their city belongs to THEM.

Like Bruce says to Gordon in Rises, "we won".

The problem was the lie, it was only ever going to be temporary before the lie came out.

If you think Bruce had a holiday, you didn't watch the movie properly. Because in Frank Miller's story you have a Batman who is gone for a decade, while crime is even crazier on the streets what is Bruce doing? He may be depressed but he's letting the crime happen, he's drinking, he doesn't give a ****. THAT sounds like a holiday. Bale's Bruce is existing in a city where organized crime is zapped, everything is well enough for Gotham. What's Bruce doing? More productive heroic things like trying to get the energy project off the ground. When it F's up? He goes into exile as a severely depressed man.

But guess what the difference is between Nolan's Bruce and Miller's Bruce??? Nolan's is only doing damage to himself locking himself in Wayne Manor while Miller's is watching tv hearing about muggings & murders and flipping the channel so he doesn't have to hear about it. And I LOVE that interpretation, I do. But feels to me like Bale's Bruce Wayne is more true to who Batman is even when he's not in the cowl.

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.

 

[Scarecrow_King]

That's backward reasoning. Nolan's Batman doesn't have an endless sea of villains because the decision was made to have him take an eight year holiday. The unconvincing plot device of the Dent Act is used to allow the eight year holiday to happen.

So, I would argue that the eight year holiday is a "primary" bad decision from which other bad decisions necessarily flow.

A Batman who is able just to throw the towel in is not Batman at all.

I'm with you on this. Especially with the "unconvincing plot device" part.

 

[Monicabbm]

Nah. BB Bats would've made Bane cry at the first fight. And he probably would've made Catwoman pay too for betraying him.

she steals his fingerprints and he does nothing!! Go to the Batcave, discovers information about her and only that.
Remains at home as if nothing had happened until John Blake appears, so he decides to go out and see what is happening. Ah, he attempts to retrieve the pearls first!

 

[shauner111]

Because he's out of the game, and he can get the pearls back, he finds her exciting and intriguing.

 

[ThePhantasm]

"I'm going to let this thief do whatever she wants with my fingerprints, giving them to whatever shady character she wants. Why? I find her exciting and intriguing, old chum."

 

[shauner111]

LOL you guys reach so hard, nitpick every scene just so you feel great about hating the movie. While you praise the first 2 like they're flawless. Sad.

 

[Schrute]

As opposed to those who act like every decision made in this film was "brilliant"?

 

[ThePhantasm]

LOL you guys reach so hard, nitpick every scene just so you feel great about hating the movie. While you praise the first 2 like they're flawless. Sad.

Poisoning the well logical fallacy / ad hominem.

When your back is up against the wall, you resort to the charge of nitpicking. Every time. Your charge that my critiques are made "just so you feel great" is an appeal to psychology, i.e. a logical fallacy that assumes a person's argument can be undermined by what you think is their psychological disposition toward something.

By the way, I've never said the first two are flawless, and have critiqued them on a number of points. So... straw man logical fallacy on top of it all. Good show.

 

[regwec]

I'd say your reasoning is backwards.

Nothing in the first two films suggests any threat to Gotham other than mobsters or the LoS. And the "realism" of the Nolanverse rules out a significant number of villains and plots from the comic mythology.

Nolan's Batman retires because Bruce's goal from BB to contain the mob has been nearly accomplished, and his sacrifice puts the remainder of the task in Gordon's hands. This is so that the controversial presence of Batman doesn't muddle public confidence in Gordon's efforts.

I don't look at the eight year hiatus as a 'holiday'. I'll give you that the Nolans needed a way to pass the time and revisit Bruce years later, since that's the story they wanted to tell, but I don't see any unnatural progression from the stories of BB and TDK. The Dent Act, the reason for retirement, etc. all make sense in context of what BB and especially TDK explored.



That doesn't make sense. The "ability" to throw in the towel isn't a character fault of Nolan's Batman. It's necessitated by external circumstances established in the two films. The decision to retire makes logical sense in the aftermath of TDK for reasons explained in my previous post.

Comic Batman doesn't retire because DC needs to make money. The idea of Batman always being Batman and always having villains to fight does not translate well to film or Nolan's "realism", especially in an enclosed trilogy with a definite end. I'm glad Nolan dared to give Bruce an exit from an endless hell of fighting criminals at night.

You can argue against or disagree with the decision the Nolans made for TKDR's story, since they took the first two in stride rather than planning a trilogy. But what they decided works for the story in the films and that incarnation of Batman.

This argument has gone in circles for a year, so I really don't want to engage in it past this. People aren't going to agree on this, and it'll probably end in a dogpile.

"Dared"? Seriously?

You can't really argue that the 8 year timeout was made necessary by the events of BB and TDK, since both films heavily pressed the theme of escalation. You say that the LOS and the mob were the only threats in that Gotham, but I'm sure I remember The Joker, The Scarecrow and Zsasz making an appearance, too, as well as the contents of Arkham Asylum. Didn't The Joker make a monologue foreshadowing the immutable nature of Batman?

The decision was clearly made to make a third film, despite the impossibility of The Joker's intended return. So we got a sort of reworking of The Dark Knight Returns instead, with No Man's Land and Knightfall stirred in. The former was followed closely enough to require a hiatus in Batman's career. Since it rather violated the premise of the first two movies, we had the Dent Device to paper over the cracks.

For me, it is both unconvincing and unnecessary, and provides a compelling reason why the first two movies are better viewed without the third.

 

[regwec]

LOL you guys reach so hard, nitpick every scene just so you feel great about hating the movie. While you praise the first 2 like they're flawless. Sad.

That wasn't your finest moment, my friend.

 

[Monicabbm]

LOL you guys reach so hard, nitpick every scene just so you feel great about hating the movie. While you praise the first 2 like they're flawless. Sad.

I didn't speak about the other films.
I'm talking about Bruce Wayne. If she had just stolen his pearls, fine. But she took his fingerprints too.

 

[shauner111]

Makes no difference to me. Im honest with how I feel.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Honest feelings are much better than logical arguments anyways.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Look man, I don't care that you disagree to be honest, but each of our discussions ends with "you guys are just nitpicky fanboys" and "the general populace loves this movie." In short, in ends with an insinuation of bias that is meant to cast our opinions in a bad light because you can't be bothered to respond to them entirely.

Not that you are obligated to respond, but if you aren't going to respond, just don't respond, rather than responding with logical fallacies and insinuations.

 

[georgec]

"Dared"? Seriously?

Yes...seriously.

You can't really argue that the 8 year timeout was made necessary by the events of BB and TDK, since both films heavily pressed the theme of escalation. You say that the LOS and the mob were the only threats in that Gotham, but I'm sure I remember The Joker, The Scarecrow and Zsasz making an appearance, too, as well as the contents of Arkham Asylum. Didn't The Joker make a monologue foreshadowing the immutable nature of Batman?

Only major threats, yes. The Joker is his own animal but really he's still a part of that internal 'mob' threat. He's not a Falconi or Maroni, but at the end of the day I'd consider him another mobster (just a much more sadistic, fiendish, clever one). Scarecrow was just a pawn of Ra's, and Zsasz' appearance was nothing more than a ten-second fan shout-out.

The Arkham inmates are criminals but they're not any sort of masterminds like Joker, the mob families, or the League. They're just criminals in the city. Not 'villains'. And the rooftop scene in BB tells us that Gordon is working on recapturing the escaped inmates anyway. Yes, many of these criminals become a part of Bane's army, but again they are dispensable. They'd remain locked up if not for Bane.

The decision was clearly made to make a third film, despite the impossibility of The Joker's intended return. So we got a sort of reworking of The Dark Knight Returns instead, with No Man's Land and Knightfall stirred in. The former was followed closely enough to require a hiatus in Batman's career. Since it rather violated the premise of the first two movies, we had the Dent Device to paper over the cracks.

For me, it is both unconvincing and unnecessary, and provides a compelling reason why the first two movies are better viewed without the third.

I don't see that as a bad thing or as violating the premise of BB and TDK. For example, you mentioned escalation. That led to various innocents including Rachel dying in TDK. That film is all about Bruce realizing he can't become that guy Joker wants him to become - "I see now what I have to become to stop men like him." And during the whole film Batman has blood put on his hands. He realizes that Batman's presence is only making things worse (escalation + death of innocents), most exemplified in the rise of, motives of, and havoc wreaked by Joker.

And where is "Joker's intended return" suggested anywhere? TDK ends with Joker captured by police to be locked up with the key thrown away. Yea, he could have been in the third film if Ledger hadn't died (e.g. escaping Arkham or Blackgate), but as far as TDK is concerned Joker is out of the picture by the film's end. The only idea of Joker returning would be extrapolated from the idea of them being eternal enemies. Nothing concrete, though.

After Dent's death and the decision to create the lie, there is no reason for Batman to remain active for reasons already discussed ad nauseum. I've explained why the bridge between TDK and TDKR flows and makes sense for me. If it doesn't work for someone else, that's fine. But I haven't seen any convincing argument why Batman should not have retired at the end of TDK other than "Batman wouldn't do that". The criticisms of the 8-year-gap and TDKR's plot also don't provide an answer to that question - what reason is there for Batman to stay active at the end of TDK?

Mob bosses - check
Joker - check
League of Shadows - check (from BB, unknown to still be at large)
Scarecrow - check (was just a pawn of Ra's)
Two-Face - dead
Other villains or major threats - practically nonexistent

Plus, Batman's continued presence would be a major distraction to preserving 'the lie'.

I just don't see the reasoning for thinking Bruce didn't retire at the end of TDK. Before we knew about the 8-year-gap and such, I thought he might have been active for a short while just to help Gordon contain some of the aftermath of TDK. This would have been with an extremely low profile to avoid being hunted by authorities. Nevertheless, after seeing TDK in 2008 I left the theater thinking that after reducing Batman's presence, Bruce would stop being Batman entirely after at most a few months and let Gordon handle the rest while keeping an eye on things from the Batcave and such. Then if we were to get a third movie, a new major threat would arise in Gotham that would require Bruce to suit up again. And that's what we got.

 

[shauner111]

It ends with me saying stuff like that because there's no winning with you guys so we throw our hands up in the air and say things like that, not out of desperation but I can see the signs over and over again. You guys grasp as straws with every little scene in this movie and never do the same with the other 2 but it comes off as delusional because Begins and Dark Knight have JUST as many faults. You guys just conveniently ignore them. And the worst of all is coming on here and reading things like accusations of plotholes or whatever, and we're just sitting here going "Really?? That's not even plothole, that makes perfect sense to me and everyone else I know & until I come on this forum it was always pretty damn logical".

It's just a weird vibe.

Some of it makes me laugh, some of it annoys me. Im sure it's the same on your end. But honestly, we have these discussions because on my end I just don't understand the logic so I get baffled. I go into defense mode of the movie because I love it and most of the accusations I hear are silly and seem to fit right in line with the ending of TDK. Or I hear a lot of stuff about "Nolan went against the essence of the character" when comics cant end Bruce's story because it's not allowed to. Or people bash the Bruce's time in the gap like it's not true to the character yet Miller's Wayne had a decade of exile and drank himself half to death while watching tv of muggings, not moving a muscle.

People around here conveniently forget these things when the time comes for discussion and then nitpick certain scenes from Rises and yell THIS WAS GARBAGE! BRUCE WOULDNT DO THIS! THATS NOT ROBIN! I understand not liking it but bashing it over and over again a year after its release? Its weird man. It's weird because usually a person hates a movie and then moves on and stops thinking about it but the same people come on here and NEVER ENDING debates about what they don't like. It feels like in 4 years from now you'll still be hear criticizing. That tells me that it's a little forced like you're trying to hate the movie more and more. Ive never seen so many haters stay on a forum section of a specific movie they didn't like for soooooo friggin long and just talk smack.

I love the film, I come on here to discuss what I like with other people. So sue me if I get super defensive when all I read day in & day out is bashing of this scene and that scene, then glorifying the previous 2. Well go on the BB or TDK sections and praise it then! I just don't understand that part.

 

[BatmanBeyond]

That's backward reasoning. Nolan's Batman doesn't have an endless sea of villains because the decision was made to have him take an eight year holiday. The unconvincing plot device of the Dent Act is used to allow the eight year holiday to happen.

So, I would argue that the eight year holiday is a "primary" bad decision from which other bad decisions necessarily flow.

A Batman who is able just to throw the towel in is not Batman at all.

It's not your Batman, you mean.

 

[regwec]

Okay, I'll rephrase: it is irreconcilable with any Batman other than the highly atypical one invented for TDKR.

The concept is only so elastic. It can be reinvented, as it was for TDKR, but then you have something new.

 

[Monicabbm]

Because he's out of the game, and he can get the pearls back, he finds her exciting and intriguing.

Sorry, I skipped that comment.

It has no logical. Even him out of the game, he could have called the police. He's not stupid, and he knows the world of crime and knew it wasn't good thing.
But if he didn't want the police, he could have solved it.

What world is this that a person has stolen your fingerprints and you do nothing? It doesn't exist!
If Nolan wanted Bruce to lose his billions, he should have gone the other way.

 

[shauner111]

Bruce call the police? That's not going to happen. He tracked her down and got his pearls back all the while flirting with her because he's intrigued by her.

Remember, Bruce doesn't give a damn about anything at that point. He's looking to die, he's looking to be Batman again, that's the only thing he can look forward to at the start of Rises. Other than that which seems like a pipedream for him at that point, he's got this woman entering his world and not taking him seriously, not caring who he is as a billionaire. He finds it amusing. Refreshing. He can care less about fingerprints at that stage. The guy's head is in the wrong place he's not thinking clearly about anything.

 

[MAKAVELI25]

One of the callbacks I love from BB is Ra's telling Bruce "Your anger gives you great power, but if you let it; it will destroy you". Always loved how that played into Bruce's defeat to Bane during there first fight.

I hate to be THAT GUY, but Batman losing to Bane probably had more to do with the 8 year absence than letting his anger destroy him. Just saying