The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 147

[BatLobster]

I'm always quick to remind my friends when they're attached to a novel and aren't happy about changes made for the movie that film is entirely different medium and certain details that make a good book don't necessarily make for a good movie. For one, movies have to be much more ruthless about what gets included, as there isn't as much room for meandering subplots. And sure, I've told my friends that are hardcore Harry Potter fans that too. Some have conceded my points to varying degrees, while others argued. I suppose that because cinema is my favorite medium, I'm more sympathetic to the filmmakers who are given the task of turning the source material into a good film than I am the authors who are getting paid to sit it out and maybe give their input if they're powerful enough (like Rowling).

Watchmen is a perfect example of something that's faithful to a fault, and while I like the movie...I would not exactly call it a 'good film' in the sense that I consider other good films to be good.

I love the comics, I love BTAS, I love Batman in most incarnations to be honest, but to me Batman movies are something different and my expectations change as a result. In fact, I love it when the movies can introduce things into the mythology and surprise me (as all three films did).

That said, the comics clearly offered a plethora of inspiration for these films, as stated by the filmmakers themselves and as noted by most fans who've been paying attention. I think the films were sufficiently influenced by the comics, so this rant really has nothing to do with the trilogy. I just think it's always important to remember the differences between one medium and another.

 

[The Joker]

I feel like Shauner dosen't actually know what he's saying.

The team met with DC Comics. David Goyer was hired specficially because he knew about the comics. How are they irrelevant? And As Phantasm points out, how is saying "The comics are mostly irrelevant" different from "Screw the comics"?

These films aren't made with the fans in mind? Then why would WB, or anyone else for that matter, go to Comic Con then, year after year, to show off trailers and have Q & A's?

Exactly.

I mean for god's sake Chris Nolan himself wrote an introduction to The Long Halloween!

 

[The Batman]

I'm always quick to remind my friends when they're attached to a novel and aren't happy about changes made for the movie that film is entirely different medium and certain details that make a good book don't necessarily make for a good movie. For one, movies have to be much more ruthless about what gets included, as there isn't as much room for meandering subplots. And sure, I've told my friends that are hardcore Harry Potter fans that too. Some have conceded my points to varying degrees, while others argued. I suppose that because cinema is my favorite medium, I'm more sympathetic to the filmmakers who are given the task of turning the source material into a good film than I am the authors who are getting paid to sit it out and maybe give their input if they're powerful enough (like Rowling).

Watchmen is a perfect example of something that's faithful to a fault, and while I like the movie...I would not exactly call it a 'good film' in the sense that I consider other good films to be good.

I love the comics, I love BTAS, I love the Burton films, I love Batman in most incarnations to be honest, but to me Batman movies are something different and my expectations change as a result. In fact, I love it when the movies can introduce things into the mythology and surprise me (as all three films did).

That said, the comics clearly offered a plethora of inspiration for these films, as stated by the filmmakers themselves and as noted by most fans who've been paying attention. I think the films were sufficiently influenced by the comics, so this rant really has nothing to do with the trilogy. I just think it's always important to remember the difference between one medium and another.

See....now this is a good argument.

My problem with "This isn't the comics" folk is that, quite often, they blindly try to justify ANY change the filmmaker makes, as if the filmmaker can't do something that can't be interpreted as a mistake. They also try to use "This isn't the comics" to brush off any aspect of the comics that fans want to see onscreen....like for example, Batman having genius level intellect.

I think most fans get that films are different and changes will be made. I definitely know that everyone in this discussion is aware of that. But don't act like the comics matter less than they actually do, and don't write off fan ideas just because they're an aspect of the comics we haven't seen onfilm yet. That leads to people seeing the same thing all the time as well.

 

[The Batman]

Exactly.

I mean for god's sake Chris Nolan himself wrote an introduction to The Long Halloween!

I mean, part of the reason fans like this trilogy, BB and TDK especially, is because so many ideas and scenes are straight from the comics. Saying they're largely irrelevant makes no sense to me.

 

[Tequilla]

Comics should be evaluated/enjoyed/whatever in the realm of...comics.

Films should be evaluated/enjoyed/whatever in the realm of....films.

 

[ThePhantasm]

There are essentials and non-essentials. I understand films are a different medium. For example, I've read just about every Tolkien book there is, but I'm pretty okay (or at least ambivalent) with a lot of the changes PJ does. The ones I'm not okay with? For example, butchering Faramir's character by turning him into Boromir 2.0 for contrived drama purposes rather than maintaining his noble aspects.

The comics tell us that Batman is Batman forever. He doesn't quit. He doesn't move on. He can't, precisely because he is that enduring "immovable object" that the Joker talks about. He's more hardcore about his rules than Superman, even though Superman is the boy scout! Frankly, I feel like getting this wrong was a huge error for TDKR. That doesn't mean I can't watch TDKR and enjoy it, but it does mean I'm critical of this aspect of the film.

 

[BatLobster]

I suppose treating the movies as Elseworld tales is what allows me to be more forgiving of even the more major deviations. I also just love seeing different takes on the mythos in general.

I can see that a lot of people here favor a more tragic bent to the Batman story; that Bruce is forever lost in his crusade, his life is always chained to tragedy and he can never let go. While I do think that's one very powerful and tragic way to portray the character, I also feel that Batman is also such a positive and heroic figure that I was willing to go along with an ending that portrayed him in a more redemptive light, where he finally learns to let go after all and has a chance at internal peace.

To some, that flies in the face of everything Batman is all about and you know what? In a way they're absolutely right. But that's why I love it! And please, nobody think I'm saying the comics don't matter. It's not that at all. It's just that I loved getting an ending that I know I can never get in the comics. That added to the triumphant quality of it all to me. In the comics, Batman has tragic flaw but it never really threatens to fully undo him because we know there will always be another issue. TDKR presented us with a story where his tragic flaw (not caring enough for his own life) threatens to undo him and Gotham once and for all, and he's able to overcome it. The realism that was peddled so hard in these movies made it impossible for me to ignore the likelihood that Bruce would eventually die in action if he kept doing it forever, so him walking away becomes something of a relief. That doesn't mean I think the more tragic interpretation of Batman is inherently inferior or anything. Burton's films showed me the tragic Batman (I don't consider the Schumacher films true sequels) who'll probably be Batman forever, and I loved that. It's haunting and bittersweet. I guess this is all my long-winded way of saying I enjoyed seeing the guy get a well-earned happy ending, and I felt it was a fitting ending for this version of the character in particular. Though I can certainly understand why some would've preferred a more traditional, tragedy-colored ending.

I don't think anyone's right or wrong when it comes to a lot of stuff. We all have our own preferences for the character and if we were all to sit down and write our ideal Batman story, there would likely be some serious differences in all of them.

 

[The Batman]

I wanted to see a Bruce retires arc myself...I just wasn't satisfied by how they executed it.

 

[BatLobster]

And that's fine. I never intend to paint things with too wide a brush. The thing with TDKR's critics is that everyone has their own, different problems with the film. One person may not like the execution of an idea, while someone else may appreciate the execution but ultimately resent the idea, while yet another hates both equally. One person says all the film's problems are in Act 1, another says they're all confined to Act 2, etc.

 

[ThePhantasm]

I'm going to drop this here. This is something I've been thinking about for awhile. Its just a theory, I don't have proof for it, and I'm not going to die on this hill in terms of argumentation. Its just something I'm putting out there to think about.

TDKR: A Fan Theory on the Composition of the Story

Batman Begins and The Dark Knight both shared something in common. They were open-ended. Christopher Nolan seemed to have no concerns that someone would touch his version of the Batman universe. He repeatedly asserted, after all, that he planned one movie at a time. After each film he was unsure as to whether he would make another.

That all changed after the Dark Knight, and I believe one of the predominant reasons for this was the death of Heath Ledger. I think it hit the production crew hard. After the Dark Knight rumors swarmed about the role being recast. Nolan was adamant that he would not recast the role – that to bring the Joker back in this Batman universe would cheapen what Ledger had accomplished. He wanted Heath’s Joker to remain isolated in the Dark Knight, disappearing as mysteriously as he appeared. The Joker would not receive even a reference in TDKR. I agreed with Nolan on this completely. I felt that bringing in someone who would mimic what Heath did would be disrespectful.

Nolan seemed to think that the only way to prevent that from happening was to seal the TDK universe off at every point. Batman would be absent from crime-fighting for eight years, the last night of work being on the night of Harvey’s death. He’d return to face a final threat, then disappear again for good. It was the end of the story. Suddenly the universe wasn’t open-ended. It was being driven to a conclusion.

Keeping the universe closed off is not an idea that I’m necessarily opposed to. Unfortunately, it became the overwhelming function of the film to such an extent that the story was damaged. Bruce’s passive and inactive moping during his eight years in hiding was jarringly out of character – tragedy has always driven Bruce to action before, even foolhardy actions like trying to kill Joe Chill. Now Rachel is dead, crime is gone, and Bruce just sits around? Color me unconvinced. Even Gordon remained active despite the falling crime rates – his gut told him something was wrong. Bruce should have felt the same way at the very least.

The falling crime rates were attributed to a rather silly plot device, the Harvey Dent act. At the end of TDK, Gordon and Batman wanted Dent’s legacy to inspire Gotham to good action – to inspire Gotham to be redeemed. Instead, in TDKR, we find that Gotham was not inspired at all, rather, Dent’s death was merely used as a political weapon to keep criminals behind bars in a rather unconstitutional manner. The notion that this Act would have survived for eight years without being overturned in a court seems incredibly far-fetched and unrealistic. The Act is used to create some angst over lies, getting one’s hands dirty, and whatnot, but at the end of the movie the Act is never mentioned again and the plotline surrounding it is not fully resolved (Bane freeing the prisoners from Blackgate isn’t a resolution – it heightens the tension of the Act plotline because we wonder how Gotham will react and how that situation will be resolved, and then that resolution never really comes).

There’s a certain dark irony to the fact that Gordon is put under an unfair trial courtesy of the Scarecrow. “What sort of due process is this?” Gordon asks indignantly. How many prisoners in Blackgate might have wondered the same about their situation? Gordon has been sentenced with no hope of parole.

Whereas Begins and TDK were both open-ended, TDKR isn’t – thus Nolan feels compelled to stuff it full of famous plotlines from the comics, none of which are given their due attention. Knightfall, No Man’s Land, The Dark Knight Returns… all these help form the plot, in addition to Dicken’s “Tale of Two Cities,” plus the complex Batman / Catwoman relationship, and on top of that a pseudo-“Robin” origin story! It is too much, and it causes TDKR to lose the sort of focus and thematic power that the simpler and more straightforward BB and TDK had. You can’t make the decision to create story that seals off your interpretation of the universe AND that includes four or five more famous stories, arcs, and plotlines in that sealed off universe. The resulting effect on the story is crippling.

 

[redfirebird2008]

I wanted to see a Bruce retires arc myself...I just wasn't satisfied by how they executed it.

At least you had an open mind about it.

 

[kvz5]

I had quite a bit of issues with TDKR but Bruce being alive and retiring was surprisingly not one of them. The guy has been through so much **** that it made me smile seeing him finally have a chance to live a normal (or whatever version of "normal" someone like him and Selina Kyle could have) happy life.

I'm still puzzled though by why Bruce even have to fake his own death. I don't feel that he has to but whatever... it's not a dealbreaker for me.

 

[ThePhantasm]

 

[BatLobster]

Phantasm- That's an interesting theory. I feel I've made my share of lengthy posts today so I'm gonna ponder this one and get back to you at a later point.

At the very least, I find it more interesting at this point to discuss the potential 'whys' of TDKR being what it turned out to be (for better or worse) than having another go 'round of the old "no that part was good!"/no that part sucked!" song and dance.

Oh, and

Spoiler

BOOM

 

[Green Goblin]

I had no problem with the dent act. When Bane revealed the truth it gave a sense of Gothams hopelessness that we hadn't seen since Batman Begins.

 

[Shikamaru]

See....now this is a good argument.

My problem with "This isn't the comics" folk is that, quite often, they blindly try to justify ANY change the filmmaker makes, as if the filmmaker can't do something that can't be interpreted as a mistake. They also try to use "This isn't the comics" to brush off any aspect of the comics that fans want to see onscreen....like for example, Batman having genius level intellect.

I think most fans get that films are different and changes will be made. I definitely know that everyone in this discussion is aware of that. But don't act like the comics matter less than they actually do, and don't write off fan ideas just because they're an aspect of the comics we haven't seen onfilm yet. That leads to people seeing the same thing all the time as well.

You hit the nail spot on.

This is exactly how I feel. I often see people throwing the "This isn't the comics" excuse to justify anything the filmmakers do, even going as far as to brush off any aspects that fans speculate about seeing on screen in the future such as, as you said, Batman's genius level intellect.

I've actually even seen people throw around the "This isn't the comics!" argument when I didn't even reference the comics at all. You can bring up things you thought were plot holes and people will still throw around that argument. When Iron Man 3 came out, many fans felt they were falsely marketed to due to the Mandarin twist. Despite me stating over and over again that I just wanted to see the Mandarin from the trailers and that I was not expecting the Mandarin of the comics in the first place, people still tried to scold me that it wasn't the Mandarin of the comics.

In the case of TDKR, what these people often don't realize is that I find TDKR to be just as much of a bad sequel as I find it to be a bad Batman film for the exact same reasons. Whenever I watch The Dark Knight, I see the message of Bruce having to embrace being Batman forever right there. It is one of the things that I love so much about TDK. People often act/think that idea was not there in the first place and I always disagreed with them on that. Had Nolan not made the idea and message of his Batman in BB & TDK so much like the idea and messages behind the Batman of the comics, I probably would have not had as much of a problem with TDKR's ending as I did (though I still wouldn't be a big fan of it). The fact that he made such an incredible film with a message that I thought emphasized everything Batman was all about only to make a sequel contradicting all of that is the part that ticked me off the most. Thus even if I wasn't a comic book fan and these films were my first exposure to Batman, the ending wouldn't have been any better for me because it would have still went against the essence of Batman from the first two films, which happened to be the same as the essence of Batman from the comics. But of course that I'll still get the "This isn't the comics!" response regardless.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Well put, Shikamaru.

And yeah, I finally stopped commenting on the IM3 boards for that very reason...

 

[shauner111]

Shika thinks he knows what the essence of Batman or anything means, but he doesn't. The essence is simply Batman being a dark character who was created through his fear of bats & how his parents were taken from him in front of his eyes. He promises to strike fear into the hearts of criminals through the Batman. THAT is the essence. Anything else is subjective. What kind of path he goes on, how long he's batman, if he stays in the cowl forever, if he retires at some point, who he faces, who he dates, it's ALL up to the writer who is writing the piece. Everybody has their interpretation from that point on.

Batman keeps the crusade going on forever and is written accordingly because comics can never end and they MUST continue with Bruce as Batman to sell their issues. End of story. The comics don't have the luxury of ending the story or doing a trilogy with a beginning, middle and end. Nolan, through film, had that luxury. He wanted to do something different and he gave people his ending.

 

[redfirebird2008]

You hit the nail spot on.

This is exactly how I feel. I often see people throwing the "This isn't the comics" excuse to justify anything the filmmakers do, even going as far as to brush off any aspects that fans speculate about seeing on screen in the future such as, as you said, Batman's genius level intellect.

I've actually even seen people throw around the "This isn't the comics!" argument when I didn't even reference the comics at all. You can bring up things you thought were plot holes and people will still throw around that argument. When Iron Man 3 came out, many fans felt they were falsely marketed to due to the Mandarin twist. Despite me stating over and over again that I just wanted to see the Mandarin from the trailers and that I was not expecting the Mandarin of the comics in the first place, people still tried to scold me that it wasn't the Mandarin of the comics.

In the case of TDKR, what these people often don't realize is that I find TDKR to be just as much of a bad sequel as I find it to be a bad Batman film for the exact same reasons. Whenever I watch The Dark Knight, I see the message of Bruce having to embrace being Batman forever right there. It is one of the things that I love so much about TDK. People often act/think that idea was not there in the first place and I always disagreed with them on that. Had Nolan not made the idea and message of his Batman in BB & TDK so much like the idea and messages behind the Batman of the comics, I probably would have not had as much of a problem with TDKR's ending as I did (though I still wouldn't be a big fan of it). The fact that he made such an incredible film with a message that I thought emphasized everything Batman was all about only to make a sequel contradicting all of that is the part that ticked me off the most. Thus even if I wasn't a comic book fan and these films were my first exposure to Batman, the ending wouldn't have been any better for me because it would have still went against the essence of Batman from the first two films, which happened to be the same as the essence of Batman from the comics. But of course that I'll still get the "This isn't the comics!" response regardless.

That's the thing though, Bruce has a very finite view of his Batman career in BB. He makes it clear that he wants to clean up the streets, create a symbol for others to follow, and be done with it. Now whether TDKR executed this idea well is another issue altogether, but it's not like the seed wasn't planted for him to quit in the first movie. It was there all along and fans chose to ignore it, then got mad about it when Nolan followed through with it.

 

[shauner111]

That's the thing though, Bruce has a very finite view of his Batman career in BB. He makes it clear that he wants to clean up the streets, create a symbol for others to follow, and be done with it. Now whether TDKR executed this idea well is another issue altogether, but it's not like the seed wasn't planted for him to quit in the first movie. It was there all along and fans chose to ignore it, then got mad about it when Nolan followed through with it.

Exactly.

 

[The Batman]

You hit the nail spot on.

This is exactly how I feel. I often see people throwing the "This isn't the comics" excuse to justify anything the filmmakers do, even going as far as to brush off any aspects that fans speculate about seeing on screen in the future such as, as you said, Batman's genius level intellect.

I've actually even seen people throw around the "This isn't the comics!" argument when I didn't even reference the comics at all. You can bring up things you thought were plot holes and people will still throw around that argument. When Iron Man 3 came out, many fans felt they were falsely marketed to due to the Mandarin twist. Despite me stating over and over again that I just wanted to see the Mandarin from the trailers and that I was not expecting the Mandarin of the comics in the first place, people still tried to scold me that it wasn't the Mandarin of the comics.

In the case of TDKR, what these people often don't realize is that I find TDKR to be just as much of a bad sequel as I find it to be a bad Batman film for the exact same reasons. Whenever I watch The Dark Knight, I see the message of Bruce having to embrace being Batman forever right there. It is one of the things that I love so much about TDK. People often act/think that idea was not there in the first place and I always disagreed with them on that. Had Nolan not made the idea and message of his Batman in BB & TDK so much like the idea and messages behind the Batman of the comics, I probably would have not had as much of a problem with TDKR's ending as I did (though I still wouldn't be a big fan of it). The fact that he made such an incredible film with a message that I thought emphasized everything Batman was all about only to make a sequel contradicting all of that is the part that ticked me off the most. Thus even if I wasn't a comic book fan and these films were my first exposure to Batman, the ending wouldn't have been any better for me because it would have still went against the essence of Batman from the first two films, which happened to be the same as the essence of Batman from the comics. But of course that I'll still get the "This isn't the comics!" response regardless.

Its the same everywhere you go on SHH...some fans love a movie so much, and get defensive when others aren't happy with it. "This isn't the comics" is one of the many desperate arguments people use to justify things they like, as if the filmmaker can do no wrong.

I especially hate when people use that argument when fans want to see Batman films better utilize one of his most well known traits. You'd think no one would have a problem with fans wanting to see the guy who debuted in DETECTIVE COMICS being more of a detective.

Shika thinks he knows what the essence of Batman or anything means, but he doesn't. The essence is simply Batman being a dark character who was created through his fear of bats & how his parents were taken from him in front of his eyes. He promises to strike fear into the hearts of criminals through the Batman.

Why should anyone believe you when you say Shika dosen't get Batman's essence when you don't really have much respect for the medium Batman comes from?

I'd trust his thoughts on the subject more than I would yours.

 

[The Joker]

You hit the nail spot on.

This is exactly how I feel. I often see people throwing the "This isn't the comics" excuse to justify anything the filmmakers do, even going as far as to brush off any aspects that fans speculate about seeing on screen in the future such as, as you said, Batman's genius level intellect.

I've actually even seen people throw around the "This isn't the comics!" argument when I didn't even reference the comics at all. You can bring up things you thought were plot holes and people will still throw around that argument. When Iron Man 3 came out, many fans felt they were falsely marketed to due to the Mandarin twist. Despite me stating over and over again that I just wanted to see the Mandarin from the trailers and that I was not expecting the Mandarin of the comics in the first place, people still tried to scold me that it wasn't the Mandarin of the comics.

In the case of TDKR, what these people often don't realize is that I find TDKR to be just as much of a bad sequel as I find it to be a bad Batman film for the exact same reasons. Whenever I watch The Dark Knight, I see the message of Bruce having to embrace being Batman forever right there. It is one of the things that I love so much about TDK. People often act/think that idea was not there in the first place and I always disagreed with them on that. Had Nolan not made the idea and message of his Batman in BB & TDK so much like the idea and messages behind the Batman of the comics, I probably would have not had as much of a problem with TDKR's ending as I did (though I still wouldn't be a big fan of it). The fact that he made such an incredible film with a message that I thought emphasized everything Batman was all about only to make a sequel contradicting all of that is the part that ticked me off the most. Thus even if I wasn't a comic book fan and these films were my first exposure to Batman, the ending wouldn't have been any better for me because it would have still went against the essence of Batman from the first two films, which happened to be the same as the essence of Batman from the comics. But of course that I'll still get the "This isn't the comics!" response regardless.

Well said

That's the thing though, Bruce has a very finite view of his Batman career in BB. He makes it clear that he wants to clean up the streets, create a symbol for others to follow, and be done with it.

What you mean something like this:

We all know Batman had a plan to retire one day after he'd saved Gotham. We're not ignoring that. It's how TDKR executed the idea in the most lazy half hearted way that's what people take issue with.

We should have seen a weathered Bruce Wayne in TDKR, and not because he's been moping around his mansion on knees with no cartilage whatever, pining over losing Rachel and that his energy project failed. I'd love to have seen a Bruce Wayne who was weathered from the toll of the last few years of being hated, hunted, and trying to fight the last remnants of organized crime while helping push the Dent hero image and legacy as Bruce Wayne.

Instead we got some half baked plot about Gotham no longer needing Batman the night after Dent died. Gotham was magically cleaned up. Alfred stood by for 8 years and let Bruce think he lost his only hope at a normal life instead of giving him a foot up the ass and telling him the truth about Rachel years ago.

I won't even get started on him leaving his Batman mantle to a guy he barely knew and never proved that he was undoubtedly the best guy for the job.

No one is faulting Nolan for wrapping up Bruce's story. It's the terrible way he did it.

 

[BatLobster]

My honest opinion: I don't believe "Bruce is cursed to be Batman forever" was a key message of TDK. It was merely one possible direction the story could go if it continued.

I think the message of TDK is more about having to make impossible choices that may otherwise be perceived as wrong in order to defeat a greater evil in a time of crisis. It's about coming face to face with the devil and having to make serious compromises in order to come out with some measure of victory. And I think it's about accepting that it might have been your own actions that invited the devil to come wreak havoc in the first place.

I don't think any of that has any bearing how how long Bruce is supposed to be Batman for. TDK did indeed sum up some of the classic aspects of the Batman mythos, but I believe it did so in a way that works in a confined way. The story was free to go any number of directions, as the ending had a large degree of ambivalence to it.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Well said



What you mean something like this:

We all know Batman had a plan to retire one day after he'd saved Gotham. We're not ignoring that. It's how TDKR executed the idea in the most lazy half hearted way that's what people take issue with.

We should have seen a weathered Bruce Wayne in TDKR, and not because he's been moping around his mansion on knees with no cartilage whatever, pining over losing Rachel and that his energy project failed. I'd love to have seen a Bruce Wayne who was weathered from the toll of the last few years of being hated, hunted, and trying to fight the last remnants of organized crime while helping push the Dent hero image and legacy as Bruce Wayne.

Instead we got some half baked plot about Gotham no longer needing Batman the night after Dent died. Gotham was magically cleaned up. Alfred stood by for 8 years and let Bruce think he lost his only hope at a normal life instead of giving him a foot up the ass and telling him the truth about Rachel years ago.

I won't even get started on him leaving his Batman mantle to a guy he barely knew and never proved that he was undoubtedly the best guy for the job.

No one is faulting Nolan for wrapping up Bruce's story. It's the terrible way he did it.

I said in my post that whether it was handled well was another issue altogther and you deliberately took that context out of my quote so you could go on yet another rant about it. Ridiculous man. I'll go ahead and repost it here:

That's the thing though, Bruce has a very finite view of his Batman career in BB. He makes it clear that he wants to clean up the streets, create a symbol for others to follow, and be done with it. Now whether TDKR executed this idea well is another issue altogether, but it's not like the seed wasn't planted for him to quit in the first movie. It was there all along and fans chose to ignore it, then got mad about it when Nolan followed through with it.

Phantasm argued in his post earlier that it was NOT okay to wrap up Batman's story and it seems Shika is very much against that idea as well. Perhaps you shouldn't speak for the others.

 

[BatLobster]

Perhaps you shouldn't speak for the others.

That's exactly what I mean about how TDKR critics here have different viewpoints, despite them often acting like they're all on one team making one homogenous argument.