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

[ThePhantasm]

The whole point is that at the start of TDKR, he WANTS to be able to channel his rage/pain into Batman but there is no need for Batman. Batman being gone is actually good for Gotham at the start of TDKR, so by not being Batman he's trying to do right by Gotham, while his inner demons are slowly rotting him away. It's only when his attempts at helping Gotham as Bruce Wayne dry up that he becomes a recluse. Bruce's whole character flaw at the start of the film is that he's waiting for things to go bad again so he'll have a purpose once more.

I think he gave up too easily, and it was because of Rachel. Lucius and Talia felt the same way. That's why Lucius was showing him stuff "for old time's sake" and gently but pointedly jabbing him about sinking tons of money into a clean energy project that he then mothballed.

Tate / Talia: "A man who doesn't care about the world doesn't spend half his fortune on a plan to save it. And isn't so wounded when it fails that he goes into hiding. Have a good evening, Mr. Wayne."
​

This had a double meaning. The energy project didn't fail, it was successful. The only reason it wasn't implemented was because Bruce was afraid it would be misused. It was redeeming Gotham as Batman that failed... because Bruce gave up.

Alfred: The city needs Bruce Wayne. Your resources, your knowledge. It doesn't need your body, or your life. That time has passed.

Bruce Wayne: You're afraid that if I go back out there, I'll fail.

Alfred: No. I'm afraid that you want to.
​

Why would Bruce want to fail? Because he doesn't want to live post-Rachel. Bruce has given up on succeeding. He rushes back into being Batman without properly preparing. Part of him wants to fail. He gave up too easily on helping the city both as Bruce and as Batman.

Commissioner Gordon: Based on a lie. And now this evil rising from where we tried to bury it. The Batman has to come back.

Bruce Wayne: What if he doesn't exist anymore?
​

"What if he doesn't exist anymore?" Doesn't sound like someone waiting for the first opportunity to leap back into the cowl. Bruce isn't sure if he wants to be Batman anymore. He's not looking for a way to channel his rage. He's moping. It takes Lucius, Talia, Gordon, and Selina to motivate him to become Batman again... the only voice against it is Alfred.

 

[ThePhantasm]

I'm too humble to figure it out myself, but I'm told its a mix of inherent characteristics of genius, sexiness, and badassery.

 

[kvz5]

You know what would be really funny? Eight years later Rachel shows up, ALIVE.

Even better if... she's working for Bane!

Spoiler

 

[Isearch4dope]

The whole point is that at the start of TDKR, he WANTS to be able to channel his rage/pain into Batman but there is no need for Batman. Batman being gone is actually good for Gotham at the start of TDKR, so by not being Batman he's trying to do right by Gotham, while his inner demons are slowly rotting him away. It's only when his attempts at helping Gotham as Bruce Wayne dry up that he becomes a recluse. Bruce's whole character flaw at the start of the film is that he's waiting for things to go bad again so he'll have a purpose once more.

Wouldn't have been half as bad if we actually saw that rage and anger. He seemed really calm for a recluse filled with anger and having a huge void to be filled. He should have been way more grumpy, detached and irritable viewing himself as useless to gotham on every level. To hammer home this point he needed to be somewhat of a scrooge so that when he returns we can actually sympathize with him because we saw how bad he needed i

 

[The Shape]

You know what would be really funny? Eight years later Rachel shows up, ALIVE. Bruce is all "what the heck?" Rachel says, "Oh, you don't remember that night you ran away for seven years, never contacted me, and we all thought you were dead? How does it feel?"

Because yeah, Bruce totally left her behind. That was how much he cared about her. She could have married anyone while he was gone. They never started a romantic relationship on his return. We never actually got to see them in a real relationship at all. So Bruce didn't care to tell her he was alive... and suddenly he's lovesick over her and stricken by her death so much that he turns into a total hermit? I understand grieving for her... they were close. But he grieved for his parents and then turned his rage into becoming Batman. He grieves for Rachel and is somehow rendered inert.

I think it was more the "idea" of Rachel, along with what she represented for him, that Bruce really latched onto. As was stressed in BB and TDK, she was the aspiration for Bruce to have a normal life, in a world where Gotham "no longer needed Batman. Unfortunately for Bruce, that peace time for Gotham came after Rachel's life was lost; a true casualty of Batman's war on crime. Therefore, his life post-Batman was anything but normal.

You're right and it's a good point that Bruce and Rachel had never truly been involved in a romantic relationship, but that doesn't mean one person can't long for another in the way Bruce longed to be with Rachel. As for Bruce leaving Rachel for years, BB makes a point of showing us (and the character of Rachel) that the Bruce who left Gotham is not exactly the same person that returned.
I wouldn't factor that in as him not truly caring for her, since young Brice was kindof a ****ed up dude who had very few "cares" in his world at that time. The Bruce who returned to Gotham in BB is one who seemed to no longer take things for granted, and who had clear goals and motivations.

 

[BatLobster]

I think he gave up too easily, and it was because of Rachel. Lucius and Talia felt the same way. That's why Lucius was showing him stuff "for old time's sake" and gently but pointedly jabbing him about sinking tons of money into a clean energy project that he then mothballed.

Tate / Talia: "A man who doesn't care about the world doesn't spend half his fortune on a plan to save it. And isn't so wounded when it fails that he goes into hiding. Have a good evening, Mr. Wayne."
​

This had a double meaning. The energy project didn't fail, it was successful. The only reason it wasn't implemented was because Bruce was afraid it would be misused. It was redeeming Gotham as Batman that failed... because Bruce gave up.

Quite true that this line had a double-meaning. However, I'd argue that in Bruce Wayne terms...creating something that could potentially be turned into a nuclear weapon IS a failure on some level. I think it harkens back to the idea that everything Bruce does seems to be a double-edged sword. His crusade as Batman had major negative consequences for Gotham too- it led to emergence The Joker.

Why would Bruce want to fail? Because he doesn't want to live post-Rachel. Bruce has given up on succeeding. He rushes back into being Batman without properly preparing. Part of him wants to fail. He gave up too easily on helping the city both as Bruce and as Batman.

I think that's oversimplifying it a bit. Rachel obviously does have something to do with his depression and his unhealthy attitude about returning to the cowl. But it's not just the loss of Rachel that haunts Bruce.

"Did I bring this on her?"

That is some MAJOR salt in the wound there. "Moping" over a dead girlfriend doesn't seem like something Batman would do, but if you factor in that he carries some of the burden of responsibility for it (both in creating the escalation that led to it AND in failing to save her in the moment), there's a "Jason Todd" element at play as well. The guilt factor is impossible to ignore for me, and I think that's a big part of his secret death wish. As TheShape said, Rachel represented an idea to him, the hope of a normal life. When you step back and think that Bruce is harboring some guilt over that, and he might view it as his own fault that he can't have a normal life, and therefore he's undeserving of one...well, pretty heavy stuff. It's also my personal interpretation that Bruce thinks he'll find some sort of personal salvation for both him AND Batman by dying, if he dies a hero's death and Gotham sees that he laid down his life for the city.

Think of it this way, do you honestly think he'd be behaving in the same way if the events of TDK never happened and Rachel was just tragically killed in a random car accident?

Commissioner Gordon:
Bruce Wayne: What if he doesn't exist anymore?
​

"What if he doesn't exist anymore?" Doesn't sound like someone waiting for the first opportunity to leap back into the cowl. Bruce isn't sure if he wants to be Batman anymore. He's not looking for a way to channel his rage. He's moping. It takes Lucius, Talia, Gordon, and Selina to motivate him to become Batman again... the only voice against it is Alfred.

Bruce may not be sure on a conscious level yet, but we soon see that it only takes these little nudges. The need is still there and that's what's important. I also tend to think Alfred knows Bruce better than himself, so when he says:

"But you're not living. You're just waiting, hoping for things to go bad again"

I think it carries a lot of weight.

 

[The Shape]

On a side note, one thing I really respect TDK for is having a love interest for our hero that didn't really share the same mutual feelings he did. While Rachel teetered on the line of choosing Bruce or Harvey, she ultimately chose Harvey, meaning she was actually in love with someone else. This makes Bruce's love for her unrequited in a sense, something he was not fully aware of (or didn't want to believe) at the time, thanks to Alfred "protecting" him from the hard truth.

Pretty unique for a superhero film since most of the love stories are pretty cut and dry, and the feelings are often mutual. It was also cool to mention the effect Rachel's death had on Bruce in TDKR, and that her death wasnt just sort of brushed under the rug and forgotten.

 

[BatLobster]

On a side note, one thing I really respect TDK for is having a love interest for our hero that didn't really share the same mutual feelings he did.

I definitely agree. Probably one reason a lot of fanboys have it out for her.

 

[shauner111]

I understand, but if Bruce wanted to channel all this anger/pain he still could have went after crime. The end of organized crime didn't end all crime in Gotham, which is stated in TDKR.

I see what you're saying, but I always interpreted this entire trilogy as a different version of Batman who's crusade isn't about going after every small time robber or whatever. Nolan's Batman was always after the big cats. The mob....and whatever terrorists came to Gotham. Because the organized crime is the main cause. So I always got the feeling that this Batman dealt with those larger scale things and relied on his appearance to scare the small time muggers, etc. Like the line from that drug dealer at the start of TDK "I don't like tonight!" *sees the batsignal in the sky*.

 

[Victarion]

On a side note, one thing I really respect TDK for is having a love interest for our hero that didn't really share the same mutual feelings he did. While Rachel teetered on the line of choosing Bruce or Harvey, she ultimately chose Harvey, meaning she was actually in love with someone else. This makes Bruce's love for her unrequited in a sense, something he was not fully aware of (or didn't want to believe) at the time, thanks to Alfred "protecting" him from the hard truth.

Pretty unique for a superhero film since most of the love stories are pretty cut and dry, and the feelings are often mutual. It was also cool to mention the effect Rachel's death had on Bruce in TDKR, and that her death wasnt just sort of brushed under the rug and forgotten.

Agree with both.

 

[Shikamaru]

Skimming through these last few posts, I can tell that people are arguing over Bruce's whole reason for retirement in the first place and as to why Batman was necessary during the 8 years.

Once again an example of a discussion we've had over and over again for an entire year now. BatLobsterRises was right when he said that we are essentially arguing in circles. It has been an entire year and we are still mainly at the same arguments we were having just a year ago (8 year retirement, the ending, John Blake, Talia being thrown in, etc.) with mainly the same points and pieces of evidence. Out of all the arguments, this is easily my least favorite one by far due to it requiring the most detailed explanation. It takes a complete analysis of Batman and the first two films in order to get others to understand your point of view on this one, something that even the controversial ending doesn't require to the same extent. I think I am going to sit this one out.

I would like to share my past experiences with this argument though. This is a problem I have with the film that I like to refer to as "the first flag". My doubts and fears for the film were triggered by this very part.

About a couple of days before the first teaser was released, I remember reading/hearing that TDKR would take place 8 years after TDK. I thought that was a brilliant idea. Bruce has been Batman for 8 years, has sunk farther into the Batman mindset, has fought all these villains over the years that he locked away, has more experience now, is probably the world's greatest detective at this point, etc. They were heading in the exact direction where TDK left off. Then the first poster and teaser came on. Everything looked great and the teaser is overall good. However, there was one thing that stood out - the part where Gordon says "Then you were gone" and "The Batman has to come back", to which Bruce replies "What if he doesn't exist anymore?". That seemed really odd to me. Something about it didn't match up with the previous continuity. I went back and watched both BB and TDK. While watching TDK, I tried to think of any possible ways in which Bruce could retire for 8 years due to a fully clean Gotham (which we learned about not too long after the teaser) without going against anything established and set up in TDK. I couldn't think of anything that fit. Even tried to look at some things from a different angle and still found nothing. I was skeptic, but I had trust that Nolan knew the right direction.

Many months passed. New information got released as well as more trailers. I was beginning to notice more and more tiny red flags but for the most part, I thought Nolan would take care of those in the film. The one red flag that grew bigger and bigger each week was Bruce hanging up the cape for all those years.

It seemed like a strange thing to do in my eyes, and I did not talk to anyone about it up until TDKR came out. I began to ask people on message boards such as this one how they felt about it a week before TDKR came out. That is when all the arguments started and have continued to this day. When I walked in theatres, though I was worried about small things here and there, the big red flag has stuck with me since the very beginning of that teaser. I walked in expecting to critique that and possibly only that (excluding minor flaws here and there that all films have). To my surprise, I walked out critiquing far more aspects.

Although there are several problems I have with the film, finding out Bruce hanging up the cape for 8 years due to Gotham being made squeaky clean is where everything was triggered for me. That one tiny red flag I saw in that teaser last year in July that only grew bigger since then is what led me to the position in which I am today on this thread.

Don't know if anyone cares but I wanted to share that. I thought it would add something new to this year-long repetitive debate.

 

[Green Goblin]

During the films release I never got how it was advertised as the epic conclusion. Personally I felt the first two were standalone. Anyone else feel the same?

 

[BatLobster]

Ironically, Shika...my experience was similar to yours. I was very anti-Batman retiring before I saw the movie. I remember trying to justify in my head Gordon might have said "the Batman has to come back" in the teaser, thinking maybe it was in the middle of the movie or something like that.

I suppose it all comes down to the fact that I'm willing to roll with the Dent Act as a plot device, and was happy to see that they had found a way to give a concrete result to an abstract idea. I also am willing to accept it as a nod to Dark Knight Returns, where a made-up law is also the cause of Batman's retirement (although in that case Gotham is getting WORSE, not better during the 10 years).

Stories of this nature are always based on a conceit. The conceit of the Batman story in general is "what if someone could wage a one man war on crime?". TDKR's conceit is "what if the plan worked?". I simply was intrigued by the conceit and convinced by the way they explained it. Clearly others weren't. But that's basically what the issue comes down to.

 

[The Shape]

During the films release I never got how it was advertised as the epic conclusion. Personally I felt the first two were standalone. Anyone else feel the same?

Not really. The argument could be made that they are stand alone, but that argument could be made for any film in a franchise, in a way, by simply stripping away the other films.

BB leads directly into TDK in terms of ideas (escalation) and what we are shown (Joker card). In return, TDK builds on many ideas and character relationships from BB. Finally, TDK could have been left as a standalone film, sure, with an epic open-ended/cliffhanger conclusion. As Batman rides off on the Batpod, I can't imagine a viewer NOT wondering what happens next.

Now we know. Shame not everyone liked what happened next.

 

[Ryan]

During the films release I never got how it was advertised as the epic conclusion. Personally I felt the first two were standalone. Anyone else feel the same?

You bring up a good point. While I do see the first 2 films as being connected, I didn't see them connected in the way the Godfather or LOTR or Star wars films were. To be honest, I was initially put off by TDK because I thought it would have been more closely connected. But as time went on, I grew to love the difference and thought it was really refreshing that Nolan was making each movie distinct. I never predicted that TDK would play out the way it did and be so different. Enter the 'red flags" (sorry Shikamaru, had to borrow that from ya ) of the first teaser trailer. Footage of Ras from BB, 'the end of a legend", and now I started hearing this was a "Dark Knight Trilogy". I for one, never wanted a TDK 2.0. I had grown to love Nolan's fresh approach to each film, and had expected that from TDKR. Sadly I was mistaken. Ironically, had Nolan made TDK more closely connected to BB as I originally had thought, maybe I wouldn't have minded TDKR so much as I wouldn't have raised the bar so high.

 

[Green Goblin]

I feel sorry TDKR, it's coming after TDK which is the greatist CBM of all time in my opinion.

 

[shauner111]

During the films release I never got how it was advertised as the epic conclusion. Personally I felt the first two were standalone. Anyone else feel the same?

Stand-alone? You could have viewed them that way I guess but I never did. The theme of escalation with the hint of the Joker. Alfred saying things about Wayne Manor being rebuilt from what happened in the previous film.

You also leave TDK wondering about certain things. Will we finally see Wayne Manor rebuilt with some new foundations for the batcave? Will Batman and Gordon's secret come out? Will Batman become the hero to the public finally? I even remember thinking about the League of Shadows and Talia, simply because the Begins novelization mentioned her. Ras made some mysterious reference in BB to something happening to his wife in his backstory that we never saw. I mean, there was no way Talia wouldn't seek revenge if she existed. I also always took that Lucius Fox joke about "cats" in TDK as a Catwoman nod.

So to me, I always viewed it as a connected series that would reference previous films and expand on themes. I always figured they would return to things from Begins, eventually.

 

[Victarion]

During the films release I never got how it was advertised as the epic conclusion. Personally I felt the first two were standalone. Anyone else feel the same?

I felt like this when the first teaser broke. Then the set pics started coming in, showing Bane's army, Bane at city hall with Dent's picture, and I started to get into the mindset of TDKR as the epic conclusion. The way the Nolans and Goyer knitted together details from BB and TDK into the narrative--having it flow naturally--was the final bit that convinced me that the film was a conclusion. In the year or so after TDK when there was rampant speculation about "BB3", I didn't like the idea of the League returning, or anything like that. Of course, I also didn't care for most of the Riddler plot ideas that were being thrown around, either.

After I read volume 1 of Knightfall, I was excited to see how the writers would flesh out Bane's character. Comic Bane was intriguing, but felt rough around the edges. Seeing that character turned into a dark mirror of Batman gave this film a sense of conclusion. We open the film with Bruce longing for his days at Batman; over the course of the film, he confronts the sort of people he could've been if he had stuck with his version of the League's teachings and lingered over his parents' death to the point of obsession.

Finally, yes, we're doing the same song and dance. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

 

[BatLobster]

I do think that turning TDKR into a satisfying, organic conclusion after the first two chapters were so very different in style was kind of like pulling a rabbit out of a hat (a "prestige" if you will), but that's actually exactly what I admire about it. They managed to make the whole thing come into focus in a way I wasn't quite expecting, and actually deepen my appreciation of the previous two films.

But BB and TDK very much did follow the standard trilogy storytelling formula as far as a chapter 1 and 2 go, and I definitely got the sense that a trilogy was on the table from the start. I just was concerned that they may have wrote themselves into a corner with the way TDK ended, and Ledger's passing not making things any easier.

 

[The Joker]

Organic conclusion is not how I'd describe TDKR. A conclusion definitely, but the events that unfolded in it did not feel organic to me.

 

[shauner111]

I personally think the 8 year gap of no Batman makes sense after TDK's conclusion. But I do agree with the people who feel like having Batman around longer would have made it feel more complete. But I would just do those things by having a story told like 6 months to a year after TDK with some low-key **** going on. Or something wild going on with freaks and mob bosses after the events of Batman Begins.

I know we cant get that on film ever, but maybe graphic novels by DC would do the trick. Or real ****ing animated movies. Not that Gotham Knight B.S. Stuff that's well thought out.

 

[BatLobster]

I'd agree with that. I'd love a mini-story that covered that time period and the transition into the "Dent Act" era. It definitely would round things out a bit. I understand why that sort of stuff was swept under the rug. It'd be unnecessary exposition that would dilute what the film was trying to depict: that Batman hasn't been seen in 8 years. But it'd still be cool to have some of those details filled in from a fan perspective. I have my own idea for a post-TDK fanfic that doesn't contradict anything stated in Rises, might give it a go at some point.

 

[shauner111]

I'd agree with that. I'd love a mini-story that covered that time period and the transition into the "Dent Act" era. It definitely would round things out a bit. I understand why that sort of stuff was swept under the rug. It'd be unnecessary exposition that would dilute what the film was trying to depict: that Batman hasn't been seen in 8 years. But it'd still be cool to have some of those details filled in from a fan perspective. I have my own idea for a post-TDK fanfic that doesn't contradict anything stated in Rises, might give it a go at some point.

Yeah I agree, for a film I completely understand. But little stories in between would be amazing over the next several years by DC.

That sounds cool man! Would you be able to give a little summary or anything? Even a hint at an antagonist? sorry, im a sucker for those kind of things!

I think a post-TDK thing would be neat. But also a couple of things between Begins and TDK. Id guess it would have to be mob related, so I always envisioned the likes of Penguin or Alberto Falcone. Just makes sense considering they pulled so much from Long Halloween and we all know about the Iceberg Lounge reference in TDK viral.

 

[BatLobster]

Yeah I agree, for a film I completely understand. But little stories in between would be amazing over the next several years by DC.

That sounds cool man! Would you be able to give a little summary or anything? Even a hint at an antagonist? sorry, im a sucker for those kind of things!

I think a post-TDK thing would be neat. But also a couple of things between Begins and TDK. Id guess it would have to be mob related, so I always envisioned the likes of Penguin or Alberto Falcone. Just makes sense considering they pulled so much from Long Halloween and we all know about the Iceberg Lounge reference in TDK viral.

Had to dig deep for this post...this idea came to me during a debate where I was trying to state my case that it'd be possible to configure a post-TDK Batman story that meshed well with TDKR.

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=25882213&postcount=547

It's obviously not a fully developed idea but the broad strokes are pretty much there.

 

[The Joker]

5 years ago today TDK came out.

Happy memories.