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

[BatLobster]

I welcome you both. Stay away from anything hockey related and you will have a good time.

Heh, thanks. You don't recommend the Hockey Hall of Fame? Serious question cause I was planning on checking it out.

(Sorry for being so OT everyone)

 

[Shikamaru]

Heh, thanks. You don't recommend the Hockey Hall of Fame? Serious question cause I was planning on checking it out.

(Sorry for being so OT everyone)

Let me clarify: Stay away from the Maple Leafs and you will have a good time.

 

[BatLobster]

Gotcha. I'm a Rangers fan anyway, so that shouldn't be a problem.

 

[regwec]

I have yet to physically meet a single soul who didn't like Blake's arc in Rises or want to see a film of him becoming Nightwing or Batman. Despite what is said on here or the internet as a whole in various messageboards.

As far as I am aware, every post that appears here next to any username other than "Thread Manager" is typed by a person. It may be that some of us don't have souls, but we are nevertheless as 'real' as the people with whom you come face-to-face.

 

[Tequilla]

That was in BB. TDK already undid that ground. The idea that Bruce could quit anytime soon and be with Rachel was a delusion he had that broke by the end of the second film. The first film is about him learning the means of striking fear into criminals and becoming Batman. The second film is about him getting more into the Batman mindset and into the idea that this is who he is not only meant to be, but who he has to be. Rachel's death, Harvey's corruption and the Joker himself are the major factors that play into this character arc of his. TDKR just ignores that character arc in TDK and pretends like it didn't happen. I've had this debate many times though.

Shikamaru , how can TDKR ignore that , when TDK expressly shows a man desperately trying to give up his mantle to a normal citizen like Harvey ? So much , that it's one of the reasons of his own sacrifice by the end of it. He doesn't accept his role because he wants to , because it's his own will but because he has to. In his mind , that's what's necessary for the city to endure. In Rises we see what happens to that Bruce , the consequences in a man who accepted to endure his own duality. He isn't able to escape it and live a normal life. He's completely broken . Him finally accepting his role as Bruce Wayne and letting go his other persona is the more natural progression from everything we have seen in the other previous 2 movies , especially TDK. I'm not saying the intricacies of the plot were the most natural and expected , but Batman's finite role is something heavily implied in the previous movies .

 

[regwec]

Yeah, but his attempt to give it up was played out in TDK. It was thwarted by the corruption of Dent, allowing a stirring conclusion that spoke about the nature of endurance and duty without thanks.

But none of that matters, because it turned out Bruce simply gave up once he got home, slipped out of the rubber tights and put the TV on.

Aargh.

 

[Brain Damage]

It's a very valid point. Yes, like others have pointed out, Bruce did want to stop being Batman in TDK. But by the time the third act rolls around, he's realized that's not an option.

But I guess after a few more hours of hard work, it was.

 

[Tequilla]

Ok , but even if it was thwarted, i dont see it how it makes that attempt in the future a delusion. In that particular moment , Bruce understood he couldn't do that. He accepted his role. We see how things panned out , and the consequences on himself.

 

[shauner111]

As far as I am aware, every post that appears here next to any username other than "Thread Manager" is typed by a person. It may be that some of us don't have souls, but we are nevertheless as 'real' as the people with whom you come face-to-face.

What didn't you understand when I wrote that I didn't physically meet a single soul???? Meaning people ive met in the flesh in my personal life.

 

[regwec]

I understood that well enough, hence my specification that we are as real as the people you met "face-to-face". I was responding to your insinuation that opinions posted on the internet are in some way disembodied from real people.

 

[shauner111]

.........

But...I was referring to the people ive met....

When I separated it, it was because this is a fanboy forum (as I am as well) called the superherohype where it's all about comics and CBM's, where we nitpick the hell out of everything. We are the minority audience. I was referring to people ive come across in the flesh who are either A) the general audience or B) big time fans who don't obsess or nitpick these things as much as we do on these messageboards.

 

[regwec]

The people you have personally met, and with whom you have had the opportunity to discuss TDKR, are also a minority. They are not the "general audience", nor necessarily representative of it.

In any case, the "geeks"/"GA" comparison is usually a false one, because the latter rarely let their viewpoints be known, if they even bother to form one. If "geeks" are people who bother to type out their opinions on an internet forum, then it cannot be right to dismiss all of those opinions as "niche", while supposing that all other opinions are opposed.

 

[BatLobster]

I have plenty of non-Batman geek friends, and they certainly let their opinion be known, just not on superhero message boards.

C'mon, are we really saying that in this age of rampant social media- Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, etc. that non-comic book geeks don't express their opinions about movies? People LOVE expressing their opinions in any way they can these days, especially people in the 14-30 demographic, which is pretty much the target audience for these movies.

 

[regwec]

Yes, yes, we all know thousands of people that agree with us.

 

[BatLobster]

I'm just commenting on the fact that we live in an age where the lines between "geek" and "GA" are becoming increasingly blurred. Everyone seems to be a fanboy/girl of one thing or another. Just an observation.

 

[Tequilla]

Well said.



Anyone else as fascinated by this TDKR thread as I am? Hard to believe there are new posts in it every day after a year of the film being released. And you've all gotta admit that it's pretty funny how this thread is essentially a very polite 3 on 3 battle of opinions. There's a couple of guys who've made their distaste for TDKR quite evident, so they're always agreeing and high-fiving each other via posts. "Yeah, man, you're right! TDKR spits all over everything the first 2 films did!" Then there's the few people who are more than happy with how TDKR turned out and do the exact same thing. "Totally agreed. TDKR honors the first two so much." And then the conversations move on and cycle through the same subjects that have been discussed for over a year (it is only a 2.5 hour movie after all). The same people agree, the same people disagree, over and over. Nothing is accomplished. Nothing changes. It's like the Twilight Zone.

Not intending to insult anyone whatsoever, especially since I've participated as well. I just think it's pretty funny when you look at this thread from that perspective, and if we can't laugh at ourselves, who can we laugh at?

How did i miss this post

I think everytime someone reads a post here they kinda go

"Oh, you. You just couldn't let it go, could you? This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. I think we are destined to do this forever! t:

But yeah its pretty fascinating. I just logged on and notice how much more people were viewing this subsection than some big movies released ...this year !. Kinda crazy.

As an user said , liked or disliked , Rises has a lot to discuss (now its really just a cycle , but i still think is kinda fun)

 

[The Joker]

Yeah, but his attempt to give it up was played out in TDK. It was thwarted by the corruption of Dent, allowing a stirring conclusion that spoke about the nature of endurance and duty without thanks.

But none of that matters, because it turned out Bruce simply gave up once he got home, slipped out of the rubber tights and put the TV on.

Aargh.

Exactly

Holy pointless contradiction retirement in TDKR, Batman.

 

[Travesty]

Yeah, but his attempt to give it up was played out in TDK. It was thwarted by the corruption of Dent, allowing a stirring conclusion that spoke about the nature of endurance and duty without thanks.

But none of that matters, because it turned out Bruce simply gave up once he got home, slipped out of the rubber tights and put the TV on.

Aargh.

But Rachel died, Reg.

Rachel....

 

[shauner111]

The consequences of TDK ending was put under a microscope. In order for Batman's sacrifice to have meant something, it had to have been a complete success. So Gotham no longer needs Batman. People look to Harvey Dent as their hero, and the streets have become clean. Im listening to an interview with Nolan right now, and he says it like that, simply.

Sounds like the story I saw. I don't see how people say that goes against the ending of TDK. It would go against the ending if they tried to make it seem like Batman and Gordon's sacrifice didn't work.

He also said he didn't want to just do another episode in the career of Batman for the 3rd movie. I can see from a storyteller's point of view, how that could seem quite boring. He's not doing a tv series.

 

[ThePhantasm]

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.

 

[BatLobster]

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.

 

[shauner111]

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.

 

[Schrute]

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'd accept this if the Mayor doesn't specifically say that "No city is without crime". I get that Gotham is a lot better, but if Bruce wanted to let out the anger/pain he could've still been Batman all those years stopping as much crime as he could. I understand the mob was the worst (until Joker) and they were responsible for a lot of crime, but it was Joe Chill that killed his parents, not exactly a member of the organized crime syndicate.

 

[shauner111]

But organized crime and the bigger fish (what the League of Shadows tried doing to the city through economics) is the source for creating people to turn out like Joe Chill. But honestly, I still believe he went out before the Dent Act was made official. This is why the line goes "8 years since the last confirmed sighting of the Batman". He's a ninja, there's ways to be out there as Batman without people making calls saying they saw the Batman.

Even Jett from Batman on Film said in an interview he had with Nolan or when he met him at a screening, he said by the way things were said, Batman wasn't completely absent during the full 8 years.

 

[Schrute]

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.