I've been thinking a bit about all the complaints that this movie committed sacrilege re: Batman's character and made him all of a sudden start acting out of character and such.
The conclusion I've come to is...yes, without a doubt the Bruce Wayne/Batman whose arc we see in this trilogy is notably different than his comics counterpart (not to say that there's only one definitive version in the comics either). It's been said a lot that these weren't Batman movies, but in fact Bruce Wayne movies. But the more I think about it, it's really so very true.
The purists will jump on that saying, "But Bruce Wayne IS Batman!" and "Bruce Wayne is just the mask, Batman is the more interesting character!". And in the comics, I'd agree. But because this was framed from the start as as a hero's journey, a man on a quest, our relationship with that character changes.
What part of Batman Begins was the more interesting part? The first hour or the second hour? Most fans tend to say the former, and I'd agree. So right from the get go, this series nixes the notion that Bruce Wayne is only interesting with the Batman persona.
It's just so clear now that this was never, never going to be a story wherein Bruce became more and more like his comics counterpart until he was a permanent fixture in this Gotham. It's an arc about a deeply wounded man, burdened by his wealth and unable to move on with his life finding an outlet for his rage while somehow trying to live up to his father's legacy. Along the way his battles change him, leading him astray from his original path and intentions. By the end, it's clear that this was all a big transitional stage and he's able to leave behind a worthy legacy as Batman while taking his first steps towards trying to finally, after 30 years, start living something resembling a life.
I know that last sentence makes some of you cringe, but I'm sorry, I love that. It rounds off the story in the purest way. I mentioned that at the start of Batman Begins, he's a man on a quest. I see the ending of TDKR as the culmination of that quest. Ra's tells him if he can carry the blue flower to the top of the mountain, he'll find what he was looking for in the first place. It may just sound like some Eastern kung fu mumbo jumbo, but I think it's very telling that Bruce, unsure, returns that with a question ("And what was I looking for?"). Ra's tells him that only he can know that. Of course, from that moment on, his quest is to "turn fear on those who prey on the fearful". His quest and his decision to become Batman are undoubtedly tied up with fear, but in my opinion, it's only when "the fear finds him again" in the pit that he truly finds what he was looking for in the first place: wholeness. His humanity. What was taken from him the moment his parents died. Like many hero's journey tales, the story we've been told here is a quest for wholeness. Only neither us nor Bruce really knew that until the end. Though it seems clear to me now that Christopher Nolan and David Goyer did.
I think what it comes down to is some people don't think Bruce Wayne/Batman actually fits the "hero's journey" model. They don't want him to be whole. They don't want the quest to end. They want him to be forever damaged. And I get that. Bruce's ultimate "quest" in the comics is to stand in the face of the impossible and punch criminals in their turkey necks (as Kevin Smith would say) forever. That's a quest that understandably doesn't end.
But I contend that the quest of Bruce Wayne, Christopher Nolan's cinematic hero, and the character we've come to know as Batman were never one and the same. Even his ultimate mission as Batman in the movies isn't the same, it's not as romanticized as it is in the comics. There's no childhood vow. There's no scene at the Waynes' grave. He wants to rid the city of corruption so it can start helping itself. Batman is designed an enabler in these movies rather than the be-all end-all solution. However, ridding the city of corruption ends up being something far more complex than he bargained for. And he does get lost in the monster. The events of The Dark Knight represent the "in his prime" Batman coming face to face with his greatest nemesis. In the end he has to tarnish the symbol he was trying to create just to put a band-aid on the damage that he himself helped usher into Gotham.
The fact that The Dark Knight Rises centers on themes of revolution and economic disparity seems so appropriate when you consider the fact that the murder of the Waynes' is a direct result of the tension that exists between the classes. What resulted in that is a lonely child who grows up isolated and sheltered, with his rage against the world festering, very much as a consequence of his wealth. Someone who chokes on his silver spoon. It asks the question, who would that guy become? So the story that results is very much one about this confused and troubled rich orphan finding his place in the world. And the story is, among many things, an exploration of the correlation between money and power. I think that's a fascinating way to approach the Batman mythos. And Rises offers a holistic conclusion to his journey by very much rooting the story in these themes and not taking Bruce Wayne's tremendous wealth for granted. It's a huge part of his character, and it's why Bruce Wayne on his own is a very interesting character even before he decides to put on a mask.
So I guess at the end of the day, if you weren't happy with Bruce's character in Rises, in my opinion this means you really weren't on board with what Nolan set out to do with the character from day 1. And that's okay, there's nothing wrong with preferring a different version. I just think we should call it what it is.
I'll conclude with this excerpt from The Art and Making Of The Dark Knight Trilogy:
I think this entire post boils down to an in-depth argument of "This isn't comic book Batman, it's Nolan's Batman." See, this is what you guys don't get. I keep stating the following point over and over again and yet I still get that argument. Perhaps wording it like this will make my point clearer:
The ending is just as out-of-character for Nolan's Batman as it is for comic book Batman.
Watching BB and TDK, I would have never in a million years imagined this ending and I don't mean that in a "Oh, I was so surprised by Nolan" way. I mean that in a how an incredible out-of-character ending it is. Even if I had no knowledge of comic book Batman, I would still think the ending wouldn't fit solely by analyzing BB and TDK. More specifically TDK.
"Bruce's plan was never going to be permanent." When you and Shauner make such statement, I think you both make the same mistake Nolan and the production crew did with TDKR: You forget that TDK exists.
I said many times that anyone new to the franchise can just skip TDK and go straight from BB to TDKR. Literally the only things you need to know are that Rachel died, Harvey died, and Batman took the blame for Harvey's crimes. That's it. Every theme introduced in TDK, every character arc that each character had...all of that is gone. As if the film never happened. And it is that same mindset I see when people reference the above argument.
Yes, Bruce's original vision is to only do this for a while until Gotham can stand on its own legs and then be with Rachel. That was what BB is all about. But then TDK happens, where it is all about Bruce learning that he can't just quit. That Batman is who he is and who he needs to be. That there is a higher class of criminals on the rise (the freaks) and only Batman can take care of them. With Rachel now dead and gone, it only pushes him further into the Batman mantle. The message was "Only Bruce can be Batman" - the exact opposite message of TDKR. And it's not like this character arc comes out of nowhere either. BB even hints at it with the shocking reveal to Bruce that the real threat coming to destroy Gotham was from Scarecrow and the LOS...not from the "normal" mob boss Falcone as he originally thought. TDK only delved deeper into that theme.
You say "This is the Bruce Wayne trilogy" and "This isn't "Bruce is the mask, Batman is who he is"". And I couldn't disagree with that any more than I already do. BB even spells it out for us classic-Nolan style, with Rachel's whole speech on Bruce being his mask and "the man [she] loved never came back".
Thus due to all that
and everything else I've brought up in the past regarding this argument, I still can't see how TDKR's ending would naturally fit even Nolan's Batman. Not only does it not fit, but I think it creates plot holes and inconsistencies within the trilogy. TDKR works better when you look at it as a stand-alone film as opposed to "the epic conclusion to this epic trilogy" as Nolan pitched it. You say "it's just so clear it was going to end this way" and to me, it's really
not so clear it was going to end this way. Even with the notion that Bruce was going to permanently retire from Batman at the end, the context in which everything happens still
makes it not-so-clear. Which brings me to my overall point that you've seen me bring up before...
In a franchise that spelled out to the viewers so much that Bruce would be Batman for a
long time, I believe Nolan contrived a story and ending going against all of that just so that he could say to WB "I'm done." The most annoying thing about TDKR is how it tries to pretend as if, in hindsight, this was always meant to be a three-act trilogy. It wasn't. Prior to Nolan coming back in TDKR, BB and TDK were just the first two stories in the new current Batman
franchise. Nolan wasn't even sure how many more films he would do or if he would even come back for a 2nd and 3rd film. Even
if this would have been Nolan's last film, there is no guarantee it would have a closed ending and even
if it would have had the same closed ending we got, the idea that this was always a planned three-act trilogy is still false. It would have just been "the final movie in this franchise that happens to have a closed ending". None of that "full circle" or "epic conclusion to this epic three-act trilogy" stuff.
And finally...the "Nolan said" list of arguments. As I said before, I cannot take the word of Nolan and his production crew post-TDKR. This is mainly because, if you look at a lot of the stuff said pre-TDKR and compare it to the statements made post-TDKR, a lot of them are contradictory. I won't sound redundant and reference quotes from the past you already heard me bring up (the Robin-related quote from Nolan about how "this is still a young Batman...no Robin for a few films", Goyer's whole "the cops will chase Batman" quote that I still have to look for
). Instead, I'll bring up another example: Back in '07, there was an interview with Nolan and Goyer released on TDK. They were essentially talking about Batman's character arc in TDK - how it was all about "Him wanting to quit, but learning that he can't just do this temporarily". I remember me and other users quoting that interview anytime we got into a discussion with the film, and especially when we heard false criticisms like "Batman has no character arc".
"But why would Nolan lie? Are you calling Nolan a liar?" That's presumably what you're thinking now. Well, yes and no. I prefer to interpret it as him trying too hard to cover up anything that will hinder the viewers' experience with one of his films. He is a great and talented director, but that is probably his biggest fault. He refuses to admit his films have deleted scenes or that he changed the story/certain story elements because he believes every film should stand on its own without the viewer thinking "I wish I could have seen those scenes because they fit so well in this specific scene" or "I wish they would have went with "plan A" for TDKR even though Ledger died". Because once you admit things like those, it affects the way the viewer looks at the film. Sometimes it's subconsciously, sometimes it isn't. A wise policy to an extent, but he takes it too far IMO. He takes it to the point where everything is "part of the plan", even things that were clearly not initially part of the plan and things that got cut/changed.
I'm sorry if you think this comes off as disrespectful, but every director has one flaw and that happens to be Nolan's biggest flaw IMO.
