The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 148

[I Am The Knight]

Bruce has got to be an assumed victim of the siege. On top of that he had a small funeral with only his "surrogate family" in attendance...clearly Gotham has bigger fish to fry that determining how and when Bruce died, and he'll inevitably be counted among the dead of "Gotham's elite", likely frozen at the bottom of the river.

Sure. It's not a big deal, really.

On top of that, as I posted a few pages ago- I think becoming disconnected from his wealth is probably the best thing that could ever happen to him and the only way he can truly be free. I do suspect that Selina has "saved for retirement" and that's the money they're living off of though.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Without his fortune, The Batman wouldn't have beeen able to operate at the level he did, so obviously his fortune can be put to good use. As for being free...Eh, I suppose you're connecting that to the "pain and tragedy" speech and how Bruce has to escape Gotham...Which I frankly find like a kinda melodramatic way of forcing the Cafe ending that Nolan and Goyer were fixated upon, this notion that Nolan introduces in this third film, that was absent from the previous two. Gotham is not a one dimensional entity. There's good and bad in it, just like any place in the world. Is he just gonna turn a blind eye to crime in Europe, ala Peter in Spider-Man 2?

Again, this line keeps getting taken out of context. Here's out it plays out in the film...

Bruce Wayne: The idea was to be a symbol. Batman could be anybody. That was the point.

This is NOT the same thing as Bruce thinking anybody could go out and literally BE Batman. Obviously his "HOCKEY PAHHHDS" response in TDK make that clear. What Bruce is speaking to is the desire to be a SYMBOL that goodness can rise from anywhere, even within a corrupt city. He wanted the people of Gotham to believe that good still exists, and he his used a symbol and anonymity to get that across. He's speaking to Gotham's point of view...the point of view he wanted them to have. To shake them out of apathy and inspire them. It's impossible to interpret this line without relating it to the prior films because Bruce is reminiscing on the past there, with a sense of nostalgia even.

The fact that he ends up entrusting Blake at the end just pushes that theme a little further, because in a sense John Blake is the "every man". But at the same time, he's really not the every man. He is Nolan's Robin after all. As James H pointed out, he proves to be one of the smartest people in the whole trilogy and quickly rises to the rank of Gordon's go-to guy in Batman's absence. And clearly, despite being a believer in the Batman he wasn't dumb enough to put on hockey pads and try to be a vigilante on his own. He instead chose to go through the system and become a cop, which is probably what Brian and his buddies should've done. Or at least helped the community in some other, less violent way if the force was still too corrupt at that time.

He shows good instincts and quick-thinking throughout the film. Again I have to agree with James H- if one is to criticize his character, criticize him for being a "too perfect" Gary Stu character. I've heard that criticism before, and it's fair and frankly, it's true. Because as is, I think the film did a good job showing that he has great potential, at least as a detective and as someone with strong sense of justice and the will to act even in the face of widespread apathy. And that's what he represents- an indication of the future that we can never quite know. The potential for a better tomorrow.

This is nice inspirational stuff, but I'm sorry, Nolan is trying to push the idea that this guy is not just gonna a Robin detective, this guy is supposed to be Bruce 2.0, with Nolan giving him "the Bat rage" ...

Johnny Blake: "Not a lot of people know what it feels like to be angry, in your bones."

Ra's to Bruce: "Your anger gives you great power...."

...Having a scene where Johhny Blake despises having to use a gun and throws it away, and even getting crimefighting lessons from the man himself, Batman....

Batman: "If you're working alone, wear a mask."

Blake: “I'm not afraid to be seen standing up to these guys.”

Batman: "The mask is not for you. It's to protect the people you care about."

Now why would Nolan add this little exchange when we already know this from Batman Begins? It seems like Bats had already made up his mind about Blake (In a scene where Bats has to save the guy's ass) doing some "field work" in the future...Nolan is trying to suggest that this guy is set to become Gotham's Next Vigilante, a task for which he is absolutely not prepared for, and has no one to guide him at all, and no money to keep the whole thing going. What is the point of showing Bruce go through hell in Batman Begins to become Batman, if all Blake is going to need for him to be Batman himself is a Batcomputer? It's not earned, it's just a convenience so that Nolan can connect his themes and wrap everything quickly.

More than wanting to show that good can come from anywhere, he wanted to inspire the people of Gotham to take back their city. Like Dent said, people "just stood by and let scum take control of the city." Bruce wanted to "show people their city doesn't belong to the criminal and the corrupt". He wanted to shake people out of their apathy, to demand justice. I don't think Bruce wanted to endorse vigilantism. It's a huge burden, and it proves fatal for some in TDK.

In TDKR, he basically goes "you know what, I'm done with this city. But maybe the symbol has to go on..." Um, OK Bruce, but don't just hand over the keys to this kid and pretend that everything is going to be OK. You have interacted with nuBatman for a couple of hours, and somehow you think this is enough to just go away and trust that this guy will handle everything. I know this is a movie, but....

There's are fair comments regarding Selina. Obviously it's true that happiness needn't be equated with a romantic relationship. But I do think that it helps as an indication that he's moved on. He could've been sitting at that table alone and it would still be just as triumphant. Selina being there is a nice bonus, that frankly I think he deserves after everything his soul has been through.

I don't mind him being with a woman per se, just the fact that he ends with Selina. I don't really buy their relationship, as shown in my previous posts.

That said, I think your version of the ending could've worked too. But in inevitably would've set people up to think that it's a "Batman and Robin together!" ending rather than a "Bruce moves on, passes the torch" ending. In other words one is more suggestive of a sequel and further stories of the adventures of Batman and "Robin", while the other closes the book a little more firmly on Bruce Wayne's story.

I would've been fine with that. Honestly, after months of hearing about this supposed "hard ending", I was surprised that Nolan decided to close with that shot of Blake rising (a great shot BTW). It felt like if WB wanted to make another Batman in the Nolan universe, they could.

 

[titansupes]

Nolan is trying to suggest that this guy is set to become Gotham's Next Vigilante, a task for which he is absolutely not prepared for, and has no one to guide him at all, and no money to keep the whole thing going. What is the point of showing Bruce go through hell in Batman Begins to become Batman, if all Blake is going to need for him to be Batman himself is a Batcomputer? It's not earned, it's just a convenience so that Nolan can connect his themes and wrap everything quickly.I would've been fine with that. Honestly, after months of hearing about this supposed "hard ending", I was surprised that Nolan decided to close with that shot of Blake rising (a great shot BTW). It felt like if WB wanted to make another Batman in the Nolan universe, they could.

Yes, Nolan made Robin/Blake the next Batman. That doesn't mean he was going to don the cape and cowl and start jumping off rooftops the very next night. Bruce, Gordon and the GCPD won the war, and Gotham now has a chance to come together and rebuild during peacetime. They'll do that... for years. And thanks to that, in that time, Blake can study and train all across the world, using the foundation he already has (more knowledge and skill than even Bruce had at that age) to become Batman II. If I were to write a follow-up story of somekind, I'd have it that the next big bad attacks Gotham 5-7 years later, and Blake - even though he's not finished his training - decides it's time for Batman to rise again. He does well, but he's not quite where he needs to be, and worries that he's not living up to Bruce's legacy... Of course, he comes good in the end. That's good drama, right there.

As far as 'the money to keep it going'... how much money does he need? How much of his own money did Bruce actually use to be Batman? All of his equipment was either a re-purposed Wayne Enterprises prototype (the first suit, the grapnel gun, the vehicles) or low grade stuff made by him (making the batarangs). For the more customised stuff they needed to invent, they used Wayne Enterprises money ("Now you've got the R&D Department burning through money, something about phones for the military. What are you building for him now, Mr. Fox?"). And we know Blake can use Wayne Enterprises still, because he knew Lucius (met him at least twice during the siege, and again at Bruce's funeral, where everything was out in the open). Lucius mentioned he'd be able to prove fraud and get the company back on track, AND he was always very supportive - even seemed to outright enjoy - the whole Batman thing, to the point where he was trying to push Bruce back into it, apparently for fun.

Yeah, Blake can become Batman.

As for the last shot... I love that shot. The way the water acts as a curtain...

 

[Anita18]

Yes, Nolan made Robin/Blake the next Batman. That doesn't mean he was going to don the cape and cowl and start jumping off rooftops the very next night. Bruce, Gordon and the GCPD won the war, and Gotham now has a chance to come together and rebuild during peacetime. They'll do that... for years. And thanks to that, in that time, Blake can study and train all across the world, using the foundation he already has (more knowledge and skill than even Bruce had at that age) to become Batman II. If I were to write a follow-up story of somekind, I'd have it that the next big bad attacks Gotham 5-7 years later, and Blake - even though he's not finished his training - decides it's time for Batman to rise again. He does well, but he's not quite where he needs to be, and worris that he's not living up to Bruce's legacy... Of course, he comes good in the end. That's good drama, right there.

As far as 'the money to keep it going'... how much money does he need? How much of his own money did Bruce actually use to be Batman? All of his equipment was either a re-purposed Wayne Enterprises prototype (the first suit, the grapnel gun, the vehicles) or low grade stuff made by him (making the batarangs). For the more customised stuff they needed to invent, they used Wayne Enterprises money ("Now you've got the R&D Department burning through money, something about phones for the military. What are you building for him now, Mr. Fox?"). And we know Blake can use Wayne Enterprises still, because he knew Lucius (met him at least twice during the siege, and again at Bruce's funeral, where everything was out in the open). Lucius mentioned he'd be able to prove fraud and get the company back on track, AND he was always very supportive - even seemed to outright enjoy - the whole Batman thing, to the point where he was trying to push Bruce back into it, apparently for fun.

Yeah, Blake can become Batman.

As for the last shot... I love that shot. The way the water acts as a curtain...

Right. Blake is not dumb nor impetuous. He didn't dare try to save the day until there was no other choice, because all his other cop friends were arrested the night before the bomb was going to go off and he needed to do something. Plus he talked Gordon out of speaking in public when Bane took over.

I also imagine that since he's buds with the priest heading the boys' home that's since moved to Wayne Manor, he'd be able to get a position there where he could actually live there and make sure the cave entrance stays hidden. Bruce choosing Blake to be his successor is not random.

The last scene gets me every time. JGL plays the inspiring, eager, ingenue upstart to a tee.

 

[titansupes]

Right. Blake is not dumb nor impetuous. He didn't dare try to save the day until there was no other choice, because all his other cop friends were arrested the night before the bomb was going to go off and he needed to do something. Plus he talked Gordon out of speaking in public when Bane took over.

I also imagine that since he's buds with the priest heading the boys' home that's since moved to Wayne Manor, he'd be able to get a position there where he could actually live there and make sure the cave entrance stays hidden. Bruce choosing Blake to be his successor is not random.

The last scene gets me every time. JGL plays the inspiring, eager, ingenue upstart to a tee.

Exactly right, the bolded especially. Thinking even further into the future, the boys home may well provide him with a Robin/Batman III of his own someday.

 

[BatLobster]

Yup. It's certainly no coincidence that Wayne Manor is a house full of orphans by the end of the film. It speaks to the idea of Batman being a symbol that can carry beyond Bruce, beyond Blake, through generations. Which reinforces the fact the ending is really about Bruce and what he has left behind more so than it is Blake himself. And I love the meta-aspect of how this relates to different incarnations of Batman and his enduring nature as a fictional legend. It's a forever revolving door, and I can't help but feel that the final shot is Nolan's way of passing the torch. Who'd have thought that Ben Affleck would be the guy to take it, and so soon? Heh.

Unrelated, but I also want to bring up something real quick in relation to a debate that I was having with milost yesterday. If you're reading milost, you were insisting that it's a contradiction and somehow unfathomable for Nolan to say that they had a rough idea of where they were going with the overall arc while also saying they approached one movie at a time.

Another example of this kind of approach that just occurred to me is Breaking Bad. If you know anything about the show or the behind the scenes side of it, Vince Gilligan has offered an unprecedented level of inside access to the process of him and his writing staff. Literally, unprecedented...I just watched a documentary where there's actual footage of him and the writers breaking stories in the writers' room. I've never seen anything like that before. Vince has time and time again openly admitted that they made up a lot as they went along and discovered the story as they broke each episode in the writer's room. Often purposely writing themselves into corners so they'd have to figure out clever ways to write themselves out. However, he also has now come out and revealed that the one thing he knew all along was Walt's ultimate fate (won't spoil for the 2 people out there who haven't watched BB yet). What's pretty incredible in retrospect is how much foreshadowing there is and how interconnected the series feels. I believe that is because the story was told as organically as possible (and by great writers too).

I feel similarly about how TDK trilogy holds together and I think Gilligan's approach with Walt and his arc/ultimate fate is similar to Nolan/Goyer's with Bruce's. Obviously they didn't know every detail of how he would get there, but I think it's a good bet that they knew he'd leave Gotham for good after cementing Batman's legacy as an enduring symbol. The same way they probably knew that The Joker would wreak havoc on Gotham and Bruce's life in part 2 before they had an outline for TDK. I mean hell, we all probably knew that going into TDK. It's not nearly as much work to figure out the broad strokes as it is to get your hands dirty and craft the thing line by line, beat by beat. It worked with one of the greatest TV series of all time, and yet I think that approach is even better suited for something like a trilogy due to it conforming to a very clearly delineated three act structure, which is the DNA of any individual movie...so it's essentially looking at it as one big movie.

I really see no problem with this approach. I think it's the most organic possible way to tackle a film saga that big, while still having some base level of organization and direction to it. It really, really doesn't have to be this black and white "either it was all planned or it wasn't" thing. I really can't imagine anyone disagreeing with that.

 

[titansupes]

^ Once again, BatLobsterRises: Nailed it.

Also... Yeah, I'm one of the two that haven't seen Breaking Bad, yet. I saw a very early episode (where he shaved his head and developed the blue Meth) and loved it, so I will be watching at some point. The trick is doing it before so much time lapses everyone starts casually spoiling it.

 

[Anita18]

^ Once again, BatLobsterRises: Nailed it.

Also... Yeah, I'm one of the two that haven't seen Breaking Bad, yet. I saw a very early episode (where he shaved his head and developed the blue Meth) and loved it, so I will be watching at some point. The trick is doing it before so much time lapses everyone starts casually spoiling it.

People started spoiling it the night the finale aired. Go finish it now!

The Breaking Bad stuff sounds REALLY cool. I'm not a writer, but I know it's super, super, SUPER hard. Maybe I'm not a writer because it's so damn hard.

 

[The Shape]

Right. Blake is not dumb nor impetuous. He didn't dare try to save the day until there was no other choice, because all his other cop friends were arrested the night before the bomb was going to go off and he needed to do something. Plus he talked Gordon out of speaking in public when Bane took over.

I also imagine that since he's buds with the priest heading the boys' home that's since moved to Wayne Manor, he'd be able to get a position there where he could actually live there and make sure the cave entrance stays hidden. Bruce choosing Blake to be his successor is not random.

The last scene gets me every time. JGL plays the inspiring, eager, ingenue upstart to a tee.

I remember talking to you about the TDKR ending back when everyone had heard what it was, no one had seen it, and most people had already decided they hated it. Good/weird times.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Yes, Nolan made Robin/Blake the next Batman. That doesn't mean he was going to don the cape and cowl and start jumping off rooftops the very next night. Bruce, Gordon and the GCPD won the war, and Gotham now has a chance to come together and rebuild during peacetime. They'll do that... for years. And thanks to that, in that time, Blake can study and train all across the world, using the foundation he already has (more knowledge and skill than even Bruce had at that age) to become Batman II. If I were to write a follow-up story of somekind, I'd have it that the next big bad attacks Gotham 5-7 years later, and Blake - even though he's not finished his training - decides it's time for Batman to rise again. He does well, but he's not quite where he needs to be, and worries that he's not living up to Bruce's legacy... Of course, he comes good in the end. That's good drama, right there.

As far as 'the money to keep it going'... how much money does he need? How much of his own money did Bruce actually use to be Batman? All of his equipment was either a re-purposed Wayne Enterprises prototype (the first suit, the grapnel gun, the vehicles) or low grade stuff made by him (making the batarangs). For the more customised stuff they needed to invent, they used Wayne Enterprises money ("Now you've got the R&D Department burning through money, something about phones for the military. What are you building for him now, Mr. Fox?"). And we know Blake can use Wayne Enterprises still, because he knew Lucius (met him at least twice during the siege, and again at Bruce's funeral, where everything was out in the open). Lucius mentioned he'd be able to prove fraud and get the company back on track, AND he was always very supportive - even seemed to outright enjoy - the whole Batman thing, to the point where he was trying to push Bruce back into it, apparently for fun.

Yeah, Blake can become Batman.

As for the last shot... I love that shot. The way the water acts as a curtain...

Eh, sure, it could be like that. But I don't agree with Bruce just leaving this huge legacy to Blake just because he could. It's not earned, by either Blake or the narrative. They had like three scenes. Sure, Blake is in the middle of the action in TDKR, but Bruce doesn't know that. It's like he just felt that Blake could be Batman....Felt it...In his bones.

Blake: "I believe in the Batma..."

Bruce: "HIRED!"

And later...

Batman: "If you're working alone, wear a mask."

Blake: "I'm not afraid to be seen standing up to these guys."

Batman: "SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MANTLE!"

If Blake has to leave Gotham (and I just can't imagine this guy leaving on a worldwide quest to train) to get the necessary fighting skills to be Batman then that obviously leaves a void. I suppose evil will just conveniently wait until Blake returns from his fan fiction quest. If Batman wants Blake to take his place, he should've just man up, actually train the guy, or remain Batman until Blake is fully ready, and then leave to live happily ever after with Selina. But nope. Nolan needed to wrap things up quickly and get Bruce to his Cafe ending, or the movie wouldn't be able to fit the IMAX format

Everytime Blake is in danger he either has to shoot down his attackers or be saved by Batman. It's nice that he has detective skills. But you need more than that to be Batman. You need actual combat skills.

 

[The Batman]

BatLobster:


I don't think Batman would refuse to save people because they became "looters" at some point. I also got the impression that most of those doing the looting where criminals, or very poor people who were being manipulated by Bane. He wants to save Gotham, and that includes every gothamite (Well, maybe not Tatelia).

Selina is a very self interested woman, who was looking after her own neck, and wanted Batman to do the same for himself so that they could run away together. Batman refuses. Up to this point, he is still willing to do everything for Gotham, and is consistent with his desire to protect the city as shown in previous scenes. But later he decides that he actually wants to go away with Catwoman.

I don't think handing Johnny Blake the keys to the Batcave is exactly making sure that someone will "carry the torch forward". Blake is just a cop. A well meaning cop, but he has no training, and is, as shown in the film, dependent on guns to be efficient. It just seems crazy that Bruce is ready to trust this young man (who he barely knows...Apparently all you need to do to convince Batman to hand over the mantle is to deduce the guess his secret identity and to be an enraged orphan) with the burden of being The Batman, or that he would want anyone to have that burden, but he himself can put the burden behind and go away with Catwoman. A Batman Beyond type of scenario would have been adequate. It seems like Nolan found himself in love with this whole "anyone can be Batman", which is, IMO, WRONG and actually goes against what was depicted in the previous movies. "Anyone can be a hero" though, is more fitting.

Anyway, Selina. I just don't think that relationship works. This is a woman who:

- Lied her way into his mansion to stole his fingerprints so that Bane and Tatelia could make Bruce lose his money, leading to Tatelia being put in charge of Wayne enterprises and getting access to the Nuke, which would be in turn used to hold Gotham hostage for five months, leading to multiple executions and economic collapse, not to mention deepening hostilities between the rich and the poor....And all that. Not being content with doing the job she was supposed to do, she also decides to steal Martha Wayne's iconic neck pearlace, and item that is of inmense value to Bruce.

- Threatened Bruce during the masked ball for being teh rich and stole his Murcielago Lamborghini just for fun... (Or because she felt "entitled" to do so?).

- Is depicted as someone who enjoys killing.

- Handed Batman directly to Bane, resulting in Bruce getting his back broken and being put into the Pit for five months.

- Basically declares that once she has helped clear the way for people to escape, she is stealing the Batpod because why not? She also refuses to stay and help Batman clear the mess she enabled by helping Bane and Tatelia, wheter she knew what they were going to do or not. At least she does go back and help Bats in the final battle, saving his life, too.

So....Yeah. I understand Bruce may be attracted to her at first, but I just don't see how he can actually trust her that much after the events of the movie. He doesn't have to hold her responsible for a lot of the things that she had a hand in, but to go and live up Alfred's fantasy of a potential "wife" with Catwoman is something I just cannot buy.

I am so glad....that someone feels the exact way I do about the handling of Bruce/Selina in this movie.

Regarding Selina...I just think she's there at the end to service that Cafe fantasy. I don't think happiness = being with a woman. That's a bit of a superficial way of looking at happiness. Yes, obviously love is great, but look at Gordon. His wife dumps him and takes the kids. He's still just happy that his friend survived at the end. All he gets at the end is the satisfaction that he helped saved the city. Granted, the entire trilogy tells us that for Bruce being with Rachel/a woman = happiness. I just wish he had ended up with some random woman. It didn't need to be Selina. But I would've preferred a Bruce Wayne who stays, follows in his father's footsteps and helps Gotham to get back on it's feet, happy that he set the wheels of change in motion as the Batman, and making sure that the city has a potential future protector in the form of Blake, who could use a father figure.

I'm starting to think you can read my mind. I think a lot of people loved Bruce/Selina in the movie because they just love the idea of Bruce/Selina being together, much in the same way a lot of die hard Superman fans love that, IMO, mediocre romance between Clark and Lois in MOS, solely for the fact that it was Clark/Lois. I think you're absolutely right that Selina was merely shoehorned into Italy, and I definitely agree that it would've been better if Bruce was just with some random woman at the cafe. The point would've still been made.

 

[milost]

Vince Gilligan and Co. are much better story tellers than Nolan and Co. That Breaking Bad documentary is proof of that and Gilligan is way more humble and open about the process than anything for TDKR or even the other two films.

It's apples and oranges. Gilligan said during the finale that a lot of the ideas they came up with were last minute decisions that happened to work out perfectly. The shooting scripts (especially during season 3) were changed up DURING shooting and actors even got a say in what they wanted to do. That's much more unique than Nolan's strict "we're adhering to the final script, that's all" (which I think is BS personally).

Knowing Walt's final moment in your head for 4 additional seasons is a lot different than supposedly knowing Bruce Wayne's journey. Especially when your character has cancer, is described as having a "Scarface downfall" since it's conception, and is on a crash course for death. Besides, Breaking Bad doesn't have one "main character" during it's run, but several. Jesse, Skylar and even Walt Jr. had different original fates all through the story process. So using Breaking Bad as an example is a stretch and TDKR is no where near the quality of Breaking Bad's writing (or the "trilogy" even though I love Begins and Dark Knight). Gilligan and his team are much more fluid and organic storytellers whereas Nolan comes off as this extreme tight ass. Their documentaries should be proof of how different the two styles are.

 

[Kane52630]

Damn...now I'm imagining how Vince Gilligan's Batman would be like.

 

[milost]

Yeah. If he had an interest in it, I bet it'd be really interesting. Hell, I wonder what he could do with a television series for Batman. Almost every episode of Breaking Bad felt cinematic, maybe a change of format could put a fresh spin on Batman in a new light.

Pipe dream though.

 

[BatLobster]

Vince Gilligan and Co. are much better story tellers than Nolan and Co. That Breaking Bad documentary is proof of that and Gilligan is way more humble and open about the process than anything for TDKR or even the other two films.

It's apples and oranges. Gilligan said during the finale that a lot of the ideas they came up with were last minute decisions that happened to work out perfectly. The shooting scripts (especially during season 3) were changed up DURING shooting and actors even got a say in what they wanted to do. That's much more unique than Nolan's strict "we're adhering to the final script, that's all" (which I think is BS personally).

Knowing Walt's final moment in your head for 4 additional seasons is a lot different than supposedly knowing Bruce Wayne's journey. Especially when your character has cancer, is described as having a "Scarface downfall" since it's conception, and is on a crash course for death. Besides, Breaking Bad doesn't have one "main character" during it's run, but several. Jesse, Skylar and even Walt Jr. had different original fates all through the story process. So using Breaking Bad as an example is a stretch and TDKR is no where near the quality of Breaking Bad's writing (or the "trilogy" even though I love Begins and Dark Knight). Gilligan and his team are much more fluid and organic storytellers whereas Nolan comes off as this extreme tight ass. Their documentaries should be proof of how different the two styles are.

First of all, I completely disagree about Gilligan being a better storyteller than Nolan as they excel in two very different types of medium, as you said. Let's not forget that Gilligan himself wrote a superhero movie- Hancock, which didn't turn out too great, so Nolan easily holds his own if you weigh out their entire filmographies. Of course a TV drama and a film trilogy are apples and oranges. I mean, we're talking 50 hours difference in the amount of story. But there is a similarity there. It's the aspect of a base character arc.

Walter White was a guy on a "Scarface downfall" like you said. But he also tried to make the best of his situation with his dying actions and ended up with some semblance of "victory", which to some people came as a surprise. Ironically a lot of people have griped with BB's ending because they felt it wasn't as dark and tragic as what the series had promised. Sound familiar? To me he didn't truly fulfill the "Scarface" part of his arc until the last episode. It's Mr. Chips/slow descent into hell/avenging Scarface. There's your arc of a character. Just because Vince and co. had no idea who Todd and the Nazis were in the earlier days doesn't mean (uncle) jack about having a basic shape for Walt's arc.

For Nolan and co.- they viewed Bruce's arc as a guy thinking he can save the city via a one man war on crime, learning that it wouldn't be that simple along the way, and then finally having to close that chapter of his life.

I also still don't even know what your point is. If your point is that "Nolan seems all stiff and stuff so he obviously must be lying about having an arc in mind for Bruce from the beginning", then I really don't get that. I don't even agree, you see examples of Nolan being open to last minute tweaks and collaboration on set (like that little bit with Tom Wilkinson in the doc). Sure, you weren't pleased with the end result, but we're not arguing about quality here. We're just talking about whether this approach to storytelling is a logical fallacy or not- which you claimed it was.

And just as a little PS- Rian Johnson, who directed the very best episode of Breaking Bad (The TDK episode, the one where a lot of fans think it could've ended) is a huge professed Nolan fanatic and a TDKR defender. Boom.

Yeah. If he had an interest in it, I bet it'd be really interesting. Hell, I wonder what he could do with a television series for Batman. Almost every episode of Breaking Bad felt cinematic, maybe a change of format could put a fresh spin on Batman in a new light.

Pipe dream though.

Ever since The Sopranos, I've been wanting something like this. A cable drama Batman series. I'm convinced it'll never happen though. WB likes Batman as their big screen commodity. I'm hoping Fox's Gotham show will be good at least though. There's some potential there.

 

[milost]

But there is a similarity there. It's the aspect of a base character arc.

Walter White was a guy on a "Scarface downfall" like you said. But he also tried to make the best of his situation with his dying actions and ended up with some semblance of "victory", which to some people came as a surprise. Ironically a lot of people have griped with BB's ending because they felt it wasn't as dark and tragic as what the series had promised. Sound familiar? To me he didn't truly fulfill the "Scarface" part of his arc until the last episode. It's Mr. Chips/slow descent into hell/avenging Scarface. There's your arc of a character. Just because Vince and co. had no idea who Todd and the Nazis were in the earlier days doesn't mean (uncle) jack about having a basic shape for Walt's arc.

So you agree with me, but you don't agree? I don't get it.


I said that an outline for Walter White from the beginning makes sense when the character debuts as a cancer patient that only has a few years to live AND your pitch is to take a good, kind chemistry teacher and turn him into "Scarface". It's only natural when you have those qualities to have somewhat of an idea of where you're headed. And that's right, they had no idea about Todd, or Uncle Jack, or of Gretchen and Elliot, so my argument still stands. Is it that hard to think ahead that, "yeah, Walt is going to die in a blaze of glory but still kinda-sorta redeem himself"? No.

But since you're so determined to tie the quality of one thing to Nolan's Batflicks (like Star Wars, other trilogies, etc.) . . .

For Nolan and co.- they viewed Bruce's arc as a guy thinking he can save the city via a one man war on crime, learning that it wouldn't be that simple along the way, and then finally having to close that chapter of his life.

. . . I'll play

NOT really the same as your main character having cancer, living two years tops and destined for some kind of downfall.

When did they view it as "finally having to close that chapter on his life"? That came out of no where and wasn't even touched upon until 2011/2012 with the "full circle" and "teh epic legend ends". It was never conceived as a three part trilogy until marketing and promoting TDKR set in. Prior to this?


With Begins we see,


- we have a Bruce Wayne that thinks he can simply inspire and be a symbol for people to fight as a force of good against corruption

- believes that after the mob and Arkham inmates are rounded up that things will get better and that "Gotham can be brought back"

- he views it as temporary, that he is Bruce Wayne that simply becomes that symbol

- his childhood friend believes otherwise as Shika points out. She believes that Bruce is the mask, that he died 7 years ago, and the face she now sees is Batman's (the one criminals FEAR, not the face that makes people want to stand up and fight against evil). MAYBE if Gotham no longer needs him, they can be together, but for now, he's the Batman.

- they play the Batman . . . Forever card harder than they do, "well, he's going to quit someday and achieve exactly what he wants to do".

- they mention numerous times that this is a young, amateur Bruce/Batman that still has several years ahead of him before he's THE BATMAN, (hence "Batman Begins"). So fresh faced idealism is a must.




The Dark Knight?



- completely kills off the notion that this quest and journey is a one time deal

- the mob is still there, but to make matters worse, you have a new "idea" with the character of the Joker. A threat that makes Batman's naive goal of quitting before breakfast impossible

- like comic Batman, this Batman trusts NO one. And the person he does trust, the guy he puts all of his eggs in his basket with, goes baaaaaad. Yeah, I don't think Batman would go back to that idea anymore. "Can't rely on anyone these days, gotta do everything yourself".

- CLEARLY not interested in a "Legacy" sort of situation. From Brian Douglass to Harvey Dent, Bruce is NOT interested in someone taking up the mantle. From Begins on it was about the city being able to take the reigns WITHOUT vigilantism. WITHOUT Batman's way.

- Literally KILLS off Rachel, Bruce's chance "for a normal life"

- KILLS the idea that Batman is a "symbol of hope to inspire good", Batman even says as much

- juggles the idea of who Wayne really is between Bruce and Batman

- the writers once again indicate that Batman IS Batman and that "I'm sure the day won't come when *you* no longer need Batman"

- Batman not being a hero that inspires good, but something more. A darker hero, a "Dark Knight"

- Batman being hunted down and having to run, NOT hide

- THE ENDING

- everyone associated with the series swears up and down that they have NO interest in Robin. That some writer or filmmaker after them can pursue that idea if they'd like and that they're only interested in a younger Batman. "Robin" is in a baby carriage somewhere, remember? Bale will chain himself up and never work again, remember?




Nothing about the above points to the writers and filmmakers knowing where Bruce was going to go. If anything, there's a lot of ambiguity and uncertainty. WILL they go darker with Batman? The Dark Knight certainly implies as much. Batman has no real problem with "becoming the villain" and doesn't care about that naive idealism anymore. He knows that he can't be "that symbol" and gives up on it. Batman is his course of action now. He takes pleasure in what he does for the first time even AFTER Rachel perishes.

Based on everything pre-2011, I think it's fair to question that Goyer, and the Nolan's simply contrived "Bruce goes to Italy" during the writing stages of TDKR. Nothing more.



TDKR

- they don't show him hunted . . . until briefly, 8 years later. And at that point, the chase wasn't even really about catching Batman, but catching the Stock Exchange villains

- they show that he couldn't take it. He's a miserable little man, hunched over in his Manor completely deprived of any of the heroism he had in the last film

- "frozen in time"? From what point? Certainly not from Dark Knight or Batman's uplifting decision at the climax of the film. He deals with Rachel's death briefly, questioning if "he brought it on her", but falls right back into Batman. Everything from the Playboy facade to cold and calculating Batman gets played up AFTER her death. MAYBE frozen in time from a point afterwards that we didn't see (thanks again to that ludicrous and contrived time jump), but that's a different story.

- "frozen in time" as far as Bruce Wayne goes? Uhh, why is the character's lifestyle always viewed as a "negative" thing? Better question, if that lifestyle is damaging to someone's lifestyle, as the writers imply, why oh why would they . . .

- want to encourage the idea of someone ELSE taking on that role

- they create John Blake, a "Robin" after stating that they have no interest in him from the get go.

- they create a legacy despite never establishing the idea in the first two films (it was always about GOTHAM standing up for what's right themselves, not another vigilante having to step up to bat "someday")

- they have Bruce state that "anyone can be a hero, that was the point" one second, then encourage vigilantism/Batman the next with talks of encouraging masks, gadgets, etc. What message does that send? "Batman isn't a hero, he's something more", but then, "HE IS A HERO, HE GETS STATUES!" It's a complete contradiction. Bruce in Begins and half way through Dark Knight isn't seeking a person to take up the mantle in a sense of a BATMAN MANTLE. He's looking for "ordinary people" to stand for what's right. Elected officials like Harvey Dent. Encouraging someone to wear a mask and giving them your entire arsenal sort of goes against that idea. It implies that there will always be a fight to be had against crime in Gotham and that ONLY a Batman can conquer it.

So what was "the point" Bruce? And how can you possibly know when the writers/filmmakers don't?

What's the point of all of it? By TDKR, there are conflicting messages. They state by the films end that the law doesn't work with shackles and all that. They encourage the cowl over the badge. So there isn't any real hope for Gotham? If that's the case, why the hell wouldn't you take it darker? You can't have it both ways. What was so "wrong" with Batman's reputation being tarnished? Did he have to be "redeemed" in a third when his character was against the law and "bad" from the get go? Gordon, Gordon's family, Alfred, Fox, Joker and Batman himself knows what went down. We the audience knew what went into that ending. Did Batman really need to be "Supermaned" when the character since his CONCEPTION was never that kind of hero which Dark Knight establishes?



Like I've said in the past, it'd be better to just have Batman/Bruce getting lost in "this monster of his" and going out in a blaze of glory OR surviving and becoming stronger. Is happiness to this character REALLY shacking up with a criminal and touring Italy as a couple of vacationers? Really? What is "living" to Bruce? What is "living" to us!?! Is pain and hurt driving someone to do good things REALLY a bad thing like Alfred so often remarks of? He didn't want Bruce to come back? Huh? When is that implied in Batman Begins if these creators knew from the get go that Bruce would end on a happy note? If Gotham is bad and the idea of Batman is bad, and there will always be a need for that legacy character, then it's a battle that can't be won is it not? So going back to what Bruce originally wanted, for the city to stand up and fight evil and for Gotham to go back to that glistening, CGI beauty he saw from the monorail in Begins, never really happened. So Bruce failed.


It doesn't add up, none of it. Going back to "it's a contradiction", well, it is. It's a muddled mess of differentiating views and ideals. They would have been better off simply embracing this guy, like they did in Dark Knight,

Spoiler

No wishy washy melodrama with freakin' Tale of two cities quotes. There is no "happiness" or "good". There is Batman and his law. Not as a fascist, but as a protector. Dark Knight got the character right and ended it right with him riding off into the night. TDKR got it wrong.

I also still don't even know what your point is. If your point is that "Nolan seems all stiff and stuff so he obviously must be lying about having an arc in mind for Bruce from the beginning", then I really don't get that. Sure, you weren't pleased with the end result but we're not arguing about quality here. We're just talking about whether this approach to storytelling is a logical fallacy or not- which you claimed it was.

You should have left that British thing in there and not edited it, because that sort of indicated that you knew exactly what I was talking about with the way I described it.

And just as a little PS- Rian Johnson, who directed the very best episode of Breaking Bad (The TDK episode, the one where a lot of fans think it could've ended) is a huge professed Nolan fanatic and a TDKR defender. Boom.

Yeah, and he also made Looper.
Ew.

You pointed out that Gilligan not being infallible. I agree. Neither is Nolan, or his writing team, or ANYONE for that matter.

 

[shauner111]

I said i was out, but i couldnt help but respond to "And he also made Looper. Ew"? That was a fantastic sci-film movie.

 

[milost]

I said i was out, but i couldnt help but respond to "And he also made Looper. Ew"? That was a fantastic sci-film movie.

But see, the crux of the issue is that not everyone agrees with each other and have different views on why something is inherently "good" or "bad". Lobster attempted to bring Rian Johnson into the mix because he's a supporter of TDKR and, well, I'm not really impressed with Rian Johnson.

I notice you do that a lot Shauner. Someone says, "I didn't like that, here's why . . . ". Then your post is, "well, I luved that". Well, no duh. There wouldn't be a discussion if it was constantly. LIKE LIKE LIKE LIKE or HATE HATE HATE HATE. Looper does nothing for me and I thought Bloom was awful. The Breaking Bad episodes? I loved the Season 5 opener and Ozymandias. You know what I also loved? How EVERY episode was directed by a different person and still kept it cohesive. Blood Money doesn't look much different than 51, why is that? Hmm, the director? Nope. Bryan Cranston directed the former. Could it be the crew? I think it could be.

You guys always fall back on to other avenues or successes to put TDKR on a pedestal. You worry about how it will look in 20 years in comparison to Star Wars or Indiana Jones. You have this little rodeo where you try to rope in other sources from a guy that directed something and is a supporter of the movie we're battling. Well, yeah. I'm sure a lot of people loved TDKR and have worked on things I've enjoyed. But so what? Other filmmakers saying they enjoyed another filmmakers work? OMG, mind blowing? How often do you see them rip each other? Unless your a PoS like Spike Lee or Wally Pfister, most people in the business keep their mouth shut about other peoples works, unless it's high praise or good things. That's the etiquette and what's expected. You never know who you might be working with tomorrow.

But we're not talking about them. There's you, there's me, and everyone else in here contributing to the threads. That's the discussion.

 

[Travesty]

 

[shauner111]

Breaking Bad is my favorite show and i agree with everything you say about it milost.

I actually haven't seen Bloom. But i loved Looper. But maybe you should take a deep breath, because forums and back and forth discussions online and in real life include a lot of "you didnt like this? really? you're crazy, i thought it was awesome". And comparing things, making references. Welcome to reality bud. That is what discussion is about.

 

[BatLobster]

So you agree with me, but you don't agree? I don't get it.

I said that an outline for Walter White from the beginning makes sense when the character debuts as a cancer patient that only has a few years to live AND your pitch is to take a good, kind chemistry teacher and turn him into "Scarface". It's only natural when you have those qualities to have somewhat of an idea of where you're headed. And that's right, they had no idea about Todd, or Uncle Jack, or of Gretchen and Elliot, so my argument still stands. Is it that hard to think ahead that, "yeah, Walt is going to die in a blaze of glory but still kinda-sorta redeem himself"? No.

Yes, I agree with you about Breaking Bad. I disagree with your refusal to accept the possibility of a similar approach to the trilogy.

But since you're so determined to tie the quality of one thing to Nolan's Batflicks (like Star Wars, other trilogies, etc.) . . .

Nothing to do with quality. This is simply a discussion about how long-form storytelling can be approached.

NOT really the same as your main character having cancer, living two years tops and destined for some kind of downfall.

Sure, it's not exactly the same but it's not entirely dissimilar if they viewed the Batman persona as something that would bring about some kind of unforeseen downfall in Bruce's life.

What's the point of all of it? By TDKR, there are conflicting messages. They state by the films end that the law doesn't work with shackles and all that. They encourage the cowl over the badge. So there isn't any real hope for Gotham? If that's the case, why the hell wouldn't you take it darker? You can't have it both ways.

I'm going to skip the summation of the movies since it's stuff we've been over before and just focus on this bit here. I disagree. I think you can have it both ways, and in fact need to have a little bit of both in order for an ending to a dark story to feel authentic. I tend to think the best Batman endings are a mixture of light and dark. "Dark victories" if you will. TDK ends with a lie to cover ugly truths, but there's a silver lining there because of how awe-inspiring Bruce's sacrifice is. TDKR inverts this- it may end with statues and cafes, but it also ends with a tinge of Bruce's cynicism and obsession. He's thinking ahead and knows that while things may be on the upturn for the time being, evil will always rise and the world's systems are always vulnerable to corruption, therefore there may once again come a time when someone outside the system is needed. And he also accomplishes all of this through lies and deception, again. I think the moral grayness of favoring the cowl over the badge is pretty intentional. But the overriding feeling is triumph, because Bruce sees a life for himself beyond all that- finally. And he hasn't forced anything on Blake- Blake has a choice to make for himself.

Again, to draw a parallel to Walter White's journey- it feels triumphant and "Hollywood", almost deceptively so. You have to stop and consider how much he truly lost along the way. Why must an ending either be purely dark or purely "happy"? Most poignant endings are able to find some kind of middle ground there.

And before you say I'm trying to make some kind of equation to the "quality" of Breaking Bad's ending...I actually was one of those people who wasn't a huge fan of it. I respect it and understand why they did it, but it left me wanting a little more.

It doesn't add up, none of it. Going back to "it's a contradiction", well, it is. It's a muddled mess of differentiating views and ideals. They would have been better off simply embracing this guy, like they did in Dark Knight,

Spoiler

I disagree. Rather than a muddled "mess" I see it as a progression of ideas building upon each other.

And the thing is, if you're saying Bruce reached the fruition of his arc in TDK then there really was no need to make another film. Even IF they had 0 clue as to how Bruce's story would end before making TDKR (which I don't believe), I still think they finished his arc in the right way. You don't make the third film unless you have something new to say about the character.

I just think it's interesting that you refuse to accept the notion that maybe...just maybe, the same Nolan and Goyer that made TDK did have a notion about where Bruce's ultimate story was going in mind. It doesn't mean you have to suddenly like the idea. But it's just like you only are willing to accept that they just had a big brainfart and everything "bad" about the movie must be confined to post 2008 and only post 2008.

You should have left that British thing in there and not edited it, because that sort of indicated that you knew exactly what I was talking about with the way I described it.

Heh, I didn't wish to offend anyone. But anyway, I still think Nolan's a cool cat with a dry sense of humor despite his super serious demeanor. And a certain honesty about his process.

So you agree with me, but you don't agree? I don't get it.

I said that an outline for Walter White from the beginning makes sense when the character debuts as a cancer patient that only has a few years to live AND your pitch is to take a good, kind chemistry teacher and turn him into "Scarface". It's only natural when you have those qualities to have somewhat of an idea of where you're headed. And that's right, they had no idea about Todd, or Uncle Jack, or of Gretchen and Elliot, so my argument still stands. Is it that hard to think ahead that, "yeah, Walt is going to die in a blaze of glory but still kinda-sorta redeem himself"? No.

Yes, I agree with you about Breaking Bad. I disagree with your refusal to accept the possibility of a similar approach to the trilogy.

But since you're so determined to tie the quality of one thing to Nolan's Batflicks (like Star Wars, other trilogies, etc.) . . .

Nothing to do with quality. This is simply a discussion about how long-form storytelling can be approached.

NOT really the same as your main character having cancer, living two years tops and destined for some kind of downfall.

Sure, it's not exactly the same but it's not entirely dissimilar if they viewed the Batman persona as something that would bring about some kind of unforeseen downfall in Bruce's life.

What's the point of all of it? By TDKR, there are conflicting messages. They state by the films end that the law doesn't work with shackles and all that. They encourage the cowl over the badge. So there isn't any real hope for Gotham? If that's the case, why the hell wouldn't you take it darker? You can't have it both ways.

I'm going to skip the summation of the movies since it's stuff we've been over before and just focus on this bit here. I disagree. I think you can have it both ways, and in fact need to have a little bit of both in order for an ending to a dark story to feel authentic. I tend to think the best Batman endings are a mixture of light and dark. "Dark victories" if you will. TDK ends with a lie to cover ugly truths, but there's a silver lining there because of how awe-inspiring Bruce's sacrifice is. TDKR inverts this- it may end with statues and cafes, but it also ends with a tinge of Bruce's cynicism and obsession. He's thinking ahead and knows that while things may be on the upturn for the time being, evil will always rise and the world's systems are always vulnerable to corruption, therefore there may once again come a time when someone outside the system is needed. And he also accomplishes all of this through lies and deception, again. I think the moral grayness of favoring the cowl over the badge is pretty intentional. But the overriding feeling is triumph, because Bruce sees a life for himself beyond all that- finally. And he hasn't forced anything on Blake- Blake has a choice to make for himself.

Again, to draw a parallel to Walter White's journey- it feels triumphant and "Hollywood", almost deceptively so. You have to stop and consider how much he truly lost along the way. Why must an ending either be purely dark or purely "happy"? Most poignant endings are able to find some kind of middle ground there.

And before you say I'm trying to make some kind of equation to the "quality" of Breaking Bad's ending...I actually was one of those people who wasn't a huge fan of it. I respect it and understand why they did it, but it left me wanting a little more.

It doesn't add up, none of it. Going back to "it's a contradiction", well, it is. It's a muddled mess of differentiating views and ideals. They would have been better off simply embracing this guy, like they did in Dark Knight,

Spoiler

I disagree. Rather than a muddled "mess" I see it as a progression of ideas building upon each other.

And the thing is, if you're saying Bruce reached the fruition of his arc in TDK then there really was no need to make another film. Even IF they had 0 clue as to how Bruce's story would end before making TDKR (which I don't believe), I still think they finished his arc in the right way. You don't make the third film unless you have something new to say about the character. I know this is exactly why you pretend TDKR didn't happen, and that's probably the exact right approach to take with it.

I just think it's interesting that you refuse to accept the notion that maybe...just maybe, the same Nolan and Goyer that made TDK did have a notion about where Bruce's ultimate story was going in mind. It doesn't mean you have to suddenly like the idea. But it's just like you only are willing to accept that they just had a big brainfart and everything "bad" about the movie must be confined to post 2008 and only post 2008.

Yeah, and he also made Looper.
Ew.

I liked Looper. Didn't love it, but I did like it quite a bit.

You pointed out that Gilligan not being infallible. I agree. Neither is Nolan, or his writing team, or ANYONE for that matter.

Of course not.

 

[The Joker]

Is that the great Gustavo Fring in your avatar with Walt, Shauner?

 

[shauner111]

Is that the great Gustavo Fring in your avatar with Walt, Shauner?

Yup

 

[BatLobster]

But see, the crux of the issue is that not everyone agrees with each other and have different views on why something is inherently "good" or "bad". Lobster attempted to bring Rian Johnson into the mix because he's a supporter of TDKR and, well, I'm not really impressed with Rian Johnson.

It was just a little trivial, goofy aside I made and I knew it would not "fly" (eh? eh?) with you whatsoever. I you think I was actually trying to rest my entire argument on that, you still don't get what I'm all about on these boards.

 

[milost]

One thing I love about these TDKR topics is that, while we may not agree at all on TDKR and be on polar opposites of where we stand, we do have a common point of view/love on other interests with things like Breaking Bad.

So while we'll never see eye to eye on TDKR, it does my heart good knowing that Lobster, Shauner, etc. can't be my mortal enemies, for we share a common ground elsewhere.

 

[shauner111]

TDKR splits families! It causes heated discussion. Ive said it before too, i bet we'd all sit down and have a coffee and get along great talking about other ****. Whether that be Breaking Bad or whatever.