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

[shauner111]

I never said Batman = depression? I'm trying to look at the type of dark, tragic heroic figure Bruce has always been and interpret the ending in contrast to that. Never said Bruce couldn't have moments of happiness, the issue is this particular happy ending. There's always an unfinished, interrupted aspect to Bruce's life. There has been since his childhood was irrevocably interrupted and lost.

Batman, especially in this universe, is a way of releasing his anger. Goyer even said they treated it like it was a drug. Like Bruce is an addict. Addicted to the pain, anger, the suit. Batman is a symbol to channel all of those negatives emotions. They were telling a human story. And that is for the person to overcome their addiction. To rise up from the negative emotions and reminders of their past and look into a bright future where they can reinvent themselves.

There is absolutely no need to follow a strict guideline from the comics when it is simply not the comics they're dealing with. Batman is more than a story in a comic book now. And has been for a long time. So they can venture out and do what they want.

As long as it's not a spoof, where it's only used to sell toys, and make fun of the characters. Otherwise they can create an ending for Batman the way they see fit.

 

[Shikamaru]

I see it as the opposite. Batman is known to go on forever. That's the norm. So rebelling against that by giving him a happy ending is therefore the risky, new route. The safe choice would have been to give a boring ending where Batman/Bruce Wayne is looking over the city like we have gotten and will get for the next 100 Batman movies. You'll see, in 40 years from now you will realize that ending a Batman movie with him flying off a rooftop or standing on top a skyscraper is now the normal, safe, comfortable ending and extremely predictable one. It will happen over and over again, and you and i may love it every single time. But it's still safe. Actually every superhero movie tends to end in almost the same fashion. TDKR supplied something different. And it won't be repeated for Batman.

The other thing you guys are forgetting, is that this version was always about the symbol, and not necessarily about Bruce Wayne being the one and only Batman. Batman still continues at the end of Rises. It's still a Batman ending. The final shot is in the cave, suggesting the cowl lives on to fight an endless war. But some fanboys want their Bruce as Batman forever, but that's just brainwashing from the comics. Because they must carry through. It's about money over story, even if the writer can come up with some deep material in the process.

It probably didn't interest Nolan to end the 3rd part of his series practically the same way as Godfather 3 where Michael dies an old & bitter man. But this time with Bruce. Ive seen that before in one of our biggest trilogies we have. Or Nolan not ending it with a cop-out. Promoting the trilogy as the end yet giving people the same old superhero movie ending where Bruce is still batman, so WB can just re-cast and keep putting out sequels. How is that a real trilogy? How is that an ending to a story?

Never cater to the fans. Ever. Tell the story you want to tell and deal with the reactions later. The cockiest thing about this is that the fans truly think these movies were made for them first and foremost. They weren't. And thank goodness, because **** wouldn't get done. Things would be stale. Just like when a musician or pop star makes a record for their fanbase..it's compromised art.

I doubt Nolan cares if some fans hated the happy ending. Good for him. Good for Burton if he doesn't care what i think about Batman Returns. Thank God he did something different and told his story.

I think you're confusing the logic behind "thinking outside the box" with the logic behind "**** da police".

They're essentially both about not following the crowd. However, the former logic is composed of rationality & maturity while the latter logic initially originates in the juvenile "let's be rebels" mentality.

 

[Ryan]

By fresh you mean out of character.



That's the beauty of the character. He is trapped in an endless cycle of obsession, even when he's an aging man. He can never let go of it. Anyone can throw in the towel after they think they've done a decent job and run off into the sunset. That's not interesting.

Bruce Wayne is much more complex and interesting than that.

Bingo!

 

[shauner111]

I think you're confusing the logic behind "thinking outside the box" with the logic behind "**** da police".

They're essentially both about not following the crowd. However, the former logic is composed of rationality & maturity while the latter logic initially originates in the juvenile "let's be rebels" mentality.

Ummm, it's called "doing something different". When i see a movie, i want to see something that i haven't seen before thanks.

 

[ThePhantasm]

I agree with The Joker. Batman isn't just some external shell that Bruce can discard. Its the product of tragedy, embedded deep in his bones. He assumes that identity and then is shaped by it. It defines him.

 

[The Batman]

Meh...I'm actually tired of this mostly post crisis idea of "Bruce's life must always be tragic, and he must always be in the cowl of Batman".

I was open to the idea of Bruce moving on from Batman, as I feel a lot of modern Batfans are trapped in what this notion of what Batman should be, and that notion should be broken or challenged, IMO. Not to mention, the whole "Bruce is Batman forever" was already done in the previous franchise.

But the way they had Bruce move on in TDKR was the pits. I'm not gonna dock points for it, but I really didn't care for the execution.

 

[shauner111]

I agree with The Joker. Batman isn't just some external shell that Bruce can discard. Its the product of tragedy, embedded deep in his bones. He assumes that identity and then is shaped by it. It defines him.

But that's a lie. At least i think it is. You are never defined by anything. You can always change. Always move forward. Always re-invent yourself. So Nolan did that for Bruce because it is complete b.s that he is defined forever by what happened to him as a kid. Im not one of these people who believe that batman is the true face. He's a human being. He's getting lost inside the monster that is Batman, but that's not who he truly is.

 

[milost]

See, that's another one of my gripes with TDKR, it just seems like a knock off amalgamation of Begins and The Dark Knight that's worse than it's predecessors.

The differences between Batman Begins and the Dark Knight were huge, it was almost like I was watching two different films made by a different crew. From the look, to the story, to the themes, Dark Knight felt new and refreshing.

TDKR? Eh, sure the stakes are higher (OMG, THE CITY IS GONNA BLOW FROM A NUCLEAR BOMB WHILE OUR HERO SCREWS UP TWICE AND IS TRAPPED DOWN IN A PIT IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE) but it REALLY feels like a Begins 2.0 with some Dark Knight thrown in. Only difference? Bruce is terrible compared to the other films and Batman is pretty much non-existent. The IMAX prologue wasn't new, we saw that in 2008 with the Joker (I love how the documentary lays claim that it isn't about the "villain of the week", yet TDKR plays that idea up with Bane, who is the new villain of the week ). Batman going up against the LoS 2.0 felt like old hat to me. Bruce Wayne relearning what he did in Begins felt redundant. Bruce in his command center underestimating the main baddy while Alfred lectures him had already been done. Al Ghul twist? Been there before. Montage ending with all the characters to the "A Dark Knight" Zimmer theme? I already experienced it and it was much better in July of 2008. The film was about as recycled as Han Zimmer's score.

The things that were "new" like class wars, the city, etc. weren't even touched upon as much as we had all hoped. For me, Begins and the Dark Knight especially were much more fresh and exciting than TDKR. I think that's why it feels like a struggle to enjoy TDKR and each viewing is significantly worse for me.

 

[shauner111]

Meh...I'm actually tired of this, mostly post crisis idea of "Bruce's life must always be tragic, and he must always be trapped in the cowl of Batman".

I was open to the idea of Bruce moving on from Batman, as I feel a lot of modern Batfans are trapped in what this notion of what Batman should be, and that notion should be broken or challenged, IMO.

But the way they did it in TDKR was the pits. I'm not gonna dock points for it, but I really didn't care for the execution.

Fair enough. Good post.

 

[Shikamaru]

By fresh you mean out of character.



That's the beauty of the character. He is trapped in an endless cycle of obsession, even when he's an aging man. He can never let go of it. Anyone can throw in the towel after they think they've done a decent job and run off into the sunset. That's not interesting.

Bruce Wayne is much more complex and interesting than that.

This.

Fresh takes are one thing. New stories are one thing. But when you change the core of who a character is, that is when things have been taken too far. There are many brilliant writers that can offer new takes without changing the core of the character. Unfortunately, Nolan was not one of them.

And no, the ending is not "respectful" in any way. Mainly for 2 reasons:

1) As you already explained, it takes away from complex psychology of Batman.

2) Batman is literally the most motivated superhero in all of comics. That statement is not an exaggeration. He is literally the most motivated. You won't find a single superhero in all of Marvel/DC on the same level in the motivation department - not even Superman. It is why the superhero community has so much respect and admiration for Batman in the first place. It is why I have so much admiration for Batman in the first place.

This is something I think about every now and then: Gotham City has become the way we view our society. Everyday, we hear countless stories of corrupt cops and other figures getting away with crimes. Then when those stories come out, half the internet goes on a long rant about how no one is doing anything about corruption within the system.

When you take that into account, you realize how much of a larger-than-life character is. Essentially, each one of us deep down inside wants there to be a Batman. The most tragic thing about Batman is not that Bruce must be Batman forever, but that Batman is just a fantasy at the end of the day.

Thus when Nolan decides to remove Batman's motivation and dedication to his cause, I can't help but lose respect for his particular version of the character especially given the context in which he quits.

And before anyone brings this up for like the millionth time, no, I don't buy "this was never comic book Batman; it's Nolan's take". I don't buy it because there is nothing in BB/TDK to indicate this. If anything, those aspects of the character have been there from the start and thus makes TDKR a contradictory film, which has been my argument since day 1.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Agreed with most of that, Shika. You are absolutely right that Batman is the most driven and motivated. He doesn't quit. And because of his dark view of human nature, he would never just leave Gotham or declare the war had been won. There's always the change of evil returning. He fights for Gotham's redemption but there's also a side of him that recognizes its an eternal battle. That's what I find fascinating. He fights for redemption like and optimist AND has a realistic view of human corruption as well. He's always vigilant, even when semi-retired in the comics. To retire is almost a contradiction to his character. Its irresolvably so for him, to the extent he either has to come back, or train another Batman in his stead.

Gordon was more Batman-like in Nolan's TDKR, which is sad. He had to convince Batman (of all people!) that the battle wasn't done and that evil could return. And then he continued fighting crime. He never retired in the story. Never got a happy ending with his family. He made ****ing self-sacrifices instead. He kept on fighting, and got a new Bat signal to boot, while Bruce threw everything away.

 

[Shikamaru]

Ummm, it's called "doing something different". When i see a movie, i want to see something that i haven't seen before thanks.

"Doing something different" can happen in the name of "thinking outside the box" or in the name of "**** da police". Going by your own defense of the ending (please don't make me state this again), Nolan decided to "do something different" in the name of "**** da police".

I agree with The Joker. Batman isn't just some external shell that Bruce can discard. Its the product of tragedy, embedded deep in his bones. He assumes that identity and then is shaped by it. It defines him.

This.

Even if Bruce wanted to get rid of Batman, there is no way he would just "get over it" like in TDKR. He would have to get rid of Batman through professional therapy.

See, that's another one of my gripes with TDKR, it just seems like a knock off amalgamation of Begins and The Dark Knight that's worse than it's predecessors.

The differences between Batman Begins and the Dark Knight were huge, it was almost like I was watching two different films made by a different crew. From the look, to the story, to the themes, Dark Knight felt new and refreshing.

TDKR? Eh, sure the stakes are higher (OMG, THE CITY IS GONNA BLOW FROM A NUCLEAR BOMB WHILE OUR HERO SCREWS UP TWICE AND IS TRAPPED DOWN IN A PIT IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE) but it REALLY feels like a Begins 2.0 with some Dark Knight thrown in. Only difference? Bruce is terrible compared to the other films and Batman is pretty much non-existent. The IMAX prologue wasn't new, we saw that in 2008 with the Joker (I love how the documentary lays claim that it isn't about the "villain of the week", yet TDKR plays that idea up with Bane, who is the new villain of the week ). Batman going up against the LoS 2.0 felt like old hat to me. Bruce Wayne relearning what he did in Begins felt redundant. Bruce in his command center underestimating the main baddy while Alfred lectures him had already been done. Al Ghul twist? Been there before. Montage ending with all the characters to the "A Dark Knight" Zimmer theme? I already experienced it and it was much better in July of 2008. The film was about as recycled as Han Zimmer's score.

The things that were "new" like class wars, the city, etc. weren't even touched upon as much as we had all hoped. For me, Begins and the Dark Knight especially were much more fresh and exciting than TDKR. I think that's why it feels like a struggle to enjoy TDKR and each viewing is significantly worse for me.

I agree with all of this. Especially the bolded part. I got the same feeling from the film as well. It is also an extremely bizarre feeling given that it's the same production crew.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Makes more sense to me for Iron Man to quit than Batman. Tony Stark doesn't really have deeply embedded psychological and emotional reasons to be Iron Man.

 

[shauner111]

Nolan didn't do that just to be rebellious. As a matter of fact, they had the ending image of Bruce being happy and quitting in their minds since the Begins days. It was about the character and his arc first and foremost. Then, im sure, came the creative concept of doing something different. Which is what a filmmaker should strive to do, not repeat things.

 

[shauner111]

Makes more sense to me for Iron Man to quit than Batman. Tony Stark doesn't really have deeply embedded psychological and emotional reasons to be Iron Man.

Bruce has to quit sometime. He's a human being, not a God or martian who can go on forever as Batman. The mantle will be passed. The man will retire and die. And Gotham will need something to take care of its crime.

Nobody needs to stay emotionally ****ed up for the rest of their lives. He will always have the traumatic memories, but it's ******** if you think any individual can't move on once something tragic happens to them.

 

[milost]

This.

Fresh takes are one thing. New stories are one thing. But when you change the core of who a character is, that is when things have been taken too far. There are many brilliant writers that can offer new takes without changing the core of the character. Unfortunately, Nolan was not one of them.

And no, the ending is not "respectful" in any way. Mainly for 2 reasons:

1) As you already explained, it takes away from complex psychology of Batman.

2) Batman is literally the most motivated superhero in all of comics. That statement is not an exaggeration. He is literally the most motivated. You won't find a single superhero in all of Marvel/DC on the same level in the motivation department - not even Superman. It is why the superhero community has so much respect and admiration for Batman in the first place. It is why I have so much admiration for Batman in the first place.

This is something I think about every now and then: Gotham City has become the way we view our society. Everyday, we hear countless stories of corrupt cops and other figures getting away with crimes. Then when those stories come out, half the internet goes on a long rant about how no one is doing anything about corruption within the system.

When you take that into account, you realize how much of a larger-than-life character is. Essentially, each one of us deep down inside wants there to be a Batman. The most tragic thing about Batman is not that Bruce must be Batman forever, but that Batman is just a fantasy at the end of the day.

Thus when Nolan decides to remove Batman's motivation and dedication to his cause, I can't help but lose respect for his particular version of the character especially given the context in which he quits.

And before anyone brings this up for like the millionth time, no, I don't buy "this was never comic book Batman; it's Nolan's take". I don't buy it because there is nothing in BB/TDK to indicate this. If anything, those aspects of the character have been there from the start and thus makes TDKR a contradictory film, which has been my argument since day 1.

Great post (you too Joker). I agree 100%. The motivation aspect is the most important part.


You know what I actually loved about TDKR? Sure I didn't like mopey Hermit Bruce, but man, I really liked the idea that he wanted another shot at being Batman. Alfred hitting the piano, seeing Bruce down in the "new", fully decked out Batcave, Alfred stating "you haven't been down here in a long time", etc. I loved that, it felt monumental. Not just the story, but the fact that it had been 4 long years since The Dark Knight. At that point, I was totally into the 8 year gap. That Bruce was in a state of depression and the city had no use for him, but now this "cat burglar" is stealing from him and he's back to investigating, looking for trouble. But . . .

. . . there's Alfred. He's the wrench in the gears that just KILLS the excitement for me. "Oh, you want to die", the idea that Batman is a negative thing and of course, the infamous and corny "Italian Cafe". It just isn't Batman. I mean, it's one thing for Alfred to feel that way, but Bruce actually wanting to pursue that and it actually happening? Ugh. The thing that drives me nuts is, Bruce hasn't done a DAMN thing for 8 years (or 3 more specifically if we want to say he quit living after the dumb clean energy device). So, he starts to "get back in the game" a bit. He cleans up, shaves, pursues a couple of femme fatales . . . and his butler has a problem with it. Which is worse? Slowly dying up in your Manor doing absolutely nothing while your butler gives you meals up in your bedroom every morning after your archery lessons, OR, putting on your gear and going out to fight crime, your sole purpose and mission in life?

Alfred makes a good point about him not physically being Batman anymore, he did need to train. But the way Alfred goes about it, "you're not Batman anymore" just irks the piss out of me. Then the letter and threatening (and committing) to abandoning him just as the city is actually going bad just rubs me the wrong way. The idea of a "Dark Knight Returns" type of Batman that is coming back from retirement had potential, but man, for me the results and execution is just horrendous. It's not just whiny Alfred either. The fact that Bruce/Batman had his retirement planned/mapped out with tricking Gordon, Blake, Alfred, etc. with the autopilot, pearls, signal, cafe is just irks the piss out of me. It sort of lowers the stakes and the emotion of what they were trying to achieve with the character and the only real danger he was in was getting blown up with the entire city if he failed . . .

For my me, Begins and the Dark Knight's characterization and endings really depict Batman. TDKR? Not so. I loathe it and it infuriates me the more I think about it. They could have kept Bruce's motivation, obsession AND the Legacy angle and I wouldn't have minded one bit. Instead, we have Bruce fulfilling his obnoxiously emo Butler's dreams at a specific cafe at a specific location AND a newcomer we barely get to know that takes up the mantle. Then, my god that statue. When that was unveiled I nearly lost it. That's great for Superman, sure, but a darker hero, a vigilante like Batman? The idea that he got a statue is just terrible. Completely contradicts what they were going for with The Dark Knight with the "silent guardian, watchful protector" talk. To be fair though, that "fake martyrdom" and "our savior: The Batman" followed TDKR like the plague before the film even came out, so I guess it was wrong to be surprised.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Its funny how in Knightfall Alfred leaves for similar reasons and Bruce is like "screw it, I'm still dedicated to saving lives even though I'm in a ****ing wheelchair" and then he even returns to being Batman before Alfred comes back.

 

[BatLobster]

That's an interesting post milost. I feel like that gave a slightly new perspective on your disdain for TDKR and where it starting going wrong for you rather than the same ol' same ol'.

I'll just say that I thought Alfred's pleas with Bruce were very in character and true to the history of their relationship in the comics. In fact, I always felt Alfred was almost a little too readily supportive of Bruce in BB and then in TDK he has to show him some tough love. It's like a "you started this and now you're the only one who can save the city" kind of thing.

But by the time TDKR comes around? Alfred was completely in character to do everything he did. It's like he reaches his breaking point and finally can't take it anymore. He's starting to feel the weight of having truly failed Thomas Wayne and it's too much.

And also, I really don't get why you insist that the ending is Bruce "fulfilling his Butler's fantasy". It's not as if he moved on just for Alfred. He got to that place on his own. Appearing at the cafe is his way of apologizing, showing him that he "made it" and saying a proper goodbye. Is that so bad? And why are you emphasizing Butler like he's some inconsequential character? That's his friggin' father figure, not just some lowly butler.

 

[milost]

Its funny how in Knightfall Alfred leaves for similar reasons and Bruce is like "screw it, I'm still dedicated to saving lives even though I'm in a ****ing wheelchair" and then he even returns to being Batman before Alfred comes back.

Yeah.


To be fair, a lot of the incarnations of Alfred don't "approve" of Batman's crusade, or at the very least want him to live a "happy life". This goes all the way back to the Batman '89 Alfred ("I have no wish to fill my few remaining years grieving for the loss of old friends. Or their sons.").

Then recently, Arkham Origins Alfred as well (I love how Batman throws it back in his face, Walter White style, and it puts Alfred's nagging to rest).

But TDKR Alfred takes it one step too far. All the other Alfreds put up and shut up and understand the importance of Batman and are right there with him from helping him sabotage the Penguin to encouraging him to go to Blackgate and take down Bane. Alfred in TDKR? He cries and leaves him. He claims that Bruce should give up his suicidal mission, give away his equipment and resources and let "the cops handle it". Well, seeing what happens in TDKR, Alfred was dead wrong. Wayne's resources are stolen and the cops, as with all Batman movies for the most part, are completely helpless (trapped for 5 months).

Alfred didn't deserve a happy ending in TDKR. I hate to say that because I love Michael Caine and loved Alfred in Begins and The Dark Knight. Especially the scene where he hands Bruce the cowl and states, "what we stand for/they'll have to make do with you". But Alfred in TDKR? He needed to die. That forced, contrived cafe dream/flashback is one of the worst things in the movie. The fact that Alfred spills the beans and leaves, only to come back bawling at the end of the film after Batman SAVED everyone (and was the only one capable, as usual)? He didn't deserve to be rewarded.

 

[ThePhantasm]

I have to agree with that analysis, milost. But I think they only screwed up Alfred in TDKR because they first screwed up Bruce.

 

[BatLobster]

But Alfred in TDKR? He needed to die.

 

[milost]

I have to agree with that analysis, milost. But I think they only screwed up Alfred in TDKR because they first screwed up Bruce.

Every character from previous films except Fox (who is pretty much the same guy we see in Begins and Dark Knight) seems to have become less interesting and have devolved characterization wise.

Bloated, bumbling Gordon bothers me, but atleast he's proactive and a man of action. I may hate TDKR with a fiery passion but I've loved the "Batman must come back" hospital speech since it's debut in the teaser trailer. Too bad that scene is like a couple of seconds long. That should have been one of the most important and emotional scenes in the film. I mean, not only is this masked man coming through Gordon's window (which should be shocking, especially when you're drugged up and Bane's men are looking to kill you), but this is two friends that haven't seen each other in 8 years. It's like this movie forgot the pact Gordon and Batman made. I want to see that emotion play out, not fast forward from Bruce jumping out of a window, to holding Gordon's hand and that line. I mean, atleast a couple of minutes. Forget Blake, I wanted to see Gordon and Batman.

 

[BatLobster]

^^Just because it was highlighted in a teaser trailer doesn't automatically mean it had to be one of the most important scenes in the movie. In fact it's good trailer editing 101 to make a scene seem more important than it actually is as a means of misdirecting the audience.

We get that great monumental Batman/Gordon moment when Bruce reveals his identity at the end.

And "B-b-b-Bruce Wayne!!?" comments in 5...4...3...

 

[Shikamaru]

Every character from previous films except Fox (who is pretty much the same guy we see in Begins and Dark Knight) seems to have become less interesting and have devolved characterization wise.

Bloated, bumbling Gordon bothers me, but atleast he's proactive and a man of action. I may hate TDKR with a fiery passion but I've loved the "Batman must come back" hospital speech since it's debut in the teaser trailer. Too bad that scene is like a couple of seconds long. That should have been one of the most important and emotional scenes in the film. I mean, not only is this masked man coming through Gordon's window (which should be shocking, especially when you're drugged up and Bane's men are looking to kill you), but this is two friends that haven't seen each other in 8 years. It's like this movie forgot the pact Gordon and Batman made. I want to see that emotion play out, not fast forward from Bruce jumping out of a window, to holding Gordon's hand and that line. I mean, atleast a couple of minutes. Forget Blake, I wanted to see Gordon and Batman.

Funny you say that. Just before I read the bolded sentence, my intentions were to respond to this with "But we need more Blake ". But you beat me to it. lol

 

[ThePhantasm]

That was an awful moment, BatLobster.