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

[Kane52630]

Didn't he order like a thousand cowls?

And a thousand tangerines.

 

[milost]

And a thousand tangerines.

From Burma or Florida?

 

[Kane52630]

From Lau.

 

[milost]

He's good with Tangerine inventory calculations.

 

[Shikamaru]

I love your attitude Shika. I think you and I are much more in the same boat when it comes to Batman vs. Superman. I barely even post in that section just because I already know what people are going to say to any given concern I might want to throw out there, so it's not really worth it for me at this stage.

Oh we are definitely much more in the same boat. We even don't post there for the exact same reason . They try too hard to narrow down all negative criticisms to "you're just trying to not like the movie" or "you can't say anything till you've seen it", which leaves very little room for fun and more complex discussions.

I'm glad TDKR can offer you some nostalgia and escape, even if it's nostalgia for criticizing/debating it.

It offers escape and nostalgia in more ways than just that. In some ways, it is why I'm on this site. I made my account back at the start of 2010, but I haven't really used it past that following summer. TDKR and TASM were the main factors that got me using it again. I wanted to discuss those films with more people, and the sites I was previously on have been dropping in users. There was so much I wanted to ask others that it brought me back to the SHH.

Plus, I also don't think TDKR would offer any nostalgia and escape if it was "OMG my eyes burn" bad, which I don't think it is. I know I said this many times before, but I sometimes feel like that's the impression I'm giving even though it isn't true (except maybe for the last 2 minutes ).

 

[BatLobster]

You still know what I'm talking about. It's not hard to just recreate yourself as long as you don't get in trouble anymore . . . which is what Selina supposedly sought.

You defend this clean slate thing alot. It makes me wonder, how do you feel about the genetic codex in Man of Steel? Do you like that too?

I think you mistake me defending something occasionally for actively liking it.

Things like the clean slate and the codex are just MacGuffins. Nothing uncommon for genre films. Entire plots have been constructed around MacGuffins, but in TDKR (and MoS I suppose) they're subplots serving a larger story. That doesn't mean I think it's horrible or worth bashing. I'm neutral to the MacGuffins themselves. I defend something like the clean slate because I appreciate its role in moving the cogs and gears of the story engine. Also, I kind of like to think of it like Selina's in the middle of her own little noir/thriller film within TDKR and the clean slate is kind of like the central MacGuffin of her little movie.

The codex for me was just a little bizarre, but again nothing I see as inherently horrible. It's all about the story these plot devices are serving.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

I still try to wrap my head around people picking on things like the clean slate in TDKR when just as much crap can be aimed at TDK....but that's forbidden.

 

[milost]

I think you mistake me defending something occasionally for actively liking it.

Things like the clean slate and the codex are just MacGuffins. Nothing uncommon for genre films. Entire plots have been constructed around MacGuffins, but in TDKR (and MoS I suppose) they're subplots serving a larger story. That doesn't mean I think it's horrible or worth bashing. I'm neutral to the MacGuffins themselves. I defend something like the clean slate because I appreciate its role in moving the cogs and gears of the story engine. Also, I kind of like to think of it like Selina's in the middle of her own little noir/thriller film within TDKR and the clean slate is kind of like the central MacGuffin of her little movie.

The codex for me was just a little bizarre, but again nothing I see as inherently horrible. It's all about the story these plot devices are serving.

I hated that whole DNA thing with Superman. It's like with these particular DC Warner Bros. movies that have the craziest plots going on.

It can't just be Superman being rocketed off from his dying planet with a succession led by Zod. Oh no, it's got to be this gigantic terraform device, PLUS the DNA codex and genetic source for all Kryptonians.

Personally, I prefer when the stakes are a little lower in a Batman story and more personal. That's why I love all the episodes in BTAS for the most part where it was simply the villains and characters mirroring Batman. Do we really need, "OMG, the city is going to blow" in every film? Do I need to see Penguins with missiles on their backs when the first born plot is much more interesting? Does the whole city need to be frozen by a giant telescope? Why can't it be more personal with Batman and Freeze? Is a microwave emitter really necessary? Did TDKR need a gigantic mega ton bomb? Hell, Batman is a detective and out of the 7 films about him, none of them are really these great case/detective films.

That's why I think I prefer the films with the Joker ('89, Phantasm, Dark Knight). He's not out to get everyone in the city, just a handful. He's there to mess with Batman, not take the entire city hostage. I'll take smylex gas or ferry boats rigged to blow to show how weak Gotham is as a whole as opposed to everyone getting blown away. I'd even take a character driven plot like Batman tracking down baby doll or trying to reach Freeze who has a personal thirst for vengeance and justice instead of, "I'M GOING TO TURN EVERYONE INTO MUTANTS" or "EVERYONE INTO A GIANT LIZARD".

It just seems so cliched, especially with all the options out there. That's why Batman vs. Superman concerns me. How are you going to top Gotham getting nuked or the whole world going extinct to make way for a new Krypton. The story should be geared towards the relationship between Batman and Superman (if that's what they're going), not this big, huge, dumb thing. Then all these "Justice League" characters makes the situation even worse.

 

[Shikamaru]

I still try to wrap my head around people picking on things like the clean slate in TDKR when just as much crap can be aimed at TDK....but that's forbidden.

There is nothing in TDK as preposterous as that, though I am open to examples. Preferably examples that play as much into the story of TDK as the clean slate thing in TDKR does.

 

[BatLobster]

Well, I definitely hear you there milost. I too love smaller-scale detective driven Batman stories, like I would assume any Bat-fan does. I'd love to see the next solo franchise get more intimate like that. I'd love to see a true detective Batman film. Shoot, you're making me want to watch some Animated Series right now.

That said, I also understand the urge to treat him more like an action hero too, especially when you're talking about taking him from the page/small-screen to the BIG screen. I do think Batman is malleable like that where he really can shift genres- from mystery to sci fi to action, etc. So, it's acceptable to me. However, you're right- it's been done a lot at this point now. I'd be absolutely delighted if I heard they were going to make a Batman movie for under 100 million and go smaller scale. I'm not sure it'll ever happen though.

And I too am concerned about how they're going to keep trying to increase the scales, how the next cinematic Batman is now inheriting a world with all-powerful aliens in it, who will no doubt have to contend with more all-powerful alien threats. At this point I can only hope that the eventual Batfleck spinoff film would be a prequel where maybe we do get something a little more scaled down.

There is nothing in TDK as preposterous as that, though I am open to examples. Preferably examples that play as much into the story of TDK as the clean slate thing in TDKR does.

Well, there's MacGuffins in TDK for sure...the mob's money and the sonar technology come to mind. I don't think those are preposterous though (despite the fact the ALL organized crime pools their money together), but I don't think the clean slate is either. I put the sonar on about the same level as the clean slate in terms of "convenience" though.

 

[Shikamaru]

I hated that whole DNA thing with Superman. It's like with these particular DC Warner Bros. movies that have the craziest plots going on.

It can't just be Superman being rocketed off from his dying planet with a succession led by Zod. Oh no, it's got to be this gigantic terraform device, PLUS the DNA codex and genetic source for all Kryptonians.

Personally, I prefer when the stakes are a little lower in a Batman story and more personal. That's why I love all the episodes in BTAS for the most part where it was simply the villains and characters mirroring Batman. Do we really need, "OMG, the city is going to blow" in every film? Do I need to see Penguins with missiles on their backs when the first born plot is much more interesting? Does the whole city need to be frozen by a giant telescope? Why can't it be more personal with Batman and Freeze? Is a microwave emitter really necessary? Did TDKR need a gigantic mega ton bomb? Hell, Batman is a detective and out of the 7 films about him, none of them are really these great case/detective films.

That's why I think I prefer the films with the Joker ('89, Phantasm, Dark Knight). He's not out to get everyone in the city, just a handful. He's there to mess with Batman, not take the entire city hostage. I'll take smylex gas or ferry boats rigged to blow to show how weak Gotham is as a whole as opposed to everyone getting blown away. I'd even take a character driven plot like Batman tracking down baby doll or trying to reach Freeze who has a personal thirst for vengeance and justice instead of, "I'M GOING TO TURN EVERYONE INTO MUTANTS" or "EVERYONE INTO A GIANT LIZARD".

It just seems so cliched, especially with all the options out there. That's why Batman vs. Superman concerns me. How are you going to top Gotham getting nuked or the whole world going extinct to make way for a new Krypton. The story should be geared towards the relationship between Batman and Superman (if that's what they're going), not this big, huge, dumb thing. Then all these "Justice League" characters makes the situation even worse.

I agree with you on the "city will be destroyed" plot. They are way too overdone these days. In my honest opinion, the third acts of TDK and MOTP are a lot more intense than the third acts of BB and TDKR, even though the stakes are far lower.

As for BvsS, it doesn't look like they're doing that at all. The whole film seems to be a prequel to JL (and a poorly structured one nonetheless), but that is a topic for a different thread.

 

[Shikamaru]

Well, I definitely hear you there milost. I too love smaller-scale detective driven Batman stories, like I would assume any Bat-fan does. I'd love to see the next solo franchise get more intimate like that. I'd love to see a true detective Batman film. Shoot, you're making me want to watch some Animated Series right now.

That said, I also understand the urge to treat him more like an action hero too, especially when you're talking about taking him from the page/small-screen to the BIG screen. I do think Batman is malleable like that where he really can shift genres- from mystery to sci fi to action, etc. So, it's acceptable to me. However, you're right- it's been done a lot at this point now. I'd be absolutely delighted if I heard they were going to make a Batman movie for under 100 million and go smaller scale. I'm not sure it'll ever happen though.

And I too am concerned about how they're going to keep trying to increase the scales, how the next cinematic Batman is now inheriting a world with all-powerful aliens in it, who will no doubt have to contend with more all-powerful alien threats. At this point I can only hope that the eventual Batfleck spinoff film would be a prequel where maybe we do get something a little more scaled down.



Well, there's MacGuffins in TDK for sure...the mob's money and the sonar technology come to mind. I don't think those are preposterous though, but I don't think the clean slate is either. I put the sonar on about the same level as the clean slate in terms of "convenience" though.

I think it's all in the execution. Even though the third acts of MOTP and TDK are a lot smaller-in-scale physically speaking, they feel really intense and epic-in-scale to the viewers. MOS and GL both did a planetary invasion yet the stakes felt higher in TDK and MOTP for me, even though they realistically shouldn't be.

That being said, I think a physically smaller-scale detective story can make you feel as if the stakes are just as high as in the Nolan films.

 

[milost]

Exactly. What was at stake in Mask of the Phantasm? Batman, Joker and Andrea blowing up in the abandoned amusement park?

Batman chasing the Joker through those tunnels and losing Andrea still felt much "bigger" and more personal. I don't see why these folks in charge are afraid to go that route. You can still change the scope of something, it doesn't all need to be "teh epic".

 

[BatLobster]

I'd certainly agree with that Shika, as everything is execution dependent.

To speak to this point though- before I knew anything about what TDKR would be, I desperately wanted to see Nolan's take on The Riddler in a more scaled down, detective-centric film ala Zodiac. I still hope to see a film like that some day.

Obviously what we got was pretty much the complete opposite, but oddly I still did feel that TDKR was a more intimate and personal story than TDK despite it being outrageously huge in scale. So yeah, execution is always going to determine how something feels regardless of what the scale/stakes actually are. Begins technically has the second-highest stakes of the trilogy, but to me the third act feels the least urgent.

I have no doubt that a smaller scale film could be made to feel "big" if executed right, but I think once any given filmmaker is given the keys to Batman, there's this automatic sense of...I don't want to say pressure, but I think they feel that expectation for this to be a huge event movie where many things go boom. It'll be interesting to see if they ever turn a corner though, because TDKR is just about the limit for me as far as stakes go in a Batman movie, and it was only easier for me to accept them going out with a bigger bang because it was the conclusion of a three movie arc and I like my trilogy endings to have that apocalyptic, war feel.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

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.

I agree. Bruce Wayne might want to bail (no pun intended), but in the end he never will.

That part of the ending ruined big part of the story for me.

 

[Tequilla]

Who are the playboys of Chicago and NY right now ? Basically people who are famous exclusively by their wealth (not rich people who appear on tv , have tv shows and that sort of stuff).

To see if i know him , if i spot him here in a cafe t:

 

[Travesty]

Wow, a lot of action in this thread last night. I haven't read it yet, but if nobody made a JGL joke in here, I'm burning this thread to the ground.

TO THE GROUND!!!

 

[BatLobster]

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:

From the earliest days of developing the story for Batman Begins, Nolan and Goyer had talked, in general terms, about the arc of Bruce Wayne's life. The first film would be about his becoming Batman- but only temporarily, as an extreme but short-term means of setting Gotham on a better path. The second film would be about his being drawn deeper into the life of his alter ego. The third film, if it came to pass, would have to resolve that dilemma and close the Batman chapter of Bruce Wayne's life.

"Endings are very important," Nolan observed. "I don't embark on a project if I don't have a very strong sense of how things are going to end. That's been the case with all three films, and very much so with The Dark Knight Rises- because the entire story arc is ending with this film. And so, even as we started to develop the story, we had a strong sense of what the ending of the movie would be. We came up with it several years ago, in fact, and everything had been building toward that conclusion.

 

[shauner111]

Fantastic post man. Seriously. Great excerpt too, which really proves what they were going for from the beginning.

It's simple in that: Nolan didn't make Batman Begins or even TDK as a start to a long ever-lasting franchise where they can squeeze just about every character from the mythology into this universe. Or to do 15 sequels until Batman is old/grey and still functioning. It was made as a stand-alone origin story but with a concept in the back of their minds where they could give the world a 3-part arc that focuses on Bruce Wayne, if they ever got that chance.

Nolan even said that it was always going to be a temporary thing. A 5 year plan. Not a naive 5 year plan that ends up like the comics where it goes on and on. A limited few years. Only spread out over the course of a decade or more.

It's too bad the purists won't accept a different interpretation. Really sad i find. Because that's all it is at the end of the day: different writers coming up with their own interpretations.

 

[Travesty]

I don't care what your original intent is. You don't train and devote your 8 years of your life to something that you plan on wrapping up in a year. That would be like, "I'm going to school to be a doctor . . . only to quit after I inspire someone with my first surgery".

 

[BatLobster]

Only that comment doesn't really wash. He didn't even have a plan for most of those 8 years. He wasn't devoting his life to anything. He was wandering aimlessly and learning to survive without money. It was Ra's who set him on the path of devotion to an ideal/cause. And he only trained with the LoS for what seems like a few months to maybe a year.

 

[BlueLightning]

The way I see it, the Nolan films are the most realistic take on Batman without transgressing the core of the mythos. They have verosimilitude, but not quite real. They bend or adjust some aspects of reality in a way that the world seen on the films has a quality of truthfullness.

However there are key differences in between the comics and the films. (Apologies for stating the obvious and the following ramblings)

On the first hand in comics and cartoons, the motivation for Batman is to stop crime. Bruce will patrol the night on a basis, protect the innocents, and the inspiration provided is that criminals should be scared out of their ways, and the people be inspired to stand up against adversity.

Whereas in the Nolan films, it is made clear that Bruce understands that the cause of his parents death was more than just Joe Chill with his gun. It was the product of a corrupt system that lead to hunger, poverty and crime. So his goals in the films are the same, but the approach is a little different, Bruce will take the problem by the root, taking down organized crime which is the primary cause for corruption in the city, in an effort to balance the situation, and ultimately inspire people to do good.

Thats why we don't see Nolan's Batman taking down common thieves as an example. He set himself a series of goals, and works for a city that doesn't need him anymore. Because ultimately, Batman is the extreme response for an extreme situation.

Both approaches are equally valid, and if we go a little meta on the subject, they fit in the medium the stories are shown. On comics and cartoons. Batman patrols the night almost on a schedule, because the world he inhabits is similarly structured by the medium the story is told.

Cinema offers the chance for a different kind of structure. Films lend better to what Nolan intended to do. And also, one of the elements he made an anchor for his films, and that many people claim is Batman lasting appeal, is that Bruce Wayne is a human being, with all the virtues, defects and desires. We see him when he triumphs, and we also see him bleed. We see him struggle and want him to succeed.

In that way, Batman on the Nolan films is limited, far more than his other medium counterparts, but that's because it is more close to our limitations as humans too.

Taking all that into account, is more easily to comprehend the distinctions. And we may not agree with all of them, but the admirable effort that the filmakers made with their vision on the films can't be put aside.

 

[BatLobster]

Well said, BlueLightning. The story told by the trilogy is a very cinematic, very human one.

And it highlights what's so great about Batman. I don't think the same thing could really be attempted with too many other superhero characters.

I mean, it's sorta being attempted now on TV with Arrow, but that show rips off Batman Begins wholesale.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

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:

 

[bilbo baggins]

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:

best post ive read on all things rises!! hands down. this is not the comic batman, its a story about bruce who gets a definitive ending. the purists will always say that bruce would never quit. but he is a human man who is mentally and physically spent at the end of rises. there is no lazerus pit or magic like the comics to keep a man in his late thirtys to keep going on. i loved the end. and i loved rises. great post bro!