The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 149

[Travesty]

The circus isn't a dying attraction, they're just not the typical/classical version. Circus du Soleil is a crazy popular event that makes a TON of money annually.

 

[The Batman]

I think Tim became extremely overrated as Robin, and conceptually, Dick is and always will be the best sidekick/partner Bruce ever had.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Overrated in what way?

 

[The Shape]

I watched it the other day again. I do love the film but for some reason that ending just doesn't sit well with me. I get why they did everything and Bruce got his some what happy ending but I've always hated the idea of someone else being Batman. I don't think the ending is wrong, I think its just that my mental image of Batman never lets go or retires until he is forced to so I don't blame Nolan or think he messed it up, it just doesn't really gel with my version of Batman.

I think the films really underrated though by the fandom these days.

Props to you for being able to admit this. You are a rare breed.

So many people will complain about TDKR's ending, but few will admit that the reason they didn't like it is because they simply feel the same way you do.

 

[shauner111]

Yeah exactly. So many act high and mighty, like it's a wrong ending. Or Nolan doesn't know Batman. "That's not how the character should be!". But it's just a different interpretation. The fact is, people should say "i dont like this ending". Plain and simple.

 

[Shikamaru]

And even fewer will admit that the ending has problems even in the context of the trilogy itself and nothing else.

 

[Travesty]

Well, that is a reason why some don't like the ending.

Good job at Nolan to try and pull multiple M Night twists, though. Pulled it off nicely.

 

[shauner111]

And even fewer will admit that the ending has problems even in the context of the trilogy itself and nothing else.

Can't admit to something i dont see. I dont see how the ending is a problem.

 

[Shikamaru]

Can't admit to something i dont see. I dont see how the ending is a problem.

That's irrelevant.

Regardless whether or not you agree with my point, it doesn't change the fact that it is my point. Thus your whole theory that my whole/main beef with the ending is simply due to my "comic book mind" (for lack of better term) not wanting to see Bruce retire is still wrong.

 

[shauner111]

Well it is. You've said it yourself that you dont see Batman as the type who retires that young, passing it off to a successor. And that it goes against the essence of the character to do so. Nothing was wrong. You're not a Batman writer, nor do you have ownership of the character even if you were. So it comes down to you not liking the ending, because you see Batman ending in a different way. Which is completely reasonable. But that's all it is.

 

[The Joker]

The problem with TDKR's ending is it contradicts the previous two movies. Bruce never ever intended to retire and pass on the Batman mantle to someone else. Batman was supposed to inspire Gotham's people into rising up out of apathy. Fixing their own city after being inspired by Batman's example that their city doesn't belong to criminals.

TDKR just had him pass the buck to some rookie he hardly knows a day.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Welcome to the TDKR thread! In today's edition, shauner will maintain that shikamaru has a certain motivation behind his argument despite shika explicitly saying otherwise! Witness shauner's amazing mind-reading powers, better than the most scientific lie detector! Witness that vile shika's argument dismantled by this burst of brilliance! Its another edition of "Straw Man Beeeaaaatdoowwwwnnnn!"

 

[Travesty]

I think The Phantasm can feel it in his bones and stuff. Boom! Nailed it!!

 

[shauner111]

The problem with TDKR's ending is it contradicts the previous two movies. Bruce never ever intended to retire and pass on the Batman mantle to someone else. Batman was supposed to inspire Gotham's people into rising up out of apathy. Fixing their own city after being inspired by Batman's example that their city doesn't belong to criminals.

TDKR just had him pass the buck to some rookie he hardly knows a day.

So if im in my 20s and i come up with a way of doing something but i grow older, and next thing you know im 40 and have gone through all kinds of experiences. Growth happens. Mindsets change. So im 40 and i decide to live my life in a completely new way, maybe even a new set of beliefs for example. But of course im wrong for doing so?

That would be a ridiculous thing to tell me. That im contradicting myself, whether it's true or not, is irrelevant. People grow and learn, and things have to change if you're going to grow.

But Bruce DOES inspire people. Just like he wanted originally. The threat in the Nolanverse starts with organized crime, the corrupt cops. That's what he tries to change. He finally gets every cop in town on his side. They're citizens too. But there's a limit. Criminals will still roam, and not every citizen will stand up. It never will. So Batman has to keep going in some form. Even if it's not physical but as some spirit that watches over the city, reminding everyone of the Batman. But it probably WILL be physical because Blake is there incase.

Bruce realizes that his health, and his future is more important than going out himself until he's in his 50s. He can barely do it now as it is. So he sets up a successor. His future is the most important part though. Alfred reminds him of his humanity, so does Selina.

Bruce Wayne was naive in his 20s. He thought he could fix all of Gotham, and they would all stand up. But life doesn't work that way. It's not just black and white. He grows up and learns through life experiences that there will always be criminality. They will always need some kind of inspiration even when Batman isn't around. So saving Gotham and "dying" in the process is the best way to send that message. Blake is just the insurance policy, and we dont even know if he'll actually go out there. That's actually irrelevant in the grand scheme of everything.

So there is no problem. It comes down to people seeing a certain batman in their mind, agreeing or not agreeing with the end. Nothing more, nothing less.

There is no wrong way of doing it. It's an interpretation, like any interpretation from a comic, cartoon or other Batman movie.

 

[Shikamaru]

Shauner, I definitely share some dislike for the ending due to being a Batman fan. However, my main issues with it come first and foremost with it as a sequel to BB/TDK. It just happens that a lot of those same reasons for why I don't think Nolan's Batman would quit are shared with comic book Batman. If there's anything I can highlight as the best thing about the Nolan films (at least the first two), it is the ideas and messages being told about Batman. Why he does what he does, what drives him, what he stands for and is a symbol of, why he doesn't kill or use guns, why he doesn't quit, what separates him from the police and other ordinary men despite having no powers himself, etc.

The very first things I took issues with based on the info released (prior to release) were all sequel-oriented. When I got out of theatres and started ranting, my first complaints were sequel-rooted.

Usually when I take issue with something in terms of taste, I don't spend too much time talking about it. Case in point: Burton's films. I never really cared for them much. I'm not fond of a lot of things he did. Heck, I probably dislike Batman Returns more than TDKR. However, you rarely ever see me bring up Burton's films or in their thread section. That's because most of my beefs with them are taste-oriented. They're just not my thing. I made that clear years ago and then moved on. I used to get in debates over them when I was younger, but later realized how stupid it was.

Another recent Batman example is BvS. I don't comment there anymore unless 1) major news come out or 2) the main speculation thread goes off-topic. I don't like what they're doing and it looks like they're being different just for the sake of being different. However, there's no point for me to be there if I'm just going to stir the pot. Another recent example is the Fantastic Four reboot. Don't really care for the direction, won't spend much time debating over it. I still comment in the FF section every now and then due to the topic being so fresh right now, but I'm nowhere near as involved as with things like TDKR.

One more thing. Regarding TDKR as solely a Batman film (meaning ignoring it as a sequel and stand-alone film), I don't think the ending is wrong. I don't think the interpretation as a whole is wrong. There really can't be a "wrong" interpretation. However, there are interpretations that are silly, poorly thought out, or less interesting and less complex than others. But that doesn't make them wrong at the end of the day.

 

[shauner111]

To make it as simple as possible. It's not a contradiction. In some ways he succeeds with his plan that he had when he was in his 20s, in other ways he learns that his "goal" back then couldn't realistically be followed through. He grows and learns that he must come up with a different way. Or else the same cycle will be repeated over and over. If he wants to move on, his mindset would have to change from the one he had in his teens, 20s or 30s.

 

[shauner111]

Shauner, I definitely share some dislike for the ending due to being a Batman fan. However, my main issues with it come first and foremost with it as a sequel to BB/TDK. It just happens that a lot of those same reasons for why I don't think Nolan's Batman would quit are shared with comic book Batman. If there's anything I can highlight as the best thing about the Nolan films (at least the first two), it is the ideas and messages being told about Batman. Why he does what he does, what drives him, what he stands for and is a symbol of, why he doesn't kill or use guns, why he doesn't quit, what separates him from the police and other ordinary men despite having no powers himself, etc.

The very first things I took issues with based on the info released (prior to release) were all sequel-oriented. When I got out of theatres and started ranting, my first complaints were sequel-rooted.

Usually when I take issue with something in terms of taste, I don't spend too much time talking about it. Case in point: Burton's films. I never really cared for them much. I'm not fond of a lot of things he did. Heck, I probably dislike Batman Returns more than TDKR. However, you rarely ever see me bring up Burton's films or in their thread section. That's because most of my beefs with them are taste-oriented. They're just not my thing. I made that clear years ago and then moved on. I used to get in debates over them when I was younger, but later realized how stupid it was.

Another recent Batman example is BvS. I don't comment there anymore unless 1) major news come out or 2) the main speculation thread goes off-topic. I don't like what they're doing and it looks like they're being different just for the sake of being different. However, there's no point for me to be there if I'm just going to stir the pot. Another recent example is the Fantastic Four reboot. Don't really care for the direction, won't spend much time debating over it. I still comment in the FF section every now and then due to the topic being so fresh right now, but I'm nowhere near as involved as with things like TDKR.

One more thing. Regarding TDKR as solely a Batman film (meaning ignoring it as a sequel and stand-alone film), I don't think the ending is wrong. I don't think the interpretation as a whole is wrong. There really can't be a "wrong" interpretation. However, there are interpretations that are silly, poorly thought out, or less interesting and less complex than others. But that doesn't make them wrong at the end of the day.

Thank you, that's all i wanted to hear. I dont mind if you dont like it. But you've said in the past that you thought the ending was wrong, and went against Batman completely. Now you're saying it's not wrong but you just thought it was poorly thought out or whatever. Whatever the case may be, mind changing or what, your beef is that it doesn't flow with the other 2 movies. Joker said the same thing. My previous two posts are my answer to that.

 

[Travesty]

I think the ending is wrong.

 

[shauner111]

I think the ending is wrong.

 

[Travesty]

 

[shauner111]

 

[Travesty]

It's a gif off!

 

[The Joker]

So if im in my 20s and i come up with a way of doing something but i grow older, and next thing you know im 40 and have gone through all kinds of experiences. Growth happens. Mindsets change. So im 40 and i decide to live my life in a completely new way, maybe even a new set of beliefs for example. But of course im wrong for doing so?

That would be a ridiculous thing to tell me. That im contradicting myself, whether it's true or not, is irrelevant. People grow and learn, and things have to change if you're going to grow.

Yes, in Bruce's case it's a contradiction because nothing in TDKR shows him have a change of mind about passing the mantle of Batman on, and retiring. Nothing. Unlike in TDK where you see Bruce view Harvey as a potential better symbol of hope than Batman can be, putting him to the test by getting him Lau and seeing if he can get the convictions, throwing him a fundraiser etc.

Where in TDKR do we see him have an attitude change about leaving Batman's mantle to someone else?

But Bruce DOES inspire people. Just like he wanted originally. The threat in the Nolanverse starts with organized crime, the corrupt cops. That's what he tries to change. He finally gets every cop in town on his side. They're citizens too. But there's a limit. Criminals will still roam, and not every citizen will stand up. It never will. So Batman has to keep going in some form. Even if it's not physical but as some spirit that watches over the city, reminding everyone of the Batman. But it probably WILL be physical because Blake is there incase.

Gotham City was under siege and threat of nuclear destruction in TDKR, Shauner. The Cops are the only ones you see fight along side him, and that's because they're Cops. It's their job.

The citizens of Gotham are hiding in their houses like frightened sheep. There is no inspiration from Batman to them, other than Foley getting his ass out of his house to join in helping after he turned down Gordon earlier. And he doesn't count because he's a Cop, too.

Bruce realizes that his health, and his future is more important than going out himself until he's in his 50s. He can barely do it now as it is. So he sets up a successor. His future is the most important part though. Alfred reminds him of his humanity, so does Selina.

Wrong. Bruce gets himself back into physical shape again in the pit, finds his fear again, and comes back in top fighting form.

Not once do you see him make the realization that he's passed it now as Batman.

Bruce Wayne was naive in his 20s. He thought he could fix all of Gotham, and they would all stand up. But life doesn't work that way. It's not just black and white. He grows up and learns through life experiences that there will always be criminality. They will always need some kind of inspiration even when Batman isn't around. So saving Gotham and "dying" in the process is the best way to send that message. Blake is just the insurance policy, and we dont even know if he'll actually go out there. That's actually irrelevant in the grand scheme of everything.

The only naivety Bruce had in his mission was he didn't see the repercussions to his actions as Batman coming. Namely the escalation, the Joker etc.

Leaving his Batman mantle in the hands of a rookie Cop he barely knows from Adam is the most foolish naive thing he's ever done.

So there is no problem. It comes down to people seeing a certain batman in their mind, agreeing or not agreeing with the end. Nothing more, nothing less.

It is a problem since it contradicts the mind set and philosophy of the character in the previous two movies.

 

[Shikamaru]

Well said, Joker . If there is anything I have to add to add to that, it's the following: There is a difference between a character changing his/her mind and the movie changing its mind. TDK as a film makes it perfectly clear why Bruce won't, can't, and shouldn't quit being Batman. Had Bruce still come to that realization with the film either being more ambiguous about Bruce's change of heart or putting more emphasis in the flaws behind his reasoning, maybe I would have bought it more.

And Shauner, those were separate statements I made. I said the ending was "wrong" because I didn't think it fit in the context of the franchise. And I said it goes against the essence completely because I think it's very poorly thought out. Yes, not everything has to be true to the comics. Heck, Batman as we know him wouldn't exist if deviations from the source were never encouraged. However, there is a difference between deviating for creative/intelligent reasons and being different just for the sake of being different. I think TDKR's ending dumbs down Batman's complex psychology and motivation to "He can just get over it" and robs him of one of his most interesting aspects, but that's something I already discussed. I'm not saying you can't do that, but just because you can change something without anyone stopping you doesn't mean it's a good idea in the first place. And again, that doesn't mean all changes are bad either.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

I like TDKR ending, but I see why others don't. IMO it doesn't contradict anything from BB/TDK, because he stated on the plane with Alfred that he wanted to be something elemental, a symbol for Gotham. Then in TDK he was willing to give up the mantle of Batman (though not literally) to Harvey's namesake for a happier life. So when he gave it up, I wasn't bothered.


However, it bothers me that Batman was only around for like...a year and a half in the Nolanverse.