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

[Snow Queen]

Actually TDKR didn't gross 1.2 billion. It gross 1 billion and like 500 thousand. Less than TDK.

According to Box Office Mojo (though I'm not sure how reliable they are):

The Dark Knight: $1,004,558,444
The Dark Knight Rises: $1,084,439,099

 

[rashad]

According to Box Office Mojo (though I'm not sure how reliable they are):

Very. All box office numbers and records are tracked by that site.

 

[Ryan]

Batman should never get over it. I can never imagine Bruce Wayne getting over Batman or his parents' death. It's just not the psychology of the character to do that.

Bingo!

 

[shauner111]

He's not living a lie, or lying to himself. He's accepting who he is.

Batman should never get over it. I can never imagine Bruce Wayne getting over Batman or his parents' death. It's just not the psychology of the character to do that.

I dont think one can ever get over something like that. Im not saying he'll never wake up to a nightmare or think about his parents. It will be a struggle but i personally see a time where Bruce can stop brooding and obsessing over it. That's just my view on it.

It needs to be a part of the psychology of the character for a very, very long time to think of himself as the Batman. But i dont see it as being forever. I dont think it "should" be anything. It's whatever we want it to be or the writers. Like ive said, i enjoy both interpretations but i dont think it's invalid or against the character to have him move on. He's moving on from Gotham and Batman but he's not exactly moving on from the trauma. The pain lessens if Bruce gets the chance to fall in love too. As long as it happens when he's older and physically worn out. In his 40s or 50s. I also like the idea of it being passed off as a mantle. It's not my favorite idea because i still see Bruce as Batman only. But it interests me to think of different people becoming Batman even when Bruce is dead and gone. Because like in real life, when Bob Kane/Frank Miller etc pass off...Batman still continues. I liked the metaphor.

You don't think Nolan could have given Bruce a complete story in Rises without having him retire for good?

I dont see how it would be a proper ending without Bruce retiring the cowl. If Bruce stays as Batman it's not an ending. Ending it in any way like the first Burton movie or Batman Forever, would just be false advertising. I went into TDKR clearly wanting Bruce to be done with Batman, no matter what. That was my only wish.

I would have adored an ending where he's still in the cave and tells Blake that he's going to train him. But only if the franchise was going to continue either through Snyder via a shared universe or more solo movies from Nolan. But that was never the intention. We knew for a very long time when they started making the movie that it would be the conclusion to Bruce's story. I expected a full-on retirement. The only question was would he die, survive, or fake his death.

it may not be what you're used to, but is a correct and a valid interpretation of the character alongside with the version of Bruce Wayne brooding and being dark and being Batman Forever up until he dies.

This.

 

[craigdbfan]

Despite all our disagreements I still have to say that as a self contained trilogy/story it was still damn enjoyable. We didn't all get the conclusion we wanted but I think viewed as a whole piece it was still a great achievement for the Batman franchise.

 

[The Joker]

I dont think one can ever get over something like that. Im not saying he'll never wake up to a nightmare or think about his parents. It will be a struggle but i personally see a time where Bruce can stop brooding and obsessing over it. That's just my view on it.

Well your view doesn't align with how the character is written in the comic books, BTAS, and just about every version of the character.

Some scars and obsessions never go away. With Bruce Batman is one of them.

It needs to be a part of the psychology of the character for a very, very long time to think of himself as the Batman. But i dont see it as being forever. I dont think it "should" be anything. It's whatever we want it to be or the writers. Like ive said, i enjoy both interpretations but i dont think it's invalid or against the character to have him move on.

If the character has never been written as someone who can move on, in fact the total opposite, then it goes against the character, IMO.

Sure writers can write him what ever way they want, but that doesn't mean making changes like that don't go against who the character is.

He's moving on from Gotham and Batman but he's not exactly moving on from the trauma. The pain lessens if Bruce gets the chance to fall in love too. As long as it happens when he's older and physically worn out. In his 40s or 50s. I also like the idea of it being passed off as a mantle. It's not my favorite idea because i still see Bruce as Batman only. But it interests me to think of different people becoming Batman even when Bruce is dead and gone. Because like in real life, when Bob Kane/Frank Miller etc pass off...Batman still continues. I liked the metaphor.

Moving on from Batman and Gotham is moving on from the trauma because the trauma is what makes him Batman and stay in Gotham to fight crime. If he can leave all that behind and move on to a happy normal life then the trauma is either gone or so minimal that it may as well be gone.

Bruce can be in love and still be Batman. He's been in love countless times in the comics. Being Batman doesn't make him emotionally dead. He's been a surrogate father to two different boys, too.

I dont see how it would be a proper ending without Bruce retiring the cowl. If Bruce stays as Batman it's not an ending. Ending it in any way like the first Burton movie or Batman Forever, would just be false advertising. I went into TDKR clearly wanting Bruce to be done with Batman, no matter what. That was my only wish.

Why wouldn't ending it with him still being Batman be an ending? Why does the hero have to have quit to get a conclusion to the trilogy?

I would have adored an ending where he's still in the cave and tells Blake that he's going to train him. But only if the franchise was going to continue either through Snyder via a shared universe or more solo movies from Nolan. But that was never the intention. We knew for a very long time when they started making the movie that it would be the conclusion to Bruce's story. I expected a full-on retirement. The only question was would he die, survive, or fake his death.

The ending we got was as much of an open ending as if Bruce had been there telling Blake he's going to train him. Only the one we got was sloppy and stupid, because a rookie Cop was left all Batman's goodies and just left to his own devices with it.

At least if Bruce was there to school him before he left him all this stuff it would have lent the ending some credibility.

 

[shauner111]

Well your view doesn't align with how the character is written in the comic books, BTAS, and just about every version of the character.

Some scars and obsessions never go away. With Bruce Batman is one of them.

The only reason why it's constantly written that way is because they're not allowed to actually end his journey completely in the comics. TDKReturns was just one way of doing it, Nolans was the other. None is more valid than the other.

If my view doesnt match up with the source material so be it. I dont believe everything they do in the comics is gospel.

I agree that some scars never go away, i agreed with you on that point. You can still have scars and not be Batman. The pain can lessen as time goes on, especially if he falls in love. I like Phantasm because he cant be with the girl, but that's because he's not even batman yet. In Rises he's going on 40 and his body is done. He's past his prime. Sue me if i like an interpretation where he finds happiness.

If the character has never been written as someone who can move on, in fact the total opposite, then it goes against the character, IMO.

Sure writers can write him what ever way they want, but that doesn't mean making changes like that don't go against who the character is.

I already told you why it's never been written that way. They have boundaries they cant cross. When he hangs it up, it's always done in temporary fashion so he can return anytime they need to force that in there.

You have your views. Mine is that nothing goes against the character unless Batman is written where he's not a stalker in the night that had his parents murdered. Everything else is fair game.

Moving on from Batman and Gotham is moving on from the trauma because the trauma is what makes him Batman and stay in Gotham to fight crime. If he can leave all that behind and move on to a happy normal life then the trauma is either gone or so minimal that it may as well be gone.

Bruce can be in love and still be Batman. He's been in love countless times in the comics. Being Batman doesn't make him emotionally dead. He's been a surrogate father to two different boys, too.

Bruce moving on means the pain has been decreased quite a bit. Which it has by the end of Rises. He moves on with Selina, he sees that he can have a life outside of the cave or moping around or beating the **** out of criminals.

I can care less about what happens in the source material. I love the Bruce Wayne character. When i care about a character or somebody or whatever (real life or fiction) i want them to find some inner peace. I want that character to get what they deserve. Bruce out of any fictional character that i know of, deserves happiness. To say "it doesnt matter what he deserves because it's not true to the comic portrayal" is very limiting to me.

I want people to break down boundaries in storytelling. If Bruce has never had a proper happy ending, then somebody should damn sure come in to create a story where he DOES have a happy ending. Doing the same thing over and over to just please the fans or stick to a source material is dull to me. It's the equivalent of a band making the same kind of record over and over. Move on, do something fresh or i dont want to hear it...ill just listen to the old records.

I prefer Hathaways Catwoman to Pfeiffer's because it's how i see the character. But i see the creativity in Michelle's version. I see it now anyway. My mind has changed over the last few months. I dont like it as much because of the silly scenes and one-liners, supernatural stuff. But i appreciate the boldness now, ever since people have been going on and on about Rises not sticking to "the formula". I say flip the formula on its head. As long as it's taken seriously and not some spoof.

After all, it's a movie. Who ever said they needed to honor anything? They're not playing to us as the audience. 75 percent of the people who saw the movie arent even aware that Batman "shouldnt retire".

Nolan must be aware that Batman movies will continue and at some point there will be stories where Bruce never moves on (Affleck's version seems to be this kind). So why do the same thing? He did his way. It's about giving new stories to the audience.

Why wouldn't ending it with him still being Batman be an ending? Why does the hero have to have quit to get a conclusion to the trilogy?

Because it's not a conclusion if he's still Batman. Pretty simple. I dont understand what you're saying. How is it any sort of ending to a series if he's still Batman? Makes no sense. An ending to the movie and that specific story sure. But to a series? Nah.

The ending we got was as much of an open ending as if Bruce had been there telling Blake he's going to train him. Only the one we got was sloppy and stupid, because a rookie Cop was left all Batman's goodies and just left to his own devices with it.

At least if Bruce was there to school him before he left him all this stuff it would have lent the ending some credibility.

No it wasn't. Not at all. Bruce in the cave means everyone either walks out expecting another story where we see Bruce training him in Gotham or since we now have our Robin..they'd expect a Batman + Robin continuation. More people than none would walk out thinking Bruce never even retired and everything is still continuing.

At least with Bruce out of Gotham, faking his death..we know he's not coming back to Gotham and he's no longer going to be Batman or even "Bruce Wayne".

That's at least 5 times more of a proper ending than your idea. Your ending may seem like a better one but good/bad means nothing in that case since it's not an ending.

 

[Tequilla]

Despite all our disagreements I still have to say that as a self contained trilogy/story it was still damn enjoyable. We didn't all get the conclusion we wanted but I think viewed as a whole piece it was still a great achievement for the Batman franchise.

Absolutely. And looking at that image , it reminded me it's a shame i still haven't bought the blu ray collection

 

[The Joker]

The only reason why it's constantly written that way is because they're not allowed to actually end his journey completely in the comics.

That's one reason obviously. But another reason is the character is not psychologically wired to ever be able to quit, or have any kind of normal life. Plenty of other heroes are not like that but continually go on being the hero and have a happy life, too. Peter Parker for example maintained a happy marriage to MJ for years while balancing a life as Spidey.

Bruce Wayne in his mind, body, and soul is Batman. That's who he is.

TDKReturns was just one way of doing it, Nolans was the other. None is more valid than the other.

TDK Returns showed Bruce still obsessed with being Batman and finally giving back into the compulsion and returning, faking his death, and still continuing the fight.

If my view doesnt match up with the source material so be it. I dont believe everything they do in the comics is gospel.

Everything doesn't, but some things do if you want to get the core of the character right. That's one of them.

I agree that some scars never go away, i agreed with you on that point. You can still have scars and not be Batman.

Then it's not the same thing. It's like saying Harvey Dent can go on as Harvey Dent with half a scarred face. Harvey's scars are a physical manifestation of his dark side, Batman is Bruce's.

The pain can lessen as time goes on, especially if he falls in love.

He has fallen in love several times. It didn't lessen the pain. Selina, Talia, Silver St. Cloud, Julie Madison etc. None of them made him lose his Batman obsession.

I like Phantasm because he cant be with the girl, but that's because he's not even batman yet.

That had nothing to do with being Batman. Andrea walked out on him.

In Rises he's going on 40 and his body is done. He's past his prime.

Because he let his body fall into the state. He built himself back up in the pit and returned to form

Sue me if i like an interpretation where he finds happiness.

It's not about what you like. We're talking about how it goes against who Batman is.

I already told you why it's never been written that way.

And I already told you that it's just one of several reasons.

You have your views. Mine is that nothing goes against the character unless Batman is written where he's not a stalker in the night that had his parents murdered. Everything else is fair game.

No it's not. Because Bruce can't give up Batman indefinitely. He's not psychologically wired to.

Bruce moving on means the pain has been decreased quite a bit. Which it has by the end of Rises. He moves on with Selina, he sees that he can have a life outside of the cave or moping around or beating the **** out of criminals.

Which is not who Bruce Wayne is. He could never do that.

I can care less about what happens in the source material.

That's why you're more accepting of such a drastic change against the core of the character.

I love the Bruce Wayne character. When i care about a character or somebody or whatever (real life or fiction) i want them to find some inner peace. I want that character to get what they deserve. Bruce out of any fictional character that i know of, deserves happiness. To say "it doesnt matter what he deserves because it's not true to the comic portrayal" is very limiting to me.

That's boring to me. I love Harvey Dent but I never want him to be cured of his Two Face persona. That changes what makes the character so interesting. Same with Bruce Wayne. Cure him of his Batman obsession and he's not half as interesting as he used to be.

I want people to break down boundaries in storytelling. If Bruce has never had a proper happy ending, then somebody should damn sure come in to create a story where he DOES have a happy ending. Doing the same thing over and over to just please the fans or stick to a source material is dull to me. It's the equivalent of a band making the same kind of record over and over. Move on, do something fresh or i dont want to hear it...ill just listen to the old records.

That's not breaking boundaries. Retiring a character with a happy ever after is something that's been done a million times in stories. Doing it with a character that has never had it isn't breaking a boundary. It's just writing a character against type.

I prefer Hathaways Catwoman to Pfeiffer's because it's how i see the character.

Not surprising since Hathaway's Catwoman is closer to the source material.

But i see the creativity in Michelle's version. I see it now anyway. My mind has changed over the last few months. I dont like it as much because of the silly scenes and one-liners, supernatural stuff. But i appreciate the boldness now, ever since people have been going on and on about Rises not sticking to "the formula". I say flip the formula on its head. As long as it's taken seriously and not some spoof.

Appreciating the boldness to do something a certain way doesn't make that boldness to do it said way a good thing.

You say you disliked her one liners, the supernatural element, and her silly scenes. That's is more than half the character right there.

After all, it's a movie. Who ever said they needed to honor anything? They're not playing to us as the audience. 75 percent of the people who saw the movie arent even aware that Batman "shouldnt retire".

So what? What about the millions of fans who do know that? The fans who are responsible for keeping Batman alive for 75 years? Who are the reason Batman is even popular enough to make into movies?

How would the audience know the difference if we got a great conclusion that didn't involve retirement, because as you said they don't know either way since they don't know the comics.

Nolan must be aware that Batman movies will continue and at some point there will be stories where Bruce never moves on (Affleck's version seems to be this kind). So why do the same thing? He did his way. It's about giving new stories to the audience.

Nolan also knew his ending would not sit well with some people. He said so in some quote on the previous page. Something about many people may not agree with it, but it's how he wanted to do it.

That's fine. It's his movie, his vision, his right and choice. But we don't have to like or agree with it.

Because it's not a conclusion if he's still Batman. Pretty simple. I dont understand what you're saying. How is it any sort of ending to a series if he's still Batman? Makes no sense. An ending to the movie and that specific story sure. But to a series? Nah.

I don't understand what you're saying. Why does still being Batman not make it a conclusion? Why is the only way this could have ended is him throwing in the towel?

No it wasn't. Not at all.

Yes it completely 100% was. No question. Why do you think so many people were asking if we would get a spin off with JGL as Batman or Nightwing? Or if he'd be Batman in the Batman vs Superman movie?

Bruce in the cave means everyone either walks out expecting another story where we see Bruce training him in Gotham or since we now have our Robin..they'd expect a Batman + Robin continuation. More people than none would walk out thinking Bruce never even retired and everything is still continuing.

Not at all if it's clarified in the ending that he's handing all this over to JGL. Blake being left the Batcave and all it's equipment left everyone thinking he's been handed the Batman mantle.

At least with Bruce out of Gotham, faking his death..we know he's not coming back to Gotham and he's no longer going to be Batman or even "Bruce Wayne".

Yeah because faking your death and changing your name means you can never go back.

That's at least 5 times more of a proper ending than your idea. Your ending may seem like a better one but good/bad means nothing in that case since it's not an ending.

No, it's a half assed ending where Bruce left his Batman mantle to a guy who didn't have the first clue what to do with any of it. If we got the ending that was proposed above like TDK Returns, it would have been a wholly satisfying and proper ending where we know he's leaving his mantle to someone who will at least have gained all the knowledge and training Bruce had.

Not just flit off to Italy and leave everything to some Cop he hardly knows a day and basically says "Here's all my Batman stuff. Enjoy".

 

[milost]

Despite all our disagreements I still have to say that as a self contained trilogy/story it was still damn enjoyable. We didn't all get the conclusion we wanted but I think viewed as a whole piece it was still a great achievement for the Batman franchise.

Spoiler

Ah, that's better.



Only two there are, no more, no less.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

Whoa. Petty.

 

[shauner111]

 

[Tequilla]

Goddamn you love the attention milost. Weren't you the guy who made a big thing out of stopping to post in this boards ?

 

[milost]

I came back a while ago Tequilla. Let's turn it around and make it about me. Anyway, wasn't looking for attention. For my money, the Nolan Batman "duology" looks more appealing (hence the images in response to craigdbfan).

The back and forth argument here is about the ending of TDKR (once again), right? For me, I can't think of a more fitting ending than Batman riding off into the night.

 

[The Joker]

The forums are a better place with you back, milost.

You're hardly the only person who ignores what they consider a bad movie in a franchise.

 

[Ryan]

Ah, that's better.



Only two there are, no more, no less.

Haha,,,you're the best.

 

[DarthDorranceBane]

Ugh. This is getting ugly... like Batman in the comic books, some people just can't move on and accept that one can write the character of Batman as being able to move on. I don't understand why some people can't be open to stuff like that... like I've said, I'm accustomed to how Batman was written in the comic books and in other medium, but in TDKR, Bruce Wayne was written as real person that can move on. Why can't he be like a normal person, like me, that, despite all the trials and hardships in my life, I find myself moving on and letting go of the past. Some people maybe are just too spoiled and privileged and that they can get everything they want to have a mindset like that.

 

[Kato Rises]

Nolan´s movies should be considered an Elseworlds story, so it´s perfectly find to change certain elements that are taken for granted in "continuity" comics.

And anyone that thinks the nature of Batman is set in stone should read all comics from all decades since 1939. They would find plenty of stuff that goes against what their idea of what Batman really is.

Bruce not being able to retire actually goes against the preestablished nature of the character. DC wanna sell him as a human, but then portrays him as relentless combat machine that is able to undergo physical and psychological traumas that would be fatal to anyone. And they do it because this is what sells. This is what allows them to publish thousands and thousands of books. It makes sense from a financial stand point.

Nolan actually respected the nature of the character a lot more than most comic book writers, that´s why he tried to portray him as human as possible. This is the reason why in TDK trilogy Bruce is weaker than in the comics. For Nolan´s vision of the character, it wouldn´t have made sense to have a human that can go as far as Batman goes in the comics. And it wouldn´t have made sense to have a human that doesn´t actually want to be happy and have a normal life.

Bruce´s obsession with being Batman was actually very well described in the movie. That´s why he returns in TDKR. If the obsession wasn´t there, he wouldn´t have done it. When the movie starts, he isn´t Batman anymore, but that´s not because he doesn´t want to. That´s because he isn´t needed. If you pay attention to the movie you can easily understand that. But as soon as things go wrong, he´s back to being Batman again.

The difference between Nolan and comic book writers is that Nolan isn´t afraid to say "enough".

 

[A Necessary Evil]

You're hardly the only person who ignores what they consider a bad movie in a franchise.

Yep. Just like I'm planning on ignoring TASM2...well, the whole franchise actually.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Spoiler

Ah, that's better.



Only two there are, no more, no less.

Make my day and delete that overrated Batman Begins.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Hey, war's over guys. This is peacetime.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

#Foleysucked

 

[JackWhite]

Ah, that's better.



Only two there are, no more, no less.

LOL. Did you make that yourself, Milost?

 

[Shikamaru]

I love how he showed the BB/TDK titles twice, as if he wanted to make sure everyone got the message there are only two.

Also, seeing as how "Nolan was being different/can do what he wants" has resurfaced, I'm going to bump this up:

I already addressed this. I've seen this argument pop up many times. It's essentially a rewording of "Nolan can end his trilogy in any way he wants."

There is a huge misconception in this argument, and it all boils down to the following word: "can" (or "can't").

Of course Nolan can end his trilogy in any way he wants. Of course other writers can interpret Bruce as someone who can learn to let go. They can interpret Batman in whatever way the want. No interpretation is invalid. Heck, if Nolan wanted to put Batman in a pink cowl and pink dress, no one can argue he can't do that.

It's not about what they can/can't do. It's about whether or not the idea and execution are good in the first place. Sure that lots criticize the ending for going against the source material, but it isn't just because it's the source material. Really the full version of the argument is "They should have followed the source material more because what it did was better". Of course the source material isn't always better (only a fool would think that), but a lot of the things in the source material are there because they work perfectly. The comics have done more trial-and-error than any other medium; we've seen what works and what doesn't.

That's not to say change in other mediums should never be done. Change should be encouraged. Change is good. None of these characters would be who they are today if it wasn't for deviations in the first place. But there's deviations for good reasons and then there is being different for the sake of being different. The latter never works out. It almost always leads to disaster. And from the way you just described the ending (and from the way it kinda plays out), it really does feel like just being different for the sake of being different. And in that process, I think Batman was robbed of one of his most interesting aspects: his will to keep going for the sake of others. There is a good reason why that was there, and it feels more like they took that away to just be different, at least when you and Shauner describe it (Nolan himself has never made such statement).

As a side note, most of the deviating interpretations that were successful...it's not like the respective writers were trying to change things before the deviations came to be fathomed. They often started out with the source material as we know them, and then the deviations naturally came in the process.

 

[milost]

LOL. Did you make that yourself, Milost?

Yeah, I did.