The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - Part 152

[BatLobster]

I understand not liking that the feeling of having the rug pulled out from under you, but I think it's also fair to say that sometimes stories do mislead and actions end up having unforeseen consequences. It's part of storyteller's job to stay ahead of the audience. Not saying the direction we got was the plan or intention with TDK, but it makes enough sense that I understand how they got from point A to point B once they sat down, took stock of their story so far were deciding how it needed to end.

Seeing Bruce Wayne as a hermit was jarring, but it was meant to be jarring. It wasn't until that moment that I started actively rooting for him to have a happy ending and get his life together.

It's fine to dislike it for not feeling like the expected direction after TDK, but as with many things with this movie, the thing that one person dislikes is the very thing another person enjoys.

 

[Shikamaru]

The problem is that some of us don't buy how they got from point A to point B, for reasons we already discussed. Writers don't have to be predictable, but they do have to make an ongoing story feel natural. Otherwise it comes off as just for shock value.

Days of Future Past recently did a similar thing with Xavier. They gave him a 10 year gap, had him shut down the school and turned him in a drug-addict hermit. I couldn't have begun to guess after First Class they would go in that direction, but I completely bought the transition in the context of the film franchise. Which is ironic since it was a franchise littered with huge continuity issues in the first place.

 

[BatLobster]

Well yeah, we can go back forth on it forever, as I've backed up my own views endlessly in the past. I do buy how they got from point A to point B, obviously, and think it served a greater purpose than shock value.

It's all good though.

 

[Decepticonus]

Let's keep in mind these are movies with gaps in time between the actual making of them. I don't think Nolan or the writers went into TDK planning to make another one. But then they get the phone call - hey we need a follow-up, thanks - studio.
It's different when comic book writers completely plot it out over several monthly issues.

 

[JackWhite]

I didn't know we had a discussion again in this forum. That's always nice to wake up to.

Anyways, it always comes back to Heath's death for me with how the 8 year gap played out. Having the Joker still running around means the freak rising angle could have still played out off screen during the 8 years, and Batman could have still been an active crime fighter for at least a few of those years before going into hiding. So jump forward in time to him being a hermit/recluse and I doubt anyone would have a called a fowl.

 

[BatLobster]

The thing is though, I actually like what we got better than that. I feel like what good did Batman taking the blame really do if Gotham just continued to get worse? I think there still would've needed to be some sort of police state situation that capitalized on Harvey's name that dealt with the rise in freaks and cleaned up Gotham, in which case it's essentially the same result.

 

[JackWhite]

Yeah, It's why I feel so bad about my nit picking of Rises. I mean, I love Bruce's arc in the film, being that at the end of TDK he realizes he just can't stop being Batman and at the beginning of Rises he doesn't have that outlet, and on top of that he tried to have a purpose as just Bruce Wayne, but the clean energy project completely back fired.

I just feel him being out of action for 8 years and not being hunted kinda rips away from the emotional impact of the character in TDKR. It's not like we even had to see all of that stuff, but the fact that it's non existent in the final act of the trilogy just feels off to me.

 

[shauner111]

I like the idea that Batman goes away for a long time when Joker goes away. Even though it's not on purpose, it's as if they both can't be free on the streets doing the things they need to do without each other.

The problem is that some of us don't buy how they got from point A to point B, for reasons we already discussed. Writers don't have to be predictable, but they do have to make an ongoing story feel natural. Otherwise it comes off as just for shock value.

Days of Future Past recently did a similar thing with Xavier. They gave him a 10 year gap, had him shut down the school and turned him in a drug-addict hermit. I couldn't have begun to guess after First Class they would go in that direction, but I completely bought the transition in the context of the film franchise. Which is ironic since it was a franchise littered with huge continuity issues in the first place.

That's a fair point. I guess i just happen to really like how they got from Point A to Point B.

I understand not liking that the feeling of having the rug pulled out from under you, but I think it's also fair to say that sometimes stories do mislead and actions end up having unforeseen consequences. It's part of storyteller's job to stay ahead of the audience. Not saying the direction we got was the plan or intention with TDK, but it makes enough sense that I understand how they got from point A to point B once they sat down, took stock of their story so far were deciding how it needed to end.

Seeing Bruce Wayne as a hermit was jarring, but it was meant to be jarring. It wasn't until that moment that I started actively rooting for him to have a happy ending and get his life together.

It's fine to dislike it for not feeling like the expected direction after TDK, but as with many things with this movie, the thing that one person dislikes is the very thing another person enjoys.

I believe they sat down and thought of different ways to do it, but then settled on a decision like "OK maybe this is the better way to do it, especially if we want to close the chapter with this movie."

It's like how Vince Gilligan and his writing team went through multiple scenarios on how to end Breaking Bad. I feel as if any of those endings could have worked but they thought their final decision was best and didn't really care if the fans didn't buy it. There's different ways to progress a story. Always. It's just a matter of "did you like how they got from Point A to Z or not?"

Of course it matters what it was meant for. The film maker's intention behind the monologue always matters above anything else. I mean Gordon even gave Batman the name the movie was called after. You going to tell me the movie was named on behalf of what Jim Gordon thought lol.

Come on, Shauner, if we're going to go into what small minorities thought, then we might as well dredge up the more common false theories that Harvey Dent was still alive, or Joker would be back in TDKR even though Ledger was dead etc. Saying some tiny minority believed it is not saying much.

Fair enough you don't care what the ending was saying to the audience, a strange stance to take about the message an important final scene is saying (remember all those people falsely thinking TDKR's ending was a dream), but that's your prerogative. But it's a very valid criticism for other people to make against TDKR, whether it didn't personally bother you or not. Which is the point. This wasn't some little nit picky thing.

I will say I did think it hypocritical of some people to hate on the idea of Bale's Batman retiring "because Batman would never do that", when these are the same people loving Dark Knight Returns where Batman retired for even longer, and when the city needed him. That's why I say I never had any problem with the principle of Batman retiring. He has done it in the comics. He wants to do it in the comics.

Yes it matters, but it's still coming from Gordon's mouth and brain. Gordon calls him a Dark Knight, it just so happens that everything he's saying is true of Batman, and that's why it's being told to the audience and is the title. So we will hunt him, because he can take it, yeah...because he's been taking it night in and night out since he became Batman and proved that he'll do this until he's not. But Gordon is just predicting. It's what he believes. And like i said, he doesn't know the future. People laugh at me when i say this on here but it's the truth. Batman does get hunted that night. And im pretty positive that final scene is out of order. Batman takes off and Gordon tells his kid this, even before the police start sending dogs his way. The speech is cut with images of what happens perhaps minutes later with Batman and the cops. It's not all happening at the same time. It's all editing and simply great cinema. At least that's how i view it. Following Gordons little speech, Bats get hunted. And so it's now the audience's issue if they feel like Batman will be hunted for weeks, months and years once the screen goes black. They can think that way but it doesn't mean Nolan has to do exactly that if he feels like he has another way to follow the story up.

 

[The Joker]

The problem is that some of us don't buy how they got from point A to point B, for reasons we already discussed. Writers don't have to be predictable, but they do have to make an ongoing story feel natural. Otherwise it comes off as just for shock value.

Days of Future Past recently did a similar thing with Xavier. They gave him a 10 year gap, had him shut down the school and turned him in a drug-addict hermit. I couldn't have begun to guess after First Class they would go in that direction, but I completely bought the transition in the context of the film franchise. Which is ironic since it was a franchise littered with huge continuity issues in the first place.

Great analogy

Yes it matters, but it's still coming from Gordon's mouth and brain. Gordon calls him a Dark Knight, it just so happens that everything he's saying is true of Batman, and that's why it's being told to the audience and is the title. So we will hunt him, because he can take it, yeah...because he's been taking it night in and night out since he became Batman and proved that he'll do this until he's not. But Gordon is just predicting. It's what he believes. And like i said, he doesn't know the future. People laugh at me when i say this on here but it's the truth. Batman does get hunted that night. And im pretty positive that final scene is out of order. Batman takes off and Gordon tells his kid this, even before the police start sending dogs his way. The speech is cut with images of what happens perhaps minutes later with Batman and the cops. It's not all happening at the same time. It's all editing and simply great cinema. At least that's how i view it. Following Gordons little speech, Bats get hunted. And so it's now the audience's issue if they feel like Batman will be hunted for weeks, months and years once the screen goes black. They can think that way but it doesn't mean Nolan has to do exactly that if he feels like he has another way to follow the story up.

Gordon is just the mouth piece saying the message that the movie is conveying. Just like Alfred saying men like Joker are not looking for anything logical like money, and can't be bought, bullied, reasoned and negotiated with. It's not just Alfred's perspective, that's the kind of man Joker is. It's Nolan's way of conveying it to the audience through character dialogue. It didn't have to come from Joker's own mouth to be true.

Saying Batman was hunted that night is hardly the kind of being hunted because he can endure and take it line they were talking about. I mean he got hunted and chased in Batman Begins, too. Enduring it means having this done repeatedly. Not being chased off onto his Bat-Pod and then retiring that night.

I'm pretty positive the scene is not edited in any special way. Batman runs off, Gordon starts talking to his kid, cut to the outside where the Cops move in with their dogs. No trick editing here. It's just switching back and forth between Gordon talking and Batman running off on the Bat-Pod.

Nobody is saying Nolan HAS to do anything. It's his movie, his story, he can do what he likes with it. People are criticizing the choices he made following on the story in TDKR, because it didn't feel like a natural progression of the story based on TDK's ending, and that's a valid criticism.

 

[shauner111]

Yes, but if you break it down, it's still the characters speaking inside of the story. Of course there's messages involved, but at the end of the day it still has to work inside the story. This was not some dream sequence....in that story Gordon is saying this because he's telling his son what is on his mind. So in that very universe (excluding the message coming from behind the camera) it's Gordons perspective only. That's what im judging. It is still one mans perspective on the Batman in that very moment based on the events that just happened.

Batman can endure more, and he may have off screen (for all we know more cops were waiting in different parts of the city incase he escaped that area). Whether he did or not that night, i still believe it was edited a certain way and the little chase happened post-Gordon's speech. Mentally though, i think he endured even more throughout those 8 years than ever would if he was out there physically during that stretch.

Outside of the 8 year gap, I also see it now as foreshadowing (not exactly but it's a little chilling considering what happens) when Gordon says "because he can take it". Because i see what ends up happening to his spirit after this but also how much the cops chased him 8 years later, how he took a broken back, imprisonment, stabbing.

Like i said, i do think it's a valid criticism but i just simply don't see it that way. I see the flow between A and Z even if some do not. It's all good regardless.

 

[The Joker]

You're not judging it on the reality of the movie. The characters speak for the story, not just inside the story. It's not Gordon's perspective only, it's the perspective of the movie's story. If it was Gordon's perspective only then the movie wouldn't be called The Dark Knight since he's the only one who calls Batman that. Furthermore I already mentioned this before, but this is not just from Gordon's perspective. Everything Gordon said, Batman said to him minutes before. And Alfred said it to Bruce earlier in the movie, too. So no matter what way you want to look at it, and there is only one valid way to look at it, that's the way it is.

Saying Batman may have endured off screen is just going into unfounded fan fic territory. You can only go by what the movies say and show, and TDKR makes it clear the night Dent died was the last time Batman was seen or heard from again. So he wasn't enduring any more chases after that otherwise there would have been more confirmed sightings of him.

The lines of Batman enduring lose all meaning when we learn he endured nothing. You can't endure anything as Batman if you've quit the mantle.

 

[shauner111]

I am judging it on the reality of the movie. I already explained all of that to you, movie title included. Im well aware of the message but im judging inside the story. The dialogue is still coming from a single character, therefore it's his perspective only. Whether that also happens to be a theme, a message, a this, a that...that's not what im talking about. Inside that universe if we were a fly in the air buzzing around these characters, it came from Gordon.

He endured nothing? Are we talking physically or emotionally here? In both cases he endured a hell of a lot.

Confirmed sightings automatically = chases?

 

[The Joker]

How can you be judging it properly when you're attempting to diminish the importance and validity of the ending's message down to it just being the opinion of a supporting character in the movie (and ignoring that both Bruce and Alfred said the same thing, too).

We're talking enduring as Batman. Batman didn't endure anything because he wasn't being Batman any more. He quit. It was over. Just like if you quit a job you're not suffering the pressure and responsibilities and aggravation that come with the job any more.

Confirmed sightings mean anything that says he was out in Gotham as Batman after the night Dent died. The movie saying that night was the last confirmed sighting of him is the message to the audience that that's when he hung up the mantle.

When fans start speculating that oh maybe that means he did this and that and nobody saw him is just unfounded fan fic territory.

 

[Travesty]

and at the beginning of Rises he doesn't have that outlet, and on top of that he tried to have a purpose as just Bruce Wayne, but the clean energy project completely back fired.

He definitely could've had an outlet, but he chose not to, until his mother's pearls were stolen. We know that Selina has a HUGE rap sheet on her, and he didn't want to pursue that, until it affected him personally. I guess his only outlet as World's Greatest Detective, was him hiring Catwoman and Talia to royally screw him over. Good job there, Bruce.

 

[Ryan]

Great to see this thread is still alive I personally never felt that Begins had to have a sequel as much as I believed that TDK did. I looked at the joker card reveal as a nice nod to the fans and as much as I hoped that they would do a sequel, I was pretty content that most things in Begins had been wrapped up to my satisfaction.
With TDK I felt that Nolan and co. were now open to doing sequels (as they had just done one). Furthermore having an ending where Batman has now taken the blame for murdering cops just didn't seem like a natural conclusion. Despite Nolan's insistence that there were never plans for a third movie, I wasn't surprised that they made one. I was surprised by the direction they took though as I thought the main directions of the film would have been a)exposing the lie that Gordon/Batman had created and b)clearing Batman's name and redeeming Gordon in the end. While both of those things did happen in the TDKR, I left feeling that the los/bane/talia plot of finishing ras' plans (which I never really felt needed to be further addressed) dominated the film.

 

[shauner111]

How can you be judging it properly when you're attempting to diminish the importance and validity of the ending's message down to it just being the opinion of a supporting character in the movie (and ignoring that both Bruce and Alfred said the same thing, too).

Im not trying to diminish the importance of the message, that Batman is a dark knight, a watchful protector, and that he can take it in the future if there comes a time where he has to endure a hunt. Im trying to put myself inside the universe for a second here. Im aware of the directors message trust me, but im putting myself into that world as if it were real. Where did the dialogue come from? Gordon. His mind, based on what he witnessed and his discussions with others. That's all im saying. Alfred and Bruce didn't say the exact same thing that Gordon did.

We're talking enduring as Batman. Batman didn't endure anything because he wasn't being Batman any more. He quit. It was over. Just like if you quit a job you're not suffering the pressure and responsibilities and aggravation that come with the job any more.

My definition of enduring is different then. It doesn't have to mean physically going out as Batman when he shouldn't be (based on his now known behavior). It's not the same thing. Batman still comes from his psyche. It's a 24/7 job even without the suit on, as long as he's in that depressive "batman" state. For 8 years he endured the lie, the deaths of others close to him. He also endures physically 8 years later when the cops hunt him down and his body is practically mangled. I dont care if it was the night after Dent's murder, a week later, 8 years later, if he had the suit on the entire time or he didn't...he still endured it. A man's broken spirit as seen at the start of Rises tells me that he endured the pain, the loss and the lies of that very night. And all im saying is, i was satisfied with how they did it. You don't have to be, i respect that.

Confirmed sightings mean anything that says he was out in Gotham as Batman after the night Dent died. The movie saying that night was the last confirmed sighting of him is the message to the audience that that's when he hung up the mantle.

You said

So he wasn't enduring any more chases after that otherwise there would have been more confirmed sightings of him.

sooooo because Batman wasn't chased in the public by the police, that means there were not confirmed sightings? That doesn't make sense. That's why i responded that way. He could be seen up in a tree, and they call it in, or have an encounter, and that would be a confirmed sighting. But he's the Batman, fan-fic or not, he's a ninja and he can get around without a "confirmed sighting". There's a reason why Nolan chose to go with those specific words.

 

[The Joker]

Im not trying to diminish the importance of the message, that Batman is a dark knight, a watchful protector, and that he can take it in the future if there comes a time where he has to endure a hunt. Im trying to put myself inside the universe for a second here. Im aware of the directors message trust me, but im putting myself into that world as if it were real. Where did the dialogue come from? Gordon. His mind, based on what he witnessed and his discussions with others. That's all im saying. Alfred and Bruce didn't say the exact same thing that Gordon did.

What is the point of trying to put yourself into the world of Batman and looking at it from that perspective? That's not how it was intended to be viewed. Nolan had Gordon (as well as Alfred and Batman) say the same message three times. You didn't have to imagine yourself in the movie universe as if it was real to get that.

I've never heard the likes of that before in my life. Unless there's some confusion as to what's being said, and you're trying to understand what the hell said character means.

Yes, Alfred and Bruce said the same things Gordon did. Batman can endure, be hated, chased and hunted etc. The only difference was Gordon named him Dark Knight. Bruce is packing up his Batman stuff and intending to hand himself over to the authorities, and Alfred is telling him no he should endure, take it, because Batman can. Batman tells Gordon he can hunt him, set the dogs on him, because he can take it and be what ever Gotham needs him to be. Gordon says to his son they have to hunt and chase Batman because he can take it etc.

Same message from three different characters. Even if it only came from one character, it would still be valid.

My definition of enduring is different then. It doesn't have to mean physically going out as Batman when he shouldn't be (based on his now known behavior). It's not the same thing. Batman still comes from his psyche. It's a 24/7 job even without the suit on, as long as he's in that depressive "batman" state and living in Gotham. For 8 years he endured the lie, the deaths of others close to him. He also endures physically 8 years later when the cops hunt him down and his body is practically mangled. I dont care if it was the night after Dent's murder, a week later, 8 years later, if he had the suit on the entire time or he didn't...he still endured it. A man's broken spirit as seen at the start of Rises tells me that he endured the pain, the loss and the lies of that very night. And all im saying is, i was satisfied with how they did it. You don't have to be, i respect that.

Yeah your definition of endurance is very different and makes no sense to me. Batman in retirement dealing with the battle wounds (physically and mentally) from his time as Batman is not enduring as Batman. That's like saying a Soldier recuperating from the trauma of war and the injuries he sustained after retiring from the army is him enduring as a soldier. He's not a soldier any more. Bruce wasn't Batman any more. Even Alfred said that to him; "You're not Batman anymore".

That's Bruce licking his wounds for 8 years in retirement. Not enduring as Batman. This is the sort of thing people expected when they hear Batman can endure being hunted and hated:

[YT]o_vwPlWTrgo[/YT]

You said sooooo because Batman wasn't chased in the public by the police, that means there were not confirmed sightings? That doesn't make sense. That's what i responded that way. He could be seen up in a tree, and they call it in, or have an encounter, and that would be a confirmed sighting. But he's the Batman, fan-fic or not, he's a ninja and he can get around without a "confirmed sighting". There's a reason why Nolan chose to go with those specific words.

Of course it makes sense. What would Batman be doing out in public if nobody saw him? Can't be fighting crime otherwise criminals would have seen him.

See you saying stuff like he could have been sitting in a tree and nobody saw him is the unfounded fan fic territory speculation I spoke of. The movie spells out the last time anyone saw Batman was the night Dent died. I credit Nolan with more intelligence than expecting his audience to believe Bruce went around with a busted leg as Batman after that and nobody caught a glimpse of him because he was too busy tree sitting.

 

[BatLobster]

Great to see this thread is still alive I personally never felt that Begins had to have a sequel as much as I believed that TDK did. I looked at the joker card reveal as a nice nod to the fans and as much as I hoped that they would do a sequel, I was pretty content that most things in Begins had been wrapped up to my satisfaction.
With TDK I felt that Nolan and co. were now open to doing sequels (as they had just done one). Furthermore having an ending where Batman has now taken the blame for murdering cops just didn't seem like a natural conclusion. Despite Nolan's insistence that there were never plans for a third movie, I wasn't surprised that they made one. I was surprised by the direction they took though as I thought the main directions of the film would have been a)exposing the lie that Gordon/Batman had created and b)clearing Batman's name and redeeming Gordon in the end. While both of those things did happen in the TDKR, I left feeling that the los/bane/talia plot of finishing ras' plans (which I never really felt needed to be further addressed) dominated the film.

I'm of two minds about it. For me, while I think you're right the BB teaser working as just a nod to the greater Batman universe, at the same time it a made a statement because it told us that Batman's presence had given rise to a freak like The Joker. It left me with this uneasy (but very exciting) feeling of "Uh oh, things are going to get rough, Batman doesn't yet realize what he's gotten himself into". Put it this way, I was dying to see a sequel to BB more than I was to TDK.

When TDK ended after my first viewing, my immediate kneejerk reaction, especially knowing Heath was gone, was just that they should stop there and quit while they're on top. TDK just had a much "bigger" ending emotionally. When I thought about it more, I was like "Okay, obviously they're going to have to make a third one and redeem Batman in the eyes of Gotham somehow". But that prospect alone was much less exciting to me than The Joker tease, because if the movie focused on simply undoing the ending of TDK it could've easily felt tedious and predictable (like all those fanfic Riddler plots where he's a PI trying to uncover the truth). So personally, I was relieved that we got a film where A and B were able to happen without being the direct focus of the story.

 

[Ryan]

I'm of two minds about it. For me, while I think you're right the BB teaser working as just a nod to the greater Batman universe, at the same time it a made a statement because it told us that Batman's presence had given rise to a freak like The Joker. It left me with this uneasy (but very exciting) feeling of "Uh oh, things are going to get rough, Batman doesn't yet realize what he's gotten himself into". Put it this way, I was dying to see a sequel to BB more than I was to TDK.

When TDK ended after my first viewing, my immediate kneejerk reaction, especially knowing Heath was gone, was just that they should stop there and quit while they're on top. TDK just had a much "bigger" ending emotionally. When I thought about it more, I was like "Okay, obviously they're going to have to make a third one and redeem Batman in the eyes of Gotham somehow". But that prospect alone was much less exciting to me than The Joker tease, because if the movie focused on simply undoing the ending of TDK it could've easily felt tedious and predictable (like all those fanfic Riddler plots where he's a PI trying to uncover the truth). So personally, I was relieved that we got a film where A and B were able to happen without being the direct focus of the story.

Well I do share some of your same feelings about the first 2 films. When I saw Begins, I wasn't on messageboards and the like so I had no idea that there would be any sequel until I heard ledger was announced as the joker. Up until that point, I was really content with Begins and it felt like a complete film to me. I was hoping they would do a sequel with the joker, but had never counted on it.
With TDK I had a different feeling. The ending to me seemed a natural setup for a sequel as it left the heroes in quite a predicament. Knowing that Ledger had died, I can't say I had as much excitement for the third film, but I was really really curious as to how Nolan was going to deal with resolving the ending of TDK, which I guess he did, but ever so fleetingly, as if begrudgingly. What had been built up as such a huge dilemma in tdk seemed an almost afterthought in the film compared to an invasion by los/bane/talia.
I agree about the fan/fict stuff and always hated the idea that the riddler was going to be some fbi profilier. I'm not a trekkie, but I saw a documentary on "the best of both worlds". The writers had said they had more fun writing episode 1 as they wrote it without knowing how they were going to resolve all the problems they were creating. Making episode 2 was of course less exciting as they knew they had to wrap up all the chaos they created and thus becomes more formulaic. It might sound strange, but I did find tdkr to be an entirely predictable movie, which was something I didn't predict would happen.

 

[shauner111]

I dont think you're understanding anything im saying Joker. I dont see the problem with putting myself in the universe that TDK Trilogy is set in, and trying to understand the perspective of the characters. Who cares how it was "intended to be viewed"? Are you serious? Ill view it the way i want, that's the beauty of film and art. Sometimes the intention matters, sometimes it doesn't, all that matters is how WE see it. And there's different ways of doing this.

Gordon says to his son that he can take it, but Gordon doesn't know the future. He's saying what he thinks of Batman. It's his opinion on Batman, true or not, that's what it is. Am i taking crazy pills here? If you strip the film down to what's happening inside the story and for a moment forget about a filmmaker's message, the reality of the situation is that Jim Gordon basically has a hard-on for the Batman and is telling his son he will look over the city because THAT'S WHAT THE BATMAN DOES. But just like he didn't know what lying would cost him (regret, family moving) he also doesn't have a f**king clue if Batman will carry on or not. Has no idea how the government will handle the situation, no clue if he himself will help with a "Dent Act" or not. He's speaking in the moment, and in that beautiful moment, he's speaking from the heart about how he sees Batman. He is a Dark Knight and he will endure.

I really don't care what people expected or what i even expected after seeing TDK. Who cares about expectations. Plans change. You do what is best for the story. You think it wasn't best, i think it was, end of story really. But of course we will continue as we always do.

Let's agree to disagree about the enduring part because we have different ways of looking at it. I honestly don't care if he endured it physically with a cowl on for weeks after or if he endured it spritually/mentally for 8 years and then endured it physically when he was 40 years old when the cops came after him. That's the difference between you and i. I love Nolan but i dont care what message/exposition any director is trying shove down my throat, ill interpret it my way. Why should anyone have to believe what Gordon is saying will come true in that specific universe just because he's saying it to the screen and to his son in a nearly deserted area in Gotham? Obviously some (like Batlobster's friend) felt that Batman would retire that night despite what Gordon is predicting, so he's wrong for thinking that? Hmm, i guess he was right since TDKR happened. This whole opinion of "the majority thought this way so that's what it is" bugs the hell out of me. I thought Batman would continue and it didn't make sense if he wasn't going to , until i saw Rises and my opinion reversed. Nowadays i see both sides and feel like both options could have worked smoothly.

Maybe im not thinking straight right now but i dont remember anyone having a real answer as to why batman should have stayed out there in the first place, if he was seen as a psychotic murderer. Is he going to hop on his bat-pod and lure cops to chase him cuz it's fun?? What's the point of that? He can't save people, that will make people wonder about his true self....he must be seen as a murderer. This is why i keep siding with Rises even when i start backing off a little bit on the "8 year retirement sucks balls" crowd.

Joker, there is such thing as a criminal being scared out of his whits, threatened by the Batman or beaten up to the point where the criminal doesn't want to speak about the situation. There's also such thing as Batman lurking in the shadows keeping an eye on Gotham while NOBODY sees him. If you think this is impossible...for a ninja...then i dont know what to say to you. What is the explanation behind Bruce being down in the cave, creating things years prior to Rises if he didn't need to be Batman anymore. And what about the unofficial Jett (BoF) quote where he said Nolan told him personally that Batman stayed out a little longer after TDK. Of course it's Jett, but he is Mr. "I dont want to even think about Batman being out there doing adventures in between Knight and Rises!! I dont want to think of spin-offs!". Hmm, why would he lie?

But let's stop this fan-fic crap and just assume he didn't step foot outside his mansion with a batsuit after Joker was locked up..

 

[BatLobster]

Well I do share some of your same feelings about the first 2 films. When I saw Begins, I wasn't on messageboards and the like so I had no idea that there would be any sequel until I heard ledger was announced as the joker. Up until that point, I was really content with Begins and it felt like a complete film to me. I was hoping they would do a sequel with the joker, but had never counted on it.
With TDK I had a different feeling. The ending to me seemed a natural setup for a sequel as it left the heroes in quite a predicament. Knowing that Ledger had died, I can't say I had as much excitement for the third film, but I was really really curious as to how Nolan was going to deal with resolving the ending of TDK, which I guess he did, but ever so fleetingly, as if begrudgingly. What had been built up as such a huge dilemma in tdk seemed an almost afterthought in the film compared to an invasion by los/bane/talia.
I agree about the fan/fict stuff and always hated the idea that the riddler was going to be some fbi profilier. I'm not a trekkie, but I saw a documentary on "the best of both worlds". The writers had said they had more fun writing episode 1 as they wrote it without knowing how they were going to resolve all the problems they were creating. Making episode 2 was of course less exciting as they knew they had to wrap up all the chaos they created and thus becomes more formulaic. It might sound strange, but I did find tdkr to be an entirely predictable movie, which was something I didn't predict would happen.

Fair enough and I see your point. Once Rises sets up its plot, yeah I could see it being fairly straight forward and predictable. Obviously, Bruce is going to rise out of the pit and defeat Bane, and we all knew Miranda was Talia, etc. However, it's the fact that it shifted genres into a war/disaster/epic that made it feel fresh and new for me. Plus it made you (or at least me) genuinely question whether or not Bruce would ultimately survive. Third movies in general tend to be predictable. TDKR just wasn't predictable in the way I initially worried it might be. It brought the emotion and Bruce's arc back to the forefront, where it needed to be. It's a simpler, but grander story.

That's one thing I love about the trilogy. When I saw Begins, I could have never pictured what TDK would be. When I saw TDK, I could have never pictured what TDKR would be. When I say that, I'm referring to the style/genre shifts between each movie. It really felt like it naturally evolved as it went along and became greater than the sum of its parts. To me that's something every trilogy should strive towards.

And shauner, I get your point about the speech being from Gordon's POV, I've made the same case myself. The movie is not breaking the fourth wall. It's just a really persuasive cinematic moment, the eloquent VO, the editing, the score. It's hammering home the point of the movie, and obviously it's meant for the audience...like any line in any movie is meant for the audience. But the internal logic of the scene shouldn't just be ignored. Part of the beauty of that speech to me is that Gordon is giving his son, who will grow up knowing that Harvey Dent was not the true hero, something to believe in. It's a harsh reality that he's conveying to his son in as idealistic a way as possible.

 

[The Joker]

I dont think you're understanding anything im saying Joker. I dont see the problem with putting myself in the universe that TDK Trilogy is set in, and trying to understand the perspective of the characters. Who cares how it was "intended to be viewed"? Are you serious? Ill view it the way i want, that's the beauty of film and art. Sometimes the intention matters, sometimes it doesn't, all that matters is how WE see it. And there's different ways of doing this.

Gordon says to his son that he can take it, but Gordon doesn't know the future. He's saying what he thinks of Batman. It's his opinion on Batman, true or not, that's what it is. Am i taking crazy pills here? If you strip the film down to what's happening inside the story and for a moment forget about a filmmaker's message, the reality of the situation is that Jim Gordon basically has a hard-on for the Batman and is telling his son he will look over the city because THAT'S WHAT THE BATMAN DOES. But just like he didn't know what lying would cost him (regret, family moving) he also doesn't have a f**king clue if Batman will carry on or not. Has no idea how the government will handle the situation, no clue if he himself will help with a "Dent Act" or not. He's speaking in the moment, and in that beautiful moment, he's speaking from the heart about how he sees Batman. He is a Dark Knight and he will endure.

I really don't care what people expected or what i even expected after seeing TDK. Who cares about expectations. Plans change. You do what is best for the story. You think it wasn't best, i think it was, end of story really. But of course we will continue as we always do.

Let's agree to disagree about the enduring part because we have different ways of looking at it. I honestly don't care if he endured it physically with a cowl on for weeks after or if he endured it spritually/mentally for 8 years and then endured it physically when he was 40 years old when the cops came after him. That's the difference between you and i. I love Nolan but i dont care what message/exposition any director is trying shove down my throat, ill interpret it my way. Why should anyone have to believe what Gordon is saying will come true in that specific universe just because he's saying it to the screen and to his son in a nearly deserted area in Gotham? Obviously some (like Batlobster's friend) felt that Batman would retire that night despite what Gordon is predicting, so he's wrong for thinking that? Hmm, i guess he was right since TDKR happened. This whole opinion of "the majority thought this way so that's what it is" bugs the hell out of me. I thought Batman would continue and it didn't make sense if he wasn't going to , until i saw Rises and my opinion reversed. Nowadays i see both sides and feel like both options could have worked smoothly.

Maybe im not thinking straight right now but i dont remember anyone having a real answer as to why batman should have stayed out there in the first place, if he was seen as a psychotic murderer. Is he going to hop on his bat-pod and lure cops to chase him cuz it's fun?? What's the point of that? He can't save people, that will make people wonder about his true self....he must be seen as a murderer. This is why i keep siding with Rises even when i start backing off a little bit on the "8 year retirement sucks balls" crowd.

Joker, there is such thing as a criminal being scared out of his whits, threatened by the Batman or beaten up to the point where the criminal doesn't want to speak about the situation. There's also such thing as Batman lurking in the shadows keeping an eye on Gotham while NOBODY sees him. If you think this is impossible...for a ninja...then i dont know what to say to you. What is the explanation behind Bruce being down in the cave, creating things years prior to Rises if he didn't need to be Batman anymore. And what about the unofficial Jett (BoF) quote where he said Nolan told him personally that Batman stayed out a little longer after TDK. Of course it's Jett, but he is Mr. "I dont want to even think about Batman being out there doing adventures in between Knight and Rises!! I dont want to think of spin-offs!". Hmm, why would he lie?

But let's stop this fan-fic crap and just assume he didn't step foot outside his mansion with a batsuit after Joker was locked up..because you know, we can't have an imagination, we can't have our own interpretation of a scene/a line....we should go by "Facts!".

I understand exactly what you're saying, Shauner. That's why I think what you're doing was unnecessary. The ending was not meant to be cryptic or ambiguous. You didn't have to place yourself inside the movie's universe to get a better understanding or perspective. It was one of the most clear cut spelled out messages in the movie. I'm saying your approach of placing yourself in the movie universe to view was pointless and doesn't negate the the fact of what the ending was saying to the audience. You telling me you are choosing to take some in movie universe view as though it was real approach to it is basically you saying you're deciding to view the way you want, and not the way it actually is.

It's not Gordon's "opinion", it's the movie's message that is spelled out through Gordon, and previously by Batman and Alfred, too. In the context of the movie universe yes it's three characters saying the same thing. But this universe is not real, and these characters are being used to convey the message of the movie via their dialogue. So why you choose to ignore that pretend as though this is movie reality so you can reduce it just being Gordon's opinion (when it wasn't even just him who said this) as a get out of jail free card for the bizarre turn TDKR went, is beyond me.

You say you don't care what message Nolan was giving in the movie because you want to interpret it your own way, how does that make your position on this more valid when you're arguing against what the director was saying, as opposed to what you want to believe. That's a rather pointless argument don't you think. You're free to think what ever you want of course, but to try and argue against those of us who are listening to what the movie actually tells us, well that's a debate you can never win because it's fact vs personal opinion. Facts win every time.

When in the Nolan Batman universe was any criminal ever too scared to mention they ran afoul of Batman? That defeats the whole purpose of the Batman image. He's supposed to spread a fearsome reputation by having his name and what he did spread throughout Gotham. If crooks kept quiet about when they ran into him his reputation would be non existent. Furthermore it totally defeats the purpose of Blake spelling out that the night Dent died was the last time anyone saw Batman. There's nothing else in the movie that suggests he was active as Batman post Dent's death. Especially considering he is hobbling on a busted leg he got from the fall with Dent at the end of TDK. Had been resuming active duty as Batman he would have sorted his leg out before going back out on the streets. But given the sorry condition his leg is in TDKR he obviously just left it because he never had reason to go out as Batman again since. 2+2=4.

Why would Batman stay out there if he was still seen as a murderer, because he is still needed. Because he can still do what ever he has to do, with the city hating him and the Cops hunting him because.....wait for it.....he can endure it and take it. He can be what ever Gotham needs him to be. He didn't fold like a tent and not stop the Joker just because the city was hating him and blaming him for the Joker killings. He didn't quit when the Cops gave him a merry chase half way across the city in Begins. Being wanted by the law and seen as a bad guy doesn't stop Batman from doing the job.

I'm sorry but some hearsay from Jett (one of the worst rabid Nolan fans ever) about some quote Nolan supposedly only deemed to say to him out of the dozens of TDKR related interviews Nolan has given, doesn't sway me at all. If the movie gave any real grounds to believe Bruce continued as Batman post TDK, I'd be all for it. It would make the direction TDKR took feel more organic after TDK's ending. But it doesn't. So any far flung theories about Batman activities post TDK are nothing but fan fics.

 

[BatLobster]

We're partying like it's 2013 in here!

 

[Travesty]

I'll bring the dip and the tunes! You guys bring the chips and beer.

 

[Ryan]

Fair enough and I see your point. Once Rises sets up its plot, yeah I could see it being fairly straight forward and predictable. Obviously, Bruce is going to rise out of the pit and defeat Bane, and we all knew Miranda was Talia, etc. However, it's the fact that it shifted genres into a war/disaster/epic that made it feel fresh and new for me. Plus it made you (or at least me) genuinely question whether or not Bruce would ultimately survive. Third movies in general tend to be predictable. TDKR just wasn't predictable in the way I initially worried it might be. It brought the emotion and Bruce's arc back to the forefront, where it needed to be. It's a simpler, but grander story.

That's one thing I love about the trilogy. When I saw Begins, I could have never pictured what TDK would be. When I saw TDK, I could have never pictured what TDKR would be. When I say that, I'm referring to the style/genre shifts between each movie. It really felt like it naturally evolved as it went along and became greater than the sum of its parts. To me that's something every trilogy should strive towards.

And shauner, I get your point about the speech being from Gordon's POV, I've made the same case myself. The movie is not breaking the fourth wall. It's just a really persuasive cinematic moment, the eloquent VO, the editing, the score. It's hammering home the point of the movie, and obviously it's meant for the audience...like any line in any movie is meant for the audience. But the internal logic of the scene shouldn't just be ignored. Part of the beauty of that speech to me is that Gordon is giving his son, who will grow up knowing that Harvey Dent was not the true hero, something to believe in. It's a harsh reality that he's conveying to his son in as idealistic a way as possible.

I do agree that TDK was entirely different than I thought it would be. In fact, it took me awhile to sort through what I had seen, as I was expecting the film to be fairly similar in look and mood to Begins. Thankfully, Nolan saw that there was more to this genre then doing a typical "superheroish" sequel. I commonly hear tdkr referred to as this epic/disaster film (I believe Nolan might have even come up with this phrase). I've never quite understood what that meant, but its not one that I'd typically have liked Batman to be set in. I see Batman on a much smaller scale, battling crime in Gotham not on some sort of global scale. Nuclear bombs, alien invasions are usually the sort of thing I associate with Superman. Again, its all a matter of taste and the predictability I saw with tdkr is that they went with the bigger is better format much like the rocky or rambo films. To quote the Joker "i'm a man of simple tastes" and prefer films like Casino Royale to films like Moonraker and TDK and Begins just hit that sweet spot for me.