The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - - - Part 156

I don’t think Reeves’ Gotham is that far away from Batman Begin’s Gotham.

Reeves was able to camouflage it with the rain and other things (like rarely zooming out for wide shots of the city) but his Gotham is essentially just an exaggerated New York. It's not in theory any different than what Nolan did with the city, even if it different aesthetically.
 
Gotham was a normal looking city for nearly five decades before Batman 1989.

Wasn't it mostly a 90's thing? My memory is fuzzy, but I do recall Gotham looking like a modern American city again after Lex Luthor helped rebuild the city post No Man's Land.
 
Reeves was able to camouflage it with the rain and other things (like rarely zooming out for wide shots of the city) but his Gotham is essentially just an exaggerated New York. It's not in theory any different than what Nolan did with the city, even if it different aesthetically.


Hell, the narrows is aesthetically more out there than anything in TB. It was a 1990’s Chinese slum grafted into an American city.
 
Wasn't it mostly a 90's thing? My memory is fuzzy, but I do recall Gotham looking like a modern American city again after Lex Luthor helped rebuild the city post No Man's Land.

Yeah it did. Then some artists later gave it the Gothic look. Then some went back to the modern city look. It was very inconsistent.
 
I think Reeves' Gotham is cool and is a great rain-soaked neo-noir representation of it, but I do miss stuff like the IMAX helicopter establishing shots and sense of scale Nolan's Gotham had. I also thought it was interesting that TB didn't shy away from using a couple of familiar Chicago locations from some iconic TDKT scenes. I guess Chicago is kind of woven into the cinematic identity of Gotham now.

Also, while I am amazed by the Unreal Engine virtual set technology and love how it's beginning to replace green screen, it also does have its own sort of surreal 'quality' to it that still doesn't entirely replace just shooting on a real rooftop in a real city for me. It's definitely way more convincing than most green screen though.

On an unrelated note, in light of all the recent news, I find myself caring less and less for the decision to have mass shooters in the climax of the film. Sure, the Nolan films tackled terrorism which was the hot-button issue at the time, but I think it did so with more of a comic booky/action movie 'larger than life' quality that allowed it to work in a more escapist type of way IMO. I think seeing a superhero vigilante take out a bunch of mass shooters trivializes the horrible reality in America right now. It offers no momentary catharsis for me, because it just serves as kind of a crushing reminder that there is no Batman here to stop these kinds of people from committing these atrocities. Not to mention the last Batman movie itself was a target for a mass shooting. It all just feels a little too on the nose for me. These things are just happening with too much frequency at this point to work as a plot point in a superhero film for me. I'm don't think the Nolan films could've worked if there were large scale 9/11 style terrorist attacks happening every other week. It was being in the aftermath of something that earthshaking and the lingering fear and uncertainty of "is this going to happen again and how to we combat this?" that helped set the stage for those films finding their footing in the zeitgeist. The sudden imagery of geared up mass shooters who were literally radicalized online, combined with the imagery of flooding (climate change) in the third act just felt like a last ditch effort on the movie's part to press the "social relevancy" button, I guess because that's just what's expected of a Batman movie now.

I dunno. I'm not saying I only want light and fun superhero films now. I've gotten pretty burnt out on that formula. But the way it was done here just didn't quite sit right with me. I think the movie was in its sweet spot drilling down on institutional corruption, because that's super relevant to the times too and it's a natural extension of the detective/noir movie. It's another reason the third act of TB doesn't quite gel for me. Mileage may vary on all of this though, I'm speaking from the viewpoint of an American who is disgusted and appalled by the state of my country right now.
 
Last edited:
Man, I feel so disconnected from this section of the forum now. Never thought I’d say that. I really disagree with everything you guys have been saying the past handful of pages. And honestly, it all reeks of “Nolan can do no wrong with his movies, even the terrorist angle was not as on the nose as THIS!”. Ugh.
 
@shauner111

I hope we can all keep things in perspective and remember that these are just opinions at the end of the day. Opinions on Batman movies. I'm not here to say that what I think is fact or The Correct Opinion™, and that's never how I've tried to approach this stuff. I'm just shooting from the hip. I hope there's no hard feelings. :yay:

In terms of being on the nose with current events, I had a similar issue with Snyder's DC films. Those took things a step further to where it was basically straight up 9/11 imagery on screen and the element of escapism was totally lost. It didn't jibe with me, especially as someone who lived in NY on 9/11. So it's not a line of criticism I'm just pulling out of nowhere.

I promise, this stuff coming from a place of tough love more than anything. There's good faith and bad faith criticism IMO. Bad faith is what you see from the worst elements of the Snyder Cult, where it's just taking a dump on the movie for the sake of attention and to prop up their own preferred version of the franchise. Good faith criticism to me is, "here's what I think worked and here's what didn't and why". I feel like that's pretty harmless and can hopefully lead to productive discussions, if people were more open to it. I mean, I think everyone here agrees that the movie is beautifully crafted and that Matt Reeves is a great filmmaker. Nobody is saying it's not a good movie or not a very faithful Batman adaptation. At the same time, I think there are legitimate things that can be improved on too, but sometimes I get the vibe around over on TB boards that it's like committing an act of blasphemy if you try to articulate that-- which I don't get, cause wouldn't everyone want the sequel to be even better? I think I've been pretty consistent on what my issues with the film are and I stand by my criticisms. These aren't movie-breaking issues for me, but they are things I do hope to see improve-- either in future Reeves films or the next adaptation, but preferably the former. And if you think the movie is absolutely perfect and you wouldn't change a thing about it? Beautiful. I can't take that away from you nor would I want to. I'm just voicing my opinion. For me, it's kind of the inverse of the Nolan films. It's not that those movies can do no wrong. They are FULL of little goofy things that you can nitpick, and it's all been discussed to death at this point-- but in the big picture, they just 'get it right' where it really counts for me. Whereas I feel like The Batman is so meticulously made from frame to frame, there are less small things to nitpick, but my issues come from the story as a whole and some of the broader choices made. And I'm the type of audience member that cares more about the big picture and the overall impression a film leaves me with. It's an issue of how a movie becomes more or less than the sum of its parts, and that I would say is very subjective and totally open to discussion/debate.
 
Last edited:
Ok but I don’t understand the mass shooters comment. Did Riddler’s guys go into a school? No. Were they sniping children? No. Was it made as a reaction to a specific school shooting? No. We’re all raw about what just happened in the States. Of course. But blaming movies or saying they shouldn’t do this or that is kinda ridiculous to me because they’re... writing villains. It’s supposed to be F’d up. Villains SHOULD make you uncomfortable. “It doesn’t sit right with me” huh? Why does it have to sit right with you? Why is comfort and enjoyment a thing that’s needed when watching a film? Or a villain? Why does it have to be warm instead of cold? “It just left me feeling cold” why is that negative? Not everyone makes Spielberg flicks, sending everyone home happy. Some of Batman’s best stories of all time are dark and unrelatable. Needing everything to be relatable or peeps can’t put it high on their list is just...bizarre. Film fans can be so obsessed with “likeable = better”.

And I’d argue that the Riddler stuff in this movie doesn’t even go that far. You’re kinda acting like The Batman is in poorer taste than TDK with what the villains plans were, yet I’m positive you haven’t watched the movie since the recent school shooting. You likely watched it before all of that mess. So how is that the movie’s fault? You’re just going through some stuff, the movie isn’t. The Batman didn’t handle that stuff worse or better than TDK. It keeps going back to...fans looking for reasons to nitpick the new movie so they can feel better about their old fav. Nostalgia runnin wild. Most complaints I see in this section of the forum boils down to “it wasn’t done like TDK trilogy. I preferred the cinematography and this and that when Nolan did it”. It’s always a comparison to Nolan’s movies. Like we get it, you guys like Nolan’s movies lol. Why is that the go-to argument every week? It’s a reboot! You guys make fun of the old days when ppl would compare TDK trilogy to Burton’s movies...but...that’s what y’all do with Reeves and Nolan :funny:

I just find some of y’all fall into that nostalgia thing, like “I’m afraid nothing will be able to give me those feelings that TDK trilogy gave me”. I’ve been hearing this for a decade, which (for some of you) means you made your mind up already. It’s no different than a old Star Wars fan who will always be curious about the new stuff but won’t ever get attached to anything as much. So every post comes down to “it didn’t do it as well as the old movie”. At least that makes some sort of sense since they’re sequels/prequels. This isn’t even in the same universe.

Also, the “Nolan did the same arc” is just false. @Gothamsknight DM’d a while ago clarifying that you didn’t really mean that but then you keep going back to the forum to make the same argument LOL.
 
For me, it's simply because the bar for Batman movies has been raised so high that connecting to new versions the same way is difficult, even if the film is great. Nostalgia does play a factor, absolutely, and I fully admit it, but I don't think we are alone when saying The Batmans softer impact is due to it being "a good movie" but not really reinventing anything or pushing the boundaries. I also think the same themes can be explored in multiple versions of the character, but my thing is that there's also preferences that come with that. I prefer Batman Begins approach to themes of vengeance over The Batmans. There's no extra fat to that movie or things where i go "that's a waste of time". The emotional connection to the story and characters also elevates everything else for me. There's a clear journey there, and being able to see all of these characters at the beginning establishes that. With The Batman, we are dropped in the middle of everything expected to have a big emotional connection to every character. I get why Reeves did that, and for some that works well, but my hope is that Reeves does explore more of Gordon and Alfred in the sequel, because right now Gordon in the Reeves world feels a bit one dimensional without us knowing much about him. I also feel like parts of the film attempted to be edgy for the sake of it, like Riddler singing. I still stand by what I said about Reeves not feeling like Nolan's world and that's a good thing, but I'm hoping to be more connected to the characters in the sequel. I'm just unsure at the moment where exactly Pattinson's Batman is heading character wise because to me, it felt like they were telling us the same thing told in Begins just in different context. That works for a lot of people, but I hope the similarities stop there as the trilogy progresses.


Keep in mind, most of us that say these things still loved The Batman. The movie has gotten a ton of praise, so I don't think anybody here dislikes it. I've watched it multiple times already, and I got the steelbook. But I also think it's important to be honest with your feelings about something and fully admit if it doesn't connect with you as much as previous versions. The state of the genre today also plays a major factor in that for some people, but at the end of the day, it's still a generational thing. I've had people tell me how bad the Raimi films are in comparison to the new ones, with them being called "dated, corny, and not accurate". I don't agree with those statements, and I think recency bias plays a factor, but I'm not gonna stop people from thinking that way. It's happening now with Nolan as well.
 
Last edited:
Ok but I don’t understand the mass shooters comment. Did Riddler’s guys go into a school? No. Were they sniping children? No. Was it made as a reaction to a specific school shooting? No. We’re all raw about what just happened in the States. Of course. But blaming movies or saying they shouldn’t do this or that is kinda ridiculous to me because they’re... writing villains. It’s supposed to be F’d up. Villains SHOULD make you uncomfortable. “It doesn’t sit right with me” huh? Why does it have to sit right with you? Why is comfort and enjoyment a thing that’s needed when watching a film? Or a villain? Why does it have to be warm instead of cold? “It just left me feeling cold” why is that negative? Not everyone makes Spielberg flicks, sending everyone home happy. Some of Batman’s best stories of all time are dark and unrelatable. Needing everything to be relatable or peeps can’t put it high on their list is just...bizarre. Film fans can be so obsessed with “likeable = better”.

Oh, let me be clear on one thing. I could see how it may have came off that way, but this was NOT me saying "the movies are to blame". I don't believe it was true in 1999 with The Matrix and Columbine and I don't believe it now, I'm definitely not the person who's gonna make that argument.

For me, it's an issue of A. It feels too disconnected from the rest of the movie, which I've explained my feelings on, and B. the whole thing is I feel like when Batman starts laying them out, I'm supposed to go "Hell yeah!" and have this fist-pump moment. It's not that it's scary. I don't mind a movie touching on uncomfortable realities. But it should feel appropriate and organic to the story if you're gonna go there, and in this case-- it didn't, for me. It's the idea that all of a sudden I'm thinking about mass shootings when the vast majority of the movie isn't dealing with that issue at all, and then I'm also supposed to be cheering at the notion of a superhero vigilante as the answer to such a thing. And I'm just like wait a minute, I thought this was a detective noir movie about mass institutional corruption...how did we get here? The movie hadn't effectively established the stakes of what was happening in the third act for me, which in turn makes it more glaring that it's leaning on a topical element to create suspense. The escapist fantasy side of Batman collided with the uber-grounded and dark world that the movie created in a way that felt a bit awkward to me. I'm not sure what commentary the movie is trying to make about the real life issue ultimately. And I don't mean it needs to make a commentary like "we need better gun control laws" or something blatantly political, but I at least need to feel like I understand what issues the movie was trying to raise there beyond "incel shooters= bad". The way I look at it is, was it absolutely essential to the plot to have them? My feeling is no. So because of that, I feel more critical of the inclusion of that element so late in the game. So much of the movie felt really nuanced and thought out that it just stood out more. It's not like this is a sudden issue just because of the tragedy in Uvalde last week. My wife even brought it up when we watched the movie a few weeks ago, before Uvalde happened, so did another friend when we saw it in theaters. This has been an ongoing nightmare in the US for the past decade and more really. Vegas. Orlando. Parkland. This list is endless. I mean there have been more mass shootings this year than there have been days in the year in 2022, literally. To the point that since the Aurora TDKR shooting in 2012, I literally always keep my eyes on everyone coming in and out of the movie theater when I'm at a theater. So it's something that is constantly on my mind. And I fully admit that maybe I'm being oversensitive to it, and there could easily be a cultural component to it that isn't the same for people in other countries but it's still how I feel about it. It was a minor annoyance for me at first that has bothered me the more I've reflected on it. My point wasn't to even bring up the Nolan films, but I mentioned it because I figured it would be a valid counterargument to raise if one were to point out how those films dealt with terrorism so I just wanted to get ahead of it and clear up why I felt it was different.

Don't get me wrong though. I enjoy plenty of dark stuff. I like my villains to have teeth and my movies to have stakes. Honestly, if Reeves' next films further explored the issue of online radicalization/ incels/shooters and did so with some thematic weight, I could even retroactively change my mind about it due to being able to see how that element fits into a bigger picture/theme that this trilogy is exploring. So this isn't about refusing to accept anything dark or disturbing in my fiction and only wanting happy feelings. Couldn't be further from the truth really. But a Batman movie is always this very delicate balance of light and dark, tragedy and triumph, real world issues and escapism, all that jazz. It's one big tightrope walk. How one likes all of those elements dialed in is subjective, but it can definitely be a tricky balance which is why I think there have been such high highs and low lows with the franchise and such varied opinions as well.
 
Last edited:
Imagine if the Flash movie with the two Batmen in it make more of an impact than The Batman? I am low key excited to see Keaton again ngl.
 
I have to admit, all the recent news with Ezra has made it very difficult for me to get actually excited for that film, especially considering I was never the biggest fan of him as Flash to begin with. There's just a lot of that movie riding on him.

But I do think/hope seeing Keaton again will be a fun enough ride that I can just ignore everything around it. :funny:
 
So I don't want to come across as insensitive, but I didn't make the connection to the shooters thing. While there is the online radicalization component in the film, the sequence played out like a big supervillain multi faceted plan that included an assasination attempt on the Bella Real character, which is stuff that is depicted in movies all the time. The guys that Batman takes out felt more like "Riddler goons" than "school shooters". The whole thing with the flooding also put it on an "over the top" scale (for lack of a better term) that prevented it from feeling like stuff that you would see on the news, which is horrible, but it is not what we saw on the film.

So for me, the whole third act felt removed enough from real life and movie-ish enough that it didn't feel "offensive" and I can separate it from the real world tragedies where guns were involved. Most of the gun action takes place while Batman is there, with the Riddler goons shooting at Batman. If we saw them shooting at people (Besides that one shot at Bella Real) I think it would feel a lot different and potentially triggering. Also, I think that since Riddler's endgame and revelation about his followers was supposed to be a late game twist, they couldn't really address it earlier in the film. You're supposed to think Riddler just wants to expose the corruption in the system, but in reality he literally wants to cleanse Gotham, hence the flood imagery.

I think there is stuff in TDK, particularly the stuff with Two-Face and Gordon's family at the end, that could be very triggering for some people. That for me felt a lot heavier than what we saw in the Batman. But I'm not trying to diminish anyone's feelings on the matter, and I can understand why some people would be upset by some of the stuff shown in The Batman because of the current climate.
 
Last edited:
So I don't want to come across as insensitive, but I didn't make the connection to the shooters thing. While there is the online radicalization component in the film, the sequence played out like a big supervillain multi faceted plan that included an assasination attempt on the Bella Real character, which is stuff that is depicted in movies all the time. The guys that Batman takes out felt more like "Riddler goons" than "school shooters". The whole thing with the flooding also put it on an "over the top" scale (for lack of a better term) that prevented it from feeling like stuff that you would see on the news, which is horrible, but it is not what we saw on the film.

So for me, the whole third act felt removed enough from real life and movie-ish enough that it didn't feel "offensive" and I can separate it from the real world tragedies where guns were involved. Most of the gun action takes place while Batman is there, with the Riddler goons shooting at Batman. If we saw them shooting at people (Besides that one shot at Bella Real) I think it would feel a lot different and potentially triggering. Also, I think that since Riddler's endgame and revelation about his followers was supposed to be a late game twist, they couldn't really address it earlier in the film. You're supposed to think Riddler just wants to expose the corruption in the system, but in reality he literally wants to cleanse Gotham, hence the flood imagery.

I think there is stuff in TDK, particularly the stuff with Two-Face and Gordon's family at the end, that could be very triggering for some people. That for me felt a lot heavier than what we saw in the Batman. But I'm not trying to diminish anyone's feelings on the matter, and I can understand why some people would be upset by some of the stuff shown in The Batman because of the current climate.

You're fine, it's not insensitive at all. I totally hear where you're coming from. I am probably in the minority in feeling this, and that's fine. I get worked up about this issue.

Let me dial back what I was saying, cause I definitely don't mean like "it is immoral on the movie's part" to depict this, but what I'm talking about has more to do with it not entirely working for me in terms of feeling the heroics of the final act and taking me out of the movie a bit. I want to be clear, I'm not saying this traumatized me or anything lol. It's still just a movie, and I treat it as such.

I think for me, it was just the imagery of them all geared up, carrying sniper rifles and assault weapons in a public space, we've just learned that they've been radicalized online. Obviously this was the movie's way of updating the idea of a Batman "villain's goons who dress like the villain" in a 2022 sort of way. Even though it was certainly dialed back and the they didn't end up randomly mowing down innocents (although it's unclear if that was part of the eventual game plan) I do think the movie was absolutely trying to raise the issue of incels/radicalization/shootings. And that part of it felt a bit half-baked and thrown in to me. It felt like the movie had been having one conversation up to that point, and then a different conversation started. That's all. That's my main issue with it.

I appreciate the tact and respect you showed the topic, but I am all for open conversations on this type of stuff and it's fine if we all feel differently and there's nothing wrong with what you said.
 
You're fine, it's not insensitive at all. I totally hear where you're coming from. I am probably in the minority in feeling this, and that's fine. I get worked up about this issue.

Let me dial back what I was saying, cause I definitely don't mean like "it is immoral on the movie's part" to depict this, but what I'm talking about has more to do with it not entirely working for me in terms of feeling the heroics of the final act and taking me out of the movie a bit. I want to be clear, I'm not saying this traumatized me or anything lol. It's still just a movie, and I treat it as such.

I think for me, it was just the imagery of them all geared up, carrying sniper rifles and assault weapons in a public space, we've just learned that they've been radicalized online. Obviously this was the movie's way of updating the idea of a Batman "villain's goons who dress like the villain" in a 2022 sort of way. Even though it was certainly dialed back and the they didn't end up randomly mowing down innocents (although it's unclear if that was part of the eventual game plan) I do think the movie was absolutely trying to raise the issue of incels/radicalization/shootings. And that part of it felt a bit half-baked and thrown in to me. It felt like the movie had been having one conversation up to that point, and then a different conversation started. That's all. That's my main issue with it.

I appreciate the tact and respect you showed the topic, but I am all for open conversations on this type of stuff and it's fine if we all feel differently and there's nothing wrong with what you said.

Cool. I didn't want to come off like I was targeting you (very poor choice of words, I know) for sharing how you felt about the third act, as I do see how that could feel a bit loaded because of the stuff we know happens with unstable minds who act out the horrible stuff they write online. We see it in the news.

I guess since the news clips in the film and even Selina alludes to Riddler being a viral sensation, my reaction to the secret livestream reveal was simply "Jesus, well that makes sense." Especially after you see the protests earlier in the film. People are getting radicalized, but the crazier ones are actually working with Riddler, who has been doing all his nasty work online throughout the film. The online radicalization aspect is shown, but never really explored, so I don't feel like Reeves was trying to make much of a commentary there. It was too briefly touched upon to make a troublesome impact for me.

By the way I think the movie broadly wants to make some observations about broken systems, or institutional failure, without really focusing too much on one sole aspect. It's like he wants to portray a corruption umbrella that seems to cover all of Gotham. Both Riddler and Batman are the children of Gotham's corruption, and they are both corrupted souls themselves. But to borrow from a certain classic story, upon staring into the abyss, Batman blinked :cwink:
 
Cool. I didn't want to come off like I was targeting you (very poor choice of words, I know) for sharing how you felt about the third act, as I do see how that could feel a bit loaded because of the stuff we know happens with unstable minds who act out the horrible stuff they write online. We see it in the news.

I guess since the news clips in the film and even Selina alludes to Riddler being a viral sensation, my reaction to the secret livestream reveal was simply "Jesus, well that makes sense." Especially after you see the protests earlier in the film. People are getting radicalized, but the crazier ones are actually working with Riddler, who has been doing all his nasty work online throughout the film. The online radicalization aspect is shown, but never really explored, so I don't feel like Reeves was trying to make much of a commentary there. It was too briefly touched upon to make a troublesome impact for me.

By the way I think the movie broadly wants to make some observations about broken systems, or institutional failure, without really focusing too much on one sole aspect. It's like he wants to portray a corruption umbrella that seems to cover all of Gotham. Both Riddler and Batman are the children of Gotham's corruption, and they are both corrupted souls themselves. But to borrow from a certain classic story, upon staring into the abyss, Batman blinked :cwink:

Again, totally fair. I suppose if you want to use "corruption" as the lynchpin of everything in the movie, there's something to that. IE, the Riddler's goons are just manifestations of Gotham's rot and corruption, souls that have themselves become corrupted.

It's just...idk. It's admittedly hard for me to see past an element of, "we will invoke the idea of a mass shooting without actually going there" to create tension in the third act in a way that just doesn't feel fully earned to me. That part of it is a bit frustrating to me. And maybe the movie is simply saying, "hey this is life now in America now, this could pretty much happen." Which is sadly true! I just think those are rather big ideas to drop into a film without giving them more time and development, that's all.

Regardless of what one thought of that element, I think we all agree there's gotta be a line somewhere in terms of how much reality we want reflected back at us with these movies. I don't think anyone wants the next film to be about Gotham dealing with the a new Covid variant.
 
Again, totally fair. I suppose if you want to use "corruption" as the lynchpin of everything in the movie, there's something to that. IE, the Riddler's goons are just manifestations of Gotham's rot and corruption, souls that have themselves become corrupted.

It's just...idk. It's admittedly hard for me to see past an element of, "we will invoke the idea of a mass shooting without actually going there" to create tension in the third act in a way that just doesn't feel fully earned to me. That part of it is a bit frustrating to me. And maybe the movie is simply saying, "hey this is life now in America now, this could pretty much happen." Which is sadly true! I just think those are rather big ideas to drop into a film without giving them more time and development, that's all.

Regardless of what one thought of that element, I think we all agree there's gotta be a line somewhere in terms of how much reality we want reflected back at us with these movies. I don't think anyone wants the next film to be about Gotham dealing with the a new Covid variant.

I hear you, and that's a fair perspective to have of the way the movie briefly touched on certain subjects, even if I don't quite share it myself. And yeah, I definitely don't need Matt Reeves' Batman: Contagion at this particular moment in time.
 
On a lighter note, has anyone picked up the 4k yet and if so what do you think of it vs. the HBO Max stream? I found the stream to look really good (which isn't always the case) and I'm curious if it's a noticeable upgrade, and also how the HDR is, given how dark the film is.

I will obviously be picking it up regardless, but just curious if there were any impressions.
 
The Batman has an incredible Dolby vision implementation. Demo material. Everything is crystal clear even in the very dark scenes.

You won’t get something like Dr Strange’s basement in No Way Home. Which is literally unwatchable due to how pitch dark it is in Dolby Vision.
 
I just would be curious if they'd take the approach of trying to fill in stories between the movies or actually tell something after TDKR. Mind you, no idea if this is actually happening lol. But hard to interpret the tweet any other way.

I'd love to see a canon comics run like the current '89 series that covers the years between The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises that show what Batman was up to - as in dodging police sight (ones who would report him), showing the city having "unofficial" sightings of him, Batman becoming an urban legend again (like how the orphaned kids looked up to him in Rises) and seeing him take down crime little by little with the help of the Dent Act, the finishing of the new Bat-Cave/Wayne Manor, etc.

Then him slowly realizing he's becoming irrelevant - and that his vengeance is disproportionate to the crime level. With Alfred lamenting that he's continued and growing frustrated that Bruce still is acting like they're 'still at war'.

And seeing Bruce try and feel productive as he starts putting on the cape less, only to fade reclusively into the hermit he became by Rises.

I really feel the time in between those two films leaves a lot of room for exploration. Fans have really interesting headcanons on that time period of what he did in between like when he actually hung up the cape, how slow or quick the Dent Act helped, Bruce's attempts to help the world at large, etc.
 
Last edited:
I'd love to see a canon comics run like the current '89 series that covers the years between The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises that show what Batman was up to - as in dodging police sight (ones who would report him), showing the city having "unofficial" sightings of him, Batman becoming an urban legend again (like how the orphaned kids looked up to him in Rises) and seeing him take down crime little by little with the help of the Dent Act, the finishing of the new Bat-Cave/Wayne Manor, etc.

Then him slowly realizing he's becoming irrelevant - and that his vengeance is disproportionate to the crime level. With Alfred lamenting that he's continued and growing frustrated that Bruce still is acting like they're 'still at war'.

And seeing Bruce try and feel productive as he starts putting on the cape less, only to fade reclusively into the hermit he became by Rises.

I really feel the time in between those two films leaves a lot of room for exploration. Fans have really interesting headcanons on that time period of what he did in between like when he actually hung up the cape, how slow or quick the Dent Act helped, Bruce's attempts to help the world at large, etc.

I actually think it would be make great material for a novel. Something that could spend a lot of time in Bruce's head rather than something that was super plot driven. Obviously, comics can do that too, but I think there'd be a bit more pressure to come up with some big 'hook' there, similar to what they're trying to do on the Obi-Wan show.

Which btw....if they can give Obi-Wan Kenobi adventures between Episode III and IV, they obviously could do the same for Bruce Wayne between TDK and Rises.
 
I was writing a story that tied the two films together. Maybe I’ll get back into it at some point.

The story begins with us following Batman, seconds after TDK cuts to black (riding off on his batpod into the night). And the story ends with us following Bruce, as he walks out onto the balcony of Wayne Manor (the scene in the beginning of TDKR aka Harvey Dent Day. But from his perspective).

It’s a Bruce Wayne story. With the exception of the “opening scene”, Batman only shows up in his nightmares (since he’s technically retired). When he dreams, he is Batman not Bruce.

The bulk of the story would be following Bruce during the 3 years when he was a recluse, locking himself in Wayne Manor. He’s taking pills for physical pain and mental distress, which brings on these hallucinations in his own home. He’s not sure if his mind is playing tricks on him and this is where we see other characters pop up from the first two films. It’s all about guilt and regret.

There are no “new villains” for him to defeat. Nothing contradicts the 3 films Nolan made. The antagonist is himself.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

  • Staff online

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    202,360
    Messages
    22,092,674
    Members
    45,887
    Latest member
    Barryg
    Back
    Top
    monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"