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

...I check it out once a week and never see that, all I come across is art, cinematography p*rn and memes.

But, I also use Apollo and every community is defaulted to 'hot' for sorting.

That’s lucky, then. I’ve gotten private messages and comments today responding me praising ‘Rises’ with users angrily describing to me what explicit acts I must like performing on Christopher Nolan.

Toxic.
 
Because the SHH Batman community has been pretty great, I thought maybe the Batman Reddit page would be a great place, too.

Hoo boy, that was a mistake!

There are posters there who make it their mission to post about how much they hate the Dark Knight Trilogy and how people need to open their eyes to them being terrible – but some literally are only there to bash The Dark Knight Rises.

Like…why? Like there's posters there today making thread after thread slamming the film.

I had to leave and come back here.

This place is infinitely better. Take my advice, don't go!
Was *just* on 5 seconds ago, and saw 2 posts in a row based around bashing Rises. A quote by David Cronenberg talking about how he hated TDKR and one about Talia’s (admittedly ridiculous) death scene.
Some people saying it’s the worst Batman film??? What?!
I totally get it’s not as good as Begins and TDK, but it is in NO way a bad film. It’s quite a strong film. I must have watched a different movie than the one these people saw.
 
That’s lucky, then. I’ve gotten private messages and comments today responding me praising ‘Rises’ with users angrily describing to me what explicit acts I must like performing on Christopher Nolan.

Toxic.
Odd... honestly with 2 years following that 'community' I haven't even seen Nolan even mentioned.
 
Was *just* on 5 seconds ago, and saw 2 posts in a row based around bashing Rises. A quote by David Cronenberg talking about how he hated TDKR and one about Talia’s (admittedly ridiculous) death scene.

Both those threads are by the same poster. Click on his profile – he’s been going for hundreds of posts non-stop today bashing Nolan and ‘Rises’.

Funny thing is, Cronenberg said he’d never seen ‘Rises’, too. And the posters who pointed that out got downvoted.

Again, makes me grateful for this place.
 
So, I did write a new piece on the Dark Knight Trilogy timeline/tenure. Figured I'd post it, here!

Oddly enough, I've noticed some fans unsure of just how long Batman's tenure was in the Dark Knight Trilogy. While I do think the series leaves a lot to the imagination and that's a great thing, I do think I may be able to help clear some things up for fans!

First off, there is no definitive amount of years that Bruce operated as Batman. Speculation should fall at 2-3 years at least - but I think that given that there's a lot to suggest Batman kept going for awhile after Dent's death, I'd say 4 to 7 years is likely.

And some take Joker's "...wind the clocks back a year" at face value, which messes up the timeline.

The 2 Year Gap (Or Longer) -

In Batman Begins, we're shown Batman's first few months operating under the cowl as Batman. The city is corrupt from the top down, the mob is in control, the Narrows is lost, and Arkham's inmates are roaming free by the end.

By the time The Dark Knight introduces us to the world post-Batman's involvement, things are already starkly different. This is due to the fact that it's roughly 2 years removed from the first film.

  • Firstly, we have the fact that every indicator is that the first film takes place in the year it released - 2005. The newspaper Commissioner Loeb shows it (briefly). The timestamps on the bank heist photos of The Joker say 2007, clearly.

  • Some take Joker's "...wind the clocks back a year..." too literally. The statement is about when the mob lost control of the police and prosecutors. This wasn't an overnight thing - they didn't suddenly start standing up to the mob when Batman made his first appearance. It's a comment on when Batman started to weaken them.

  • "Logs, as well?" - When Bruce is preparing to turn himself in, Alfred asks this while holding a fat stack of record books - logs of his progress as Batman. It's a huge stack, indicating a longer history than a shorter one.

  • Harvey Dent was nowhere to be found or mentioned in the first film. This would mean that he would've had to have campaigned and been elected (campaigns for D.A.'s in major cities in the US last 6 to 8 months). Which is important for my next point...

  • During the restaurant scene, Harvey declines Bruce's offer for a fundraiser claiming "I'm not up for re-election for 3 years". District Attorneys serve 4 years. So he's already been the D.A. for a year. Campaign + 1 year served = roughly 2 years, or close to it in terms of time lapsed.

  • Rachel Dawes and Harvey Dent need more than 9 months or a year to meet, begin courtship, and reach a point to where they're engaged.

  • The Narrows is completely removed - that doesn't happen in 6 months or 9 months time. That's a massive undertaking. Time has lapsed, for sure.

  • In Begins, Batman wasn't even focused on the mob - Falcone was operating his own scheme without Maroni, Lau, Gambol, etc. - I.E. working for Ra's. Batman dealt with the mob in the events that followed, as Knight implies.

  • We see Gordon's son in Begins - he's much younger than his age in Knight. Obviously time has passed - more than a year.

  • Bruce's body-scars are seriously brutal - and scarring like that doesn't happen in a short span of time. We're looking at scars from a couple years.

  • Bruce was able to build a Bat-Bunker, fully functioning and ready to go - which would've been a very time consuming endeavor.

  • Batman has been around long enough to inspire copycats, too. That influence takes time.

  • Batman has taken care of the loose Arkham inmates - or else they'd be an issue in the second film. We can assume he did - which I doubt was a short job.

  • Joker's plans took a lot of capital and a lot of time to plan. I love to think he spent a year or two robbing banks, building up his resources and planning his eventual reign of terror.

  • Wayne Manor not being rebuilt isn't a knock against this timeline - a home like that may have taken 3 to 4 years to finish.

  • In the Art and Making of The Dark Knight Trilogy (2012) - it states that Batman's suit needs an upgrade after two years of fighting crime. Perhaps this isn't cannon, but it's something written at the end of the series in an official book.

  • Wayne Tower moved buildings.
In short, there's too much that would've had to have happened between films for it to be less than a 2 year gap. Plus the timestamps, along with Harvey's stated time as D.A. really drive home that point.

Between Begins + Knight = 2-3 Years (Give or Take)

And why do fans think Batman kept going after The Dark Knight? Well, it's more fun to imagine. But also, there's a lot of hints that Nolan and Co. left us to pick up on.

Batman Didn't Quit So Fast... -

Let's explore...

  • "You yourself fought the decadence of Gotham for years*...*" - Ra's (via Bruce's psyche). Bruce would know if he'd been at it for only 9 months or 1 year, versus years. So, years it is.

  • Last "confirmed" sighting of the Batman. Confirmed, in this case, means police can say definitively it was him. No word in the script is by accident - confirmed is a loaded term and it implies there were 'unconfirmed' sightings over the years.

  • Which, Batman is stealthy - and his No. 1 partner is the head of the police, which would certainly help him evade. Gordon could've tipped him off on how close they'd be.

  • Bruce has a fully functioning Batcave that he uses, with a suit ready to go. If he'd quit, it's doubtful this would've been built to the degree it was.

  • "You've not been down here in a long time" - indicating Bruce had been down there a lot. Which would've been a good amount of time after Knight that the cave was finished. If he wasn't operating as Batman in some way, he'd have no reason to be down there ever like Alfred implied he'd been.

  • The film says Bruce's energy project began as Bruce's attempt to help the world further. It was developed only a few years prior to Rises, which I think makes sense as when Bruce hung up the cape and felt the need to start a new crusade with his newfound time on his hand.

  • The children at St. Swithins like Jimmy are around 9 years old. They know who Batman is - and they believe in him as do others. They want him to come back.

  • Jimmy and his peers would've been way too young to remember Begins - Knight. And if Batman was retired their whole lives, they'd think he was a villain. It stands to reason that Batman was doing things to protect and help those that were most vulnerable in the city for quite some time until the Dent Act was drafted, approved, implemented, and effective. Many knew he was still good for a reason. Like Blake.

  • Bruce's list of injuries via the doctor indicate a longer stint as Batman than 2 years. He is messed up.

  • It just makes sense for Bruce's character to keep going until he felt he was useless. After Rachel, he had nothing left BUT Batman. Even Rachel knew he still needed Batman. Bruce gave up on life outside of the cave/Batman because of her death, he didn't give up on Batman.

  • Drafting the Dent Act, campaigning it, getting approval, implementing/writing new laws, and having them take effect and make a difference - that takes time.

  • Given Bruce's dedication to Batman's mission and Gordon - I don't see this version of Batman abandoning Gordon and the city until he knew it was effective and safer.
So...there you have it. What's my estimation on how long Batman kept going after Knight?

After Between Knight + Rises = 2...to 4 years (?)

Unlike the other film's timeline, this one is way more ambiguous. But he kept going for awhile. If he didn't, it'd be far more clear and the points above wouldn't be present in the film's subtext/dialogue.

And there we have it.

The Dark Knight Trilogy Batman was likely active for 2-3 years at least, between the first two films, then another 2-4 (give or take your headcanon) after. And the few months Rises takes place in.

This brings us to a ballpark of...

2.5-7 years.

A shorter career than many interpretations - but that's just how damn effective he was.

Rock on, Bat-Fans.

NOTE - Also found this link, this guy makes a lot of the same points.
 
Both those threads are by the same poster. Click on his profile – he’s been going for hundreds of posts non-stop today bashing Nolan and ‘Rises’.

Funny thing is, Cronenberg said he’d never seen ‘Rises’, too. And the posters who pointed that out got downvoted.

Again, makes me grateful for this place.
This is one of the first message boards/community hubs I joined on the internet, and I swear it spoiled me for a long time. I totally thought everywhere would be this chill and welcoming :funny:

I just don’t understand the need to obsessively hate on a film that came out a decade ago??
I feel the same about Batman & Robin. Like…. Get over it.
 
This is one of the first message boards/community hubs I joined on the internet, and I swear it spoiled me for a long time. I totally thought everywhere would be this chill and welcoming :funny:

I came to this site back when it was still Spidermanhype.com.

I lurked on the boards for years and it's not been perfect - but better than most places.
 
I just don’t understand the need to obsessively hate on a film that came out a decade ago??
I feel the same about Batman & Robin. Like…. Get over it.

This guy nailed it, today -

"I feel like there’s some watched-too-much-CinemaSins segment of the internet that really really REALLY wants The Dark Knight Rises to be like a Star Wars prequels/Spider-Man 3 sort of disastrous laughingstock and it’s just…not.

Obviously not a perfect movie or anything but all the attempts to act like it’s a disaster (or even disliked) just comes off so effortful, especially now that it’s part of the “wow they finally got everything right with [latest reboot], a perfect movie” cycle that we get every time."
 
In light of the Toy Story 5 announcement, I'm yet again grateful for this one franchise I love because it knew when to friggin' quit.
 
Speaking of that ...so.... there's a new Grace Randolph rumor either Bale or Clooney is replacing Keaton at the end of Flash, lol. She seems adamant that it's a done deal but won't reveal who it is. ...but it's Grace Randolph, so it's to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

Tonally Clooney might make the most sense. But in terms of bringing back a mega popular Batman who feels the most age appropriate, Bale makes a lot more sense. Plus, he's the only on-screen Batman who had a relationship with the al Ghuls and actually slept with Talia. Presumably they could make it a different variant of Bale's Batman, one where Talia didn't die and gave birth to Damian.

Personally out the two I think it would be kinda hilarious if it was Clooney and it gave him a shot at redemption. Plus Clooney wouldn't create a hype storm that potentially overshadows Pattinson the way that Bale might. It's also really hard to imagine Bale doing it without Nolan. But...I guess this is what the speculation is gonna be until this is debunked.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of that ...so.... there's a new Grace Randolph rumor either Bale or Clooney is replacing Keaton at the end of Flash, lol. She seems adamant that it's a done deal but won't reveal who it is. ...but it's Grace Randolph, so it's to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

Tonally Clooney might make the most sense. But in terms of bringing back a mega popular Batman who feels the most age appropriate, Bale makes a lot more sense. Plus, he's the only on-screen Batman who had a relationship with the al Ghuls and actually slept with Talia. Presumably they could make it a different variant of Bale's Batman, one where Talia didn't die and have birth to Damian.

Personally out the two I think it would be kinda hilarious if it was Clooney and it gave him a shot at redemption. Plus Clooney wouldn't create a hype storm that potentially overshadows Pattinson the way that Bale might. It's also really hard to imagine Bale doing it without Nolan. But...I guess this is what the speculation is gonna be until this is debunked.

I really can't see either of them doing it, really...

Clooney - if he did it - would have to be very meta and self-deprecating about it. It'd be a wink and a nod sort of thing.

Bale - I can see him doing it more, and I know he said without Nolan and so on, but this is more of a glorified cameo and I can see him embracing a small appearance.

I don't know.

I'd be very, very surprised, either way.
 
I saw a comment that said - "You're kidding yourselves if you think Bale would jeopardize his Batman's legacy by attaching himself to such a troubled movie and without Nolan at the helm."

I kind of agree, here.

And Clooney looks at Batman with such regret that I don't think he'd want to draw much attention back to it, at 62 - plus, would WB really reference that film beyond a joke?
 
Yeah, I'm pretty skeptical of the whole rumor myself. But since it's the current hubbub I just figured I'd mention it in here. The other thought would be if it's Kilmer and it's just a one-off emotional cameo ala Top Gun Maverick and it's not intended to set anything further up.

The thing I'm struggling with is I don't understand why you'd remove Keaton just to set up a different legacy Bat-actor for future films when Keaton was the original plan.
 
Welp. Jett now seems to be hinting at Clooney (and O'Donnell possibly). LOL

I'm just gonna sit back and see how this all plays out, haha. A more comedic Batman honestly might be a smart way to differentiate with Pattinson. And I could see how Clooney's Batman might be in line with a more Grant Morrison-influenced take on Batman.

I actually kinda hope it's true, lol. Although still would be a bold move to scrap Keaton in favor of Clooney. What I like about Clooney is it's low stakes. There's no real legacy to tarnish there, it can only go up. Of course even it's true it could still just be a cameo and only that.
 
Clooney is not going to come back to play Batman in a Schumacher'ish tone after over 20 years of apologizing for Batman & Robin and being embarrassed by it. Jett is smoking dope.
 
All we know at this point is that Keaton has been removed from the ending, so it'd be plausible to assume he's been replaced by...somebody. Somebody that would have some sort of significance and not just be a random new actor. Again it could just be a small cameo that is just there to offset any expectations of seeing Keaton again anytime soon vs. setting up anything. But I'm starting to feel like Keaton and Affleck won't be the only former Batmen we see in this movie.

Idk guys. We'll see what happens. I think we need some Vegas odds on who will be Batman by the end of that movie. :funny:
 
Whether it's Bale or clooney, I think neither will be the DCU Batman. I think both choices would be perplexing in that I don't believe Clooney would ever come near Batman again, and Bale wouldn't do it without Nolan. Thing is, James Gunn hasnt shut the rumor down yet either.
 
Unless Nolan does another Batman film, I don't want to see Bale return as Batman for anything, much less this prospective mess of a Flash film.

I think a cameo is possible. Bale wouldn't be dismissing Nolan by doing that... just a fun nod to the version of the character they BOTH helped to materialize.

Now, picking up the cowl again to play a new Batman/revamped version of Nolan's is something I just don't see happening. Still, Gunn is usually pretty quick about batting away silly rumors. Crickets so far...

Man, all that promise of more Keaton-Bats, just for it to be stripped away AND the recent loss of Kevin Conroy. My childhood is getting a pummeling.
 
I wouldn't want to see Bale in the muddled mess the Flash film seems to be. I'm even conflicted that this is Keaton's return.

Someone said it better than me about The Flash -

“DC is such a mess. DC: 'Here’s a new Flash poster. But it suggests Batman. But not the Batman from our last Batman movie. It maybe has the Batman from our first Batman movie. But also the Batman from 5 years ago. Also last year we brought Superman back from 5 years ago. But Superman will inexplicably be absent from Flash. And also we’ll have a brand new Batman soon. And a new Superman.'"
 
LOL no lies detected...but also...

It's not just DC on film. Lots of precedent for similar types of events like Crisis/Flashpoint in the comics that deal with multiverses and continuity cleanup. So in that way all the insanity is kinda true to the source material. :funny:

I the really am starting to think there's something to the Clooney rumor though. Jett is doubling down on it. Knowing his relationship with Michael Uslan, you can't discount it when he does that. He was one of the first to hint at Keaton's return.
 
WTF Happened to The Dark Knight Rises? - YouTube

I had no idea that Ledger was meant to have such a large role in TDKR. From the production sketches I'm sure most of us have seen, it was originally going to be a quick cameo in Blackgate.

I can't see Bale touching it with a ten foot pole.

Agreed. I wouldn't be surprised if Bale thinks WB is a mess when it comes to DC films and likely wants to avoid it as a result, but also, as he's stated before, no Nolan, no Bale.
 
WTF Happened to The Dark Knight Rises? - YouTube

I had no idea that Ledger was meant to have such a large role in TDKR. From the production sketches I'm sure most of us have seen, it was originally going to be a quick cameo in Blackgate.

I honestly doubt the validity of that.

Nolan seems to be a very much one project at a time. At least with the Batman films, he seemed to take awhile to come around to another one then thinking of a new plot.

He says he made the first two thinking they could be his last.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,346
Messages
22,089,440
Members
45,886
Latest member
Elchido
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"