The Dark Knight Rises Why is everyone slamming TDKR?

[Clerk]

I actually really respect Nolan quite a bit for doing this. He chose to attempt a story that comics, by their very nature, would never dare to consider. A definitive ending. Even The Dark Knight Returns got a sequel. An ending where Bruce Wayne will never be Batman again.

He could have done it with Batman dying a hero or savior's death, but instead while playing with that convention went the other way. He chose to make a film about Bruce Wayne OUTGROWING Batman. His funk after Rachel dies is a bit immature and a left over staple from his anger and anguish over losing his parents. By having, ever unsubtle as all things are with Nolan, Bruce literally climb out of his anger and hate, he is liberating himself from being Batman. He is throwing away out the trauma and rage that created him in BB. That is why we get to see Batman, for the first time in the whole trilogy, in daylight at the end. That is why he gives up on his absolutist rules to stop the bomb (he pretty much kills Talia and her driver and also is pretty ambivalent about Catwoman using his motorcycle to murder Bane). He is wearing the costume at this point as a symbol to rouse Gotham awake like he talked about in BB. But for him, he no longer is personally controlled by it. That is why he can leave it all behind at the end.

It is a very unique and ambitious take on the character. One that may indeed peeve off some fans because it is not only saying Batman's existence must be finite, but that it is in some ways childish. Gotham may need Batman, but Bruce Wayne needs to let him go for his own sake. It is pretty much the opposite of what 70 years of comic book wisdom (the "war on crime" never ends) will say. Some really dislike that. I respect it for its uniqueness and appreciate it all the more.

I honestly also think it does it much better than Skyfall. Bond's hesitation and shaky gun hand comes and goes too often for plot convenience (can't save child prostitute girl, but can kill all the bad guys immediately after? Can't hit Bardem in the subway but can shoot like a super marksman at Parliament and on the homestead?!). Also, he completely fails at the end as Bardem succeeds in killing M. Enjoyable movie, but it does not handle its hero very well.

DACrowe, been a long time my good man.

Yeah, I totally can respect what Nolan was trying to do in terms of giving Bruce a happy ending- it just didn't personally work for me. All the teasing of "We're destined to do this forever," and "Gotham will always need Batman" put those expectations in my head that I just couldnt shake off once I saw Bruce smiling in Europe.

In terms of Skyfall, I can see where you're coming from and those are 100% valid complaints- I just was talking in terms of, "Okay, Bond is beaten and down, but he's still doing his job so lets get on with the show." We had, what, a 10 minute sequence of Bond drinking and failing his tests? Then off to the races. That clicked better with me than gross depression beard, and the plot was able to move along at a much tighter pace to where I was always sitting in my chair seeing what would happen next, whereas with DKR I was like "so whens this movie going to kick in?"

Nolan did a ballsy thing, this is correct, but it just didn't go with my own personal thoughts on why I love the character so much- that's why I dont fault anyone who likes this movie. It's kinda like Batman Returns, some fans are okay with Batman cold blood murdering, others aren't. To each is his own. Im sure another interpretation of the character will come down along the line that will have us on opposite ends. That's the great thing about Batman.

But I've said this to my friends before, once there's another 5 or 6 Batmans, I can probably revisit this for what it is, just like I can watch a Moore Bond film in terms of context. It's kinda like when Batman Forever came out- that was your ONE Batman movie for that 6 year period, so naturally it's like "aghgh this isn't what I think Batman issssss." But now that there's been 4 movies after that, I can revisit Forever and enjoy it, even with the billions of things I dislike about it. Im sure TDKR will be that way for me someday as well.

 

[Clerk]

I am curious to hear people's personal opinions on this. I would like everyone to answer this question as honestly as possible.

Whether or not you liked the idea of a closed ending with Bruce quitting and whether or not you thought Nolan did it well, did you personally want a closed ending or would you have preferred a more open ending with Bruce still being Batman by the end?

Just want to hear other people's thoughts.

I said this in an earlier post, but I wouldve been fine with him quitting if the character had "earned" it. Batman only clocking in 1.5 years of crime fighting made the "go rest now our hero" ending not as satisfying as it should've been to me personally. Remember on Space Jam when Bill Murray shoots one basket and promptly jokes "Im retiring." It kinda felt like that.

Has anyone here played Metal Gear Solid 4? The game has the same message that TDKR has of the hero putting down his gun. But since the player knew that Snake had gone through decades of hell, watching him walk off into the sunset felt powerful to me. Whereas with TDKR I was (I say this jokingly) thinking "you lazy bum."

 

[Clerk]

Also, Im pretty impressed with the civility here. About a year ago, I came in voicing my dislike for selecting Bane as the villain, and I got the "YOU NO NOTHING OF NOLANS GENIUS, GO CRY TO RIDDLER" treatment. What happened to everyone?

 

[georgec]

Bruce didn't merely quit. He made a logical choice at the end of TDK - preserve Harvey's legacy and take the fall. Enough people had died because of escalation and other things pertaining to Batman. He didn't want to cause any more crime and death in Gotham. He made a smart decision.

In the years between TDK and TDKR I'm sure Bruce kept tabs on the police and monitored crime. As it became clear the Dent Act would allow Gordon and the police to contain criminal activity, there was no need for a Batman. That's why Bruce focused on his energy project - if he couldn't do good as Batman, he'd do it as Bruce Wayne.

Of course he was set up with the clean energy project as well. And the League came back to Gotham, so he had no choice but to take up the cowl once more. At the end of TDKR the internal thread (organized mob) and external threat (League of Shadows) are taken care of. Gotham does not need Batman anymore. And more importantly, Bruce doesn't need Batman to deal with his anger and frustration. He found his fear again. He came back to life.

And in a comment sure to upset people, let's be realistic - the only reason Batman fights crime endlessly in the comics is because DC needs to keep making and selling them. Even if a few stories here and there deal with retirement after 30 years or so of crimefighting, it's still quite far-fetched for someone to go that long.

While people focus on technical realism and the lack of supernatural villains in Nolan's trilogy, the most important aspect of realism is the mental and physical toll that being Batman takes on Bruce. That is why I love these movies. The comics explore this concept, but in the end Batman endures because they have to keep selling comics. The film took a realistic, grounded approach to the weight, guilt, and mental toll that Batman created for Bruce. The guy had been through hell. He deserved to move on from Gotham.

 

[milost]

The Batman films are no more "real" than the comics. They're both fiction after all. They go on as long as they want, as long as they're successful and compelling.

The stories can go on as long as the writers (comic writers or script writers) wish. I don't want to hear that "oh in real life, so and so wouldn't be able to do this forever", no, that's garbage. Nolan chose to end it, like most people in their third outings would. I'm sure there was a compelling story to be had or made where Bruce does go on, like the comics. The reason they chose to end it is because they chose to end it. It's that simple. TDKR's writing (and most threequels for that matter) are proof of this. The writers make what ever they want, it isn't some real world.


As far as Dark Knight's ending in 2008 is concerned, for the audience he might be riding off to fight another day. Maybe Rachel's death has sent him in a spiral where he finally "gets lost in the monster", even more so than when his parents died. Maybe crime is at an all time low. Anything could have happened. The possibilities are endless. In the end they chose what they chose and that's the end of it. There is no right or wrong with storytelling, just whether you like how it went down and ended, or not ended.

 

[BatLobster]

...or riding off into the sunset the outcast, ala the classic Western "outsider". There were a lot of questions in the air as to where the story would go (or if it would continue at all) after TDK.

Stories just tend to work in terms of threes. Could there have been more stories between TDK and TDKR? Absolutely! Would we have been able to get an "epic conclusion" with the same cast and crew that where the quality level was maintained all the way through if they waited until 2016 to give us "Batman 5: The End"? Highly doubtful!

Even Bale and Oldman were contracted for three movies from the start. Yes, it's up to the writers when to end the story but let's not act like it's completely arbitrary. There were plenty of valid real world (as well as story) reasons.

If the story was broken up into more than three parts, you'd lose the thesis/antithesis/synthesis relationship between the three films. Symbolism and parallelism could become much more obscured and trickier to pull off. You can't fault Nolan artistically for wanting to make his trilogy something more concisely interconnected and unified.

 

[milost]

Yeah, can't argue with that. It is what it is. I feel how Clerk does (spot on man). I've seen this mentioned before and I agree with it. For me, this interpretation of Batman, the one that started in 2005, ends with Batman riding up the ramp into the light as a Dark Knight.

As flawed as TDKR is for me and as much as I don't like it other than Catwoman, I can atleast appreciate it for what it is as it's own movie. A "what if" where the things that occurred in TDKR somehow happened and Bruce actually pursued a "happy ending".

 

[BatLobster]

^ And that's perfectly fine. Even Nolan himself said they were taking a huge risk by deconstructing what was a very satisfying potential ending to the whole story. So if the risk didn't pay off for you, then by all means frame TDKR however you will and focus on the two movies you enjoy.

I myself was someone who was initially uncertain as to whether they even should make another film post TDK, so I understand that mindset to an extent. I think it makes the story a lot darker and more tragic overall, but if that's your preference then it's fair game and probably a good way to go about retaining your enjoyment of the previous movies.

Just like how if this rumored World's Finest/JL ends up panning out and I don't like it, I'll just ignore it and focus on the trilogy.

But I've said this to my friends before, once there's another 5 or 6 Batmans, I can probably revisit this for what it is, just like I can watch a Moore Bond film in terms of context. It's kinda like when Batman Forever came out- that was your ONE Batman movie for that 6 year period, so naturally it's like "aghgh this isn't what I think Batman issssss." But now that there's been 4 movies after that, I can revisit Forever and enjoy it, even with the billions of things I dislike about it. Im sure TDKR will be that way for me someday as well.

BTW I think this is a very wise way of looking at it. It's why I think in time more fans will be more forgiving of TDKR if they feel now that it "offends" their Batman sensibilities. More movies will give it more historical context. Maybe the sting of Batman retiring will lessen once we see more movies with Bruce in the cowl, etc.

I can even watch B&R now and enjoy it for what it is (albeit, mostly to laugh at it after a few drinks or *other* activities...), because there's no longer that annoyance of it being the most recent incarnation of the character. In fact I appreciate and acknowledge the fact that if that movie never existed, we'd probably have never gotten Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy. Somehow it seems kind of fitting in retrospect to have a movie that's as campy as some of the character's history is. We have quite the wide spread with the Batman films, and I feel pretty spoiled as a fan now honestly.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

In Skyfall, Bond leaves because he felt betrayed by his makeshift mother figure.

In TDKR, it's revealed that Bruce stopped being Batman because of his commitment to the Dent Act, etc.

The first is a selfish act, the latter is a selfless act.

 

[georgec]

In Skyfall, Bond leaves because he felt betrayed by his makeshift mother figure.

In TDKR, it's revealed that Bruce stopped being Batman because of his commitment to the Dent Act, etc.

The first is a selfish act, the latter is a selfless act.

Exactly. Bruce sacrificed Batman's legacy for the better of Gotham. I'd say that single action defines Batman as a character. Pure selflessness, especially after all the crap he'd already endured.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Exactly. Bruce sacrificed Batman's legacy for the better of Gotham. I'd say that single action defines Batman as a character. Pure selflessness, especially after all the crap he'd already endured.

There's some people who don't get that he is being selfless there, which is a shame.

There's others however who understand it, but just don't like the idea of Batman not fighting criminals every night, even if it's for the right reasons. For them it's a preference thing, being a comics fan and all.

 

[Clerk]

There's some people who don't get that he is being selfless there, which is a shame.

There's others however who understand it, but just don't like the idea of Batman not fighting criminals every night, even if it's for the right reasons. For them it's a preference thing, being a comics fan and all.

I dont think its so much that the selfless thing isnt understood, it's more of how it was presented in the movie.

They hinted at Bruce donating to an orphanage and starting the energy system- which sounds very Bruce Wayne like and something I wouldve personally been fine exploring in terms of Bruce coping without Batman. However, the holed up depression /my Rachel just didn't work with my preferences of Bruce.

It's like this: picture yourself as a kid playing with action figures. Your hero acted the way you wanted based off your perceptions of what that hero was. Eventually, a sibling or a friend would grab the figure and do something unique with it. For most kids, they'd probably go "hey, the figure doesn't do that, he does this!" *Grab figure and demonstrates* because that kid has his ideas of what his hero is. The same can be applied here. Nolan had the toy, Nolan had Batman do his own interpretation, and people like me kinda went "ehhh, not my thing."

It's not that the movie needed Batman to be enjoyable for me, I'd definitely shell out for a Bruce Wayne-only movie, it's that I never felt like I was watching Bruce Wayne on screen (me personally, based off my interpretation of the character). I could see James Bond being a brat by sexing and drinking, I just couldn't see Bruce holing up like that.

But that's just me, Im aware Im in the minority.

As you said, preferences.

Man, this discussion is refreshing. Most forums Ive been on has been "TDKR is best movie ever, kill yourself for not loving its greatness" and "TDKR is worst movie ever, kill yourself for being a Nolan fanboy."

 

[milost]

I like the comics, some of them, but I wouldn't say I don't like Bruce quitting because "I'm a comic fan". I'm a Batman fan, first and foremost (of all mediums) and for me, the magical Dent act, "peace time" with no organized crime (which doesn't matter since The Joker eradicated the mob) and a crippled, mopey Bruce is a writing cop out, a huge cop out. Especially the 8 year gap. We're not shown any of the important stuff that happened between the events of Dark knight to TDKR. The lie shouldn't have even worked for as long as it did.

I mean, not only is Bruce Wayne not needed anymore as Batman, he's not even Bruce Wayne anymore because of some random clean energy project failure we never see. Joker was the last of the flamboyant, feak super criminals (and was never heard or seen from again)? There isn't something worse than the mob? I know why they went with the story they did but it'll always have that feeling of "obligatory sequel, option/plan B". The path it chose just doesn't feel legit. After I saw the film multiple times (I was really unsure about it), I started to think, "this wouldn't happen after the Dark Knight, no way).

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

However, the holed up depression /my Rachel just didn't work with my preferences of Bruce.

I don't think he's holed up in the mansion because he's sad about Rachel

He's depressed because he has almost no purpose.

After the events of TDK,
He won't himself be Batman,
nor will he let himself have a normal life (because he made Rachel his 'one hope') due to a sense of guilt about moving on, since he thinks she died, 'waiting for him'.

later, after his philanthropic efforts failed him, he finally goes into hiding. He feels like he has nothing left he can do. He's paralyzed in a sense.

I say 'almost no purpose' because the one thing keeping Batman from offing himself is the fact that Bruce knows the reason he can't be Batman is based on a lie. Thus he still thinks that Batman, in the back of his mind, will be needed eventually. He rebuilds the Batcave, etc, 'waiting for things to go wrong'.

 

[Clerk]

I don't think he's holed up in the mansion because he's sad about Rachel

My apologies, I didn't mean that as he was only holed up because of Rachel (though it kept hovering over with what Nolan presented us on film).

I say 'almost no purpose' because the one thing keeping Batman from offing himself is the fact that Bruce knows the reason he can't be Batman is based on a lie. Thus he still thinks that Batman, in the back of his mind, will be needed eventually. He rebuilds the Batcave, etc, 'waiting for things to go wrong'.

Yeah this is pretty rad, I would've preferred this over the Rachel talk.

It's funny, because I really enjoy reading all these "what did Nolan mean" theories, which are pretty sweet to me.

Like this one: http://them0vieblog.com/2012/12/31/my-12-for-12-the-dark-knight-rises-blockbusters-with-brains/

Awesome right? Ill think "yeah, that's a good idea, Nolan."

But for some reason, when I sit my butt down and watch the movie, Im bored as hell and am thinking, "Eh, I'll watch BB or TDK instead."

Maybe the ideas were there, just the execution was a bit too ambiguous and off for some. Thoughts anyone?

 

[Snow Queen]

^^^I like the ambiguity of it. They are there, but a tad ambiguous, I agree. Now, that may not be your thing but I love when film makers do that, for examples, see Stanley Kubrick's (Nolan's favourite film maker) entire filmography. But I'd pay close attention to 2001 or The Shining in particular.

 

[BatLobster]

My apologies, I didn't mean that as he was only holed up because of Rachel (though it kept hovering over with what Nolan presented us on film).



Yeah this is pretty rad, I would've preferred this over the Rachel talk.

It's funny, because I really enjoy reading all these "what did Nolan mean" theories, which are pretty sweet to me.

Like this one: http://them0vieblog.com/2012/12/31/my-12-for-12-the-dark-knight-rises-blockbusters-with-brains/

Awesome right? Ill think "yeah, that's a good idea, Nolan."

But for some reason, when I sit my butt down and watch the movie, Im bored as hell and am thinking, "Eh, I'll watch BB or TDK instead."

Maybe the ideas were there, just the execution was a bit too ambiguous and off for some. Thoughts anyone?

I really like your contributions to this thread Clerk. It's indeed refreshing to have a nice open discussion about this without getting bogged down in the same ol' usual debates.

For me, I loved the ambiguity of the execution because in a way I felt like I watched this crazy spectacle and then had collect my thoughts and piece together what it all meant after the fact. This meant that subsequent viewings really improved my enjoyment of the film for me. I had a lot of "epiphanies" about the movie back in the summer and those were very satisfying to come to on my own, rather than having the movie spell everything out for me. And it was also satisfying to see other people arriving at a lot of the same conclusions in their analysis, so I knew I wasn't alone in the ways I was reading the movie.

The problem is, a lot of arguments ended up falling into this trap of one side saying "You're reading too much into the movie!" and the other side saying "You're not reading enough into it!" So it's very apparent that the execution didn't work for everyone. But in the end it still feels like the two camps watched two different movies, which is admittedly a bit frustrating for me. As a lover of the film though, I'll note that I don't think being polarizing or divisive is an inherently bad thing at all. I feel I have a firmer understanding of the movie having debated it on here as often and as passionately as I have. It's forced me to make sure I have a consistent interpretation of everything to back up my arguments, and as a result I enjoy the film even more. Like most Nolan films I feel like the more I engage with it the more I get out of it.

Although, I will agree that because it's such a long and tiring film, it's harder to just casually put on and watch. I think Rises will be a movie that I have to be in a more particular mood to watch.

Edit: Wow thank you for posting that great article. That thing SUNG to me, haha.

 

[Clerk]

The problem is, a lot of arguments ended up falling into this trap of one side saying "You're reading too much into the movie!" and the other side saying "You're not reading enough into it!" So it's very apparent that the execution didn't work for everyone.

It's funny you mention that, because my friends and I actually came up with a "Nolan-cycle" discussion. It goes like this:

Person A: I thought TDKR had too many plot holes for being a deep movie.
Person B: It's just a summer movie. Dont look too hard into it!
Person A: Well it's action was kinda lacking, and it seemed to be people just moping.
Person B: It's not just a summer movie. Look deeper into it!
Person A: Well for a deep movie, it had too many plotholes.

Repeat on the internet, for eternity.

As a lover of the film though, I'll note that I don't think being polarizing or divisive is an inherently bad thing at all.

Oh definitely, I think that's pretty great about TDKR. I've seen it pop up on best, worst, surprising, disappointing lists for the past year. Joblo.com did their yearly awards, and I think TDKR was nominated for both Best Movie and Most Overrated/Disappointing. The point of art is to interpret it and discuss it, so Nolan did an excellent job with regards to getting discussion. I still see non-comicfan filmgoers fight on various message boards about TDKR's quality.

 

[OutRiddled]

^^^I like the ambiguity of it. They are there, but a tad ambiguous, I agree. Now, that may not be your thing but I love when film makers do that, for examples, see Stanley Kubrick's (Nolan's favourite film maker) entire filmography. But I'd pay close attention to 2001 or The Shining in particular.

Nolan wishes he could be anywhere near Kubrick's league.

 

[Snow Queen]

^^I never said he was in Kubrick's league, I said that it was a tad ambiguous in TDKR (compare to Kubrick's very ambiguous meanings behind some of his films) and that he was Nolan's favourite director and perhaps he was attempting to emulate him to an extent.

 

[Aesculapius]

There was nothing wrong with the depth of the movie. The editing was piss poor and the leaps in logic as to who Bane even was made no sense at all. The plot was good, but it fell flat in presentation. I guess that is just fine and dandy if you compare it to the 90s Batmans as "just a summer action movie," but compared to BB and TDK, TDKR was nothing short of an anticlimax to an otherwise exceptional trilogy. I almost wish it hadn't been made.

 

[Ryan]

Definately didn't like the whole "happy ending" thing. I might have been swayed if it had been done better. But in all honesty, did not like the ending at all.

 

[BatLobster]

I think TDKR is like a rorschach test. We all look at it differently and see what we want to see. It's a movie where the more you put into it, the more you'll get out of it.

And if the movie rubbed you the wrong way, obviously you're not gonna bother investing emotionally in it and will just "watch", and won't really be able to 'feel' the movie the way it's meant to be felt.

 

[DACrowe]

DACrowe, been a long time my good man.

Yeah, I totally can respect what Nolan was trying to do in terms of giving Bruce a happy ending- it just didn't personally work for me. All the teasing of "We're destined to do this forever," and "Gotham will always need Batman" put those expectations in my head that I just couldnt shake off once I saw Bruce smiling in Europe.

In terms of Skyfall, I can see where you're coming from and those are 100% valid complaints- I just was talking in terms of, "Okay, Bond is beaten and down, but he's still doing his job so lets get on with the show." We had, what, a 10 minute sequence of Bond drinking and failing his tests? Then off to the races. That clicked better with me than gross depression beard, and the plot was able to move along at a much tighter pace to where I was always sitting in my chair seeing what would happen next, whereas with DKR I was like "so whens this movie going to kick in?"

Nolan did a ballsy thing, this is correct, but it just didn't go with my own personal thoughts on why I love the character so much- that's why I dont fault anyone who likes this movie. It's kinda like Batman Returns, some fans are okay with Batman cold blood murdering, others aren't. To each is his own. Im sure another interpretation of the character will come down along the line that will have us on opposite ends. That's the great thing about Batman.

But I've said this to my friends before, once there's another 5 or 6 Batmans, I can probably revisit this for what it is, just like I can watch a Moore Bond film in terms of context. It's kinda like when Batman Forever came out- that was your ONE Batman movie for that 6 year period, so naturally it's like "aghgh this isn't what I think Batman issssss." But now that there's been 4 movies after that, I can revisit Forever and enjoy it, even with the billions of things I dislike about it. Im sure TDKR will be that way for me someday as well.

Good to see you again too!

Agree to disagree, I suppose. I agree that organically speaking, there are one or two stories between TDK and TDKR. Those stories include Gotham overcoming the need for Batman, on the lie from TDK, and perhaps even a rematch with Joker. We can easily assume why the latter didn't happen, but overall Nolan could have made this story go 4 or 5 films, but was burned on Batman. I can accept him skipping to the end.

I get some do not like Nolan's ending, but it works for me.

Skyfall is a fun movie, but I think it has been overhyped. A lot of its perceived depth is window-dressing. But it is a fun ride.

 

[Anno_Domini]

I like the comics, some of them, but I wouldn't say I don't like Bruce quitting because "I'm a comic fan". I'm a Batman fan, first and foremost (of all mediums) and for me, the magical Dent act, "peace time" with no organized crime (which doesn't matter since The Joker eradicated the mob) and a crippled, mopey Bruce is a writing cop out, a huge cop out. Especially the 8 year gap. We're not shown any of the important stuff that happened between the events of Dark knight to TDKR. The lie shouldn't have even worked for as long as it did.

No, he did not. Dent brought 500+ criminals into a court and sent most of them packing for a year plus while Joker only got rid of Gambol and the Chechen and no one else from the mob while Dent then took care of Maroni.

I mean, not only is Bruce Wayne not needed anymore as Batman, he's not even Bruce Wayne anymore because of some random clean energy project failure we never see. Joker was the last of the flamboyant, feak super criminals (and was never heard or seen from again)? There isn't something worse than the mob? I know why they went with the story they did but it'll always have that feeling of "obligatory sequel, option/plan B". The path it chose just doesn't feel legit. After I saw the film multiple times (I was really unsure about it), I started to think, "this wouldn't happen after the Dark Knight, no way).

We should definitely see the plots that are missing out on a film. I demand to know how Wayne Enterprises started working with Lau's company in The Dark Knight too!!!!

And...if a fan thinks it couldn't continue after TDK, that's really only a minor issues when the director himself could picture it continuing after TDK. I swear, lately it feels like the fanboys believe what is and what's not.