THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Post-release thread..... - Page 21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

So you had the entire film mapped in your head based on what happens in the final seconds of THE DARK KNIGHT? That doesn't sound like the film's problem, man.
 

Not at all. If you never saw another Batman movie after TDK, you would assume that he spent the remainder of his days wrongfully being hunted by Gotham police while helping to protect the city..."because he can take it....he's a silent protector blah blah blah"

This film begins with the revelation that none of that occurred. He went into hiding hours later and didn't re-emerge for eight years - well after Gotham protected itself with...legislation.

He was apparently broken by Rachel's death, yet in the prior film he not only suits up again as Batman after she dies to help stop The Joker, but also goes out as Bruce Wayne, "carelessly" crashing his Lambo in order to keep the accountant dude at Wayne Enterprises alive. 

So shit doesn't work out as triumphantly and heroically as he'd have hoped. That's life. I don't think the events of TDKR are so far removed from TDK that it's a legitimate criticism, to be honest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

So shit doesn't work out as triumphantly and heroically as he'd have hoped. That's life. I don't think the events of TDKR are so far removed from TDK that it's a legitimate criticism, to be honest.

Huh? He MAKES THE DECISION to go into hiding hours later and Gotham goes on to clean up its own streets with no input or assistance from him. 

That's pretty much the definition of a 180 degree turn of events, don't you think? Observing that isn't a "legitimate criticism"?

Wow......

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micah Robinson 

 

I don't get people equating the two scenarios. In one he clearly leaves as a stowaway or shiphand of some sort and ekes out an existence as a thief before falling in with the League of Shadows. Once his business with them ends badly, we see the Wayne private jet meet him in a field somewhere abroad where it presumably flies him back to the US. Keep in mind, he'd had his "ninja training" by this point as well, yet he didn't just show up in Gotham. 

 

In TDKR, however, the film stresses that the United States has not only had a major stock exchange assaulted by terrorists (and after that, Bane shouldn't have been able to get back in the country, either, but I digress), but now that same terrorist has a live nuke in the equivalent of New York City, and the President is addressing the situation. Pretty adverse conditions for anyone to enter our borders, much less someone without ID and money. Moreover, that same terrorist has supposedly cut off every route into Gotham but one, and it's guarded by both his men and the US army. The only time someone tries to sneak in disguised as an aid worker, they're killed almost immediately after. 

 

Right here you include an example of someone sneaking in successfully. Many many unrelated hours later they are killed by Bane and co. when they attempt to escape a building under attack. There's no indicator of instant death for all who cross the border.

If "he's the goddamn Batman" isn't enough for you -- and it really really should be in this particular case -- then there you go, he snuck in on a food truck and did not immediately get whacked. Even better- at some point during his many years of nearly infinite wealth and resources, he searched out or otherwise put in place avenues through which he could move in and out of Gotham undetected. Perhaps he pilots a borrowed ship deep through the ocean, passing near the core and coming out on the other side, under Gotham. The Gungan's would likely appreciate the fee.

Where does it say that he "makes the decision to go into hiding HOURS later"? The last confirmed sighting is on the night of Dent's death, but given that there's people unconvinced he existed in the first place it's not a stretch to imagine he carried on for a while. Or did he pick up the knee injury playing squash? You're filling in gaps of your own, which apparently we're not supposed to do.

By the way, the text of Gordon's closing lines:

Nothing about him carrying on, or still fighting the good fight, or whatever it is you're projecting over the top of it. And he quite clearly is hunted by the police. Modine's Foley still has a hard-on for catching him eight years later.

There is nothing illogical about how TDKR starts; in fact, a retired Batman was pretty much exactly where I and many other expected the film to pick up before THE DARK KNIGHT RISES was even announced.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

 

But that's not the case here. The movie provides the explanations, just some of them are hard to catch the first time around. 

The plot details are not intentionally complex in the way Primer or The Sting is, or deliberately opaque like The Conversation or The American.  And it's not a puzzle like Memento, where certain things will click into place on the second viewing.  The sloppy and convoluted logic at work is in service of the big blockbustery action sequences.  There might be hefty thematic material to unpack upon further reflection, but everyone was supposed to understand the basic plot contours the first time through.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

So you had the entire film mapped in your head based on what happens in the final seconds of THE DARK KNIGHT? That doesn't sound like the film's problem, man.
 

It is, partly, because the film goes to such lengths to tie itself directly to it's predecessors in plot, theme, and flashbacks.  I can roll with Bats retiring immediately, although I do think the scenario TDK promised would've made for a more interesting first act, because it is so fundamental that you have to get on or off with the idea right away.  I think someone else drew the analogy before, but even if you think Hicks and Newt dying is a bullshit move you have to accept that that is the scenario Alien 3 lays out in order to give it a fair shot.

Where I think it hurts TDKR is in this shift to a more impressionistic style of editing/storytelling, where plot mechanics take a deep backseat to thematic concerns.  I can sort of buy that (although I don't think Nolan was consciously intending it at all), but the constant callbacks do too much to try to make it feel of a piece with the earlier films that stopped to explain how you had to buy 15,000 cowls through shell corporations and how difficult it is to charge 150 mafiosi in a single RICO trial.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schwartz 

 

Where I think it hurts TDKR is in this shift to a more impressionistic style of editing/storytelling, where plot mechanics take a deep backseat to thematic concerns.  I can sort of buy that (although I don't think Nolan was consciously intending it at all), but the constant callbacks do too much to try to make it feel of a piece with the earlier films that stopped to explain how you had to buy 15,000 cowls through shell corporations and how difficult it is to charge 150 mafiosi in a single RICO trial.

I agree with this, although I think it's less a criticism of the film as it exists and more a criticism of Nolan's overall approach. The jump from minutiae to broad-strokes thematic symbolism is jarring, but I don't think that should be held against TDKR in and of itself. Once you can accept the film on its terms and go with the broader approach to plotting and editing it works. I genuinely think three quarters of the "plot holes" and logic problems cited in this thread wouldn't have been picked up on had the first two films not been so keen to explain every contrivance in great detail.

Originally Posted by Micah Robinson 

I realize this is the Internet and all, but....really?

Sorry. I should've said Wolverine's and Green Lantern's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micah Robinson 

In TDKR, however, the film stresses that the United States has not only had a major stock exchange assaulted by terrorists (and after that, Bane shouldn't have been able to get back in the country, either, but I digress), but now that same terrorist has a live nuke in the equivalent of New York City, and the President is addressing the situation. Pretty adverse conditions for anyone to enter our borders, much less someone without ID and money. Moreover, that same terrorist has supposedly cut off every route into Gotham but one, and it's guarded by both his men and the US army. The only time someone tries to sneak in disguised as an aid worker, they're killed almost immediately after.

 

When a film goes through that much trouble to establish a scenario, then the internal logic demands that anyone - even the hero - do something extraordinary to overcome it. When he just shows up inexplicably armed with knowledge of how little time he has left to save Gotham, it immediately gives you the feeling that any adversity the film posits is all for naught, and thus kills any dramatic tension.

Problem is, you apparently weren't paying attention because a) there's nothing to show that they knew who was behind the stock exchange, as they knew nothing about them and b) all of the events concerning the nuke, the football stadium, the cops... none of that took place until Bane was back in Gotham city after getting rid of Bruce - hence his ability to leave and come back at will.

As far as Bruce's extraordinary ability to overcome getting into the city, I have one for you: he's the goddamned Batman. After everything you've seen him do up until that point through 2.5 movies it shouldn't have to require such hand-holding to accept such things; otherwise, I don't know how you ever made it this far.

And in response to Dickson, I'll say a lot of times movies work better upon 2nd viewings when my first time has me up until almost 3am after waking at 7am and working all day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelM 

*I still am not sure what function Matthew Modine's character is supposed to provide.

I thought this was an interesting idea regarding his character:

At first glance Foley’s arc could seem like an underdeveloped cowardice-redemption-heroic death subplot. When viewed against a broader context though, Foley is quite important to the theme of the film in that he represents most of the people of Gotham. John Blake was always a believer; he didn’t believe that Batman was the killer most people made him out to be, and sought him out when he knew the city needed the Dark Knight to return. John was exceptional, and for this reason he was chosen to carry on the legend of the Batman. Foley is the average citizen. He believes Batman is a villain because that’s what he was told by Gordon, the only talking witness to what actually happened. When Bane took Gotham, he sheltered himself and relied on Bane’s false hope, again because that’s what the authority had told him. He didn’t trust Gordon about the bomb because Gordon had been revealed as a liar in the Harvey Dent murder. But when Bruce lights the flaming signal, Foley is inspired with the will to act. He takes up arms, fights, and ultimately dies defending his city. Foley embodies the victory of Batman; the people of Gotham were possessed with the will to act and therefore had overcome Thomas Wayne’s failure. Foley shows what Batman was and is capable of as a legend and an inspiration for good.

Source: http://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/x5ms7/the_dark_knight_trilogy_explained/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renn Brown 

 

Right here you include an example of someone sneaking in successfully. 

With the assistance and backing of the US government.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

 

With the assistance and backing of the US government.

And he's got ten years of treating the byways and back alleys of this city as a second home. It feels like you're just being wilfully obtuse here. The film doesn't work for you, we know. But these are nitpicks, not legitimate criticisms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micah Robinson 

 

Not at all. If you never saw another Batman movie after TDK, you would assume that he spent the remainder of his days wrongfully being hunted by Gotham police while helping to protect the city..."because he can take it....he's a silent protector blah blah blah"

 

This film begins with the revelation that none of that occurred. He went into hiding hours later and didn't re-emerge for eight years - well after Gotham protected itself with...legislation.

 

He was apparently broken by Rachel's death, yet in the prior film he not only suits up again as Batman after she dies to help stop The Joker, but also goes out as Bruce Wayne, "carelessly" crashing his Lambo in order to keep the accountant dude at Wayne Enterprises alive. 

He goes out to finish with the Joker, and then is subsequently crushed further by everything with Dent (which by failing him, psychologically compounds his feeling of failing her).  I don't see how the final final 30 minutes of TDK invalidate his decision to retire.  The final 30 seconds, however....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

 

By the way, the text of Gordon's closing lines:

Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark knight.

 

Nothing about him carrying on, or still fighting the good fight, or whatever it is you're projecting over the top of it. 

Nothing about carrying on?  Did you even read the lines you just quoted?  If he goes into hiding immediately, it means he can't take it.  He's not a silent guardian, a watchful protector, or a dark knight.  He's a depressed gimp.

Yeah, yeah, this is Gordon talking to his kid, and he doesn't know exactly what Batman's longterm plans are, so it's not technically a plot hole.  But you don't end a 2.5 hour epic with the most trustworthy supporting character giving a voice-over speech about the hero's climactic choice if the hero didn't actually make that choice.  That's just silly.

Not "technically a plot hole"? It's not a plot hole at all for a SEPARATE MOVIE to depart from the vaguest of notions instilled by its predecessor's final two lines of dialogue! Jesus Christ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

 

I agree with this, although I think it's less a criticism of the film as it exists and more a criticism of Nolan's overall approach. The jump from minutiae to broad-strokes thematic symbolism is jarring, but I don't think that should be held against TDKR in and of itself. Once you can accept the film on its terms and go with the broader approach to plotting and editing it works. I genuinely think three quarters of the "plot holes" and logic problems cited in this thread wouldn't have been picked up on had the first two films not been so keen to explain every contrivance in great detail.

But those two films were that keen.  And my whole point is that TDKR's own construction fights against considering it "in and of itself".  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renn Brown 

 

Right here you include an example of someone sneaking in successfully. Many many unrelated hours later they are killed by Bane and co. when they attempt to escape a building under attack. There's no indicator of instant death for all who cross the border.

 

If "he's the goddamn Batman" isn't enough for you -- and it really really should be in this particular case -- then there you go, he snuck in on a food truck and did not immediately get whacked. Even better- at some point during his many years of nearly infinite wealth and resources, he searched out or otherwise put in place avenues through which he could move in and out of Gotham undetected. Perhaps he pilots a borrowed ship deep through the ocean, passing near the core and coming out on the other side, under Gotham. The Gungan's would likely appreciate the fee.

Is he not the "goddamn Batman" when he fails to see coming and/or stop every facet of Talia and Bane's plan in the first half of the film and loses the first Bane fight spectacularly?

The example I included was of someone who Bane doesn't know and has no idea about sneaking in, and even they don't make it long despite having come in with associates and intense military training in their background. The idea that only Bruce and Bane know how to sneak in and out of the United States and Gotham undetected means that Bane should ESPECIALLY be attuned to any methods Bruce would use to return.

Granted, it's hard to foresee that he could escape a rehab facility full of Bane's enemies who have every incentive to feed Bruce and nurse him back to health. I'm guessing when Bane mutters "Impossible" near the end of the film, he's commenting on Bruce wasting time lighting a Bat-shaped gasoline line leading to the "exile" ice patch to no real effect, rather than seeing Bruce magically return in the best shape of his life against all odds.

Being reliant on plot and character knowledge from the first two films doesn't necessarily mean that TDKR also needs to ape its style of storytelling. It establishes an expectation amongst the audience, sure, but there's no rule that says it can't depart from the status quo of BATMAN BEGINS and TDK.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

Not "technically a plot hole"? It's not a plot hole at all for a SEPARATE MOVIE to depart from the vaguest of notions instilled by its predecessor's final two lines of dialogue! Jesus Christ.

It's not a plot hole, but neither are those notions vague in the slightest.  It's the entire point of those lines, which were carefully chosen to be delivered in dramatic voice-over as triumphant music swelled into a cut to black.  I don't think Dickson is the only one being obtuse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micah Robinson 

 

Is he not the "goddamn Batman" when he fails to see coming and/or stop every facet of Talia and Bane's plan in the first half of the film and loses the first Bane fight spectacularly?

Yeah, there's no character growth established at all between the first Bane fight and Bruce's return to Gotham. This is ridiculous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

Not "technically a plot hole"? It's not a plot hole at all for a SEPARATE MOVIE to depart from the vaguest of notions instilled by its predecessor's final two lines of dialogue! Jesus Christ.

LOL@ "vaguest of notions". A voiceover stating "we'll hunt him" coupled with Batman racing away from a crime scene as the police close in. Wow....I wonder what his daily life will be like after that? It's so unclear.

I mean, fucking Fast Five made a bigger deal about the consequences of being a fugitive for major crimes and that franchise doesn't even adhere to the laws of physics. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schwartz 

 

It's not a plot hole, but neither are those notions vague in the slightest.  It's the entire point of those lines, which were carefully chosen to be delivered in dramatic voice-over as triumphant music swelled into a cut to black.  I don't think Dickson is the only one being obtuse.

The entire point of those lines was Gordon positioning Batman as a hero in his son's eyes. Gordon even directly addresses his disappointment with Bats' sudden retirement in TDKR with the "we were in this together, and then you were gone" lines in the hospital. Instead of carrying on and being a hero, Bruce retreats into his mansion, leaving Gordon to fight the good fight on his own and become more bitter and disturbed by the lie they told. This is all in the film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micah Robinson 

 

LOL@ "vaguest of notions". A voiceover stating "we'll hunt him" coupled with Batman racing away from a crime scene as the police close in. Wow....I wonder what his daily life will be like after that? It's so unclear.

 

I mean, fucking Fast Five made a bigger deal about the consequences of being a fugitive for major crimes and that franchise doesn't even adhere to the laws of physics. 

THEY DO HUNT HIM AS IS STATED SEVERAL TIMES IN THE DARK KNIGHT RISES STOP HE IS RETIRED SO THEY DO NOT FIND HIM STOP YOU ARE BEING WILFULLY DENSE STOP SNARKINESS DOES NOT WORK WHEN IT ISN'T BACKED UP BY INTELLIGENCE STOP

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

 

Yeah, there's no character growth established at all between the first Bane fight and Bruce's return to Gotham. This is ridiculous.

Having "character growth" account for the guy basically going into "God mode" for the last 40 minutes or so would be a little more deserving of the "ridiculous" description, I think. 

Superhero in "kicking villains' asses in act three" shocker!
 

I think what's interesting/weird here is how Nolan claimed it took him a while to figure out how to finish the story, and in the process of doing so made a potentially redundant choice to (arguably) invalidate the previous film.

Had he backed himself into a corner with the end of TDK? Not sure he did - a perfectly acceptable first act could have been him [WARNING: fanfic] continuing to fight crime whilst having to evade the police (although this would have been a lot like a reset back to Begins, which may be why Nolan didn't want to go there), Gordon having to pretend he was chasing him whilst all the time sabotaging the police efforts, perhaps with suspicion growing that he is somehow facilitating Batman. You could even have Bane/Talia behind a wave of activity that drains Batman, stretches the cops, takes Gordon off the board and leads to the initial confrontation.

Even if you go with Nolan's starting premise that Batman chucks it in, you could still write a more coherent motivation for him, namely that with the Joker down and the Dent Act passed shortly thereafter, there wasn't much call for him to be out on the streets. I think the thing that sticks a bit is the immediacy of his retirement. it could have worked just as well, I think, if we had met the same reclusive, beaten up Bruce Wayne but they hadn't emphasised the fact that he hung up his cowl straight away. Alfred could still be narked he wants to get back in the fray, and he could still have neutered his company with the abandoned energy project. I don't quite follow why that detail was important enough to the story.

ETA: once that sudden, possible, swerve from the end of the previous film is accepted though, it works fine as a starting point for what follows.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

 

THEY DO HUNT HIM AS IS STATED SEVERAL TIMES IN THE DARK KNIGHT RISES STOP HE IS RETIRED SO THEY DO NOT FIND HIM STOP YOU ARE BEING WILFULLY DENSE STOP SNARKINESS DOES NOT WORK WHEN IT ISN'T BACKED UP BY INTELLIGENCE STOP

Perhaps you missed the part of him being a protector and knight as well? I assume the Dent Act wasn't passed in an emergency session the next morning, so he stood idly by as Gotham was basically in chaos following the events of TDK. The same guy that emerged as Bruce Wayne to crash a Lambo to save ONE weaselly accountant who was going to sell him down the river anyway. 

You guys getting so hung up on the end of TDK baffles me. Yes, that speech Gordon was giving set up certain expectations, but they weren't ones that were ever guaranteed. The last moment we see is Batman and Gordon agreeing to place all the blame on him and let Harvey come out unscathed. They assume that Batman will be hunted because of this. What they don't know at that moment, however, is how well their plan to use Dent's death will actually work. Thus, Batman goes into hiding fairly quickly, as he no longer needs to be out there hiding in the shadows from cops when things are on the up-and-up faster than they could have anticipated.

Blake also states that it was the last "confirmed" sighting of The Batman. That doesn't mean he wasn't still out there a bit but mainly avoiding detection.

It's almost as if the mental collapse and horrific death of the guy who Bruce had viewed as the saviour of Gotham had some sort of depressing effect on him. Who would've guessed?!
 

So Batman lays low to avoid the armies of cops looking for him in the immediate wake of Dent's death, and let's say the Mayor/the city council push through new legislation in double quick time by using Dent's murder to galvanise the populace and produce massive support. Basically, what it boils down to THE DARK KNIGHT RISES didn't tell the story that you wanted, based on the way you read the close of THE DARK KNIGHT, and that's supposed to be a legitimate criticism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun H 

You guys getting so hung up on the end of TDK baffles me. Yes, that speech Gordon was giving set up certain expectations, but they weren't ones that were ever guaranteed. The last moment we see is Batman and Gordon agreeing to place all the blame on him and let Harvey come out unscathed. They assume that Batman will be hunted because of this. What they don't know at that moment, however, is how well their plan to use Dent's death will actually work. Thus, Batman goes into hiding fairly quickly, as he no longer needs to be out there hiding in the shadows from cops when things are on the up-and-up faster than they could have anticipated.

 

Blake also states that it was the last "confirmed" sighting of The Batman. That doesn't mean he wasn't still out there a bit but mainly avoiding detection.

Fairly quickly is actually immediately. He doesn't don the suit again. I assume Gotham hasn't righted itself the next evening, and yet...he's nowhere to be found when people need him then? Because the same cops he makes buffoons of in Batman Begins are looking for him? Because he's broken by Rachael's death, but wasn't when he was acting as a confused playboy Bruce Wayne to save the accountant?

Does. Not. Compute.

Yeah, being hunted by the city you tried to protect and blamed for the murder of the man who you wanted to take over from you in your crusade against crime wouldn't have an impact on your decisions at all. I know I'd be raring to get out there in my batsuit the very next night.
 

Does. Not. Surprise.

Even as someone who enjoyed the film quite a bit, I think it's pretty silly for people (Andrew) to suggest that Micah is off-base with his reading on the last minute of TDK and then his subsequent issues with Batman's retirement in TDKR.   Micah isn't being "willfully dense" or "obtuse".  I'm not sure how anyone could say with a straight face that in 2008, after seeing TDK, their reaction to Gordon's closing monologue was "oo yea, Bruce is definitely hanging it up".  That’s fucking absurd.  It’s not at all what the film very clearly seems to be hinting at.

As I said, I really enjoyed the movie, but I do find this one issue a bit odd and inconsistent with TDK.  Not even close to a deal breaker for me, however. 

It's not a deal breaker because it's not an issue at all. Micah's not saying "I expected Bruce to still be active, but okay", he's using it as an actual, legit stick to beat TDKR with. And that's ridiculous. And yeah, I think when he's throwing around terms like "LOL" and "wow..." as if he's seeing things so much clearly than everyone else, it's a bit disingenuous to ignore the events and characters as established in order to try and prove his points.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

It's almost as if the mental collapse and horrific death of the guy who Bruce had viewed as the saviour of Gotham had some sort of depressing effect on him. Who would've guessed?!
 

So Batman lays low to avoid the armies of cops looking for him in the immediate wake of Dent's death, and let's say the Mayor/the city council push through new legislation in double quick time by using Dent's murder to galvanise the populace and produce massive support. Basically, what it boils down to THE DARK KNIGHT RISES didn't tell the story that you wanted, based on the way you read the close of THE DARK KNIGHT, and that's supposed to be a legitimate criticism.

No, what it boils down to is that two movies set up a world where he is driven by personal trauma to be the Batman, and continues to do so and be a nonchalant Bruce Wayne even after the deaths of both Rachael and Harvey Dent. This world also establishes that the police have nothing that poses any threat to Wayne Industries tech, so he's pretty much able to evade them at will.

How do the first two movies establish that he continues to be Batman and a nonchalant Bruce Wayne after the death of Harvey Dent? The thirty seconds following Dent's death in TDK are supposed to establish how the character of Bruce and the events of Gotham are going to unfold for the rest of time?
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

It's not a deal breaker because it's not an issue at all. Micah's not saying "I expected Bruce to still be active, but okay", he's using it as an actual, legit stick to beat TDKR with. And that's ridiculous. And yeah, I think when he's throwing around terms like "LOL" and "wow..." as if he's seeing things so much clearly than everyone else, it's a bit disingenuous to ignore the events and characters as established in order to try and prove his points.
 

As opposed to all caps Johnson...I mean, you? It IS a legit stick. The film is a continuation, not a reboot. Even if we fast forward years later, the dialogue and events at the end of TDK should have relevance in the unseen interim.

They clearly do not. 

Not having relevance would see Gotham unchanged, Batman running around doing things as normal, and a plot entirely unrelated to the conclusion of the previous film. The events of TDKR are MASSIVELY influenced by Dent's death, and Gordon and Bats' decision to cover it up. The only thing that doesn't exactly match with TDKR is Gordon's closing dialogue, and even then they address this when Gordon talks to Bats in the hopsital, and with Gordon's character as it stands at the opening of the film. Come on, you're better than this.
 

From my second viewing, I gleaned that while the night of Dent's death was the last official sighting of The Batman, Bruce didn't go into super mope mode for another five years. He still rebuilt the Batcave, to which Alfred says "It's been several years since I've seen you down here," indicating that Bruce had spent at least some time doing behind-the-scenes work/investigating. There's also quick talk with Miranda that suggests that up until three years ago, when Wayne shuttered the energy project, he was still being an active member of society and was trying to do good for the world and Gotham. He put half of his fortune (and a sizable chunk of Miranda's) into the project, with a hefty amount of personal investment as well, and when that went south, it was the last straw for him, and he withdrew.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

How do the first two movies establish that he continues to be Batman and a nonchalant Bruce Wayne after the death of Harvey Dent? The thirty seconds following Dent's death in TDK are supposed to establish how the character of Bruce and the events of Gotham are going to unfold for the rest of time?
 

He literally tells Alfred that it was Rachael's death that changed him personally and made him a recluse. Because there isn't a life out there for him anymore. There wasn't after her death in TDK either, and yet he emerged as both Bruce Wayne and Batman afterward. 

Just to add my 2 cents to what is already a longer than necessary discussion - at the end of TDK, Batman was presumed to have killed a bunch of cops, the DA, and possibly a few mob figures.  Under those circumstances, it would have been extremely difficult for him to carry on with his mission, even if he wanted to do so.  At the very least, it probably would have necessitated using fewer vehicles (possibly none) and focusing on less high-profile criminals.  Even then, there would always be the possibility that an army of cops would descend upon him should he ever be seen, and that he would be shot/killed/arrested.  And, if you want to add a "real-worldy" twist to things, what criminals would ever be convicted after being apprehended by a cop- and DA-killing homicidal vigilante?  Add to that the fact that Nolan's Batman did not want to continue fighting crime forever and was looking for an excuse to leave the cowl behind in TDK, and his retirement makes sense (and, as people have mentioned, it isn't 100% clear when he retired, since the last "confirmed" sighting was the night Dent died).

17 posts in and he gets it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

Not having relevance would see Gotham unchanged, Batman running around doing things as normal, and a plot entirely unrelated to the conclusion of the previous film. The events of TDKR are MASSIVELY influenced by Dent's death, and Gordon and Bats' decision to cover it up. The only thing that doesn't exactly match with TDKR is Gordon's closing dialogue, and even then they address this when Gordon talks to Bats in the hopsital, and with Gordon's character as it stands at the opening of the film. Come on, you're better than this.
 

Don't be silly. The Dent Act and its resulting coverup has nothing to do with Batman retiring, Bruce being a recluse, Bane attacking Gotham, Selina Kyle coming into his life, or Alfred leaving.

These are the major events of the first part of the movie. Most of them are cause by Rachael's death, which oddly caused none of this in the movie where it occurred 1/2-2/3rds of the way through.

Bane attacking Gotham and Selina coming into his life are direct results of Rachel dying? Whaaaat?

And you act as though there's a vast gulf of time between Rachel dying and the conclusion of TDK. What is it, two days? Three? Is it possible that over time, the loss of Rachel, coupled with his outlet (Batman) being first restricted by the hunt for him and then made obsolete by the Dent Act, has had a profound effect on who he is and how he lives? Moreover, isn't that progression of the character made fairly explicit by the events in the first third of TDKR? His hunger to return to being Batman? His rejection of anyone close to him? His deathwish?
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by rfahey 

Just to add my 2 cents to what is already a longer than necessary discussion - at the end of TDK, Batman was presumed to have killed a bunch of cops, the DA, and possibly a few mob figures.  Under those circumstances, it would have been extremely difficult for him to carry on with his mission, even if he wanted to do so.  At the very least, it probably would have necessitated using fewer vehicles (possibly none) and focusing on less high-profile criminals.  Even then, there would always be the possibility that an army of cops would descend upon him should he ever be seen, and that he would be shot/killed/arrested.  And, if you want to add a "real-worldy" twist to things, what criminals would ever be convicted after being apprehended by a cop- and DA-killing homicidal vigilante?  Add to that the fact that Nolan's Batman did not want to continue fighting crime forever and was looking for an excuse to leave the cowl behind in TDK, and his retirement makes sense (and, as people have mentioned, it isn't 100% clear when he retired, since the last "confirmed" sighting was the night Dent died).

Just to be clear here, we're talking about the same army of cops with a helicopter, multiple vehicles, and SWAT teams that he gave the slip to while coping with a hallucinating and terrified Rachael in the tumbler in the first film? 

The same army that he evades yet again in this film fresh out of retirement with just a BatPod? They're making his mission difficult? And he'd let criminals have their way because his stopping them might present a legal challenge, even though he is never anything but a vigilante officially throughout all three films?

Hmm. Ok. Seems insurmountable. Way harder than sneaking back into a high-alert United States and occupied Gotham.

So he gives them the slip eight years after the cops are used to dealing with him, after appearing out of the blue and catching them by surprise one night, and that means he would have no trouble carrying on as normal when the entire city and police force is baying for his blood in the immediate wake of Dent's murder.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micah Robinson 

He literally tells Alfred that it was Rachael's death that changed him personally and made him a recluse. Because there isn't a life out there for him anymore. There wasn't after her death in TDK either, and yet he emerged as both Bruce Wayne and Batman afterward. 

He was finishing the beef that Rachel's death was very much a part of, for maybe another day or so, which led him to further grief.  And then the Dent Act abbracaddabbra's away the need for him, so I buy it on that level just fine.  He not going to fall apart completely in the middle of a battle, but peacetime breaks him.

What I don't like is that while the scenario TDKR presents is feasible enough, it is not as interesting (imo) as the one TDK's ending posits, and retroactively dulls the impact of that film's ending (which was one of its best parts).

ETA:  he doesn't evade the cops with just the Batpod, he uses it to get to his new hoverplane which takes them completely, understandably, by surprise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

Bane attacking Gotham and Selina coming into his life are direct results of Rachel dying? Whaaaat?

 

And you act as though there's a vast gulf of time between Rachel dying and the conclusion of TDK. What is it, two days? Three? Is it possible that over time, the loss of Rachel, coupled with his outlet (Batman) being first restricted by the hunt for him and then made obsolete by the Dent Act, has had a profound effect on who he is and how he lives?
 

I listed 5 things, 3 of which have to do with Rachael, hence "the majority".

How is he restricted being Batman? He's an outlaw vigilante throughout each of the three films, and at no point do the police even come close to catching him. It takes eight YEARS for The Dent Act to reach full efficacy. Bruce Wayne was overcome by grief in two days and decided to let Gotham-ites fend for themselves for years, but overcomes a broken back and the entire US security apparatus to save Gotham at the end of the movie just because he's newly afraid of dying?

It's nonsense. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schwartz 

 

He was finishing the beef that Rachel's death was very much a part of, for maybe another day or so, which led him to further grief.  And then the Dent Act abbracaddabbra's away the need for him, so I buy it on that level just fine.  He not going to fall apart completely in the middle of a battle, but peacetime breaks him.

 

What I don't like is that while the scenario TDKR presents is feasible enough, it is not as interesting (imo) as the one TDK's ending posits, and retroactively dulls the impact of that film's ending (which was one of its best parts).

If his intent was to finish the business with Dent and the Joker and then hang it up, surely he would communicate that to the police commissioner who has come to depend on him when they speak directly to each other at the end of TDK, no? 

The morning after Gotham is in TERRIBLE shape and definitely in need of rebuilding and safety moreso than ever. He just locks himself away, gives up and grieves now that he had time to think about it? He didn't when he was sitting in his penthouse in full costume sobbing afterward and staring into the distance?

I think you should probably go into producing your own Batman films, Micah, as these character developments and motivations, which everyone else seems to grasp - if not like - seem to drive you up the wall. I think it is perfectly, totally believable that, after finishing his business with Dent and Joker, and being hit with the full weight of the grief over Rachel, and seeing Gotham pulling itself together by uniting in the face of Dent's "murder", he would hang it up. I think this is set u p and delineated perfectly well in TDKR. It doesn't work for you. Okay, I guess we're all going to have to agree to disagree.
 

He's restricted being Batman because the unofficial relationship that he created with the GCPD was, by the end of TDK, shot all to shit. Had he remained active, he would have been at greater risk without that kind of collusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micah Robinson 

 

The morning after Gotham is in TERRIBLE shape and definitely in need of rebuilding and safety moreso than ever. He just locks himself away, gives up and grieves now that he had time to think about it? He didn't when he was sitting in his penthouse in full costume sobbing afterward and staring into the distance?

When he has more time to think about it, a broken leg, 5 fresh cop/DA murder raps hovering over his head, and no immediate terrorist threats to deal with?  Sure, that seems like as good a time as any to hang things up.

Does it cut the legs out from under TDK's ending?  Yep.  Is it incomprehensible character motivation?  Nope.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

I think you should probably go into producing your own Batman films, Micah, as these character developments and motivations, which everyone else seems to grasp - if not like - seem to drive you up the wall. I think it is perfectly, totally believable that, after finishing his business with Dent and Joker, and being hit with the full weight of the grief over Rachel, and seeing Gotham pulling itself together by uniting in the face of Dent's "murder", he would hang it up. I think this is set u p and delineated perfectly well in TDKR. It doesn't work for you. Okay, I guess we're all going to have to agree to disagree.
 

That's fine. I have no personal investment like some here seem to have. Nothing drives me up the wall about them film except to see all of the potential of TDK wasted on a shit film with a few standout performances. If I feel any emotion strongly, it's sympathy toward those trying to explain away the "Bat magick" parts of this terrible story.