There were a lot of things to like about this movie, and i loved that it felt like a true cinematic Epic. Most modern films seem like short stories, but this felt like a novel. I LOVED that Bane's plan was complex and made allowances for the most obvious contingencies...however, I don't see what the payoff would be for him and Talia at the end...they didn't have a way out of Gotham that I remembered...so were they planning on dying to de4stroy Gotham while Bruce rotted away in prison?
In Batman Begins Ra's tells Batman of the League of Shadows' exploits throughout history (sacking Rome, spreading the Black Death, and starting the Great Fire of London). Ra's explains that the League plans to use Scarecrow's fear toxin to infect the city with mindless panic, and watch it destroy itself. He explains that the destruction of Gotham City is merely another mission by the League to correct humanity's recurring fits of decadence and presumably protect the environment.
I think they were just trying to full-fill Ra's Al Ghul's plan from the first movie and they were willing to sacrifice themselves for it.
I understand that but one thing they want to do is tear down what is corrupt but without building something to replace it. Plus, isn't Ra a hypocrit because they were influencing Gotham for a long time & they themselves are to blame for how bad it got, exacerbating a much smaller problem so they can destroy. It was always one of the shadier things about the Leagues motives.
MST3K nuts that we are, when the bomb went off over the ocean I leaned over to the wife and said "Well, that's gonna put the panfish down for a while." :)
There was a lot to like about it, and I will see it again.
... But I wish it was actually an ENDING. The ending we got felt like too much of the sort of leave-the-door-open, franchise continuing thing we've always seen from these sorts of movies. And what I was hoping to get was something we'd never seen before when it comes to these things: An Ending. And, given Nolan's tremendous success, and loud declarations that this was the last one and someone else could reboot it, I thought the conditions were right for us to actually get some closure and finality. Oh well.
I appreciated the scope and ambition of the movie, but at the same time I think scope got so large that it started to not really make much sense as a Batman movie (or a Gotham movie) any longer. I feel like a few too many "asks" had to be made of the audience to try to play out No Man's Land in the otherwise very grounded and realistic world that Nolan had created in his trilogy.
And I feel like the Gothamites as a people living in the No Man's Land were never clearly defined: Are they, actually, the Proletariat rising up and putting the Bourgeoisie on trial, a la the French Revolution? (Or, I suppose, the modern resonance they were going for was the 99% vs the 1%) OR were they all just being held hostage by the combined forces of Bane's zealots and the prisoners sprung from Blackgate? I feel like it looked like the latter-- virtually everyone we saw take up arms and run the No Man's Land Gotham looked like a truly hard guy. They seemed like the army of henchmen and prisoners. And I think that is actually the weaker and easier choice.
I feel like there was some version of this movie that really went for the idea of Bane tapping into and releasing populist rage and class resentment... but then they punted on that, instead. There was the barest hint, like that moment we saw a uniformed doorman pulling a tenant out of a fancy building. But I feel like we could have seen a lot more of that. Were there old ladies and kids with guns? Were those trials attended by typical citizens out for blood? Or were we just seeing the prisoners and fighters Bane brought with him?
We could have seen what happens when people are inspired by the WRONG symbol to create injustice in the name of equality. By a person who claims to be doing it all for them. I feel that, thematically, in a movie that was clearly about symbols, and what two different men making use of fear can do (Batman and Bane) it would have helped if they really showed us and committed to what the actual behavior and life of the typical citizens were in Gotham during the No Man's Land. And instead we tended to only get the untypical: the occupiers, the resistance fighters, and the super-innocent like the orphans. I never got the sense of whether Bane succeeded in getting typical citizens to take up arms. And I think, if they didn't pull that punch, it would have been a scary and interesting thing to explore.
So that is what I mean by the scope getting too large, at least for me. The bigger this premise got, the harder it all was to buy into. Which was not a problem I had with Batman Begins or The Dark Knight. The way in which Gotham as a city reacted to Batman when he emerged, or the way in which they were terrorized by the Joker, all of that rang very true. This time, not so much.
Still, though, for all those disappointments, let's be clear- it is still a HELL of a movie. And one I will see again. I just was hoping it was going to be another masterpiece along the lines of The Dark Knight, and it was not that.
I didn't like Bane's voice, it never sounded like it was coming from him and it just threw me off. But I didn't hate batman's voice this time so I guess it's almost an even trade.
I liked Crane as the judge but I kept thinking if Ledger hadn't died that might have been his role and he would've done such a better job.
Wish Tim Drake would've been John Blake, seemed like him anyway. And Anne Hathaway did a great job.
Overall it's not the second one but nobody should have expected it to be. It was a good ending to a wonderful story.
David brings up an interest point about Gotham. Since I interpreted Gotham as a place that really did not need a Batman. I had no choice to view the Gothamites as hostages. If Gotham had been the Gotham of the comics then you could have a question of where it would side.
It reminds of Time Square being cleaned up not by Guardian Angels walking around on citizen patrol or vigilantes in subways, but zoning laws.
There was a lot to like about it, and I will see it again.
... But I wish it was actually an ENDING. The ending we got felt like too much of the sort of leave-the-door-open, franchise continuing thing we've always seen from these sorts of movies. And what I was hoping to get was something we'd never seen before when it comes to these things: An Ending. And, given Nolan's tremendous success, and loud declarations that this was the last one and someone else could reboot it, I thought the conditions were right for us to actually get some closure and finality. Oh well.
I appreciated the scope and ambition of the movie, but at the same time I think scope got so large that it started to not really make much sense as a Batman movie (or a Gotham movie) any longer. I feel like a few too many "asks" had to be made of the audience to try to play out No Man's Land in the otherwise very grounded and realistic world that Nolan had created in his trilogy.
And I feel like the Gothamites as a people living in the No Man's Land were never clearly defined: Are they, actually, the Proletariat rising up and putting the Bourgeoisie on trial, a la the French Revolution? (Or, I suppose, the modern resonance they were going for was the 99% vs the 1%) OR were they all just being held hostage by the combined forces of Bane's zealots and the prisoners sprung from Blackgate? I feel like it looked like the latter-- virtually everyone we saw take up arms and run the No Man's Land Gotham looked like a truly hard guy. They seemed like the army of henchmen and prisoners. And I think that is actually the weaker and easier choice.
I feel like there was some version of this movie that really went for the idea of Bane tapping into and releasing populist rage and class resentment... but then they punted on that, instead. There was the barest hint, like that moment we saw a uniformed doorman pulling a tenant out of a fancy building. But I feel like we could have seen a lot more of that. Were there old ladies and kids with guns? Were those trials attended by typical citizens out for blood? Or were we just seeing the prisoners and fighters Bane brought with him?
We could have seen what happens when people are inspired by the WRONG symbol to create injustice in the name of equality. By a person who claims to be doing it all for them. I feel that, thematically, in a movie that was clearly about symbols, and what two different men making use of fear can do (Batman and Bane) it would have helped if they really showed us and committed to what the actual behavior and life of the typical citizens were in Gotham during the No Man's Land. And instead we tended to only get the untypical: the occupiers, the resistance fighters, and the super-innocent like the orphans. I never got the sense of whether Bane succeeded in getting typical citizens to take up arms. And I think, if they didn't pull that punch, it would have been a scary and interesting thing to explore.
So that is what I mean by the scope getting too large, at least for me. The bigger this premise got, the harder it all was to buy into. Which was not a problem I had with Batman Begins or The Dark Knight. The way in which Gotham as a city reacted to Batman when he emerged, or the way in which they were terrorized by the Joker, all of that rang very true. This time, not so much.
Still, though, for all those disappointments, let's be clear- it is still a HELL of a movie. And one I will see again. I just was hoping it was going to be another masterpiece along the lines of The Dark Knight, and it was not that.
I understand your point about the ending, but if you wanted him to continue on (and risk being killed one night) OR actually die, than he'd be proving Alfred right: "You see only one end to your journey..."
In TDK, his end was with Rachel. He told her the day was coming when Gotham would no longer needed Batman (which was ironic), than they could be together. When she died, there was nothing out there.
In TDKR, Selina filled that void. Gotham no longer needed Batman & he could move on with her (and who wouldn't move on with Anne?!)
I liked Crane as the judge but I kept thinking if Ledger hadn't died that might have been his role and he would've done such a better job.
Yeah the Joker as a judge would have been nice.
Sadly that's one of those "unanswered questions" we continuity buffs will debate ad nauseum. Think about it...the prisoners were let out...so somewhere the Joker had to be released. He could still be out there...waiting...
Might (and I say "might" because one man's homage is another man's insult) to have one of the "endings" be a behind the back shot of a scraggly-green-haired guy walking down an alley or something. Letting you know young Robin will have his work cut out for him.
Just to let us know that Ledger, and the Joker, were not forgotten in all this.
I liked Crane as the judge but I kept thinking if Ledger hadn't died that might have been his role and he would've done such a better job.
Yeah the Joker as a judge would have been nice.
Sadly that's one of those "unanswered questions" we continuity buffs will debate ad nauseum. Think about it...the prisoners were let out...so somewhere the Joker had to be released. He could still be out there...waiting...
Might (and I say "might" because one man's homage is another man's insult) to have one of the "endings" be a behind the back shot of a scraggly-green-haired guy walking down an alley or something. Letting you know young Robin will have his work cut out for him.
Just to let us know that Ledger, and the Joker, were not forgotten in all this.
I see what you're saying, but I think that's a tight-rope to walk. Some will see if as an homage, others might take offense.
A slight example (pulling back the curtain) is the email discussions the guys & I have been having about mentioning the shooting during our review episode. Some see it important, some see it completely unrelated to the review, & others want to mention it to stress it's not related to the movie. Once the ep is released, I'm sure we'll get some comment regardless of what direction we pursue.
M
I was telling my wife that when they DO reboot the series I'd avoid the Joker until MAYBE the 3rd one. Unless I was overly confident as an actor, I'd avoid trying to get that role. It'll probably be the most scrutinized character in the reboot.
Wish Tim Drake would've been John Blake, seemed like him anyway. And Anne Hathaway did a great job.
As I said previously in this thread John Blake, to me, was Tim Drake. I think they couldn't give him the same name so that us comic readers would get the pay off of the surprise of him becoming the next protector of Gotham.
There was a lot to like about it, and I will see it again.
... But I wish it was actually an ENDING. The ending we got felt like too much of the sort of leave-the-door-open, franchise continuing thing we've always seen from these sorts of movies. And what I was hoping to get was something we'd never seen before when it comes to these things: An Ending. And, given Nolan's tremendous success, and loud declarations that this was the last one and someone else could reboot it, I thought the conditions were right for us to actually get some closure and finality. Oh well.
I appreciated the scope and ambition of the movie, but at the same time I think scope got so large that it started to not really make much sense as a Batman movie (or a Gotham movie) any longer. I feel like a few too many "asks" had to be made of the audience to try to play out No Man's Land in the otherwise very grounded and realistic world that Nolan had created in his trilogy.
And I feel like the Gothamites as a people living in the No Man's Land were never clearly defined: Are they, actually, the Proletariat rising up and putting the Bourgeoisie on trial, a la the French Revolution? (Or, I suppose, the modern resonance they were going for was the 99% vs the 1%) OR were they all just being held hostage by the combined forces of Bane's zealots and the prisoners sprung from Blackgate? I feel like it looked like the latter-- virtually everyone we saw take up arms and run the No Man's Land Gotham looked like a truly hard guy. They seemed like the army of henchmen and prisoners. And I think that is actually the weaker and easier choice.
I feel like there was some version of this movie that really went for the idea of Bane tapping into and releasing populist rage and class resentment... but then they punted on that, instead. There was the barest hint, like that moment we saw a uniformed doorman pulling a tenant out of a fancy building. But I feel like we could have seen a lot more of that. Were there old ladies and kids with guns? Were those trials attended by typical citizens out for blood? Or were we just seeing the prisoners and fighters Bane brought with him?
We could have seen what happens when people are inspired by the WRONG symbol to create injustice in the name of equality. By a person who claims to be doing it all for them. I feel that, thematically, in a movie that was clearly about symbols, and what two different men making use of fear can do (Batman and Bane) it would have helped if they really showed us and committed to what the actual behavior and life of the typical citizens were in Gotham during the No Man's Land. And instead we tended to only get the untypical: the occupiers, the resistance fighters, and the super-innocent like the orphans. I never got the sense of whether Bane succeeded in getting typical citizens to take up arms. And I think, if they didn't pull that punch, it would have been a scary and interesting thing to explore.
So that is what I mean by the scope getting too large, at least for me. The bigger this premise got, the harder it all was to buy into. Which was not a problem I had with Batman Begins or The Dark Knight. The way in which Gotham as a city reacted to Batman when he emerged, or the way in which they were terrorized by the Joker, all of that rang very true. This time, not so much.
Still, though, for all those disappointments, let's be clear- it is still a HELL of a movie. And one I will see again. I just was hoping it was going to be another masterpiece along the lines of The Dark Knight, and it was not that.
I understand your point about the ending, but if you wanted him to continue on (and risk being killed one night) OR actually die, than he'd be proving Alfred right: "You see only one end to your journey..."
In TDK, his end was with Rachel. He told her the day was coming when Gotham would no longer needed Batman (which was ironic), than they could be together. When she died, there was nothing out there.
In TDKR, Selina filled that void. Gotham no longer needed Batman & he could move on with her (and who wouldn't move on with Anne?!)
M
I take your point that there can be endings other than death. But I guess, for me, what felt off about Alfred seeing Bruce and Selina in that cafe at the end (and from other comments I am reading, I may be alone or in the minority about this) is that I didn't get the feeling Alfred was getting his wish of seeing Bruce renounce Batman and live happily ever after. Rather it felt like Bruce was there to pick Alfred up and get the band back together. Just as the scene with Blake following the GPS to the Batcave didn't feel to me like he was being given a mantle Bruce no longer wanted, it felt more to me like he was being recruited. Like, "Welcome the Bat Family", and "Next Time Batman Will Have Partners!"
But I get that others saw it as an ending, as Bruce being done, rather than being still alive and ready for more action. I guess for me the reason it didn't feel like Bruce had found his happy ever after and would never be back is that Selina was not Rachel. (And this is nothing to do with the actresses involved) Bruce knew Rachel. And known her his whole life or something, if I am remembering right. She felt like that person he would have ended up with if his life had been different. So when he pledges that he would finish being Batman to be with her or whatever it was (it has been a few years, so I may be remembering this wrong) that feels earned. But his scenes with Selina, as charged with attraction as they were, felt more like he was recruiting an ally than finding a girl to settle down with. You know what I mean? So when I saw Bruce and Selina together in that scene, I assumed that they had chosen to work together, for her to be reformed, and, sure, that they were banging. But I don't know that I felt that Selina had been established as that person Bruce would settle down with and give it all up for.
I also don't know that Alfred's wish for Batman still works. Alfred wished that, after Bruce ran away, he would not come back. That his choice to run away was about leaving that pain behind, when of course it turned out he was seeking training and the ability to come back and fight that pain. Just because he saved Gotham from Bane and Talia this time, and even if he views Blake as a successor rather than a partner to be, what would prevent Bruce from dumping his life elsewhere and coming back the next time Gotham needs saving?
That was why it felt less like and ending to me and more like a promise for more. I just wasn't left believing enough had changed for Bruce that he would chose that moment to retire. But I respect that others (perhaps most everyone) had a different takeaway from the ending.
Wish Tim Drake would've been John Blake, seemed like him anyway. And Anne Hathaway did a great job.
As I said previously in this thread John Blake, to me, was Tim Drake. I think they couldn't give him the same name so that us comic readers would get the pay off of the surprise of him becoming the next protector of Gotham.
I see your point, but I liked this reveal. Rather than a few people knowing (if his name was Tim Drake), now no one knew.
Plus, if they use an variation of the Robin characters or Terry McGuiness, than most people will be focusing WHEN he becomes Robin (or know hell take up the mantle.)
Plus, this is a Bruce Wayne story. Now the story becomes about THAT character.
There was a lot to like about it, and I will see it again.
... But I wish it was actually an ENDING. The ending we got felt like too much of the sort of leave-the-door-open, franchise continuing thing we've always seen from these sorts of movies. And what I was hoping to get was something we'd never seen before when it comes to these things: An Ending. And, given Nolan's tremendous success, and loud declarations that this was the last one and someone else could reboot it, I thought the conditions were right for us to actually get some closure and finality. Oh well.
I appreciated the scope and ambition of the movie, but at the same time I think scope got so large that it started to not really make much sense as a Batman movie (or a Gotham movie) any longer. I feel like a few too many "asks" had to be made of the audience to try to play out No Man's Land in the otherwise very grounded and realistic world that Nolan had created in his trilogy.
And I feel like the Gothamites as a people living in the No Man's Land were never clearly defined: Are they, actually, the Proletariat rising up and putting the Bourgeoisie on trial, a la the French Revolution? (Or, I suppose, the modern resonance they were going for was the 99% vs the 1%) OR were they all just being held hostage by the combined forces of Bane's zealots and the prisoners sprung from Blackgate? I feel like it looked like the latter-- virtually everyone we saw take up arms and run the No Man's Land Gotham looked like a truly hard guy. They seemed like the army of henchmen and prisoners. And I think that is actually the weaker and easier choice.
I feel like there was some version of this movie that really went for the idea of Bane tapping into and releasing populist rage and class resentment... but then they punted on that, instead. There was the barest hint, like that moment we saw a uniformed doorman pulling a tenant out of a fancy building. But I feel like we could have seen a lot more of that. Were there old ladies and kids with guns? Were those trials attended by typical citizens out for blood? Or were we just seeing the prisoners and fighters Bane brought with him?
We could have seen what happens when people are inspired by the WRONG symbol to create injustice in the name of equality. By a person who claims to be doing it all for them. I feel that, thematically, in a movie that was clearly about symbols, and what two different men making use of fear can do (Batman and Bane) it would have helped if they really showed us and committed to what the actual behavior and life of the typical citizens were in Gotham during the No Man's Land. And instead we tended to only get the untypical: the occupiers, the resistance fighters, and the super-innocent like the orphans. I never got the sense of whether Bane succeeded in getting typical citizens to take up arms. And I think, if they didn't pull that punch, it would have been a scary and interesting thing to explore.
So that is what I mean by the scope getting too large, at least for me. The bigger this premise got, the harder it all was to buy into. Which was not a problem I had with Batman Begins or The Dark Knight. The way in which Gotham as a city reacted to Batman when he emerged, or the way in which they were terrorized by the Joker, all of that rang very true. This time, not so much.
Still, though, for all those disappointments, let's be clear- it is still a HELL of a movie. And one I will see again. I just was hoping it was going to be another masterpiece along the lines of The Dark Knight, and it was not that.
I understand your point about the ending, but if you wanted him to continue on (and risk being killed one night) OR actually die, than he'd be proving Alfred right: "You see only one end to your journey..."
In TDK, his end was with Rachel. He told her the day was coming when Gotham would no longer needed Batman (which was ironic), than they could be together. When she died, there was nothing out there.
In TDKR, Selina filled that void. Gotham no longer needed Batman & he could move on with her (and who wouldn't move on with Anne?!)
M
I take your point that there can be endings other than death. But I guess, for me, what felt off about Alfred seeing Bruce and Selina in that cafe at the end (and from other comments I am reading, I may be alone or in the minority about this) is that I didn't get the feeling Alfred was getting his wish of seeing Bruce renounce Batman and live happily ever after. Rather it felt like Bruce was there to pick Alfred up and get the band back together. Just as the scene with Blake following the GPS to the Batcave didn't feel to me like he was being given a mantle Bruce no longer wanted, it felt more to me like he was being recruited. Like, "Welcome the Bat Family", and "Next Time Batman Will Have Partners!"
But I get that others saw it as an ending, as Bruce being done, rather than being still alive and ready for more action. I guess for me the reason it didn't feel like Bruce had found his happy ever after and would never be back is that Selina was not Rachel. (And this is nothing to do with the actresses involved) Bruce knew Rachel. And known her his whole life or something, if I am remembering right. She felt like that person he would have ended up with if his life had been different. So when he pledges that he would finish being Batman to be with her or whatever it was (it has been a few years, so I may be remembering this wrong) that feels earned. But his scenes with Selina, as charged with attraction as they were, felt more like he was recruiting an ally than finding a girl to settle down with. You know what I mean? So when I saw Bruce and Selina together in that scene, I assumed that they had chosen to work together, for her to be reformed, and, sure, that they were banging. But I don't know that I felt that Selina had been established as that person Bruce would settle down with and give it all up for.
I also don't know that Alfred's wish for Batman still works. Alfred wished that, after Bruce ran away, he would not come back. That his choice to run away was about leaving that pain behind, when of course it turned out he was seeking training and the ability to come back and fight that pain. Just because he saved Gotham from Bane and Talia this time, and even if he views Blake as a successor rather than a partner to be, what would prevent Bruce from dumping his life elsewhere and coming back the next time Gotham needs saving?
That was why it felt less like and ending to me and more like a promise for more. I just wasn't left believing enough had changed for Bruce that he would chose that moment to retire. But I respect that others (perhaps most everyone) had a different takeaway from the ending.
I think I would agree with you more if Bruce Wayne didn't die. Now he has no access to the Manor, the Cave, etc. people could've thought Batman die as Bruce lived on, happily & someday return as Batman.
I'm obviously reading into this & way over thinking it, but Bruce could work in the private sector as a detective. Maybe somehow become a Police Commissioner. Marry Selina, have a daughter...
That is an interesting point, that Blake is the only one of the inner circle who does not (yet) know that Bruce is alive. At the time, watching the movie, I imagined that the GPS was to summon Blake to come and be trained and join the group. But I can see where you could also look at it as Blake being left to believe that Bruce is dead and he has inherited the mantle. I guess I am so used to the comics' Bruce, and how hard of a trainer/mentor he is that I couldn't imagine him letting someone (even an impressive someone) take over being Batman without training them himself. But, of course, I should remember that the movies are different.
It does leave me with a question, though-- Bruce once thought that Gotham didn't need a Batman anymore. And he was wrong. As, during that retirement, Bane succeeded in filling the infrastructure of the entire city with explosives.
What would leave Bruce, at the end of the movie, believing that Gotham won't need him to protect them from the NEXT Bane? I guess that is why, as conventional of an ending as Batman dying would be, it is the only thing that would convince me that he wouldn't choose to come back.
IT'S NOLAN-VERSE PEOPLE!!!! Blake is Blake, he's not tim, todd or dick because it's Nolan-verse Batman quit, because it's Nolan-verse You can't keep comparing it to the comics when it's been well established this is a different world Anyways, no more sequels, no spin-offs. Just let the trilogy be. It's 3 nice stories that have batman in them. We don't need to continually elaborate and expand. I would love to see a directors cut, if there's any footage not in this movie. It could fix any plot holes or faulty character development. However this footage could push it up into the 3 hour+ mark and since Nolan makes movies for the masses he odviously wanted it shorter. As it's been mentioned before the story was too big for this movie Also, I welcome the next batman movie, because unless it's supremely terrible, it's another batman movie. We get to see one of our favorite characters on the big screen! Isn't that a good thing?
That is an interesting point, that Blake is the only one of the inner circle who does not (yet) know that Bruce is alive. At the time, watching the movie, I imagined that the GPS was to summon Blake to come and be trained and join the group. But I can see where you could also look at it as Blake being left to believe that Bruce is dead and he has inherited the mantle. I guess I am so used to the comics' Bruce, and how hard of a trainer/mentor he is that I couldn't imagine him letting someone (even an impressive someone) take over being Batman without training them himself. But, of course, I should remember that the movies are different.
It does leave me with a question, though-- Bruce once thought that Gotham didn't need a Batman anymore. And he was wrong. As, during that retirement, Bane succeeded in filling the infrastructure of the entire city with explosives.
What would leave Bruce, at the end of the movie, believing that Gotham won't need him to protect them from the NEXT Bane? I guess that is why, as conventional of an ending as Batman dying would be, it is the only thing that would convince me that he wouldn't choose to come back.
With Blake, Gotham could still have a protector if another Bane appeared.
This may be me reading into it, but I presume Blake doesn't become Batman, but his own hero. Maybe Nightwing, Robin, Black Bat, etc.
If it was me, I wouldn't be Batman. First, he died heroically. Second, I would risk tarnishing his legacy. Also, the weight of living up to Bruce could crush me. Finally, I'd be living in his shadow.
I think it would be best to start my own persona. Again, that's me overly thinking about the ending.
That is an interesting point, that Blake is the only one of the inner circle who does not (yet) know that Bruce is alive. At the time, watching the movie, I imagined that the GPS was to summon Blake to come and be trained and join the group. But I can see where you could also look at it as Blake being left to believe that Bruce is dead and he has inherited the mantle. I guess I am so used to the comics' Bruce, and how hard of a trainer/mentor he is that I couldn't imagine him letting someone (even an impressive someone) take over being Batman without training them himself. But, of course, I should remember that the movies are different.
It does leave me with a question, though-- Bruce once thought that Gotham didn't need a Batman anymore. And he was wrong. As, during that retirement, Bane succeeded in filling the infrastructure of the entire city with explosives.
What would leave Bruce, at the end of the movie, believing that Gotham won't need him to protect them from the NEXT Bane? I guess that is why, as conventional of an ending as Batman dying would be, it is the only thing that would convince me that he wouldn't choose to come back.
This may be me reading into it, but I presume Blake doesn't become Batman, but his own hero. Maybe Nightwing, Robin, Black Bat, etc.
If it was me, I wouldn't be Batman. First, he died heroically. Second, I would risk tarnishing his legacy. Finally, I'd be living in his shadow.
I think it would be best to start my own persona. Again, that's me overly thinking about the ending.
IT'S NOLAN-VERSE PEOPLE!!!! Blake is Blake, he's not tim, todd or dick because it's Nolan-verse Batman quit, because it's Nolan-verse You can't keep comparing it to the comics when it's been well established this is a different world Anyways, no more sequels, no spin-offs. Just let the trilogy be. It's 3 nice stories that have batman in them. We don't need to continually elaborate and expand. I would love to see a directors cut, if there's any footage not in this movie. It could fix any plot holes or faulty character development. However this footage could push it up into the 3 hour+ mark and since Nolan makes movies for the masses he odviously wanted it shorter. As it's been mentioned before the story was too big for this movie Also, I welcome the next batman movie, because unless it's supremely terrible, it's another batman movie. We get to see one of our favorite characters on the big screen! Isn't that a good thing?
Of course we need to take the movies on their own terms, even if it is hard to forgot all the things we know from years of reading.
It still leaves me wondering, though, in the terms that the movie gave us-- why does Bruce feel he can now retire? Was the whole trilogy therefore to be Bruce vs. The League of Shadows, and now that the final legacy of Al Ghoul has been defeated Gotham is safe? Even putting the comics aside and just thinking about the movie in front of me, I'm not sure why the part of Bruce that needed to be Batman got fixed or filled by his experiences in 'Rises. If anything, I feel like he learned just how much Gotham needed him. Does it not become an ultimately selfish act to walk away after he came within literal seconds of getting everyone killed?
(By a device that he decided to build and store in the middle of a thickly settled, metropolitan area... but like keeping Blackgate prison in the middle of the city rather than away from the population, I guess you can file those under nitpicks)
That is an interesting point, that Blake is the only one of the inner circle who does not (yet) know that Bruce is alive. At the time, watching the movie, I imagined that the GPS was to summon Blake to come and be trained and join the group. But I can see where you could also look at it as Blake being left to believe that Bruce is dead and he has inherited the mantle. I guess I am so used to the comics' Bruce, and how hard of a trainer/mentor he is that I couldn't imagine him letting someone (even an impressive someone) take over being Batman without training them himself. But, of course, I should remember that the movies are different.
It does leave me with a question, though-- Bruce once thought that Gotham didn't need a Batman anymore. And he was wrong. As, during that retirement, Bane succeeded in filling the infrastructure of the entire city with explosives.
What would leave Bruce, at the end of the movie, believing that Gotham won't need him to protect them from the NEXT Bane? I guess that is why, as conventional of an ending as Batman dying would be, it is the only thing that would convince me that he wouldn't choose to come back.
With Blake, Gotham could still have a protector if another Bane appeared.
This may be me reading into it, but I presume Blake doesn't become Batman, but his own hero. Maybe Nightwing, Robin, Black Bat, etc.
If it was me, I wouldn't be Batman. First, he died heroically. Second, I would risk tarnishing his legacy. Also, the weight of living up to Bruce could crush me. Finally, I'd be living in his shadow.
I think it would be best to start my own persona. Again, that's me overly thinking about the ending.
M
That's true-- he does say, "Wear A mask" as opposed to "wear MY mask".
I gotta say, though, as he won't have Wayne's money or R&D, if he doesn't use the bat suit, his Nightwing costume is going to be pretty low-rent on just his I-used-to-be-a-cop savings!
IT'S NOLAN-VERSE PEOPLE!!!! Blake is Blake, he's not tim, todd or dick because it's Nolan-verse Batman quit, because it's Nolan-verse You can't keep comparing it to the comics when it's been well established this is a different world
I think it's ok that we wish it would've been Tim without having the "nolan-verse" thrown out there.
He used Bruce Wayne as a name so it's not a far fetched idea.
If they didn't want this compared to a comic in any manner whatsoever he should have called it Holy Terror or something like that.
That is an interesting point, that Blake is the only one of the inner circle who does not (yet) know that Bruce is alive. At the time, watching the movie, I imagined that the GPS was to summon Blake to come and be trained and join the group. But I can see where you could also look at it as Blake being left to believe that Bruce is dead and he has inherited the mantle. I guess I am so used to the comics' Bruce, and how hard of a trainer/mentor he is that I couldn't imagine him letting someone (even an impressive someone) take over being Batman without training them himself. But, of course, I should remember that the movies are different.
It does leave me with a question, though-- Bruce once thought that Gotham didn't need a Batman anymore. And he was wrong. As, during that retirement, Bane succeeded in filling the infrastructure of the entire city with explosives.
What would leave Bruce, at the end of the movie, believing that Gotham won't need him to protect them from the NEXT Bane? I guess that is why, as conventional of an ending as Batman dying would be, it is the only thing that would convince me that he wouldn't choose to come back.
With Blake, Gotham could still have a protector if another Bane appeared.
This may be me reading into it, but I presume Blake doesn't become Batman, but his own hero. Maybe Nightwing, Robin, Black Bat, etc.
If it was me, I wouldn't be Batman. First, he died heroically. Second, I would risk tarnishing his legacy. Also, the weight of living up to Bruce could crush me. Finally, I'd be living in his shadow.
I think it would be best to start my own persona. Again, that's me overly thinking about the ending.
M
That's true-- he does say, "Wear A mask" as opposed to "wear MY mask".
I gotta say, though, as he won't have Wayne's money or R&D, if he doesn't use the bat suit, his Nightwing costume is going to be pretty low-rent on just his I-used-to-be-a-cop savings!
Not sure what kind of condition the batsuit is in. We only saw one in the cave & one in the bunker. Bane thrashed the one from the cave & did who knows what with it.
We have no idea what happened to the one from the Bunker. It at least has a hole in the side by the ribs from Talia. Did Bruce return to the cave post-explosion?
Plus, wasn't Bruce taller than Blake? More embarassing than scaring when you're wearing a suit too big for you! Ackward regardless.
That is an interesting point, that Blake is the only one of the inner circle who does not (yet) know that Bruce is alive. At the time, watching the movie, I imagined that the GPS was to summon Blake to come and be trained and join the group. But I can see where you could also look at it as Blake being left to believe that Bruce is dead and he has inherited the mantle. I guess I am so used to the comics' Bruce, and how hard of a trainer/mentor he is that I couldn't imagine him letting someone (even an impressive someone) take over being Batman without training them himself. But, of course, I should remember that the movies are different.
It does leave me with a question, though-- Bruce once thought that Gotham didn't need a Batman anymore. And he was wrong. As, during that retirement, Bane succeeded in filling the infrastructure of the entire city with explosives.
What would leave Bruce, at the end of the movie, believing that Gotham won't need him to protect them from the NEXT Bane? I guess that is why, as conventional of an ending as Batman dying would be, it is the only thing that would convince me that he wouldn't choose to come back.
With Blake, Gotham could still have a protector if another Bane appeared.
This may be me reading into it, but I presume Blake doesn't become Batman, but his own hero. Maybe Nightwing, Robin, Black Bat, etc.
If it was me, I wouldn't be Batman. First, he died heroically. Second, I would risk tarnishing his legacy. Also, the weight of living up to Bruce could crush me. Finally, I'd be living in his shadow.
I think it would be best to start my own persona. Again, that's me overly thinking about the ending.
M
That's true-- he does say, "Wear A mask" as opposed to "wear MY mask".
I gotta say, though, as he won't have Wayne's money or R&D, if he doesn't use the bat suit, his Nightwing costume is going to be pretty low-rent on just his I-used-to-be-a-cop savings!
Not sure what kind of condition the batsuit is in. We only saw one in the cave & one in the bunker. Bane thrashed the one from the cave & did who knows what with it.
We have no idea what happened to the one from the Bunker. It at least has a hole in the side by the ribs from Talia. Did Bruce return to the cave post-explosion?
M
That's a good point. If he did return that one to the cave, it would be letting Blake in on him still being alive. I just figured there were more.
Sure his city might still need a protector, but it doesn't neccesarily need HIM, that's what Blake is for. Judging on the time differences between these movies, I would guess Blake would have plenty of time to train up before Gotham was truly in peril again
That is an interesting point, that Blake is the only one of the inner circle who does not (yet) know that Bruce is alive. At the time, watching the movie, I imagined that the GPS was to summon Blake to come and be trained and join the group. But I can see where you could also look at it as Blake being left to believe that Bruce is dead and he has inherited the mantle. I guess I am so used to the comics' Bruce, and how hard of a trainer/mentor he is that I couldn't imagine him letting someone (even an impressive someone) take over being Batman without training them himself. But, of course, I should remember that the movies are different.
It does leave me with a question, though-- Bruce once thought that Gotham didn't need a Batman anymore. And he was wrong. As, during that retirement, Bane succeeded in filling the infrastructure of the entire city with explosives.
What would leave Bruce, at the end of the movie, believing that Gotham won't need him to protect them from the NEXT Bane? I guess that is why, as conventional of an ending as Batman dying would be, it is the only thing that would convince me that he wouldn't choose to come back.
With Blake, Gotham could still have a protector if another Bane appeared.
This may be me reading into it, but I presume Blake doesn't become Batman, but his own hero. Maybe Nightwing, Robin, Black Bat, etc.
If it was me, I wouldn't be Batman. First, he died heroically. Second, I would risk tarnishing his legacy. Also, the weight of living up to Bruce could crush me. Finally, I'd be living in his shadow.
I think it would be best to start my own persona. Again, that's me overly thinking about the ending.
M
That's true-- he does say, "Wear A mask" as opposed to "wear MY mask".
I gotta say, though, as he won't have Wayne's money or R&D, if he doesn't use the bat suit, his Nightwing costume is going to be pretty low-rent on just his I-used-to-be-a-cop savings!
Not sure what kind of condition the batsuit is in. We only saw one in the cave & one in the bunker. Bane thrashed the one from the cave & did who knows what with it.
We have no idea what happened to the one from the Bunker. It at least has a hole in the side by the ribs from Talia. Did Bruce return to the cave post-explosion?
M
That's a good point. If he did return that one to the cave, it would be letting Blake in on him still being alive. I just figured there were more.
We're over thinking the crap out of this, but who's to say the original Batman Begins suit isn't in the cave?
That is an interesting point, that Blake is the only one of the inner circle who does not (yet) know that Bruce is alive. At the time, watching the movie, I imagined that the GPS was to summon Blake to come and be trained and join the group. But I can see where you could also look at it as Blake being left to believe that Bruce is dead and he has inherited the mantle. I guess I am so used to the comics' Bruce, and how hard of a trainer/mentor he is that I couldn't imagine him letting someone (even an impressive someone) take over being Batman without training them himself. But, of course, I should remember that the movies are different.
It does leave me with a question, though-- Bruce once thought that Gotham didn't need a Batman anymore. And he was wrong. As, during that retirement, Bane succeeded in filling the infrastructure of the entire city with explosives.
What would leave Bruce, at the end of the movie, believing that Gotham won't need him to protect them from the NEXT Bane? I guess that is why, as conventional of an ending as Batman dying would be, it is the only thing that would convince me that he wouldn't choose to come back.
With Blake, Gotham could still have a protector if another Bane appeared.
This may be me reading into it, but I presume Blake doesn't become Batman, but his own hero. Maybe Nightwing, Robin, Black Bat, etc.
If it was me, I wouldn't be Batman. First, he died heroically. Second, I would risk tarnishing his legacy. Also, the weight of living up to Bruce could crush me. Finally, I'd be living in his shadow.
I think it would be best to start my own persona. Again, that's me overly thinking about the ending.
M
That's true-- he does say, "Wear A mask" as opposed to "wear MY mask".
I gotta say, though, as he won't have Wayne's money or R&D, if he doesn't use the bat suit, his Nightwing costume is going to be pretty low-rent on just his I-used-to-be-a-cop savings!
Not sure what kind of condition the batsuit is in. We only saw one in the cave & one in the bunker. Bane thrashed the one from the cave & did who knows what with it.
We have no idea what happened to the one from the Bunker. It at least has a hole in the side by the ribs from Talia. Did Bruce return to the cave post-explosion?
M
That's a good point. If he did return that one to the cave, it would be letting Blake in on him still being alive. I just figured there were more.
We're over thinking the crap out of this, but who's to say the original Batman Begins suit isn't in the cave?
M
Yep. That would work. And he could always spray paint it red or something.
Sure his city might still need a protector, but it doesn't neccesarily need HIM, that's what Blake is for. Judging on the time differences between these movies, I would guess Blake would have plenty of time to train up before Gotham was truly in peril again
I guess. It's just that, the last time Bruce retired for his own needs (to mourn Rachel) enemies of Gotham had the opportunity to plot and plan and, quite literally, lay their groundwork.
When you think about it, in retrospect, the movie Bruce thought he defeated The League of Shadows in Begins, but he was wrong, as he didn't know about Talia and Bane, and look at what they built while he wasn't watching. And who knows what else they built? Could there not be another Talia out there?
He put Scarecrow and Joker away, but Scarecrow is still free at the end of the movie and, while he is never mentioned, if we want to pretend all this stuff is real you would have to reason the Joker is free, too.
Gotham is in ruins. Most of the police are dead. There must be all sorts of lose weapons and remaining prisoners and radicalized people around (if Bane did, indeed, succeed in inspiring people to rise up).
This is when Bruce decided it is time to go travel Europe to drink coffee and make babies, because Blake will just figure it all out?
I guess that brings me back to my initial reaction/confusion with the ending. Why, when I saw it, I honestly didn't read that scene as Bruce deciding to hand over Batman and retire. It just doesn't seem a believable time for him to do it. I took it that he had buried Bruce Wayne so he could actually focus on being Batman full-time, only now he has allies.
Sure his city might still need a protector, but it doesn't neccesarily need HIM, that's what Blake is for. Judging on the time differences between these movies, I would guess Blake would have plenty of time to train up before Gotham was truly in peril again
I guess. It's just that, the last time Bruce retired for his own needs (to mourn Rachel) enemies of Gotham had the opportunity to plot and plan and, quite literally, lay their groundwork.
When you think about it, in retrospect, the movie Bruce thought he defeated The League of Shadows in Begins, but he was wrong, as he didn't know about Talia and Bane, and look at what they built while he wasn't watching. And who knows what else they built? Could there not be another Talia out there?
He put Scarecrow and Joker away, but Scarecrow is still free at the end of the movie and, while he is never mentioned, if we want to pretend all this stuff is real you would have to reason the Joker is free, too.
Gotham is in ruins. Most of the police are dead. There must be all sorts of lose weapons and remaining prisoners and radicalized people around (if Bane did, indeed, succeed in inspiring people to rise up).
This is when Bruce decided it is time to go travel Europe to drink coffee and make babies, because Blake will just figure it all out?
I guess that brings me back to my initial reaction/confusion with the ending. Why, when I saw it, I honestly didn't read that scene as Bruce deciding to hand over Batman and retire. It just doesn't seem a believable time for him to do it. I took it that he had buried Bruce Wayne so he could actually focus on being Batman full-time, only now he has allies.
I think Talia & Bane had a successful plan to put Gotham into No Man's Land was because Bruce became a recluse. Batman could've disappeared into the darkness as the bad guy. Had Bruce not been a recluse, he would've been more active in his company, which would've prevented Daggett from buying out his company.
Granted, they could've had a different plan, but without Bruce's self-imposed exile, it wouldn't have been as easy.
@David_D i agree about the confused nature of the occupation. ostensibly the community was complicit in the occupation but that seems inconsistent with the set up of Gotham as experiencing a crime free golden age.
I was also a little confused by Gordon's shame over the Dent Act which appeared to allow for the holding of prisoners without possibility of parole or without trial, something? i didn't track that completely? the idea was the Dent Act was in some way unjust. i needed some clarification there.
and again i didn't get enough of Batman on screen. i'm the guy who had a beef with The Joker taking center stage in Dark Knight because i felt like it should have been called The Joker Show. and don;t get em wrong DK was a great movie but i feel like in a Batman movie Batman should be the most interesting character on the screen and that hasn't been the case int he last couple movies. in DKR i felt like Batman was largely incedental to the story.
Comments
... But I wish it was actually an ENDING. The ending we got felt like too much of the sort of leave-the-door-open, franchise continuing thing we've always seen from these sorts of movies. And what I was hoping to get was something we'd never seen before when it comes to these things: An Ending. And, given Nolan's tremendous success, and loud declarations that this was the last one and someone else could reboot it, I thought the conditions were right for us to actually get some closure and finality. Oh well.
I appreciated the scope and ambition of the movie, but at the same time I think scope got so large that it started to not really make much sense as a Batman movie (or a Gotham movie) any longer. I feel like a few too many "asks" had to be made of the audience to try to play out No Man's Land in the otherwise very grounded and realistic world that Nolan had created in his trilogy.
And I feel like the Gothamites as a people living in the No Man's Land were never clearly defined: Are they, actually, the Proletariat rising up and putting the Bourgeoisie on trial, a la the French Revolution? (Or, I suppose, the modern resonance they were going for was the 99% vs the 1%) OR were they all just being held hostage by the combined forces of Bane's zealots and the prisoners sprung from Blackgate? I feel like it looked like the latter-- virtually everyone we saw take up arms and run the No Man's Land Gotham looked like a truly hard guy. They seemed like the army of henchmen and prisoners. And I think that is actually the weaker and easier choice.
I feel like there was some version of this movie that really went for the idea of Bane tapping into and releasing populist rage and class resentment... but then they punted on that, instead. There was the barest hint, like that moment we saw a uniformed doorman pulling a tenant out of a fancy building. But I feel like we could have seen a lot more of that. Were there old ladies and kids with guns? Were those trials attended by typical citizens out for blood? Or were we just seeing the prisoners and fighters Bane brought with him?
We could have seen what happens when people are inspired by the WRONG symbol to create injustice in the name of equality. By a person who claims to be doing it all for them. I feel that, thematically, in a movie that was clearly about symbols, and what two different men making use of fear can do (Batman and Bane) it would have helped if they really showed us and committed to what the actual behavior and life of the typical citizens were in Gotham during the No Man's Land. And instead we tended to only get the untypical: the occupiers, the resistance fighters, and the super-innocent like the orphans. I never got the sense of whether Bane succeeded in getting typical citizens to take up arms. And I think, if they didn't pull that punch, it would have been a scary and interesting thing to explore.
So that is what I mean by the scope getting too large, at least for me. The bigger this premise got, the harder it all was to buy into. Which was not a problem I had with Batman Begins or The Dark Knight. The way in which Gotham as a city reacted to Batman when he emerged, or the way in which they were terrorized by the Joker, all of that rang very true. This time, not so much.
Still, though, for all those disappointments, let's be clear- it is still a HELL of a movie. And one I will see again. I just was hoping it was going to be another masterpiece along the lines of The Dark Knight, and it was not that.
I liked Crane as the judge but I kept thinking if Ledger hadn't died that might have been his role and he would've done such a better job.
Wish Tim Drake would've been John Blake, seemed like him anyway. And Anne Hathaway did a great job.
Overall it's not the second one but nobody should have expected it to be. It was a good ending to a wonderful story.
It reminds of Time Square being cleaned up not by Guardian Angels walking around on citizen patrol or vigilantes in subways, but zoning laws.
In TDK, his end was with Rachel. He told her the day was coming when Gotham would no longer needed Batman (which was ironic), than they could be together. When she died, there was nothing out there.
In TDKR, Selina filled that void. Gotham no longer needed Batman & he could move on with her (and who wouldn't move on with Anne?!)
M
Might (and I say "might" because one man's homage is another man's insult) to have one of the "endings" be a behind the back shot of a scraggly-green-haired guy walking down an alley or something. Letting you know young Robin will have his work cut out for him.
Just to let us know that Ledger, and the Joker, were not forgotten in all this.
A slight example (pulling back the curtain) is the email discussions the guys & I have been having about mentioning the shooting during our review episode. Some see it important, some see it completely unrelated to the review, & others want to mention it to stress it's not related to the movie. Once the ep is released, I'm sure we'll get some comment regardless of what direction we pursue.
M
I was telling my wife that when they DO reboot the series I'd avoid the Joker until MAYBE the 3rd one. Unless I was overly confident as an actor, I'd avoid trying to get that role. It'll probably be the most scrutinized character in the reboot.
But I get that others saw it as an ending, as Bruce being done, rather than being still alive and ready for more action. I guess for me the reason it didn't feel like Bruce had found his happy ever after and would never be back is that Selina was not Rachel. (And this is nothing to do with the actresses involved) Bruce knew Rachel. And known her his whole life or something, if I am remembering right. She felt like that person he would have ended up with if his life had been different. So when he pledges that he would finish being Batman to be with her or whatever it was (it has been a few years, so I may be remembering this wrong) that feels earned. But his scenes with Selina, as charged with attraction as they were, felt more like he was recruiting an ally than finding a girl to settle down with. You know what I mean? So when I saw Bruce and Selina together in that scene, I assumed that they had chosen to work together, for her to be reformed, and, sure, that they were banging. But I don't know that I felt that Selina had been established as that person Bruce would settle down with and give it all up for.
I also don't know that Alfred's wish for Batman still works. Alfred wished that, after Bruce ran away, he would not come back. That his choice to run away was about leaving that pain behind, when of course it turned out he was seeking training and the ability to come back and fight that pain. Just because he saved Gotham from Bane and Talia this time, and even if he views Blake as a successor rather than a partner to be, what would prevent Bruce from dumping his life elsewhere and coming back the next time Gotham needs saving?
That was why it felt less like and ending to me and more like a promise for more. I just wasn't left believing enough had changed for Bruce that he would chose that moment to retire. But I respect that others (perhaps most everyone) had a different takeaway from the ending.
Plus, if they use an variation of the Robin characters or Terry McGuiness, than most people will be focusing WHEN he becomes Robin (or know hell take up the mantle.)
Plus, this is a Bruce Wayne story. Now the story becomes about THAT character.
M
I'm obviously reading into this & way over thinking it, but Bruce could work in the private sector as a detective. Maybe somehow become a Police Commissioner. Marry Selina, have a daughter...
Plus, I don't think Blake knows he is alive.
M
That is an interesting point, that Blake is the only one of the inner circle who does not (yet) know that Bruce is alive. At the time, watching the movie, I imagined that the GPS was to summon Blake to come and be trained and join the group. But I can see where you could also look at it as Blake being left to believe that Bruce is dead and he has inherited the mantle. I guess I am so used to the comics' Bruce, and how hard of a trainer/mentor he is that I couldn't imagine him letting someone (even an impressive someone) take over being Batman without training them himself. But, of course, I should remember that the movies are different.
It does leave me with a question, though-- Bruce once thought that Gotham didn't need a Batman anymore. And he was wrong. As, during that retirement, Bane succeeded in filling the infrastructure of the entire city with explosives.
What would leave Bruce, at the end of the movie, believing that Gotham won't need him to protect them from the NEXT Bane? I guess that is why, as conventional of an ending as Batman dying would be, it is the only thing that would convince me that he wouldn't choose to come back.
Blake is Blake, he's not tim, todd or dick
because it's Nolan-verse
Batman quit, because it's Nolan-verse
You can't keep comparing it to the comics when it's been well established this is a different world
Anyways, no more sequels, no spin-offs. Just let the trilogy be. It's 3 nice stories that have batman in them. We don't need to continually elaborate and expand.
I would love to see a directors cut, if there's any footage not in this movie. It could fix any plot holes or faulty character development.
However this footage could push it up into the 3 hour+ mark and since Nolan makes movies for the masses he odviously wanted it shorter.
As it's been mentioned before the story was too big for this movie
Also, I welcome the next batman movie, because unless it's supremely terrible, it's another batman movie.
We get to see one of our favorite characters on the big screen! Isn't that a good thing?
This may be me reading into it, but I presume Blake doesn't become Batman, but his own hero. Maybe Nightwing, Robin, Black Bat, etc.
If it was me, I wouldn't be Batman. First, he died heroically. Second, I would risk tarnishing his legacy. Also, the weight of living up to Bruce could crush me. Finally, I'd be living in his shadow.
I think it would be best to start my own persona. Again, that's me overly thinking about the ending.
M
It still leaves me wondering, though, in the terms that the movie gave us-- why does Bruce feel he can now retire? Was the whole trilogy therefore to be Bruce vs. The League of Shadows, and now that the final legacy of Al Ghoul has been defeated Gotham is safe? Even putting the comics aside and just thinking about the movie in front of me, I'm not sure why the part of Bruce that needed to be Batman got fixed or filled by his experiences in 'Rises. If anything, I feel like he learned just how much Gotham needed him. Does it not become an ultimately selfish act to walk away after he came within literal seconds of getting everyone killed?
(By a device that he decided to build and store in the middle of a thickly settled, metropolitan area... but like keeping Blackgate prison in the middle of the city rather than away from the population, I guess you can file those under nitpicks)
I gotta say, though, as he won't have Wayne's money or R&D, if he doesn't use the bat suit, his Nightwing costume is going to be pretty low-rent on just his I-used-to-be-a-cop savings!
He used Bruce Wayne as a name so it's not a far fetched idea.
If they didn't want this compared to a comic in any manner whatsoever he should have called it Holy Terror or something like that.
We have no idea what happened to the one from the Bunker. It at least has a hole in the side by the ribs from Talia. Did Bruce return to the cave post-explosion?
Plus, wasn't Bruce taller than Blake? More embarassing than scaring when you're wearing a suit too big for you!
Ackward regardless.
M
Judging on the time differences between these movies, I would guess Blake would have plenty of time to train up before Gotham was truly in peril again
M
When you think about it, in retrospect, the movie Bruce thought he defeated The League of Shadows in Begins, but he was wrong, as he didn't know about Talia and Bane, and look at what they built while he wasn't watching. And who knows what else they built? Could there not be another Talia out there?
He put Scarecrow and Joker away, but Scarecrow is still free at the end of the movie and, while he is never mentioned, if we want to pretend all this stuff is real you would have to reason the Joker is free, too.
Gotham is in ruins. Most of the police are dead. There must be all sorts of lose weapons and remaining prisoners and radicalized people around (if Bane did, indeed, succeed in inspiring people to rise up).
This is when Bruce decided it is time to go travel Europe to drink coffee and make babies, because Blake will just figure it all out?
I guess that brings me back to my initial reaction/confusion with the ending. Why, when I saw it, I honestly didn't read that scene as Bruce deciding to hand over Batman and retire. It just doesn't seem a believable time for him to do it. I took it that he had buried Bruce Wayne so he could actually focus on being Batman full-time, only now he has allies.
Granted, they could've had a different plan, but without Bruce's self-imposed exile, it wouldn't have been as easy.
M
I was also a little confused by Gordon's shame over the Dent Act which appeared to allow for the holding of prisoners without possibility of parole or without trial, something? i didn't track that completely? the idea was the Dent Act was in some way unjust. i needed some clarification there.
and again i didn't get enough of Batman on screen. i'm the guy who had a beef with The Joker taking center stage in Dark Knight because i felt like it should have been called The Joker Show. and don;t get em wrong DK was a great movie but i feel like in a Batman movie Batman should be the most interesting character on the screen and that hasn't been the case int he last couple movies. in DKR i felt like Batman was largely incedental to the story.