Nolan's Batman

BB 8
TDK 9
TDKR 7.5

I found myself nit-picking TDKR far more than the other two.

I'm not sure this has been discussed yet, but why oh why didn't Bane just kill Batman?

Dr. Evil: All right guard, begin the unnecessarily slow-moving dipping mechanism.
[guard starts dipping mechanism]
Dr. Evil: Close the tank!
Scott Evil: Wait, aren't you even going to watch them? They could get away!
Dr. Evil: No no no, I'm going to leave them alone and not actually witness them dying, I'm just gonna assume it all went to plan. What?
Scott Evil: I have a gun, in my room, you give me five seconds, I'll get it, I'll come back down here, BOOM, I'll blow their brains out!
Dr. Evil: Scott, you just don't get it, do ya? You don't.
 
While it is undoubtedly a plot mechanism, there is a fairly prominent, quite obvious scene where he essentially sits down and tells him exactly why.
 
Mockney said:
While it is undoubtedly a plot mechanism, there is a fairly prominent, quite obvious scene where he essentially sits down and tells him exactly why.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do recall it...

...and it was reminiscent of the "unnecessarily slow-moving dipping mechanism".
 
Went to see it on saturday when I was down in Manchester and I loved it. Best movie i've seen in ages.
 
I thought it was a very good, engrossing film, but it didn't wow me. I personally could see the twist(s) coming. Also as others have highlighted there were numerous plot issues and the fact that Bane was at times inaudible (although the soudtrack in general whislt quality was rediculously loud at times making other parts hard to hear).

One plot weakness that I've not seen mentioned is;
Why did he bother faking his death? The only people who knew who Batman was and that he was flying the bomb out were literally the people he left clues for that he escaped. Either do his stunt and leave no clues, maybe just leave the bit with Alfred, or have him use the auto pilot and then explain why he's leaving either after or right at the end when he passes the reigns on to Blake. Doing what he did really makes no sense.

But at the same time I'm not sure if I've been over-analysing the plot etc. I'm sure there are plenty of issues in the first 2. Either way I enjoyed it and know that I'll be happy to watch it again and again. A great trilogy if not a perfect trilogy and certainly the best comic book movie trilogy to date.
 
We wasn't faking bruce's death so much as Batman's, he needed an out for both lives. He never really liked being Bruce Wayne so it was double whammy as far as he's concerned.

He obviously wasn't that bothered about team Bat finding out, as he turned up in that cafe that Alfred always looked for him in

kietotheworld said:
There's no way he could have kept that many people alive covertly.
Click to expand...

Definitely, Bane's Army was feeding them, there is even a scene showing that, it was pretty clear that Bane wasn't interested in killing everyone right off the bat. He wanted despair and people turning on one another and the hope that it might calm down after a while/ personal survival.

Then they all die.
 
Ralaks said:
The guy next to me in the cinema was with a chick and they were both cheering and pumping their fists in the air whenever batman did anything cool and they nearly lost it when Robin (feck you Christopher, his name is Dick) was "introduced", found that a bit lame too, even if it's just a obvious dumbing down so the common movie goer would know who they were tlaking about. Plus having the receptionist talk about how much she likes his actual name would be fun, too.
Click to expand...

Posted further back:

He didn't need to be named Dick Grayson, or Tim Drake for instance, at the end of the day it wasn't about Blake being 'Robin' or becoming the Robin we all know in the comics, it was a clever nod to Robin as a way of describing John Blake as a sidekick to Batman without having to don him in spandex and a shitty mask - which Nolan never wanted to do. Bruce Wayne also seen him as his prodigy and acted like a mentor to him throughout the film, but there was never any intention for Robin to be 'Robin', Bruce wanted him to don the Batman outfit himself, not another one.

The newly setup Bat Signal and handing over the Batcave to Blake is the sure fire sign of that.

Odorous_One said:
BB 8
TDK 9
TDKR 7.5

I found myself nit-picking TDKR far more than the other two.

I'm not sure this has been discussed yet, but why oh why didn't Bane just kill Batman?
Click to expand...

I also sort of attempted to clear this up earlier:

This wasn't Bane's plan, this was Talia's plan. She taken ideas and the ethics that her father/League of Shadows had planned to do with Gotham, but she also wanted vengeance on Bruce for him murdering her father.

The LoS knew that Wayne didn't fear death anymore, it would of been simply to easy to blow everything up straight away. Talia wanted revenge on him, and the best way to do that was to wreak chaos in Gotham and let it "tear itself to pieces" (so to speak), all whilst Bruce was incapable of doing anything and had to watch the whole thing unfold. The one thing that Bruce cared about was being the 'guardian' of Gotham, he had nothing else to live for at the start of TDKR because he couldn't even do that anymore (hence becoming a recluse), that's why it was the only way she could truly punish him for murdering her father.

It also makes sense of the "When Gotham is in ashes, you have my permission to die" line from Bane.
 
That's my point though. If he wanted out he could have done that but without the need to trick fox, cat woman, Gordon etc. he left clues for them. It's not like the whole city knew he was sacrificing himself it was literally just those guys. So if he'a going to do that why not let them in on it? There's just no need. And it's ambiguous if he wanted batman to die as well. Personally I think the message was that batman was an idea and that it didn't matter who he was, hence Blake hinted at as the next batman.
 
Ash_G said:
That's my point though. If he wanted out he could have done that but without the need to trick fox, cat woman, Gordon etc. he left clues for them. It's not like the whole city knew he was sacrificing himself it was literally just those guys. So if he'a going to do that why not let them in on it? There's just no need. And it's ambiguous if he wanted batman to die as well. Personally I think the message was that batman was an idea and that it didn't matter who he was, hence Blake hinted at as the next batman.
Click to expand...

That's a Bingo!
 
gaz1185 said:
Posted further back:

He didn't need to be named Dick Grayson, or Tim Drake for instance, at the end of the day it wasn't about Blake being 'Robin' or becoming the Robin we all know in the comics, it was a clever nod to Robin as a way of describing John Blake as a sidekick to Batman without having to don him in spandex and a shitty mask - which Nolan never wanted to do. Bruce Wayne also seen him as his prodigy and acted like a mentor to him throughout the film, but there was never any intention for Robin to be 'Robin', Bruce wanted him to don the Batman outfit himself, not another one.

The newly setup Bat Signal and handing over the Batcave to Blake is the sure fire sign of that.
Click to expand...

Well not necessarily. Or at least not definitively.

I saw it far more as an open ended "he'll continue to protect Gotham in whatever way he sees fit if needed"...Batman's dead as far as Gotham's concerned, and there's a statue honouring him. Plus Blake has no money to continue to finance being Batman, and despite Bruce's stuff about "you should wear a mask" Blake made a big show of saying he didn't want one.

I agree that the intention was to be a 'Robin' as in a spiritual sidekick/successor, rather than "Robin" but he could become another Batman, he could become Nightwing, he could become something else. It's not as open and shut as "it's a sure fire sign it's this". It's purposefully less so IMO. Its just someone who he trusts to have the means if they need it.

There's stuff in there about Batman being an enduring symbol, but there's counter stuff in there about Gotham not always needing Batman, and also stuff about him being a bad thing and Gotham needing White Knights, and so forth. Nolan likes his vaguely open endings with leeway for interpretation after all. All it was definitely saying was "this story's over, but this one's just beginning..whatever it is"

Plus the suit wouldn't fit him.
 
Mockney said:
Well not necessarily.

I saw it far more as an open ended "he'll continue to protect Gotham in whatever way he sees fit if needed"...Batman's dead as far as Gotham's concerned, and there's a statue honouring him. I'm not sure what purpose bringing him back woud hold. Plus Blake has no money to continue to finance being Batman, and despite Bruce's stuff about "you should wear a mask" Blake made a big show of saying he didn't want one.

I agree that the intention was to be a 'Robin' as in a spiritual sidekick/successor, rather than "Robin" but he could become another Batman, he could become Nightwing, he could become something else. It's not as open and shut as that. It's purposefully less so IMO. Its just someone who he trusts to have the means if they need it.

There's stuff in there about Batman being an enduring symbol, but there's counter stuff in there about Gotham not always needing Batman, and also stuff about him being a bad thing and Gotham needing White Knights, and so forth. Nolan likes his vaguely open endings with leeway for interpretation after all.

Plus the suit wouldn't fit him.
Click to expand...

IMO there's just too many things alluding to the fact that John Blake was accepted by Bruce to be the next Batman and follow his way.

As Ash suggested, "Batman was an idea and that it didn't matter who he was", Gotham may think he is dead and may have raised a statue in his honour but that was to show that Batman was a hero of Gotham again, their 'Dark Knight'. Ra's al Ghul's words support this best: "If you make yourself more than just a man, if you devote yourself to an ideal, you become something else entirely." A "man" may not of survived that blast but to Gotham, Batman is more than a man now, he is, as you put it, their enduring symbol and a sign of hope to them - he has become something else.

Back to Blake taking over the cape, he won't have the funds maybe, but I'm pretty certain he'll have a lot of equipment to start with, according to Alfred they had to order in big batches in Batman Begins :lol:. Also, surely Fox could be on hand to help, he too knows Wayne isn't dead. Plus he'd need to adjust the suit anyway or Blake would need to get eating! :smirk:

But the more realistic signs for me were the Bat signal, why provide Gordon with the Bat signal if he wasn't suggesting that Batman will still be watching over Gotham. Also, the major giveaway for me, when Blake enters the Batcave for the first time and the platform raises from here this is more or less scene for scene the same as when Wayne first finds the Batcave; both have the same glow light in hand, both fall to their knees when the bats surround them, then they both raise to their feet and 'endure' the bats. In BB this was the scene when Wayne faced his fears and truly became Batman and for me this is the scene that says Blake is doing the exact same thing.
 
There are just as many things alluding to the fact he wont though tbf. The whole trilogy is littered with references to "a time when Gotham doesn't need Batman" He says it, Alfred says it, Dent says it. It's said a fair few times in this movie. Batman's questioned by Fox, Alfred & Rachel loads of times about the value of Batman and his own intentions. Blake and Bruce mostly disagree throughout the whole film. They're different people. Blake's argument with Gordon, along with the stuff about not wearing a mask seems to paint him as far more concerned with open truth than Bruce.

It's all part of making it more of a realistic story with different perspectives. What people then take from it, is usually what their preferable interpretation is. Some people think he'll become Batman, and see mostly the "anyone could be Batman" and some people think he wont and see the other stuff about shaking people out of apathy and Gotham needing White Knights. Ra's said he should devote himself to "an idea" Another crime fighting hero is still the same idea.

This was - in his own words - Nolan's definitive Batman saga, with a beginning, middle and end. The tale of the Batman Legend, so I can definitely see why some people don't think he intended for it to be conclusively insinuated that Batman continues. I personally think he did. But mainly because I think he intended for people to think loads of other things too. Essentially, make up their own minds about what happens with this series' version of Robin.

The thing that a lot of Nolan films have in common is they tell a certain story, and then when it's finished, leave the epilogue ambiguous and up for interpretation. A lot of people have been discussing what "Robin" does next, and I think that's the only thing Nolan definitely intended.

As for the signal, well that could be for any number of other reasons. Inspiration, symbolism, a message to Gordon that he's still alive, a message to Gordon that Batman might be back if he's really needed (maybe as Robin, maybe allied by Robin, who knows?) It's just another thing in there to make you think about what happens next. Giving him the cave is just a means of...well, giving him means. He "rises" like Bale in Begins because he's starting his journey as a hero, as Bale did, but not definitely as Batman. This journey's over, another's just beginning...etc, etc and it doesn't really matter what it is.
 
gaz1185 said:
I also sort of attempted to clear this up earlier:

This wasn't Bane's plan, this was Talia's plan. She taken ideas and the ethics that her father/League of Shadows had planned to do with Gotham, but she also wanted vengeance on Bruce for him murdering her father.

The LoS knew that Wayne didn't fear death anymore, it would of been simply to easy to blow everything up straight away. Talia wanted revenge on him, and the best way to do that was to wreak chaos in Gotham and let it "tear itself to pieces" (so to speak), all whilst Bruce was incapable of doing anything and had to watch the whole thing unfold. The one thing that Bruce cared about was being the 'guardian' of Gotham, he had nothing else to live for at the start of TDKR because he couldn't even do that anymore (hence becoming a recluse), that's why it was the only way she could truly punish him for murdering her father.

It also makes sense of the "When Gotham is in ashes, you have my permission to die" line from Bane.
Click to expand...

Rest assured, I know that there was a method to the madness. It just seemed to me that there was THE unequivocal, overarching goal, which was to finish what ol' Liam (can't remember his character's name...nor do I even want to attempt to spell it) and his band of brothers started.

What's more, killing Batman instantly at the first opportunity would've meant having both revenge (which, it shouldn't be so casually dismissed, would've been VERY sweet even if had been done expeditiously) AND the fulfillment of her father's dream. If I were her, I would've been more than pleased with myself if I'd accomplished those two things. Sure, not quite as pleased as killing Batman with 'poetic justice', but still richly satisfying, I'd figure.

I think footy analogies in these kinds of fora are nothing short of excruciating, but I'm going to break one of my own cardinal rules because, I dunno, the fate of the free world depends on it... or something: It's like beating 'pool 1-0. Sure, it'd be wank-tastic if Utd could wipe the floors with them in a 10-0 win. It'd also be sooo richly satisfying if Evra would score a hat-trick by winning three aerial battles against Suarez, but if recklessly going forward meant leaving the back in jeopardy and thereby substantially increasing the odds of overall defeat, I'd take the 1-0 win every single day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Yes, I'm feeling sufficiently ghey. Thanks for asking.
 
Ash_G said:
That's my point though. If he wanted out he could have done that but without the need to trick fox, cat woman, Gordon etc. he left clues for them. It's not like the whole city knew he was sacrificing himself it was literally just those guys. So if he'a going to do that why not let them in on it? There's just no need. And it's ambiguous if he wanted batman to die as well. Personally I think the message was that batman was an idea and that it didn't matter who he was, hence Blake hinted at as the next batman.
Click to expand...

He wasn't trying to hide, he's just having a holiday. Why does he have to? You overthink it too much, in RL he probably just took a day off with a hot chick next to him
 
Got this from another forum regarding Blake

Basically, John Blake is an amalgam of the previous incarnation of Robin in the comics.
Blake's parent got murdered by criminals like Dick Grayson
Blake was intelligent enough to deduce that Wayne is Batman like Tim Drake
Blake was a bit of a hothead (mentioned several times by other characters), like Jason Todd.

I do agree with Mockney's points. In this universe, Wayne's Batman is already finished, but the idea of Batman can still endured, can still continue, and it doesn't have to be named Batman. Because what's important is the values that Batman brings, whenever Gotham needed some hope there will be someone who provide it.

btw, I was a bit underwhelmed when I first saw this, because I was comparing this to TDK all through the viewing. But looking back I realize that this is an entirely different animal. While TDK have some personal elements on Wayne/Batman, the story itself give equal development on Dent and Gordon. Added with Ledger brilliance as The Joker, TDK ended up less about Batman and more about Batman, Dent, Gordon efforts to keep up with Joker. The emotional issues from Bruce took a backseat to Joker blowing up stuff.

But with TDKR, even though Bane's plan to take out Gotham is grand, it still took a backseat to Wayne's emotional struggles, and it makes it more personal. And it fits, because if this gonna be the end of Batman, then they should made it about Wayne and Batman
 
Sky1981 said:
He wasn't trying to hide, he's just having a holiday. Why does he have to? You overthink it too much, in RL he probably just took a day off with a hot chick next to him
Click to expand...

Lol, dunno if you're joking or not. Suppose it's open to your own interpretation. Don't think he was simply going on holiday. I think the ending with blake taking on the mantle and Bruce wayne retiring was a good idea and a good way for someone to continue the series but I don't think they got there in the best way they could. Like I said still a great film.
 
love this bit
Bruce is feeling spry after gettin' some and sets out to meet Catwoman to track down Bane. However, before he does that Nolan tells him to dress up as Batman and climb onto something really high so the Batman fanboys can get their obligatory shot of him looking over the city with his cape flapping in the wind. Batman stares out for awhile and then says "Good enough?". Nolan nods approvingly.
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
Pwned. fecking amazing, at this point, I'm dreading re-watching it actually -_-
 
It's funny but just about any comic book/action movie can be picked apart that way, usually while watching the film. At least with Nolan's films the sheer loudness and emotion of it all means you don't realise/think about any of those issues until long after end or you read it on the internet.

Also people get more pleasure doing it with Nolan's films since he always comes across as a super intelligent movie snob in his interviews. They have to learn to accept that these movies are comic book, superhero movies at the end of the day and not the perfectly crafted crime dramas like some expect them to be.
 
Yes but the difference with Nolan is that he tries to make these films in a more believable fashion, with its dark tones and underlying political traits, therefore people are much more likely to pick apart ridiculous loops, holes and plotlines.

Something like The Avengers however can just be enjoyed for what it is, because it never takes itself too seriously as is a pure, out and out comic book film.
 
Yea but however he tries to dress it up, it's still a movie about people in costumes running around fighting each other.

He's perfected the art of making what are essentially summer action flicks seem like so much more.
 
It is a funny piece but wrong on many levels. Nolan knowingly pulls off many comic book capers that he would not normally do in other movies. Batman being everywhere just nick in time to save people is just one of those comic book things, it also happened throughout the 3 movies.
 
Cina said:
Yes but the difference with Nolan is that he tries to make these films in a more believable fashion, with its dark tones and underlying political traits, therefore people are much more likely to pick apart ridiculous loops, holes and plotlines.

Something like The Avengers however can just be enjoyed for what it is, because it never takes itself too seriously as is a pure, out and out comic book film.
Click to expand...
He can ground the movie but if it has to be batman then certain comic book elements must remain, otherwise it needs to be a vigilante movie. That shot of batman overlooking the city is ofcourse ridiculous in context of the story but it is there as a homage to comic book stuff. I don't rate TDKR nearly as much as others but still easily better than Avengers for me. Begins remains the most grounded of all 3 but I reckon people would have gotten bored by the sequels if Nolan had not amped them up.
 
crappycraperson said:
He can ground the movie but if it has to be batman then certain comic book elements must remain, otherwise it needs to be a vigilante movie. That shot of batman overlooking the city is ofcourse ridiculous in context of the story but it is there as a homage to comic book stuff. I don't rate TDKR nearly as much as others but still easily better than Avengers for me. Begins remains the most grounded of all 3 but I reckon people would have gotten bored by the sequels if Nolan had not amped them up.
Click to expand...

Obviously he does need to keep the fanboys happy, but still, when I look back on the film, it's an absolute mess, an enjoyable mess, but still a mess. That's something you don't usually see in Nolan films.
 
people nick pick a lot and I think alot of them are debatable or wrong but.

The central driver of the story is that, Bruce loses all his money.

But unless it gets dark in Gotham at like 3pm wouldn't that exchange have closed for the day meaning there was no trades to go through that floor they spent all the time and effort breaking into. They could be at another exhange but doesn't that defeat the purpose of breaking into it in the first place.

Plus there are several hundred witness to fact they were fecking with the system, doesn't that kind of bring the entire system of trade from the moment they broke in into question.

I'm pretty sure a regulator would come in consider we're talking billions of dollars and the news story on the front page the next day is about Bruce doubling down and losing but not about the fact several people were shot and security of the stock exchange computer system being breached.
 
Lastwolf said:
people nick pick a lot and I think alot of them are debatable or wrong but.

The central driver of the story is that, Bruce loses all his money.

But unless it gets dark in Gotham at like 3pm wouldn't that exchange have closed for the day meaning there was no trades to go through that floor they spent all the time and effort breaking into. They could be at another exhange but doesn't that defeat the purpose of breaking into it in the first place.

Plus there are several hundred witness to fact they were fecking with the system, doesn't that kind of bring the entire system of trade from the moment they broke in into question.

I'm pretty sure a regulator would come in consider we're talking billions of dollars and the news story on the front page the next day is about Bruce doubling down and losing but not about the fact several people were shot and security of the stock exchange computer system being breached.
Click to expand...


I don't really know what time it was supposed to be when they hit up that stock exchange. It was light when they went in, but it did seem to suddenly turn dark during the chase and when the transaction was supposedly completed. I don't know about that but they did say something to gloss over the fact that everyone knew it was a set up. Something like he'd eventually be able to ge his money back but for now he was fecked.
 
Time is not a concept that is adhered too in Batman films... thus it should be stricken from any discussion about any logic-holes.
 
It was light still when they left the stock exchange, but suddenly went dark during the chase. Either A) It was a ruddy long chase that went on for a couple of hours or B) Bats EMP (or whatever it was) that turned off the lights in the tunnel has the power to turn off the sun too!

We all know Bats only likes to play in the dark, well most of the time, so the chase scene wouldn't of really worked in the day for him. Especially when he gets to the alleyway with the police surrounding him, the Bat clearly would have been visibly parked up if it was still during the day.
 
Did he just leave his bike in that alley when he hopped in the batcopter? He's very trusting is Baleman.
 
That IMDb review is a bit crap tbf. I like film deconstructions, but it isn't nearly funny enough for me. There are loooaads of things to take the piss out of in an amusing way in this. I could just be reading it in the wrong voice. I seem to be reading it in the voice of a smug frat boy for some reason. Or it could just be that he uses "lol", which is instantly guaranteed to make to hate something.

Again, all these problems were in TDK but just writ smaller. He even stands on implausibly tall surfaces for no apparent reason. But I agree that loads of people have been told that Nolan's this supposedly super-intelligent film maker making proper comic book films for smart people, and that rankles with people who dont like them, and seems hypocritical when loads of other, less polished films get picked over for not making any sense. Plus Nolan's stock peaked with TDK, and the backlash is well and truly underway. I can totally, totally get why people wouldn't like this film, but I don't really think Nolan's done anything significantly different, he's just made the scope far bigger, and the expectations were much higher. In terms of film making, there's nothing in the Avengers that's even close to this. But people who like the sensibilities of that, and are told it's a silly comic book film, but Nolan's films are smart and realistic will naturally take exception.

I think the point about this being a "proper" film relates far more to it being approached like a proper film (i.e, with call backs, and a twist, and arcs, rather than just hero vs villan from point a to b, with required action beats and "he has to be in costume by point X" kinda stuff) but the suspension of disbelief is still there in abundance. Lots of it is still, very stupid.

If you want a funny review that picks on the silly bits in an amusing way, but isn't as smug or inconsistent as that one ("Nolan puts in some pointless exposition - lol! - Nolan doesn't explain it well enough here! - lol!") Kevin Smith's is worth a listen. It's very long, but anyone whose seen his Evenings With will know he's a very good orator (far better than he is a screenwriter) and he also loved it, and starts crying at several points in the review, which is ridiculous, but quite endearing.

http://smodcast.com/episodes/the-dark-knight-rises/
http://smodcast.com/episodes/the-dark-knight-redux/#

One of the things the IMBD thing mention's that's spot on though is the MaGuffin..

Clean slate bollocks. That was ludicrously silly. At the end he's even holding an iPod nano and waving it at her. As if they got to this scene and realised they didn't have a prop and went.."err, well, it doesn't matter does it, this is all complete bollocks, just use your nano Christian. No one cares."
 
He seemed to! Although he can control them remotely, so maybe he just told it to go 'home'. :lol::confused:
 
Ralaks said:
Anyone else found Talia's death scene absolutely hilarous, couldn't hold myself back the way she finished talking and then closed eyes instantly and died
Click to expand...

:lol:

Yes! Surprised this hasn't been mentioned more.

As for rating the three, I'd say:

Batman Begins 8
The Dark Night 9.5
The Dark Night Rises 9

I do think Batman Begins is a little bit overrated. It neither had the epic-ness of TDKR nor the iconic performances and overall well roundedness of TDK.
 
I disagree, Begins was wall to wall awesome, it made the origin story we all know, not boring as hell.

I liked TDK too, but for me begins is the best.



Kevin Smith is alright, I probably listen to too many smodcasts so he's getting a bit samey now and I've heard the same stories too often. That said his 'Fatman on Batman' series is pretty entertaining and it's a nice change to his normal routine, as he doesn't goes nuts and start talking about cock and poop every 10 minutes, I guess he's embarrassed to do so in-front of the serious guests.

I figured he'd talk about it on there, maybe he will, but in the mean time, I think I'll check out that link.

EDIT: :lol: guess my Itunes isn't updating that is Fatman on Batman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.