I hate people who think he didn't survive and Alfred just lost his mind. Seriously, he made it as clear as he fecking could and you still question it? The reason he didn't end it on Alfred's face was probably to avoid shit like this.
Nolan's Batman
- Thread starter Mockney
- Start date
Nolan is no stranger to hokey, to be fair.
True, but usually more in his scriptwriting than his stories. There have been plenty of times when I've cringed at the exchanges between Alfred and Bruce Wayne, with a lot of the sentiment being extremely heavy handed. I just think that having Alfred imagine Bruce, as some grief-induced illusion, is more of a Nolan-esque ending. Having him survive the explosion, conning everybody into thinking he gave his life for them, feels like he's making a mockery of the sacrifice they think he gave for them. It also feel like a cop-out by the writers.
If you really hate people based on their interpretation of an open-ended movie, then you should probably review your mental state more than Alfred.
It's pretty blatant that he didn't die.
The discovery that the autopilot had been fixed by Bruce was solely for the purpose of explaining his survival.
The discovery that the autopilot had been fixed by Bruce was solely for the purpose of explaining his survival.
It's as far from an open ended movie as you can get. He did his best to tie everything up as neatly as possible. Had this exact conversation last night. "straight from the James Bond Villain textbook" may have even been used.This was essentially the first movie re-textured. Destroying the bridges and sending the city into chaos, check. Bomb that needs to be stopped before it goes off, check.
Possibly. Plus the new Bat signal. I just hate the idea of him escaping a 6-mile blast radius at the last possible moment, with everybody (including us) thinking he'd given his life for the city, until they show a 5 second scene of Alfred winking at Bruce Wayne.
If they'd killed him, I'd have approved of that. If they'd let him live, I'd have approved of that. Tricking us into thinking that he was dead, and there was no way he could survive, then ending the movie by saying "tricked you!!", feels like a cop-out, and also feels unnecessary. Having him die after that act of sacrifice would have been much more meaningful and powerful.
I agree with all that actually. Would have preferred it if he died personally. Would have been the first time someone had the balls to do that as well, but I can't begin to imagine the sort of back room politics involved in doing something like that. I assume the folks at DC wouldn't be too happy with him killing off Batman.
As I said on the last post of the previous page there is plenty of potential survival quite easily, not as "no way" as you make it out to look like.
Yes, especially with the rumoured reboot and upcoming Justice League movie, I can imagine that DC and WB were never going to let him kill the character off. In which case, I don't think they should have ended the film by suggesting he'd died, which I'm guessing was an emotional, powerful moment for a lot of people, only to show that it was bullshit.
True, but only by creating your own theory of him having another bat plane waiting for him, when that was never actually suggested in the film. There was literally no explanation given within the constraints of the film, for how he could have survived. The explanations, based on a secondary bat plane, are similar to the defensive explanations given for plot holes in Lost. Leaving things to the imagination is fine to an extent, leaving people to create a scenario completely on their own, including props that weren't shown in the film, is a bit different.
Plus the fact that he didn't know until the last 5 minutes of the film that he would have to use his bat plane to fly a bomb out of the city, I don't get how he had a second one lined up, to jump into from the first one. It all just sounds very far-fetched and unnecessary, when having him just die would have been more fitting and memorable.
You give Nolan far too much credit. The man is quite superb on a macro level (at times). His micro detailing and work with the finer details is absolutely terrible.
When Alfred winked at Wayne, he winked at Wayne. You have to be an absolute dolt to believe otherwise. It's like people taking the silly spinning coin seriously when it was nothing more than a gimmick. He must be pissing himself over the audience actually creating a random scenario in this instance.
I don't think a secondary batplane is that big of a major scenario. Take your scenario of Alfred going mental and imagining Bruce is equally creating your own scenario to suit your theory.
Maybe being the super mastermind he is, envisioned that maybe he needed a getaway in case he had to fly it away, it's not that far fetched imo. The whole auto-pilot stuff really gives it away for me that he survived, in the end Nolan has made films very open ended before and leaves people to interpret the films the way they want, which in the end I think it's cool, for me though all the signs point to him surviving.
- End shot of Bruce at the Cafe
- I feel Nolan wanted to make sure he was known to survive with this scene, he could have ended it with the shot of Alfred's face if he wanted it to be ambiguous. Likewise if he had wanted it to make it just as obvious that Bruce had died then he could have had him fade like Ra's did in the prison scene. - Auto-pilot scene
- One of the most obvious scenes, makes little sense if not to point towards his survival - Why would he take his own life when there was no reason to do so
- Makes no sense to me this, yes he would rather die fighting than just leave, but when he could easily survive then there's no point in him giving his life for nothing.
But your issues seems to be with the way it was alluded that he died and then didn't rather than what actually happened, probably.
There is no way Batman would have failed like us normal human beings, to interpret that a child can't have his face smashed & escape the pit the same day.
He did a good enough job with the micro detailing on his lower budget films like Following and Memento, both of which largely relied on such subtleties and clever writing. He's certainly turned his attention more towards mixing that with grand-scale action in recent years, which has dumbed down his work a fair bit, but I think you're too critical of him by calling his writing "terrible".
Just like the people creating a random scenario of him jumping out of a plane midflight, and landing in a secondary plane that he would have had no idea he would need, then flying off into the sunset with nobody noticing. Deep down, I don't believe he died, I just think the ending was shit tbh.
But again, the only way he "easily" survives a 6-mile blast radius is by foreseeing the need for a second bat plane, and having it put in place just where he needed it, in the midst of all the batshit crazy mayhem that was happening. I don't see when he had the time to go and get a second bat plane, put it in place, presumably hide it; then to fly off in it without a single person seeing it, seems slightly ridiculous. Not that I'm saying it didn't happen, just that it's lame writing.
Yes, probably so.
The bat-mobile had a little motorbike that popped out. It's completely within the realms of possibility that the bat-plane had a similar function considering the OTT advanced technology which is a common theme in the batman universe.
But again, we're back to inventing things that were never suggested in the film, to excuse a plot hole. They never showed a bat bike hidden in the bat plane, or ever suggested it, so for us to create such a thing... That's not what we're here for, we're not writing the epilogue to the screenplay, creating new props in the process, nor should we have to.
I'm not trying to be nit-picky. In fact a lot of the criticisms of the film have seemed pointless to me, when you could, you know, just enjoy the film. I just think the ending, having Bruce Wayne alive, added nothing at all to the story and if anything, took away a lot of the emotion and impact of his sacrifice. Having plot holes from something that didn't need to be in the film, annoys me. For some reason.
It's not something which I was particularly concerned with to be honest, as surviving the blast/faking his death wouldn't be the most incredible thing Batman has ever done. There were a few elements of the story which grated on me a bit but the ending wasn't one of them but tbh I was quite happy Wayne survived, as him dying would've been a far too miserable an ending for me!
See, I thought having the city remember him as a hero, rather than him living long enough to become the villain, was a happy ending. Of course, you don't necessarily need for Bruce Wayne to die, for the city to believe that Batman gave his life, but it certainly holds a lot more impact for the viewer. And why did he fake Bruce Wayne's death? Did Gordon ever reveal to the public, the true identity of Batman? If not, then it just seems a cheap tactic to fool the viewer.
About the plot holes. There's a masked vigilante fitting crime in your city having high tech gadgets and futuristic vehicles. That masked vigilante comes to the scene when a healthy, young billionaire returns after he was presumed dead, disappears when the billionaire becomes a recluse and reappears when that billionaire returns to social life.
Also about the Dark Knight. There's a bank in a busy Gotham street with a school bus sticking out, nothing happens for 5 minutes. Then that same bus comes out and joins the bus convoy as if nothing happened. That was biggest problem with the dark knight. It made the beginning of the movie too cartoonish.
Most of the nit picks/plot holes about the Dark Knight rises are explained in the movie. There are four things, however, that I didn't like.
Firstly, the way Talia dies, that little bit of acting by Cotillard was very amateurish, something one would expect to see at a high school play.
Secondly, the way Bruce get's fit in the pit. I'm sure he was getting more than enough calories in there, with a lot of lean protein, to not just sustain he muscle mass but also increase it and recover from a major trauma.
Third, in the second half of the movie his limp is gone. I can understand not having a limp in Gotham by wearing that brace but what about the pit? Did Bain forget to remove it? Even if he did forget (highly unlikely as he was wearing other clothes) what about it's b power source? Did he bring a charger with him?
Last, the second Bat, where was that? Why didn't Bane use it?
Also about the Dark Knight. There's a bank in a busy Gotham street with a school bus sticking out, nothing happens for 5 minutes. Then that same bus comes out and joins the bus convoy as if nothing happened. That was biggest problem with the dark knight. It made the beginning of the movie too cartoonish.
Most of the nit picks/plot holes about the Dark Knight rises are explained in the movie. There are four things, however, that I didn't like.
Firstly, the way Talia dies, that little bit of acting by Cotillard was very amateurish, something one would expect to see at a high school play.
Secondly, the way Bruce get's fit in the pit. I'm sure he was getting more than enough calories in there, with a lot of lean protein, to not just sustain he muscle mass but also increase it and recover from a major trauma.
Third, in the second half of the movie his limp is gone. I can understand not having a limp in Gotham by wearing that brace but what about the pit? Did Bain forget to remove it? Even if he did forget (highly unlikely as he was wearing other clothes) what about it's b power source? Did he bring a charger with him?
Last, the second Bat, where was that? Why didn't Bane use it?
5. Batman getting a bad stab wound from Talia. That is never referenced again.
6. Bane born in the dark. Where was he born then, he didn't see the light until he was a man. Was he not born in that prison despite what Alfred said? That prison certainly had light.
7. The bomb. That was totally pointless, why wait to blow it?
8. The bomb. Everyone was happy to look at a 6 mile nuclear blast.
9. The bomb. Took all of what, 30 minutes, to change it from a nuclear fusion reactor to a nuclear fusion bomb.
6. Bane born in the dark. Where was he born then, he didn't see the light until he was a man. Was he not born in that prison despite what Alfred said? That prison certainly had light.
7. The bomb. That was totally pointless, why wait to blow it?
8. The bomb. Everyone was happy to look at a 6 mile nuclear blast.
9. The bomb. Took all of what, 30 minutes, to change it from a nuclear fusion reactor to a nuclear fusion bomb.
I think they went for that ending because they were told to. They would probably not have liked to have that autopilot explanation scene in there. It's too cliched really and that's what studios like with their big budget movies. Cliched and safe because it's not an Oscar contender for them anyways. It's a moneymaker.
5. Not sure where he got the stab but I guess that he removed the knife quickly patched using some kind of foam that fills stab wounds (I remember seeing something like that in some movie). Also he might have taken a cocktail of painkillers and stimulants.
6. Well, the Joker continuously lied about the origin of his scars, the same can be said about Bain. He found batman in the dark because he was simply that good.
7-9 Complete non-issues. Why blow up a mega city? Because they are fecking insane. They are sociopaths with twisted morals. They didn't know it was going to blow up so they followed some kind of appeasement with the terrorists. Last, Dr. Pavel was that good. Is Wayne really such an amazing guy? Master of martial arts, a detective, scientist, programmer and an engineer? Was he so good that he was able to fix the autopilot of that unbelievable flying bug?
Points 7-9 are explained in the movie, if you don't like the explanations that's a different story. The other two are things that can be explained easily and are just small details that don't distract from the flow of the story.
The four points I've mentioned were the only four things that made me revoke my suspension of disbelief for a brief moment. Everything else I've read can be explained by the fact that it's a sci-fi, comic book movie about a billionaire masked vigilante!
He didn't remove the knife, she did. He had a massive apparently vaguely critical knife wound, which was never referenced again.
As for 7-9 I don't agree. It pisses me off no end when logic is broken within a movie and those 3 did it for me. For example in Iron Man 2
Iron Man 2 spoilers ahead
The main evil guy "hacks" a computer within 2 seconds. How, he just hit some buttons on the keyboard. fecking suspension breaker.
Also the countdown of the bomb. They had no way of knowing how long the bomb had left on it. That was never explained.
Nice kiddies, trying to find rationality in a fecking superhero movies.
For crying outloud
For crying outloud
Might as well watch some scribbles then. feck sake, this is the entire point when creating a believable universe. You're creating a believable universe. You set the rules, you follow the logic and physics you made. If you break that you ruin all the drama.
It's fantasy 101, if you cop-outs to solve problems it changes from being an interesting universe to being a kids program.
It's not hard to ask for
Surely there is no need for the whole second batplane theory. All he'd need to do is put on the autopilot, get out of view and ejector seat to safety. Only hypothetical situation of course
To follow on from my previous point Pokemon has set rules they dont break from.
You have a lot of good points, Rcoobc.
But they show a clip of him sat inside the bat plane, mere moments before the explosion. If he was still inside the first bat plane, even if he ejected just after it shows him, he would have still been well and truly within the getting-blown-to-shit radius. Hence people creating a second bat plane that he must have been sat in. Rather than just accepting that it's a plot hole.
Ah right, I'm just going by memory as I never really thought about it at the time. I suppose the second bat plane idea is kind of thrown out the window as Fox would have been aware of it. Seems like it was just a huge mistake made in the plot of the film more than anything else.
Just seen the movie.
Very cliche, very cheesy hope Nolan moves back to his earlier work. The Batman thing got too ridiculous.
Very cliche, very cheesy hope Nolan moves back to his earlier work. The Batman thing got too ridiculous.
Just seen the movie. Loved it. Don't give a feck about minor plotholes and liked the happy ending as it happens. It's become to 'normal' to avoid having such endings these days. I want to leave a film thinking 'yes!' not 'seriously, what the feck?'
It's a superhero movie based on comic books. To dissect it so thoroughly suggests many of you have too much time on your hands.
Nolan has totally regenerated the franchise with, in my opinion, easily the best three Batman films ever. I'm just annoyed he's not doing more.
It's a superhero movie based on comic books. To dissect it so thoroughly suggests many of you have too much time on your hands.
Nolan has totally regenerated the franchise with, in my opinion, easily the best three Batman films ever. I'm just annoyed he's not doing more.
I will always have a soft spot for the Batman film with Nicholson playing the Joker. Saw it in the cinema as a kid and loved it. Very different but very good too. The others since have been wank tho. And yes the Nolan trilogy are the best of all.
The knife was removed, but was also subtly referenced again (from what I can remember anyway), when he's shown in the Bat towards the end he grimaces and places his hand on the wound - that was all though.
Yeah the clip in the Bat was shown just before the bomb goes off, but if you look in the background he's still over main land. It's not a second Bat, it's just a clip to make us believe that Batman will die. If there was a second Bat why would they put the scene in with Fox mentioning the auto pilot feature has been repaired? Also, when Fox is showing the Bat to Wayne he says it was only a prototype for the government and keeps referring to it as 'it' and like it has also been mentioned, if there was another one Bane would of been using them. The scene is just put there to make us believe he dies - emotional effect. Nothing more, nothing else.
I loved it, I know there are people who nitpick everything for the sake of it but I just watched it for the entertainment and conclusion which was fitting imo.
Only one thing I had a gripe with was,
Only one thing I had a gripe with was,
The fire bat symbol on the bridge.I know its cool but seriously what the feck was that?Did Batman, having very little time to prevent a nuclear explosion waste a few hours pouring gasoline carefully in a bat shape on the bride?I'm not going to even ask how no one saw him do it because him doing it is in itself so fecking stupid.
Not to mention that it looked so vaguely bat-like that the whole exercise was futile.
Reconsidering the film as a whole, it featured a great cast and some excellent performances, some amazing set pieces and great photography, but was almost entirely ridiculous - which I did not find to be the case with the other two films, even if they did have their moments of ridiculousness. How it has been given so many flawless reviews is beyond me.
Having said that, it's still very enjoyable and one of the superior superhero movies.
Reconsidering the film as a whole, it featured a great cast and some excellent performances, some amazing set pieces and great photography, but was almost entirely ridiculous - which I did not find to be the case with the other two films, even if they did have their moments of ridiculousness. How it has been given so many flawless reviews is beyond me.
Having said that, it's still very enjoyable and one of the superior superhero movies.
Why is it always assumed that someone dying always makes an ending / sacrifice more powerful?
Did Bruce Wayne save fewer people by surviving? Did he somehow make the film less powerful? Like hell.
It's the same shit we had with Mass Effect, where the main character is gratuitously forced into sacrificing himself, because such bittersweet endings are simply more meaningful.
Did Bruce Wayne save fewer people by surviving? Did he somehow make the film less powerful? Like hell.
It's the same shit we had with Mass Effect, where the main character is gratuitously forced into sacrificing himself, because such bittersweet endings are simply more meaningful.
I've seen it twice now and still think it's great.
I think it's because I look at it as a conclusion to the trilogy, as opposed to a stand alone movie, which allows me to see past the flaws. I still prefer TDK, but believe it or not I do prefer it over Begins.
Bane is just cool, even more so because he sounds like Sean Connery.
I think it's because I look at it as a conclusion to the trilogy, as opposed to a stand alone movie, which allows me to see past the flaws. I still prefer TDK, but believe it or not I do prefer it over Begins.
Bane is just cool, even more so because he sounds like Sean Connery.