There is always crime. Batman's mission from his inception (no pun intended) was to prevent what happened to him from happening to anyone else. With the fallen nature of man, there will always be crime, and there will always be murderers of innocence. Batman's role is to protect that innocence, whether the threat comes from a super-criminal or a petty thug.
Gotham is supposed to have turned into a cesspool of corruption. Remember Batman Begins and the insane lengths Ras went to to destroy Gotham because of said corruption? So I'm supposed to believe that the degeneration that happened to Gotham in Begins and TDK just goes away between TDK and TDKR so that Batman can retire?
That doesn't make any sense to me. Why emphasize something for two whole movies just to scrap it all in the end? But hey, I haven't seen the movie yet. Though from what I'm hearing I don't think I want to. Nolan definitely has a very different take on Batman than I do.
It does though. By the end of TDK, corruption has more or less been extinguished from Gotham. Almost all the Mob bosses are dead and the vast majority of the mob's underlings have been imprisoned.
You're misinterpreting that line. He's the hero Gotham deserves but not the one it needs right now in the sense that Harvey is the hero the people of Gotham look up to for faith but Batman, as Gordon says, is not a hero but "a silent protector. A watchful guardian. A dark knight.", meaning that he is MORE than just a hero - a legend (going back to Begins). Harvey is Gotham's true hero in the sense that he is the one that the people of Gotham can look up to as their hero. They can't do that with Batman because he is the symbol of fear - he can strike fear into the hearts of criminals but not hope into the hearts of people. This goes back to the character arc Bruce had throughout TDK. He originally thought he could be both a symbol of fear to the criminals and a symbol of hope in the eyes of the people of Gotham. By the end, he learns that can ONLY be the symbol of fear and cannot be a symbol of hope (which is why he works so well with Superman in the comics; Superman strikes hope in the hearts of good people while Batman strikes fear in the hearts of the bad; in a sense, he metaphorically learns in TDK that he cannot be Superman. lol). Thus, he has to be to Gotham what ever Gotham needs him to be - meaning he can't expect to be seen as the hero to the people and must be whatever he needs to be in order to protect Gotham. If he has to hide in the shadows and catch criminals without Gotham knowing he's the good guy, then he has to do that. In a nutshell, Harvey is Gotham's true hero - a hero is someone who can inspire people. But Batman is MORE than just a hero. He's a legend - he has to do what he has to do even if Gotham hates him or doesn't even know he exists out there and is fighting crime. Now add the foreshadowing in BB and TDK that Gotham would quickly become a city infested with "freaks". What was going to happen (and SHOULD have happened) is that the people of Gotham would have continued to fight against the mobs in Gotham and be inspired by Dent, while Batman would be in the shadows and make sure that none of the "freaks" that would have shown up would have got in the way. Because he's "a silent protector. a watchful guardian." I think I'm not explaining it too well. If anyone reading this wants to explain all this in a better way that I did, please do so.
Also, Gordon said "We must hunt him. Because he can take it." Well, apparently he CAN'T take it because he quit being Batman right after that night.
The mob and corruption being dead is irrelevant. COMPLETELY irrelevant to the necessity of Batman. TDK foreshadows and states that the mob was going to quickly fall ANYWAYS and the mob in Gotham would be replaced by the "freaks". The mob's control of Gotham ending has nothing to do with that because according to TDK, more people like the Joker would quickly start to step into Gotham (because Batman "changed things forever" and THAT is why Batman was still needed. Going by TDK, even if the Dent Act never took place and the mob was still around, a new "freak" (Riddler, Black Mask, Mad Hatter, Ventriloquist, or whoever) would have stepped in and would have taken Gotham from them anyways. And don't say "Well, Bane and Catwoman appear. Don't they count as "freaks" to you?" The problem with that argument is that TDK foreshadowed that the freaks would QUICKLY increase in number in Gotham, NOT be absent for 8 years until they come again. THAT is why Batman was needed. There SHOULDN'T have been peacetime for 8 years in Gotham according to TDK. Batman would constantly be needed because people like the Joker will continue to show up at the same pace . According to TDK, the main reason why the mob fell/was going to fall in the sequels was because of the number of supervillains that would continue to step in, NOT because of some BS act passed in congress. Also, there is no magical act that can just "end" organized crime in Gotham. An act like that passed in real life would be just as effective as an act passed to end prostitution and the black market - meaning there are always ways around it.
Bat Dude brought up some great points too.
Last edited by spidermanrocks on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 03:30 AM
No, you are the one misinterpreting it and misquoting it. He never says Batman isn't a hero, in fact he says Bamtan is the "hero Gotham deserves". Rather, Gordan states he is "not our hero".
Regardless, the reason he says Batman isn't the hero Gotham need right now isn't because Batman isn't a hero (once again immediately before saying this he says Batman is the hero Gotham deserves) but because they literary don't need him right now.
True. And if Gotham doesn't need him, he will disappear until needed. Which TDKR goes with.
The only real foreshadowing for the freaks is Jim Gordan and Batman's discussion at the end of Begins. However, I'd argue it foreshadowed the coming of the Joker and the chaos he spread throughout that movie rather than one costumed villain after another coming to take on the Bat.
Nah, the fact that he wasn't caught shows he was able to take it. Gordan's point here isn't that Batman is going to lead the police on a merry goose chase, but rather the police won't be able nail him for the crimes he supposedly committed.
[QUOTE=13947040]Originally posted by spidermanrocks
The mob and corruption being dead is irrelevant. COMPLETELY irrelevant to the necessity of Batman. TDK foreshadows and states that the mob was going to quickly fall ANYWAYS and the mob in Gotham would be replaced by the "freaks". The mob's control of Gotham ending has nothing to do with that because according to TDK, more people like the Joker would quickly start to step into Gotham would have stepped in and would have taken Gotham from them anyways. [quote]
How does that discussion with Joker foreshadow that freaks are going to come to Gotham. His "you've changed the city. Forever" doesn't mean that other freaks are coming but rather that the Batman has given Gotham a symbol to fight off corruption. The Joker even says something like this to the Mob at the beginning when he says "Dent? He's just the beginning". Crime is coming to an end not because supervillians are showing up, but because Batman has given the city hope.
Now, Joker does say that he is "ahead of the curve", but that is in direct relation to what he said immediately before that. Which was that he will show Batman that the civilized people of Gotham will destroy each other.
Basically, the whole "freak" plot-line was foiled by Batman and Gordan in TDK.
[SPOILER - highlight to read]: Freakin' loved it. It did what movies are supposed to do, entertain the shit out of me. I'm not as jaded as some of my bro-chums who nitpicked the entire goddamn movie about the stupidest shit ever. This movie had it's faults, though they rarely bother me. Bruce was in that prison, he climbed to his freedom, how the f*ck did he get to Gotham so goddamn fast when the bomb was just like around 2 days from exploding? B*tch, please. Shit happens in movies. If you're having a hard time swallowing that, then most comic book movies are gonna have some beef with yo ass. BB was an amazing origins movie, I loved it, and it ties with this movie as number two, I'm a huge Joker fan, so that barely pushes TDK to the first spot for me.
Some things I disliked about the movie:
Bane, pretty goddamn intimidating, but imo he went down like a chuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmppppppppppp. Really, when all that shit was going down, seemed like Bane was quite the master planner, once the development of Talia being behind everything was revealed, sorta made me question if Bane had even planned anything at all. Not sure if I missed a part where they stated it was him all the way. Regardless though, Catwoman side-killin' him like that seemed pretty unfitting for the most part. Wanted bats to whup his ass some more, just seemed like he got dealt with pretty fast.
Catwoman, she was pretty baws, just not a big fan of Anne Hatheway. I'm also glad this Batman was different than his comic counterpart, cuz comic Batman would've 'OMFGWTFBBQwithsauceB*TCH-ON-FIRE'ed if he'd seen her kill anyone in front him like she did in this film.
Something that struck me as kinda odd, hahaha, Batman's fantasy Ras Al Ghul told him that Bane was his kid, hahaha, dude took it into consideration as a fact. I sat there going: Hmmm, I should do that more often, just have a misdirected fantasy of my boss parking her booty in my office and tell me I'm getting a raise and 15 vacation days a month. Won't make it true, but it kinda worked out for Batman.
Dat Dayo-Day-oh-oh-oh-daytyme! I know crime (revolution?) doesn't wait for the sun to go down, but man, how hard did peeps try not to laugh when Bats showed up during the day? Should've been a mostly night-time movie, but meh, what can ya do?
The fights, might as well spell out YMCA. Anyone notice the fight scenes coming off as appearing alittle too choreographed? It was like, kay guys, point guns at victims and threaten to shoot. Oh shi-! Batman's here. Everyone utilize these guns we're holding as blunt objects, no one shoot at him! MARTY, I SAW THAT! You let a round pop off, we can't afford mistakes like that, now everyone take him on at once. Even though we have a moment to dedicate a kill-shot, let's not take that chance this time.
Finally, JGL's character toward the end. His real name is Robin? Teehee. Were the names Richard or Dick busy? Seemed like it had to be spelled out to the audience. Us Nerdlingers would've been giddy at that reference, while common folk would've been: "Kay, I guess that's his real name."
Stuffies I liked:
Catwoman was useful! Not as useless as Black Widow who seemed forced to me.
Dear Satan, that Bats vs Bane fight early on, that shit was the hoe's knees! Lasted a good while and left you satisfied.
The ending. Freakin' loved that Robin (HeeTee) discovered the cave. Shit made it seem like he passed the mantle not cuz he f*ckin' left to make batkittens with Selina, but to make Batman a legend and shit.
Gordon, that dude played too rough, he got shit done. For the most,(since i've kept myself spoiler free) I thought he was gonna die at the hospital or Robin (Heehee) was gonna save his geriatric ass.
Gotham turning into pretty much a MGS Outer Haven, least that's what I thought.
Don't question my fandom just because I haven't seen TDKR yet.
I saw TDK on opening weekend because I was excited to see that movie. I saw Begins not long after opening weekend because I was excited to see that movie. This movie is doing nothing to get me excited to go see it.
I've been a fan of Batman since I was 2 years old. That's almost 18 years ago. And in 18 years, my taste in Batman story and design has transformed and changed dramatically. I admittedly have a very discriminating taste. If something doesn't fit in with that, I usually don't bother with it.
I might go see the movie, I might not. That all depends, but my fandom doesn't hinge on it.
If you watch the movie you'll find out that in between TDK and TDKR they have [SPOILER - highlight to read]: put an end to "organised" crime through a new law named The DENT Act which only passed because Batman took the fall for Harvey Dent so he could die a heroic martyr.
Batman took the blame for Harvey's crime at the end of TDK. There was a reason for that. He didn't just take it so Harvey gets a nice funeral Lol.
The movie's good and definitely worth watching. But it's not as epic as the first 2 Imo. Still it doesn't ruin the series or anything and leaves us an Epic trilogy.
It's not a Matrix 3, Spider man 3, or a Terminator 3 if that's what your worried about.
I'd say Return of the Jedi is a good comparison. Though not as epic as the first 2, still good, and leaves us with an Epic trilogy.
Last edited by Darth Thor on Jul 23rd, 2012 at 05:16 PM
Gender: Male Location: +40° 36' 5.70", -73° 57' 49.46
I have mixed feelings about this movie. First off, it is the worst of the Nolan films, Batman Begins was a great movie, they went down hill from there. Bane was horrible, his voice, the dumb mask thing. Bale has always been a bad Batman to me, however i found i liked him in this, why? Because Batman is in the movie for about 15 minutes. Bale is a good actor, but never did anything for me as Bruce or the bat. Catwoman i kinda liked more than anything. I do not know why i hated Alfred in this one though. I always liked him in every movie so far.
Movie is a huge let down for me. Bad fighting...once again. Terrible script if you ask me. The actors are the only thing keeping the hype going. It was great to see some familiar faces.
Taste can not be argued i guess, however the feeling i got watching this movie went from bad to worse as the people i was with sat nearly falling asleep, then after i had to listen to their dislikes, and i had to agree. I hope Nolan stays away from the franchise to tell you the truth. Yet i hope it does well, i love Batman and i am thankful it is a success. But man it was a dull movie.
Gender: Male Location: Stuck In the future where Akus evil
lol no I get it my point was he couldn't have enhanced strength because it wouldn't fit into nolans verse. Granted he had [SPOILER - highlight to read]: picked batman up and broke his backwhich I thought was pretty sweet but having such things makes me see no reason why it couldn't have augmented his strength. Though in all honesty that was something that turned me off to the movie but then after watching it I really don't feel as strongly on that stance. Actually I don't even really care about it but I have discussed everything else about the film so why not take a jab at it? lol
[QUOTE=13947092]Originally posted by ares834 No, you are the one misinterpreting it and misquoting it. He never says Batman isn't a hero, in fact he says Bamtan is the "hero Gotham deserves". Rather, Gordan states he is "not our hero".
Regardless, the reason he says Batman isn't the hero Gotham need right now isn't because Batman isn't a hero (once again immediately before saying this he says Batman is the hero Gotham deserves) but because they literary don't need him right now.
True. And if Gotham doesn't need him, he will disappear until needed. Which TDKR goes with.
The only real foreshadowing for the freaks is Jim Gordan and Batman's discussion at the end of Begins. However, I'd argue it foreshadowed the coming of the Joker and the chaos he spread throughout that movie rather than one costumed villain after another coming to take on the Bat.
Nah, the fact that he wasn't caught shows he was able to take it. Gordan's point here isn't that Batman is going to lead the police on a merry goose chase, but rather the police won't be able nail him for the crimes he supposedly committed.
[QUOTE=13947040]Originally posted by spidermanrocks
The mob and corruption being dead is irrelevant. COMPLETELY irrelevant to the necessity of Batman. TDK foreshadows and states that the mob was going to quickly fall ANYWAYS and the mob in Gotham would be replaced by the "freaks". The mob's control of Gotham ending has nothing to do with that because according to TDK, more people like the Joker would quickly start to step into Gotham would have stepped in and would have taken Gotham from them anyways.
I personally interpreted those lines as foreshadowing for the freaks and still do. If you haven't, I guess that's fine (though I disagree). One of the great things about BB and TDK is that they're so well written they can be seen from multiple perspectives (case and point: Some people think the movie defends Bush's Patriot Act because of the cell phone connection thing Batman does in the final act. I never even gave that a thought). So in this case, we can only agree to disagree.
No, he can't take it if he quits after one night of being chased. Believe it or not, many people in this world can avoid an entire police force for ONE night. It's not that unrealistic. I can show you tons of cases where certain criminals and fugitives were able to avoid an entire police force for MONTHS. On top of that, there are people that have never been caught for their crimes and walk among you today. A lot of those people are no smarter or dumber than your average Joe. Would you say what Gordon said can be applied to them as well?
Gotham DOES need Batman. Even if you were to argue that there is no foreshadowing of the freaks in both BB and TDK and there were no supervillains in the 8 year gap, Batman still has to stick around. End of organized crime =/= end of all crime. They're not even close to being the same. In fact, unorganized crime can sometimes be even more dangerous than organized crime. Because with organized crime, at least there is a mob boss holding Gotham's criminals by a "leash", telling them what they can and can't do, when and when not to act, when and when not to kill, etc. Unorganized crime pretty much means criminals running around doing whatever they want. That is why Gotham needs Batman now more than ever. And on top of that, Bruce became Batman because he believes happened to him should never happen to anyone again. As long as there are SOME criminals running around, even if they're low in numbers, Bruce wouldn't give up being Batman.
Also, the Dent Act ends organized crime by being an act that's supposed to keep Gotham's mob bosses in prison forever, right? (Still haven't seen the movie). Last time I checked, Gotham City is in America. An act like that, despite keeping the mob bosses of organized crime in prison, would violate the Constitution and would have low chances of being passed in real life due to that.
This is a comic book america so who cares if the laws are different.
If you want to pick TDKR apart. then you can also pick apart TDK. Gordon and Batman could of just blamed the joker for all the deaths and say harvey killed himself cause he couldn't live without rachel.
The problem is that the Nolanverse is supposed to be more realistic than the DC universe in the comics and an act like that is not realistic at all.
No, they couldn't have blamed the Joker for Harvey's murders because they have evidence the Joker was nowhere around while the killings took place. Plus, they already knew Gordon was being held captive by someone and the Joker was already caught. Also if they said Harvey committed suicide, the Joker would have won because it would have proven his point - that any hero can easily snap due to an incident and just lose his will and fall (except for Batman - which was the whole POINT of the movie). The public believing Harvey committed suicide would have destroyed their hope. Them believing Harvey died as the strong DA he originally was wouldn't have.
KMC Community Forums
Jul 23rd, 2012 12:52 AM
