Batman 3 Discussion Thread

Originally posted by spidermanrocks
I'm seeing it next week but I have to ask...for the people that saw the movie, does it really contradict and ignore the main point of TDK or do they find a way to make it work? I seriously doubt that they can find a way around it and all my friends (who are big Batman and comic book fans like me) have been telling me that it contradicts the message of TDK even worse than I thought it would. I would like what the people on this forum that saw the film have to say on that. Even though I'm 99.9% sure with everything that I heard that it does contradict TDK but hey, a guy can still hope. LOL

IMO it is entirely contradicting. Without spoiling anything the 8 year skip was a very dumb idea and not even needed. They wanted him out of practice and could have achieved that without making him stop. Bruce doesn't even seem to want to represent what he did in TDK and he had to re-realize it.

And I also heard (not sure if this is true or not) that TDKR focuses on the fact that Batman isn't just a man but a symbol that anyone can be. Basically anyone can be Batman. If that's true, then that contradicts Begins and Dark Knight SO much that it's ridiculous. And I heard the ending is really bad (don't spoil it for me though).

Won't see it till next week but I don't have high expectations. Though I heard Catwoman is the best part and just like the comics.

Originally posted by Scythe
Thanks babeh.

Originally posted by darthmaul1
The shooting is tragic and sad and the guy needs to burn for it. And my heart goes out to all involved, But I have to say this. Who takes a 3 month old and a 4 year old to the dark knight rises never mind taking them to a midnight screening?!

Was the shooting imitated from the 1986 comic?

Originally posted by spidermanrocks
I'm seeing it next week but I have to ask...for the people that saw the movie, does it really contradict and ignore the main point of TDK or do they find a way to make it work? I seriously doubt that they can find a way around it and all my friends (who are big Batman and comic book fans like me) have been telling me that it contradicts the message of TDK even worse than I thought it would. I would like what the people on this forum that saw the film have to say on that. Even though I'm 99.9% sure with everything that I heard that it does contradict TDK but hey, a guy can still hope. LOL

Call me stupid but what message in TDK are u thinking it may contradict?

Originally posted by darthmaul1
Call me stupid but what message in TDK are u thinking it may contradict?

Read all my posts in this thread for the past 4 or 5 pages. I address this topic in detail.

How Batman killed Harvey Dent?

No. The fact that he quits being Batman despite TDK being all about him having to come to the realization that Batman is who he has to be forever and there's no escape from it. And TDKR focuses on him realizing this again despite him already realizing this by the end of TDK. It contradicts his whole character arc in TDK and makes TDK not even needed.

Yeah, not sure the implication that Batman needs to stay around come from. Yes, Bruce needs Batman but that's why he is such a wreck during the opening of the film as he has no purpose. However, TDK makes it pretty clear by the end that Gotham no longer needs him around.

"Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now."

Gordons son: "why are they chasing him?"
Gordon: "because he can take it"
Gordons son: "but he hasn't done anything wrong"
Gordon: "because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now."

They needed Harvey because if he was figured out the criminals would all be put back on the streets not because all of the streets are clean. As I recall the streets were only to be clean for 18 months....he quit for 8 years. In the 8 years at some point they passed the dent bill but they made perfect notice they still had crime just not a lot. Batman knew in TDK he needed to be batman I don't see why he wouldn't have continued it. I feel like a much better take would have been batman fighting regular criminals so he was rusty/out of real practice. It also would have made his medical issues more conceivable if he hadn't just been setting around not doing anything for 8 whole years. He was literately locked out from the world.....

It's all kind of small beans I guess but I do get what spidermanrocks is saying and it seems to me batman had to over come the events of the joker without quitting....realizing he couldn't stop being batman. People may say he quit because the police where after him but that would indicate that he in fact could not take being chased by them.

I think this might be my favorite of the trilogy, but I have to watch it again. Most likely it's on par and definitely better than Begins. Solid movie.

I'm still not sure where the point that Bruce realizes Gotham continues to need Batman comes from. I mean I get the exact opposite feeling from the ending of the film. Besides Gordan's speech saying Gotham no longer needs him (something Bruce also claimed earlier) but the fact that the people of this city are good. Plus it helps that the vast majority of organized crime was stamped out during the moive.

Yeah. Because foreshadowing that Gotham will continue to be under the constant threat of higher classes of criminals like the Joker (aka other supervillains from his rogues gallery) and then establishing that Batman is there to fight the battles against that higher class of criminals no one else - not even Harvey - could handle TOTALLY makes it pretty clear that Gotham doesn't need him anymore.

The people of Gotham might THINK Batman is just an unneeded murderer but the exact opposite is true. Joker stated that the mob wanted everything to go back to how it was back when they ruled Gotham (before Batman showed up) but there was no going back. "You've changed things. Forever." He knew Gotham would never go back to being ruled by mob bosses and would slowly turn into a city full of a higher class of criminals like him - the "freaks". TDK clearly foreshadowed the demise of the mob and the rise of costumed criminals like Joker due to Batman's presence - an idea taken straight from Long Halloween. That's exactly why Gotham still needed Batman. More and more "freaks" like the Joker would have threatened the city that even people like Harvey couldn't face because they're just men while Batman is "more than just a man; can make the decisions no one else can make" (quotes from BB/TDK). Remember how he thought Harvey was the one to replace him? After the Joker corrupted him but failed to corrupt Batman, Bats realized there can be no replacement. Only he is the one able to stop that higher class of criminals without falling into the darkness. Though Harvey was the best at fighting Gotham's villains, he was no match for the "supervillains". And with the movie foreshadowing there would be more "freaks" to come, Batman had to stay and fight the battle no man can fight. I know it may sound like I'm just repeating myself in a loop but you get the idea.

And great points, BlackZero30x.

Originally posted by spidermanrocks
I've been wanting to bring this up for a while now but never did. I guess the best moment to do so in now before the movie is out.

Is anyone else bothered by the fact that Bruce retires for 8 years in TDKR? To me, this completely destroys the whole character arc he had in TDK. TDK was about him coming to the realization that Batman is who he is and that he needs to be Batman forever (no pun intended) in order for Gotham to stay truly incorruptible. His original plan in Batman Begins was to be Batman for a few years until he he fixed Gotham and then his job would be finished and he'll hook up with Rachel. At the end of TDK, he realizes this will never be possible for him. Batman is who he is and who he always has to be. So doesn't him retiring from being Batman destroy all the character development and message Bruce went through and learned? Rachel herself even said she would have never been with him anyways because deep inside, they both knew he would never be able to give up Batman.

Plus, I don't see Batman retiring at the age of 31 (his age in TDK; he turns 30 in BB during his birthday party and it's stated in TDK that Batman appeared a year ago; TDKR takes place 8 years later, which means he will be 39). I can only see Bruce retiring as Batman due to old age.

So is anyone else really bothered by this? Or is it just me?

IMO it worked and worked very well! His character arc to me is not changed. At the end of TDK he becomes the hero Gotham needs by taking the fall for killing Harvey and the others. So 8 years later it's still peace time and batman is not needed but he is still wanted for the murders. but once bane comes into the picture he is needed again!

Originally posted by ares834
I'm still not sure where the point that Bruce realizes Gotham continues to need Batman comes from. I mean I get the exact opposite feeling from the ending of the film. Besides Gordan's speech saying Gotham no longer needs him (something Bruce also claimed earlier) but the fact that the people of this city are good. Plus it helps that the vast majority of organized crime was stamped out during the moive.

Bruce stated that before realizing Gotham will always need him (which was right at the end) and right before Alfred gave him the speech to how Batman can make the decisions no one else can make. It was only after Harvey's demise that he realized he's needed to fight against the higher class of criminals (aka supervillains) no man, including Harvey, was able to beat because they're all just men while Batman is more than just a man (going back to Begins). Thus it is irrelevant whether or not the people of Gotham are good because the best Harvey could do to inspire them is show them how to fight against organized crime and the mob - they are not able to keep Gotham safe from "freaks" like Joker, Riddler, Black Mask, Mad Hatter, etc. and that's why Batman is needed (despite them not knowing it).

Organized crime being stamped out is irrelevant to the necessity of Batman. Going back to my previous post, TDK foreshadowed organized crime was going to fall anyways because of the rise of the "freaks" and Batman exists to keep Gotham safe from that class of criminals. As organized crime slowly falls, the numbers of people like the Joker should have increased. Though it looks like Nolan dropped this idea completely making that two important plot elements dropped. Going by the stuff foreshadowed in BB and TDK, most of Batman's rogues gallery should have attacked Gotham during the 8 year gap.

Originally posted by spidermanrocks
Yeah. Because foreshadowing that Gotham will continue to be under the constant threat of higher classes of criminals like the Joker (aka other supervillains from his rogues gallery) and then establishing that Batman is there to fight the battles against that higher class of criminals no one else - not even Harvey - could handle TOTALLY makes it pretty clear that Gotham doesn't need him anymore.

Yes, but those criminals aren't around between TDK and TDKR. Batman is waiting until a character of this type shows up before emerging.

Originally posted by spidermanrocks
The people of Gotham might THINK Batman is just an unneeded murderer but the exact opposite is true. Joker stated that the mob wanted everything to go back to how it was back when they ruled Gotham (before Batman showed up) but there was no going back. "You've changed things. Forever." He knew Gotham would never go back to being ruled by mob bosses and would slowly turn into a city full of a higher class of criminals like him - the "freaks".

Eh, no. I got the exact opposite idea from his speech. The Joker is talking about how Batman has "shown Gotham your (the mob's) true colors". Yes, he does try to make "a better class of criminal" but he fails in this. His entire boat scheme collapses do to the goodness of the citizens, and his "ace in the hole" fails as well as Batman takes the fall instead.

The Joker's goal was to corrupt the soul of Gotham to bring forth new criminals (freaks) like him. But he fails. Truthfully, there is no notion in the film that other supervillians will begin to congregate toward Gotham.

Originally posted by ares834
Yes, but those criminals aren't around between TDK and TDKR. Batman is waiting until a character of this type shows up before emerging.

That's the point. That's one of the problems with TDKR IMO. TDK seemed to be foreshadowing that more of these "freaks" would continue to show up and quickly. "They want everything to go back to the way it was. But I know the truth. There's no going back. You've changed things. Forever." Apparently, there IS going back since nothing happens for 8 years.

Originally posted by ares834
Eh, no. I got the exact opposite idea from his speech. The Joker is talking about how Batman has "shown Gotham your (the mob's) true colors". Yes, he does try to make "a better class of criminal" but he fails in this. His entire boat scheme collapses do to the goodness of the citizens, and his "ace in the hole" fails as well as Batman takes the fall instead.

The Joker's goal was to corrupt the soul of Gotham to bring forth new criminals (freaks) like him. But he fails. Truthfully, there is no notion in the film that other supervillians will begin to congregate toward Gotham.

I personally always saw the first two movies as foreshadowing the idea that more people like the Joker will show up. Mostly due to the ending of Begins (Gordon to Batman: "Now that you've shown up, people like you are starting to show up too"😉 and several lines of dialogue throughout TDK (such as "The mob wants to get rid of you so that everything can go back to how it was before when they ruled Gotham. But I know the truth. You've changed things. Forever. There's no going back." - I see that as foreshadowing). The Joker failing is irrelevant to that as "[Batman's presence] changed things. Forever."

If you think about it, this foreshadow isn't exactly that unused or unheard of. They did say Long Halloween was one of the inspirations for The Dark Knight and Long Halloween constantly does this to a far greater extent. So it kinda makes sense it's there in the first two movies since it's in the book.

Originally posted by spidermanrocks
That's the point. That's one of the problems with TDKR IMO. TDK seemed to be foreshadowing that more of these "freaks" would continue to show up and quickly. "They want everything to go back to the way it was. But I know the truth. There's no going back. You've changed things. Forever." Apparently, there IS going back since nothing happens for 8 years.

I personally always saw the first two movies as foreshadowing the idea that more people like the Joker will show up. Mostly due to the ending of Begins (Gordon to Batman: "Now that you've shown up, people like you are starting to show up too"😉 and several lines of dialogue throughout TDK (such as "The mob wants to get rid of you so that everything can go back to how it was before when they ruled Gotham. But I know the truth. You've changed things. Forever. There's no going back." - I see that as foreshadowing). The Joker failing is irrelevant to that as "[Batman's presence] changed things. Forever."

If you think about it, this foreshadow isn't exactly that unused or unheard of. They did say Long Halloween was one of the inspirations for The Dark Knight and Long Halloween constantly does this to a far greater extent. So it kinda makes sense it's there in the first two movies since it's in the book.

This.

Begins foreshadows this escalation with Dr. Crane's descent into insanity, the Arkham breakout and Batman's conversation with Gordon at the end.

Then the whole fiasco with the Joker in TDK and the transformation of Harvey Dent into Two-Face.

I'm still unsure how you all believe that. Gordan at the end of the TDK states that Gotham doesn't need Batman right but he will be waiting to emerge when he is needed again. And that's exactly what is going on at the beginning of TDKR.

Originally posted by ares834
I'm still unsure how you all believe that. Gordan at the end of the TDK states that Gotham doesn't need Batman right but he will be waiting to emerge when he is needed again. And that's exactly what is going on at the beginning of TDKR.

Agreed batman is in hiding & is not needed for eight years since its peace time as stated in TDKR!