Comic Book Influences on The Dark Knight Rises (SPOILERS)

[BatmAngelus]

Didn't even remember that from Red Rain.  Good catch, as usual, Silver Nemesis.

A couple other things that occurred to me:
- Alfred is given the full name "Alfred J. Pennyworth."  His full name in the comics is Alfred Thaddeus Crane Pennyworth.  Perhaps the "J" stands for Jarvis, as in his father, Jarvis Pennyworth?  Interesting that they elected to give him a middle initial and a middle initial that doesn't match the comics, haha.

- I didn't remember this at first from the film, but apparently, Blake mentions that his mother died when he was young, of a car accident.  His father later was killed over a gambling debt, which implies he hung out with the wrong crowd.  This is similar to the Post-Crisis Jason Todd origin in which Jason's mother died of a drug overdose when he was younger (later retconned to find out that his biological mother was someone else, but that's beside the point) and his father was one of Two-Face's men who was killed.

The other thing I have found, is some of the "plot holes" I hear about can be answered if one reads many of those stories you mention.  I know the story lines don't line up exactly, but the core info is there to actually go, "ahh well in the comic xyz happened" and you can apply that to the film.   

Which plot holes would these be (that get filled in when reading the comics)?

[The Dark Knight]

The other thing I have found, is some of the "plot holes" I hear about can be answered if one reads many of those stories you mention.  I know the story lines don't line up exactly, but the core info is there to actually go, "ahh well in the comic xyz happened" and you can apply that to the film.   

I disagree. Just because something happens in the comics doesn't mean it makes sense in the world Nolan established, eg. BB and TDK telling us something and then TDKR doing another thing which contradicts.

[thecolorsblend]

I disagree. Just because something happens in the comics doesn't mean it makes sense in the world Nolan established

I understand your point but let's run with the premise for a second. Suppose something illogical is clarified in some comic book out there. So what? A film needs to work as a completed narrative unto itself. Asking your audience to sift through external media is simply unacceptable.

Case in point? The Star Wars prequels. Now, I like the Star Wars prequels and I think they're unfairly maligned. But the fact is that Lucas took a lot of narrative shortcuts secure in the knowledge that the expanded universe (comics, novels, video games, etc) would cover his @$$. Sorry, not good enough. He set up a lot of things that he ended up ignoring later on. Sure, some EU novel out there covers it but that's not good enough. Lucas set it up so it should be Lucas who pays it off. But he didn't.

Same deal with Nolan.

So even if he's right, I still reject that argument out of hand.

[The Dark Knight]

I disagree. Just because something happens in the comics doesn't mean it makes sense in the world Nolan established

I understand your point but let's run with the premise for a second. Suppose something illogical is clarified in some comic book out there. So what? A film needs to work as a completed narrative unto itself. Asking your audience to sift through external media is simply unacceptable.

Case in point? The Star Wars prequels. Now, I like the Star Wars prequels and I think they're unfairly maligned. But the fact is that Lucas took a lot of narrative shortcuts secure in the knowledge that the expanded universe (comics, novels, video games, etc) would cover his @$$. Sorry, not good enough. He set up a lot of things that he ended up ignoring later on. Sure, some EU novel out there covers it but that's not good enough. Lucas set it up so it should be Lucas who pays it off. But he didn't.

Same deal with Nolan.

So even if he's right, I still reject that argument out of hand.

Very good point. It should be all in the movie itself. For example, I shouldn't have to read the novelisation to find out what really happened, or what a certain thing meant, after seeing the movie. In this instance they had a solid 2 hours 45 minutes.

For example, cutting off bridges has happened in the comics. And that's fine. But I find Bane's reasoning for doing so in the movie weak and distorted. Thus making the comic reference a bit ho-hum. Just ripping from a comic panel doesn't make it automatic gold, y'know?

Ras only attacked Gotham in BB because he deemed it beyond saving. At that point he was correct. Bane attacks Gotham in TDKR (before finding out about Dent's true nature) during peace time. When he first came to Gotham he's essentially starting something out of nothing. "It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan." There we go. Ras Al Ghul's plan. But things had certainly come a long way since those days.

[thecolorsblend]

Very good point. It should be all in the movie itself. For example, I shouldn't have to read the novelisation to find out what really happened, or what a certain thing meant, after seeing the movie. In this instance they had a solid 2 hours 45 minutes.

For example, cutting off bridges has happened in the comics. And that's fine. But I find Bane's reasoning for doing so in the movie weak and distorted. Thus making the comic reference a bit ho-hum. Just ripping from a comic panel doesn't make it automatic gold, y'know?

Ras only attacked Gotham in BB because he deemed it beyond saving. At that point he was correct. Bane attacks Gotham in TDKR (before finding out about Dent's true nature) during peace time. When he first came to Gotham he's essentially starting something out of nothing. "It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan." There we go. Ras Al Ghul's plan. But things had certainly come a long way since those days.

Yep. Or here's another one. Bruce stepping aside. Now, there's some precedent for Bruce stepping down as Batman. I don't particularly like that but it's been done. However, what I do NOT buy is that the death of Rachel Dawes would be what did it. And this really is a shortcoming of the movie. Any way you slice it, the movie outright says Bruce gave up because she 'sploded real good in TDK. You'll never convince me that the death of a woman would make Bruce go into hiding. I could buy that he went into hiding in TDKR because Jason died. That could feasibly make Bruce question everything he's ever done, every decision he's made, everything. I could see that so destroying his spirit that he'd hang it up. At least for a while. But Rachel? No chance in hell. None.

And the real hell of it is that TDKRises had a built-in alternative. The Harvey Dent act essentially made Batman obsolete. Nolan could've set up the argument that Gotham City had reached a point where they just didn't need Batman anymore. On paper, that's what he was striving for anyway. If that had been his stated purpose for giving up, it would've made a lot of sense. However unfulfilled he might've felt, Bruce could at least acknowledge that the city had gotten its shyt together enough to put him out of business.

But the filmmakers went another way and I'll never buy it. Ever.

[The Dark Knight]

Agreed - Rachel seems to have had a bigger impact on the Nolan Bruce than the death of his parents. Which I don't agree with. The 8 year hibernation was excessive, and this incarnation of Batman as a result wore the cape and cowl for a very short time indeed overall.

That's the thing about this movie. We don't get to see what people, average Joes and Janes, actually think about Harvey Dent's true nature once it is revealed. Nor do we get a full impression of any sort regarding their opinion of Batman, given his name is now cleared. I was looking forward to such scenes (really, this stuff should be covered) as they're just as important, more so IMO, than the reveal itself. In TDK we're told people will lose hope if it's revealed and stuff like that. But this material isn't covered.

When I saw little Levitt take on the mantle (after TDK told us Batman didn't believe in copycats, guns or no guns) I was disappointed and gobsmacked Nolan went that way. I read that in fan fiction and it actually came true. Nolan can argue that the will is everything, but in all seriousness I'd give this kid a week at most. Nolan said TDKR wouldn't blow up the balloon, but in my estimations he did just that.

[bttfbat]

Well about the plot holes out there online, are made by hard core fans, not the general film going public.  Examples of this:the city in lock down mode.  When I watch the movie it seems so strange the way Gotham is left out there to hang and dry.  Did it work on its own in the film, a bit, but Gotham is a large  city, there had to be things going on in the city that we never saw.  Right about the time No Man's Land came out was when I went off to college I had the books here at home but never really read them.   There is no way a film can go into ALL the details that one (us hard core fans) can find the answer to. Sometimes us the viewers have to figure out how things happen or get the way they do, I think that is part of the reason there are so many fan clubs (back in the day I was on several newsletter clubs), or now in the current age forums like this. 

On screen the whole image of the city of Gotham being off limits seemed a bit strange to me, but after reading the depths that the comics went to in order to show an isolated Gotham, I could see some parallels that for me gave me a bit of comfort in what they did in Dark Knight Rises.  As much as Nolan and the hard core Nolan fans try to make it, his films still are comic book films, no matter what they try to say. For me this is a GOOD thing. I do still wish they made Gotham more of itself a character, with styling, but that is my personal preference.

The same issues can be said about the many Harry Potter films, my wife read the books but I didn't I got lost in the middle films until I read the books and then it all clicked.  Does that mean it is not as strong as a film, yes... but in the case with the current Batman movie line, you don't HAVE to look to the comics for the inspiration if you don't want to, that is up to each viewer.   Another great example is the James Bond film series, the movies many times have nothing to really do with the exact books, however, in the books there are some small details about the character that still can exist in the films and explain a few things.

It might not work for you and I am not saying it is the only way it has to be, but for me it does, and I thought the articles about the comic influences here on the films are great. 

[BatmAngelus]

Agreed - Rachel seems to have had a bigger impact on the Nolan Bruce than the death of his parents. Which I don't agree with. The 8 year hibernation was excessive, and this incarnation of Batman as a result wore the cape and cowl for a very short time indeed overall.

That's the thing about this movie. We don't get to see what people, average Joes and Janes, actually think about Harvey Dent's true nature once it is revealed. Nor do we get a full impression of any sort regarding their opinion of Batman, given his name is now cleared. I was looking forward to such scenes (really, this stuff should be covered) as they're just as important, more so IMO, than the reveal itself. In TDK we're told people will lose hope if it's revealed and stuff like that. But this material isn't covered.

When I saw little Levitt take on the mantle (after TDK told us Batman didn't believe in copycats, guns or no guns) I was disappointed and gobsmacked Nolan went that way. I read that in fan fiction and it actually came true. Nolan can argue that the will is everything, but in all seriousness I'd give this kid a week at most. Nolan said TDKR wouldn't blow up the balloon, but in my estimations he did just that.

Agreed 100%.  I would've happily traded all the comic book connections to Dark Knight Returns, No Man's Land, and Knightfall in exchange for a better follow-up on TDK's ending and dealing with the ramifications of Batman and Gordon's decision to cover up Dent's crimes.

And as much as I liked Blake, I agree that it's difficult to see him in the Batsuit by the end.  The reason why it's more believable for Dick Grayson to do it in the comics is because we've seen him undergo years and years of training and in-field experience fighting crime at Batman's side, joining the Teen Titans, forging his own path as Nightwing, etc. 

Yes, Blake is a cop with a solid moral compass and too-good-to-be-true detective skills.  Having an armored Batsuit and gadgets would be a huge advantage for him in the future.  But the film doesn't provide a ton of evidence that he'd last as long as Bruce did (which, in the trilogy, is what?  A year between BB and TDK and then a month here and there in TDKR?)

If it weren't for his handgun, those truck guys would've killed him.
If Gordon hadn't suddenly healed and taken out two League of Shadows members in the hospital, who knows what would've happened.
If it weren't for Batman, the LoS men would've killed him in the snow.
If it weren't for sheer luck that he didn't move closer, he would've gotten blown up by the army guys at the bridge.
And obviously, if it weren't for Batman taking out the bomb, he would've gotten blown up with the kids and the rest of the city, too.

[GothamAlleys]

Guys, does anyone remember in which issue it was first mentioned that Gordon got separated with his wife?

[The Dark Knight]

If it weren't for his handgun, those truck guys would've killed him.
If Gordon hadn't suddenly healed and taken out two League of Shadows members in the hospital, who knows what would've happened.
If it weren't for Batman, the LoS men would've killed him in the snow.
If it weren't for sheer luck that he didn't move closer, he would've gotten blown up by the army guys at the bridge.
And obviously, if it weren't for Batman taking out the bomb, he would've gotten blown up with the kids and the rest of the city, too.

Indeed. That is what we're shown in the movie. But that's all apparently going to change because he's found the batcave. 

I would've greatly preferred to have seen the City galvanising after Bane's rule, but the people of Gotham are virtually silent throughout this movie. As colors said, a time where Gotham has evolved to the point of not needing Batman. From TDK: "You know that day that you once told me about, when Gotham would no longer need Batman? It's coming." No it's not. Because Little Levitt is here to keep everybody safe.

Apart from releasing the prisoners, the lie itself being revealed does not advance the plot in any way. How do the police force feel about Gordon's decision 8 years ago? We hear Blake's side, but he is not a representative of the force as a whole.

Guys, does anyone remember in which issue it was first mentioned that Gordon got separated with his wife?

Not sure, GA. I'm sure somebody in here will know.