Messages

He's shown in the cockpit after passing over the bridge

I didn't see the bridge in the background.

[WORKS]

Sad, really. The movie has a lot of good ideas but it comes off like Nolan is desperate to talk about anything other than Batman. There's an amazing Batman movie lurking around there somewhere underneath all the puffed up speeches, Blake figuring out Batman's identity based on nothing and Occupy Gotham bloat. You could make a very powerful film about a man and his city each clawing their way back from their respective personal hells from the raw elements of TDKRises... but every time that aspect of the story is about to get some attention, we cut to The Have Nots wreaking havoc on The Haves, GCPD pissing in the wind or whatever else. It's maddening.

Coming back to this.

The Nolan trilogy is over. Done with. On balance, there are a lot of good ideas at work in each movie. Frankly, TDKRises doesn't hit a false note until about the time Batman comes back. And from there, the movie never recovers until after Batman somehow survives a nuclear fvcking explosion. In my opinion, anyway. But the stuff that works in his movies WORKS. There's a lot to enjoy. I've come off a bit anti-Nolan in a lot of my posts... and, sadly, a great big part of that is because of obnoxious behavior from the Nolan lovers (particularly the owner of another Batman web page/message board and his little band of Hitler Youths). What I guess I'm saying is that I'm backing off a little when it comes to criticizing Nolan's movies. Is his Batman "my" Batman? No. But there are some good ideas therein and I find I enjoy Batman Begins more now than I did in the years following its release. End of the day, it's Batman. Nothing more, nothing less. No reason his version can't take its place along side Adam West, Tim Burton, Joel Schumacher, the animated stuff and all the rest.

Nothing's perfect and there are things that probably could've been executed better but it's time to make peace.

He doesn't survive a nuclear explosion. He ejects before the Bat even flies over the bridge. Remember the explosion he sets off? That's him covering his ejection.

Think you might want to watch it again. He's clearly in the Bat as it sails over the bridge and into the sunset.

It's obvious by the final scene in the restaurant that he is alive, but when he ejected....is a mystery (to quote Bane)

I actually don't see him in the Bat as he sails over the bridge.

However I do agree that the movie does make it more sketchy than I said.

["Till their spirit breaks completely. Until they find out what I did with the best of them. Until they get a good look at the real Harvey Dent, and all the heroic things he's done.""You didn't think I'd risk losing the battle for the soul of Gotham in a fist fight with you? You've got to have an ace in the hole. Mine's Harvey."]

So what if he did? That still doesn't change the fact that Batman could've saved him. Him saying "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" more than implies he could've saved him, but instead he practically sentenced Ra's al Ghul to a fiery grave. Batman just judged someone to die.

Why did Batman even need to send Gordon? Why couldn't he go destroy the tracks himself, if Ra's has nowhere else to go?

If by "active murder" you mean "he didn't kill him without using your bare hands", I disagree. You can still kill someone just by condemning them to die.

And once again, you still haven't addressed the fact that Batman didn't deny that he killed Ra's to save millions of people AND the Nolans admitted he did wind-up breaking his rule in the TDK Screenplays book.

That's another problem...what ongoing development? The temple fiasco and the death of Ra's al Ghul doesn't change Bruce as a person, nor he Bruce ever progress without reacting to what people tell him what to do. He's never the one calling the shots - he's always depending on what someone else says to him. Furthermore, in the second film he destroys his own symbol that he intended to become an inspiration, to cover up a corrupted maniac's crimes; contradicting everything he stood for in BB. But that belongs in another topic.

Well once again, Batman clearly intends to kill Ra's by refusing to save him. If you refuse to save somebody, that doesn't make you less culpable than physically snuffing them out.

Really? Batman spent the entire movie refusing to kill the Joker, even though the Joker was murdering people left right and center, and many more died as a result. From a realistic point of view, that's pretty negligent, and from a narrative point of view, it makes even less. If Batman was willing to kill of Ra's to save lives, as it was acknowledged in TDKR and TDK Screenplays book, then he should've killed the Joker when he had the chance. Nothing about his actions in these films fit the supposed psych profile they were going for.

A) Why not? Everyone believed Bane when he revealed the truth about Harvey, and the only evidence he had was a piece of paper. For all they know, he could've fabricated it! Besides, if Joker could manipulate Dent into becoming a homicidal psycho, then he's capable of anything.

B) I don't buy that either. Did you forget what the Joker said to Batman?

"Till their spirit breaks completely. Until they find out what I did with the best of them. Until they get a good look at the real Harvey Dent, and all the heroic things he's done."

"You didn't think I'd risk losing the battle for the soul of Gotham in a fist fight with you? You've got to have an ace in the hole. Mine's Harvey."

The Joker corrupted Harvey Dent because he wanted to force everyone in Gotham to lose hope in everything once they learned that their law-abiding DA became a maniac. Him keeping his mouth shut would be too-self defeatist, and go against everything he stood for.

Well according to that film, it suggested they were. There were no other escape routes out of Gotham, if I recall. But even if you're right, it still doesn't change the fact that the Joker was attempting to massacre countless numbers of people.

I did he say he kinda broke his rule. But it was a decision he made in the moment. I just don't agree that it was murder though. He let Ra's decisions get himself killed. I won't deny that he had a hand in it. But it's not the same as murder.

Why would he do that? It didn't seem like he had any idea he was going to leave Ra's to die. Otherwise he would have waited for the train to come up on that spot and blow them up right then. The train would crash. Ra's would die. The end. Bruce had two plans: Either stop the train himself, or Gordon would blow up the tracks. You have a higher chance of success if you have a plan B.

Condemning and allowing are different things. That wasn't the right thing to do certainly, but it's not murder. Having a hand in their death, yes, even killing, but it not active murder.

Yes, I did. I said that that's the way Bruce saw it. I also said he did kinda break the rule.

I was talking about the end where he allows Ra's to die. In TDK he's taken a more hardlined stance against it. Him destroying his symbol was the wrong thing to do. Which was the point of TDKR. There's a pretty clear arc for Bruce in TDK where he believes that the Joker's creation and/or his actions are his fault, and that's at least partially why he does that. He doesn't have a whole lot of belief in the idea of Batman anymore.

I disagree. It's certainly wrong, but that doesn't make it the same.

Huh? The Joker's actions didn't cause more deaths than Ra's at all.

A.) Who says? We don't see the reaction from any people other than the criminals and Blake. Dent was alreadya broken man. Otherwise it wouldn't have worked.

B.) But again, that didn't work. I actually think the Joker was pretty fine with the idea that Batman took the fall.

As if the Joker really stood for anything.

And Batman stopped him without killing him. I also do think that was meant from Batman as a refusal to give the Joker what he wanted. It also plays into his development that I talked about. He allows Ra's to die, but won't do the same with the Joker.

[one]

I'm sorry, but no. He didn't kill Ra's. Ra's stabbed the console while Batman was trying to shut it down. Ra's got himself killed. What Batman says later seems to be just him talking smack.

No offense, but that's just crap. If Gordon was going to sabotage the rails with the Tumbler, then Ra's has no chance of ever getting to Wayne Tower. So why did Batman even needed to get on board of the train to begin with, other than making sure that Ra's doesn't get out of there alive?

Also, you haven't addressed the fact that a) in TDKR, Batman justified to Talia that he had to kill his father when he was going to kill millions of innocent people and b) the Nolans themselves even acknowledged that Batman broke his moral code in the first two films from the official TDK Trilogy Screenplays book.

The temple thing, if anyone was killed, was fully accidental. He didn't do it to kill anybody.

Sure, it may not have been intentional, but it still doesn't change the fact that people did die. It's ludicrous that people talk about these films have "realistic and sophisticated character development" when that scene didn't even Bruce change as a person. We don't even know that the guy Bruce refused to kill even survived for crying out loud! It's ridiculous.

It was the same with Two-Face's death. He didn't tackle Harvey to kill him. He did it to save Jim's son. Harvey died as a result.

Well then it makes sparing of the Joker even more pointless, don't you think? Why bother trying to prove to a mass-murdering psychopath that you won't kill under the circumstances even when you're only endangering an entire town...when you end up killing another maniac when one life is in danger? Yet, people complain about Superman killed Zod in Man of Steel. At least that movie didn't make lame cop-outs like these movies did.

And furthermore, wouldn't keeping the Joker alive only risk endangering the entire Dent cover-up? Why the hell would a presumably still alive Joker go through all that effort to corrupt Dent and devastate Gotham about what he had done...only to keep quiet in jail as Batman takes the fall? Makes no sense. No way would the Joker give up that easily, especially after everything he had accomplished up to that point.

The truck driver was killed inadvertently. Batman was shooting at the truck to get it to change course, but Talia forced the driver to stay in the same spot.

It still doesn't change the fact that lethal force is required in desperate situations. It's one thing where Batman adopts a moral code, and stays true to his beliefs even if it endagers the city, but these movies break their rules and have it both ways. It can't.

When Batman says he doesn't kill, he means that he doesn't choose to murder someone.

Sorry, but I don't see the difference there. If Superman could be condemned for "murdering" Zod in MOS, then so should Batman in all the live action films.

But that doesn't apply because Joker didn't try to do the same thing that Ra's did.

No? The Joker was ready to trigger the bombs on both the boats and murder millions of people on board, until Batman tossed him over the building. How is does that not qualify as attempted mass murder?

Ra's stabbed the console. Not Bruce. End of story. Him sending Gordon to blow up the track was pretty clearly a just in case I don't stop it situation. I'm sure that's the way Bruce looks at it. Bruce did break his rule in a way. But it wasn't an active murder. That is why it's called Batman Begins. It's an ongoing development.

Again, that doesn't really change anything that I said. It was Bruce's folly if people did die. It's all about the intention.

I don't complain about the Superman thing.

There's a big difference between getting someone killed to save someone elses life and actively murdering somebody. Batman saves the Joker because he refuses to murder him. He probably would have gotten him killed to save the city if he needed to, but he didn't need to.

Like A.) Anyone would believe the Joker. And B.) The Joker's become obsessed with Batman by that point. I doubt that he really cares about much else at this point.

Like I said, it's all about the intention. There is a reason why people are prosecuted differently based on intentions in their actions.

Well, Superman does choose to kill Zod. But, again, that's not my issue with Superman in that movie. But again, it's all about the intention for Bruce.

Millions of people couldn't have been on those boats.

[Sometimes we are able to tolerate ourselves going down the wrong path but when we see someone we love doing the same thing we'll say something because we don't want them to turn out like us. Bruce did the same thing with Dick in Batman Forever.]

I think Bruce saw the error of his ways through Selina's actions. He tried to save her but failed. But he learned a lesson and I believe this lead to his moral code we see in Batman Forever. Sometimes we are able to tolerate ourselves going down the wrong path but when we see someone we love doing the same thing we'll say something because we don't want them to turn out like us. Bruce did the same thing with Dick in Batman Forever.

I guess Batman never expected nor wanted anyone he knew to become a reflection of himself. Whether or not it was intended, that idea of Bruce trying to stop someone he cares about from falling into that trap continued in BF. Bruce trying to prevent Dick from emulating him that way is something that the film deserves to get credit for. Critics might argue that Batman is still a hypocrite for killing Two-Face; much to Robin's satisfaction especially. And yeah, that might be true too. But it also allowed Robin to move on with his life - free from wanting revenge. Batman darkened his soul one more time to save another, I suppose. The complete opposite of what happened in the end of BR.

But then again, similar to what Catwoman said - it could've been just contrived BS and we're giving the writers too much credit than they deserve. 

Two-Face actually doesn't die there. And he wasn't intended to. It was always meant to be left open. But he does survive. We see his outfit in Arkham's area.

Me and Max? No, this and Max.

Ah yes. The ballroom party scene.

I had a debate with somebody on this forum who argued that this scene demonstrates how hypocritical Bruce is because he asks Selina "Who the hell do you think you are?", despite the fact that he's a lethal guardian of the entire city. In my opinion, I always perceived this scene as Bruce playing the clueless facade. He's aware that Max did something to Selina, but he can't begin to investigate what happened, and since her erratic mood came by surprise, he's trying to make sure that Selina doesn't get anybody else's attention at the party. But I still think his "Wrong at both counts!" line in the end is hypocritical. Forget about the fact that he kills, Batman is shown to be above the law just by being a crimefighter alone.

I disagree. Selina in Batman Returns reflects Bruce's obsession with revenge how it can ultimately lead to self-destruction, mentally. That moment is a realization, I believe, of him connecting the dots of just how similar they are, which is where he gets to the point where he tells her later that they're the same. He tries to save her from herself at the end of the day, but realizes that he can't after she ultimately chooses vengeance over a life of some kind. This is what leads him into the tired of being Batman and how he's alone because of it attitude that he's in in Batman Forever. It's because he's witnessed his own self-destruction through Selina. It's pretty interesting really. Selina also doesn't say they're above the law. She says the law doesn't apply them. It's a nice moment where Bruce, having realized via Selina, sees just how off the rails he's gone, and tells her that that's wrong. He's trying to course correct, by saving them both. But she rejects it. Which, again, leads to where he's at in Batman Forever.

I don't care how arrogant this sounds, but frankly yes, people on this board could have written TDKR better than what we received. How? Just by watching the previous two movies. For example the tonal shift of TDK's ending with Gordon saying Batman's a badass that can endure anything – and then picking up with Bruce as a bearded recluse. It felt off.

Gotham apparently needing a hero with a face, to Bruce handing over to a pipsqueak vigilante and advising him to wear a mask. Again, it's off. We were led down a path of certain expectation and then it was taken away from us. But apparently that's our fault. All we did was watch the previous two movies. It makes one feel hollow as if the true conclusion hasn't been reached.

The hero with a face idea completely imploded, showcasing how wrong it was. Hence the changing of his tune in the next movie.

I don't care how arrogant this sounds, but frankly yes, people on this board could have written TDKR better than what we received. How? Just by watching the previous two movies. For example the tonal shift of TDK's ending with Gordon saying Batman's a badass that can endure anything – and then picking up with Bruce as a bearded recluse. It felt off.

Gotham apparently needing a hero with a face, to Bruce handing over to a pipsqueak vigilante and advising him to wear a mask. Again, it's off. We were led down a path of certain expectation and then it was taken away from us. But apparently that's our fault. All we did was watch the previous two movies. It makes one feel hollow as if the true conclusion hasn't been reached.

Couldn't agree more. Hell if the film where basically the same, but at first we see Bruce and battered because he's been battling crime and the cops for 8 years instead because he's sad he's retired it would've fixed a lot with me. That and giving me a logical explanation on how he got back from the pit with no funds...

The same way he got around in Batman Begins without any funds.

[WORKS]

Sad, really. The movie has a lot of good ideas but it comes off like Nolan is desperate to talk about anything other than Batman. There's an amazing Batman movie lurking around there somewhere underneath all the puffed up speeches, Blake figuring out Batman's identity based on nothing and Occupy Gotham bloat. You could make a very powerful film about a man and his city each clawing their way back from their respective personal hells from the raw elements of TDKRises... but every time that aspect of the story is about to get some attention, we cut to The Have Nots wreaking havoc on The Haves, GCPD pissing in the wind or whatever else. It's maddening.

Coming back to this.

The Nolan trilogy is over. Done with. On balance, there are a lot of good ideas at work in each movie. Frankly, TDKRises doesn't hit a false note until about the time Batman comes back. And from there, the movie never recovers until after Batman somehow survives a nuclear fvcking explosion. In my opinion, anyway. But the stuff that works in his movies WORKS. There's a lot to enjoy. I've come off a bit anti-Nolan in a lot of my posts... and, sadly, a great big part of that is because of obnoxious behavior from the Nolan lovers (particularly the owner of another Batman web page/message board and his little band of Hitler Youths). What I guess I'm saying is that I'm backing off a little when it comes to criticizing Nolan's movies. Is his Batman "my" Batman? No. But there are some good ideas therein and I find I enjoy Batman Begins more now than I did in the years following its release. End of the day, it's Batman. Nothing more, nothing less. No reason his version can't take its place along side Adam West, Tim Burton, Joel Schumacher, the animated stuff and all the rest.

Nothing's perfect and there are things that probably could've been executed better but it's time to make peace.

He doesn't survive a nuclear explosion. He ejects before the Bat even flies over the bridge. Remember the explosion he sets off? That's him covering his ejection.

Gotham apparently needing a hero with a face, to Bruce handing over to a pipsqueak vigilante and advising him to wear a mask. Again, it's off. We were led down a path of certain expectation and then it was taken away from us. But apparently that's our fault. All we did was watch the previous two movies. It makes one feel hollow as if the true conclusion hasn't been reached.

This happened a lot in the movie, and something I noticed on my first viewing. The biggest contradiction to the other movies that I noticed, was in TDK, Alfred tells Bruce there's been more copycat Batman sightings, and then he tells Alfred "that's not what I had in mind when I said I wanted to inspire", and then cut to then end of the TDKR, and Batman tells Gordon that "that's the point of Batman, anybody can be him". WTF?

He tells that to Blake. That also doesn't mean at all that he wants people to be Batman without the proper resources. It means, like he says in Batman Begins, that he wants to inspire the people to save their city, to show them that anyone is capable of being a hero in Gotham. Batman is symbolic of the idea of anyone being a hero.