The Dark Knight Rises compared to Batman Returns

[Edd Grayson]

Both have Batman returning, returning to fight new major villains in Batman Returns and after a long absence in TDKR. Both have Catwoman, a ballroom scene with Bruce and Selina and a villain seeking to destroy Gotham City, and also another villain, as in Max Schreck and Talia.
Both are sequels to films featuring the Joker who were succesful and they (TDKR and BR) were released 20 years apart. They are also the last Batman films directed by Chris Nolan and Tim Burton respectively.

[phantom stranger]

The ballroom scene was definitely an homage to Batman Returns. Not sure if it's been publicly commented on by Nolan but everyone can see that.

As for Batman returning, with BR you get the sense that the "returns" was more in reference to the movie theater than it is to Gotham. None of the residents seem that surprised when he shows up which means that he never really went away.

[DocLathropBrown]

And the snow, don't forget the snow!

I feel that in BR, Batman may not have been needed for a little while. It seems like, unlike the comics, the police try to handle things themselves, hence why when the riot broke out on the plaza, Gordon said "What are you waiting for? The signal!"  Batman was a resort only for when they were overwhelmed. So there is a slight return in a sense.

[johnnygobbs]

And the snow, don't forget the snow!

I feel that in BR, Batman may not have been needed for a little while. It seems like, unlike the comics, the police try to handle things themselves, hence why when the riot broke out on the plaza, Gordon said "What are you waiting for? The signal!"  Batman was a resort only for when they were overwhelmed. So there is a slight return in a sense.

It wasn't explicit so I don't think it's fair to suggest that TDK was emulating Batman Returns in this sense but I do agree that it is at least implied that Batman has been 'out of action' for a while by the time we find Bruce in Batman Returns.  He seems to have lost any purpose to life and is literally waiting for the Batsignal to rouse him out of his stupor.  I don't imagine it's been several years as is the case in TDK but I do get the impression he's not needed to don and cape and cowl for a good while.  The implication of the mayor's speech "hopefully this will be the first merry Christmas Gotham has enjoyed for a long time" is that peace and order has been partially restored to Gotham and Gothamites are looking forward to continuing to enjoy a city that doesn't need Batman.  Of course, the Red Triangle Gang spoils all that...

In general I don't care for nihilism but I do find 'Batman Returns' pessimistic and despairing POV quite refreshing and thematically fascinating for a comic-book movie.  What I mean by that is the sense that Bruce is almost as much a 'bad guy' in the film as the Oswald, Selina and Max Shreck since he has a maladjusted need to thrive on the misery that afflicts Gotham's 'little people'.  Without it he can not truly be 'whole' (i.e. Batman).  He is like a colonial ruler who thrives off the sense of dependency he instils in the natives.

[Cobblepot4Mayor]

The ballroom scene was definitely an homage to Batman Returns. Not sure if it's been publicly commented on by Nolan but everyone can see that.

As for Batman returning, with BR you get the sense that the "returns" was more in reference to the movie theater than it is to Gotham. None of the residents seem that surprised when he shows up which means that he never really went away.

While I like the title it doesn't really make sense does it? What's Batman returning from? Burton was critical of the title for Batman Forever but y'know I have to respectfully disagree with him. While it may sound like the title of some romance comic it was stated in the film what it may refer to. Firstly Bruce's line to Chase that he "fell forever..." when falling into the Batcave as a child. Secondly the rather fantastic statement he gives at the end to the defeated Riddler that he chooses to remain both as Bruce Wayne and Batman always. In a film where he has a choice whether to continue as Batman or not I think the title is a misunderstood criticism by fans.

[Cobblepot4Mayor]

And the snow, don't forget the snow!

I feel that in BR, Batman may not have been needed for a little while. It seems like, unlike the comics, the police try to handle things themselves, hence why when the riot broke out on the plaza, Gordon said "What are you waiting for? The signal!"  Batman was a resort only for when they were overwhelmed. So there is a slight return in a sense.

Yes the snow. Unfortunately it wasn't as magical looking here as in Burton's. The realism content got in the way there. I'd really like to know if all these similarities were intentional given it was also the 20th anniversary of Batman Returns and Catwoman's (proper) return to Cinema screens therefore. I think in reality it's nothing but coincidence really. Either way a really nice "accident".

I always thought Batman coming to solve the attack on Gotham Plaza was the first situation he'd dealt with since the Joker incident. That's how I justified it as a kid. Maybe he'd been redesigning the Batcave and developing the new batsuit in the meantime. His split with Viki Vale may have put him out of action for a time too.

Trouble is we don't know how much time has passed as the movies were never designed this way. I personally go on the three year rule (the years since the release of the first movie). Gotham City looks like it's had some newly built structures. Some time to achieve that surely.

[Cobblepot4Mayor]

And the snow, don't forget the snow!

I feel that in BR, Batman may not have been needed for a little while. It seems like, unlike the comics, the police try to handle things themselves, hence why when the riot broke out on the plaza, Gordon said "What are you waiting for? The signal!"  Batman was a resort only for when they were overwhelmed. So there is a slight return in a sense.

It wasn't explicit so I don't think it's fair to suggest that TDK was emulating Batman Returns in this sense but I do agree that it is at least implied that Batman has been 'out of action' for a while by the time we find Bruce in Batman Returns.  He seems to have lost any purpose to life and is literally waiting for the Batsignal to rouse him out of his stupor.  I don't imagine it's been several years as is the case in TDK but I do get the impression he's not needed to don and cape and cowl for a good while.  The implication of the mayor's speech "hopefully this will be the first merry Christmas Gotham has enjoyed for a long time" is that peace and order has been partially restored to Gotham and Gothamites are looking forward to continuing to enjoy a city that doesn't need Batman.  Of course, the Red Triangle Gang spoils all that...

In general I don't care for nihilism but I do find 'Batman Returns' pessimistic and despairing POV quite refreshing and thematically fascinating for a comic-book movie.  What I mean by that is the sense that Bruce is almost as much a 'bad guy' in the film as the Oswald, Selina and Max Shreck since he has a maladjusted need to thrive on the misery that afflicts Gotham's 'little people'.  Without it he can not truly be 'whole' (i.e. Batman).  He is like a colonial ruler who thrives off the sense of dependency he instils in the natives.

Batman Returns also shares similarities with another film made and released at the same time which is Alien3. Both have a bleak, depressing tone that took audiences totally by surprise and ultimately made them controversial. Today they are both regarded as being misunderstood and ahead of their time. I think it's interesting analysing them both.

[johnnygobbs]

Trouble is we don't know how much time has passed as the movies were never designed this way. I personally go on the three year rule (the years since the release of the first movie). Gotham City looks like it's had some newly built structures. Some time to achieve that surely.

It's not a problem because it's fun to speculate.  I do agree though that it was probably around three years since the events of 'Batman '89'.  By that rationale I'm guessing Gotham had experienced a couple of violence-free Christmases before the events of 'Batman Returns' but maybe the mayor was just exaggerating and maybe he was also referring to the cash-injection Shreck had brought to the city over the recent period.  One gets a sense that Gotham has been vastly revitalised commercially since the events of 'Batman '89'.

[Cobblepot4Mayor]

Trouble is we don't know how much time has passed as the movies were never designed this way. I personally go on the three year rule (the years since the release of the first movie). Gotham City looks like it's had some newly built structures. Some time to achieve that surely.

It's not a problem because it's fun to speculate.  I do agree though that it was probably around three years since the events of 'Batman '89'.  By that rationale I'm guessing Gotham had experienced a couple of violence-free Christmases before the events of 'Batman Returns' but maybe the mayor was just exaggerating and maybe he was also referring to the cash-injection Shreck had brought to the city over the recent period.  One gets a sense that Gotham has been vastly revitalised commercially since the events of 'Batman '89'.

And then you have the Mayor himself who is clearly not Mayor Borg anymore from the first film and Harvey Dent is not around. So something's happened there. An election perhaps. And this Mayor is quite unpopular it seems. Like he's been messing things up for some time. We don't really get his name but I like to think he's Mayor Hill (introduced in the animated series who was also quite foolish). Furthermore maybe that baby of his in his future animated series son, Jordan! (see "Be a Clown") lol

By the time of Batman Forever there is another new Mayor, a black guy. So another election there.

[johnnygobbs]

And then you have the Mayor himself who is clearly not Mayor Borg anymore from the first film and Harvey Dent is not around. So something's happened there. An election perhaps. And this Mayor is quite unpopular it seems. Like he's been messing things up for some time. We don't really get his name but I like to think he's Mayor Hill (introduced in the animated series who was also quite foolish). Furthermore maybe that baby of his in his future animated series son, Jordan! (see "Be a Clown") lol

By the time of Batman Forever there is another new Mayor, a black guy. So another election there.

I don't know why people keep saying this mayor is called 'Mayor Hill'.  In the novelisation he is referred to as Mayor Jensen.  There is no reference in any other medium to this mayor being called 'Hill'.

However, I do agree that it's interesting that Mayor Borg has been booted out of office.  I suspect the new mayor, who seems to be chums with Max Shreck at least until he rejects his powerplant proposal, is a Republican since Borg was clearly a Democrat, as seen by the Gotham Democrat Committee banners in the first film.  I like it when Bruce Wayne says that he and the mayor see 'eye to eye on this one' with respect to Max's power plant suggesting that they haven't always been in agreement (Bruce is clearly a noblesse oblige type rich Democrat like his father, a doctor).  I also suspect that this mayor is a bit of a bumbler too and is therefore hypothetically quite easy to boot out even for a bile-spitting mutant sewer-dwelling midget.  Perhaps that also explains why he is replaced by another mayor by 'Batman Forever' who I'm guessing is a Democrat (there being far more black Democrat politicians than GOP ones).