Is The Dark Knight the most unheroic Batman movie ever made?

[The Laughing Fish]

I can't believe this, I, of all people, am stuck playing Nolan apologist. But I really do think some of you are going a little too hard on these movies. They're not really MY Batman either. But they're still Batman and they're not all that bad.

Look, I'm going to be blunt here and I'm sorry if I sound harsh...but I seriously cannot believe for somebody who is so dismissive of Superman II and Superman Returns, you're still so lenient towards Nolan's take. I seriously don't see how the latter is any better.

Batman framing himself to protect a murderer so his reputation doesn't get tarnished is NOT Batman. FFS, I don't even call that heroic. I can't comprehend how anybody could accept THAT as an ending. Let alone call that travesty "inspirational".  It would've sucked ass if Captain America, Superman or anybody else were to do that, and it certainly sucks in TDK, particularly for the reasons why.

Same thing goes for Batman needing to fake his death, and let Blake take over. Way to undermine the idea that Batman was only a short term goal for social reform. Especially if the point that Batman's existence only incites psychopaths to come out, so no, it doesn't seem like street crime will only be prevalent from now on.

In contrast, for all the vitriol Snyder gets, his DCEU movies have characters that ultimately prove to be far more noble than they're given credit for. Now I must admit that I don't like everything that Snyder has done with his take on Superman, but I can honestly say there's more good than bad. In MOS, Superman surrenders himself to Zod for the sake of the planet, ultimately killing him as the last remaining member of his race to protect his adopted home. In BvS, he faces challenges and doubts in a divisive world, and yet, he pleaded Batman on his last dying breath to save his mother as a means to make him rediscover Batman's own humanity, and he still had the bravery to give his own life to take down Doomsday. In turn, the planet mourns in gratitude, and his legacy inspires Batman to continue seeking redemption by starting the Justice League. That alone was far better than the so-called "sacrifice" in Rises. If all else, the moral of the story is the world, despite its problems, is still worth saving, and doing good deeds will eventually inspire others to be better people.

Hell, even Lester's Superman II is more redemptive than Nolan's crap. As you well know, I agree that Clark giving up his powers was pretty sh*tty, but at least he takes responsibility by bearing his own agony by wiping out Lois' painful memory, and pledging never to let down the world again in the end. It's definitely a flawed and overrated film, but it still has good things going for it.

In contrast, I don't see any genuine moral of the story in Nolan's Batman at all. In all three films, he never learns from his mistakes, and every moral of the story is a mess - glossing over all the inconsistencies throughout his arc. Like Bruce travelling around the world to understand the criminal mind in BB, but comes home none the wiser, and is constantly outsmarted by the villains every single time.

We're encouraged to ignore all the terrible writing and inconsistent character motivations for half-assed "feel-good" moments like that unearned "happy" ending in Rises. But unlike Snyder's take on Clark Kent, I have no sympathy whatsoever for Nolan's Bruce. I have no reason to like him or cheer for him, since he speaks in ideals and yet he continues to do dark things. Not because of necessity, but because of recklessness and incompetence. Glossing over these things is not any different to getting excited over Superman's return in Singer's film, while ignoring how flawed the premise is to begin with.

I'm not advocating that Nolan should face personal vitriol like Snyder does. But I have no tolerance for a film series that has become so highly acclaimed despite sharing the same flaws that people enjoy attributing to the DCEU films, and blindly ignoring much worse problems. How people ignore the rubbish that goes on in these movies is unbelievable.

[The Dark Knight]

I actually think the dark knight rises is the most unheroic Batfilm.

It is, but I'm kind of liking that right now.

The Dark Knight is the film in which he beats the mob; kidnapping Lau and bringing him back to Gotham is something only Batman could do. Without that, the RICO case against the mob wouldn't have stuck. The few mob members who don't go down, operate on a much smaller scale. They don't meet at night, Sal Maroni ends up helping Gordon stop the Joker and realizes that things have gone too far. In the end Batman not only captures the Joker twice, he saves Gordon's family and who knows how many other from Dent's wrath.

TDK is showing Baleman at the height of his career.

In the Dark Knight rises, the character is extremely unheroic. Bruce let's his company go bankrupt rendering many orphans homeless. He sits back and watches during the first half while Bane terrorizes Gotham, when he finally comes out of hiding, he ends up helping Bane get away by drawing the police off of him (as though he apparently forgot that Batman is a wanted man), he aids Selina Kyles criminal endeavours. He lets Talia al ghul in on the arc reactor among other things. You could argue he saved the city in the end but he may not have if not for Catwoman saving him by breaking his gun rule. The reason things became so dire in the final act was Batman's failures earlier in the film.

Rises takes place about eight or nine years after TDK. He's basically a worn out Bruce Wayne wearing a Batman costume who secretly has a death wish. He lost interest in life. If he took down Bane in the sewer, fine, he'd take that. But if he died? He'd take that as well. You don't have to like that arc, but that's what the arc is. The eight year gap can't be glossed over because it gives a lot of context. Rises is a sequel, but not an immediate sequel.

I can't believe this, I, of all people, am stuck playing Nolan apologist. But I really do think some of you are going a little too hard on these movies. They're not really MY Batman either. But they're still Batman and they're not all that bad.

That's my mindset right now as well. We all know the flaws, and I've stated them enough times. If listing the things I liked about Nolan's films is a crime, consider me guilty. I don't require a post about all the Nolan era flaws because I know them. I'm trying to look at the other side for a change. The past is the past - it's no longer the current business model. I'm getting my fantastical Batman with Affleck and I'm happy.

[The Laughing Fish]

That's my mindset right now as well. We all know the flaws, and I've stated them enough times. If listing the things I liked about Nolan's films is a crime, consider me guilty.

I wouldn't say that. There are a few things I do like about this trilogy myself: Gordon and Alfred's arcs in BB, Blake in TDKR, and Anne Hathway's performance as Selina Kyle and Tom Hardy's Bane. I even like Bale's performance as Bruce Wayne in the third film.

But as far as the story goes? It's utter garbage. It's not even competent at basic storytelling level. That's where my source of disappointment is coming from.

[thecolorsblend]

Look, I'm going to be blunt here and I'm sorry if I sound harsh...but I seriously cannot believe for somebody who is so dismissive of Superman II and Superman Returns,

It's a fair observation. I believe I've been forthright in admitting that Superman is my #1 character. On his best day, Batman is #2. A very distant #2.

Frankly, I have much higher standards for a Superman film than I do for Batman. That could be bias on my part. I'm willing to consider that. But it's worth remembering that Superman and Batman are different characters with different motivations grounded in different philosophies. It's hardly ideal but I can overlook a lackluster Batman movie.

But a sorry Superman movie? This I cannot forgive.

More bias. I waited over three-quarters of my life for another Superman movie by 2006. And all I had to show for it was a pencil-necked bartender running around in a pleather cape reciting old Christopher Reeve lines. Some wounds just go too deep. I never claimed to be objective.

you're still so lenient towards Nolan's take.

There's been a lot of progress with my views on Nolan. I was the guy in the room who had a hard time taking these movies seriously, especially at first. Of all things, it was TDKRises that helped me put the whole trilogy into better perspective. I'm more tolerant of Nolan after almost a full decade of dismissive condescension. That's kind of a big deal for me.

I seriously don't see how the latter is any better.

Hopefully now you do.

Batman framing himself to protect a murderer so his reputation doesn't get tarnished is NOT Batman. FFS, I don't even call that heroic. I can't comprehend how anybody could accept THAT as an ending.

That wasn't the ending though. Now was it? The real ending was in TDKRises when Batman learned in many ways and on many levels that he should've been honest from the start. That's the arc between TDK and TDKRises. I gather that you don't enjoy that arc. Which is fair.

But that nevertheless is the arc. The ending of TDK wasn't swept under the rug. It was paid off in the story. It accomplished something. It went somewhere.

Let alone call that travesty "inspirational".

I don't recall referring to Batman's actions as inspirational. I've got a fairly simplistic moral code by which I abide. Lying is not permissible. At least not for the reasons Batman did it. It was an error in judgment... for which he paid the price.

It would've sucked ass if Captain America, Superman or anybody else were to do that, and it certainly sucks in TDK, particularly for the reasons why.

The values and sentiments that make for a good Captain America story are different from those that make for a good Superman story. Both are different from what makes for a good Batman story. It isn't wise to impose one character's values upon another as though they're interchangeable commodities.

Same thing goes for Batman needing to fake his death, and let Blake take over. Way to undermine the idea that Batman was only a short term goal for social reform.

This aspect of Nolan's trilogy is murky. In Batman Begins, Bruce viewed Batman as a symbol. In TDK, he viewed Batman as an inspirational force for change. In TDKRises, he viewed Batman as a generic aspirational totem. It's inconsistent and the muddy through-line undermines a lot of Nolan's ultimate ambitions.

Then again, another way of looking at it is that Batman came to mean different things to Bruce over the years.

In contrast, for all the vitriol Snyder gets,

Easy, now. I'm one of the loudest pro-Snyder cheerleaders on this message board. He is the perfect Batman director... and I say this as a guy who just a year ago held Burton in the highest esteem. I don't give that praise lightly. Snyder is the real deal in my view.

his DCEU movies have characters that ultimately prove to be far more noble than they're given credit for.

Preach it!

That alone was far better than the so-called "sacrifice" in Rises.

And I get all that. But Bruce through Nolan's movies can honestly be said to be fairly sacrificial with his name and character. In Batman Begins, he allowed the guests at his party to believe that he was a rude, alcoholic a-hole in order to kick them out of his house and save their lives. He lied to serve a greater good.

In TDK, as you've noted, he allowed the people of Gotham to believe that Batman is a murderer and save more lives. He lied to serve a greater good.

In TDKRises, again as you've noted, he allowed the entire world to believe that Batman died to save Gotham from a jury-rigged nuke as he saved lives. He lied to serve a personal good.

My point is that Bruce lying through his teeth for a higher goal isn't exactly new territory by the time we get to TDKRises.

It's definitely a flawed and overrated film, but it still has good things going for it.

I'd never say otherwise. I just put the emphases on the first seven words of that sentence.

In contrast, I don't see any genuine moral of the story in Nolan's Batman at all.

Me either. But the difference between you and me is that I don't require Nolan's movies to be amazing or perfect Batman movies. I enjoy their positive elements and tolerate the crappy ones. Batman is less important to me than he is to you so that's probably why I can be open-minded about Nolan but groan, rant, gnash my teeth and howl at the moon about Superman II and Superman Returns.

Glossing over these things is not any different to getting excited over Superman's return in Singer's film, while ignoring how flawed the premise is to begin with.

I agree... except that context matters in my case. It sounds to me like your loathing for Nolan's Batman is similar to my loathing of Singer's Superman.

But I have no tolerance for a film series that has become so highly acclaimed

One thing I've noticed, actually, is that the Nolan movies seem to be coming down from the lofty heights at which they were once held. The past few years have shown that a lot of people are cooling to Nolan's films now that they're not quite the zeitgeist they used to be.

No, it isn't perfect. Plenty of people still hold the Nolan trilogy up as the definitive Batman. But that attitude is not as prevalent as it used to be, that's for sure.

[The Laughing Fish]

I seriously don't see how the latter is any better.

Hopefully now you do.

Sorry to say, not really. I get you admit to having higher standards for Superman, but I'm still not convinced by Nolan's take on Batman as the lesser evil. Here is why:

That wasn't the ending though. Now was it? The real ending was in TDKRises when Batman learned in many ways and on many levels that he should've been honest from the start. That's the arc between TDK and TDKRises.

We must have seen two completely different movies then, because that's not what happened at all. There's not one moment where Bruce realises he was wrong to lie about Two-Face. The only thing I can take from your interpretation of that is when he has that vision of Ra's al Ghul chastising him for the cover-up. But the film completely glosses over this and he never has a moment of introspection, like Batman did when he was about to kill Superman in BvS. Actually, the film's cynical message doesn't support this assertion at all. For instance, Blake goes from initially chastising Gordon for his involvement in the cover-up halfway through the film. But because of his stand-off with the guards at the bridge, he then claims Gordon was right to take a stance when the system fails, before taking over the mantle as Batman himself. I guess the moral of the story is law and order can't really work after all, right?* Even you acknowledge this is a fair point, so I'm not sure what we're debating here.

*(Another point I don't get with Blake is how could he be so hard on Gordon to begin with when Batman was the one who willingly allowed himself to be villified? He's much at fault than Gordon, in fact, a LOT more.)

Again, if honesty was supposed to be a theme in Rises, it failed because he faked his own death, and runs away while leaving Blake to fend for himself, while the city is left to pick up the pieces he partly left behind. Glossing over things has always been prevalent in Nolan's writing in these films; after all, Rises has Batman owning up to killing Ra's to save the city, while still remaining oblivious to the fact how pointless and inconsistent his no-kill stance is. The whole arc is very poorly done.

The only thing he does learn in Rises, is he had to overcome his own fear of failure in order to climb out of the Pit. That's it.

But that nevertheless is the arc. The ending of TDK wasn't swept under the rug. It was paid off in the story. It accomplished something. It went somewhere.

Once again, we must've seen two completely different movies.

I don't recall referring to Batman's actions as inspirational. I've got a fairly simplistic moral code by which I abide. Lying is not permissible. At least not for the reasons Batman did it. It was an error in judgment... for which he paid the price.

You'd be surprised how some people defend that ending, and even call it "inspirational". I've seen fools argue TDK's ending could be seen as the Joker's triumph, which is utterly ludicrous. That ending was even darker than anything we saw in BvS.

The values and sentiments that make for a good Captain America story are different from those that make for a good Superman story. Both are different from what makes for a good Batman story. It isn't wise to impose one character's values upon another as though they're interchangeable commodities.

Maybe so...but that still doesn't justify framing a superhero to protect a criminal. That would be like a movie where Superman preaches "truth, justice and the American way" and how he trusts people in having hope, but then the film ends with him killing a corrupted maniac and he takes the fall to avoid the fear of a population's reaction. It's a massive downer, to the point that it's insulting.

This aspect of Nolan's trilogy is murky. In Batman Begins, Bruce viewed Batman as a symbol. In TDK, he viewed Batman as an inspirational force for change. In TDKRises, he viewed Batman as a generic aspirational totem. It's inconsistent and the muddy through-line undermines a lot of Nolan's ultimate ambitions.

Then again, another way of looking at it is that Batman came to mean different things to Bruce over the years.

And THAT is the damn problem. I'm not asking for perfection from writers, but for God's sake, have a consistent narrative throughline for your arc. If people need to keep reinterpreting things all the time to the point you have to ignore extremely sloppy writing, then that's a sign of very weak storytelling.

Easy, now. I'm one of the loudest pro-Snyder cheerleaders on this message board. He is the perfect Batman director... and I say this as a guy who just a year ago held Burton in the highest esteem. I don't give that praise lightly. Snyder is the real deal in my view.

I know that, don't you worry. I was trying to make a comparison in light of the backlash against Snyder by speaking in general terms, and I wanted to explain why I prefer the Snyder films. Apologies if I came across as having a go at you.

Me either. But the difference between you and me is that I don't require Nolan's movies to be amazing or perfect Batman movies.

Hold on, I don't need Nolan to be perfect or amazing either. All I was expecting from him was to be consistent with Batman's character arc, or at the very least, display why he's supposed to be a beacon of strength. The thing with comics is the heroes no matter what flaws they have, there's always that moment of where they take a course of action based on some sort of strong conviction.

Had Batman decided to tell the truth about Two-Face at the end of TDK, I could've tolerated the inconsistent no-kill approach, and the other flaws in the film, because that choice would've made up all of his faults in the film. I still wouldn't have loved the movie, but I'd be willing to cut it some slack if it ended that way. Same thing if he didn't fake his death in Rises, and helped the city out by getting his wealth back and used it help clean up the city's mess. That way he does more of a contribution and the day came when Batman can finally lay to rest.

I think BB is the lesser of the three evils. Sadly, the biggest problem of that film is the most poorly made and poorly acted out of the whole three. But in retrospect, it's a lot tolerable than the sequels offered, plotwise. Though the video game adaptation isn't too bad.

It sounds to me like your loathing for Nolan's Batman is similar to my loathing of Singer's Superman.

Yes, you're right. I understand your disappointment in Singer because you waited for decades for a new Superman film, and instead you got cheap misguided love letter to the 1978 film mixed with ridiculous father issues that don't belong to Superman. But put it this way, that film didn't manage to fool the audience. I seriously suspect a lot of people are easy on Nolan because expectations of the franchise got so incredibly low with Batman & Robin, that they were willing to accept anything, and ignore then blatantly every flaw.

Now, the same standard they hold against something the DCEU, is conveniently not applied when it comes to Nolan. While Nolan is still somehow a critical darling, despite what he offered is less coherent than what the DCEU has done. The DCEU films aren't perfect by any means, but this stance will never make any sense to me.

One thing I've noticed, actually, is that the Nolan movies seem to be coming down from the lofty heights at which they were once held.

I don't even know if that's the case, or convinced that's possible, to be honest.

[riddler]

I do think the Nolan films came at the right time. After all the silliness that we saw in the Schumacher films it definitely was refreshing to see Batman get taken seriously again and they do answer the question "what if Batman existed in the real world?" It is worthy to note as well that in 2005, rebooting franchises had not become common yet so the idea to scrap the previous series for a new one after Batman and Robin wasn't as obvious back then as it would be now. The reality was that a reboot was the best thing for the character, eight years after the last entry, the previous series was best left alone (as the superman franchise should have been instead of Superman Returns).

I haven't discussed the character with a Nolanite since the IMDB boards shut down so maybe my need to trash the Nolan films have subdued but I still maintain there is a huge drop in quality in the dark knight rises so much so that it doesn't feel like a Batman film anymore, it felt like JGL was the star of the film instead of Batman. The premise is compelling enough about Batman retiring and then needing to make a comeback but it took way too long to set up and even when it did happen, he got hurt after two scenes. Rises is an awful movie to watch for repeated viewings and such should not be the case for superhero films.

I think the thing I hate the most about the Dent handling is the fact that by the end of the Dark Knight, Batman had become an inspiration to Gotham. Him taking the wrap wrecked everything he worked towards to be a symbol of hope and let a lot of people down who admired Batman when they found out their hero was a murderer. The truth would have been fine, none of Dents convictions would have been compromised because it could easily be proven he went rogue after his scarring and Rachel's death. If they were going to tamper with the scene, why not just hide or destroy the body? I also don't buy the fact that everyone would just accept that Batman killed Dent, there are still living witnesses who saw him as two face. For instance Ramirez should be able to adequately piece together what happened, she knew Dent was holding Gordon's family on the rooftop, are we to believe that when she learns Dent died there and Batman supposedly did it that she keeps her mouth shut over what she knew while Dent is celebrated as a hero?

Sorry for venting folks, the Dark Knight rises just happens to be one of my most hated films ever and one of the few I wish were never made. When Begins came out, I thought it was better than Batman Returns and definitely what we needed after Batman and Robin. Once the Dark Knight came out I thought it was even better than the 89 film. But Rises really exposed the flaws in the Nolan films (which I wont list out of fear of redundancies). Bale was fine as Bruce Wayne but I cringed every time he opened his mouth from inside the cowl. It's not just his voice, the dialogue was awful too and definitely made me clamour for the days in which Keaton barely spoke while suited up. Personally if Nolan only made two films, I would hold them in much higher esteem. At the end I just felt it was too drawn out. By contrast Burton and even Schumacher made their respective two films more different from each othe than any of the Nolan films which gives the individual films less identity as individual films.

After the dust has settled, I still have the Dark Knight on Blu Ray and have seen it four times since Rises came out and plan to every year or two going forward. I've seen Rises three times now and have no interest seeing it again. I've only seen Begins twice since the Dark Knight came out; once in 2008, once in 2016. I've considered picking up Begins on DVD but opted not to. I figure one film of this version of the character in my collection is enough because I truly do want to accept and celebrate all versions of the character so I would much prefer to release my hate on for the Nolan films. And truth me told many of my criticisms were over the fact that those films were once held in such high esteem. Once Affleck donned the cowl, people began to move on from the Nolan films.

[The Dark Knight]

I also don't buy the fact that everyone would just accept that Batman killed Dent, there are still living witnesses who saw him as two face. For instance Ramirez should be able to adequately piece together what happened, she knew Dent was holding Gordon's family on the rooftop, are we to believe that when she learns Dent died there and Batman supposedly did it that she keeps her mouth shut over what she knew while Dent is celebrated as a hero?

I'm seeing this differently now.

I think Bane says it perfectly: "Theatricality and deception are powerful agents to the uninitiated."

How many of the public are paying attention, or are willing to go down the rabbit hole?

Gordon said Dent died a hero. The media reported this as fact for just under a decade. They were even having an annual Harvey Dent Day to celebrate his life.   

Witnesses or evidence don't mean much anymore. You can say footage or documents are doctored, or people simply don't listen and dismiss it outright, because things like 'Harvey Dent Day' being manufactured is too much cognitive dissonance for true believers to wrap their heads around. If Dent isn't a hero, it opens up too many uncomfortable questions.

But I also believe living witnesses who disagree about the Dent deception would keep their mouths shut in these circumstances. Once the system decides to do something, and stick to the official narrative, it's set in stone.

If a lie that big is going to be broadcast as fact, you're dealing with powerful forces. The story has snowballed into something way bigger than you. If you speak up to the contrary, you're going to be sidelined as a kook or possibly even killed. Or alternatively, the living witnesses are willing participants and agree with the tactics anyway, and say nothing.

Bane comes to town and says Dent was a murderer. It's a shame we didn't get to see the greater public's reaction to that. But I'm glad the story had Bane coming to town to expose the falsehood that would've stood as truth for eternity otherwise.