Here you go
No I don't think it's contradictory - I think it's taking the ending of TDK and then developing it further. What would happen if it worked. It works, Peace is achieved in Gotham but at a cost. Batman is a fugitive and Harvey Dent a false idol - it takes that idea to the next step, is peace based on deception truly sustainable?
Alright, lets do this.
Peace was never an option, that's clear even in TDKR. The choice Batman and Gordon made was to give Gotham a glimmer of hope and to ensure that the prisoners that Dent put away couldn't get out easy. That doesn't include the *ahem*, freak element. You always said that Gotham was "seething" under the surface of this peace time. Other than Bane and angry Blackgate prisoners? Was it? My point is, the 8 year gap of peace time and Bruce in isolation (without being Bruce or Batman) is a cop out. A device to avoid what was established before. Yeah, you can say and write, "no this is how it is", but does that make it good?
Those mob fools want you gone so they can get back to the way things were. But I know the truth: there's no going back. You've changed things... forever.
The freak element and escalation. Nolan and Goyer discussed this heavily during the release of TDK.
Dent had no control over this idea, alive or dead. You know it's true. He fought the MOB. It's clear that the Joker was a new class of criminal, inspired by Batman. The Joker inspired others as well.
What about all the inmates that escaped Arkham, some of which were the Joker's men? They're not the mob, they weren't dealt with. They're still out there. Dent and the Dent act targeted ORGANIZED crime.
Where is that evident in TDKR? It's not, it's conveniently abandoned. Too much emphasis is put on Harvey Dent and his death for a city as large as Gotham. So they rid the city of organized crime and have all those mob thugs at Blackgate? So that's it, 8 years of peace time. I don't see how someone that's a fan of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight sees this out come as satisfactory . . . .
. . . . unless you look at it as a "what if" tale, like I've alluded to many times. Even you mention in your post, "what if everything was fine"?
So how his this story any good if you have to "let loose" and just accept the fact that it's something completely different? I see a lot of this, even K07 mentions it. "Just learn to love it".
Why? We didn't have this problem or do this with Begins or TDK? Why here? Why now?
You'll hunt me. You'll condemn me. Set the dogs on me. Because that's what needs to happen.
He's condemned but he's never hunted. He simply goes into hiding and quits.
Sure you can say it's because he's no longer needed according to the story but is that really fun or interesting? You don't think they could have created a better story here? One more in line with the ending of TDK where Batman is on the run.
We get a GLIMPSE of such an event with Batman after the stock market exchange, but that's it. It doesn't even mean as much because Batman's return after 8 years takes precedence over actually catching him.
Plus there's not even a fear of him being caught to pay for his crimes. Or Gordon having to prove to the city that he's trying to catch and bring down his friend that's really innocent.
It's all ABANDONED.
Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark knight.
Obviously he couldn't take it, he isn't a silent guardian or a watchful protector or a Dark Knight and he certainly isn't hunted or looked for.
He was simply a patsy to make way for Harvey Dent who goes into hiding and quits because he isn't needed for almost a decade. That's what he is.
The 8 year/retirement element is due and part to that. That's WHY I'm opposed to it. Yeah you can say, "that's how it is, what if it worked", but after TDK can you honestly say that is satisfying?
Let's assume for a second that TDKR was completely different. Let's assume that the ending of TDK DOESNT work. Batman becoming a fugitive does NOT result in peace. Where would that leave the message of TDK? 'sometimes the truth isn't good enough, sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded'. So Batman takes the fall, people are fed a lie, but hey, what do you know, people have their faith rewarded and it's still no good. There's a new supervillain in town and time for Batman to bash him and win the day for Gotham. By your logic that would be EQUALLY contradictory to the ending of TDK. Would it not?
I'd love if TDKR was completely different. The reasoning they came up for everything is convoluted and awful. As a fan of Begins and TDK, TDKR feels like a huge cop out in terms of story telling. 8 years of peace shouldn't even work. Not within the realms of the world that's been created. Not with Joker, Ramirez and other key players out there that come in direct conflict with any chance of peace.
Why does it have to result in an 8 year peace? Ask yourself that. The only reason it does is because that's what Goyer and the Nolan's came up with.
I think you're missing the point of the ending TDK Void. TDKR has clearly warped the perception of TDK's ending to fit it's own logic, just like you're doing here. Let's take a look at what you just mentioned,
'sometimes the truth isn't good enough, sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded'
What does this have to do with 8 years of peace time?
Batman has his faith rewarded. His faith in people. The ferries don't blow up, they didn't pull the trigger on each other. It plays up with what Rachel wanted in her letter to Bruce, to keep your faith in people.
Fox has his faith rewarded in Bruce after the sonar device that he had a problem with is destroyed.
Gotham has it's faith rewarded with Dent. The fact that he never cowered or submitted to ORGANIZED CRIME or was tainted by the Joker (even though he had).
This has nothing to do with peace. Gotham was still reeling in from what the Joker gave them. What Batman and Gordon did was NOT for 8 years of singing kumbaya around city hall during a peace time. It was to maintain the idea that "the best of them" (that was actually one of the worst) was still a white knight and died fighting justice because Batman murdered him.
Why are we never shown Gotham looking for Batman's blood for what he did?
What about mercs or other vigilantes that would want to capture Batman?
Wouldn't rewards be involved? Wouldn't that make scum come out of the underbelly of the city to try and catch the Batman?
WHERE IS THE JOKER?
What about Ramirez? Coleman Reese? The unexplained questions we all had 4 years ago?
The 8 year concept is to make people forget or not care about those things, and it's working.
The way it pans out in TDKR gives MEANING to TDK by making that sacrifice work... for a while.
No, a NEW MEANING. That's my point of this argument.
Yes. And that indicates this is one of Nolan's weaker films. You shouldn't have to see a movie mow than once to love it. But if you give it multiple viewings (two was enough for me) all this crap DiFabio and Inspector are going on about are answered in the film and you can learn to love it.
Nah, that was a good discussion last night er, this morning. Great points were made about how convoluted and silly Talia, Bane and the League of shadows scheme really is. I understand the reasons but backing it up with
something or
anything doesn't make it good. It's still contrived, even if it explains itself. Why? Because there still another factor that makes the whole thing illogical. Plasmid found himself at this conclusion in the end with Bane and Talia's story, but prior to it he was defending it (because there are explanations). Still doesn't make it good.
Sure you can just accept it, "learn to love it" like I've mentioned above. But if you sit there and think about it (which is so often recommended since these Nolan films are sooooooo cerebral) it's a silly mess. The CIA, the bomb, Pavel, Dagget, Africa, Diamonds, Bane, Talia, hope, the slow knife, it's all ridiculous.
This isn't an insult to you, Void, or anyone that loves this story but, I really think Nolan could have done ANYTHING and people would be fine with it and gravel at his feet.
Void, before the film came out we discussed possible scenarios and had fun coming up with how we thought things would play out. Batman dying, Batman not dying, Robin, no Robin. The city finding out, the city not finding out. You always struck me that you didn't care, anything was acceptable.
When there's a clear, solid story being told with Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, how is it acceptable to just deviate from course? In fact, it might not even do that. TDKR just smashes Begins and TDK together and creates a huge clunky mess.
Does Talia and Bane offer anything new that we haven't seen before? Pose any interesting questions? Of course not they're their to do Ra's Al Ghul's bidding but don't even do it as well.
