Three Annoying TDKR Arguments (Updated in Light of New Plot Info)


For those of you who don’t know, I’ve been pretty active in the Batman Fandom since the release of Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight”. I’ve always been a bit of a Batman nerd, thanks to my Mom’s Dad who also is a Batman nerd, but Batman Begins and The Dark Knight really lit that fire in me in a major way. I’m completely convinced that TDKR will either be the biggest or the second biggest success of 2012, and yes, I’ve already reserved my “greatest movie of all-time” spot for it. So to say I’m a fan would be… um… a bit of an understatement.

Being such a fan means I participate in the forums quite a lot, specifically the SuperHero Hype TDKR (Spoiler) forums. I have so much fun there and love interacting with other Batfans. However, being an active participant on SHH, as well as reading articles about TDKR and watching all the YouTube videos having to do with TDKR means that I’m also privy to some… shall we say… annoying debate. Why it angers me I can’t exactly say. Maybe it’s because I’m truly arrogant enough to think that I’m right and everybody else is wrong. Knowing my personality, that’s a possibility. But I like to think it’s because these things are so damn obvious, when people start arguing the opposite, I’m just like “you’re joking, right? Please say you’re joking. Have you not seen Begins and TDK? Or are you just this blind and stupid?”

So, without further ado, I’d like to present the top 3 annoying arguments over TDKR, starting with number 3:

3. Batman has been inactive during the eight-year gap between TDK and TDKR.
So, if you don’t know, the Nolans confirmed back in 2011 that the gap between TDK and TDKR is eight years. So when we first see Bruce Wayne in TDKR, he’ll be eight years past the third act of TDK. The speculation, based upon scene descriptions and trailer shots and so on, is that he’s grown a crazy beard, walks with a cane, and is basically having a highly exaggerated midlife crisis coupled with unwanted withdrawal from Batman.

Many are saying that Batman went completely inactive during that entire eight-year gap.

ETA: It appears that Bruce really does retire Batman at the end of TDK. He is, apparently, gone the entire eight years.

I don’t get it. Sorry, but I don’t. It makes absolutely no sense to me. This is going to be one (and so far only) sticking point with me. It just makes no damn sense. That cane simply cannot be only caused by the fall with Harvey Two-Face. I simply do not now, and never will, believe it. Even if the cane is psychosomatic, that fall just can’t be the only reason. Maybe if TDKR took place one or two years after TDK, then it’d make sense. But eight years?

Just…

No.

I don’t get it and I never will.

Luckily, I am so excited for TDKR that this little strange plot detail won’t ruin it for me. I still think TDKR will be the greatest movie ever.

But anyways…

Before I continue, I have to say… this is the only one of the annoying three that doesn’t get me angry. I actually understand where the people saying this are coming from. I get it, and it’s one I don’t actually mind debating. In fact, it’s the only one were I’m happy to admit to being wrong if it turns out I was. But here’s why I think Batman will be active at least part of those eight years:

First, to say that there wouldn’t be Joker copy-cats and wannabes during that eight-year period is ridiculous. Of course there would be. Crime would still be a problem after TDK. It’s not like they signed the Harvey Dent Act into law and suddenly, by some mystical, magical force, crime immediately stops all together. My bet is that Batman does have a rogue’s gallery, only it’s full of unknown and minor criminals as opposed to full-blown villains like Riddler and Penguin and Black Mask and Poison Ivy and Firefly and Hush and Clayface and Mr. Freeze and Mad Hatter and so on.

Second, Bruce Wayne needs Batman. That was pretty well established at the end of BB and throughout TDK. Bruce probably found many excuses to be Batman. How about just plain old patrol? We saw hints throughout BB and TDK that he did patrol. To say that he didn’t patrol, just looking for an excuse to be Batman, would be to ignore the whole set-up throughout BB and TDK that Bruce is, in a sense, addicted to Batman.

Third, at the beginning of TDKR, Bruce is shown with a cane. We know this cane does not come from his first encounter with Bane (the rhyming here is NOT intentional… sorry) simply because of the timeline. Bruce is thrown into prison and forced to retrain and escape that prison after his first encounter with Bane. He’s not then going to walk around his mansion with a cane. Chances are he won’t even be able to use his mansion after he escapes the prison. So we know the cane is not a result of his first encounter with Bane.

Many think the cane is a result of his fall with Harvey Dent at the end of TDK. I find that rather hard to believe.

A) Harvey didn’t fall off the ledge; he was forcefully thrown off. And I believe his head hit on a rock, though I could be misremembering that one.

B) Harvey Dent was in much worse shape than Batman at the time, seeing as half of his face and body were basically burned off and he had just survived a very fatal car crash not long before. Fourth, Batman held on to the ledge, but he lost his grip and fell from a slightly lower height. The combination of the Batsuit and Harvey’s body cushioned Batman’s fall. And even if he did break something, Bruce Wayne is highly trained, in incredible physical shape, and wearing a suit of armor. It’s not going to take eight years for him to recover. Otherwise, he’d never recover.

C) Earlier in TDK, albeit quite unbelievably, Batman survived a much higher fall with Rachel when Joker threw her out of the Penthouse. If he could survive that without so much as a scratch, why would the obviously smaller fall with Dent at the end cause so much injury that he’s still on a cane eight years later?

Adding up all of this, I do not buy the idea that Batman was inactive for the entire eight years. It makes more sense to me, at least, that Batman was active for most of those eight years; like five or six years. And the cane is a result of an accumulation of both physical and mental injuries (perhaps starting with the fall with Dent, but not strictly because of it alone). I do think he may not need the cane all that much, that it’s a security blanket, of sorts. But that doesn’t mean he’s entirely injury-free, either.

But like I said above… I can understand where the people who do think he was inactive for those eight years are coming from, and I’m not prepared to say that I’m 100% right about this one. I’m willing to be proven wrong, and I’m looking forward to July 20 to answer the question fully, whatever that answer may be.

2. Bane isn’t Latino/big enough/on steroids/breaking Batman’s back
I was guilty of this myself at first, to be honest. But seeing Nolan’s Bane in action has me beyond excited for him, and also made this “he’s not enough like the comics!” argument highly annoying.

I would like to show you luchador wrestler Bane in a live-action setting:

Still think that Bane is a good idea?

It can’t be said often enough:
Yes, Nolan has pulled inspiration from specific Batman graphic novels and comics for his trilogy. But these movies are not the comics.

So Nolan didn’t choose a Latino, like Javier Bardem, to play Bane.

Get over it.

Hardy said he worked to make it seem like Bane had a Caribbean ethnicity. Which is great. While I was initially disappointed that Nolan did not go with someone who was ethnically Latino, I’ve gotten over it. Everything I’ve seen of Hardy’s Bane looks fucking incredible, and I can’t wait to see the whole thing in Imax. It’s going to be amazing.

As far as Bane not being big enough…

Realism, people. Realism.

A super-steroid like Venom turning Bane into an intelligent Hulk simply is not realistic. I’m sorry to disappoint you, but that is simply the way it is. It just would not fit in Nolan’s trilogy.

Again, I give you:

Still think it’d be a good idea? In fact, I’m actually glad Nolan didn’t go that route, because it gives Bane a pathetically obvious Achilles’ heel: cut off the tubes. Bane may have become very good at defending himself against that, but eventually, Batman would get the better of him and cut the tubes… which is what happens in the comics and the animated series over and over and over again. Not to mention that the Bane of Batman & Robin was defeated by Robin and Batgirl… which just made it even worse.

I like the entirely new, totally different, possibly LOS-member Bane quite a bit. I’m very excited to see him in action and think he will be incredible.

1. Joseph-Gordon Levitt, who plays Officer Jonathan Blake, is going to take up the mantle as Batman.
This is the one argument that honestly ticks me off. Of these three arguments, this is the only one that actually triggers my anger issues. Yes, I do have anger management issues, and I do get ridiculously angry at ridiculously stupid stuff… this idea is one of those things that triggers me…

Is it stupid to get angry over it?

No shit, Sherlock. But I still do get angry over it, so shut up.

And why does it make me angry? Because it’s fucking stupid and utterly against everything set up in BB and TDK. How can you watch both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, understand what those two movies set up, and still think that anyone other than Bruce Wayne is going to be Batman in this trilogy?

What you people who believe this are missing is that these are NOT BATMAN MOVIES! They are Bruce Wayne movies! They have been about Bruce Wayne from the very beginning, and they will be about Bruce Wayne to the very end. The whole story is about who Bruce Wayne is and what he does. This is why there will not be any other Batman in TDKR; because that would defeat the whole fucking purpose.

Bruce Wayne started out to be a symbol, not a physical presence. For Nolan’s movies, Batman is not supposed to continue on everlasting. At some point, Batman has to stop. That’s been the whole point of this trilogy, and it seems pretty obvious, to me at least, that this is where Nolan is going with his arc. When the credits roll on TDKR, Nolan’s Batman will be no more. Whether it’s because Batman is killed, or Bruce is killed, or Bruce just outright retires and decides to live happily ever after with a retired Selina Kyle, there will be no more Batman at the end of TDKR.

And yes, Bruce does say, in Begins, that as a symbol he can be everlasting, but the key word there is symbol. Symbols are not supposed to physically exist. They are representations. Batman cannot be a symbol if he’s always there. At some point he has to go away and only exist in the minds and hearts of Gothamites.

It also helps that we know, for a fact, that the WB was uncomfortable with the ending of TDKR because it didn’t allow for continuation. Please, tell me… how would making Joseph-Gordon Levitt’s character the new Batman NOT allow for continuation?

To the people who really do believe that JGL is a new Batman: please go back and try to pay more attention to BB and TDK, as well as the interviews and information we’ve gotten so far about TDKR. It’s pretty fucking obvious that only Bruce Wayne is and will be Batman in Nolan’s trilogy when you put it all together. In fact, Nolan’s been hitting us over the head with this fact since Batman Begins. I really don’t know how he could make this any more obvious.

Could JGL play Bruce Wayne in a future Batman reboot?

Sure! Why not? I don’t know enough about his acting style to know if he’d be good at it, so I can’t make a statement about the idea.

But is his character in Nolan’s trilogy, officer Jonathan Blake, going to be Batman in this trilogy?

No.

No he’s not.

And you people saying he is need to just accept that he isn’t and move on. John Blake is a cop… period. An important cop, yes, but a cop nonetheless.

Please get over it and shut up about this stupid “JGL is the new batman” crap.

Please?

Thank you.

Honestly, I really do believe that those of you who really do think JGL will be Batman will be rather disappointed by this film, because I’m convinced that Batman will be dead at the end of it. That doesn’t necessarily mean Bruce Wayne dies. He could end up still being alive. But I’m 100% convinced that at least Batman will die.

The Legend Ends

No chance of a continuation after TDKR, because the ending is definitive

It seems obvious to me that Batman will, one way or another, end, and I do think it will be by making the ultimate sacrifice to save Gotham.

There’s a clip in the third TDKR trailer involving Batman and Catwoman:

Catwoman: “You don’t owe these people anymore. You’ve given them everything.”
Batman: “Not everything. Not yet.”

How is he not talking about his life, there? Catwoman’s right… Bruce has given Gotham everything… except for his life.

And just as a final note about the TDKR movie… the following two tweets are from Hollywood VFX tech Roger Nall:

3hrs+… I believe we are looking at a Biblical epic here, folks…

HELLS YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Advertisements

About Nathan Hevenstone

I hate straight, white, cis-gendered, able-bodied men. I also play guitar and sing, and I'm an atheist and anti-theist. What now?
This entry was posted in Movies and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Three Annoying TDKR Arguments (Updated in Light of New Plot Info)

  1. Pingback: Preliminary Review of “The Dark Knight Rises” | Atheism, Music, and More…

  2. slagan says:

    I dont see JGL taking over as Batman…but there is speculation that he will become Robin. Good points on the rest though, but I think the cane could be a ploy to throw people off that he is Batman or it is an actual injury from an encounter with Bane sometime during the film. I dont think he’s completely inactive as Batman during the 8 years following TDK though. Or if he is, there are plenty of Batman copycats… and maybe its open-season on Batman so these copycats are getting taken out and its too dangerous for Wayne to don the suit. Guess we’ll have to wait and see how it pans out…

  3. Al Fred says:

    Batman IS inactive during the vast majority of the eight year gap…otherwise there’d be no reason to include the eight years between in the first place. And they wouldn’t have any activity that matters and just have us miss it. Sorry if a Batman that is only around for a year or so then disappears strange to you, but this is their version of Batman which is different than that of serials, TV, or other films before. This is a different Batman, and he’s been away for eight years or at least so much of the eight years that for all intents and purposes, he’s been away for eight years to anyone who thinks about it.

    • 2 things:

      1) Explain the cane.
      I refuse to believe that in his shape, Bruce Wayne is still unheeled from the fall with Dent. If he’s truly inactive during the entire eight years, then Nolan should never have included the cane to begin with.

      2) We know, for a FACT, that Bruce will, in some way, no longer be Batman at the end of TDKR. You men to tell me that he was active for one year, then inactive for eight years, comes back one more time, only to retire yet again?

      That really is just plain stupid.

      • AccidentallyOffensive says:

        I’m not supportive of any argument since I have no proof but I like to think he did retire…So here are some points.

        1. Maybe the cane is a disguise to throw people’s suspicions off. I mean, I don’t know the timeline so I’m not sure but it’s a possibility. It’s also possible this Harvey Dent Act did work…but only ENOUGH for Bruce to really retire. And maybe he focused more on philanthropy to really help Gotham. If his dad can thwart the League’s economic destruction plan, surely Bruce can help Gotham out.

        2. We don’t know for a fact that it will happen, jeez…. BUT it is HEAVILY implied and probably will happen…But it does make sense for him to come back even just once. Your logic seems to be “If he comes back then he HAS TO STAY!” when the idea of returning for a final battle is not out of reach. After Bane, then there’s what? Nothing.

        I agree with your arguments (a lot of them) but some of your points just fall flat. I’m not saying I’m right. Take what I say with a grain of salt but I like to be open-minded.

      • AccidentallyOffensive says:

        One more thing…

        1. It’s possible that he wasn’t fully healed from the Dent incident (or should I say “Inci-DENT? See what I did there?). Obviously, it won’t be anything major, no. But even after 8 years, it’s not entirely impossible. Less dangerous things have happened that heavily affected some people I know, even now.

        2. Remember, this is Nolan. You also seem to make theories based on common movie plot points or tropes but Nolan is very unconventional and creative.

        Remember, I’m not trying to be offensive, just like a good debate.

  4. site says:

    Is it okay to insert part of this in my blog if I publish a reference point to this website?

Did you read the post and all the comments?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s