Comic Book Influences on The Dark Knight Rises (SPOILERS)

[thecolorsblend]

Well about the plot holes out there online, are made by hard core fans, not the general film going public. Examples of this:the city in lock down mode. When I watch the movie it seems so strange the way Gotham is left out there to hang and dry. Did it work on its own in the film, a bit, but Gotham is a large city, there had to be things going on in the city that we never saw. Right about the time No Man's Land came out was when I went off to college I had the books here at home but never really read them.  There is no way a film can go into ALL the details that one (us hard core fans) can find the answer to.

Then don't effin' bring it up. Or else deal with it in short hand. But to raise a big matzo ball like Gotham City being completely cut off from the outside world without explaining much of why and expecting comics that 99% of moviegoers have never heard of and will never read to fill in the gaps is simply unreasonable.

And part of that ties in with where any movie differs from the comics it riffs on. Gotham City in the comics was cut off because of widespread political agreement on the matter. "It'd cost trillions to rebuild. Sad as it may be, Gotham is a write off." In the movie, the US military seals Gotham off because Bane and his flunkies threaten to detonate a nuclear device. Point being is that different factors are in play behind the abandonment of Gotham City in the comics vs. TDKRises. We see absolutely no evidence of political pressure being exerted to cut the city off; it's done solely because of the nuke.

If people want to call it a plothole that the US government would write off an entire city because of terrorist demands... well, I personally might be willing to let that plot development slide but I can't say they don't have a point.

Agreed 100%.  I would've happily traded all the comic book connections to Dark Knight Returns, No Man's Land, and Knightfall in exchange for a better follow-up on TDK's ending and dealing with the ramifications of Batman and Gordon's decision to cover up Dent's crimes.

Yep. I guess what I'd expected based upon TDK's ending was GCPD actively hunting a Batman who's remained on duty. "We'll hunt him because he can take it."

But the film doesn't provide a ton of evidence that he'd last as long as Bruce did (which, in the trilogy, is what?  A year between BB and TDK and then a month here and there in TDKR?)

It's tangential to your point at best but that raises something that's been bugging me. We're led to believe that Bruce's various joints are basically shot to piss, presumably because of his Batman activities. But, as you say, his career as Batman (prior to TDKRises) was anywhere from six months to at most a year.

Now, I can believe his body took a lot of punishment in that time but I can't accept that it would've been as debilitating as the movie shows. Olympic athletes are put through a hell of a lot more than Batman was in his heyday and come out the other side just fine. Are we to believe that Bruce exerted himself more in his (tops) year as Batman than an Olympian does in his/her entire life?

I just can't see it.

The best I can come up with is that Nolan knew a lot of us in the audience would have a hard time buying into the concept of Hardly Bane kicking the snot out of Batman unless Batman had been out of it for eight years and had joint issues from here to Christmas so he needed to give Batman every possible handicap. That's all I've got.

[BatmAngelus]

Yep. I guess what I'd expected based upon TDK's ending was GCPD actively hunting a Batman who's remained on duty. "We'll hunt him because he can take it."

Back when The Dark Knight was released, I pretty much assumed that the third film would have Batman being hunted as he continued fighting crime/the new villain.  When there were rumors that Nolan was using Batman: Prey as a reference, I thought that was a natural choice considering the character's status as a fugitive in both that comic and the movie. 

Too bad the actual film executed it so poorly.

Now, I can believe his body took a lot of punishment in that time but I can't accept that it would've been as debilitating as the movie shows. Olympic athletes are put through a hell of a lot more than Batman was in his heyday and come out the other side just fine. Are we to believe that Bruce exerted himself more in his (tops) year as Batman than an Olympian does in his/her entire life?

I just can't see it.

The best I can come up with is that Nolan knew a lot of us in the audience would have a hard time buying into the concept of Hardly Bane kicking the snot out of Batman unless Batman had been out of it for eight years and had joint issues from here to Christmas so he needed to give Batman every possible handicap. That's all I've got.

Agreed.  There was absolutely no reason to do the "Batman comes out of retirement" story for this movie, especially with Batman being a rookie in the first two movies anyway.
Nor was there anything at the end of The Dark Knight that gave a good reason why Bruce Wayne would hang up the cowl.  His injuries from Harvey's gunshot and the fall weren't enough to put him out of commission.  Batman outran the police to get to the Batpod in the final scene, yet now, he can't even stay on his feet without a cane?  I don't buy it.
Plus, his personal reasons for quitting, regarding Rachel, were flimsy at best.

I also think the scene of Bane crippling Bruce got robbed of its impact when Bruce was already crippled and retired for 8 years in the first act anyway.  Wouldn't it have been more shocking for Bane to cripple Batman when Bruce was in his physical prime?  You know, like the comics?

And wouldn't it have been more fulfilling if Batman retired for good, after years and years of relentlessly fighting crime?  And not...after he already retired years ago?

While the movie took cues from The Dark Knight Returns and Knightfall, the mix of both stories resulted in redundant plot points: Bruce Wayne's crippled.  He gets back into action to stop the villains.  Then gets crippled again.  Then gets back into action to stop the villains.

Batman's been retired.  Then goes back to crime fighting.  Then retires again.

As colors said, a time where Gotham has evolved to the point of not needing Batman. From TDK: "You know that day that you once told me about, when Gotham would no longer need Batman? It's coming." No it's not. Because Little Levitt is here to keep everybody safe.

Indeed.  Bruce kept talking about inspiring people in the city to do good.  That one day, Batman would no longer be needed.  Instead, it turns out that he just wanted to inspire someone else to be his replacement so he could quit. 

Wouldn't it have kept closer to the trilogy's themes if we saw how the city cleaned itself up in the aftermath of Batman's sacrifice, without anyone needing to become a costumed character?  Forget comic book fidelity- I think that would've been a more fitting ending than introducing a Robin-type character, shoehorning some backstory with him and Bruce, and having him take over the cowl at the end.

[The Dark Knight]

^ Exactly, well said. The opening segment of Bruce being bearded and reclusive also just eats up screen time. I would've started Batman still active here and there when it really warrranted it (ala what we see during the stock exchange scene, where is bizarrely shifts from day to night instantly). They kept on building up the is he coming back? thing twice, when he's a recluse and when he's a prisoner. I got tired of it.

I get they wanted Bruce to rise from this state into something more postive, but we don't get that, because Bruce is presumed dead in riots. The Wayne name and legacy still belongs to his parents as shown with the renaming of Wayne Manor into an orphanage. Bruce's arc in the public sense seems unresolved to me. Fraud would've been proven in regards to his stock losses but that's it. Then they built up scene after scene of Bane terrorising Gotham. This big grand obstacle to overcome. But the finale is tired and unsatisfying.

Now, Bruce climbs out of the pit and walks down to the desert. He's still in another country. The movie just picks up with Bruce walking around the Gotham streets. Getting back into the country, let alone Gotham, is an important plot point. I'd argue it's more important than doing the climb. The clib means nothing if you can't get back inside - inside a City that is on serious lockdown. I suppose I'm willing to suspend my disbelief here if the movie provided their explanation, eg. he followed a secret cave tunnel back into the batcave. But the movie or novelisation (again, I shouldn't have to look elsewhere for the answers) says nothing about it. Did Nolan and company simply have no explanation as to how he got back in, and chose to ignore it? I found the sudden jump in environment jarring.

I know this may sound very self important of me, but I honestly believe people like you and me could've ended this story better than what we got. And mainly because we would've watched the other two films (did Nolan and company pay attention to what they did before?!), seen the direction they were going, and carried with it.

Ending things is hard to do, draws criticism regardless etc, but this felt out of left field. It's like Nolan wanted us to believe Bruce had died for real, only to show at the last second, oh no he didn't. It really do dislike being negative about this movie but I am simply expressing my sheer disappointment because I wanted it to be good. I rank it down with the Schumacher flicks because whenever I watch/think about the movie, I can't enjoy myself either from the plot, pacing or tone. These things just keep lingering and cannot be shaken.

[thecolorsblend]

Now, Bruce climbs out of the pit and walks down to the desert. He's still in another country. The movie just picks up with Bruce walking around the Gotham streets. Getting back into the country, let alone Gotham, is an important plot point. I'd argue it's more important than doing the climb. The clib means nothing if you can't get back inside - inside a City that is on serious lockdown. I suppose I'm willing to suspend my disbelief here if the movie provided their explanation, eg. he followed a secret cave tunnel back into the batcave. But the movie or novelisation (again, I shouldn't have to look elsewhere for the answers) says nothing about it. Did Nolan and company simply have no explanation as to how he got back in, and chose to ignore it? I found the sudden jump in environment jarring.

Yep. Now, some people would say you're being nitpicky there but I'm not in that number. The Army dude was serious enough about keeping people the hell inside the city that he blew up the only means of exit. Nolan is the one who raised those stakes, not us. I don't think it's out of line for fans and viewers to ask him to abide by his own rules. "Nobody goes in, nobody gets out". That's the rule. Fine. Show us how Bruce got back in without running afoul of it. Any decent writer could come up with something so you'd think "the most visionary director of our generation" could do it in his sleep. I mean, isn't this the same guy who spent, what, five minutes setting up how Bruce smuggled himself into China in TDK?

Separately, I read a conspiracy theory waaaaaaaaay long ago. Maybe a year or something. But basically in it the guy tossed out the suggestion that Nolan's heart just wasn't in TDKRises. Maybe he'd said everything he had to say about Batman by the time credits rolled with TDK, maybe Ledger's passing affected him deeply and Batman was soured for him as a result, maybe he didn't want to deal with any more of whatever BS comes with making these huge blockbuster studio movies, maybe he's just sick to piss of Batman, blah blah blah. Could be anything. But as a favor to Christian Bale (who, I gather, had one more Batman movie in his contract and didn't want to be directed by anybody else other than Nolan) he came back for one last film. So Nolan threw something together and, bam, there's your TDKRises, hoss.

In light of that, if you think of Bruce/Batman as Nolan's alter ego in these movies, things like Bruce being emotionally battered and tormented, Bruce wanting OUT and wanting to move on with his life and do other things, Bruce wanting to passing the baton off to somebody younger and hungrier to take Batman over, etc... these things suddenly have a new resonance, yes?

Mind you, I'm not saying I buy that theory (or that I reject it, for that matter) but I do wonder how much Nolan was personally invested in some aspects of TDKRises. The conclusion of the movie/trilogy cuts through a lot of stuff for me, as I say, but even still I do wonder how badly he really wanted a third helping of this.

[The Dark Knight]

I think the movie reflected the marketing campaign's vibe. A feeling of throwing it together.

[BatmAngelus]

I get they wanted Bruce to rise from this state into something more postive, but we don't get that, because Bruce is presumed dead in riots. The Wayne name and legacy still belongs to his parents as shown with the renaming of Wayne Manor into an orphanage. Bruce's arc in the public sense seems unresolved to me. Fraud would've been proven in regards to his stock losses but that's it. Then they built up scene after scene of Bane terrorising Gotham. This big grand obstacle to overcome. But the finale is tired and unsatisfying.

Indeed.  They could have included Bruce surviving and regaining his millions- tying into the character's "rise" from the ashes and reclaiming everything he lost- and using it to help the city at the end.  Batman's died, but Bruce Wayne lives to help a city no longer in need of a Batman and he can be a hero in his own skin.
Or they could have revealed to the city that Bruce was Batman all along, like in The Dark Knight Returns, and had the Wayne legacy truly restored after his noble sacrifice now that everyone in the city knows what he did for them, resolving that issue from Batman Begins.

Instead, to the public, Bruce is known as a rich douche who suddenly went reclusive for a few years, then tried to get some energy program off the ground, but failed when it got hijacked by terrorists who used it as a bomb to terrorize the city, and ended up getting killed in the riots.

His legacy?  His house gets turned into an orphanage and his inheritance goes to his butler.
Never mind the fact that he was already funding an orphanage for years until he stopped paying attention to it and his inheritance amounts to next to nothing now thanks to Bane (Sorry Alfred).

Strange, though.  There's a guy who looks JUST like Bruce Wayne chilling out at a restaurant in Florence, Italy...

Separately, I read a conspiracy theory waaaaaaaaay long ago. Maybe a year or something. But basically in it the guy tossed out the suggestion that Nolan's heart just wasn't in TDKRises. Maybe he'd said everything he had to say about Batman by the time credits rolled with TDK, maybe Ledger's passing affected him deeply and Batman was soured for him as a result, maybe he didn't want to deal with any more of whatever BS comes with making these huge blockbuster studio movies, maybe he's just sick to piss of Batman, blah blah blah. Could be anything. But as a favor to Christian Bale (who, I gather, had one more Batman movie in his contract and didn't want to be directed by anybody else other than Nolan) he came back for one last film. So Nolan threw something together and, bam, there's your TDKRises, hoss.

In light of that, if you think of Bruce/Batman as Nolan's alter ego in these movies, things like Bruce being emotionally battered and tormented, Bruce wanting OUT and wanting to move on with his life and do other things, Bruce wanting to passing the baton off to somebody younger and hungrier to take Batman over, etc... these things suddenly have a new resonance, yes?

Mind you, I'm not saying I buy that theory (or that I reject it, for that matter) but I do wonder how much Nolan was personally invested in some aspects of TDKRises. The conclusion of the movie/trilogy cuts through a lot of stuff for me, as I say, but even still I do wonder how badly he really wanted a third helping of this.

Very interesting point, colors.  I've also heard this theory and I can't blame people for believing it or sharing it after seeing the film.

Let's say that it's true, though.  If Nolan really wanted out, why did he end The Dark Knight that way?  Why end his reign on the franchise with Batman being a self-proclaimed fugitive, on the run, with millions of Gothamites unaware of Harvey's true nature?  It'd be one thing if The Dark Knight had a Begins-type ending with The Joker and Two-Face in jail, and Batman standing over the city, ready to protect it once again.  Instead, we got something unresolved and begging for a follow-up.  If Nolan had any resentment about having to do a third movie, he only brought it on himself with the way he ended Dark Knight.

To get this thread back on topic, I think the general consensus here is that just because a film adapted something directly from the comics doesn't mean it worked in the context of the film.

A few examples from the article that Silver Nemesis and I wrote:
- "You're in for a show tonight, kid."  Yeah, it's nice they lifted this moment from The Dark Knight Returns.  But let's look at the context- everyone thinks Batman's a murderer who killed their hero, Dent.  So why is this old veteran cop smiling and rooting for Batman?  It's a nice moment in the comic.  It doesn't work here at all.

- No Man's Land.  It's obvious they saw the potential in adapting the premise.  Instead of having an earthquake be the cause, they made Bane lock down the city.  But the Bane-created No Man's Land turned out to be a stupid plan, in my opinion.  He holds the city hostage under the threat of a nuclear bomb...that he's going to detonate anyway?  Why bother taking over the city for months when your main objective is to destroy it?  If all he wants, really, is to nuke the city, why doesn't Bane just use that plane they used to hijack Dr. Pavel and drop a nuke on Gotham from above?  It'd be a lot quicker, simpler, and cut down on the chances of Batman/Bruce having the opportunity to stop you.

- Bruce Wayne still trusts Selina/Catwoman, despite her past crimes, because he knows that deep down, she's a good person.  In the comics, this is part of a long running arc, spanning years and years of encounters with Catwoman, who, over time, goes from a villain to antiheroine to ally.  In the movie, however, what does Selina do?  She steals Martha Wayne's necklace.  She takes Bruce's car.  She sells him out to Bane, likely knowing that Bruce wouldn't win the fight.  So why does Bruce think she's really a good person?  Because she saves a kid on the street?  I didn't buy it.

[thecolorsblend]

Very interesting point, colors.  I've also heard this theory and I can't blame people for believing it or sharing it after seeing the film.

Let's say that it's true, though.  If Nolan really wanted out, why did he end The Dark Knight that way?

When it was written and shot, perhaps Nolan didn't think he'd end up as turned off by Batman as this theory suggests he would be. Perhaps he wanted to leave a potential replacement with an easy plot point. It's hard to speculate on the unknown, esp when we're already speculating on the unknown to begin with. But if Ledger's passing tarnished Batman for him, well, that happened pretty late in the game for TDK.

Anyway...

[BatmAngelus]

True.  I've also speculated in the Joker's Fate thread that there's a possibility that they had plans for the Joker to be the one to reveal the truth about Harvey in the third installment.  After all, it makes much more sense for him to do it and complete his plan from the previous movie than for Bane to do it.

Another thing to add.  I was rereading my Tales of the Demon collection and in one of the stories, "Where Strike the Assassins" (Detective Comics #489), the leader of the League of Assassins, The Sensei, says to a hostage, "You have my permission to die."

In a smaller note, the follow-up story, in Detective Comics #490, has a fight between Batman and the Ubu-like character Lurk, who yells "I'll break you!"  This story was from 1980 so obviously, Bane wasn't the first huge guy obsessed with breaking Batman.

[BatmAngelus]

GothamAlleys posted his comic book influences article.  Check it out: http://gothamalleys.blogspot.com/2012/08/comic-book-references-in-movies-part.html

One thing that I also noticed, when reading Nightwing: Alfred's Return, is that Alfred went traveling around the world after leaving his post at Wayne Manor, going to Antarctica, the Bahamas, and London, similar to how Alfred took holidays during Bruce's absence and went to Florence after Bruce's "death."

[GothamAlleys]

Another thing to add.  I was rereading my Tales of the Demon collection and in one of the stories, "Where Strike the Assassins" (Detective Comics #489), the leader of the League of Assassins, The Sensei, says to a hostage, "You have my permission to die."

Hmm, do you have that panel? Ive been looking for this issue like crazy since you mentioned it here, but cant find it anywhere