"Fix" the film!

[johnnygobbs]

I shouldn't have got sarky with you.  I was just wondering whether you were trying to rub me up the wrong way with that comment about 'TDKR.  Anyway, my beef isn't with you personally although it's safe to say we probably view our so-called elite slightly differently.  If it's any consolation I have pretty much the same feelings about the 'liberal elite' as I do about the 'conservative elite'.  Sure, some people are rich, some people are poor.  It'll always be that way and to be honest, I don't have a problem with that (although I do think the disparity shouldn't be as great as it is - studies even demonstrate that those countries with a smaller disparity between rich and poor, such as some of the Scandinavian nations, tend to have a higher degree of well-being all round).  My problem is with the idea that being born with a silver spoon, or even for that matter being a self-made millionaire, automatically makes you a superior human-being.  It doesn't.  Not all of us are driven by money and those of us who weren't born rich aren't de facto lesser human beings.

That's part of the reason I like 'Batman Returns' so much.  It hints that Batman/Bruce Wayne may be as much a liability to the city as a saviour, an angle 'TDK' franchise always dismissed with its un-ironic hero-worship of the main character.  In 'Batman Returns' the streets are free from crime but they're also a sense that Batman's daily patrol is oppressive and the streets aren't just empty of criminals.  They're empty period.  Plus, 'Batman Returns' is the one live-action Batman film that suggests the real villains may be the corporate big-wigs who have as much money and power as Bruce Wayne, not necessarily the kooks and crazies who operate on the fringes of society.

Nice GIF by the way. 

[Silver Nemesis]

BatmAngelus, your ideas about Bane and Miranda Tate would have fixed most of my major gripes with this film. I like The Dark Knight Rises a lot more than most people on this site, but the plot twist in the final act still bothers me. It was so unnecessary and predictable. It actually detracted from the characterisation and devalued the film in terms of comic book accuracy. While I've advocated a more comic-accurate direction for future Batman films, I'm by no means a purest, and I certainly don't mind changes from the source material as long as they work within the context of the film. But the twist at the end of TDKR didn't work. At least not in my opinion.

Removing Miranda and using Daggett to fulfil her role in the Wayne Enterprises subplot would also help shorten the runtime, which in turn would improve the film's overall pacing. So those are all good ideas.

My problem is with the idea that being born with a silver spoon, or even for that matter being a self-made millionaire, automatically makes you a superior human-being.  It doesn't.  Not all of us are driven by money and those of us who weren't born rich aren't de facto lesser human beings.

Gobbs, did you ever read Hamm's original script for Batman 2? If I recall correctly, it features a subplot about homeless people massing on the streets of Gotham. Vicki encourages Bruce to start using his wealth to affect positive change, pointing out that his public persona can do just as much good for Gotham as his costumed persona. It was a nice little character arc for Bruce and one that would've shown him evolving from the introverted recluse of Batman 89 into the more familiar philanthropist/playboy Wayne from the comics. I wish they'd included something like that in the finished film.

In 'Batman Returns' the streets are free from crime but they're also a sense that Batman's daily patrol is oppressive and the streets aren't just empty of criminals.  They're empty period.

I've always felt the neo-fascist architecture in Batman Returns was a deliberate expression of Batman's presence ruling over the city. In Batman 89 Gotham is chaotic and disorderly. In Batman Returns it's filled with weeping statues and harsh, angular skyscrapers that dwarf the people with their oppressive size; a cold, unwelcoming nightmare city ruled over by the Dark Knight. The emptiness of the streets and the angularity of the buildings reflect Batman's imposed order. And it's every bit as oppressive as the Gotham that was ruled over by the Joker.

[thecolorsblend]

I shouldn't have got sarky with you.  I was just wondering whether you were trying to rub me up the wrong way with that comment about 'TDKR.  Anyway, my beef isn't with you personally although it's safe to say we probably view our so-called elite slightly differently.  If it's any consolation I have pretty much the same feelings about the 'liberal elite' as I do about the 'conservative elite'.  Sure, some people are rich, some people are poor.  It'll always be that way and to be honest, I don't have a problem with that (although I do think the disparity shouldn't be as great as it is - studies even demonstrate that those countries with a smaller disparity between rich and poor, such as some of the Scandinavian nations, tend to have a higher degree of well-being all round).  My problem is with the idea that being born with a silver spoon, or even for that matter being a self-made millionaire, automatically makes you a superior human-being.  It doesn't.  Not all of us are driven by money and those of us who weren't born rich aren't de facto lesser human beings.

Some people make vital contributions to society without which society either would not exist at all or else would not exist in its current state.

Such people are more worthy of praise and high esteem than someone who contributes absolutely nothing and does absolutely nothing to better himself.

True, some people are not motivated by money. Artists, real artists, are generally not motivated by money but unlike the slacker contingent they still do contribute to the soceity in their own way. But too often people (usually underachievers) equate laziness with an equal but opposite aptitude for other things which simply doesn't exist.

Another thing about the disparity between rich and poor is that it implicitly assumes that a median income for all is not only fair and just, but imminently desirable. It also ignores the fact that the disparity fluctuating upward likely reflects growth in the lower and middle income brackets. Instead, the assumption is that those at the top are somehow victimizing those on the bottom, which requires the critic to ignore the fact that "the top" is a virtual revolving door of up-and-comers and has-beens. "The top" is constantly in flux as far as membership is concerned.

The goal of any society should be to move those at the bottom up rather than bring those at the top down. No society has cracked the code on how to do this across the board but there are certain ideologies guaranteed to keep a certain segment of society perpetually on the bottom while other ideologies offer the opportunity for those on the bottom to excel and move up. In spite of verifiable, demonstrable results, however, all too often true economic success and upward-mobility promulgated by successful ideologies can be derailed with three simple words- "it's not fair". But to make a long post shorter, I'll skip that diatribe.

In the final analysis, most people are merely average in their personal/artistic/professional accomplishments and utterly forgettable in their personalities.What bothers me about the notion of equality is that at some point the word started to mean "the same". "Hey man, I'm just as good as you are. We're equal!" Uh, no you're not and no we're not. Still, it's an easy sell to a not-as-well-educated-as-they-think, low-information American public who are determined to find validation for their mediocrity anywhere they can. This mentality is a snowflake in a blizzard of reasons why I don't think just anybody should have the right to vote.

That's part of the reason I like 'Batman Returns' so much.  It hints that Batman/Bruce Wayne may be as much a liability to the city as a saviour, an angle 'TDK' franchise always dismissed with its un-ironic hero-worship of the main character.  In 'Batman Returns' the streets are free from crime but they're also a sense that Batman's daily patrol is oppressive and the streets aren't just empty of criminals.  They're empty period.  Plus, 'Batman Returns' is the one live-action Batman film that suggests the real villains may be the corporate big-wigs who have as much money and power as Bruce Wayne, not necessarily the kooks and crazies who operate on the fringes of society.

Nice GIF by the way. 

I've long doubted Batman as a "hero" in the virtuous sense of the word. He's a maverick vigilante who may achieve good short term results but the outcome of his existence is an invisible, benign local totalitarianism. He uses nothing but illegal means and bypasses democratically-elected and accountable public officials and deputized law enforcement officers to impose his definition of Order upon society.

I can think of a lot of things to call someone like that but "hero" in the traditional sense isn't really one of them.

[The Dark Knight]

I've long doubted Batman as a "hero" in the virtuous sense of the word. He's a maverick vigilante who may achieve good short term results but the outcome of his existence is an invisible, benign local totalitarianism. He uses nothing but illegal means and bypasses democratically-elected and accountable public officials and deputized law enforcement officers to impose his definition of Order upon society.
I can think of a lot of things to call someone like that but "hero" in the traditional sense isn't really one of them.

That's it. Batman is not a hero. His parents always come first. Truth is, he never ever wants to get over that moment. If the comic version entertained the idea he would view it as a gross betrayal to their memory. The Joker said it best in ROTJ – "Behind all the sturm and bat-o-rangs, you're just a little boy in a playsuit, crying for mommy and daddy."

From his point of view, it's his duty and right to take police evidence and examine it himself. He lives alone and his best friend is an elderly butler. The guy has elements of depression but manages to function, mainly because it's all he knows. The Joker cannot function without Batman, but Batman can function without The Joker. Or anyone else for that matter. The more people die, or the more alone he becomes, the sterner he becomes. "I believe you enjoy the loneliness."

Melancholy personalities.

[thecolorsblend]

This is one of the reasons why, push comes to shove, I prefer The Shadow to Batman. The things that separate them are degrees rather than differences. The Shadow is a lot like Batman; only more so.

At the same time though, he has no illusions that his real war is on evil. Not just crime and not necessarily just one city. He has a bit more of an organized idea. By shooting some crime lord in some country straight to hell, he's relieving local tensions and thereby preventing full scale civil war. And he's sending somebody to hell, which is it's own reward... but, by itself, not the end goal.

[phantom stranger]

It would take me a week to write everything that I want to say.

I'll just pick two things I would change

1) Don't have the movie start off with Batman as a cripple:

It's not consistent with how the last film ended and it creates a redundancy in the storyline.

Batman is hurt. But he's back! Oh wait, he's hurt again. But now he's back! And now he's dead. Or is he?

2) The whole stock exchange scene. If ever there was a financial transaction that would be easily reversible it would be one created by an internationally-known terrorist in front of thousands of witnesses (including half the GPD). The notion that this would bankrupt Bruce Wayne (even temporarily) is absurd.

[riddler]

It would take me a week to write everything that I want to say.

I'll just pick two things I would change

1) Don't have the movie start off with Batman as a cripple:

It's not consistent with how the last film ended and it creates a redundancy in the storyline.

Batman is hurt. But he's back! Oh wait, he's hurt again. But now he's back! And now he's dead. Or is he?

2) The whole stock exchange scene. If ever there was a financial transaction that would be easily reversible it would be one created by an internationally-known terrorist in front of thousands of witnesses (including half the GPD). The notion that this would bankrupt Bruce Wayne (even temporarily) is absurd.

Agreed, I hated every aspect of the injury; it wasn't there during the previous film, it was totally inconsistent (he recovered once he wanted to). The Bane back breaking was a great plotline to use but the earlier injury took away from that.... pretend how youd' feel if you had no clue it was a homage to the comics; you'd be thinking "oh look he's hurt again". If they had to keep the plot point of Bruce being away for 8 years (which I also didn't like), why not simply having him hide from authorities due to the dent murder (or not being needed due to the peace aspect) and have Bruce depressed and blaming himself over Rachel?