Wouldn’t keeping the Joker alive jeopardize the Dent cover-up?

[The Laughing Fish]

I fail to see why Bruce says retirement is the optimal path to take, when The Joker is still on the loose and wrecking havoc, as somehow being the natural progression for himself. I would imagine most Batman fans wouldn't expect Batman to be contemplating retirement, while one of his biggest adversaries is on the run.

Another problem with this plot point is it undermines what he trained for in BB. He traveled around the globe and even got involved in petty crime in a bid to learn how the criminal mind works, and survives in jail long enough until he meets Ra's al Ghul. And then he begins his training soon after.

Well, it goes to show he learned absolutely nothing from the experience because, as you say, he foolishly believes he can retire while the Joker is still at large. Not to mention the fact that he was about to turn himself over to the police until Dent stopped him, and always remained one step behind of the villains for the rest of the series.

I guess Falcone was right when he told Bruce "this is a world you'll never understand". All of that was passed aside so we can get some rubbish about "Some men just want to watch the world burn". Give me a break.

[thecolorsblend]

You keep talking about character growth. I fail to see why Bruce says retirement is the optimal path to take, when The Joker is still on the loose and wrecking havoc, as somehow being the natural progression for himself.

You're essentially faulting the character for being unable to predict the future. It took quite a while for Batman to really get the Joker's number in TDK. The interrogation room scene is probably the moment Batman finally understand what he was up against... after which time, he doesn't really mention retirement again.

We see at the beginning of TDKRises that Batman was basically forced into retirement. Thus, with the Joker safely locked up, he'd gotten what he wanted... but not the way he wanted it.

If anybody is looking for someone who will defend the Nolan trilogy about everything no matter what no exceptions, I'm not that guy. But there are some things that were really done well with his trilogy and I don't see the harm in pointing those things out.

[Travesty]

You're essentially faulting the character for being unable to predict the future.

lolwut? "The future"? You mean when The Joker is killing people and wrecking havoc on Gotham, and somehow you're trying to act like Bruce "can't see what's happening"? Haha. We're talking about the clash of titans here: The Batman vs The Joker. And you're making excuses for Batman's incompetents. lol, ok....

It took quite a while for Batman to really get the Joker's number in TDK. The interrogation room scene is probably the moment Batman finally understand what he was up against... after which time, he doesn't really mention retirement again.

Oh, convenient...now that supposed "character arc" makes so much sense. He didn't mention retirement, after Rachel was killed. (even though he did retire)

Great explanation.

If anybody is looking for someone who will defend the Nolan trilogy about everything no matter what no exceptions, I'm not that guy. But there are some things that were really done well with his trilogy and I don't see the harm in pointing those things out.

I get it, you're not a "Nolan fan", but you're making excuses far more than any Nolan fan I've come across. Gotcha. You're above it, but you're not. Cool. I honestly don't give a sh*t where you stand, as I rather talk about the materiel at hand, rather than know where your allegiance is.

[thecolorsblend]

Wow. Somebody is cranky. I think I'll leave this thread until you've had a chance to chill a little bit.

[Dagenspear]

You're essentially faulting the character for being unable to predict the future. It took quite a while for Batman to really get the Joker's number in TDK. The interrogation room scene is probably the moment Batman finally understand what he was up against... after which time, he doesn't really mention retirement again.

We see at the beginning of TDKRises that Batman was basically forced into retirement. Thus, with the Joker safely locked up, he'd gotten what he wanted... but not the way he wanted it.

If anybody is looking for someone who will defend the Nolan trilogy about everything no matter what no exceptions, I'm not that guy. But there are some things that were really done well with his trilogy and I don't see the harm in pointing those things out.

You're correct. Batman thinks the Joker is just a hired mob thug and thinks he can be halted by just turning himself in. He doesn't understand until after Rachel's death that Joker is what Alfred described.

There are certainly problems with the TDKT, but the issues being said here aren't them. This makes sense for his character in the 1st movie and within TDK.

[Travesty]

Wow. Somebody is cranky. I think I'll leave this thread until you've had a chance to chill a little bit.

lol

That's convenient, but ok.

[The Laughing Fish]

The biggest problem with this rationale is it's full of holes. Batman wants to inspire people, but deep down, he knows his crusade actually does more harm than good in the long run if he inspires copycats and psychos like the Joker, which is why he counts on Harvey Dent as a legal face for people to be inspired by. And yet, the end of the entire trilogy shows that vigilantism, NOT law and order, is the solution to the city's woes. It was bad enough that his decision to frame himself to cover for Harvey in TDK was a terrible idea to begin with, the rationale behind that Batman had to do it because the truth would've inspired more copycats and freaks like the Joker is further undone if a new Batman takes over at the end of the series.

Rectifying your objection would've required Batman to be psychic. He had no way of knowing that the Batmen would follow his example a bit too closely.

That wasn't my point.

Yeah, I know my reply is late, but I just saw your post.

Nevertheless, he was on the right track. The rise of Batman inspired (or at least enabled) the rise of Harvey Dent. Batman's plan was working.

Unfortunately, no, it didn't work in the end. And certainly not in the end of the trilogy.

It's character growth. Characters, particularly Bruce, grow and their awareness and understanding expand.

Fiction is fiction and obviously fiction isn't life. But this is true to life (and of fiction) that people "grow in office". I hold views now that my 21 year old self would lose his s**t over. I've grown. My awareness and understanding have expanded. Therefore I have viewpoints now that I once would've held anathema. This is contradictory, to be sure, but it isn't paradoxical.

The thing that perplexes me about your insistence over this supposed character growth is you're not really addressing the conflicting logic here. You can't have your cake and eat it too. As we've discussed before, it was established in TDK that Bruce was seriously reconsidering his whole crusade because he realised Batman was creating negative side effects, and wanted the city to look up to a legal figure like Dent instead. If anything, TDK was telling us that having a vigilante running around was a toxic influence on Gotham City when he's attracting copycats and freaks, and many fans argued that the cover-up in the end was necessary to put an end to that disorder. People assumed that Batman was a temporary phase until Gotham could be reformed for good.

But instead, when we get to Rises, Bruce goes back to wanting Batman being an icon again, and hands the role over to Blake, which would only increase the likelihood of starting the mayhem all over again. How is this actually good for society? What, is Gotham City so irredeemably corrupt that it still needs an outlaw to protect it? This isn't character growth, this is going backwards.

[Dagenspear]

The thing that perplexes me about your insistence over this supposed character growth is you're not really addressing the conflicting logic here. You can't have your cake and eat it too. As we've discussed before, it was established in TDK that Bruce was seriously reconsidering his whole crusade because he realised Batman was creating negative side effects, and wanted the city to look up to a legal figure like Dent instead. If anything, TDK was telling us that having a vigilante running around was a toxic influence on Gotham City when he's attracting copycats and freaks, and many fans argued that the cover-up in the end was necessary to put an end to that disorder. People assumed that Batman was a temporary phase until Gotham could be reformed for good.

The movie showcases Bruce's feelings, but that doesn't mean his feelings reflect what the movie is trying to tell us. I'd say Bruce's character arc is about Bruce giving up his desire for a normal life, while still holding on to Batman. If anything I'd say the movie trying to say that Batman is necessary. Hence the whole dark knight speech by Gordon and Alfred making a point of saying that Bruce has inspired good, but there would be casualties from it and that things were always going to get worse before it got better. I don't think the movie provides a cut and dry structure of perception necessarily on whether Batman is all good or all bad for Gotham. I think that, like I think about a lot of things in the movie, it shows both sides of it.

But instead, when we get to Rises, Bruce goes back to wanting Batman being an icon again, and hands the role over to Blake, which would only increase the likelihood of starting the mayhem all over again. How is this actually good for society? What, is Gotham City so irredeemably corrupt that it still needs an outlaw to protect it? This isn't character growth, this is going backwards.

Like I said, I'd see his character development in TDK more as him making Batman all he has, so I think that when he has the opportunity to jump right back into it in TDKR, he goes for it. In TDK Rachel says that she doesn't think a time will come when Bruce will no longer needs Batman, I think essentially saying that Bruce's obsession with Batman will always dominate him she thinks, whether in a relationship with her or not. TDKR is saying that Bruce now has nothing to live for but being Batman, I think, with Alfred saying that Bruce sees only one end to his journey. I'd say that Rachel was his fantasy, a false hope that he could have a life beyond Batman as he was and TDKR was him getting past the idea of that false hope.

[thecolorsblend]

But instead, when we get to Rises, Bruce goes back to wanting Batman being an icon again,

We should add a nuance here that Bruce pretty much has a death wish at the beginning of TDKRises. Alfred even remarks that he's not afraid of Bruce becoming Batman again and failing (eg, dying). What he's worried about is that Bruce wants to die. And Bruce doesn't really dispute that.

and hands the role over to Blake, which would only increase the likelihood of starting the mayhem all over again. How is this actually good for society? What, is Gotham City so irredeemably corrupt that it still needs an outlaw to protect it? This isn't character growth, this is going backwards.

This is a pretty fair point and it's something the movie doesn't do much to address. If we're meant to believe that Batman is ultimately unhealthy for Gotham City (and Bruce), it doesn't make much sense to hand the keys to the Batcave over to Blake.

Then again, we don't necessarily know that Blake will become "Batman" as such. We also don't know that he won't follow the same or a similar character arc as Bruce. The two are very similar to one another, after all, so maybe Bruce sees this as an opportunity to teach Blake some things too. It's quite possible that Blake will experience the same insight that Bruce eventually did.

Another thing is that Blake will most likely go up against conventional street thugs rather than out-and-out supervillains like the Joker or Bane. So whatever damage Blake As Vigilante will inflict upon Gotham City's collective psyche in battling ordinary street crime is bound to be far less than what Bruce did in battling terrorism and supervillainy.

Ultimately, TDKRises concerns itself with wrapping up Bruce Wayne's story. You rightly point out that Blake's character arc is nowhere remotely close to being resolved. But I would argue that such isn't Nolan's self-assigned mandate in TDKRises.

[The Laughing Fish]

But instead, when we get to Rises, Bruce goes back to wanting Batman being an icon again,

We should add a nuance here that Bruce pretty much has a death wish at the beginning of TDKRises. Alfred even remarks that he's not afraid of Bruce becoming Batman again and failing (eg, dying). What he's worried about is that Bruce wants to die. And Bruce doesn't really dispute that.

That's true, but it still doesn't justify passing the mantle to somebody else when it's already established the role itself is toxic.

and hands the role over to Blake, which would only increase the likelihood of starting the mayhem all over again. How is this actually good for society? What, is Gotham City so irredeemably corrupt that it still needs an outlaw to protect it? This isn't character growth, this is going backwards.

This is a pretty fair point and it's something the movie doesn't do much to address. If we're meant to believe that Batman is ultimately unhealthy for Gotham City (and Bruce), it doesn't make much sense to hand the keys to the Batcave over to Blake.

Then again, we don't necessarily know that Blake will become "Batman" as such. We also don't know that he won't follow the same or a similar character arc as Bruce. The two are very similar to one another, after all, so maybe Bruce sees this as an opportunity to teach Blake some things too. It's quite possible that Blake will experience the same insight that Bruce eventually did.

Another thing is that Blake will most likely go up against conventional street thugs rather than out-and-out supervillains like the Joker or Bane. So whatever damage Blake As Vigilante will inflict upon Gotham City's collective psyche in battling ordinary street crime is bound to be far less than what Bruce did in battling terrorism and supervillainy.

Ultimately, TDKRises concerns itself with wrapping up Bruce Wayne's story. You rightly point out that Blake's character arc is nowhere remotely close to being resolved. But I would argue that such isn't Nolan's self-assigned mandate in TDKRises.

Even if Blake adopts a completely different moniker instead of Batman, I don't think it changes the point at all. Let's face it, when you're a vigilante, you don't get the luxury to pick your battles. Bruce Wayne didn't exactly seek out supervillains when he was Batman, they were drawn to him. He thought he would only fight mobsters and street thugs, but then he found himself in a constant mess dealing with psychopaths and terrorists. It's only natural for these types of criminals to challenge the so-called hero, because his existence is the equivalent of waving a red flag at a bull. If there's a message to be found in this, it's this line of work always gravitates towards this cycle of violence. This is why Nolan should've just ended this crusade once and for all because it's established how harmful it is to the wider community. Passing the mantle over to somebody else only makes Bruce Wayne look immature and irresponsible.