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

[thecolorsblend]

Even if Blake adopts a completely different moniker instead of Batman, I don't think it changes the point at all.

Considering the amount of time spent in the trilogy on the nature of Batman as a symbol and a legend in the city, I don't see how that argument is tenable. The city erected a statue in Batman's honor. The name "Batman" is anything but meaningless in Gotham City.

So if Blake's strategy is to simply be an anonymous masked vigilante with no symbol (eg, no bat motif or anything else) or even a real alter ego (eg, no alias of any kind) who strikes at street thugs, he might have different results.

But even if he embraces the Batman identity... well, we'll circle back to that.

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.

And maybe that's the point. Bruce might have seen it as a lesson for Blake to learn rather than a legacy for Blake to inherit.

It's also fair to question just how much action Blake would ever see as his alter ego. To all outward appearances, the Dent Act remains in effect. Gotham City remains largely free of widespread corruption. The League Of Assassins is smithereens. All Gotham City really has left by the time credits roll for TDKRises is low level street crime, petty thievery and the usual. I think it's safe to say that Blake's alter ego won't be as busy as Bruce's alter ego was.

[The Laughing Fish]

Even if Blake adopts a completely different moniker instead of Batman, I don't think it changes the point at all.

Considering the amount of time spent in the trilogy on the nature of Batman as a symbol and a legend in the city, I don't see how that argument is tenable. The city erected a statue in Batman's honor. The name "Batman" is anything but meaningless in Gotham City.

Again, I feel like we're going back in circles. Yes, I'm well aware of the so-called "honoring" of Batman because of the supposed "sacrifices" he made, even though he was responsible for making things worse in the first place. Sorry, but that ending rings so hollow to me that I didn't buy it. If people want to talk about Batman's status as a "symbol" and a "legend" was so important, fine, but they don't get to turn around and justify his desire to rely on a public figure because he saw his very status was having a corrupting effect on Gotham City. It can't be both ways.

Regardless, I'm debating against having a vigilante run around the city when it was cemented how it was a bad influence for society. That was the point the second movie loved to make in favour of championing Harvey Dent. Having another guy running around in costume defeats the purpose of Gotham achieving social reform.

It's also fair to question just how much action Blake would ever see as his alter ego. To all outward appearances, the Dent Act remains in effect.

Are you sure about that? There have been fan sites that claimed the Dent Act got abolished as soon as the truth about Two-Face came out. And yes, I know it wasn't exactly specified in the film that it got repealed, but I have a hard time believing it would still be active after it was revealed it was based on false pretenses, and finally bring people's attention that maybe it was rather unethical. But even if it was still around and still doing its job, there would be no need for Blake to fight crime. You even once admitted this didn't make much sense. After all, the Dent Act prevented a crimefighter from being needed ever again, right?

Gotham City remains largely free of widespread corruption.

Is it, really? The fact that the ending hints Blake will take over the mantle shows the city still has a long way to go towards normality. What is the GCPD and the entire legal system so incompetent that it still needs some vigilante for help? That's not a ringing endorsement for reform to me.

The League Of Assassins is smithereens.

So? There's no guarantee that another threat wouldn't emerge in the future.

All Gotham City really has left by the time credits roll for TDKRises is low level street crime, petty thievery and the usual. I think it's safe to say that Blake's alter ego won't be as busy as Bruce's alter ego was.

Sorry, but I find this rationale to be just as ludicrous as establishing a huge city like Gotham being 100% crime-free for nearly a decade because of the Dent Act. I repeat again, being a crimefighter would eventually incite unwanted influences and more threats, as we saw in the second film.

[The Dark Knight]

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.

I remember this 2010 quote from Nolan about TDK Rises:

"Without getting into specifics, the key thing that makes the third film a great possibility for us is that we want to finish our story, and in viewing it as the finishing of a story rather than infinitely blowing up the balloon and expanding the story."

The ending of the film blew up the balloon. There's no way around that because we're left to wonder what happened with Blake. In that sense I've always been miffed about the ending because it's not clean, especially with that 2010 quote at the forefront of my mind. I didn't expect what we received.

I've never liked the character of Blake that much. Apart from being incompetent and boring, the main reason I've had is that he's a new character who sucked up valuable screen time that could've been used on Bruce or Selina.

It can be argued Bruce had an ending (he retired), but even that leads itself to more questions, such as how does he remain hidden for so long, especially because he's brazenly appearing in public? A bold ending like Arkham Knight would've been much better and something like that is what I originally envisioned.

[Travesty]

I still have no clue how Batman survived the nuke, when it clearly showed him in the Batwing(I forgot the Nolan name for it) with 5 seconds left. Even the auto-pilot explanation dosn't make sense, when we were shown he was still in the vehicle with 5 seconds to go.

I'm slowly re-watching the trilogy. I got done with BB a few nights ago. I'm about to watch TDK tonight or tomorrow, and I'll have to power through TDKR. I may need to get some beer for that one.

[thecolorsblend]

It can be argued Bruce had an ending (he retired), but even that leads itself to more questions, such as how does he remain hidden for so long, especially because he's brazenly appearing in public? A bold ending like Arkham Knight would've been much better and something like that is what I originally envisioned.

That's why I prefer interpreting the end of the movie in line with that infamous fan theory. Basically the movie wraps up with Gordon, Alfred and Blake all experiencing wish-fulfillment fantasies that maybe, somehow, Bruce is still alive. In Alfred's case, that means Bruce can finally have a Happily Ever After. For Gordon, it means that Batman still exists. For Blake, it means that Bruce is passing the torch to him.

Based on mostly circumstantial evidence, I suspect Nolan wanted Batman to die in TDKRises but was overruled by WB. But even if he intended for Bruce to survive, well, whatever. His interpretation isn't binding upon me. I choose not to take that ending literally.

[The Dark Knight]

I think the messaging of the ending was frustrating because Bruce 'dies' as a dumb party boy who never outgrew the myth of his parents. I'm usually on board with that type of emotional darkness, but in my most humble 'pinion it was a missed opportunity which confused the messaging. I think it made more thematic sense for Bruce's reputation to be radically altered from what he was consistently depicted as during the trilogy.

In BB he kicked guests out from his party and according to the public, drunkenly burnt down his own house. By the time of TDK Rises nothing has changed. If anything, he's only weirder and dumber. Locking himself away for years, losing money on apparent dumb deals and dying a hobo.

TDK Bruce states Gotham needs a hero with a face. Harvey was that hero for a brief period of time, but he went rogue. TDK Rises could've remained consistent with this theme by having Bruce take Dent's place, and for the public to realize he's always been the hero they deserved. Dent was a step in the right direction, but was ultimately a poor imitation of Bruce who risked his life for the City without any want of reward or recognition.

Another significant issue is TDK's Bruce calling out copycats. In that film, he doesn't want people suiting up and taking justice into their own hands. Hell, he doesn't want to be Batman himself for that long either. By the time of TDK Rises he's supporting Blake and giving him the keys to the cave. In my mind, Bruce's identity being revealed (ideally against his will) would've solved a lot of these issues.

1. Bruce's reputation would be instantly elevated. 2. He would become Gotham's hero with a face. 3. It would finish the myth of Batman for good, which is a clear and definite end for a trilogy. Bruce becomes the hero of the series and Blake wouldn't be needed in this outline.

It seems Gotham was a rather decent place when the Thomas and Matha were around, but it gradually went to the dogs. I can't think of any better finale than going full circle to the Wayne (through Bruce) being thought of fondly, lifting the City's morale out of the gutter. The statue of Batman doesn't ring true to me. A man of the shadows (who didn't have that long of a career) celebrated in the light of day.

The filmmakers made a mistake by focusing on the wrong persona.

[Dagenspear]

TDK Bruce states Gotham needs a hero with a face. Harvey was that hero for a brief period of time, but he went rogue. TDK Rises could’ve remained consistent with this theme by having Bruce take Dent’s place, and for the public to realize he’s always been the hero they deserved. Dent was a step in the right direction, but was ultimately a poor imitation of Bruce who risked his life for the City without any want of reward or recognition.

TDK itself seemed to dismiss the face thing though.

It can be argued Bruce had an ending (he retired), but even that leads itself to more questions, such as how does he remain hidden for so long, especially because he's brazenly appearing in public? A bold ending like Arkham Knight would've been much better and something like that is what I originally envisioned.

The same way everyone dismisses sightings of Elvis and even if he's found out, it wouldn't hurt him. I disagree about the ending too.

[The Dark Knight]

[thecolorsblend]

Probably the only time he ever lost his cool in public.

Talking about TDK here, nothing political. Because I would never do that. Ever.

Honest.

[The Dark Knight]

That's true. I usually a politicool guy, so this outburst is pretty rare.

But I still like to have my say, because I AM PAYING FOR THIS MICROPHONE.