EDITORIAL: I think Nolan missed the point, don't you?

I kinda agree with you. As I personally think Bruce Wayne should be the only Batman. It was his unique circumstances that provided him with the drive to become and maintain being the dark knight.

That said, this was a conclusion, based on the fact that unlike the comics, these actors get older, and based on the last series of Batman movies, changing actor, just doesn't seem to work. So I was happy with the ending and what Batman did when it was put in the context of the film itself.

Didn't mind the "Robin" bit, seeing as we were never going to get the one from the comics, i felt this was a nice nod to the character, and seemed to me he was a merger of the 3 main robins. He had Dick Graysons tragedy as a child, Jason Todd's hotheadness and Tim Drake's natural detective abilities.

In TDK he sacrificed Batman to take the fall for Dent, in TDKR he sacrifices Bruce Wayne to reestablish some stability in Gotham.

Bruce Wayne was emotionally defeated by what the Joker did, then Bane came and trashed his body and his city. To me it's fitting that someone who has been on a path of pain vengeance since childhood can finally find happiness.

Batman isn't gone as such, the Bat signal at the end showed that if Gordon calls Batman will come.

Basically the whole point and theme was that Batman isn't a man, he's a legend. As Ra's Al Ghul stated immortality takes many forms and just as Ra's legacy has endured so will Batman's.

****"You should use your full name...ROBIN"****

I thought that was cool because everyone knows Batman and Robin, therefore even if you don't read comics you get that easter egg goodness.

I loved 'The Thanos Scene' but imagine for a moment if you will, what it must have felt like seeing that scene and having to ask who the hell that was and "to court death" being just another line in the movie.

wasn't integral*

anyone else still missing the edit button

Redhood88

The Bruce Wayne you know would die before passing on the mantle, but what about the Bruce Wayne who felt Dent was worthy to take his place as Gotham's protector?

Thanos response would be irrelevant either way because only a few people get the importance of his appearance. I think it's the reason why it was a mid credits scene. It takes away from the main movie experience when you are left in the dark. These movie's target the general movie going public first that's who they aim to please.

Honestly I don't think Nolan missed a point. I think you missed the point. Nolan obviously had a vision along with his partners. Nolan made the Batman realistic and practical unlike the previous installments. Let's just admit it, nothing is going to ever be exactly like the comics, for the simple fact that comics, cartoons or whatever in that nature can last forever and go in unimaginable directions, but for the sake of a live-action film, the reality is actors/actresses get older and can't go on forever. So to me Nolan brought us a masterpiece in a sense. Of course it's not going to be perfect, but I think it's close as you're gonna get in a film. Nolan took his vision, mixed it with the comics, wrote a compelling story with a beginning, middle, and end and also made Bruce Wayne have a life. I mean think about it, in the Nolan universe Bruce never was close to anyone besides Rachel, Alfred and Lucius and of course his parents, but now he has Selina and they can have a life. And Nolan did give us Robin in a way so hopefully now someone can continue the story. Hopefully...

okay..here's my take. it's not that i WANT TDKR to fail. on the contrary..i was really hoping it will be the best of the three Nolan's Batfilms, if not just as great as the previous two.

that's why i was sooooo disappointed that the film just left a bitter taste in my mouth. the story's got a lot of potential to be epic..but, with too many new characters and out-of-character depiction of the major characters (namely Bruce)..i'm just too frustrated to just go along and enjoy the ride. and the plot holes...don't get me started on THAT.

for me, Bruce's absence, his devastation, post-Joker, shouldn't be THAT long (8 years..??!! that alone is very out-of-character..bruce should've been much stronger than that).
the Bruce-Talia relationship should've been established from much earlier in the film and used as a device that pulls Bruce from his seclusion. Talia (as Miranda) should've been the remedy that Bruce takes to move on from Rachel and her death.
the focus shouldn't be too much on JGL's John Blake. it's not John Blake Rises..it's The Dark Knight (BATMAN) Rises.
The Bane-Batman fights should've been choreographed AND shot and edited much better..each should've been way better and more ass-kicking than the previous mano-a-mano on screen fights..the most recent being Vin Diesel-The Rock fight, in Fast Five. sides..Bats should've taken off his cape in those fights, cuz, it just makes the whole proceeding looks kinda ridiculous. Bane, being the smart and badass fighter as he is, coulda and shoulda used the big-ass cape to beat his opponent.
Catwoman should have more purpose and something at stake relating to the main story. the one in the movie is just silly. speaking of her..with Miranda-Bruce's relationship being well-established, her appearance would then have a stronger purpose..which is to distract Bruce from the spell cast by Miranda for her diabolical purposes. thus, making Selina character more significant.
The police-Bane's men final fight's just too ridiculous. i mean, with all the guns involved, they shouldn't've been having a street BRAWL. They'd more likely to do shootouts, but not fisticuffs forcryinoutloud..!!!

if there's a time machine, i hope Nolan would get on it and RE-do this installment. make it into two films if need be.

Something else that I never see anyone complaining about is how Bruce was only actively Batman for about one year. He started in Begins. I dont know how much time passes during that movie once he becomes Batman, but it cant be more than a couple Weeks. Then, even if we're being generous, we can say no more than a year passes between Begins and TDK. Then the events of TDK, which cant be more than a month.

Then quits for 8 years, and returns for one final adventure before quitting again.

So, seriously, how can any respecting comic fan be okay with the idea of Bruce only being Batman for a total of a year and a couple months?

Its blasphemy.

@gmoney - It was implied since Alfred had expressed his fantasy of seeing Bruce at that very cafe havng let go of his pain, left Gotham behind and being happy.

I don't think it was intended to be left up to interpretation that Bruce had now acheived that.

The Batsignal was restored for Blake who (I'm assuming with the help of the money that had been left to Alfred and aided by Fox on the gadget side) to 'rise' himself. This is why he was lifted on the platform in the cave in the very last scene. In many ways he was the Dark knight of the title.

I can't say i like anything that happened in this film in the final act. Pity.

I think simply by leaving Bruce alive at the end, Nolan is opening his world for our imaginations. In my opinion by showing him in a "happily ever after" scenario, all Nolan is trying to prove, beyond a doubt is that Bruce is very much alive.

To answer the question "did it miss the point?" I'd empathically say; No, it got the point exactly!

At the end, if there were kids(like Alfred said there would be in his fantasy) with Bruce, implying more time had passed than a month or a year or so, then yes it would be pretty clear that Bruce is done being Batman.

But, they made the choice NOT to show John Blake with the suit.
They made the choice NOT to kill Bruce.
and
They made the choice not to leave it open, with simply Alfred smiling before cutting to Bruce and Selina. Which would have framed the debate as "IS BRUCE ALIVE??"

All we know is that Bruce is alive.

The question I always ask people who have problems with this is, who say's Bruce isn't just taking a break? Or what happens if a situation arises that John Blake isn't able to handle? Would Batman, the true Batman, return? Of course he would.

I don't try to force that idea down anyone's throat but offer it as an alternative to looking at the ending as an ABSOLUTE.

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes."

The whole Robin thing was just a little treat for the fans, that was all.

Instead of dragging out the film over 10 years with the 3 Robins, he just combined them all into one and created a new character...

They created a new Robin for The Dark Knight Returns...

i dont see anything wrong with Blake.


Burton was going to make one of the Wayans brothers Robin. In his version, he was going to be a street smart kid who was good with gadgets. No costume. And he would have been in the film for less than 10 minutes...

Soooo, I guess Jean Paul Valley, Dick Grayson and Terry McGuiness are all proof that Bruce Wayne would NEVER give up the mantle of Batman to anyone else then? The difference is comics never end, they go on forever. So even if they do try to end Bruce Wayne's story like with Knightfall or Batman R.I.P. he will always return and the status quo will be reestablished. Comics are like a game of a chess, everytime the game ends the board is reset to play again.