I like the, well, "realistic" aspect of Batman being only around for 1 or 2 years. It's a physically demanding job, you can't go on forever. And there are only so many villains out there, not an entire army of masked bad guys. He managed to stop organized crime, he attracted one other masked man, and then had to fight the aftermath of his membership in the League of Shadows. That's perfectly fine within the world Nolan has created.
It's like with Die Hard. The first one was perfect. Then in the second one there's this huge coincidence that he gets again trapped in a terrorist situation, which was already pushing it. In the third one, he is ONLY part of it because it's an after effect of the events of the first film. He killed Hans Gruber, his brother wants revenge. That's perfectly fine. But the 4th one is ridiculous. As is the 5th one. The McClane scenario isn't suited for so many sequels.
And I also think that a realistic Batman scenario would just play out similar to the Nolan films.
Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:
I have a very basic problem with the film. The first film used the theme of fear as a starting point for this man's journey. He learned to confront his fears before the first film ended. The third film he realized that he needed his fears. They are both logical variations of one theme and a good way to bookend a story about a man
The problem arises when you realized that the "fear" thing in the first film was just a starting point. But even as the first film ended the theme changed into something more. The whole escalation thing, the realization that the masked vigilante that he has become might have made the bag guys hit harder, and become stranger. The second film (for all of its flaws) had each character represent a different point on the morality scare. This theme isn't just different than the fear thing, but deeper. While most trilogies are well-served by going back and revisiting a theme introduced in the first film in a new way, here it seems like a cop out. And, at first glance - with all its threads and stories - the narrative of TDKR seems as complex as the TDK - the theme most definitely is not. Makes me think that there was no reason to have such a complex narrative in the third film if the underlying theme wound up being so paper theme. The complexities of the narrative in TDK served the story's themes. Here, they don't .
The fear he had in Batman Begins isn't the same fear he needed in TDKR. Not sure if I can explain it properly... Bruce Wayne has lost the will to live. He needed to learn to want to live again basically. And with the will to live comes the fear of death. That's what the leap was about. He made that jump because he was pumped with fear of dying. In Batman Begins it wasn't fear of death, it was more a fear of not being able to accomplish things, I guess. He had a clear goal: clean the streets of Gotham. And then in TDK, things got worse. And after he lost Rachel, and after he gave up being Batman, after he didn't have a goal any more, it all crumbled down so that he didn't want to live anymore. In prison, he had to "learn" that "life" should be his new goal. So he came back to stop Bane, and then leave to start a new life.
What the hell was up with Bane's voice? I couldn't understand half of what he was saying. It was almost as bad as the Bale Batvoice.
Compare this to Vader from a ANH which was 35 years ago, and I had no problem understanding anything he said.
I had no problem understanding him at all.