View Single Post
Old April 8 2013, 09:38 PM   #46
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Is Batman crazy?

Lapis Exilis wrote: View Post
Christopher wrote: View Post

Wasn't Chill hired by the League of Shadows in the Nolan version? I have the impression that the League had the Waynes killed because their philanthropy was countering the decay of Gotham that the League was trying to orchestrate. Or maybe that's just a theory I concocted.
Chill wasn't hired by the League of Shadows. In fact, according to Ra's monologuing at the end of Batman Begins, his murder of the Waynes counteracted the League's plan to drag Gotham down via the depression. He says something along the lines of "their deaths galvanized the rich and powerful, and Gotham has limped along since then" It was a bit of a tortured explanation...

My issue with Nolan's world is that - I like the more naturalistic take, but he had trouble making the Grand Batman Plan hold together. I mean, kudos to him for trying to create a Grand Batman Plan, since in the comics, Bruce Wayne's plan is "I will kick criminal ass", which might help to prevent moments of individual suffering, but does lack a systemic idea for improving Gotham's lot - which I think is people's objection to him donning cape and cowl rather than concentrating his energies on philanthropy and social change. Though, personally I find the idea that a single person, no matter how rich, could have a significant, lasting impact on the crime situation in one of the world's largest cities to be a bit ridiculous in its own way.

The ultimate flaws in the Nolan universe are regrettable - there was a good idea in the whole League of Shadows trying to destroy Gotham as part of their centuries old task to correct humanity's decadence. The problem was, with this as the justification for the story's main nemesis, Gotham should have been shown to be much more corrupt. Much as I think Frank Miller went off the deep end when it comes to Batman, he does understand one basic tenet in regards to the character. He once said "Batman works best in a world that's gone to hell." A vigilante is a hero when the systems of justice actually work to create injustice. If Nolan had been able to establish more of a completely rotten, corrupt system, the whole thing would have worked better. The trilogy would have really rocked if he could have managed to make it that the League was losing its reason for existence in the modern world, so Ra's was secretly creating corruption in order to bring it down and justify the League going on. Like, the League found and loosed the Joker on Gotham when it appeared that Batman was causing real change in the city.

Still would've needed a completely different 3rd film than we got. What a jumbled mess that thing was.

this is actually a bigger flaw for TDKR than for BB. In Batman Begins we ARE shown a city that is truly corrupt, from the cops to the judges to the politicians.(remember Gordon's line about "who's there to rat too, anyway?")

However, this is all fixed by TDKR. The Dent Act worked, Gordon's commissioner, corruption and crime are low. So the LOS' plan makes NO SENSE. They're destroying a city that's already been saved! It makes them look like Ras' justification in BB was all just a bunch of b.s., and really he was just leader of a bunch of nihilistic terrorists, but wanted to delude himself into thinking he had a cause.

Oh, and no, the LOS wasn't doing it because the Dent Act was built on a lie. Bane didn't know that until he found Gordon's speech.


It would have been better for Bane to have been an independent revolutionary unaffiliated with the LOS but truly committed by ideology to "giving Gotham back to the people."


But then Nolan couldn't have the "ticking bomb scenario" and a cardboard villain that he had instead.
__________________
"why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?"
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote