Is Batman crazy?

[Christopher]

^I think the idea was that the League had been pursuing its plan to destroy Gotham for so long, and before that tearing down earlier cities in the same way, that a mere eight years of reform and stability didn't convince them that they could abandon their centuries-long program. They were too committed to their belief that it was necessary to destroy centers of decadence, and like all fanatics, they wouldn't change their minds just because the facts contradicted their assumptions. They surely saw Gotham's reforms as a temporary correction that would fail to stem the inevitable tide.

Indeed, one could argue that the corruption never went away. The stability was built on a lie about Harvey Dent and Batman. The Dent Act had been enforced so aggressively that it threatened to undermine civil rights. And the one percent were still getting richer at the expense of everyone else, as Selina pointed out. That's the key thing. You're defining corruption to mean graft and illegal acts committed by people in the government. The League defined it on more of a society-wide scale, feeling that America as a whole had become incurably corrupt. A global organization like the League wouldn't have been concerned about one city alone. They targeted Gotham because it was the biggest, wealthiest, most powerful city in the Nolanverse version of the US (President William Devane called it "our greatest city" or words to that effect) and thus the keystone whose removal would cause the rest of the civilization to collapse and allow the next civilization to arise.

 

[Set Harth]

If there was such thing as Bane seeing the power structure of Gotham as corrupt then that fact should have been properly realized on screen; actually show/portray the corruption within the power structure. Give credence to the character's motives. Begins managed to that for Ra's

Not really. What was the intended outcome of Ra's's plan? A city without crime? I think not. Ra's wanted to destroy Gotham. His motives were ultimately no more noble than Talia's. And you can call Daggett a caricature, but the fact remains that he's real in-universe. IMO he serves as a parallel to what Ra's said in BB about how the League's ability to infiltrate Gotham's infrastructure proved the existence of the corruption they were talking about.

 

[Dr.H]

^I think the idea was that the League had been pursuing its plan to destroy Gotham for so long, and before that tearing down earlier cities in the same way, that a mere eight years of reform and stability didn't convince them that they could abandon their centuries-long program. They were too committed to their belief that it was necessary to destroy centers of decadence, and like all fanatics, they wouldn't change their minds just because the facts contradicted their assumptions. They surely saw Gotham's reforms as a temporary correction that would fail to stem the inevitable tide.
Indeed, one could argue that the corruption never went away. The stability was built on a lie about Harvey Dent and Batman. The Dent Act had been enforced so aggressively that it threatened to undermine civil rights. And the one percent were still getting richer at the expense of everyone else, as Selina pointed out. That's the key thing. You're defining corruption to mean graft and illegal acts committed by people in the government. The League defined it on more of a society-wide scale, feeling that America as a whole had become incurably corrupt. A global organization like the League wouldn't have been concerned about one city alone. They targeted Gotham because it was the biggest, wealthiest, most powerful city in the Nolanverse version of the US (President William Devane called it "our greatest city" or words to that effect) and thus the keystone whose removal would cause the rest of the civilization to collapse and allow the next civilization to arise.

Wow! That was a great point, almost makes me wish you were the writer of Rises.
This a very good point, but I don't really buy it. Bane seemed to be just a pawn in a frivolous revenge tirade, and was abiding by Talia's orders to wreck Gotham as much as he can. There was no real deep sociopolitical angle to his prerogative other then messing with Batman. All I just took from Bane's plan is that he wanted to fulfill "Ra's Al Ghu's destiny." Which makes little sense for me. Maybe it makes sense to you but for me I just feel it's more a hackneyed way to tread back to the first film and bring it full circle. You have a modicum of a point in with regards to the Dent act motivating the police to act in a more fascist manner, which could be one of justification for why League's at it again, but the film doesn't really spotlight what your saying or portray it in any manner which would immediately ring that to mind.

 

[Set Harth]

That point is also reinforced by Bane's comments at the stock market and Crane's dialogue when sentencing Stryver.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Well, he maintains control over his faculties on the whole, & living a double life does not equate to multiple personality disorder...

Ted Bundy.

 

[Dr.H]

If there was such thing as Bane seeing the power structure of Gotham as corrupt then that fact should have been properly realized on screen; actually show/portray the corruption within the power structure. Give credence to the character's motives. Begins managed to that for Ra's

Not really. What was the intended outcome of Ra's's plan? A city without crime? I think not. Ra's wanted to destroy Gotham. His motives were ultimately no more noble than Talia's. And you can call Daggett a caricature, but the fact remains that he's real in-universe. IMO he serves as a parallel to what Ra's said in BB about how the League's ability to infiltrate Gotham's infrastructure proved the existence of the corruption they were talking about.

Y'know when I really think about Ra's motives didn't really add up for for me either, he fucks over Gotham's economics which leads it to the sorry state it was. Eh....I guess one could say it was corrupt before. I need to re watch Begins again.

 

[Christopher]

This a very good point, but I don't really buy it. Bane seemed to be just a pawn in a frivolous revenge tirade, and was abiding by Talia's orders to wreck Gotham as much as he can. There was no real deep sociopolitical angle to his prerogative other then messing with Batman. All I just took from Bane's plan is that he wanted to fulfill "Ra's Al Ghu's destiny." Which makes little sense for me. Maybe it makes sense to you but for me I just feel it's more a hackneyed way to tread back to the first film and bring it full circle. You have a modicum of a point in with regards to the Dent act motivating the police to act in a more fascist manner, which could be one of justification for why League's at it again, but the film doesn't really spotlight what your saying or portray it in any manner which would immediately ring that to mind.

Granted, the film by itself is certainly flawed. My analysis was based more on the whole trilogy, what was established about the League and its mission in Begins. To the extent that TDKR works at all (in any portion where Selina isn't the focus), it's as a continuation of what came before. It doesn't stand on its own as well as TDK does.

 

[Dr.H]

That point is also reinforced by Bane's comments at the stock market and Crane's dialogue when sentencing Stryver.

That's just Bane toying with the city. The whole "Have or have's" not thing Bane was going for was just a ruse to create chaos. Whatever deep, sociopolitical angle the film was going for(if there was any) was ultimately abandoned or thrown out of the window halfway through the film. Bane's singular intention was to obey Talia and aid her in a crazy and possible suicide plan. He doesn't give three shits about the poor or rich or else he wouldn't be trying blow them all up indiscriminately. And uh.... Crane? Need I remind you he is a criminal who is going with the flow. Don't confuse that meager cameo as being an elaboration of some deep theme. It was just fan-service. Nothing more, nothing less. Even if you could pick the miniscule instances in which the film does give notice to something that bears resemblance to that theme, it wouldn't matter in the end because the screenwriters don't really make much an effort to fully realize those messages in the end.

 

[Set Harth]

He doesn't give three shits about the poor or rich or else he wouldn't be trying blow them all up indiscriminately.

The same logic could be used in the case of Ra's, though. Bane's comments in the stock market don't really count as toying with the city because only a few people heard them.

 

[Dr.H]

He doesn't give three shits about the poor or rich or else he wouldn't be trying blow them all up indiscriminately.

The same logic could be used in the case of Ra's, though. Bane's comments in the stock market don't really count as toying with the city because only a few people heard them.

How so? Oh I think I meant the general blanket toying around the film.
Bane's plan is hilarious. I really like how's fucking with the city before blowing it up. Seriously, the character wasted this time trying to abide by Talia's orders to make "Batman suffer." He should've crippled Batman to the point he was unmovable.

 

[Christopher]

^There was a certain character logic to it, though. He'd grown up in a prison that tortured its prisoners with the illusion of hope (a clear path to escape if only they could make the climb/leap) in order to intensify their despair. And like most victims of abuse who become abusers, he imitated his abusers' patterns, playing the same kind of mind games -- giving both Bruce and Gotham a sliver of hope before destroying them both. True, if you think about it, it does fall afoul of the standard "Why don't you just shoot him?" problem, but at least there was a character-based reason for his folly, and that makes it somewhat more acceptable.

 

[Roshi]

I'd say he's slightly disturbed.

 

[Gov Kodos]

Given his resources, choosing to dress up in a funny rubber suit and dart off into the night to fight a one man war on crime is suspect, to say the least.

 

[Christopher]

Given his resources, choosing to dress up in a funny rubber suit and dart off into the night to fight a one man war on crime is suspect, to say the least.

As I already said, that would be true in our world, and maybe in the movie universes where he's one of a kind, but it makes no sense as an argument applied to the universe he occupies in comics and animation, where costumed crimefighting is a commonplace occupation.

Then again, every occupation has to start somewhere. Lots of innovators and pioneers have been considered deranged by their less imaginative peers.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

^There was a certain character logic to it, though. He'd grown up in a prison that tortured its prisoners with the illusion of hope (a clear path to escape if only they could make the climb/leap) in order to intensify their despair. And like most victims of abuse who become abusers, he imitated his abusers' patterns, playing the same kind of mind games -- giving both Bruce and Gotham a sliver of hope before destroying them both. True, if you think about it, it does fall afoul of the standard "Why don't you just shoot him?" problem, but at least there was a character-based reason for his folly, and that makes it somewhat more acceptable.

Plus in the end he was planing to just outright kill Batman after Talia left to get the bomb, Selina just happened to show up and kill him before he could do it.

 

[Dr.H]

^There was a certain character logic to it, though. He'd grown up in a prison that tortured its prisoners with the illusion of hope (a clear path to escape if only they could make the climb/leap) in order to intensify their despair. And like most victims of abuse who become abusers, he imitated his abusers' patterns, playing the same kind of mind games -- giving both Bruce and Gotham a sliver of hope before destroying them both. True, if you think about it, it does fall afoul of the standard "Why don't you just shoot him?" problem, but at least there was a character-based reason for his folly, and that makes it somewhat more acceptable.

A forced character based reason.
Am I the only one who laughed his ass so hard when a deserted prison in the middle nowhere actaullly had better quality TV with clear imaging than I do. Seriously what was with that? It was so dumb, now I know these films aren't gritty and realistic--The Wire is for that. But I think they kinda dropped the ball on the whole" illusionary realism." The Pit was a dumb idea( I don't care about all the symbolic, or metaphoric reasons for it).

 

[Agent Richard07]

And like most victims of abuse who become abusers, he imitated his abusers' patterns, playing the same kind of mind games -- giving both Bruce and Gotham a sliver of hope before destroying them both. True, if you think about it, it does fall afoul of the standard "Why don't you just shoot him?" problem, but at least there was a character-based reason for his folly, and that makes it somewhat more acceptable.

Torture makes more sense than just shooting your enemy. If you're suffering, you want to prolong their suffering and you can't do that if you just snuff them out.

 

[not]

^There was a certain character logic to it, though. He'd grown up in a prison that tortured its prisoners with the illusion of hope (a clear path to escape if only they could make the climb/leap) in order to intensify their despair. And like most victims of abuse who become abusers, he imitated his abusers' patterns, playing the same kind of mind games -- giving both Bruce and Gotham a sliver of hope before destroying them both. True, if you think about it, it does fall afoul of the standard "Why don't you just shoot him?" problem, but at least there was a character-based reason for his folly, and that makes it somewhat more acceptable.

I think that myth was disproved with Professor David Skuse' study

 

[Dr.H]

Given his resources, choosing to dress up in a funny rubber suit and dart off into the night to fight a one man war on crime is suspect, to say the least.

As I already said, that would be true in our world, and maybe in the movie universes where he's one of a kind, but it makes no sense as an argument applied to the universe he occupies in comics and animation, where costumed crimefighting is a commonplace occupation.

Then again, every occupation has to start somewhere. Lots of innovators and pioneers have been considered deranged by their less imaginative peers.

Batman is wholesomely unrealistic character that would no make no impact in a real life urban city. Though I wonder what would happen if a person who had comic book Batman abilities were to exist in the real world(our world) and fight crime in a city like say Detroit, or New Orleans. Would he be successful?

 

[not]

Given his resources, choosing to dress up in a funny rubber suit and dart off into the night to fight a one man war on crime is suspect, to say the least.

As I already said, that would be true in our world, and maybe in the movie universes where he's one of a kind, but it makes no sense as an argument applied to the universe he occupies in comics and animation, where costumed crimefighting is a commonplace occupation.

Then again, every occupation has to start somewhere. Lots of innovators and pioneers have been considered deranged by their less imaginative peers.

Batman is wholesomely unrealistic character that would no make no impact in a real life urban city. Though I wonder what would happen if a person who had comic book Batman abilities were to exist in the real world(our world) and fight crime in a city like say Detroit, or New Orleans. Would he be successful?

Yes.