‘Superman & Batman’ movie will follow ‘Man of Steel’

[M.A.C.O.]

^Eh to each there own. I thought STID was the most disappointing film of 2013. MOS broke the trend of portraying the Richard Donner version of Superman. While STID rehased elements from ST09, NEM and TWOK. I was expecting more from STID than what we got.

With MOS I expected a new take on a classic character for his 75th anniversary. Which we did get and it has spawned a sequel, and a Justice League film. MOS isn't perfect, I agree. However I find it superior to Superman Returns, Superman IV, and Superman III.

 

[davejames]

I don't think Harvey's inclusion was tacked on at all. This was a movie about the Batman and Joker battling for the hearts and minds of the people of Gotham, with Batman trying to inspire and save them and the Joker trying to corrupt and destroy them. Harvey was the human embodiment of what they were fighting over. The duality of Two-Face fit neatly into the film's themes. Harvey Dent was the ideal that Bruce wanted to promote as a way of saving Gotham -- and himself, so he could create a Gotham that didn't need Batman anymore -- and Two-Face was the corruption the Joker wanted to create as a way of tearing down Gotham, destroying its greatest hope. Far from tacked on, Harvey is literally crucial to the story: he is the crux of the conflict between the hero and the villain. Remove him and the film loses most of its story.

I agree that thematically the idea works well, and is necessary for the movie to work. My only problem is I just don't buy the transformation Harvey makes in the movie at all. It's just hard for me to see the upstanding man at the beginning of the film suddenly giving up his pursuit of justice and turning into a psychopath because his girlfriend got killed-- and then threatening to kill Gordon's child at the end to boot.

I realize it's still a comic book movie and you have to make certain allowances for characters' origin stories (especially ones who only have half a face ), but that's one leap that still seems a bit much for me.

 

[Christopher]

But that was the point, wasn't it? That nobody's just an "upstanding man," that people (the Joker excepted) are more complicated than that, and the pure, noble Harvey was an image, a symbol for Gotham as much as Batman was. I mean, Harvey seemed a little unstable to me in his courtroom antics, like facing down a guy with a loaded gun (death wish much?), and he didn't have much problem with using Batman to illegally "extradite" a guy from Hong Kong. He had the darkness in him all along and the Joker broke him. Essentially this Joker succeeded in doing to Harvey what Alan Moore's Joker failed to do to Commissioner Gordon in The Killing Joke.

 

[davejames]

I see what they were going for with making him a bit reckless, and having him play fast and loose with the rules... but that still didn't seem like quite enough to set up the vengeful, cold-blooded killer he eventually becomes. I kinda wish Nolan had pushed some of those aspects a bit harder earlier on, and made it more obvious just how close Harvey was to falling over the edge.

I still love the movie of course; it's just one aspect of the story that doesn't really work for me.

 

[Thestral]

Me either, it was just so sudden and rapid. Ruthless and taking risks is one thing, but going completely insane and deciding to murder children is another. What they did with Harvey Dent was great up till he woke up in the hospital, but he should have stayed in a coma or something until the very end. Rather than pushing him harder in The Dark Knight, save the rest of his story for Movie 3 (obviously that wouldn't work at all with The Dark Knight Rises, but theoretically here). Two-Face deserves more focus than just being one of many juggled elements in the back half of the Joker's movie.


ETA: Not that it's ultimately a big deal or some kind of major blemish on The Dark Knight; plus I really liked TDK Rises.

 

[DWF]

The Dark Knight felt like two different movies tacked together, one about the Joker and the other about Two-Face. Harvey's courtroom antics felt alittle too theaterical to me and of course I wondered how the gangster got the courtroom and the gun linked him to Ho. The movie was a battle of alpha males and Batman kind of lost in the long run, Harvey took Rachel away from him without a fight. Batman/Bruce Wayne had little in the way of character devlopment to me.

The Superman/Batman movie will I think rely heavily on the villain or villainscast in the role/s as we know has yet to be cast. But the conflict between Batman and Superman should be interesting.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

TDK lifts a lot of themes and story from the 1996 comic "The Long Halloween" by Jeph Loeb.

It's been years since I read it, however I seem to recall that Harvey's dissociative identity disorder was more than just skin deep. The scarring to his face gave Harvey an outlet for his hidden side. They briefly reference it in TDK when Gordon and Harvey talk about the nickname the people at Internal Affairs. Harvey has undergone plastic surgery in the comics, but that didn't fix him psychologically.

In TDK I don't think it felt tacked on at all. When the Joker revealed that his intent was to assassinate Harvey's image and show Gotham his (Harvey's) true face. It revealed that the Joker had been playing the long game since he was hired by the mob. In "The Long Halloween" it was the damage to his face that cause Harvey to lose it. Harvey in the comics was married and had a wife at home who assisted him. In TDK his fiancee is murderer in addition to having his face scarred; which causes Harvey to go over the edge.

 

[DWF]

Except that in The Dark Knight the mob puts a hit out on Ho and the Joker decides to do it and once done he burns the money and takes out the competition. We knew that all along that Harvey would become Two-Face, but that didin't happen ti after Ho was killed.

 

[Christopher]

TDK lifts a lot of themes and story from the 1996 comic "The Long Halloween" by Jeph Loeb.

It's been years since I read it, however I seem to recall that Harvey's dissociative identity disorder was more than just skin deep. The scarring to his face gave Harvey an outlet for his hidden side....

In "The Long Halloween" it was the damage to his face that cause Harvey to lose it.

Which is very similar to Batman: The Animated Series's "Two-Face" storyline which aired in September 1992. Although the original source for the idea that Harvey had a dual identity even before he became Two-Face was probably 1990's Batman Annual #14, "The Eye of the Beholder" by Andrew Helfer, Chris Sprouse, and Steve Mitchell.

 

[JacksonArcher]

It always confuses me when people say Bruce Wayne/Batman didn't get sufficient character development in The Dark Knight because while the story is an ensemble and features many characters, the crux of the story centers around him.

Bruce's quest as the film begins is to position Harvey Dent as the "White Knight", or a hero without a mask. Harvey Dent represents the symbol that Batman could never become, and it also represents a normal life that Bruce Wayne (if secretly) wants. In Nolan's universe, Bruce Wayne doesn't see being Batman forever, and I think he feels burdened by the weight of being Batman. That is the whole point of The Dark Knight Rises. After Rachel's death, Bruce becomes more secluded, realizing that he has no other option but to be Batman, until John Blake offers a chance for him to finally move on and give up the mantle. Bruce talks about Batman being an "everlasting symbol" even as early as Batman Begins. I think it was Bruce's intention ever since the beginning for Batman to be more than just one man, and to be a symbol that could last far beyond his time.

In The Dark Knight, though, Bruce thinks Harvey could be that symbol. He sees a "happy ending" with Rachel. When Rachel dies and Harvey becomes Two-Face, that dream/aspiration is shattered. At the end of The Dark Knight, Bruce pretty much buys into the idea that he has to be Batman. He ends up taking the rap for Harvey Dent's murders because he feels like that's what Batman is meant to do ("I'm whatever Gotham needs me to be"). It's almost like he abandons the idea of giving up the mantle when he realizes how The Joker corrupted Dent. He thinks the only recourse is to further get lost in Batman. Rises continues that theme, and by introducing John Blake it tackles the idea that maybe Bruce can let go of the pain he has held onto for so long and give the mantle to someone else and maybe have a normal life. In the comics, things are infinite, so there's never that idea of closure or a proper ending, but for Nolan's movies, there was, and it finally allowed Bruce Wayne to have a proper, happy ending.

Like Christopher and others have said, Harvey Dent was absolutely crucial to the story arc of The Dark Knight. Although, Bruce Wayne had a complete character journey throughout the film. As the film begins, he is potentially getting lost in this "monster" he's created (as shown by the many scars on his back) and when Dent appears, he provides the hope of giving up the mantle. The Joker provides the conflict of "how far is too far" for Batman - at one point Bruce was even willing to reveal his identity and turn himself in. Then, when Dent has his fall from grace, Bruce realizes he has no other choice but to be Batman, and buys into that idea - "You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain". Then, of course, that idea is followed to completion in The Dark Knight Rises when Bruce finds another person that can take up the mantle and allow himself to have the happy ending he always wanted.

As for Harvey Dent's transformation in The Dark Knight, it is much more subtle and nuanced than we've seen in the comics or animated show. Then again, the comics and the animated series had much more time to fully expand and develop the Harvey Dent character, while the movie only had two and a half hours. While I can understand why some people think Dent's transformation is unrealistic or unbelievable, I can buy into it. As Christopher said earlier, Nolan subtly sprinkles elements into Dent's character that shows there's more to him than meets the eye. Dent's interrogation of Thomas Schiff, for example, I thought was a pretty obvious indication that Dent isn't the bright and shiny figure that everyone was making him out to be. Gordon's line about Dent being called "Harvey Two-Face" at Internal Affairs was another subtle hint that there was much more to Dent than what appeared on the surface. So the loss of Rachel and the scarring of his face to me always felt like a natural progression of what was seemingly bubbling on the surface before the movie even began, but I can see how others could miss those kind of subtle details.

On another note, I think a lot of people also miss the fact that The Joker is pretty much manipulating everyone in the story, including Harvey Dent. As he mentions to Batman in the end, corrupting Dent was always a part of his plan. I think a very important scene is when he confronts Dent in the hospital room after Dent has been scarred. At that point, Dent blames The Joker for Rachel's death, but The Joker manipulates Dent into thinking it was everyone else that caused Rachel's death and that The Joker was merely "a dog chasing cars". So a lot of Dent's transformation was specifically manipulated and constructed by The Joker. In a lot of ways, he orchestrated a lot of the machinations and things that happen in the story. That's probably why Nolan wisely wanted to avoid using The Riddler for The Dark Knight Rises because I'm sure if Nolan tackled The Riddler it would resemble, at least thematically, what Nolan did with The Joker. He might have not used riddles, but The Joker was very similar to how I imagine a Nolan-ized Riddler would act and function.

 

[DWF]

The lie that preserved Dent's innocence corrupted all the good that Gordon did in Dent's name and the lie that Alfred told about Rachel ended up destroying his friendship with Bruce.

Bane: You have been supplied with a false idol [tears up picture] to stop you tearing down this CORRUPT CITY! Let me tell you the truth about Harvey Dent from the words of Gotham's police commissioner, James Gordon. [reads text of speech] "The Batman didn't murder Harvey Dent. He saved my boy, then took the blame for Harvey's appalling crimes so I could, to my shame, build a lie around this fallen idol. I praised the madman who tried to murder my own child, but I can no longer live with my lie. It is time to trust the people of Gotham with the truth and it is time for me to resign." [calls to prisoners] And do you accept this man's resignation? [prisoners roar with approval] And do you accept the resignation of all of these liars, of all the corrupt?!?Blake: Those men locked up for eight years in Blackgate and denied parole under the Dent Act, based on a lie?Gordon: Gotham needed a hero.Blake: It needs it now more than ever. You betrayed everything it stood for.Gordon: [pained pause] There's a point far out there, when the structures fail you. When the rules aren't weapons anymore, they're shackles, letting the bad guy get ahead... Maybe one day, you may face such a moment of crisis. And in that moment, I hope you have a friend like I did... To plunge their hands into the filth, so that you can keep yours clean!Blake: [disgusted] Your hands look plenty filthy to me, Commissioner.

Blake was right and Batman was sacificed to keep a lie going. And while Bruce Wayne might've retired in hte Nolan trilogy he's making his way back in Superman Vs Batman.

In the end Batman in The Dark Knight has been declawed, he can't kill and the criminals know it and the lie that makes him a killer takes away any good he's done. So in the end Bruce has lost Rachel to Harvey and he's not even premitted to know that either. I can't see how that's development at least not a good development of character.

So is this some kind of reboot for Batman and we're looking at new Batman or a contuation of the Nolan trilogy?

 

[JacksonArcher]

The lie that preserved Dent's innocence corrupted all the good that Gordon did in Dent's name and the lie that Alfred told about Rachel ended up destroying his friendship with Bruce.

Which was kinda the point.

One of the reasons why The Dark Knight is so great is because it is, above all, a character piece. Even with all of Nolan's intricate plotting, what the film is really about is showing all the different sides to each and every character. The Joker is trying to prove that everyone has a dark side. That everyone can be corrupted. Even someone as supposedly good as Harvey Dent can fall from grace. The Joker questions Batman's methods, and at many times during the film Bruce himself even questions if he's doing the right thing, is he going too far, etc.

There's a point in the story where Batman uses the sonar device to tap into people's cell phones so he can triangulate The Joker's location. Lucius Fox says that it is going too far and that so long as the machine stays at Wayne Enterprises, Fox won't. There's a lot of moral ambiguity to The Dark Knight which makes it so fascinating. Even the heroes are incredibly flawed and go to some pretty dangerous and morally questionable lengths to accomplish their goals.

Batman thought that by preserving the lie he could stretch Dent's good image for as long as he could. Even as The Dark Knight Rises begins, that plan kinda worked: Gotham believes Dent was the White Knight he advertised himself as, and Gotham bought it. Then, when Bane comes into the picture, he completely shatters that. Gotham sees Dent for who he was, and whatever Batman and Gordon did to preserve Dent's image and "save" Gotham failed. When Gordon is injured and lying in the hospital bed, he says that Batman must come back, but Batman says that "they won". Batman believed they had won, that Batman is no longer needed, that Dent was the true savior of Gotham, but once that is shattered, Batman is needed again. Until John Blake enters the picture and Batman realizes there is someone to give the mantle to. Someone worthy of taking up the mantle of The Dark Knight.

The Dark Knight was all about characters, even the heroes, making complicated and difficult decisions in order to do what they see as "right". The Dark Knight Rises is all about the consequences of those decisions and the impact they have.

Blake was right and Batman was sacificed to keep a lie going. And while Bruce Wayne might've retired in hte Nolan trilogy he's making his way back in Superman Vs Batman.

Nolan's movies are separate from this new shared universe, though. Ben Affleck isn't the Christian Bale Batman from the Nolan universe.

In the end Batman in The Dark Knight has been declawed, he can't kill and the criminals know it and the lie that makes him a killer takes away any good he's done. So in the end Bruce has lost Rachel to Harvey and he's not even premitted to know that either. I can't see how that's development at least not a good development of character.

If anything, Batman at the end of The Dark Knight is the vigilante that he pretty much is in the comics. Not working with the law, and seen as a dangerous figure to the criminal underworld. In the comics, Batman strives on being an urban legend and spreads that image as much as possible. People think this Batman figure is a lot worse than he actually is, and at many times in the comics Batman uses that to his advantage.

The purpose of the lie, though, was very much setting up the conflict that Batman would eventually get absolved. As The Dark Knight Rises begins, Gordon says "It'll be a very long time before someone inspires us the way Dent did", or something along those lines. Dent was a temporary figurehead. He was never meant to be Gotham's white knight or savior. What Nolan was doing was setting up for Batman to be redeemed, his image restored and for Batman to be the savior that inspires Gotham to do good. Even more, Bruce doesn't have to be that symbol anymore and can move on with his life.

Like I said before, The Dark Knight is all about characters making difficult decisions, and sometimes those decisions aren't the right ones. Batman thought that by taking the rap for Dent's murders, he was doing the right thing by creating that lie. In Rises, he learns that was a mistake and he faces the consequences of that mistake. If that's not character development, then I don't know what is.

So is this some kind of reboot for Batman and we're looking at new Batman or a contuation of the Nolan trilogy?

This Batman is a completely different character. It's a reboot. That's one of the reasons why Christopher Nolan, who was an executive producer on Man of Steel, is not involved in the Batman/Superman film anymore.

 

[Set Harth]

Except that in The Dark Knight the mob puts a hit out on Ho and the Joker decides to do it and once done he burns the money and takes out the competition. We knew that all along that Harvey would become Two-Face, but that didin't happen ti after Ho was killed.

Who is "Ho"? ( obvious joke here... let it go... )

Are you talking about Lau?

 

[DWF]

The lie that preserved Dent's innocence corrupted all the good that Gordon did in Dent's name and the lie that Alfred told about Rachel ended up destroying his friendship with Bruce.

Which was kinda the point.

One of the reasons why The Dark Knight is so great is because it is, above all, a character piece. Even with all of Nolan's intricate plotting, what the film is really about is showing all the different sides to each and every character. The Joker is trying to prove that everyone has a dark side. That everyone can be corrupted. Even someone as supposedly good as Harvey Dent can fall from grace. The Joker questions Batman's methods, and at many times during the film Bruce himself even questions if he's doing the right thing, is he going too far, etc.

There's a point in the story where Batman uses the sonar device to tap into people's cell phones so he can triangulate The Joker's location. Lucius Fox says that it is going too far and that so long as the machine stays at Wayne Enterprises, Fox won't. There's a lot of moral ambiguity to The Dark Knight which makes it so fascinating. Even the heroes are incredibly flawed and go to some pretty dangerous and morally questionable lengths to accomplish their goals.

Batman thought that by preserving the lie he could stretch Dent's good image for as long as he could. Even as The Dark Knight Rises begins, that plan kinda worked: Gotham believes Dent was the White Knight he advertised himself as, and Gotham bought it. Then, when Bane comes into the picture, he completely shatters that. Gotham sees Dent for who he was, and whatever Batman and Gordon did to preserve Dent's image and "save" Gotham failed. When Gordon is injured and lying in the hospital bed, he says that Batman must come back, but Batman says that "they won". Batman believed they had won, that Batman is no longer needed, that Dent was the true savior of Gotham, but once that is shattered, Batman is needed again. Until John Blake enters the picture and Batman realizes there is someone to give the mantle to. Someone worthy of taking up the mantle of The Dark Knight.

The Dark Knight was all about characters, even the heroes, making complicated and difficult decisions in order to do what they see as "right". The Dark Knight Rises is all about the consequences of those decisions and the impact they have.

Blake was right and Batman was sacificed to keep a lie going. And while Bruce Wayne might've retired in hte Nolan trilogy he's making his way back in Superman Vs Batman.

Nolan's movies are separate from this new shared universe, though. Ben Affleck isn't the Christian Bale Batman from the Nolan universe.

In the end Batman in The Dark Knight has been declawed, he can't kill and the criminals know it and the lie that makes him a killer takes away any good he's done. So in the end Bruce has lost Rachel to Harvey and he's not even premitted to know that either. I can't see how that's development at least not a good development of character.

If anything, Batman at the end of The Dark Knight is the vigilante that he pretty much is in the comics. Not working with the law, and seen as a dangerous figure to the criminal underworld. In the comics, Batman strives on being an urban legend and spreads that image as much as possible. People think this Batman figure is a lot worse than he actually is, and at many times in the comics Batman uses that to his advantage.

The purpose of the lie, though, was very much setting up the conflict that Batman would eventually get absolved. As The Dark Knight Rises begins, Gordon says "It'll be a very long time before someone inspires us the way Dent did", or something along those lines. Dent was a temporary figurehead. He was never meant to be Gotham's white knight or savior. What Nolan was doing was setting up for Batman to be redeemed, his image restored and for Batman to be the savior that inspires Gotham to do good. Even more, Bruce doesn't have to be that symbol anymore and can move on with his life.

Like I said before, The Dark Knight is all about characters making difficult decisions, and sometimes those decisions aren't the right ones. Batman thought that by taking the rap for Dent's murders, he was doing the right thing by creating that lie. In Rises, he learns that was a mistake and he faces the consequences of that mistake. If that's not character development, then I don't know what is.

So is this some kind of reboot for Batman and we're looking at new Batman or a contuation of the Nolan trilogy?

This Batman is a completely different character. It's a reboot. That's one of the reasons why Christopher Nolan, who was an executive producer on Man of Steel, is not involved in the Batman/Superman film anymore.

The thing about the lie is there was noting to absove, Batman was innocent of the murders and what's worse is that The Dark Knight isn't a complete story without the events of The Dark Knight Rises to finish it. And I kind of doubt that maintaining that lie was one of the reasons why Bruce Wayne became Batman, in the end Bruce Wayne is the person he was the start he still wants to retire and now he has do it as a criminal and there's no one to replace him.

 

[DWF]

Except that in The Dark Knight the mob puts a hit out on Ho and the Joker decides to do it and once done he burns the money and takes out the competition. We knew that all along that Harvey would become Two-Face, but that didin't happen ti after Ho was killed.

Who is "Ho"? ( obvious joke here... let it go... )

Are you talking about Lau?

Yes.

 

[JacksonArcher]

The thing about the lie is there was noting to absove, Batman was innocent of the murders...

Yes, but he lied about it, along with Gordon. He created a false idol for all of Gotham to believe in. Imagine creating a lie that thousands, if not millions, of people believed in for eight years. People were arrested, perhaps unjustly, because of the Dent Act. I mean, an entire piece of legislation was put into effect because of the lie! Batman might have been innocent, but what he and Gordon did had huge ramifications.

...and what's worse is that The Dark Knight isn't a complete story without the events of The Dark Knight Rises to finish it.

Not necessarily.

In The Dark Knight, Bruce Wayne is looking for someone to take up the mantle. He thinks Harvey Dent is that person. Dent has a fall from grace, becomes Two-Face, and Bruce realizes (if temporarily) that he needs to be Batman in order to do what he sees as right in the end (take the rap for Dent's murders).

When he goes off on his Bat-Pod at the end of the story, it could have theoretically ended there. Batman would be a hunted vigilante (as he is in the comics). He could still operate as Batman. The police would just be after him. Gotham City would keep on believing Harvey Dent was a hero and all would be (somewhat) well.

However, The Dark Knight is the second part of a trilogy, and it is no more incomplete than the ending to The Empire Strikes Back.

And I kind of doubt that maintaining that lie was one of the reasons why Bruce Wayne became Batman, in the end Bruce Wayne is the person he was the start he still wants to retire and now he has do it as a criminal and there's no one to replace him.

The thing is that Batman isn't a normal kind of hero.

Bruce was figuring that out in The Dark Knight. When he thinks about quitting, Alfred is telling him to "endure". That Batman is a different kind of hero. The Joker keeps on testing him, demanding that he take off his mask and turn himself in, and the film explores Batman's methods and what he will do and how the ends justifies the means.

That's why I brought up the whole sonar concept: moral ambiguity plays a big part of the film. What will Batman do in order to achieve his goal and stop The Joker? What will that cost him? The Batman in The Dark Knight was still figuring out what kind of hero he was, and what he was willing and able to do in order to fight the criminal underworld.

At the end of The Dark Knight, Bruce doesn't think he can retire anymore. That's why when The Dark Knight Rises begins he is in self-exile. He's caught in this perpetual loop of internal pain and angst. He blames himself for Rachel's death, what happened to Harvey Dent, and he can't move on. He can't move on past Batman. That's why John Blake (and to a lesser extent, Selina Kyle and even Bane) helps Bruce find inner peace within himself because before he gave up on the idea of retiring. Then, Blake comes along, and he realizes that he doesn't need to live with the pain, that he can move on and give up the mantle.

 

[DWF]

The thing about the lie is there was noting to absove, Batman was innocent of the murders...

Yes, but he lied about it, along with Gordon. He created a false idol for all of Gotham to believe in. Imagine creating a lie that thousands, if not millions, of people believed in for eight years. People were arrested, perhaps unjustly, because of the Dent Act. I mean, an entire piece of legislation was put into effect because of the lie! Batman might have been innocent, but what he and Gordon did had huge ramifications.

...and what's worse is that The Dark Knight isn't a complete story without the events of The Dark Knight Rises to finish it.

Not necessarily.

In The Dark Knight, Bruce Wayne is looking for someone to take up the mantle. He thinks Harvey Dent is that person. Dent has a fall from grace, becomes Two-Face, and Bruce realizes (if temporarily) that he needs to be Batman in order to do what he sees as right in the end (take the rap for Dent's murders).

When he goes off on his Bat-Pod at the end of the story, it could have theoretically ended there. Batman would be a hunted vigilante (as he is in the comics). He could still operate as Batman. The police would just be after him. Gotham City would keep on believing Harvey Dent was a hero and all would be (somewhat) well.

However, The Dark Knight is the second part of a trilogy, and it is no more incomplete than the ending to The Empire Strikes Back.

And I kind of doubt that maintaining that lie was one of the reasons why Bruce Wayne became Batman, in the end Bruce Wayne is the person he was the start he still wants to retire and now he has do it as a criminal and there's no one to replace him.

The thing is that Batman isn't a normal kind of hero.

Bruce was figuring that out in The Dark Knight. When he thinks about quitting, Alfred is telling him to "endure". That Batman is a different kind of hero. The Joker keeps on testing him, demanding that he take off his mask and turn himself in, and the film explores Batman's methods and what he will do and how the ends justifies the means.

That's why I brought up the whole sonar concept: moral ambiguity plays a big part of the film. What will Batman do in order to achieve his goal and stop The Joker? What will that cost him? The Batman in The Dark Knight was still figuring out what kind of hero he was, and what he was willing and able to do in order to fight the criminal underworld.

At the end of The Dark Knight, Bruce doesn't think he can retire anymore. That's why when The Dark Knight Rises begins he is in self-exile. He's caught in this perpetual loop of internal pain and angst. He blames himself for Rachel's death, what happened to Harvey Dent, and he can't move on. He can't move on past Batman. That's why John Blake (and to a lesser extent, Selina Kyle and even Bane) helps Bruce find inner peace within himself because before he gave up on the idea of retiring. Then, Blake comes along, and he realizes that he doesn't need to live with the pain, that he can move on and give up the mantle.

Batman did go into retirement he wasn't seen for eight years and the injuries that Bruce Wayne should've ended his career as a superhero for good. He'd lost Rachel long before she died and what he might've done had there been no third movie is kind of besides the point since there was a third one.

Had the second movie been broken up into two movies, that might've been different as well, but they made the lie public and was a stupid move on Gordon's part to write that speech. But it was obvious that Gordon felt guilty about the lie.

Of course it's odd that Nolan woukd've made a Superman/Batman movie since he openly said he wouldn't do that. But then he also claimed there'd no Robin in his Batman movies.

 

[Christopher]

The Dark Knight definitely tells a complete story. In fact, I think that thematically, the first two films work better without the third. BB and TDK between them tell the story of the redemption of Gotham City. Bruce becomes Batman to provide a symbol of hope and justice for a fallen city, and in so doing, he inspires the people to begin taking Gotham back from the corruption and lawlessness. But he recognizes that a masked vigilante is a dysfunctional sort of savior for a dysfunctional city. In order for Gotham to become a fully healthy, lawful community again, it needs to restore a working justice system and social structure. Batman can't provide that, but District Attorney Harvey Dent can, at least as a symbol to take Batman's place. So TDK is about Gotham maturing to the point that it doesn't need Batman to save it anymore. Batman's ostracism is the conclusion of that arc, the acknowledgment that Gotham has outgrown his methods and he'd be a liability if he remained.

So TDKR is kind of a thematic reversal. It doesn't build on what TDK established so much as reset things to where they were in BB -- the system torn down by the League, the city plunged into anarchy so that Batman would be needed again. Which is kind of a cheat. I guess the idea was that the lie Batman and Gordon told wasn't a truly legitimate foundation for that reformed civilization and the truth would come out eventually, but the way the truth came out was just kind of tacked on to a story about something else altogether, and it was kind of lost in the shuffle.

 

[DWF]

There's a long standing discussion or argument if you will about the heroes creating the villians and hence the need forthe heroes in the first place. And there's some merit in that argument, but in the case of Nolan's Batman movies and Man Of Steel if you remove the hero innocent people do suffer. Gotham's civil structure was rebuilt after the events in The Dark Knight on a lie so the system fell apart and Batman was needed to save the people.

What's worse about Man Of Steel is that the argument that heroes create the need for villains is that it was the EMH of Jor-El that created the problems in the first place. And as long as Batman and Gordon kept their lie alive the city became a target for the League. Ultimately as long as the lie persisted Gotham still needed Batman and always will, there never be a time that Gotham won't need Batman as The Dark Knight Returns comic book story proved.

In the end you can't take away the need for Batman, if that were possible he'd never be needed in the first place.

 

[Runetouch]

^Eh to each there own. I thought STID was the most disappointing film of 2013. MOS broke the trend of portraying the Richard Donner version of Superman. While STID rehased elements from ST09, NEM and TWOK. I was expecting more from STID than what we got.

With MOS I expected a new take on a classic character for his 75th anniversary. Which we did get and it has spawned a sequel, and a Justice League film. MOS isn't perfect, I agree. However I find it superior to Superman Returns, Superman IV, and Superman III.

STID was disappointing, but it was nowhere as bad as MoS, in my opinion. I mean, while STID was atleast a good movie on it's own and only an okay Star Trek movie, MOS was an average movie on it's own and a mediocre Superman movie.