DominicCobb

Actually Bruce Wayne was supposedly just another guy killed during Bane's reign.

And I don't think it's too hard to believe he found a way back to Gotham and a way to fix the autopilot. 

And Fox said long term he could prove fraud with the trades, which means eventually Fox gets all the money back to Wayne Enterprises and continues to be a good president for the company. So Bruce wouldn' have to worry about that.

And Bruce finding a life to live is just as much about making Alfred happy as it is making him happy. Batman was Bruce's way to follow his father and help Gotham. Bruce finding a life is his way of following the man who really became his father, Alfred.

Warbler said:

What is everyone's thoughts on Oscar Pistorius, the runner without legs who races on what are called racing blades.   Here is a picture:

Do you think he should have been allowed to run in the regular olympics?  

This may be politically incorrect, but I don't think he should have allowed to run.   We opening up pandora's box.   I mean, where do we draw the line with this sort of thing.   The technology for artificial limbs is bound to improve and improve and improve.   What if it gets to point where they are like the bionic limbs of the six million dollar man and men with natural limbs stand no chance in races against those with "bionic" limbs?  And if a man with artificial limbs  its allowed to compete, why not a man in a powered wheelchair?   What if it gets to the point where normal runners want to cut their legs off so they can use artificial limbs so they have a chance against other runners using bionic limbs.   How far do we let this go before the whole Olympics is a competition between those with bionic/borgified attachments,  instead of a competition between those with natural athletic ability.    

and please don't take this to mean that I have no sympathy for those without legs or those disabled in some other way, that couldn't be further from the truth.     

Well I think as long as it's clear that artificial limbs don't enhance performance, it's okay. And if they do, I don't think the Olympics would be okay with it. There are para-olympics. 

I feel it's great to let him run. I mean, this is a guy who has been without legs for all his life. It's great that with hard work, he has been able to go to the Olympics anyway. And I think it's important to say that just because he doesn't have legs doesn't mean that he doesn't have "natural athletic ability," because he clearly does. 

I watched him race, and he lost. So I don't think there should really be any controversy.

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

I think there is only one rule when it comes to adapting Batman: there has to be a reason why they call him Batman.

and what is that the law?  did you just make that up out of thin air?  ; )

 

Ha, well I mean you can't just call a guy Batman for no reason.

why not?

Well now that you put it that way, I guess you could. But you wouldn't.

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

I think there is only one rule when it comes to adapting Batman: there has to be a reason why they call him Batman.

and what is that the law?  did you just make that up out of thin air?  ; )

 

Ha, well I mean you can't just call a guy Batman for no reason.

Warbler said:

Baronlando said:

Warbler said: But there are things you can't do, and one of them is depicting Wayne retiring and going away with Catwoman and leaving the crime fighting to someone else.    

What is that, the law?

well you tell me:

would it be ok to depict batman as having super powers?

would it be ok to depict batman as killing the criminals he catches instead of turning them in? 

Would it be ok to depict Batman with Wayne's parents still alive and well?

would it be ok to depict Batman demanding pay for his services from Gotham City? 

I would be somewhat disappointed that they didn't go a traditional route, but I think any of those changes would make for an interesting take on the character.

I think there is only one rule when it comes to adapting Batman: there has to be a reason why they call him Batman.

I'm paraphrasing here, but a wise man once said "an immature man dies nobly for a cause. A mature man lives humbly for one." In TDKR, Bruce Wayne is prepared to die to save Gotham. But then he matures.

I feel if he kept fighting or died it would have left his character unchanged, which is usually considered to be an element of bad storytelling. 

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

If you don't like films betraying the source material, okay. I personally don't think you can criticize a movie on those grounds.

why? 

Agree to disagree I guess. Whenever I watch a film I make sure to judge it solely on its own quality. For me, I like to give each film its fair chance. It's adherence to source material doesn't factor into my view of it.

So if I am watching a movie based on a book, it is invalid of me to criticize when it differs from the Book? 

 

No I think you can view it how you want. That's why I'm not engaging in your discussion about Bruce retiring from Batman. My argument would go no where. I think it's alright to be annoyed when an adaptation makes changes, I just personally think it's wrong to judge a film's quality based on those changes.

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

If you don't like films betraying the source material, okay. I personally don't think you can criticize a movie on those grounds.

why? 

Agree to disagree I guess. Whenever I watch a film I make sure to judge it solely on its own quality. For me, I like to give each film its fair chance. It's adherence to source material doesn't factor into my view of it.

CP3S said:

DominicCobb said:

CP3S said:

No, it really wasn't. You seem to be having a hard time getting that...

Well I was hoping it was because you're being really hypocritical. Your attitude is way out of line. 

How do I have a bad attitude? Because I told you to get over yours? Or because I am expressing criticism you deem illegitimate?

 

Well there it is again. You can't just tell someone their "attitude fucking sucks. Get a grip," and not realize that you yourself have an attitude. And you can't say "it's just a damn movie" and then go on long rants about it and not think that's hypocritical.

And as for my attitude, it was one that was in a flurry of writing. I apologized for it. I didn't want anyone to think that I had personally offended them. I had hoped the apology would let you know that I was sorry for it, and that I had gotten over it. That's why I hoped you were joking. My apology was to show my attitude was in jest. I had hoped yours was too.

Anyways I still hope you're messing with me, because it seems like you're just not listening to anything that I have to say. I never said your comlaint was illegitimate, on the contrary, I think it's a perfectly legitimate complaint. I just don't think you can say one little joke is a legitimate problem in a 165 minute film.

CP3S said:

No, it really wasn't. You seem to be having a hard time getting that...

Well I was hoping it was because you're being really hypocritical. Your attitude is way out of line. 

Warbler said:

CP3S said:

The playboy Bruce Wayne is suppose to be a disguise for Batman. To think of Batman giving up being Batman to retire and become the playboy sipping drinks in Europe is a less than satisfying turn for the character. You guys have convinced me this was clearly the intention, as opposed to Batman planning an eventual comeback with a few crime fighting buddies at his side, but I must say it definitely brings down the entire series several notches in my eyes.

I agree, even though it is clear in The Dark Knight that Wayne does want to retire from being Batman at some point.

 

Here is why the idea of Bruce Wayne retiring as Batman bothers me:

read the oath that he takes.   It says "speeding the rest of my life . . .".    I just somehow it think it is wrong when a movie depicts Bruce as not following that oath.  

Take it up with Batman Begins. In it he explicitly states Batman is temporary. If you don't like films betraying the source material, okay. I personally don't think you can criticize a movie on those grounds. The thing is, TDKR was completely faithful to the Bruce Wayne that was created for these films. And that is why there is nothing wrong with this film's ending.

Gaffer Tape said:

I agree with you up to a point. It's not a movie-breaker.  It's a relatively minor point, one that just happens to attach itself to a major point.  However, the point to which I disagree with you comes at the end.  "I knew the joke was a mistake.  It is easy to get confused by it," but, "this is not a legitimate criticism of the film.  If it negatively affected your enjoyment of the film, that is your fault."  So it's a mistake, it's confusing, but if it bothers someone, it's their own fault?  That's something I can't get behind.

Okay I'm sorry if my wording wasn't clear. I thought it was a mistake because it might confuse people. But it's not a real criticism because it's not a real problem. Those who think it was a problem are the ones that were confused by it. Because what it really was was a simple joke. Criticizing a film for a simple joke is not really legitimate.

What I'm trying to say is yes it's partly the film's fault for confusing them. I think it was wrong for me to say that it's entirely their own fault. But, if they were to look closely, they would see the Robin thing is no more than a joke, something that shouldn't affect their view of the film.

I'm not trying to crazily apologize for the film's mistakes here. I'm just trying to explain how little things like the Robin joke are nothing to get worked up about. If you don't want to listen to me, fine. I don't care. Your loss. I'm just trying to help people enjoy this fantastic film.

CP3S said:

No, it really wasn't. It is just a discussion about a damn movie. Calm the fuck down and play nice.

(I hope this is a joke)

Gaffer Tape said:

See, this is part of the problem I was talking about.  The name Robin has connotations to people who know the Batman mythos.  They know the relation that the character Robin has to the character Batman, so attaching that name to a character instantly creates a connotation.  And if you're attempting to make a character into a new Batman, then attaching the name Robin to him, in any context, muddies that.  In fact, it's probably the worst thing you could do, short of revealing that his real name is Oswald Cobblepot.

But still, I thought it was quite obvious that he was supposed to be the new Batman, not only with the quite transparent visual references when he reaches the Batcave, but also his obsession and idolatry of Batman throughout as well as the ever-present theme of Batman being a symbol that can exist without Bruce Wayne.  If Blake becomes anything other than Batman, then that point is left unresolved.  So I thought that was told quite well, barring the unnecessary bit of fan-service that threatened to destabilize that message.

EDIT:  Oh, I almost forgot one more opinion.  See, I like that they didn't name him Terry McGinnis or anything else like that because it seemed they were going for subtlety in regards to his role.  Yes, I had a feeling he was in there to be a Batman successor before I even saw the movie, but with an innocuous name like John Blake, I couldn't be sure.  And I liked that.  The movie throughout gave just enough clues that he COULD be something like that, but he didn't necessarily have to be.  You name him Dick Grayson, Tim Drake, or Terry McGinnis, and you're kinda locked into that, and so is the audience.  That could be another reason I find naming him Robin such a mistake, because in a way it kinda undoes that concept, even though it was thankfully not there until the end.

I pretty much agree with everything you say here. To end my argument for good now, I would like to say a few things. I firmly believe my interpretation of the Robin name drop is exactly what Nolan was trying to do with it. Having said that, even after I came out of the theater the first time, I knew the joke was a mistake. It is easy to get confused by it. The argument I'm trying to make is, even if you were confused by it, it's clear that it wasn't meant to confuse you in that way, and, bottom line is, this is not a legitimate criticism of the film. If it negatively affected your enjoyment of the film, that is your fault, and I feel sorry for you.

CP3S said:

DominicCobb said:

(sorry in advance for my attitude)

Yeah, your attitude fucking sucks. Get a grip.

 

(I hope this is a joke)

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

What they DO show, is that Bruce Wayne has made it very clear that it doesn't matter who's behind the mask. They also show that Gordon was given a new BATSIGNAL. And that Blake was given the BATCAVE, and when he goes in, BATS swirl around him just like they did to Bruce in Batman Begins. If you paid attention, it is very, very obvious that he becomes Batman.

except they never should him putting on the Bat suit.  So for all we know, he becomes Nightwing or maybe Red Robin or something else.  

Yes, for all we know he could of, but the clear implication here is that he becomes Batman. 

no, the clear implication is that he takes over Bruce's role in fighting crime in Gotham.   We have no idea if he actually becomes Batman or decides to create his own persona.  

Well the implication that he becomes Batman is there.

Gaffer Tape said:

Wait... what?  So he doesn't become Robin... but he was Robin the whole time?  But he becomes Batman?

Can't you see how counter-intuitive that is?  The movie is setting him up to be Batman but attaching the name of Robin to him.  So, yes, you and I are apparently in agreement that he was very obviously set up to become Batman.  CP3S didn't get that, though.  Calling him Robin threw him for a loop (and rightfully so) because bringing up that name pulled him in a different direction simply by word association.  And right above you, Warbler is saying that he could have become Nightwing or Red Robin.  Would you have thought that, Warbler, that it's likely he would take on Robin-related aliases had he not been given the name Robin as a reference to the Robin character?  (Granted, if he became Robin or Red Robin when his name is Robin, he must be an idiot, but that's beside the point)  The point is is that if you don't get the reference, it pulls you out of the film, something a good in-joke shouldn't do.  And if you do get it, it pulls you in a different direction than the film intends you to.

That he was Robin the whole time is a joke. His name is Robin, therefore throughout the movie he was Robin. Get it? It's just a joke.

I understand what your saying and I agree that it was a mistake. When I first saw it I thought it was a joke, but I do understand how people could be confused.

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

What they DO show, is that Bruce Wayne has made it very clear that it doesn't matter who's behind the mask. They also show that Gordon was given a new BATSIGNAL. And that Blake was given the BATCAVE, and when he goes in, BATS swirl around him just like they did to Bruce in Batman Begins. If you paid attention, it is very, very obvious that he becomes Batman.

except they never should him putting on the Bat suit.  So for all we know, he becomes Nightwing or maybe Red Robin or something else.  

Yes, for all we know he could of, but the clear implication here is that he becomes Batman. 

Yes, everybody knows the name Robin. That's why they had the joke. You see, he was Robin the whole time. That's the joke. What I'm trying to say is if they wanted to imply that he became Robin, they wouldn't have done it that way. It would have actually explained it, because in that case it would have been a significant character development. As is, the character development that they do explain is that Blake becomes Batman. 

Okay, I'm just going to throw a big NO out there. 

This is the scene we're talking about: a woman says Blake should go by his legal name - Robin. THAT'S IT. I realize that the common form of the word easter egg is that is hidden, but I think the main definition I'm trying to use is that it's a little in-joke that is of no consequence to the film. 

Okay, I'm trying to calm myself down because what you're saying is so wrong it just makes me want to put everything in caps, but then you probably wouldn't read it. 

There is absolutely nothing to imply that he is Robin. If you watch all three films, everything is built from the ground up. Never is the audience forced to go off prior knowledge. In other Batman films you know why Bruce Wayne is Batman. But in Batman Begins, they tell you why. Why did they do this? Because this is a self-contained trilogy. It tells its own tale. So when the lady says his real name is Robin, first of all she is NOT knocking you over the head with this fact AT ALL (I know you're trying to be funny here but I saw absolutely zero cheesy falsetto "He's Robin Motherf*****!!!" or anything that even remotely resembled that), what is happening is nothing more than a joke for those in the know. As this is a self-contained trilogy, that has never relied on information not shown, there is nothing ANYWHERE TO TELL YOU THAT THIS MAN WILL BECOME BATMAN'S SIDEKICK, AND THAT HIS NAME WILL BE ROBIN. 

What they DO show, is that Bruce Wayne has made it very clear that it doesn't matter who's behind the mask. They also show that Gordon was given a new BATSIGNAL. And that Blake was given the BATCAVE, and when he goes in, BATS swirl around him just like they did to Bruce in Batman Begins. If you paid attention, it is very, very obvious that he becomes Batman.

So, in conclusion, there is nothing anywhere to imply that Blake would become Robin (he already is!), and there is no reason to think this this is a legitimate complaint about the film. As is, it's a JOKE that probably shouldn't have been included because clearly people don't understand the point of in-jokes, and they let them get in the way over their film-watching because they must not not how to watch films.

Good day to you, sir.

(sorry in advance for my attitude)

He did become Batman. His name being Robin was just a fun little easter egg. There is nothing anywhere to imply he became Robin because obviously he would not and that would make no sense. Never before have I seen a simple easter egg be so harshly criticized...

^My thoughts exactly. 

^I need a 3D TV.

To bad NBC's coverage is complete bullocks.

^Speaking the truth.

Downfall (2004) 9/10 - Intensely interesting film.

The 39 Steps (1935) 9/10 - I've been meaning to watch this one for a very long time. I actually thought it would be more a Hitchcock mystery, but a Hitchcock adventure is fine with me. Great film. (In related news, Vertigo was named number 1 in the most recent Sight & Sound poll. Not a bad choice.)

The Fountain (2006) 9/10 - When I watch a film, I prefer to know nothing about it, except that it's great. Usually I know this by seeing it on a list of some sort, but in many cases I just go by director. Recently, I've been trying to watch all of Darren Aronofsky's movies, so I saw this one. Going in, I only knew he directed it, and that it was weird. I'm so glad for this. When it was over, I thought about what it all meant during the credits. And I figured it out. I checked online, and Aronofsky's own words backed my interpretation. Overall, to sum up this little rant, I was pleased with the experience. A beautiful film with a beautiful meaning. It's too bad, from what I've read, many critics and audiences didn't give this film a chance. But I think it deserves a chance, and some thoughtful patience. Recommended. 

"Somewhat" off-topic?