The Dark Knight Rises How Long Was Bruce Wayne Actually Batman in this Trilogy?

[BlueLightning]

I wouldn't bet on it. Not unless news sites reported it exclusively as a spinoff. If it picked up plot threads from TDKR, I'd say most would think it was a sequel.

Well, since we are definitely not getting a sequel (aside from the film labeled "The legend ends" on the promo material), arguing this is probably useless.

Didn't realise you were counting Bane, Selina and Talia, I thought you were counting Zsasz, Maroni and Falcone.

Yeah, sevens not bad. But, personally, I'd like to think that there could have been more. It's one of those times when I think "Nolan, I don't care what you think, I've substituted my own thing here". Like I did for the ending.

I would lie if I didn't imagine Nolan versions of the Riddler and Mr. Freeze. But the more I think about it, the more I find it pointless. It's fun to imagine that though, the best version I found are the Jakinj comics.

They very much did. Aside from a few minor complaints, it's quite possibly my favourite interpretation of the character.

Yeah, mine too. It's a tough one between Bruce Timm's take and Nolan's.

That was all way before my time, so that might explain it. Also, I don't think those shows would have been well known outside the US, which is why nobody I knew had known them either.

Well, I'm from Mexico, and I got those shows until they were dubbed to my language, not by a very large time span. They were quite popular, at least I remember watching Batman TAS, Superman TAS, and Justice League on my language. I'd say it's a safe bet to say that at least they are easily recognizable, perhaps Scarecrow more than Ra's.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Well, since we are definitely not getting a sequel (aside from the film labeled "The legend ends" on the promo material), arguing this is probably useless.

I would lie if I didn't imagine Nolan versions of the Riddler and Mr. Freeze. But the more I think about it, the more I find it pointless. It's fun to imagine that though, the best version I found are the Jakinj comics.

I am exactly the opposite (clearly). I think it was unnecessary to make it so Batman had retired for years and done nothing. It kinda ruined a part of the film for me. The entire running of the city for nearly a decade had been based on elevating a murderer to icon status and creating laws under false pretences, then it's all sorta washed away. Plus, Bruce never took the hunting and all of the stuff he was promised at the end of The Dark Knight.

The more I think about it, the more I find myself disliking parts of The Dark Knight Rises.

Yeah, mine too. It's a tough one between Bruce Timm's take and Nolan's.

I love Timm's too, and for a shared universe, it takes the #1 spot, but would it have killed him to include Jason (properly)?

Well, I'm from Mexico, and I got those shows until they were dubbed to my language, not by a very large time span. They were quite popular, at least I remember watching Batman TAS, Superman TAS, and Justice League on my language. I'd say it's a safe bet to say that at least they are easily recognizable, perhaps Scarecrow more than Ra's.

Hm. Must have just missed a generation in the UK then. My parents grew up on West, my siblings on Keaton/Kilmer, myself on Clooney/Timm.

 

[BlueLightning]

I am exactly the opposite (clearly). I think it was unnecessary to make it so Batman had retired for years and done nothing. It kinda ruined a part of the film for me. The entire running of the city for nearly a decade had been based on elevating a murderer to icon status and creating laws under false pretences, then it's all sorta washed away. Plus, Bruce never took the hunting and all of the stuff he was promised at the end of The Dark Knight.

The more I think about it, the more I find myself disliking parts of The Dark Knight Rises.

At first, I was a little disappointing with the eight year gap and Bruce not being Batman in the interim. But when I watched the movie thought it through it made sense, though is not necessary what everybody wanted. Viewed from a logical stand point, it doesn't make sense that Bruce risks himself as Batman if there is not a good enough reason. It was the consequences of TDK's ending and how they where played that lead to this state like I mentioned before. If, for example, Batman went to stop criminals, Gordon would have been put into a very uncomfortable situation. I don't think Bruce would have wanted this. If however, a threat big enough to require Batman arise, he would had stood up to face it no matter what, and he would be hunted. This happens on TDKR in a similar fashion.

However if we where talking about "not an ending" then we come to an episodic approach, following a similar structure of TDK. It could be done and done great, but I prefer the ending approach, because it works better as the trilogy now has a familiar narrative structure (Beginning, Middle and End). Keep in mind that took almost ten years of Nolan's and his crew lives to do this. I wouldn't have wanted to see a Batman sequel to Nolan films without Nolan.

I love Timm's too, and for a shared universe, it takes the #1 spot, but would it have killed him to include Jason (properly)?

I got into the comics way after the animated series, so I didn't know that Tim Drake was an amalgamation of Drake and Todd. So it didn't bother me much t:

Hm. Must have just missed a generation in the UK then. My parents grew up on West, my siblings on Keaton/Kilmer, myself on Clooney/Timm.

My childhood was a mixed bag. I got the Burton films on T.V., the animated series and every now and then reruns of the 66's series.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

At first, I was a little disappointing with the eight year gap and Bruce not being Batman in the interim. But when I watched the movie thought it through it made sense, though is not necessary what everybody wanted. Viewed from a logical stand point, it doesn't make sense that Bruce risks himself as Batman if there is not a good enough reason. It was the consequences of TDK's ending and how they where played that lead to this state like I mentioned before. If, for example, Batman went to stop criminals, Gordon would have been put into a very uncomfortable situation. I don't think Bruce would have wanted this. If however, a threat big enough to require Batman arise, he would had stood up to face it no matter what, and he would be hunted. This happens on TDKR in a similar fashion.

However if we where talking about "not an ending" then we come to an episodic approach, following a similar structure of TDK. It could be done and done great, but I prefer the ending approach, because it works better as the trilogy now has a familiar narrative structure (Beginning, Middle and End). Keep in mind that took almost ten years of Nolan's and his crew lives to do this. I wouldn't have wanted to see a Batman sequel to Nolan films without Nolan.

I just don't see why he had to make it so The Dark Knight was the last time Bruce was Batman. If Robin just said, "8 years ago, the night Dent died, the night Batman started to disappear". Then bam! I could put whatever I wanted there, I have a universe filled with villains. For those who don't want that, it just shows how desperate he was to wear the cowl.

I got into the comics way after the animated series, so I didn't know that Tim Drake was an amalgamation of Drake and Todd. So it didn't bother me much t:

Same. But in hindsight I just can't help but think how awesome it would have been to see him.

My childhood was a mixed bag. I got the Burton films on T.V., the animated series and every now and then reruns of the 66's series.

I don't know why but seeing Batman Returns as a child ruined it for me. I still don't like it, but at least for better reasons.

 

[BlueLightning]

I just don't see why he had to make it so The Dark Knight was the last time Bruce was Batman. If Robin just said, "8 years ago, the night Dent died, the night Batman started to disappear". Then bam! I could put whatever I wanted there, I have a universe filled with villains. For those who don't want that, it just shows how desperate he was to wear the cowl.

There are logical reasons within the films for that, as I have explained before. But from the point of view of the writers, it's to make the themes to work better. Like Nolan said in an interview, the sacrifice that Batman makes at the end of TDK has to count, something good has to come out of it. Building this "peace" has to take time, and this time is used to show us how it affected Bruce, Gordon, and Gotham itself. Also, it serves to make Batman a more mythic figure.

But hey, just for the sake of imagination, Blake says "confirmed sightings", and Batman is the master of the vanishing act, so there's that. You can still imagine that there are "unofficial" unreported encounters with the police for a while. There is this character "Veteran Cop" in Rises who seems to see Batman in a good light, also the orphans still see Batman as a heroic figure despite all. So that's that.

Same. But in hindsight I just can't help but think how awesome it would have been to see him.

Something that bothers me about the DCAU in respect to Batman is the Bat-embargo and how it affected the use of certain characters in the later seasons of JLU. I guess we can't have it all.

I don't know why but seeing Batman Returns as a child ruined it for me. I still don't like it, but at least for better reasons.

I see what you mean, I love Returns, but the interpretation of Batman is not my cup of tea. Also, the Penguin scared the hell out of my younger brother when he was younger (more younger).

 

[BatLobster]

I just don't see why he had to make it so The Dark Knight was the last time Bruce was Batman. If Robin just said, "8 years ago, the night Dent died, the night Batman started to disappear". Then bam! I could put whatever I wanted there, I have a universe filled with villains. For those who don't want that, it just shows how desperate he was to wear the cowl.

"Last confirmed sighting" accomplishes the same idea, but without sounding so clunky. The film does leave us a crack there, and I think it was quite intentional.

There are logical reasons within the films for that, as I have explained before. But from the point of view of the writers, it's to make the themes to work better. Like Nolan said in an interview, the sacrifice that Batman makes at the end of TDK has to count, something good has to come out of it. Building this "peace" has to take time, and this time is used to show us how it affected Bruce, Gordon, and Gotham itself. Also, it serves to make Batman a more mythic figure.

But hey, just for the sake of imagination, Blake says "confirmed sightings", and Batman is the master of the vanishing act, so there's that. You can still imagine that there are "unofficial" unreported encounters with the police for a while. There is this character "Veteran Cop" in Rises who seems to see Batman in a good light, also the orphans still see Batman as a heroic figure despite all. So that's that.

Glad I read this before I ended up saying pretty much the same exact thing. 100% agreed

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Nolan said The Dark Knight was the last time he was Batman. The dialogue was intended to mean "No Batman". But I get what you're saying.

 

[BatLobster]

Well that's the thing, the most likely case is "No Batman". Nolan himself seems to subscribe to that line of thinking, but the fact remains that the movie did not shut the door all the way on that, and also showed us that Bruce had set up a new Batcave and used it post-TDK.

 

[BlueLightning]

Well that was fun! I enjoyed the discussion a lot.

 

[Procrastinator]

It doesn't really matter how long Bruce acted as Batman in this trilogy.


Sure, I also would have liked for him to stay a bit more active as Bat's after TDK ending, but try looking at it this way:

Over the course of three movies Nolan showed us a man fuelled by his rage, insecurities and burning purpose, who has travelled half the world for years, trained and honed his mind and body, faced and defeated his inner fears and issues, and then dealt a near fatal blow to the legendary League of Shadows in their own lair. Created his alter-ego from the ground up, took over Wayne Enterprises and his fathers legacy, terrorised Gotham mob and single-handedly almost eradicated organised crime in the city and inspired the few honest cops to move their asses and be more daring in their actions. Defeated three major comic-book supervillains (and that's even without counting Scarecrow and Two-face) and contained the mess they dropped upon Gotham. He went through a stage of brooding apathy and reclusion (in a way fitting for crazy introvert like Bruce) and came back stronger for it, Miller's TDKR style. Finally he prepeared the ground for his succesor and from an urban-myth he turned into a real legend.

No matter how many years or months have passed during all this, You have to admit, thats a pretty broad story arc, and as quintessential a potrayal of Batman as we ever got in a live-action series. The movie's are not supposed to fit in every single detail form the 60+ years of Batman's comic mythos. Instead are meant to take the overall, general essence of the characters story. When viewed as such, these three films make great work of building Batman as something extraordinary that happend to Gotham, while at the same time referencing many major elements from the comics. It's enough for me. With all this, it doesn't really matter if it was 2-3 years or a decade.

 

[shauner111]

As a fanboy i wish i could have seen Riddler, Penguin battle Batman in at least one other movie but the arc was enough for me to say "Hey, im not sure how different those stories would have been anyway...im happy with what i got".

AND you have the Robin Blake character who takes up the mantle. So with his possible future at fighting criminals, and with a slight opening after TDK (or better yet in between Begins and Dark Knight)....it at least makes it fine for me. I can imagine things if i want or i can take the trilogy as it was presented to me.

They never made it official that there was 3 months between Begins and TDK and then never said the "confirmed sightings" line, and then never passed the mantle to another character...having Bruce Wayne outed to the public as the batman or something. All those things didn't happen. If they did, i'd be dissapointed. But they left things more open than people like to claim. After begins the Batman could have went on for a year or so. After tdk the Batman could have stayed put or went out reaaal low-key for close to a year and a half until the Dent Act began. And Blake could fight for years as the next guy.

So i'm good.

It's easy to look at it this way. In this interpretation Batman isn't just one man who goes on for a decade or two fighting crime. The Batman belongs to more than one individual and through them...the Batman fights crime for multiple decades. Even if the man Bruce Wayne was only active for a few years.

 

[ComicStalker]

I didnt like the 8 year gap either. It could have been 2-3 years and worked just as well. Or even 3-4 years. But 8? Thats too long.
Also why didnt we get an explaination as to when or why the new Batcave was built. The Batcave even being there finished doesnt make much sense if he stopped being Batman right after TDK.
You could say that it was finished right at the end of TDK and then he didnt really get the chance to use it because of the 8 year gap. But thats only because thats what Nolan and Goyer wanted. They picked the 8 year gap.
Another thing that bothered me was that Gordon never experienced any fall out from his alliance with Batman. I mean the new commissioner was seen openly interacting with Batman and most of the Police force and Harvey knew he was too. Then shortly after that Batman is outed as a murderer. It doesnt make sense that the people of Gotham wouldnt want Gordons job for this. But even 8 years later he hasnt experienced any repercussions. Remember much of the public sentiment was that they wanted Batman caught and unmasked during most of TDK anyways. Then he is outed as a Murderer too...
Also when did we see this Zsass character? I keep seeing his name mentioned but he was never in any of these 3 movies...

 

[shauner111]

Mr. Zsasz was in Batman Begins.

The batcave being rebuilt with the computers, the suit hidden within it, etc..was to show that he hasn't moved on. Bruce is retired while the city is in peace but he's not. He's frozen in time as they say. He's dying for something bad to happen so he can rush into the suit and back on the computers and be the Batman again. You can say that it's left open in the sense that MAYBE he rebuilt it after TDK and he actually did go out once in a while. Or he just simply used the computers to keep an eye on the city and built it so he can be ready whenever something struck the city. Remember in his mind (at least for a portion of those 8 years) he's still Batman. And he has no life outside of that. He's trapped inside the bat without having the outlet of actually getting out there with the suit.

 

[BlueLightning]

They never made it official that there was 3 months between Begins and TDK...

According to my calculations, taking into acount the Gotham Tonight episodes, 10 months and one week passed between the two films.

I didnt like the 8 year gap either. It could have been 2-3 years and worked just as well. Or even 3-4 years. But 8? Thats too long.
Also why didnt we get an explaination as to when or why the new Batcave was built. The Batcave even being there finished doesnt make much sense if he stopped being Batman right after TDK.
You could say that it was finished right at the end of TDK and then he didnt really get the chance to use it because of the 8 year gap. But thats only because thats what Nolan and Goyer wanted. They picked the 8 year gap.

In my opinion as I said before:

There are logical reasons within the films for that, as I have explained before. But from the point of view of the writers, it's to make the themes to work better. Like Nolan said in an interview, the sacrifice that Batman makes at the end of TDK has to count, something good has to come out of it. Building this "peace" has to take time, and this time is used to show us how it affected Bruce, Gordon, and Gotham itself. Also, it serves to make Batman a more mythic figure.

Another thing that bothered me was that Gordon never experienced any fall out from his alliance with Batman. I mean the new commissioner was seen openly interacting with Batman and most of the Police force and Harvey knew he was too. Then shortly after that Batman is outed as a murderer. It doesnt make sense that the people of Gotham wouldnt want Gordons job for this. But even 8 years later he hasnt experienced any repercussions. Remember much of the public sentiment was that they wanted Batman caught and unmasked during most of TDK anyways. Then he is outed as a Murderer too...
Also when did we see this Zsass character? I keep seeing his name mentioned but he was never in any of these 3 movies...

The public didn't know about the alliance between Batman and Gordon until the end. In the ending of the Dark Knight, Gordon destroying the Bat-signal is a symbol of this repercussion. Gordon was still a hero, and he was viewed as such as it's showed in the beginning of Rises.

Zsaz it's a psychopath from the comics that appeared in Begins as a cameo type of character. He is the man that Crane declares insane in court, as a request from Falcone.

 

[ComicStalker]

Zsaz it's a psychopath from the comics that appeared in Begins as a cameo type of character. He is the man that Crane declares insane in court, as a request from Falcone.

If he wasnt named then he only counts to hardcore fans. I mean if thats the rationale then you could say we saw the riddler too with that guy who tried to blackmail Batman in TDK. And thats just not true.

 

[shauner111]

He was named. Watch the movie again.

 

[shauner111]

According to my calculations, taking into acount the Gotham Tonight episodes, 10 months and one week passed between the two films.

So that would make Batman Begins (or the last half) take place in September? of the previous year. Which would be the time of Bruce's birthday. I always got the spring/April vibe actually. Which is why i say that it feels more accurate if 1 year and 3/4 months have passed. I'm not sure how accurate those Gotham Central episodes really are, they could be random. Ill have to watch them again.

 

[BlueLightning]

I'm just saying because they provide time spans that work. Here are the quotes from the third episode:

Engel: You bring up a good point. Now what about this case, James? The police say that Dr. Crane is, in fact, dead. The situation with these spiked drugs speaks to a very different situation.

Levine: Well, what we know is that Dr. Jonathan Crane was in fact involved in the Fear Toxin assault on the Narrows 9 months ago.

The episodes are spaced out in intervals of two weeks except for the final one, episode 6. So between the third episode and the sixth episode, five weeks pass. The 6th episode occurs at the same time that the Joker and his goons rob Gotham National Bank.

So that's that.

 

[shauner111]

So the events that take place in Begins (once Bruce is back in Gotham and begins his journey as the Batman) are indeed in September/October of 2007. Huh. So Batman has the rest of the season + the winter + spring and early summer where he operates as the Batman.

Since we were talking about imagination....you could easily fit a couple of stories in there. Or "adventures".

 

[SE7EN]

So the events that take place in Begins (once Bruce is back in Gotham and begins his journey as the Batman) are indeed in September/October of 2007. Huh. So Batman has the rest of the season + the winter + spring and early summer where he operates as the Batman.

Since we were talking about imagination....you could easily fit a couple of stories in there. Or "adventures".

Some might say thats where Gotham Knight fits in (provided one accepts it as cannon)

 

[Polux]

Great post, and I agree to an extent. But keep in mind two things:

1) It's easier to show strain, pain and anguish on film, through motion and physical acting

and 2) Hush sucks . To be fair, some writers keep Batman/Robin injured over what would be months comic time.

Oh, I'm well aware of that, which is why comic book movies always get me excited, I really want to see these characters with real weight, real voices, real gravitas; which many times ends up in me liking the movie version better than the comic book ones (Iron man, Thor, i.e.); also I'm aware of the serialized nature of comic books, which is why they need to keep Bruce alive and well and in top shape; I just found it refreshing seeing such a human version of who is considered the most "human" of superheroes; also, having a saga that has a begining, middle and ending filled with actions/consequences and the passage of time, to me, elevated this trilogy to a completely different level when it comes to comic book adaptations; I also understand that the frustrations of many fans come from not being other aspects of the Batman lore under the brilliant, insighful interpretation that Nolan brought to this; but as it has been mentioned before, this is but another interpretation of the character, one that, if I may say so, has been more loyal to the lore and pivotal graphic novels (i.e. Year One, TLH, Killing Joke, Knightfall, NML, TDKR, etc.) than any other comic book character (correct me if I'm wrong, please).

Btw, you guys got a real interesting conversation goin on here, I rarely post, I mostly read the comments and learn a lot about different ways of interpreting all of this.... t:


Polux

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Another great post and I do still agree. If not for the darn ending of Bruce's journey. I'd still have loved to have seen him follow his father's footsteps ala Kingdom Come over faking his death ala Dark Knight Returns (as well as a better usage of the villains). Then I'd be very much more appreciative.

If you do want some stories of when characters do stay injured for a while, they are generally found in runs when it's one writer over a long period of time. For example during Batman RIP, Bruce broke his hand punching through Hurt's helicopter window, but later, when he tries to kill a Green Lantern's nerve cluster he can't because his grip is too weak, which is the eventual leading to his "death".

 

[Eros]

Judging by Jokers remarks in "The Dark Knight" I would Bruce was Batman for about Years worth of time.

 

[RustyCage]

Wow, so it took him nearly a year to finally bring in Crane after Begins?

I smell Graphic Novel potential...

 

[shauner111]

Wow, so it took him nearly a year to finally bring in Crane after Begins?

I smell Graphic Novel potential...

There should be a graphic novel trilogy to go with Nolans live-action trilogy. One between BB and TDK. One after TDK (you can stretch things a bit). And one after TDKR with Blake.

If Batmans being rebooted for Justice League, then it's almost a guarantee that a live-action movie with JGL will never happen. So you can resort to graphic novels, and they'll sell like hot cakes.

And if Justice League does indeed happen with JGL. Then the graphic novels are a good way to promote it and keep the universe going. There's no need for a solo film even. Just do the comics. That third GN (post-TDKR) could be set between that movie and JLA.

I think it's a damn good idea actually.