I liked his "hands on suspenders" smug pose.

I thought it was excellent... as to whether it was better than the 2nd, I'm on the fence about that one. I'd have to re-watch the 2nd one again.

I am a little bit disappointed that we'll never get to see what Penguin or the Riddler would be like in Nolan's version of the Batman universe, though.

It seems obvious that Alfred really did see Bruce and Selina, ie that Bruce survived. The simple reason is that Bruce's character arc for the movie was about him regaining the fear of death and gaining something to live for. That's what let him escape the prison, that's what let him beat Bane, and that's what gave him the common sense to eject from the Bat before the explosion.

Here are the things that irked me - though I still believe it was a good movie.

1) They violated the Chekov's Gun principle with Bane's mask. Am I the only one who was on the edge of his seat in that final melee, watching as Batman punches the mask, knocking it looser and looser...only for Talia to plug it right back in? Come on! I wanted to see a Darth-Malak jawless face or something. That was one instance where implied horrors would have been augmented with showing something, if only because they'd made a plot point out of discussing his mutilation.

2) Robin John Blake. Come on! Someone defend this to me. I will break you.

3) Speaking of which, Blake works out Bruce Wayne is Batman because he's sad like he is? Because they both have fake faces they put on? Come on!

THERE WAS A MOVIE AND THINGS HAPPENED? ​COME ON!

1) Chekov's Gun isn't some principle to which one must adhere. Just because you wanted it and it didn't happen doesn't mean something was 'violated'

2) What's your problem with Robin John Blake?

3) Yeah..... a bit silly, but, y'know.

To be fair, the bigger plot hole is that no one else figured it out.

1) The fact that I wanted it to happen at all meant it was violated. Chekov's Gun is a principle about the economy of content in a story. In other words, if we're talking about the big, nasty haunted house on the hill in the first twenty minutes, and we never actually go to or see said house, why waste what little time we have mentioning it? It's not a red herring, it's just conspicuously absent material.

2) Come on!

3) I agree.

That is fair. And I liked the nod to "No Man's Land" when Batman actually lets Gordon figure it out at the end.

1. It's not a waste. It stirs your imagination for what it could be. That's always cooler than what theyd show you.

2. No.

3. Someone had to figure it out!

1) If that's true, why pay the ticket price for admission at all? Why not just stand outside in the lobby, staring at all of the posters for the film and imagining a film far cooler than what they'd show you? Imagination is important, but if you make something like that an actual plot point, it deserves at least explanation.

2) OK, since you forced my hand - why "Robin" John Blake? They've already made his name phonetically similar to Tim Drake. If he's been using an alias, why not have the woman say "Oh, Tim Drake" or "Oh, Dick Grayson". Heck, even, "Oh, Jason Todd". It seemed like pandering to the lowest common denominator.

3) Yes, you're right, absolutely...but like that?!

Sometimes I like to nit pick films, too.

Would you like to ad some hominem to your order, Antony?

1. I was not on the edge of my seat wanting to see his face. I was wanting Batman to win. The movie doesn't have to satisfy your morbid curiosity to see his mutilated face. The only essential element to the story is that he needs the mask to survive. When Batman knocked some of the fittings loose, he started to lose his edge. This is not a violation of Chekhov's gun.

2. I will defend it in a minute.

3. One would be able to infer that Blake worked it out based on a variety of factors. For instance: Bruce Wayne returned to Gotham City shortly before the Batman first appeared. Bruce Wayne obviously has the resources to pull it off. Do not forget that John Blake is a brilliant detective.



1. No, the fact that you wanted it to happen means that your wish was not fulfilled. You are not the end of the line in the world of storytelling. Bane's deformity is briefly mentioned earlier in the film. It is in no way stressed throughout. Once again, the movie does not have to satisfy your morbid curiosity by showing you his deformed face.

2. Just one more minute.

3. I don't.



1. Enjoyment of a film often relies on your ability to fill in the blanks. For an obvious example, see No Country For Old Men. Also, it would appear that you did spend some time imagining something cooler than what you were shown, which is the reason we are having this discussion right now. I've already addressed the fact that it is not an "actual plot point". It's a detail of a character's history. His deformed face is not integral to the plot. The fact that he cannot survive without the mask is integral to the plot.

2. Ok, so now we've figured out what your issue with John Blake being "Robin" is. First of all, we don't see John Blake put on a red suit or anything. We don't know that he is going to become Robin. Sure, that's the logical conclusion to form, but his name being Robin could have simply been a wink at the fans due to the fact that Nolan said he would never include Robin in his Batman movies. And you're really that mad that it's just not the same guy? I'm fairly sure that Henri Ducard was never Ra's al Ghul, but we were willing to suspend disbelief in regard to that because it helped with the story. Does it really matter that his name isn't the same? Would it have been better if his name was Dick Grayson and he was an orphaned circus performer? Is it not a better reveal at the end because you don't know who the guy is? To me, it would have been a hell of a lot worse if he had said "oh, my actual name is Dick Grayson" or Jason Todd. That would have felt really forced. I found it rather clever that he simply didn't want to use his actual first name. I got the feeling that he probably didn't like it because Robin is typically a woman's name. So now, if he becomes Robin, it's actually eponymous, which is pretty awesome. If possible: Improve upon the source material.

3. I've already addressed the notion of John Blake being a brilliant detective, and that there are more aspects to his discovery other than "a look". Also, consider what he actually says about it. Bear in mind that John Blake is a guy with a serious case of hero worship for the Batman. It's something he would want to do. The reason he became a cop is because he lost his parents at a young age. It's the only way he can take it out on criminals. The Batman doesn't have that problem. The Batman has seemingly unlimited resources. Would it be too hard to piece together (for a man with a similar point of view) that there is only one billionaire who came back to the city right before the Batman showed up and also lost both of his parents when he was a child? Would it not also be fairly easy to deduce that Bruce Wayne is the Batman because he went into seclusion at about the same time the Batman disappeared?

None of this has to be difficult. Which is why I made a snide comment about you nit picking the film. I said that because that's what you're doing.



Would you prefer that next time I pick apart all of your arguments bit by bit, or would you like to continue to imagine that any of them still hold water?

The only point upon which we can agree, Antony, is that your comment was snide. I didn't have a "morbid curiosity" to see Bane's face, and you're being awfully presumptuous to suggest it - besides which, you're wrong. His injury was referenced in the prologue, in the dialogue with Batman and the doctor in the pit, in the flashback to Talia's escape/Ra's' attack on the pit, and in the final beatdown with him and Batman. His injury becomes a plot point when Batman defeats him by disabling his medication dispensers - and then Talia plugging them back in. Now it begs the question of what happens behind the mask. Any gore is not, of course, the interesting thing, and wouldn't even need showing in full - it's the knowledge of what disability he coped with to become stronger.

As to the Robin thing, I see you inferred an awful lot about how cool the character was/will be based on his first name. But it's pandering because a) they denied he was Robin throughout the entire publicity run for the film, and b) it's a pay-off in lip service only. It's not world-building, because as the ending implies, it appears he'll be more the successor to Batman than any kind of sidekick.

You're right, none of this has to be difficult. Is this difficult? I thought you started this thread for us to express our admiration/misgivings for the film. Maybe I'll just leave you to pick apart our arguments, if that is what you believe you're doing.

Sorry, don't know how to play this video :(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eWopfEJq48

How is it crucial that we actually see his face, though? Why does that matter at all? We know he's jacked up because he wears the mask. This doesn't have to be like an episode of House, where we get an extreme close up of everything occurring on a person's body. Why isn't it good enough that you know he's messed up and needs the mask? He needs the mask. Batman damages the mask. Why does it matter what it looks like underneath? That is what you are concerned with. That is why I say you have a morbid curiosity. It shouldn't matter what it looks like underneath the mask. The doctor tells Bruce Wayne that he has bad knees, that his kidneys have scar tissue, and that he has brain damage. We don't actually see that his cartilage is missing in his knees, but we see that he has a hard time walking without a brace or a cane. Do we actually need to see the specific medical deformity, or is it good enough to see the symptoms?

How am I inferring that the character Robin would be great based on his name? I said it would be awesome that the name of the superhero would be eponymous. That doesn't mean I think he's going to be an awesome character because of his name.

And yeah, no kidding. Imagine that they wouldn't want to give away something that is revealed in the last five minutes of the film. They also denied repeatedly that Marion Cotillard was going to be Talia Al Ghul, but I don't see you complaining about that. And yes, it does imply that he will be a successor. Why does he HAVE to be a sidekick? Maybe he wouldn't be Robin at all. From the way Blake talks throughout the film, it seems a lot more like he would be the Nightwing type anyway. Him having the name Robin is definitely fan service. And I don't see how it isn't world building. It's just not building the world that you want.

And there are no multiple arguments that I'm picking apart. You're nit picking the movie, and I'm refuting what you say, which you then misinterpret for reasons I cannot understand. Other than your morbid curiosity at wanting to see Bane's face (because that's what it is, since there's no other reason to need to see the actual deformity), everything you're saying is technically true, but I just can't understand why any of it upsets you. That is why I say you are nit picking. You're going out of your way to find things to dislike about the movie.

Oh, and I feel like it needs to be pointed out that using terms that describe basic storytelling conventions doesn't actually make you look like you have an understanding of storytelling. It makes you seem like a first year film studies student, because that is literally the only type of person who uses those terms.

You see, that's the problem when dealing with a person like you. You seem to have a somewhat decent grasp on basic storytelling, but you're using it to your own detriment. Because of the few things you know, you enjoyed this movie less than other people who either do not know those things, or know about them and do not care.

This attitude will forever cause you to enjoy things less than everyone else. How is that making your life better?

EDIT: Also, which is it? Are you someone who thinks they know a lot more about storytelling than they actually do, or are you a pretentious d-bag who actually does know a lot? (hint: they're the same thing)

Antony, can you just cool it a little bit? I would actually like to discuss this with you, but you're really firing up at me and I don't understand what I've done to offend you, other than give some honest opinions on what you introduced as "honestly the perfect ending to the trilogy". I'm sorry I used a term like Chekov's Gun. I'm not a film studies student, I just thought it was the right term for what we were discussing. You seem to have a real problem with me - I just want to talk. Can we do that without getting personal?

Sorry, dude. Being a dick is just kind of my natural state of mind. Once I get going, it's kind of tough to stop. And I tend to get annoyed when I feel like people take issue with something that I see as total non-issue. I have a fairly strict policy when it comes to movies to just not sweat the small stuff. Don't let the little things keep you from enjoying what is otherwise a great flick.

Conversely, when it comes to actual interpersonal relations, I don't seem to have the ability to not sweat the small stuff. I become irate rather quickly, and tend to jump down someone's throat because I immediately feel like they deserve it. Frequently, this leads to be getting personal, because I immediately convince myself that the other person deserves nothing in terms of respect from me. It's a problem. I'm working on it.

In a scenario like this, it's really undeserved to treat someone like a jerk because they voiced some minor issues with a film. I'm not even really a big Batman fanboy or anything. I'm not sure why I got pissed off about this. It's been kind of a crappy day, honestly. But I'd rather not blame it on that, because it seems like I'm trying to absolve myself of responsibility for my actions, and I'm not.

I do apologize, and I hope that we can have some more civil discourse in terms of discussing the movie.

(I'll bet you weren't expecting this sort of post, lol)

On the contrary, I had very good suspicions that you were a thoroughly decent person

Look, I'm not blameless either. By way of explanation, I moonlight as a contributing author at the Editing Room, the website that satirises and skewers movies for laughs. Maybe it's got my mind trained on that kind of critical thinking - the nit picking, as you put it. But your very reasonable defence of this film has inspired me to go back and see it a second time. Cheers!

Well, that's good. I'm gonna have to go back for a repeat viewing at some point, too. The first time I had been up since 5am (I had to work all day, and then decided to fuel up on coffee and nicotine and catch the midnight showing anyway), so I wanna see it on a good night's sleep when I'm not half out of my mind.

Wouldn't it be hilarious if we came back after our respective viewings having swapped sides - me the defender, you the picker of nits?

I was thinking the same thing.

John Blake strikes me as a fusion of the 2 most popular Robins, Dick Grayson and Tim Drake. He has the tragic loss of his parents like Grayson and the smarts to deduce Batman's identity like Drake. It did feel a little forced for his real first name to end up being Robin, but it seems more appropriate in the context of the film than picking just one of the Robins to name-drop.

I too find it difficult to believe that nobody else would have figured out Batman's identity, but it's one of those things with comics book mythologies that you just have to suspend disbelief a little bit. I prefer kidding myself like this to coming up with an alternative scenario like there happening to be multitudes of other billionaires in Gotham willing and able to be or bank-roll Batman. Compared to Superman and Hal Jordan/Green Lantern (for example), at least Batman doesn't look much like Bruce Wayne (in the movies at least).

While Bruce Wayne is obviously one of the "bigger name" rich people, there does seem to be plenty of other ridiculously-rich people. There's also little reason for people at large to reason that the rich person has to be the same as the crime fighter -- Iron Man's cover in the comic books takes that angle as his cover (that Iron Man is his 'body guard' or whatever).

I saw it yesterday, obviously one of the prints the audio of bane's voice was tweaked because it sounded mostly like a voiceover. Did anyone else think he sounded like he was doing a Sean Connery impression the whole time?

Because I don't know anything about Batman lore, so how else would I know that he's supposed to be Robin? I mean there's enough there in the story to infer it, and it's pretty obvious at the end, but having his name be revealed as Robin is a fun a-ha moment. Tim Drake? What the ****? Ok.

Oh man you guys covered a lot of ground that I didn't read, but anyway. TLTE, I agree that the reveal of Robin is not good world building, and it may be "fan service," but not in the typical sense. A fan like yourself who knows about Tim Blake and takes similarity of name to indicate who he is from early in the film would probably roll their eyes at the reveal, but I, and probably the majority of viewers, took it as a nod at us, confirming our suspicions (though we may have been 95% certain) that he was gon' be Robin. That might be pandering to some degree, but, eh. Superheroes.

Tim Drake, rather, woops. You can tell I really don't know **** about this universe

**** you, saberopus.

Woops what I meant to say was

**** you in half Antony you had time to exhaustively reply to TLTE but not time to write your exhaustive post-op on the film?! come at me bro

let me have what i want

Dont say things like this its not

When someone linked this, I lost my **** in realization.

Anyways, my feelings:
Good movie. Not as good as TDK, but still better than Batman Begins.
I think if Heath Ledger were still alive, the Joker would have been where Scarecrow is in the movie.
I thought it would have been hilarious and truly, outrageously shocking if Harvey Dent were up there, but then that would have ground the movie to a screeching halt and completely hijacked the plot.
I was fine with John Blake figuring out Bruce Wayne was Batman, but puzzled that Gordon hadn't pieced it together yet.
Bane's "I'm just a simple country supervillain, your honor" pose got a smile out of me every time.
Anne Hathaway's Catwoman sold me, I knew I could trust Nolan.
Amusingly, Bane did in this movie everything the Joker wanted to do in the last one: Mayor, dead. Gotham, isolated and crazy. Harvey Dent, destroyed. Batman, not dead but good enough. I guess fusion really is more efficient than gasoline.

-I too have a problem with "Robin John Blake", but it's not that it's really obvious. I mean, that's sucky, but it's not my problem. My problem is "Robin John Blake" is a really, really strange name. "John" just doesn't seem like a proper middle name, especially after "Robin". Sure, "Robin Blake" works, as does "John Blake", but put it together and it's gibberish. Now, what would have been perfect would be "John Blake Grayson", that has a good ring to it. Or, worst case scenario, "John Blake Robinson".

Robin Jonathan Blake

He said John wasn't his legal name. Maybe he just assumed that name?

I didnt read the other stuff and Im not trying to argue really, just adding my 2 cents.

1 - Understandable, but that's still not really the point. Sure you paid money to see the movie, but that doesn't mean you get to make the calls. It doesn't matter that you don't see his injuries. It's implied and that's all you need. What benefit would you get from seeing his mangled face?

2. Shrug. He was an amalgamation of various Robin characters. Didn't seem like pandering to me, just a nice addition.

3. Agreed... but it was already a 2hr 45 min movie. Sometimes you need to take shortcuts!

Yeah I sorta assumed Gordon had figured it out a long time ago, so the movie realization seemed very forced.