Which of these do you consider the better ending to Batman? DKR or TDKR?

[adkal]

No one's arguing that the injuries didn't exist, just that the extent of their effects was psychological.

That runs contrary to what the doctor quite clearly states. If the injuries weren't that severe the doctor would have said so, or suggested a remedial approach in order to recover from them. He didn't. Now, unless this doctor was merely humouring Bruce, he would have known, or have reason to suspect, that there was a (strong) psychological element involved.

Does it work with real life logic? No. This is one place where some of us accept a slightly different logic on the movie universe, like how I can accept the back smashing treatment under the 'magic oriental medicine' trope even though there's no real logical way it could work.

I definately agree that they should not have made his injuries so serious early on, and should have made it more obvious that he had a mental problem that was effecting him physically.

Generally speaking, I've often considered Jackie Chan to be a 'real life example' of how someone would be if they lived a fraction of what Bruce Wayne has been depicted (in the comics) going through, so I'm not dismissive of Bruce's general recovery...just the 'magic' behind it. The brace for his knee is fine, but there's not remedial training (or re-training). The doctor said his shoulders were messed up, too, but we know Bruce was able to use a bow. Maybe it caused him great pain to do so, we don't know - based on the doctor's analysis, though, it probably did. Heck, for all we know, Bruce was hopped up on pain killers and adrenaline - especially with the thrill of the chase teased by 'Catwoman'...

[ispacehead]

And yet Bruce only had a problem with the one knee while the other was as functional as he needed it to be.. There isn't a reason for the exact same injury to cause such a big effect on one limb and not the others unless it was psychological.

No cartilage is no cartilage. It doesn't just come back. Ask a retired football player, or a runner.

S'all I'm saying.

[stk]

Yeah, people who don't play sports or run may have no idea, but "no cartilage" is not messing around time. The idea there was a magical fix that didn't involve surgery and lengthy rehab is harder to buy than Shondra's magical spine cure in the comics.

[Haytil]

Or the team dropped the ball on it...

What team dropped the ball? The doctor?

No cartilage is no cartilage. It doesn't just come back. Ask a retired football player, or a runner.

I think you're missing the point of sunofdarkchild's argument.

The doctor pointed out that Wayne had no cartilage in his knees. Not one, both of them.

Wayne limped on one leg (with the cane) and later used the brace on only one leg.

Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that the brace/limp was due to an injury OTHER than Wayne's lack of cartilage (otherwise, Wayne would have needed braces for BOTH knees). And thus the argument that Wayne's limp/brace injury was psychological is unaffected by adkal's counter-argument (i.e., what the doctor was saying, as he was clearly talking about something else.)

Furthermore, a lack of cartilage doesn't come from a single injury (like a fall, as in the ending of "The Dark Knight"). It comes from lots of wear-and-tear - like a one-man physical war on crime over the course of several years.

[ispacehead]

The idea there was a magical fix that didn't involve surgery and lengthy rehab is harder to buy than Shondra's magical spine cure in the comics.

Shondra's magical involvement always was the weak link in that story.

Anyway, this particular story is supposed to take place in a more realistic world. At least until it no longer suits the storyteller anyway.

I just would have preferred the third film went a different direction right from the get go.

The other inconsistencies I see are like a multitude of cherries on top of a really crappy sundae that I didn't order.

[ispacehead]

What team dropped the ball? The doctor?

Team Nolan, I'd say.

[quote]I think you're missing the point of sunofdarkchild's argument.

I'm not missing his point, I think you're missing mine. Whether he limped on one leg or two, his knees had no cartilage. His shoulder had no cartilage. Lack of cartilage would make it difficult (and very painful) to walk, let alone fight.

There's really no reason to believe he had any sort of physical manifestation of his psychosis, outside of locking himself in his room for 8 years.

Furthermore, a lack of cartilage doesn't come from a single injury (like a fall, as in the ending of "The Dark Knight"). It comes from lots of wear-and-tear - like a one-man physical war on crime over the course of several years. .

Right. And it doesn't just go away either.

[adkal]

What team dropped the ball? The doctor?

Did you not read the last sentence in the post you quoted?

Regardless, the production team - aka 'Team Nolan', as ispacehead posted.

I think you're missing the point of sunofdarkchild's argument.

The doctor pointed out that Wayne had no cartilage in his knees. Not one, both of them.

No, he didn't.

Go read the dialogue I posted again. He said the kneeS were bad, yes, but then went on to say 'that's because there is NO cartilage in your knee' (singular).

Wayne limped on one leg (with the cane) and later used the brace on only one leg.

Which fits in fine with what the doctor actually described.

Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that the brace/limp was due to an injury OTHER than Wayne's lack of cartilage (otherwise, Wayne would have needed braces for BOTH knees).

In light of the above, no, it's not reasonable to come to such a conclusion.

And thus the argument that Wayne's limp/brace injury was psychological is unaffected by adkal's counter-argument (i.e., what the doctor was saying, as he was clearly talking about something else.)

Alas, you're clearly misunderstanding what the doctor said. The extensive damage was to one knee, which was actually initially suggested by Batman's limping run at the end of Dark Knight.

Furthermore, a lack of cartilage doesn't come from a single injury (like a fall, as in the ending of "The Dark Knight"). It comes from lots of wear-and-tear - like a one-man physical war on crime over the course of several years.

That his other knee also had damage is understandable in light of the various impacts and stresses it had to go through both during his training years and when he was active as Batman. Similarly with regards to his elbows and shoulders.

[adkal]

Using the brace, as far as I'm concerned, is absolutely fine. What bugged me, however, was that he pretty much immediately went in to action - there was no retraining of his body and nothing to indicate he had undergone any retraining. As 'in shape' as he may have considered himself to be, after the years he spent on the sidelines, he was in no condition to go barrelling in again - this is what Alfred was trying to get him to concede, and is why I consider this version of Batman to be an arrogant idiot. His cockiness here when going up against Bane was worse than Miller's TDKR Batman going up against the mutant leader the first time. Miller's one had acknowledged that he was weaker and slower than he used to be but figured he was capable enough to take down the mutant leader; Nolan's version was, basically, saying 'psh, I took down the League of Shadows, this guy's a pansy compared to them', and then got schooled - and Bane wasn't younger than him like the mutant leader was...

[Callahan]

Neither. I didn't care for The Dark Knight Returns at all and Rises was completely out of character for Bruce Wayne.

I don't know too much about Batman/Bruce Wayne. I find this post interesting. Would you mind elaborating?

I didn't really care for Rises at all. While on every technical level it was a better movie than Batman and Robin I'd still rather watch that film any day of the week over rises and Batman and Robin was once my least favorite Batman movie.

As I said, I'm not too knowledgeable about Batman (yet :p). Can you elaborate on this? I can't imagine anyone would choose B&R over TDKRises. Ever.

[ispacehead]

Go read the dialogue I posted again. He said the kneeS were bad, yes, but then went on to say 'that's because there is NO cartilage in your knee' (singular).

Well I stand corrected on that. (Yuck yuck...STAND....) Sorry.

[Haytil]

I'm not missing his point, I think you're missing mine. Whether he limped on one leg or two, his knees had no cartilage. His shoulder had no cartilage. Lack of cartilage would make it difficult (and very painful) to walk, let alone fight.

I think you need to go back and re-read the thread of this conversation. I began by stating that the point of the brace was to demonstrate that Wayne's leg injury was psychological in nature (post 83). Your immediate response (post 84) was that the doctor said there was no cartilage in his knees, that it was physical in nature.

sundofdarkchild's response to your post (post 87) was that, if the brace was to fix Wayne's cartilage issues (and that its purpose WASN'T as a placebo device for Wayne's psychological injury), then he would have logically required the brace on both legs, as his cartilage issue was present in both legs.

Maybe you think lack of cartilage should have impacted Wayne more than was shown, and you might be right, but that is independent of the purpose of the brace and the scene with him smashing bricks instantly. Its purpose wasn't to show that Wayne had some new technology that could magically fix him and let him shatter bricks - it was to show that his injuries (at least to some extent, including his limp) were in his head.

Did you not read the last sentence in the post you quoted?

I did, but I guess I just gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that I misinterpreted what you were saying, rather than assuming you made a poor argument. Because...

Regardless, the production team - aka 'Team Nolan', as ispacehead posted.

...let me get this straight. We've presented an interpretation of the film to you, based on on-screen evidence....and your response is to say "No, that's wrong," then cherry-pick the on-screen evidence by presenting the points from the movie that suit your counter-argument, and then just hand-waving away the points from the movie that disprove your argument, by simply saying the creators "dropped the ball?"

That's extremely dishonest and a poor way to construct an argument.

When interpreting what's happening in a film, you need to look at everything that's presented to you. It was all chosen, for a purpose. You can't assume any "accidents," unless you can actually show evidence that something was added or removed accidentally. You can't present a theory that's contradicted by the film and validate it by saying "Anything on-screen that runs counter to my theory is just evidence that the creators made a mistake and dropped the ball....rather than simply being evidence that my theory is wrong."

No, he didn't.

Go read the dialogue I posted again.

Go back and WATCH the movie again. The doctor points to both knees in the X-ray.

I won't quote all the rest of your post, as it's all denials based on the misperception that the doctor was talking about an injury to one knee (contradicted by the actual scene).

[ispacehead]

Go back and WATCH the movie again.

Ack! No! Anything but that.

[adkal]

I did, but I guess I just gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that I misinterpreted what you were saying, rather than assuming you made a poor argument. Because...



...let me get this straight. We've presented an interpretation of the film to you, based on on-screen evidence....and your response is to say "No, that's wrong," then cherry-pick the on-screen evidence by presenting the points from the movie that suit your counter-argument, and then just hand-waving away the points from the movie that disprove your argument, by simply saying the creators "dropped the ball?"

That's extremely dishonest and a poor way to construct an argument.

When interpreting what's happening in a film, you need to look at everything that's presented to you.

I am looking at everything that has been presented - you picked on a visual whereas I've coupled it with the dialogue. What you're saying is that the doctor didn't know what he was talking about when he described the extent of the damage Bruce's body has sustained. The 'hand-waving' is done by you, not me.

It was all chosen, for a purpose.

The purpose was to move the movie along quickly - establish his condition and that he was able to overcome it. If the mental aspect had been as great as you're trying to make it out to me then that should have been more firmly established. It wasn't - now, while the reason he was in the hospital specifically was to check on Gordon rather than have that health-check, the health-check itself established his physical condition was poor. If the doctor had said something along the lines of how, even though his injuries are bad, he could still do x, y, and z, then your mental issue would have more credence. Unfortunately, that's not the case here.

You can't assume any "accidents," unless you can actually show evidence that something was added or removed accidentally. You can't present a theory that's contradicted by the film and validate it by saying "Anything on-screen that runs counter to my theory is just evidence that the creators made a mistake and dropped the ball....rather than simply being evidence that my theory is wrong."

um...what I've put forward doesn't contradict the film, and, furthermore, is supported by comments by the director and actor involved. Now, you can dismiss their comments (made outside the movie) if you want, but just as a writer or artist can let the reader or observer know their actual intent, so, too, through interviews etc, can the director/actor clarify (in this case) what Bruce's condition actually was.

Go back and WATCH the movie again. The doctor points to both knees in the X-ray.

*sigh*

He initially addresses both knees and then, in his dialogue, establishes that one knee is worse than the other.

I won't quote all the rest of your post, as it's all denials based on the misperception that the doctor was talking about an injury to one knee (contradicted by the actual scene).

So the script was wrong? Or the actor playing the doctor didn't say 'knees' when he was supposed to?

Furthermore, he spoke about Bruce's elbows and shoulders, too.

*shrug*

However, the above is without address his performance in the pit where, as far as I'm aware, he didn't wear the brace...

[Coyote2010]

I chose the Miller Batman version because I generally choose Comics over Movies. I also love the idea that Batman would truly go underground and keep the fight going.

I do love Rises though because I think Bale did such a great job of humanizing Bruce Wayne. There were times when he looked like the kid in the alley, heartbroken for life, to see him have a happy ending with a beautiful gal and his Pa Alfred smiling with a drink. Man I tear up now!

[bat39]

I chose the Miller Batman version because I generally choose Comics over Movies. I also love the idea that Batman would truly go underground and keep the fight going.

I do love Rises though because I think Bale did such a great job of humanizing Bruce Wayne. There were times when he looked like the kid in the alley, heartbroken for life, to see him have a happy ending with a beautiful gal and his Pa Alfred smiling with a drink. Man I tear up now!

Yes indeed, that is the fundamental difference between Nolan's Batman and the comic-book Batman as represented by Miller.

Nolan's Bruce Wayne is first and foremost Bruce Wayne...Batman is just a tool, a symbol he has created to facilitate his war on crime and to inspire people. Whereas, Miller's Bruce Wayne is pretty much a 'shell' for the persona of the Batman, who is arguably the 'real' persona. That is the prime reason why Nolan's Bruce was able to get away from it all in the end, while Miller's Bruce will always be bound to Batman's mission, even if he isn't wearing the cowl anymore.

I mean, look at the way the retirement is treated in both stories. In TDKR, Bruce retired as Batman because Batman wasn't needed anymore but, faced with a loss of purpose and haunted by the death of Rachel and his dreams for a normal life, lived in virtual seclusion. Whereas in DKR, Bruce retired and spent ten years trying to 'repress' the Batman persona, by taking to drinking and life-threatening activities, simply in an attempt to 'stay retired'. TDKR Bruce returned to the cowl to deal with the specific threat of Bane, owing to Blake and Gordon's request...DKR Bruce returned to the cowl simply because he was unable to hold back the Batman persona any longer.