Re: Hot Toys The Dark Knight Rises - Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Detective John Blake ??
As the audience, you have to assume too much with TDKR. How many things went unresolved between Begins and Dark Knight? Zero. Everything from Falcone to Scarecrow were dealt with.
Exactly.
That's what is so convenient about having the story take place 8 years later with things like the "Dent Act", hermit Bruce, Blake and Alfred's stories, etc. They somehow get off easy without having to tie up the loose ends of the Dark Knight ending.
- No Joker? Sure, assume that he and all of his followers were captured but there would still be a trial . . .
- There's a prison that can hold the Joker? He was just as devious and larger than life than his comic counterparts. How would an Asylum hold him?
- Ramirez "lives to fight another day" hence, she's one of the ones in on the conspiracy. A loose end for it to work, along with the Joker.
I won't disagree with you that the entire trilogy has flaws. It doesn't all just fall on
The Dark Knight Rises however if you ask me. A lot of the story with The Joker was more than likely altered after Ledger's death. If I remember right the plan was originally to bring him back for the third film but that obviously didn't happen.
- The SWAT guys that heard Gordon talk to Dent on his phone while Dent was holding his family hostage. Remember, the GCPD thought Dent was in the Pruitt building with them.
The SWAT guys heard Gordon answer his phone and say Harvey but that's it. For all they know Dent was calling from inside the building and Gordon made up a lie to cover up what really happened.
- Coleman Reese. All of the city knows that he knew the Batman's true identity. At the end of the Dark Knight, Batman is a wanted man for the murder of Harvey Dent. If this is a "realistic world" and not a "fantasy story", then there would be an investigation in not only Dent's death, but the deaths of Wuertz, Maroni, Maroni's bodyguard, Maroni's driver, etc. There's no way Gordon would be able to cover up that investigation with a city that supposedly wants Batman's blood. They'd be knocking down Coleman Reese's door down.
I'm not sure that I agree with this entirely. Reese may have just been looked at as some attention seeker who was trying to oust the Batman. It's believable enough that he may have been dismissed by a lot of the public and the police as just some loon. If anyone looked into him he probably wouldn't offer any information for fear of his own safety.
The Joker, Batman, the Arkham escapees from Begins, Joker's crazed muscle, and Dent.
The Joker yes I agree was crazy but he's an exception. Batman maybe is crazy in his own way but very different than The Joker obviously. The Arkham escapees it's tough to really say. We don't get much time with any of them and from what we do see Crane is manipulating them with his fear toxin to make them seem crazier than they are so he can experiment. The Joker's goons are crazy because of The Joker. While some of them may be close to as crazy as he is I don't think any of them really are the criminal masterminds that he is. Again The Joker isn't a common type of threat. Dent, well he was made crazy after what The Joker did to him. Harvey was overall weak and when terrible things happened to him was easily manipulated by The Joker.
-
"This town deserves a better class of criminal, and I'm going to give it to them."
- "The Joker wanted to prove that someone as good as you could fall."
"And he was right."
The city may not know it, but Dent most certainly turned into a freak. Not everyone in Gotham would be this bright eyed idealist that buys into some "Dent Act". Batman Begins and The Dark Knight shows the repercussions and reactions of extreme symbols. If the image of Batman, a vigilante that fights crime is enough to inspire cops to dress up in homemade Batman costumes and try and take down drug dealers, if that extreme example is enough to make a man turn into a psychopath and dress up as a killer clown, what will the response be to a symbol like the Joker? The Joker is just as extreme as Batman, if not more so. He broadcasted his threats and killings. He had a gang of crazies at his disposal. He ruled the city for a day. He killed cops, family and friends. He turned what seemed to be the most incorruptible man in Gotham. That's bound to inspire someone else, yet TDKR never shows it. In fact, it appears as if the Joker's reign of chaos had no side effects. We're meant to believe citizens of Gotham, the very people that tried to leave their lives behind on ferries, aren't suffering from major panic attacks? Or that the Joker didn't inspire more costumed crazies?
That's sort of a dis-service to the threat and the character of the Joker who was just as big as Batman.
The Dent Act was passed in honor of a man dying tragically who many people supposedly thought was a hero. That doesn't mean that every Gotham citizen necessarily believes Dent to be a hero but let's face it that type of thing happens in real life. Some public figure dies and they're made out to be some sort of larger than life person and made into a hero. It's not like
The Dark Knight Rises showed everyone just praising Dent the entire film or something.
As far as The Joker goes, again he's a rare exception of villain. Guys like him don't just come along often. He was a criminal mastermind and while it's possible there would be copycats I doubt that many of them would be as successful as he was.
As for the citizens of Gotham living in fear after the events of
The Dark Knight well we didn't see that because
The Dark Knight Rises takes place eight years later which in that span of time most people have probably moved on with their lives. I'm sure you'll bring up that this is a flaw of
The Dark Knight Rises being set so far after the events of
The Dark Knight but again as I mentioned I do think Ledger's death caused some major changes to what would have been the story of the third film.
Enough havoc and deaths for the law to investigate what went down.
"Five dead, two of them cops...you can't sweep that up."
Even with Batman catching the blame, you have loose ends. How exactly did they explain Batman offing Maroni and Wuertz, who were killed in broad day light?
This I sort of agree with you on but if Batman went into hiding after the events of
The Dark Knight and wasn't seen for eight years it probably would have been difficult for the cops to investigate him.
A Batman that doesn't care about muggers (the way his parents died), rapists, etc. isn't Batman to me. Don't forget that line from Batman Begins,
I will go back to Gotham and I will fight men like this, but I will not become an executioner.
That guy was a farmer that killed for land, not a "mobster". It wasn't always JUST about the mob, about organized crime. In Begins, Bruce decides to target the mob first because he figures if he can takes down Falcone and the mob first, the other problems they're involved in will go away. Namely the corruption. That's that naive thinking just like that "happy life" with Rachel.
What happens then? Escalation. The mob isn't a problem and we see Batman fighting any sort of crime, from drugs (the garage scene) to the freak element like Joker. Not to mention threats like Arkham, Ra's, etc. that aren't "organized crime".
Let's be honest though, Bruce probably realized at some point that there's only so much that he can realistically do. He wanted to take down crime in the city and believed that taking the mob out of the equation would cut back on crime drastically which seems to have worked by the time we get to
The Dark Knight Rises. There's always going to be crime and it can't all be stopped. He was around to take down the drug ring which was tied to the mob. Freak elements such as The Joker, again I feel is a rarity. That type of a threat won't exist on a consistent basis.
Because of Batman and Gordon's forced incompetence, you had all this crime and these forces at work that could have been prevented. If Batman was around, it's a good bet no cement company could put explosives all throughout the city. Or that an underground army of thugs would be amassed for 8 years and be able to imprison the equally incompetent police force for 5 long months . . .
This is assuming a lot though. We don't know what crime was like in that eight year span. Even if Batman was active however like I said he could put a stop to some crime but he never would have been able to take down everyone. The League of Shadows amassed on their own but weren't active in Gotham. I was under the impression that these men were with Bane when he came. They may have gotten some more recruits when they arrived to Gotham though.
At the end of the day I won't argue that you don't make some good points but at the same time I think a lot of what you bring up is just biased nitpicking at
The Dark Knight Rises because it somehow didn't meet your expectations or something. Which I can understand as the films that came before it were great and I understand some were underwhelmed by the conclusion the final film gave. Personally I don't think it was that bad. It wasn't perfect but the entire trilogy has flaws that can be pointed out it just seems like people like to point out the flaws of
The Dark Knight Rises way more. Maybe it's because
The Dark Knight was such a phenomenon and captured lighting in a bottle that people can overlook it's flaws and think anything that followed it up isn't worthy or something.
The more grounded/real world aspect is what I luv about the trilogy. Every villain is believable and has a purpose. Skilled genius psychopaths like the joker don't come along everyday. In the real world when the mobs gone, the city is fairly crime free.
It was Nolan's version of Batman. Thats all. If you can't enjoy it, I think its your loss, but I know we all have our own opinions too. So it is what it is.
Those are the kind of rediculous villains that would have made these movies cheesy comic movies instead of the amazing real world adaptation of a comic character that is Nolan's batman. Why don't you just suggest he put nipples on the bat suit 
