Post by heirdemon on Oct 17, 2012 0:30:58 GMT -5
Heirdemon here. Glad to be a part of this comprehensive online Bat family. Here's what I've got to say about TDKR.
Did anyone question Talia's reasons for wanting to destroy Gotham City and Batman with it? Her reasons are kind of vague and not all too logical. She claims that she hated her father until Batman murdered him. The question is: why does her father's death reconcile her feelings for him? Why go to such lengths to please a father who was cruel to her boyfriend?
Besides her very complicated father-daughter issues, she made a fallacy in her accusation of Bruce for killing her father. BRUCE NEVER KILLED RA'AS. remember in the climax at the end of Batman Begins on the train? "I won't kill you! But I don't have to save you!" Bruce abandoned him on the train to fend for himself, Ra'as didn't try to escape the train at the last minute (or so we think). Also, the body of Ra'as was never found, so how do we know he's dead? Anway, this absolutely damning accusation of Talia's is flawed, because Bruce did not directly kill her father. First, he saved her father's life from falling off a Tibetan cliff with enormous effort, and he avoid killing Ra'as directly as a matter of principle. All he did was refuse to save Ra'as a second time, and he must of sensed that possibility that Ra'as might've survived (however unlikely.)
Another reason to question the validity of Talia's accusation. The whole purpose of her father's training was for Bruce to realize that the only way to get rid of enemies of society, or obstacles in your way, is to kill them. Ra'as would've preferred if Bruce killed him both times instead of being left alive. Bruce may have abandoned Ra'as on a train going on a collision course, but it's not the same as directly killing him because Ra'as may survive. Even if Bruce did kill Ra'as personally, Ra'as would have died happy. If Talia believed that Bruce "murdered" her father, wouldn't that endear him to her as the true heir to the League of Shadows? I mean, in the comics, Talia was dying for Bruce to kill her father so that Bruce could be the next Demon's Head. Isn't Nolan's Talia rather irrational and illogical by killing someone who would still be of tremendous use to the League just to satisfy her own confused father-daughter issues?
I get that Talia is not like her father at all, and has remade the League to better suit her own calculating nihilism. She borders upon, or perhaps even parallels, the nihilistic mindset of the Joker in her desire to destroy Gotham just for the fun of it (except she's not at all funny, or realizes that the Batman is more fun alive than dead). That reminds me: if the Joker had been in the movie, I think she would've knifed Talia before she had the chance to knife Batman.
Considering all the holes in Talia's accusation, are her reasons truly valid? How do we know that she's not messing with his mind, to make him believe whatever she wants him to believe while he's vulnerable and wounded? Why doesn't Batman correct her accusation of murder? He should have said: "I didn't murder your father, you crazy demon lady! I left him on a train on the verge on crashing. I saved him the first time, didn't want to do it again. And besides, I thought the League approved of murder. If I had murdered him, then what's the problem? If I only caused his death indirectly, why is it still a problem?" But Batman doesn't say any of that. I think that Bruce feels guilty about every single thing he thinks he's done wrong, that he's unable to defend himself against an accusation which is clearly not completely accurate. Even though he didn't directly kill Ra'as, does he just feel guilty about not saving him, and therefore still feels responsible? It's the same problem he had when trying to debunk the complaints of Rachel and Two-Face against him, because of his tendency to be helplessly deep in guilt.
What I make of this? Talia is probably not being completely honest about her reasons for breaking and ruining Bruce. I think she was just messing with his head when she told him her sketchy motives, and that he real purpose was to evaluate Bruce's performance to deal with herself, Bane, and the new League. I don't think she's dead either, and neither do I think her father. Yes, she definitely would've died from that crash, but how do we know that the League doesn't have the means to revive her with a Nolanized Lazarus Pit chemical compound? I think that she was testing Bruce just to see how well he could fend off another League assault on Gotham a second time.
Either that, or her scheme was just the byproduct of the mind of a child born in Hell and lived in Hell for most of her childhood. Then again, the idea of her scheme being just an overkill test of Batman's capabilities sounds like the product of a Demon Child's mind as well.
Did anyone question Talia's reasons for wanting to destroy Gotham City and Batman with it? Her reasons are kind of vague and not all too logical. She claims that she hated her father until Batman murdered him. The question is: why does her father's death reconcile her feelings for him? Why go to such lengths to please a father who was cruel to her boyfriend?
Besides her very complicated father-daughter issues, she made a fallacy in her accusation of Bruce for killing her father. BRUCE NEVER KILLED RA'AS. remember in the climax at the end of Batman Begins on the train? "I won't kill you! But I don't have to save you!" Bruce abandoned him on the train to fend for himself, Ra'as didn't try to escape the train at the last minute (or so we think). Also, the body of Ra'as was never found, so how do we know he's dead? Anway, this absolutely damning accusation of Talia's is flawed, because Bruce did not directly kill her father. First, he saved her father's life from falling off a Tibetan cliff with enormous effort, and he avoid killing Ra'as directly as a matter of principle. All he did was refuse to save Ra'as a second time, and he must of sensed that possibility that Ra'as might've survived (however unlikely.)
Another reason to question the validity of Talia's accusation. The whole purpose of her father's training was for Bruce to realize that the only way to get rid of enemies of society, or obstacles in your way, is to kill them. Ra'as would've preferred if Bruce killed him both times instead of being left alive. Bruce may have abandoned Ra'as on a train going on a collision course, but it's not the same as directly killing him because Ra'as may survive. Even if Bruce did kill Ra'as personally, Ra'as would have died happy. If Talia believed that Bruce "murdered" her father, wouldn't that endear him to her as the true heir to the League of Shadows? I mean, in the comics, Talia was dying for Bruce to kill her father so that Bruce could be the next Demon's Head. Isn't Nolan's Talia rather irrational and illogical by killing someone who would still be of tremendous use to the League just to satisfy her own confused father-daughter issues?
I get that Talia is not like her father at all, and has remade the League to better suit her own calculating nihilism. She borders upon, or perhaps even parallels, the nihilistic mindset of the Joker in her desire to destroy Gotham just for the fun of it (except she's not at all funny, or realizes that the Batman is more fun alive than dead). That reminds me: if the Joker had been in the movie, I think she would've knifed Talia before she had the chance to knife Batman.
Considering all the holes in Talia's accusation, are her reasons truly valid? How do we know that she's not messing with his mind, to make him believe whatever she wants him to believe while he's vulnerable and wounded? Why doesn't Batman correct her accusation of murder? He should have said: "I didn't murder your father, you crazy demon lady! I left him on a train on the verge on crashing. I saved him the first time, didn't want to do it again. And besides, I thought the League approved of murder. If I had murdered him, then what's the problem? If I only caused his death indirectly, why is it still a problem?" But Batman doesn't say any of that. I think that Bruce feels guilty about every single thing he thinks he's done wrong, that he's unable to defend himself against an accusation which is clearly not completely accurate. Even though he didn't directly kill Ra'as, does he just feel guilty about not saving him, and therefore still feels responsible? It's the same problem he had when trying to debunk the complaints of Rachel and Two-Face against him, because of his tendency to be helplessly deep in guilt.
What I make of this? Talia is probably not being completely honest about her reasons for breaking and ruining Bruce. I think she was just messing with his head when she told him her sketchy motives, and that he real purpose was to evaluate Bruce's performance to deal with herself, Bane, and the new League. I don't think she's dead either, and neither do I think her father. Yes, she definitely would've died from that crash, but how do we know that the League doesn't have the means to revive her with a Nolanized Lazarus Pit chemical compound? I think that she was testing Bruce just to see how well he could fend off another League assault on Gotham a second time.
Either that, or her scheme was just the byproduct of the mind of a child born in Hell and lived in Hell for most of her childhood. Then again, the idea of her scheme being just an overkill test of Batman's capabilities sounds like the product of a Demon Child's mind as well.