The only way it makes sense from Bruce’s standpoint
a.) he truly doesn’t care anymore
b.) he never reported the breakin or his suspicion that his prints were somehow stolen.
It still makes no sense that the trades were not questioned by Fox, etc - others that could have said, ‘hey, wait a minute’.
I disagree. There a number of times that I thought Whedon was making fun of the source material. Tony Stark made a crack about Captain America’s suit, and even Captain America wondered if it wasn’t out of place. To me this was the movie saying, “We realize this suit is goofy, but it just isn’t Captain America if he’s not wearing it, so we’re going to make do with what we’re given and mitigate the damage by letting you in on the joke.” I thought the strength of the Avengers * and* Nolan’s Batman movies is they aren’t afraid to improve on the source material, because frankly sometimes the source material is dumb.
Regarding the stock trading, it was Bruce Wayne, not the company, that lost all his money, and Fox said it was verified by some other source. Wayne losing all his money caused the Wayne Enterprise stock to fall (which is why there was a scene before that where some guys where talking about investing in the company just because Bruce made an appearance.) Bruce being out there is good for the company, being broke is not. I also got the idea, althoguh it was implicitly stated, was that Bane made a bunch of trades, not just Bruce’s, and they made it look like the trading had been going on before the attack. Plus, they would be on the look out for someone stealing a bunch of money, not just someone making bad trades and losing.
He probably didn’t. Even so, everything that happened was pretty suspicious.
I don’t remember that. What I do remember is that the plan involved bankrupting Bruce with put options. Basically he lost a bunch of money on trades that went through at a certain time.
Not necessarily. They even had a trader tell Bane “There’s no money here, this is a stock exchange!” before Bane clobbered him. And it does not take a great cop - or for that matter a brilliant financial manager or SEC employee - to think “You know, a bunch of crazy guys broke into the stock exchange the other day and uploaded some kind of program and just now a billionaire went bankrupt.”
As I said on page 2 the trading issue makes perfect sense when presented correctly:
You forgot “Mr. Wayne could not be reached for comment because the phone company immediately shut off his phones.” 
As much as I’d love to take credit for that, our good friends over at IMDB did the job for me 
Alfred did say that it could be fixed, but it would take time so, for the time being, Bruce was broke.
Lucius Fox did say something to the effect that the trades would almost certainly be proven to be fraudulent but until then, he was broke.
The impression I got was that nearly all of Bruce’s assets were in the form of equity, mostly Wayne Enterprises. So when he apparently sold it all for a pittance – verified, as Fox said, by his fingerprints – he lost most of his money.
My attempt to quote it went awry, but someone wondered about why the trades were allowed if they were during the attack. It’s because they were executed immediately. It’s the same way, if someone steals your credit card number and buys something, they get it in the short term, even if it’s later charged back. Fox even said they would claim fraud – and it would probably have been successful if events hadn’t intervened – but that didn’t help Bruce Wayne immediately.
Come to think of it, if they did claim fraud, and it was successful, that closes the “how’d Bruce get home” plot hole. He had his money back by then.
Psssst… It’s a fucking movie.
Nor mine. The film was just too busy–too many sub-plots, too many major (but flat) characters, too many dramatic speeches, too many themes, too many (unexplained) villains. Also too many actors standing around chewing the scenery, and little else. You’re really going to cast Cillian Murphy and give him about three different lines over two tiny scenes? You’re really going to waste Matthew Modine on an undeveloped plot line playing a cardboard cutout of a character? You’re really going to use William Freaking Devane as the US President making some sort of dumbass 40-second speech on TV that no one even listens to?
As far as the plotholes go, how about that? A major US city gets taken over, and it’s dealt with on the municipal level? You don’t think the UN, much less the US, would be interested if a city gets taken hostage with a nuclear threat looming? I know, I know, it’s just a movie, but that doesn’t mean it has to be implausible to the point of silliness. I know, I know, it’s just a movie based on a comic book, but let’s try just a little, especially if you’re going to charge me 14 bucks for admission.
The whole idea of making Batman movies, as far as I’m concerned, is to make them MORE for adults, not less. I want to see a disturbed character at the heart of the movie, but can’t we figure out what he’s disturbed about, and show how he struggles to overcome his issues? What’s his basis for marrying Selena in the end? A few minutes of repartee with her as she steals his mother’s pearls? If you’re going to end the movie with a character-changing scene of growth and maturity, could you bother developing the characters who are growing and changing? This gets back to my original complaint: even in this three-hour snorefest, there are too many characters to develop any of them three-dimensionally. I’d love to see this movie with a well-drawn out Selena, a carefully developed Bane, a few mature sex scenes (instead of the mawkish crap we had)–you can make a good movie out of this material. Too bad Nolan’s too ill-equipped to try.
So we’ve reached the “let’s complain about the movie I watched in my head” portion of the thread…
Are you familiar with the “cameo”? Murphy showed up because it’s a fun shoutout to the first movie (he had slightly more screentime in TDKR than he did in The Dark Knight). Devane has been playing important military/government guys for decades. Tapping him for a short Batman cameo is brilliant.
The movie shows one Special Ops infiltration of Gotham. Presumably, there were others.
They were eating lunch at a restaurant. I didn’t realize that required a marriage certificate first.
It’s a nothing part. You could have said the lines and been just as effective.
Total waste of talent.
Talk about critiquing the movie that played in one’s head! “Presumably”? The whole movie was about the Gotham Police department, but you’re going to tell me that other, larger forces were involved because you presume they were?
Well, they were eating lunch in a restaurant half the world away, with no one except them knowing their real identities, so I think they were doing more than just having lunch. Plus, Alfred’s fantasy, which was being acted out, had Bruce being married and with a family, so that was the implication of the entire scene.
Christ! Do you always interpret so narrowly? Why not argue that they weren’t even having lunch together, merely seated at the same table by coincidence, while you’re at it?
It was a callback to a previous movie. I hear those are very popular these days.
No, I told you other, larger forces were involved because we were shown those forces getting involved on screen.
It wasn’t meant to be a literal callback to Alfred’s family since there were no kids with them. Anyway, who cares? It’s just a code to show that Batman can have a normal life in the Nolanverse.
Obviously, not you. You’ll swallow any silly liquified shit, and claim it’s delicious and even plausible. The President of the US appears for a few seconds on TV, and (you claim) there’s a brief shot of some troops from some entity larger than Gotham City, so you’re happy that the interests of the world outside of GC have been represented in a completely plausible way.
I know, it’s just a movie. I’m just explaining why I find it a bad movie.
Brief shot? There was an extended scene where the Special Ops guys infiltrate Gotham posing as aid workers and are then discovered (and murdered) by Bane’s forces.
Assuming you’re right about that, how’s that consistent with US policy? “We sent in a few troops, they got killed, we gave up and went home.”
“Assuming you’re right”? Did you see the movie, or didn’t you?
Last night. As I said, there was too much plot (too much fucking story going nowhere, too many false leads) to keep track of who was doing what and why, for my taste.
Haven’t mentioned it yet, but another way to look at my complaint is “too little spatial reference.” I couldn’t tell where things were happening in relation to other events, so I couldn’t tell if there were a lot lot of danger at a given point, or only some, or none at all. I found the whole complicated plot at the end–will the bomb go off? Maybe Lucius Fox can hook it up to the reactor, or Commisioner Gordon can find the truck it’s hidden in, or Batman can defuse it–who gives a shit? Let me know what’s at stake, and build suspense that way, not by introducing an impossible level of plot elements to keep track of.
So,there’s this bomb. And it’s going to go off, right? And multiple people are trying to make it not go off, but they fail. That’s the complicated part of this film?