I can’t find a cite for this, but I remember it being discussed back when Begins came out: the idea, apparently, is that the cowl has some voice-modification circuitry. In other words, Bruce doesn’t “do the voice,” the voice comes with the outfit.
It certainly isn’t established anywhere in the films (other than by example), so I completely understand if that isn’t a satisfactory explanation.
Can’t tell if this is snark, so I’ll answer like it isn’t.. none whatsoever. Google (or better, go watch) Warrior for a similarly muscle-bound Hardy. Great performance, too.
I haven’t seen it, but looks like he was fairly huge in Bronson, too.
Dark Knight has Chicago all over it. The bank at the beginning is the old post office, the Harvey Dent fundraiser was at Hotel 71, the boats at the end take off from Navy Pier, Batman stands on top of the Sears (Willis) Tower, the canceled ballet is at the Chicago theater, and the truck flip/mayor’s funeral is on Lasalle street at the Chicago Board of Trade. I’m pretty sure that the construction site at the end is the now-finished Trump Tower, as well.
No snark at all.
Yeah, it’s a credit to Hardy, I love a chameleonic actor.
Here he is in Bronson.
I know that Nolan had an issue with Bale when he showed up for Batman Begins as a muscle bound freak. And I know that Bale has undergone some extreme physical changes as an actor. I also know that there is CGI out there that specializes in age and size effects (see Chris Evans in Captain America). I did not realize that Hardy was involved in big physical changes as well.
Wow, don’t know how I missed the Chicago. Been there many times.. I miss all the great venues in Chicago, that’s something we’re sorely lacking here in Portland.
Ok, back on topic. I’m torn about where I want additional batman movies to go. I Like JGL, and this movie did a pretty decent job of setting him up to take over. But if there’s going to be more Batman movies without Bale or Nolan, I think I’d like to see it take place outside of Nolan’s more realistic world and a little more firmly back in the world of the comics.
I think that might make it okay to finally recast the Joker too, if it’s an entirely different Batman universe.. and a longterm Batman franchise needs to be able to use the Joker.
For the record, didn’t Evans use his own physique for Cap’s muscles – only needing the CGI to appear skinny and polio-stricken before the big reveal?
Right, but it was CGI that facilitated the change.
And to be honest, Evans’s pre-CA look was probably how most 1942-era recruits looked. It was a thin country coming off a depression, very few people looked like they were packing in 6-9k calories a day while following a modern conditioning/weight-training regimen.
End of digression…
Saw it a second time:
Ann Hathaway’s acting wasn’t as bad the second time as it was the first time.
I think part of what made Cotillard’s death scene so awkward is that she plays it with a broken neck and is a quadriplegic.
I would bet pretty much anything that there will be no more Batman movies like these, and none starring JGL.
In all respects this was the end of this incarnation of Batman, and the ending was chock full of closure scenes to push that fact forward on us.
Bruce Wayne is “dead” so he doesn’t live in Gotham anymore and has rid his need of being The Bat Man
Alfred is happy because he saw Bruce being happy, therefore has no more guilt about leaving and thinking he failed Bruce’s parents
Gotham loves The Bat Man again because he saved the city, thereby vilifying Commish Gordon, who now can retire in peace.
JGL quits the force and becomes the new Batman showing that the city still has its hero when Killer Croc comes to visit.
Final note on JGL being named Robin: That was nothing more than just a funny joke that Nolan put in the movie.
Others have said this too. I don’t get it. How is it “funny” unless we’re supposed to understand that JGL’s character turns out to be Robin–the character from the comics–later on?
He’s Robin now. That’s his name. He doesn’t have to have been an acrobat or wear the Robin costume. He. Is. Robin.
Yes, it’s made clear that he will pick up where Bruce Wayne left off. Bruce even gives him some rudimentary training to lead him that direction (“if you’re going to fight solo, wear a mask”). Whether he becomes Nightwing or Batman or whatever doesn’t matter, that’s a different story.
Is it funny the way “This morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas” is funny? No. It’s just a joke at the “see what I did there?” level. It’s a gag.
I agree with all of the above. It seems at odds with the claim that it’s just a joke, though. I was arguing against the claim that it’s just a joke, and saying that it only makes sense as a joke assuming John Blake “really is” Robin.
Just found this article expounding on John Blake’s relation to the various comic book Robins.
Come to think of it, I’m getting more and more of a MementoCeption Nolan-y feel about issues of identity the more I think of his Batman as an empty mask and his Robin as a pastiche of identities…
I didn’t mean to sound snippy, Frylock, if I came off that way. I just don’t understand a need I see being manifested all over TDKR to make it fit the Batman stories that have been told before. Nolan is doing his own thing as he always does, and is telling a different story that does, occasionally, have obvious inspiration from past stories, but which he is telling as a unique and separate tale.
After I saw the movie, a bunch of friends and I went out to eat and I had to hear all about how the movie got this wrong and that wrong because it didn’t do those things the way, for example, the Knightfall storyline did. It drove me nuts because TDKR is not an adaptation of Knightfall, even if it took some inspiration from it. It’s like if someone went off complaining about how Paul Atreides didn’t walk across some water in Dune because that’s what Jesus did.
I go back to the implication that he’s going to be the next Batman. Essentially the audience thought process would be
" (During the movie) You know this whole movie seems to set up this John Tate guy being the next Batman, I bet that’s what happens."
(The very end of the movie) “So he is the new Batman AND his name is “Robin”! Ha. I get it!”
It’s the movie equivalent of Nolan elbowing you in the ribs, gesturing his head at the screen and saying “eh?..eh?..ya get it?..funny huh?”
What was Al Queda’s obsession with New York City? It is the symbol for everything the terrorist group (LoS/AQ) abhors and is the symbol that makes the most impact with its destruction.
I think in Batman Begins, it works fine - Gotham is pretty corrupt, the mob owns half the city authority, there’s lots of shots of people in the slums, etc. Seems like a crummy place and a good example of Western corruption.
I don’t think the same works in TDKR because there wasn’t enough time to really flesh out the idea. Catwoman gets used early on to complain about the rich-vs-poor angle, but beyond that there’s not a lot. By all accounts, Gotham has been pretty much cleaned up, and seems like a nice city this time around. Bane doesn’t get to really explain it that much (or if he was, it was one of his unintelligble dialogue lines). I don’t buy that the Gotham mob would want the prisoners released just because the Dent Act was “a lie.” The idea just doesn’t seem very well fleshed-out, lost amid how much was crammed into the movie.
You didn’t.
That wasn’t my intention. I didn’t mean it must turn out that John Blake becomes an acrobat orphan adopted by Batman (or whatever the comic book story is–I don’t even know!) None of the characters in the film have the very same story as any character from any of the comics. But they’re still the “same character” in a real sense (that’s interesting to think about but here’s not the place). I meant it turns out John Blake is Robin in that sense, nothing more.