Maybe I'm wrong, but I remember that happening after Bane 1) reveals the truth about Dent, and 2) opens up Blackgate. Which is why we see Selina & Holly in the trashed mansion later.

I don't know, I mostly think if Nolan intended to make an explicit propaganda piece, he'd do a better job of it.

billytea - It's not that he wants to restore hope, exactly, but he wants to maintain a sliver of it. So they'll be tortured the way he was. (It's also easier to maintain control that way, of course.)

I love Bridesmaids, but shouldn't there be more black people in/at Maya Rudolph's wedding? I can't believe I watched it three times before I thought that...I guess I do have some white privilege after all. Everybody I ever knew that had a big wedding like that, had some annoying cousin that they have to include on pain of Drama. Wanda Sykes could have played her aunt or something(Although I know the wedding is only part of the point of the movie, and I know there are other funny black comediennes besides Wanda, but I think she's hilarious.)

I saw the movie again over the weekend (TDKR) in Imax this time which was just fucking awesome and I still really like the damn movie.

Jessica, I get where you are coming from, but I don't think you can take most of the politics of the movie seriously at all. What Bane wanted (rather, what Talia wanted and Bane wanted what Talia wanted) was to see NYC fall. Their justification for this is Ra's Al Ghul's from the first movie. NYC became corrupt and like the League of Shadows brought down Rome (and other cities before), they were using NYC as a symbol of modern day corruption. So the chaos in NYC with the rich's possessions being taken and the police being killed was all orchestrated by Bane. There was no justice in any of that (see the sentencing hearings).

The one part of the movie that I do take seriously is the failure of institutions. I kind of feel like that was the heart of the trilogy and that Batman himself had to be created to fill a gap. And the end of the movie really did seem to be about the strength of individuals over institutions.

That said, this is not a uniform message about institutions, it seems to me. Most of the cops showed a LOT of bravery in this film (say unlike the previous film where they were complicit in a lot of bad shit). Taken together, I almost feel like Nolan doesn't want the trilogy to say anything clear about politics except that institutions and individuals can be corrupted under the right circumstances, which is like a universal truth anyway.

Unrelated to anything happening here--I think it's a valid question in a TV show, with characters or worlds that have set up clear expectations to say "But why did they do that?"

But with a movie, when you ask "Why did they make the decision that's the movie's premise?" isn't it sometimes sufficient that that's why someone made a movie? If I'm the sort of person that freezes in a conflict and gets bitten by the zombie right away, no one is paying to see my apocalypse story. You're going to pay to see the one where someone did something *not* immediately normal, and escapes--or has luck that saves their lives--or something.

I mean, up to a point, the reason is "because that's the story I chose to film--if you need your story, you film it."

That isn't to explain away incomprehensible fiction, or even unlikely fiction that's framed badly--but the thing about unlikely is that someone does do it, otherwise we'd have called it impossible. And sometimes they do that too. Not every possibility is going to get a movie made out of it. We're not all stranger than fiction. Usually we're too boring for it. Or at least clumsily paced, and unevenly plotted.

If I'm the sort of person that freezes in a conflict and gets bitten by the zombie right away, no one is paying to see my apocalypse story.

What you are in that case is a bit character in a Stephen King novel. We'll get to know you just enough to wonder why we bothered wasting our time reading about you before you die and the plot moves on.

Mostly, though, we'll wonder why we had to read about you picking your nose before you died.

We're not all stranger than fiction. Usually we're too boring for it. Or at least clumsily paced, and unevenly plotted.

I'm stranger than fiction, but I'm clumsily paced and unevenly plotted. Right now I'm in a brief chapter that consists of "She spent some years resting from her adventures, doing simple work, eschewing love and amassing her fortune." Can't wait for the next chapter!

Oh, dear, I think I'm in the hard-working, long-suffering parts that would either be an Oscar-winning drama--probably with Sally Field being stoic and plucky and rural--or glossed over with a montage with noble, heart-stirring music. Maybe I'll get a glorious "As God is my witness, I'll never be hungry again!" moment.

I'm in the "She's waiting for something to shake her out of her rut" part of the movie, with a voiceover of me declaiming that 40 isn't "middle-aged," blah blah blah.

But I'd prefer this be a quirkyfun movie where "getting out of my rut" means something new and fun, not a trauma-laden movie where "getting out of my rut" is preceded by the loss of my dearest love. I'll keep him in my rut, thanks ever so.

I like ruts. They're comfortable.

Hmm, maybe I'll petition the Great Script Writer for one of those "Everyone thought they were a mild-mannered couple that just seemed to be getting by, but they had a dark secret that was about to be blown out into the open." Kind of like RED with spoiled cats.