Plenty of posters have already covered Bob's misunderstanding about Wayne's first attempt to rise as apposed to his his actual rise. I do not believe that it was a mistep and in fact it's pretty typical story structure. The entire trilogy has been about 'learning to be Batman' vs 'learning to be Wayne' in various ways. His faux return was clearly that.
Anyway, in regard to the revelation of Talia and how that relates to Bane at the end, I do not think it diminishes Bane as a character at all. In fact, I felt an overwhelming sympathy for the man, and in reference to Gul's reported comment that Bane was 'just a monster', I felt that sympathy more so. Talia thus lost any sympathy she may have had with me, as despite her love for the man, in other ways she manipulates him. Bane's tears, and that he decided to go against Talia's order to keep Wayne alive for the bomb, and kill Wayne instead (perhaps for besting Bane, or for jealousy), entirely sold it for me.
Finally, sticklers for the 'Show it don't tell it' rule are misunderstanding the maxim, especially if they also praise a lack of rules in storytelling as a virtue. Like the 'Rule of Thirds' in visual art, or the countless others in other mediums, these rules are seldom designed by the artists themselves but the viewers, critics and teachers observing and making sense of the art. They are DESCRIPTIVE theories, not PRESCRIPTIVE ones.
To apply them so absolutely and contrary to that is to deny a very important point about creation: SOMETIMES THINGS WORK DESPITE FOR ALL THE WORLD APPEARING LIKE THEY SHOULDN'T.
We must be careful not to pick apart a work at the level of these rules to critique so mercilessly and yet disregard the whole. Instead we should analyse the work as the sum of its parts, ie that Nolan while using dialogue heavily to convey characterisation and plot, makes some attempt at balance with the subtlety he DOESN'T telegraph, and it is his attention to detail and methodical pursuit of that which evens out the mix. In this way, his tendency to 'tell' isn't detrimental to the story and experience, and really it's his 'creative quirk'. If it had been approached any other way, it would not be the same work.
Artists break rules all the time, and at the level of those rules, such a thing appears a misstep. But the work itself is NOT only viewed at that level, and while dissection is a very interesting thing to do, ultimately, good critics step back and admit that the forest and not the trees is why we enjoy art in the first place. Yet the opposite is all I see Online. It's as if the Net based critical public no longer want to enjoy these stories, or that by finding the supposed holes and trip ups made by the artists, the critic somehow self validates.
It amounts to so much venom and rage, and I'm not talking about this thread. Seldom do we use the connectivity of the Online space to share our varying ideas on art in a non adversarial manner. Movies are never 'not as good as expected'; they are invariably 'overrated', and the inference by the speaker is clear. That 'Nolanite' has become a term applied so regularly in debate on this film is a telling sign. So kudos to you Bob for your cogent article, and I enjoy all of them which you write and voice. We just happen to disagree on finer points, but I certainly understand why you made yours.
