[SPOILERS] Plot Holes

The 2012 superhero epic about Batman's struggle to overcome the terrorist leader Bane, as well as his own inner demons.
Posts: 173
Joined: February 2011
Location: Antarctica
If anyone has any plot holes they would like to share and discuss than this is the place to do so.
plot holes:
After Bruce's self imposed exile he shaves and seems to be in and is physically and mentally back to old Bruce all from Bruce's pep talk and Alfred's whining.
After Bruce and Miranda sleep together, Bruce decides to go into the bat gave and suit up. He is muscly and can walk perfectly
Bruce repairing his leg (which had been injured for eight years) in a matter of days with some sort of brace
Bruce's back being healed so quickly. One scene he was hanging from the rope to straighten his back ( which I won't even go into the impossibility of) and the next scene he is doing pushups and situps with his back perfectly straight.
Also once he escapes from this prison which we has no guards and he manages to come back to Gotham without any money in a matter of a few days with brand new clothes meeting Ms.Kyle.
After Talia stabs Bruce pretty damn well and he is screaming in pain he is fine after Catwoman saves him from Bane
Once this nuclear bomb is armed Bruce attaches it to the Bat and flies it to the sea where he let's it detonate. If this is a regular Nuclear bomb then wouldn't Gotham be covered with radiation and or completely destroyed since the bomb had the ability to blow the whole of Gotham into ashes.
Also if Bruce really is alive then how could he escape the Bat before the bomb explodes
Also do you think Nolan was going for the ambigous ending once again?
If anyone could rebut these plot holes than please do so (I really tried to like TDKR) :goNF:

Posts: 7
Joined: August 2010
There were too many... which made me really really disappointing..
The Main thing is.. time problem..
When Bane ruins and runs out of the Gotham Stock Exchange, It is day time.
But It turns night when Cops chasing him and Batman finally appears.
There are also a lot of holes with time changing..

To correct some of your statments..

But it's been five months in movie when Bruce got locked up in Pitt. So there would have been some time to recover his back.
The ending is never 'ambigiuous'. Gordon finds the Bat symbol fixed, Fox confirms The Bat's Automatical Navigation System is patched by Bruce.

Posts: 34
Joined: May 2011
Most of the "plot holes" you mentioned aren't really plot holes... You are not allowing for the passage of time in some of the examples you have given.

Posts: 335
Joined: August 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
I understand the explanation given in the film, but this particular scene will definitely be picked apart by established opponents of Christopher Nolan:
GCPD letting Bane on a motorbike drive right past them.

Posts: 554
Joined: June 2010
:facepalm: there's a difference between a plot hole and you just being stupid.

Posts: 4533
Joined: June 2011
Location: Lost Angeles
JONATHAN3D wrote:I understand the explanation given in the film, but this particular scene will definitely be picked apart by established opponents of Christopher Nolan:
GCPD letting Bane on a motorbike drive right past them.
They didn't care about Bane at that point. The main focus was on getting Batman after 8 years of being gone.

Posts: 554
Joined: June 2010
JONATHAN3D wrote:I understand the explanation given in the film, but this particular scene will definitely be picked apart by established opponents of Christopher Nolan:
GCPD letting Bane on a motorbike drive right past them.
It goes back to both Bruce and the police underestimating the Joker at the beginning of TDK. Both mistakes come back to cost them dearly.

Posts: 4041
Joined: April 2010
About your last plothole:
About the bomb. Its not a regular nuclear bomb, its a neutron bomb - it has very low fallout.
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-is ... n-bomb.htm
The idea of the neutron warhead has been hotly debated since its inception. At the time of its
introduction, some felt that its relatively small initial blast and fallout was ideal for use in densely populated areas, like Europe. Other proponents argued that deployment of the neutron warhead could be used as a bargaining chip against the Soviet SS-20 missile which was viewed as a threat to NATO forces in Europe. Opponents of the weapon argued that the neutron bomb made the idea of using nuclear weapons in war more conceivable. Because the neutron bomb would devastate the whole of a target, military planners might not be as hesitant to use the neutron bomb as they would a standard fission bomb.

Posts: 18850
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
Months pass in between many of those mentioned events.
-Vader

Posts: 76
Joined: April 2012
Jonas Agersø wrote:About your last plothole:
About the bomb. Its not a regular nuclear bomb, its a neutron bomb - it has very low fallout.
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-is ... n-bomb.htm
The idea of the neutron warhead has been hotly debated since its inception. At the time of its
introduction, some felt that its relatively small initial blast and fallout was ideal for use in densely populated areas, like Europe. Other proponents argued that deployment of the neutron warhead could be used as a bargaining chip against the Soviet SS-20 missile which was viewed as a threat to NATO forces in Europe. Opponents of the weapon argued that the neutron bomb made the idea of using nuclear weapons in war more conceivable. Because the neutron bomb would devastate the whole of a target, military planners might not be as hesitant to use the neutron bomb as they would a standard fission bomb.

I thought I heard the mention of neutron bomb... And if it is exploded underwater.. it's lessen the impacts even more so. (Except I wouldn't eat the fishes)

Post Reply