will batman retire in the end?

[conan69]

About 2 comments made...

I dont think Rachel knows Bruce as well as Alfred does. Rachel says this herself in TDK.

And we dont when in TDKR Bruce will walk away from Batman before returning. The dialogue in the teaser makes me think Batman was already gone for awhile when Bane hits the city. "We were in this together (BB and TDK), then you were gone (Time elapsed since TDK and the beginning of TDKR). "

I think thats why Catwoman has come onto the scene. Batman was being hunted since the end of TDK and goes underground/basically retiring the persona. Time has passed and Catwoman appears trying to fill the void. So Im expecting TDKR to begin w/ batman having been gone for awhile.

All speculation of course.

[バット人]

Originally Posted by Nave 'Torment'

And he needs to redeem himself.

Redemption? Redeem himself from what?

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by conan69

About 2 comments made...

I dont think Rachel knows Bruce as well as Alfred does. Rachel says this herself in TDK.

No, she says "You know him better than anyone", which is a given. It also does not refute Rachel's belief that Bruce was not going to give up being Batman.

It's a point that's raised again with Joker's final lines to Batman "I think you and I are destined to do this forever", which heavily implicates they are locked on a life long battle as Batman and the Joker.

And we dont when in TDKR Bruce will walk away from Batman before returning. The dialogue in the teaser makes me think Batman was already gone for awhile when Bane hits the city. "We were in this together (BB and TDK), then you were gone (Time elapsed since TDK and the beginning of TDKR). "

But wouldn't that defeat the point of the TDK ending? Batman has to be what ever Gotham needs him to be. Batman can endure and take being hated because he can be the outcast etc. So why should he abandon Gotham after TDK?

I think thats why Catwoman has come onto the scene. Batman was being hunted since the end of TDK and goes underground/basically retiring the persona. Time has passed and Catwoman appears trying to fill the void. So Im expecting TDKR to begin w/ batman having been gone for awhile.

All speculation of course.

Well if the rumors we've heard about Selina Kyle are true, that is not the case at all.

[ggghhh]

Originally Posted by The Joker

But wouldn't that defeat the point of the TDK ending? Batman has to be what ever Gotham needs him to be. Batman can endure and take being hated because he can be the outcast etc. So why should he abandon Gotham after TDK?

He abandons Gordon, and the end of that relationship is obviosly symbolised at the end of TDK. This may be all Gordon is talking about in the teaser, but I also think Batman won't be around much as he used to.

My personal theory is Wayne is actually meant to be in the hands of the police when this conversation takes place, as when he visits Gordon he's supposedly wearing the same suit he was before and after John Blake drives him around. It could be the police questioning Wayne about Batman's identity that causes Bruce to question Batman's existance.

[バット人]

Originally Posted by ggghhh

He abandons Gordon, and the end of that relationship is obviosly symbolised at the end of TDK. This may be all Gordon is talking about in the teaser, but I also think Batman won't be around much as he used to.

So just like that the end montage and message of TDK will be scrapped? If it just gets swept under the rug for this "I can't be Batman anymore due to circumstances. . . again" then I think that's a lame move.

Originally Posted by ggghhh

My personal theory is Wayne is actually meant to be in the hands of the police when this conversation takes place, as when he visits Gordon he's supposedly wearing the same suit he was before and after John Blake drives him around.

Then why wear a mask while chatting with Gordon, assuming the hospital window photos are tied with Gordon from the teaser and Wayne is still wearing it in that scene.

[Doc Samson]

Originally Posted by Darkhunt

As I said, it struck me as odd at first. I've warmed up to it since. I think it's quite an epic title, actually.

I still think Rise of The Dark Knight just sounds better, but I have warmed up to it as well. I didn't really like Batman Begins either, but now, it wouldn't feel right called anything else

Originally Posted by バット人

Redemption? Redeem himself from what?

I kind of feel that way too, it's not like the public was in love with him before. There will always be an uneasiness with Batman, even in the comics, after all he's done.

[ggghhh]

Originally Posted by バット人

So just like that the end montage and message of TDK will be scrapped? If it just gets swept under the rug for this "I can't be Batman anymore due to circumstances. . . again" then I think that's a lame move.

Well maybe. Gotham simply might become good enough for Batman not to be needed, who knows. I'm going on the theory that this is set at least 5 years after TDK.

Originally Posted by バット人

Then why wear a mask while chatting with Gordon, assuming the hospital window photos are tied with Gordon from the teaser and Wayne is still wearing it in that scene.

He likes talking to Gordon in a mask. Why break the habit of a lifetime?

[バット人]

Originally Posted by ggghhh

Well maybe. Gotham simly might become good enough for Batman not to be needed, who knows. I'm going on the theory that this is set at least 5 years after TDK.




He likes talking to Gordon in a mask. Why break the habit of a lifetime?

So Gotham will be cured and will no longer need protection against criminal elements and the GCPD as well as the city will know that Bruce Wayne is Batman? Oh and Batman will either die or retire?


Can't say I agree or that I'd like to see that, but whatever.

[ggghhh]

Originally Posted by バット人

So Gotham will be cured and will no longer need protection against criminal elements and the GCPD as well as the city will know that Bruce Wayne is Batman? Oh and Batman will either die or retire?


Can't say I agree or that I'd like to see that, but whatever.

Well no, but it sounds like the GCPD will be unoccupied enough to set up a huge Batman-chasing unit. ( I don't think Batman's goal was to decimate the resources of the GCPD, despite how many cop cars he totalled. )
This is before Bane shows up of course, which will change everything.

[Nave 'Torment']

Originally Posted by バット人

Redemption? Redeem himself from what?

From the idea that Batman is a villain of course! It's a shady area, but I think that's the whole point of this film - he has fallen by the time TDK came to an end, the heroic 'batman', controversial as he was, was still doing good things (just inspiring evil in others). Now he has become an object of utmost fear and scorn. The people he swore to protect considers him as terrible as the Joker. He is deconstructed. The redemption would be from that.

Originally Posted by The Joker

But wouldn't that defeat the point of the TDK ending? Batman has to be what ever Gotham needs him to be. Batman can endure and take being hated because he can be the outcast etc. So why should he abandon Gotham after TDK?

Exactly, I think it was well established that Batman has become perennial in Gotham City. Gordon's musings in the teaser was probably regarding the idea that Batman, in essence, had been lost.

Originally Posted by Doc Samson

I kind of feel that way too, it's not like the public was in love with him before. There will always be an uneasiness with Batman, even in the comics, after all he's done.

Batman was regarded as someone who 'saved' Gotham City from the League of Shadows at the end of Batman Begins - he was the one who got rid of Falcone, etc. Only in TDK was he starting to become a problem, which culminated in the tragedy of Harvey Dent. And, then there's that shot of the cops gesticulating with victory, it seems like a redemption of Batman to me.

Though I might be mistaken, of course.

[Doc Samson]

Originally Posted by Nave 'Torment'

Batman was regarded as someone who 'saved' Gotham City from the League of Shadows at the end of Batman Begins - he was the one who got rid of Falcone, etc. Only in TDK was he starting to become a problem, which culminated in the tragedy of Harvey Dent. And, then there's that shot of the cops gesticulating with victory, it seems like a redemption of Batman to me.

Though I might be mistaken, of course.

True, but it was never, nor do I think it will ever be, a comfortable situation between Batman, law enforcement, and the citizens. If anything, I guess he was viewed at best as a enigmatic necessary evil.

But even Harvey Dent during his press conference in TDK alluded to the fact that at some point Batman should be made to answer for his actions, he just didn't want it to happen because of the Joker. And this was after he summoned Batman to find Lau, which basically helped to elevate his own status as DA.

[バット人]

Batman isn't a deputy of the law, I don't really care about the character's public relations to be honest.

I mean, we're getting into Batman and Robin/60s TV Batman territory when Batman becomes a "hero" to Gotham, a caped crusader. The more light you shine on Batman the more people seem to not be interested anymore (lets face it, most people seem to want the dark interpretations of the character, even if the others are good). This isn't Superman we're dealing with, it's Batman. Since when has Batman cared about what Gotham thought of him, other than being a symbol? It's bad enough that people realize now that this is a guy in a suit but at least let them believe that the man is dangerous and completely unhinged. That would keep the criminal element in fear and give Batman a much needed edge. As long as Batman, Alfred, Gordon and we, the viewing audience knows that Batman isn't the evil he is claimed to be by the other fictional characters, then so what?

I think that's actually a good thing that Gotham believes that Batman murdered Dent and the others. It puts him back into the position he had when he was originally a creature of the night. Why would Batman want to bask in glory as the "hero" or "savior" of Gotham? That seems very un-Batman like for the preferred interpretation of the character. He's a vigilante, first and foremost. So no matter what he does it'll never be looked on in a positive light.

The little involvement he has with Gotham's citizens the better, especially if he wanted to keep up appearances. Now if you guys have a problem with him being hunted by GCPD, I say look at Batman Begins. They had task forces devoted to capturing Batman, but couldn't. How is this any different than them chasing him now? Because there are claims of manslaughter on Batman's part? Please. At some point, the police are always after Batman be it because he's a vigilante (1989, Begins), whether they mistake him for Man-Bat or Phantasm (animated), he is interfering with someone's plans or because he "killed" someone (Returns, The Dark Knight). In all these versions Batman "takes" it, as Gordon says.


I don't see The Dark Knight as a low point in Batman's career, especially after Gordon's monologue. If you "redeem" Batman, then that's missing the point of the Dark Knight's ending and defecating all over it. He isn't a "hero" per se, he's a different kind. A dark hero, a Dark Knight. He does things that others can't do, which is why he's Batman. I mean really, it's all in there at the end. If you give the public, Gotham's citizens this big revelation, "redeem" the character then you literally go against that ending of him riding off into the night.

[Doc Samson]

Originally Posted by バット人

Batman isn't a deputy of the law, I don't really care about the character's public relations to be honest.

I mean, we're getting into Batman and Robin/60s TV Batman territory when Batman becomes a "hero" to Gotham, a caped crusader. The more light you shine on Batman the more people seem to not be interested anymore (lets face it, most people seem to want the dark interpretations of the character, even if the others are good). This isn't Superman we're dealing with, it's Batman. Since when has Batman cared about what Gotham thought of him, other than being a symbol? It's bad enough that people realize now that this is a guy in a suit but at least let them believe that the man is dangerous and completely unhinged. That would keep the criminal element in fear and give Batman a much needed edge. As long as Batman, Alfred, Gordon and we, the viewing audience knows that Batman isn't the evil he is claimed to be by the other fictional characters, then so what?

I think that's actually a good thing that Gotham believes that Batman murdered Dent and the others. It puts him back into the position he had when he was originally a creature of the night. Why would Batman want to bask in glory as the "hero" or "savior" of Gotham? That seems very un-Batman like for the preferred interpretation of the character. He's a vigilante, first and foremost. So no matter what he does it'll never be looked on in a positive light.

The little involvement he has with Gotham's citizens the better, especially if he wanted to keep up appearances. Now if you guys have a problem with him being hunted by GCPD, I say look at Batman Begins. They had task forces devoted to capturing Batman, but couldn't. How is this any different than them chasing him now? Because there are claims of manslaughter on Batman's part? Please. At some point, the police are always after Batman be it because he's a vigilante (1989, Begins), whether they mistake him for Man-Bat or Phantasm (animated), he is interfering with someone's plans or because he "killed" someone (Returns, The Dark Knight).


I don't see The Dark Knight as a low point in Batman's career, especially after Gordon's monologue. If you "redeem" Batman, then that's missing the point of the Dark Knight's ending and defecating all over it. He isn't a "hero" per se, he's a different kind. A dark hero, a Dark Knight. He does things that others can't do, which is why he's Batman. I mean really, it's all in there at the end. If you give the public, Gotham's citizens this big revelation, "redeem" the character then you literally go against that ending of him riding off into the night.

Absolutely! I can't picture any scenario where Gotham cheers on Batman like New York does Spidey, it just doesn't work like that, in particular this version who's chiefly concerned with getting the job done by any means necessary. He's supposed to be scary, mythical, a creature of the night. If TDK failed at anything, it was losing that very same element established in BB

[バット人]

Originally Posted by Doc Samson

If TDK failed at anything, it was losing that very same element established in BB

Yeah, and in literally only a year of Batman's appearance as far as canon/time spans go. Though by the end of TDK Batman, for lack of a better phrase, has his balls back, but people seem to want them taken away in TDKR?

I hope not.

[yogamble]

Then why wear a mask while chatting with Gordon, assuming the hospital window photos are tied with Gordon from the teaser and Wayne is still wearing it in that scene.[/QUOTE]



Did I miss something? Maybe I didn't analyse the the trailer enough but I don't remember seeing a mask on anybody when (presumably Wayne ) is talking with a injured Gordon in the hospital.

[DaveMoral]

Originally Posted by yogamble

Then why wear a mask while chatting with Gordon, assuming the hospital window photos are tied with Gordon from the teaser and Wayne is still wearing it in that scene.

Did I miss something? Maybe I didn't analyse the the trailer enough but I don't remember seeing a mask on anybody when (presumably Wayne ) is talking with a injured Gordon in the hospital.[/QUOTE]

There's a set photo of a man in a suit and a ski mask hopping out of a hospital window... two and two together, it's Wayne and when I watched the trailer closer after seeing that it did seem like the part of Bruce's head you can see on the far left side of the frame was covered most likely by said ski mask.

[yogamble]

Originally Posted by DaveMoral

Did I miss something? Maybe I didn't analyse the the trailer enough but I don't remember seeing a mask on anybody when (presumably Wayne ) is talking with a injured Gordon in the hospital.

There's a set photo of a man in a suit and a ski mask hopping out of a hospital window... two and two together, it's Wayne and when I watched the trailer closer after seeing that it did seem like the part of Bruce's head you can see on the far left side of the frame was covered most likely by said ski mask.[/QUOTE]






I remember that photo. Thanks for reminding me why I decided to start posting and asking questions. Ignorance is not always bliss.

[hulk24]

just a thought what if throughout the film bruce is trying to stop being batman gets injured slowely realises he can never stop being batman when ever he tries too someone dies/get hurt and at the end realises he will always need to be batman and gothams dark knight and the end is him being the batman we've been waiting for and helps the police only because they need him but go back to hunting him down and the end is him talking to gordon and the cops rush to the roof but are too late and the public sees the bat signal and cheers or something? i dunno one of my late night thoughts

[WiseBrook]

Really, to understand the arc of Nolan's trilogy, we must follow the story of the city, Gotham.

In BB, Gotham needs Batman, it knows no better and cannot begin to combat that magnitude of corruption. In TDK, Batman shakes the foundation of evil and shows Gotham it can take control of its fate, even if it means he must become a villain. In TDKR, I presume that Batman sees this momentum and either chooses to let Gotham proceed on its own or is forced to by his own mortality. But Bane will harness Gotham's energy and turn it against the powers that be allowing him ultimate control. Based on the overall direction of Batman lore, the Dark Knight will give the power back to Gotham and regain his status as its silent guardian, its watchful protector.

He will not die, and he will not retire. Batman and Gotham will achieve the homeostasis we all expect, and the beginning will be finished.

[Nave 'Torment']

Originally Posted by バット人

Batman isn't a deputy of the law, I don't really care about the character's public relations to be honest.

I mean, we're getting into Batman and Robin/60s TV Batman territory when Batman becomes a "hero" to Gotham, a caped crusader. [...]

I don't see The Dark Knight as a low point in Batman's career, especially after Gordon's monologue. If you "redeem" Batman, then that's missing the point of the Dark Knight's ending and defecating all over it. He isn't a "hero" per se, he's a different kind. A dark hero, a Dark Knight. He does things that others can't do, which is why he's Batman. I mean really, it's all in there at the end. If you give the public, Gotham's citizens this big revelation, "redeem" the character then you literally go against that ending of him riding off into the night.

Not necessarily - the point of Batman is that he is always acting outside of the law, but to see him as a hero does not immediately make him a deputy of the law. Nor does it, in fact, enter into Adam West territory. You have to take note of one very important point of TDK's ending: It is Batman "breaking his one rule", at the very least in the eyes of the people. He has always sought to inspire people, he was always the order in Gotham City, that is what I mean by a hero. TDK is the lowest you get in Batman's career as a crime-fighter, it's when all his convictions are rattled, but he still gives us hope by changing the rules altogether - he learns that he isn't a hero but he has to be something more. Of course, from a comic-book POV, this immediately makes him out to be a 'superhero' instead. Batman takes the fall for Harvey in order to save Gotham. It's a sacrifice he has to make. And he also realises that there can never stop being Batman because that's who he is. That's the whole point of him becoming a "Dark Knight" so to speak - the symbolic demise of the Batman and his transformation as a Dark Knight of Gotham City (which, to us, is of course even more prevalent of Batman).

The redemption in TDKR would be in the same way as it was in DK:R. Remember that even if Gotham City disliked Batman's existence, they always agreed with his vision of justice, and this is more concretely true with the rise of the supervillains like the Joker. By the end of TDK, other than himself and Gordon, that justice is no longer accepted. The symbol is shattered.

You need to redeem at least that. But somehow, I know that isn't possible. The Dark Knight has cannot go back and be the saviour of Gotham again, he has to be his own model of hero and escape the same cycle that Ra's Al Ghul faced in BB (whose own ideals of justice had become too impotent, too old, too volatile and dangerous. And Bruce stopped him. He's facing the same thing this time around - with Bane taking his original role, that's the way i see it).

Originally Posted by Doc Samson

Absolutely! I can't picture any scenario where Gotham cheers on Batman like New York does Spidey, it just doesn't work like that, in particular this version who's chiefly concerned with getting the job done by any means necessary. He's supposed to be scary, mythical, a creature of the night. If TDK failed at anything, it was losing that very same element established in BB

I got a lot of vibe about that "mythical" aspect from the teaser poster itself. It's like the thesis/anti-thesis/synthesis structure which is true of all classical heroes (tragic and otherwise, they called it the birth-death-rebirth): We have Batman's origin, his deconstruction, and finally what you get once you have deconstructed all of it: a still greater, archetypal symbol that naturally forms out of that deconstruction, and is therefore inescapable. That sense of "redemption" needs to be established in TDKR. Not a literal "oh it was really Two-Face you see," or "yay for Bats!" Never suggested that.

Originally Posted by WiseBrook

Really, to understand the arc of Nolan's trilogy, we must follow the story of the city, Gotham.

In BB, Gotham needs Batman, it knows no better and cannot begin to combat that magnitude of corruption. In TDK, Batman shakes the foundation of evil and shows Gotham it can take control of its fate, even if it means he must become a villain. In TDKR, I presume that Batman sees this momentum and either chooses to let Gotham proceed on its own or is forced to by his own mortality. But Bane will harness Gotham's energy and turn it against the powers that be allowing him ultimate control. Based on the overall direction of Batman lore, the Dark Knight will give the power back to Gotham and regain his status as its silent guardian, its watchful protector.

He will not die, and he will not retire. Batman and Gotham will achieve the homeostasis we all expect, and the beginning will be finished.

Agreed! That's the whole point of these films - that homeostasis. One is directly linked with the other.

I get a lot of vibe from Miller's DK:R - it tackled these very themes back then. I'm sure Nolan's team is adapting that in some capacity.

[arnold friend]

Here is my two cents. The film can end any number of ways but I don't think Bruce will retire Batman as long as he is alive. I'm leaning toward one of two possiblities.

1.) Christopher Nolan either had it written in his contract before agreeing to do this third film that no one can continue the story as he has established it. If this is the case, then Nolan will probably (and arguably should) leave batman alive and simply complete the story of how batman began.

but...

2.) As I read this thread, and the whole 'will batman die or retire or live to fight on as gotham's protector' debate, I keep coming back to the line in Batman begins when Liam Neeson is revealed as Ra's. 'But is Ra's al Ghul immortal? Are his methods supernatural?' This is Nolan's way of explaining Ra's al Ghul's immortality in a reality based world. The idea that Ra's al Ghul is not merely one man, but a symbol. Generations pass and different men carry the title through the ages. This is the same mentality Bruce adopts regarding Batman in these films. He wants to be a symbol, a beacon of hope for Gotham. I know a lot of people don't like the idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if Bruce dies and we see someone else pick up the mantle. Someone inspired by Bruce's example who may come to know his secret identity. Continuing the legend of Batman and making him immortal in a sense. Perhaps a certain enthusiastic rookie cop?

Don't tear my head off guys just speculating...

[DaveMoral]

If Bruce were so concerned about being a symbol akin to Ra's al-Ghul and Batman being a mantle to be passed on from person to person... I would think he'd be interested in actually grooming a successor. Without Grayson, I don't see that happening.

[Doc Samson]

Originally Posted by Nave 'Torment'

The redemption in TDKR would be in the same way as it was in DK:R. Remember that even if Gotham City disliked Batman's existence, they always agreed with his vision of justice, and this is more concretely true with the rise of the supervillains like the Joker. By the end of TDK, other than himself and Gordon, that justice is no longer accepted. The symbol is shattered.

I agree with alot of what you said, except in regards to the Joker. He's seen by the public as not only the reason for such a villain to exist, but also culpable in multiple murders for not unmasking.

It was that pressure that had him ready to quit, and it never really relented because nobody knows except Gordon that he didn't start a murder spree of his own. Judging by the Gotham Tonight extras, the public seemed split down the middle in terms of vigilante justice, and it only got worse throughout TDK

Originally Posted by DaveMoral

If Bruce were so concerned about being a symbol akin to Ra's al-Ghul and Batman being a mantle to be passed on from person to person... I would think he'd be interested in actually grooming a successor. Without Grayson, I don't see that happening.

Maybe, but in this interpretation, a hands off approach is probably the only one that would make sense. It would be out of character for this Bruce to train a child, or even a teenager. But there could be another LOS member who becomes disenchanted with their belief system.

Who knows, even Bane himself in the comics has fought alongside Batman multiple times and toed the line of hero/villain just as much, if not more, than Catwoman.

[conan69]

Originally Posted by The Joker

No, she says "You know him better than anyone", which is a given. It also does not refute Rachel's belief that Bruce was not going to give up being Batman.

It's a point that's raised again with Joker's final lines to Batman "I think you and I are destined to do this forever", which heavily implicates they are locked on a life long battle as Batman and the Joker.

Agree with all that completely. I just disagree with the notion that Rachel knows Bruce better than Alfred. Alfred has always been his closest friend.

But wouldn't that defeat the point of the TDK ending? Batman has to be what ever Gotham needs him to be. Batman can endure and take being hated because he can be the outcast etc. So why should he abandon Gotham after TDK?

No because Batman has still taken the blame for something he didnt do for the good of the city. The hunt for him eventually drives him underground and his appearances eventually become more infrequent until he disappears completely.

Hes not required to make appearances to "keep the blame on him". . Everyone thinks he did it. Hes taken on the burden regardless. In the eyes of the city it may even make him look more guilty since his name has never been cleared hes gone into hiding.

Actually I dont think it makes the end of TDK pointless but drives home the point, and it is common for the middle part of mythology for heroes to face the abyss, go somewhere to rebuild themselves before "rising" to the final challenge and triumphing.


We dont know if Batman will disappear in the beginning or middle of the film. Im guessing beginning. That he'll have been forced into hiding/retiring because of the hunt for him. If it is the middle then TDKR might have to cover a lengthy period of time for Batman to suffer a bad enough injury to force him out of action, then recover from the injury, and return. Ive had minor injuries keep me out of the gym for months. A friend who slipped a disc in his back has never really recovered from it. He can exercise, but not like he used to. This is Bane were talking about here. It could take some time to recover from a back, spine, leg or neck injury.

Plus there are Gordons comments. "......and then you were gone. Now this evil rises". It makes me think we're talking about a decent amount of time passing that Gordon felt he was abondoned and left to crusade alone.

[Spoiler]

Bruce does get injured and his identity revealed in the first third of the film; it's as Bruce AND Batman they he reclaims the city, doing something his father always dreamed, becoming a symbol as both man and superhero. It's this closure that enables him to retire with Selina. And he does, passing on the torch to....Red Herring.

Mark this post because when the film comes out I want an Edible Arrangement as an apology for the doubting/hating that's sure to come.