will batman retire in the end?

[dark_b]

Originally Posted by batbax

Dude chill out. So me questioning a random poster knowing the ending means I think nolans god? Give it a rest.

i didnt mean you batbax. i am sorry. in thisthread you didnt attack.

but there are some SHH members that act like Nolan fanatics

[Blue Sugar]

I'm a proud Nolan fanatic.

[Rodrigo90]

I KNEW IT!!!! I KNEW THIS WAS GOING TO BE THE END AND PEOPLE CONVINCED ME I WAS WRONG AND CRAZY HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A few times I've been right and people said I'm wrong

[Nevincer]

Yup, it's the end alright Hate to say I told you so...

[Rodrigo90]

[Nave 'Torment']

Yeah.... Batman's going down in teh end isn't he? 8 Years Later... damn it Nolan you pulled another one out of the hat!

[DaveMoral]

I proudly eat my hat. And I believe I said the only way I could envision Batman's retirement(which is what I hope it is, dying doesn't feel right to me) was with a significant time skip. Well, 8 years. That's good enough for me. It puts him at average retirement age for professional fighter. And that's probably the closest thing we can get to knowing what it would be like as per Becoming Batman.

It works for me. It gives us the finality that we are talking about and Nolan clearly wants badly, without seeming hokey AND it leaves plenty of room for that legendary career of crime fighting. Plenty of freaks, and a couple more bouts with the Joker. I actually hope there is a trophy collection in the Batcave.... but in the background as "Easter Eggs" without dwelling on it at all.

[Nevincer]

Well, the problem that comes with a simple retirement at the conclusion of the story is that we already know at some point in the film "[Batman] doesn't exist anymore." This means that before the end of the movie he's already retired in some capacity, whether self-imposed or otherwise, and in all likelihood something in the plot forces "[Batman] to come back."

I don't think once he's dealt with Bane he would simply hang up the cape and cowl and call it a day, he still needs to learn something about himself at the end of the film and come to a non-selfish resolution that can keep Gotham on it's toes whilst at the same time bring peace to the character of Bruce Wayne.

I'm not saying he has to sacrifice himself for Gotham, or that he has to feign a sacrifice (as Bosef has been implicating) but there has to be more to it than simply retiring again. Something at the climax of the film has to transform both Gotham and Batman so that the incident that forced Batman out of retirement in film doesn't happen ad infinitum. Bosef suggested in the other thread that Gotham itself is more or less burnt to the ground once Bane is done with it, I could see this being a possibility which would allow for Batman to go into exile whilst the city and community itself rebuilds brick for brick.

[DaveMoral]

Bosef's stuff about the faces and Gotham needing a hero with a face got me to thinking... maybe he doesn't retire Batman in the strictest sense, and maybe his identity really isn't revealed to the public at large. But there's no reason Gotham can't have the "hero with a face" that it needs in Bruce Wayne himself. No longer millionaire playboy... but millionaire(billionaire?) philanthropist. That's a very important aspect of his character that, if just getting introduced at at the TDK +8 years mark, has been neglected up to this point. It's what made him more a part of the improvement of Gotham in the comics in addition to being Batman. As Batman all he can do is fight the symptoms of the disease, but as Bruce Wayne - Philanthropist he can work to cure the illness. To me that's a crucial element of the character.

He's going to be, no doubt, physically and emotionally drained as a Batman sans Bat-family would be. Of that I'm sure. In comics he's got this extended family that rejuvenates him from time to time, and calls him on his obsession and how much he ends up abusing himself when necessary. Heck, Dick's been his sub twice now. That gives comic Batman a chance to take a "vacation" that this Batman simply cannot. Though, so long as we are going with teh realizms, I don't think he'd be out on patrol every single night. Still, think of the wear and tear a professional athlete faces by the age of 40... and then magnify that by whatever you deem appropriate. I'm not sure he'd be able to take it much longer physically, even if he's in it emotionally.

[sad lieutenant]

Originally Posted by bosef982

Yes, and no. Thematically, yes- it does. But, it allows Bruce to have a well-deserved ending and peace.

Agreed! I know I've been in the "he dies" camp, but this ending satisfies the dramatic / thematic needs of the "epic conclusion" -- without alienating moviegoers.

[Doc Samson]

Originally Posted by DaveMoral

Bosef's stuff about the faces and Gotham needing a hero with a face got me to thinking... maybe he doesn't retire Batman in the strictest sense, and maybe his identity really isn't revealed to the public at large. But there's no reason Gotham can't have the "hero with a face" that it needs in Bruce Wayne himself. No longer millionaire playboy... but millionaire(billionaire?) philanthropist. That's a very important aspect of his character that, if just getting introduced at at the TDK +8 years mark, has been neglected up to this point. It's what made him more a part of the improvement of Gotham in the comics in addition to being Batman. As Batman all he can do is fight the symptoms of the disease, but as Bruce Wayne - Philanthropist he can work to cure the illness. To me that's a crucial element of the character.

This is basically what I've been meaning when I say semi-retirement. He still keeps the ability to be Batman if the situation called for it, but at the same time, publicly, Bruce Wayne needs to become more than just a bumbling idiot.

His father's legacy meant something, not just to him obviously, but the whole city. In just BB, he destroyed the name by acting out at his party, got the Manor burned down, then destroyed his father's train. Yes, it was all to save the day, but in the public eye, this guy is a complete joke and I think it's time for him to realize how much he can affect change as himself, without the mask, and carry on his family name with dignity and respect.

[DACrowe]

Just a thought for all those who say Batman will either die or retire at the end....

It's called The Dark Knight RISES. That title conjures images of overcoming great struggle, rising from the ashes to meet a challenge, it can even be taken biblically.

Now think of the last two Nolan Batman films and Inception, for that matter. How do they all end? The final shot is meant to conjure up a strong emotion and then BAM, there's the title of the movie which we didn't even see at the beginning of the film.

Batman Begins: "And you'll never have to." Batman jumps off the building of the GCPD as Gordon smirks to himself. Batman flies towards the earth and hurdles to the camera, boom!--BATMAN BEGINS.

The Dark Knight: "Because he's more than a hero. He's a watchful protector, a silent guardian, a dark knight." And as Batman on his batpod flies up a ramp into a light, boom!--THE DARK KNIGHT.

Inception: Cobb goes to greet his kids as the music rises to joyful strings. And then the camera pulls back and the music cuts to almost silent suspense as the spinny object still spins, it begins to hobble but it isn't going over and as the audience starts to all think to themselves "I think it's a dream...." boom! You just got INCEPTION-ed.

So, it's safe to assume that we'll only see the title, THE DARK KNIGHT RISES at the end of the movie when the credits begin. The final image has to be something that evokes that title so that when you see the credits you go, for all intensive purposes, "woah." That means Batman has risen to the challenge of Bane and is here for Gotham. Not Batman is dead or retiring to go boating with Selina.

My guess.

[Doc Samson]

Originally Posted by DACrowe

Just a thought for all those who say Batman will either die or retire at the end....

It's called The Dark Knight RISES. That title conjures images of overcoming great struggle, rising from the ashes to meet a challenge, it can even be taken biblically.

Now think of the last two Nolan Batman films and Inception, for that matter. How do they all end? The final shot is meant to conjure up a strong emotion and then BAM, there's the title of the movie which we didn't even see at the beginning of the film.

Batman Begins: "And you'll never have to." Batman jumps off the building of the GCPD as Gordon smirks to himself. Batman flies towards the earth and hurdles to the camera, boom!--BATMAN BEGINS.

The Dark Knight: "Because he's more than a hero. He's a watchful protector, a silent guardian, a dark knight." And as Batman on his batpod flies up a ramp into a light, boom!--THE DARK KNIGHT.

Inception: Cobb goes to greet his kids as the music rises to joyful strings. And then the camera pulls back and the music cuts to almost silent suspense as the spinny object still spins, it begins to hobble but it isn't going over and as the audience starts to all think to themselves "I think it's a dream...." boom! You just got INCEPTION-ed.

So, it's safe to assume that we'll only see the title, THE DARK KNIGHT RISES at the end of the movie when the credits begin. The final image has to be something that evokes that title so that when you see the credits you go, for all intensive purposes, "woah." That means Batman has risen to the challenge of Bane and is here for Gotham. Not Batman is dead or retiring to go boating with Selina.

My guess.

Maybe, but rises could have all types of meanings. The Dark Knight, before we saw the movie, didn't mean what we thought it did. We didn't know that, literally, he would become Gotham's Dark Knight by covering up for the White Knight.

As you said, even in the biblical sense, we could surmise he really does die, and the "rises" relates to his legend, & his soul. In death becoming something more than just human, but a whole mythological circumstance. Even the trailer has the Bat symbol illustrated by the sky, the camera rising to it, finally revealing a white screen (the white light of death) with a decidedly melancholy tone.

We can easily draw distinctions in all sorts of directions, which is what makes this thing so unbearably far away right now, but your right, it could imply just about whatever we can think of at this juncture

[AnneFan]

I have always said I'd be fine with a death faking, but not a true death - where he's lying on a slab and that's it. Bruce learning to deal with his pain and shacking up with Selina would be fine with me. For the time being at least, the last we see of them. He could always snap one day in the future while watching the violence dominated news, and throw the cape and cowl back on ala TDK Returns. But for the time being, as bosef982 says, it'd give Bruce a well deserved rest, especially now if it's going to be eight years of hell.

[Caped Crusader]

Originally Posted by DACrowe

So, it's safe to assume that we'll only see the title, THE DARK KNIGHT RISES at the end of the movie when the credits begin. The final image has to be something that evokes that title so that when you see the credits you go, for all intensive purposes, "woah." That means Batman has risen to the challenge of Bane and is here for Gotham. Not Batman is dead or retiring to go boating with Selina.

My guess.

This is exactly how I feel as well.

Bruce Wayne:"People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy, and I can't do that as Bruce Wayne. As a man, I'm flesh and blood. I can be ignored, I can be destroyed. But as a symbol … as a symbol, I can be incorruptible. I can be everlasting."

[Doc Phosphorus]

I always imagined that the final image of the series would be the sun rising on Gotham City.

[Van Petrol]

With all the rumours and theories going around regarding the ending, I'm getting an image of a mix between the Gladiator ending (i.e. Bruce Batman dying/faking his death) and The Shawshank Redemption ending (i.e Bruce finding peace and a life away from Gotham with Selina meeting him there eventually).

One thing doesn't sit quite right with me though. I just can't picture a Gotham without Bruce or Batman in it at all. More so Bruce Wayne in this case, as I can understand the need/requirement for Batman to disappear in the end.

[Van Petrol]

Originally Posted by Doc Phosphorus

I always imagined that the final image of the series would be the sun rising on Gotham City.

With John Blake sitting atop a building as the city's new protector.

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

[DC2739]

Originally Posted by Van Petrol

With all the rumours and theories going around regarding the ending, I'm getting an image of a mix between the Gladiator ending (i.e. Bruce Batman dying/faking his death) and The Shawshank Redemption ending (i.e Bruce finding peace and a life away from Gotham with Selina meeting him there eventually).

One thing doesn't sit quite right with me though. I just can't picture a Gotham without Bruce or Batman in it at all. More so Bruce Wayne in this case, as I can understand the need/requirement for Batman to disappear in the end.

Nolan unintentionally left himself a way to do that. In BB on the plane back to Gotham, Alfred asks Bruce, "Are you coming back to Gotham for long, sir?" to which Bruce replies "As long as it takes..."

It could happen...

[Van Petrol]

^ Yeah, that could be seen a slight tie-in/throwback to the possible overall conclusion.

[fire_rising]

When Bruce explained his reasoning for becoming Batman in BB, it was that he could inspire society and be "everlasting". But this doesn't mean he will be the one who carries the cowl all the way. Of course we have John Blake, Gotham PD's "fresh off the academy" prodigy, whose assignment during TDKR is to basically find out what this Batman is all about.

Imagine Blake witnessing Batman dying, possibly bleeding on the side of a wall after defeating Bane. He is tempted to call in the cops to clear the scene. Bane, while heavily injured and restrained, must be taken to Arkham immediately. Batman needs serious medical attention, but his wounds are far too severe and he will most likely die on the way to Gotham General. In a way, it is quite poetic. Blake, determined to find Batman, has finally found the caped crusader, though not in the way he expected.

And so begins the influence Bruce so longed for in his early years. Blake, convincing Gordon that his mission has failed, quits Gotham PD and decides to "go on a vacation".

[ggghhh]

Originally Posted by Van Petrol

With John Blake sitting atop a building as the city's new protector.

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

It's been rumoured a lot... I think it'll happen.
There could be a twist on it like his birth name actually turning out to be Dick Grayson, or even 'Robin Blake'.

[Bim]

I guess i'm gonna have to see how the ending works, because what's been said in the last couple of pages... i'm not digging .

So if Spoiler and bosef are correct indeed, i just hope the execution of the idea is much better than what i'm picturing and i do feel some satisfaction and closure when the credits start rolling.

[Nevincer]

Originally Posted by DACrowe

So, it's safe to assume that we'll only see the title, THE DARK KNIGHT RISES at the end of the movie when the credits begin. The final image has to be something that evokes that title so that when you see the credits you go, for all intensive purposes, "woah." That means Batman has risen to the challenge of Bane and is here for Gotham. Not Batman is dead or retiring to go boating with Selina.

My guess.

Not neccessarily. As Doc Samson pointed out, Nolan's titles aren't always as they seem. The typical thing to think upon first glance at the title is that 'Rises' implies some sort of redemption for Batman after how the last film ended, and I don't think it takes a genius to immediately think of a Burton-esque ending where Batman accepts his role and rises as an eternal crusader. Even the general audience probably suspect that's what the title means.

However, therein lies the trick. To summarise the quote from Nolan's film The Prestige, "The first part is called "The Pledge". The magician shows you something ordinary, but of course... it probably isn't." Redemption is a common theme in films and especially sequels, no doubt it's easy to create a stylish title to evoke such a simple theme, but Nolan went with a very unorthodox one and decided a title that left many people, fans and non-fans included, scratching their heads... "The Dark Knight Rises? Uhh..?"

It didn't seem to be too ambiguous a title, but it doesn't necessarily hit you over the head at what the climax will involve either like fan favourites "The Caped Crusader" or "The Batman", where the assumption was at first that Batman would complete a "year one" cycle at the end of this trilogy. No one expected it to be eight years later, on the other hand...

I think the thing is here that Nolan is too smart to give the film a title that would set them up to think the Dark Knight retires or dies in the film, should he have chosen that ending. He knows his viewers remember how Batman Begins and The Dark Knight ended so elegantly with the final sequence of the film hearkening back to that. Nolan is so excited about this "conclusion" to his franchise, he's not going to stick so obviously to that formula in a way that we'll all pick up what it is just because it's hinted in the title...

It's almost gullible IMO to think that all "Rises" means is Batman coming out of retirement and saving the day from Bane... it's gonna be symbolic, something that will make sense only after we've seen the film just like the ones that came before.

[DACrowe]

I don't think Batman Begins or The Dark Knight had titles that only made sense once you've seen the film. You may know the details of how Batman begins or what chivalrous act he does to become a Knight, but the expectation is met in both films. I suspect it will be the same with the third movie.