The Dark Knight Rises As for the end of the third (and maybe the last) movie...

[Cunning Stunts]

Batman is not an conventional hero that sacrifices his life, He is an anti-hero.

I don't think being an anti-hero means you aren't willing to give your life fighting for what you believe in/love, ESPECIALLY if it means that your death will bring about the downfall of the enemy.

As a hypothetical question, well sure, he would - but what a lousy bummer of a movie. Why put him in the position in the first place, unless it's to show him, miraculously, somehow doing both? He is a fictional character, after all. I mean, they could have killed James Bond back in 1962, I suppose. Anybody clamoring for that movie?

Bond has one advantage- he uses lethal, sometimes distant means of taking out his enemies. He's also a trained government agent that almost always has help from other people, as well as the added bonus of having little-to-no boundaries. Plus, that's an ongoing movie series that's done in a completely different fashion from this series of movies. We're talking about what could be called, comparitively to the Bond films, a mini-series.

 

[wayneson]

And the problem with that would be....?

I don't get the constant focus on continuity. It's not like people are going to watch ALL of the previous Batman movies before seeing a new one. At best, they might remember some of the actors (good luck to the next guy tackling Joker) but people who go, "Hey the Joker killed the Waynes this is wrong!" is a small minority.

As long as each movie is strong on its own, continuity shouldn't be a big factor. I didn't mind that SR had some murky continuity within the movie Superman mythos, it's just that it wasn't a strong film to me.


His actions at the end of TDK seem to make him more heroic than any "hero" we've gotten on celluloid in recent memory.

I mean, it's one thing to sacrifice your life as long as you are remembered as a hero. It's another to sacrifice your own image as a good guy.


That reminds me of the problems people had with Batman somehow not being able to save both Harvey Dent AND Gordon's son.

He's human, he can't do everything. And it would have precedence with the tone that they're going for. Dent says, "The Batman doesn't want to do this forever, how could he?" He could be referring to the added stress of being Batman, or Batman's increased mortality.

The ending of TDK and the hypothetical scenario I was responding to don't match up - Dent is not an innocent, so it's a clear-cut choice for Bruce to make - if he has to choose - at that point. As for continuity, it's only important within a particular series; in Nolan's world, Rachel and Dent are dead forever.

 

[SheldonLevene]

The thing is though, realistically, people tend not to survive very long getting into battle the way he does (armor or not). If they do, they either live REAL long, or go out in a blaze of glory. The way he's tossed himself into the immense danger that he has usually yields pretty bad results, armor or not. Personally, I see the latter being a much more poetic, heroic, and epic ending to Nolan's series.

This may be true for people, but Bruce Wayne is Batman. He just isn't your typical person. He is smarter, stronger, and tougher as has been proven by his taking the fall for Dent. He is confident he can survive the onslaught. It just wouldn't be very true to the character to have him die within 3 years on the scene, or 4 or 5 for that matter. If people go to war and serve repeat deployments and survive I would think Batman could fight crime for more than a few years without dying.

 

[Cunning Stunts]

This may be true for people, but Bruce Wayne is Batman. He just isn't your typical person. He is smarter, stronger, and tougher as has been proven by his taking the fall for Dent. He is confident he can survive the onslaught. It just wouldn't be very true to the character to have him die within 3 years on the scene, or 4 or 5 for that matter. If people go to war and serve repeat deployments and survive I would think Batman could fight crime for more than a few years without dying.

Batman is by himself vs. an army. The military is its own mass of weapons, technologies, and armors vs. another army. He's still human, and it subject to human risks, really.

 

[KalMart]

Having Batman die would be a narrative copout, essentially....reaching for an easy heavy-drama device. The idea of the character is really not fatalistic at all, and there's no reason why you couldn't end a series of films both triumphantly and poignantly with him still alive. I can't see them killing off Batman unless there are some ulterior motives to it....like when they killed Superman in the comics....or if they want to make sure than future Bat-movie installment will have to start from scratch.

 

[AnorexicBatman]

I wish people would stop pretending Batman is real and realize that they need not apply real world physics and concepts to a fictional character...

 

[Cunning Stunts]

I wish people would stop pretending Batman is real and realize that they need not apply real world physics and concepts to a fictional character...

God forbid we do so to make a beloved character more relatable... Even more so in a universe grounded in realism.

 

[KalMart]

I don't see it being grounded in 'realism' as much as it employing more real-world sensibilities as a narrative/stylistic asset. If you really had to break things down, there are countless things that are still virtually impossible by realistic standards...from his cape/glider being able to provide as much lift as it apparently does, to his powered cable-system, entering the city with the Tumbler seemingly unnoticed, etc. But even with the attention to realistic rationality, it is still fiction, and to be honest....if John McLean can live through what he lives through in a world where there's no such thing as superheroes, there's no reason why Batman can't as well. t:

 

[SheldonLevene]

Batman is by himself vs. an army. The military is its own mass of weapons, technologies, and armors vs. another army. He's still human, and it subject to human risks, really.

Bottom line is you think it would be ok for him to die, and think the reasons you're giving are sufficient. I do not want him to die, and think the reasons I'm giving are sufficient. It's a difference of opinions. There's no reason to keep rehasing it.