The Dark Knight Rises Batman 3: Where does the story go from here?

[bullets]

Not true at all. Rises could mean Batman becomes Gotham's savior and legend upon his sacrificing himself for his city. It could also be a metaphor for his soul.

I can see that but the ending won't be any less satisfying if Batman still overlooks the city .

 

[Lungrocket]

I can see that but the ending won't be any less satisfying if Batman still overlooks the city .

That's the typical formulaic ending. Exactly the thing I'm sure we won't see.

 

[bullets]

If Nolan came out and said "I'm killing Batman in RISES" fans would still debate it. "I think he just means on some level or in his heart, but he will still continue on fighting."

You made a roll eyes for a fictional scenario you created , lol. I don't think it's that extreme yet.

 

[bullets]

That's the typical formulaic ending. Exactly the thing I'm sure we won't see.

It might be typical but that's certainly nothing to hold against it. Nolan is the type that could get away with something unexpected but I think he is ging to want to please the general audience for the most part in dealing with this type of character.

 

[returntovoid]

Here's a brilliant post from IMDB, about the title.

When I first heard of the title, I wasn't too keen on it. 'The Dark Knight Rises' is pretty much a synonym for 'Batman Begins' and so my first thought was -"How unoriginal". But after thinking about it I kinda realised the significance of the title.

In a sense, by naming this, the third and final installment of his series, pretty much after Batman Begins, Nolan is trying to send us a message that this film is actually what will bring to an end the story which ostensibly started and ended with that film...namely the story of Batman's 'rise'. While we may have assumed that Batman was born in the first film, the truth is that the Batman we've seen so far in these two films is still not 'complete'-he's still flawed, still evolving his moral code, still very much unsure of himself and his role as Gotham's protector. In the first film we see him create the identity of the Batman, but in the second film we see him begin to question its impact on Gotham and indeed whether or not he wishes to pursue this crusade further. I think this film will essentially lead to the emergence of THE Batman, Gotham's undisputed protector and the Dark Knight-the ultimate warrior fighting the relentless battle against crime and corruption, respected by citizens and authorities alike as a hero-a Batman who is here to stay. No longer will he be the outlaw vigilante slinking around in the shadows, pursued by cops, feared by the people...he will still stick to the shadows, but will be respected by all those who know he's out there. Furthermore, this film will also see the 'rise' of the Dark Knight in a psychological sense as well...in Bruce Wayne's mind. Thus far, Bruce Wayne has been the 'real' person and Batman just a 'symbol' he uses to fulfill his objective of ridding Gotham of evil. But now, we shall see the Batman become more than just a symbol-Batman will become a distinct persona of his own, and may or may not consume Bruce Wayne, leading to the latter becoming the 'mask' instead, as Rachel had predicted.

So basically, while most people are discussing the villains and plotlines, what I'm looking forward to the most is how Nolan depicts this transition of Batman from costumed vigilante to legendary hero.

 

[jmc]

That's the typical formulaic ending. Exactly the thing I'm sure we won't see.

I'd say the exact opposite is what we'll get, it's the status quo, Chris would know that Batman needs to be back where he belongs, anything other is anti-climatic for the Nolan series.

 

[jmc]

Here's a brilliant post from IMDB, about the title.

That IMDB post is almost exactly my train of thought for Rises.

 

[StorminNorman]

What does that have to do with anything? You think because its CANON thats the only way you can go? No. It's limited thinking.

Nolan can pull inspiration from where he pleases. It's his story, wether you like it or not. It doesn't have to strictly adhere to the comics.

It's Nolan's story, it's WB's franchise.

The "what does that have to do with anything?" question was more suited to your response evoking TDKR. You are obviously not being rational if you suggest that the fact the fact WB can only produce a limited amount of Batman-on-film stories doesn't change the freedom a writer has.

For example, you can write a Gotham by Gaslight in the comic medium - or a Dark Knight Returns. You can't do the same in blockbuster films.

Yes. I see that as a sign for doing something great. Not simply repeating formula.

Ending a character at the end of a trilogy? You are right, that would really be a gamechanger.

Maybe Nolan will use Robin? Maybe he won't. But did you ever stop and think that these characters don't necessarily have to exist it Nolanverse?

You keep treating the films as if they are comic canon. There is no rule book given that says so.

There is no rule book, only common sense. I am not treating the movies as the same as comic canon, but the character of Batman is obviously defined by his comics (as well as other mediums - but most prevalently the comics) just as the character of, say, George Washington is obviously defined from letters, diaries and histories - or the character of Luke Skywalker is defined by the Star Wars films.

Nolan isn't playing around with his own character, he is playing around with an institution. A character of tremendous depth. If you don't even begin to really scratch the true depths of him, why use him at all? If you aren't going to create a fully fleshed out Batman (or at least allow it opened ended enough for him to be so), how are you not being disrespectful to the character?

No. It would just end his journey earlier than you would like. That's all. His understanding of the character has been more than adequate.

WB isn't going to stop Nolan telling the story he wants to make. His last Batman film made north of a billion dollars. They know he will tell a good story regardless wether its something the fans want.

But isn't the journey an important part of the character? Is he ever Batman if he quits three years into his mission?

(and you are being naive if you believe WB would let Nolan kill a billion dollar franchise just because of TDK's success)

“Without getting into specifics, the key thing that makes the third film a great possibility for us is that we want to finish our story. And in viewing it as the finishing of a story rather than infinitely blowing up the balloon and expanding the story.”

If Nolan came out and said "I'm killing Batman in RISES" fans would still debate it. "I think he just means on some level or in his heart, but he will still continue on fighting."

Not blowing up the balloon or expanding the story. That means no future set up. That the journey will end. It can't be any clearer than that.

Keep living in the safety bubble, but its as clear as day with two quotes what the man is saying.

This batman's journey will end. How it happens is still speculation though.

Ending a story is such an incredibly vague statement.

This Batman's journey will not end, I believe it will have only truly begun at the end of this film. I believe the entire trilogy will be more of a foundation for Batman. This arc, I believe, will be more along the lines of "Batman's early years".

 

[Mr. Earle]

That's your personal hang up. Because your used to the character being around till he's older and seasoned.

But that doesn't have to play out that way on film. Perhaps Nolan doesn't want his version of Batman continuely repeating himself all his life.

Maybe Nolan wants a more focused trilogy. Either way, he's ENDING his story.

And stories can only end one way?

Are you crazy? Any filmmaker worth their salt will want to protect their legacy. It's like directing THE CROW, then having other filmmakers follow it up to make some *****ty sequels and soil what came before it.

Creating a definitive ending will help seperate Nolan's films from a potentially poor choice following him. They will HAVE to start over.

Nolan doesn't want a Schumacher crapping on his stories...he will want them to find there own.

If i am not mistaken the Crow movies originated from the comics, so its not like it was the first director's idea. Even if it was, the franchise then takes a life of its own, just like Batman did after Kane, just like everything really.

It is possible that someone takes over after Nolan and surpasses him. But even if he fails, Nolan's movies wont be tarnished, in fact they'll be even more cherished because of their unmatched quality. Its also possible that Nolan screws up and TDKR sucks ass.

Dude, he did that in Begins. That kind of ending was similar to all the other endings of the Burton and Schumacher films. Everything went back to neat.

Yeah and then he did a 180 in TDK and wanted to quit for Rachel.

He was facing a lose-lose situation. If he keeps his mask on:
More people will die
He has a chance to stop Joker himself (question is when)
He won't ever be with Rachel
He succumbs himself to a life of servitude

If he gives his identity up:
He'll give in to a terrorist who may likely not live up to his bargain
Be reunited with Rachel, but due to his newfound association with Bats, won't ever get peace

How is this not struggling? That's a whole crapload of responsibility on one man's shoulders. A man with a very particular set of ethics that's also trying to balance a life that he rightly yearns. Again, it is very arguable TDK was more honest to comic book Bruce's inner-struggle as both hero and man, considering all that Bruce actually had to deal with in MOTP was a romantic love loss. Hardly grave circumstances, don't you think?

Lets forget about the Joker and lets focus on Bruce asking for Rachel to wait for him and him hoping to load it all on Harvey's back. That doesnt sound very logical to me.

We're talking about a man who was a broken shell since he was 12 and who was full of rage and obsession until Ras gave him a path to channel them. It isnt a cure, its a cruch, an outlet. So Bruce trained for all these years to become Batman in order to deal with his inner demons. It was just as much about him as it was for Gotham. I can see why Rachel gets it but he doesnt, but 6 months after fully using his crutch he's ready to abandon it to go be with Rachel when he never wanted it before? I just didnt get that struggle from him, it was more about a struggle about how to deal with the Joker, rather than having to give up Batman. He looked like he didnt need him, with only Rachel's letter to say (but not prove) otherwise.

 

[StorminNorman]

I know what you're saying, but the balance is more than a bit shifted to one side there. It's completely unfair to judge both actors on the same merits when Fox didn't actually have to play Bats. Embodying similar qualities in a particular scene is one thing. Carrying out that depiction across an entire movie involving an entire arc, is another.

We'll have to disagree. I think Racer X's entire depiction was continually Batman like. ( You know, a darker, more-silent hero with personal baggage.)

 

[Lungrocket]

It's Nolan's story, it's WB's franchise.

The "what does that have to do with anything?" question was more suited to your response evoking TDKR.

I know. But your point is moote. Nolan isn't limited to pulling inspiration from Batman canon. Your saying TDKR doesn't count because it's elsewhere. You really think that matters?

You are obviously not being rational if you suggest that the fact the fact WB can only produce a limited amount of Batman-on-film stories doesn't change the freedom a writer has.

I'm not even sure that's even saying anything...

For example, you can write a Gotham by Gaslight in the comic medium - or a Dark Knight Returns. You can't do the same in blockbuster films.

I obviously don't think Nolan is going to make RETURNS or GASLIGHT under the guise of RISES. They don't fit with what he has done so far.

That said, where is it said you CAN'T make those stories as films? Again with your RULES...

Ending a character at the end of a trilogy? You are right, that would really be a gamechanger.

I'm not saying its a game changer. I'm saying it's far more novel an idea than the typical batman looks out over the city style ending or talks to Gordon, because everything is back to neat.

There is no rule book, only common sense.

Common sense is reading those quotes from Nolan and realizing he's not talking about ending his films in a typical way.

“Without getting into specifics, the key thing that makes the third film a great possibility for us is that we want to finish our story. And in viewing it as the finishing of a story rather than infinitely blowing up the balloon and expanding the story. ”

Batman has been throwing punches in the pages of DC Comics since 1939 and as the decades passed, much of the core of the character stayed the same even as Bruce Wayne's sideburns or the profile of the Batmobile changed. Not so with film.

"Unlike the comics, these thing don't go on forever in film and viewing it as a story with an end is useful," Nolan said. "Viewing it as an ending, that sets you very much on the right track about the appropriate conclusion and the essence of what tale we're telling. And it hearkens back to that priority of trying to find the reality in these fantastic stories. That's what we do."

Nolan isn't going to go the formulaic route. His film WILL be a game changer for superhero films. Batman might not die, but his journey as Batman will END in RISES.

I am not treating the movies as the same as comic canon, but the character of Batman is obviously defined by his comics (as well as other mediums - but most prevalently the comics) just as the character of, say, George Washington is obviously defined from letters, diaries and histories - or the character of Luke Skywalker is defined by the Star Wars films.

You are trying to state that Batman is UNTOUCHABLE in terms of taking chances outside of the comic books. But they are not the only ones who are allowed to take a chance.

The films will be rebooted following Nolan's trilogy. Because they will restart, Nolan has the freedom to end the film in a revolutionary way if he see fits. If he dies for example, they can just restart it with the next filmmaker. Just as they are doing with the new Spiderman.

Nolan isn't playing around with his own character, he is playing around with an institution.

An institution who's concept was built on many creative entities following Bob Kane, that were able to stretch limits and create unique and exciting works. Robin died in the comics. Batman had his back broken and was crippled...by your standard, that should be unacceptable.

No. The writer's and artists where able to follow the path they wanted to create the kind of story they wanted to create.

Nolan, as a storyteller should be afforded the same luxury to tell whatever tale he wants, regardless of the medium.

A character of tremendous depth. If you don't even begin to really scratch the true depths of him, why use him at all?

Because perhaps Nolan has used the character in his story to the most complete way he wants to. Perhaps in Nolan's reality people don't carry on being vigilante's working with the police forever. Perhaps there are reprocussions to those actions like Joker says...

"When they don't need you anymore, they will turn on you."

That statement isn't there as a throw away line. That's gonna be explored.

If you aren't going to create a fully fleshed out Batman (or at least allow it opened ended enough for him to be so), how are you not being disrespectful to the character?

Nolan's Batman is a flawed man. Much more interesting as a real person that someone who has all the answers and isn't allowed to grow because he has it all figured out and is seasoned. That's flat.

That's just one interpretation of the character. Like the animated cartoon. Doesn't mean Nolan's films have to go there.

How is it disrespectful to the character? Whoever makes the next round of films can do it another way.

But isn't the journey an important part of the character? Is he ever Batman if he quits three years into his mission?

That's just you not comprehending the possibilities that Nolan doesn't have to make it just like the comics.

Batman's journey in reality would come to an end at some point. In the comics it never does. Nolan is chasing the human angle. Not the fantasy.

and you are being naive if you believe WB would let Nolan kill a billion dollar franchise just because of TDK's success

The franchise isn't dead if Nolan hypothetically kills Batman. It's rebooted for the next 3 films. Starts over. They can do what they like.

No more irrational than when Nolan rebooted the Burton/Schumacher films.

Ending a story is such an incredibly vague statement.

Yes, but not the way he said it. Two different quotes giving you big clues as to the direction they are headed.

This Batman's journey will not end, I believe it will have only truly begun at the end of this film.

Keep telling yourself that.

I believe the entire trilogy will be more of a foundation for Batman. This arc, I believe, will be more along the lines of "Batman's early years".

i believe you're in for a rude awakening.

 

[Lungrocket]

And stories can only end one way?

You know exactly what I am saying. I never said they only ended one way. I said Nolan quotes are clear as day. He's not talking about ending the film in the typical fashion. He's bringing the character and his journey to an end. How that happens, is still a mystery.

 

[jmc]

Nolan's quotes in regards to story are as they always are - vague.

 

[Robin91939]

Batman WILL NOT die in this film, nor will he retire. To think that this is a viable option and that some people are actually going with it, believing it is believable, is silly to me.

-R

 

[Mr. Earle]

Lungrocket i love how sure you are about things you dont even know, and you're only basing your arguement on Nolan's one interview where he said he's ending his story. In two years Morrison is ending his story in the comics. I guess that means batman will die there too huh?

 

[The Joker]

Yeah, I don't believe for a second that Batman is going to die, or end in any way in TDKR.

 

[Figs]

Here's a brilliant post from IMDB, about the title.

When I think about that, I don't want him to go that route. I would prefer that this be "The Batman". If they were to end this on that note then it's going to make a lot of fans, including myself, wish he would make one more.

While I love BB and TDK, to watch the series end on that note then look back at TDK at least(in BB he obviously was starting out and new at what he was doing), it would make me long for what could have been in TDK, the full on Batman from the comics.

To me it would give me the feeling I had when I walked out of X3 and Spider-Man 3. Disappointment, on some level at least although I'm sure I will still like the third film a lot. Another comparison, although a bit of a stretch would be if Joker ended up sucking in TDK. Every time you would see that scene at the end of BB it would get you excited but then you realize the Joker was a disappointment and it has you thinking of what could have been.

Maybe I'm being too negative about that theory instead of being more open minded but as of right now I don't like it.

 

[Lungrocket]

Lungrocket i love how sure you are about things you dont even know, and you're only basing your arguement on Nolan's one interview where he said he's ending his story. In two years Morrison is ending his story in the comics. I guess that means batman will die there too huh?

I love how you're so sure he won't. I didn't say he will die. I said its a possibility. I said Bruce's journey as Batman will end. But death is a possible way.

I don't know Morrison is going to do. But that's got nothing to do with Nolan's comments.

 

[Lungrocket]

Batman WILL NOT die in this film, nor will he retire. To think that this is a viable option and that some people are actually going with it, believing it is believable, is silly to me.

-R

Nolan's comments lean WAY MORE to him dying, or retiring, than to his story continuing on like usual. He addresses it very clearly.

You not be able to cope with the thought of that, doesn't change the fact.

 

[Lungrocket]

Yeah, I don't believe for a second that Batman is going to die, or end in any way in TDKR.

Why not?

 

[Mr. Earle]

I love how you're so sure he won't. I didn't say he will die. I said its a possibility. I said Bruce's journey as Batman will end. But death is a possible way.

You seem fairly certain here:

Keep telling yourself that.

i believe you're in for a rude awakening.

I don't know Morrison is going to do. But that's got nothing to do with Nolan's comments.

Morrison also said that he's ending his story in two years, just like Nolan and Rises.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES....

TO HEAVEN!

(Batman will live, and Racer X is AWESOME)

 

[The Joker]

Why not?

Because ending a story doesn't equate to killing off the hero, IMO.

 

[Robin91939]

Nolan's comments lean WAY MORE to him dying, or retiring, than to his story continuing on like usual. He addresses it very clearly.

You not be able to cope with the thought of that, doesn't change the fact.

I've read his quotes. You're drawing conclusions that aren't there.

Just because it is the "end" of Nolan's story about Batman, doesn't mean that Batman will retire/die at the end of the story. The main character doesn't need to die to end a story about him.

He can very well just conclude the story arc of Bruce Wayne becoming a full fledged legendary crime fighter that Ra's Al Ghul told him he could become..."legend Mr. Wayne".

-R

 

[jmc]

Batman will not die in Rises. Batman is forever, there's no full stop after his name, Gotham will never be won, he knows he cannot win but he continues anyway, that's the whole point of the character and Chris knows this.