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

[Paste Pot Pete]

EDIT: The post so nice, I made it thrice!

 

[The Guard]

I'm okay with Bruce wanting to hang up the cape and cowl in THE DARK KNIGHT.

I don't like the way it was done though. Batman should have wanted to be done after he stopped The Joker.

"There's a madman killing innocents and threatening to keep killing unless I stop doing good?"

"Well, hey, I won't strap on my cape and kick his ass, I'm just gonna quit and leave innocent people at his mercy."

REALLY?

Batman should want Gotham to fight for itself, but let's face it, realistically, that's a process that could take years, if not decades.

I mainly don't want Batman to die or stop being Batman, because I feel that's cheap.

People keep saying something big is going to happen.

Like what? Having cops hunt Batman which is what they were/should already be doing?

Killing off yet another villain, which every Burton/Schumacher film did?

I'm tired of hearing about how this is "Nolan's Batman".

Newflash. Nolan's Batman is Batman. He just hasn't discovered whatever particular gadget he would use in the context of a JLA movie, and he hasn't fought so and so or done such and such. But he's still Batman. Nolan invented very few of the elements you see up there onscreen, they were present long before he ever arrived.

If anything, TDK showed that there IS going to be a neverending battle against evil, not the opposite. Bruce wanted to hang up the cowl and cape, and found he couldn't. He wanted his mission to be finite. It wasn't, and it isn't.

He just doesn't realize how infinite it is.

He's absolutely fooling himself when he thinks he can quit.

That's another point of THE DARK KNIGHT. He doesn't realize what he has set in motion. He starts to, by the end of the film, but I don't think he quite realizes exactly how much his arrival affected Gotham yet. Even when he's told about it.

Batman took the blame for Harvey's actions, knowing full well what it would cost him, not because he was almost done being Batman, but so the people of Gotham could hold onto their hope (however that's supposed to work, because Harvey Dent is still dead, and it waters down what's happening to Gotham severely).

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?

This, to a point.

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.

Except that, in none of those versions, did Batman ever quit at the end of his first year or two. I don't think I've even seen an ELSEWORLDS where that happened. Could it happen? Sure. But suggesting that extreme things happening in the context of Batman's mission is the same as just altering the very nature of it...is a bit much.

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.

Batman in the comics is...Batman. He's often been portrayed as a flawed man, and even far more so than Nolan's portryal has been. Batman is essentially defined by his mission, but he also grows and changes as a character just as much as Nolan's Batman has, and will.

Nolan's Batman is just...Batman so far, with a few twists here and there.

Almost every decent element he's come up is pulled or is similar to something that already exists in the Batman comics.

I'm not really sure why Nolan would honor all those other elements...and set up possibly the most important...and then not honor it.

Believing Nolan will kill Batman because he says "the end" is really reaching, for me.

Could he have Batman die? Sure.

But if he does, he will have done a disservice to the character.

Maybe it will work, in a BRAVEHEART/GLADIATOR/JESUS context. Maybe it'll be a fantastic emotional moment.

But it will still be a disservice to the mythology.

It doesn't compare to a man willing to sacrifice decades and decades of his life, and risk that death and the impact on his soul.

People keep talking about closure.

People keep talking about how something drastic has to happen.

How Batman won't get off the hook.

Well...yeah.

Batman doesn't get closure.

Being Batman is something drastic.

Batman isn't going to get off the hook.

Being Batman forever isn't exactly a pleasure.

Being a vigilante carries a cost.

It's a sacrifice.

It is, in Batman's case, generally not a martyr's reckless year and a half and quick death, but a lengthy sacrifice, that requires him to be on the top of his game for the rest of his life. It requires him to abandon any hope of many truly normal and fulfilling relationships, and to accept his role as Gotham's Dark Knight fully.

There's no happy ending for Bruce Wayne.

Not yet at least.

I really don't expect to see Batman die.

Nor do I expect to see him stop fighting.

Otherwise, maybe the boxed set should be called BATMAN: ONE YEAR.

And I'll bet anyone who cuts off their nipple if Batman dies will only be cutting off a superfluous third one.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

If anything, TDK showed that there IS going to be a neverending battle against evil, not the opposite. Bruce wanted to hang up the cowl and cape, and found he couldn't. He wanted his mission to be finite. It wasn't, and it isn't.

Exactly.

What would be the point of the final scene between Batman and Joker, if Batman was just going to die?

"You and I are destined to do this forever. But not really, because you're going to be killed in the next movie by some other villain."

 

[Lungrocket]

Lungrocket why would it matter if someone continues after Nolan and ruins the franchise? It wouldnt affect Nolan's movies. Hell he could even ruin it himself in TDKR.

Let's say you ressurrected the franchise from the quagmire that was Schumacher's efforts. Then you created a second film that was even more critically acclaimed and became a smash at the box office. For your final film, are you going to leave open the story for other's to possibly Schumacher it up, or would you want YOUR Batman to stand alone, without other's piggybacking on your work and potentially soiling up your stories, thereby associating their films or forever linking their inferior work with yours.

They can mess up the reboots all they want, but if Nolan closes out his story, then he has a master trilogy to call his own. He got to put his stamp on it.

I am willing to bet dollars to donuts, that Nolan will end Batman's journey. Just because it continues on in the comics, doesn't mean it will be left open ended in his trilogy. i think that's what some can't grasp.

 

[Robin91939]

Not true. Son-Goku stays dead at the end of Dragon Ball. And no, Dragon Ball GT does not count. It is not canon. Yes he comes back from the afterlife to help save the world one more time, but he is still dead and does not stay on earth (though he makes infrequent visits).

You can't honestly be comparing Dragon Ball (I believe appearing first in the mid 80's) with a character that has been in CONSTANT publication for more than 70 years?! Please...That's an insult to the character of Batman to compare these two.

Actually someone else said this on this thread, but Batman in Nolan's world isn't trying to fight crime forever. He's trying to get the people of Gotham to stand up and fight its own battles. Once that happens, there is no need for Batman anymore...

That's been pointed out in Nolan's films.

Maybe I didn't understand The Dark Knight....but,

The end of the film:

Harvey Dent (the guy Bruce saw as a legitimate savior of Gotham, someone who could save the City and not need a mask) dies and becomes completely corrupted.

- Bruce realizes that it is not going to be possible to pass the City's welfare along to one man. (Honestly, if he could do that, wouldn't he have entrusted it to Gordon already?).

- "I'm whatever Gotham needs me to be"- This means more than just "I'll take responsibility for these murders". It means, "I'll be the hero of Gotham, because I'm the only one who can". This is not a stretch...not a stretch, like say...assuming batman will die at the end of the trilogy.

-R

 

[craigdbfan]

Bruce's/Batmans decision to support Harvey Dent while honest was also made due to his own selfish reason.

He thought if he put up his cape and threw all the burden of something he started on to Dent that he could steal Rachel away from him and lead a normal life.

Wayne hasn't grown up as a person let alone as Batman. I hope in TDKR he realizes this and rises above it all.

Because if anything his motives in TDK are flat out childish and incredibly selfish.

He even thinks Rachel was going to "wait" for him. Poor naive fool.

I love Bats/Wayne but he's got a lot of growing to do in film 3.

 

[Bat-Mite]

Bruce's/Batmans decision to support Harvey Dent while honest was also made due to his own selfish reason.

He thought if he put up his cape and threw all the burden of something he started on to Dent that he could steal Rachel away from him and lead a normal life.

Wayne hasn't grown up as a person let alone as Batman. I hope in TDKR he realizes this and rises above it all.

Because if anything his motives in TDK are flat out childish and incredibly selfish.

He even thinks Rachel was going to "wait" for him. Poor naive fool.

I love Bats/Wayne but he's got a lot of growing to do in film 3.

Haha. Wow, you make him sound really bad when you word it like that. But it's all true.

 

[Lungrocket]

Wayne hasn't grown up as a person let alone as Batman. I hope in TDKR he realizes this and rises above it all.

Because if anything his motives in TDK are flat out childish and incredibly selfish.

And what's the most selfless thing he could do?

Sacrifice.

He takes one for Gotham.

Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

 

[craigdbfan]

And what's the most selfless thing he could do?

Sacrifice.

He takes one for Gotham.

Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

I'm reserving my thoughts on that one.

While I won't discredit your claim, I'm not taking it off the table.

Everything is possible at this point. Batman dying IMO is still possible but also somewhat unlikely.

Its a toss up honestly.

Haha. Wow, you make him sound really bad when you word it like that. But it's all true.

Seen the movie to many times for my own good.

Every time I see it now its hard not to cringe at his obliviousness at times.

Can't help but laugh when I hear him say "She was going to wait for me Alfred".

While Alfred goes on to burn her card basically saying "Sorry but no, we can uh still be friends though, k?"

 

[Bat-Mite]

And what's the most selfless thing he could do?

Sacrifice.

He takes one for Gotham.

Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

Uuuh.. no. That leaves Gotham unprotected. It's not selfless at all.

 

[Brother Jack]

And what's the most selfless thing he could do?

Sacrifice.

He takes one for Gotham.

Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

He already did that at the end of TDK.

Also, Bruce's motivations weren't entirely selfish though that had a big part in it (but can ya blame him, he surely wouldn't have started his crusade wanting it to completely absorb his life). Remember, Harvey was actually accomplishing the goal of cleaning up Gotham, doing it much quicker and more legitimately than Batman. Bruce thought Harvey being the hero would be better for the city, and in a way he was right.

 

[Lungrocket]

Uuuh.. no. That leaves Gotham unprotected. It's not selfless at all.

It is selfless if his actions protect them from all dying at the finally. Maybe he doesn't have a choice. Maybe its a toss up between Bats dying and him going to prison.

Of course we all want batman around (he is my favorite character too), but let's look at this realistically for a second or at in Nolan's more realistic Gotham.

Even if Batman wasn't a fugitive from the law, wanted for murders, in a real world setting a vigilante is not revered or allowed to work with the police. Joker even says "once the people of Gotham no longer have a use for you, they will turn on you."

I like how Nolan creates consequences for Batman's actions. Batman has created bigger monsters for simply existing. That's one of the themes posed. At some point, no matter how noble Batman is, the law would punish Batman and bring him down for being a vigilante.

Him being a fugitive is simply going to speed that process up.

 

[Lungrocket]

He already did that at the end of TDK

Sort of. It's somewhat selfless. Bruce is letting his secret identity take the rap, not his own. Bruce's life isn't being put into the spotlight. Least not yet.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

Let's also not forget about the inevitable return of the Batcave and Wayne Manor.

Seems kind of strange that Nolan would make it a point to destroy, then rebuild it, just to have Batman die or retire before making much use of it.

 

[Gianakin_]

Actually, the more i think about it, if the show is about Batman, I suspect more so that he IS going to die in Nolan's films.

WB putting a show together to quickly follow the film means they might be nervous about Nolan's story. I mean, why even do the show. Why not move straight to the next Batman film by a new director? Hmmm... wonder why that is?

It's actually a smart way to bridge the gap between reboots. This will help crying fanboys that can't comprehend or handle Batman dying. Plus it still keep Batman in the public conscienceness. See, Joker? Ressurrected shortly after. No longer permanent. t:

There is no other reason than to put a tv show into development to follow the film unless they know they will have to let the films rest for a while.

...or they just want to keep BATMAN around, you know, to milk the cow. So far you've been doing well enough, but this is pure reaching. Doing a TV show because they're nervous of the story? Come on... You reboot too early only when the previous movie is effed up (SM3, Hulk, SR). If it's ok, you sequelize it somehow. If not in the movies, then on TV. This is marketing 101. C'mon.

 

[Gianakin_]

If our suspicions of the rise of the freaks is correct (after Joker's prediction in TDK), then TDKR won't introduce and finish with that in 1 film. Crime is perpetual, thus Batman is, too. Anything else, and it's cliche. Him going on being Batman is not cliche at all. Predictable, because it happens in the comics, but showing a Gotham that still decays (albiet Batman being now self-consciously its protector) is not a cliche at all.

 

[returntovoid]

Spoiler

I'm okay with Bruce wanting to hang up the cape and cowl in THE DARK KNIGHT.

I don't like the way it was done though. Batman should have wanted to be done after he stopped The Joker.

"There's a madman killing innocents and threatening to keep killing unless I stop doing good?"

"Well, hey, I won't strap on my cape and kick his ass, I'm just gonna quit and leave innocent people at his mercy."

REALLY?

Batman should want Gotham to fight for itself, but let's face it, realistically, that's a process that could take years, if not decades.

I mainly don't want Batman to die or stop being Batman, because I feel that's cheap.

People keep saying something big is going to happen.

Like what? Having cops hunt Batman which is what they were/should already be doing?

Killing off yet another villain, which every Burton/Schumacher film did?

I'm tired of hearing about how this is "Nolan's Batman".

Newflash. Nolan's Batman is Batman. He just hasn't discovered whatever particular gadget he would use in the context of a JLA movie, and he hasn't fought so and so or done such and such. But he's still Batman. Nolan invented very few of the elements you see up there onscreen, they were present long before he ever arrived.

If anything, TDK showed that there IS going to be a neverending battle against evil, not the opposite. Bruce wanted to hang up the cowl and cape, and found he couldn't. He wanted his mission to be finite. It wasn't, and it isn't.

He just doesn't realize how infinite it is.

He's absolutely fooling himself when he thinks he can quit.

That's another point of THE DARK KNIGHT. He doesn't realize what he has set in motion. He starts to, by the end of the film, but I don't think he quite realizes exactly how much his arrival affected Gotham yet. Even when he's told about it.

Batman took the blame for Harvey's actions, knowing full well what it would cost him, not because he was almost done being Batman, but so the people of Gotham could hold onto their hope (however that's supposed to work, because Harvey Dent is still dead, and it waters down what's happening to Gotham severely).



This, to a point.



Except that, in none of those versions, did Batman ever quit at the end of his first year or two. I don't think I've even seen an ELSEWORLDS where that happened. Could it happen? Sure. But suggesting that extreme things happening in the context of Batman's mission is the same as just altering the very nature of it...is a bit much.



Batman in the comics is...Batman. He's often been portrayed as a flawed man, and even far more so than Nolan's portryal has been. Batman is essentially defined by his mission, but he also grows and changes as a character just as much as Nolan's Batman has, and will.

Nolan's Batman is just...Batman so far, with a few twists here and there.

Almost every decent element he's come up is pulled or is similar to something that already exists in the Batman comics.

I'm not really sure why Nolan would honor all those other elements...and set up possibly the most important...and then not honor it.

Believing Nolan will kill Batman because he says "the end" is really reaching, for me.

Could he have Batman die? Sure.

But if he does, he will have done a disservice to the character.

Maybe it will work, in a BRAVEHEART/GLADIATOR/JESUS context. Maybe it'll be a fantastic emotional moment.

But it will still be a disservice to the mythology.

It doesn't compare to a man willing to sacrifice decades and decades of his life, and risk that death and the impact on his soul.

People keep talking about closure.

People keep talking about how something drastic has to happen.

How Batman won't get off the hook.

Well...yeah.

Batman doesn't get closure.

Being Batman is something drastic.

Batman isn't going to get off the hook.

Being Batman forever isn't exactly a pleasure.

Being a vigilante carries a cost.

It's a sacrifice.

It is, in Batman's case, generally not a martyr's reckless year and a half and quick death, but a lengthy sacrifice, that requires him to be on the top of his game for the rest of his life. It requires him to abandon any hope of many truly normal and fulfilling relationships, and to accept his role as Gotham's Dark Knight fully.

There's no happy ending for Bruce Wayne.

Not yet at least.

I really don't expect to see Batman die.

Nor do I expect to see him stop fighting.

Otherwise, maybe the boxed set should be called BATMAN: ONE YEAR.

And I'll bet anyone who cuts off their nipple if Batman dies will only be cutting off a superfluous third one.

Exactly! You just said what was on my mind.

What would be the point of the final scene between Batman and Joker, if Batman was just going to die?

"You and I are destined to do this forever. But not really, because you're going to be killed in the next movie by some other villain."

 

[Mr. Earle]

And how is that not cliche? The whole hero riding off into the sunset angle has been abused even more than that of the self-sacrificing savior. Besides, Batman orchestrating his own death is something lifted straight out of arguably the most influential Batman story ever written, so it's not like Nolan will be ripping off from The Passion of The Christ or Braveheart. There are more than enough massive thematic differences between Batman and all these other properties for Nolan to distinguish such an ending. If cliches bother you so much, wanna know what else is a huge cliche? Men in tights fighting crime. So why bother watching Batman at all?

Its not a cliche, its a necessity. Is there any other way you can end a story without killing the hero and leaving him around for further adventures?

 

[returntovoid]

Its not a cliche, its a necessity. Is there any other way you can end a story without killing the hero and leaving him around for further adventures?

Agreed.

I'm f'ing tired of all this Batman must die crap.

It's the goddamn Batman we're talking about not some f'ing Oscar bait picture with the sappiness of sacrifice/martyr-ism!

 

[Fenrir]

Its not a cliche, its a necessity. Is there any other way you can end a story without killing the hero and leaving him around for further adventures?

And why is it necessary to have the hero around for further adventures? Why does a hero have to remain a hero forever? Why can't he have closure? Why can't his work ever be done? In the comics, the publishers cannot help but to have this kind of perpetual, never-ending loops for such a popular character, but film is a much more restricted medium and is not required to adhere to the same unwritten rules of continuity. Besides, there are many ways to end a hero's story. You can have the typical comic book "hero triumphs, further adventures to come" ending. You can have the self-sacrificing martyr ending. And you can have the hero who rises in the hour of need and then steps down when his work is done, leaving others to take up his mantle.

I don't want TDKR to end like Passion of the Christ, but rather more like Halo 3. At the end, everyone believes Master Chief to be dead, but following the credits, it is revealed that he isn't and he simply goes back into the hypersleep chamber from where he first emerged during the very beginning of the story in the first Halo. This, I believe, is the best possible conclusion in that it provides a proper closure for the existing story but at the same time, by not killing the hero off, leaving open the possibility of the hero's return in another time of need. That is why I keep saying that I want to see Batman orchestrate his death like he did in DKR, but somehow ending TDKR in a way similar to the most well-known Batman story is considered preposterous around these boards. I'll never understand you blokes.

 

[jmc]

What's with some of you people? Bloody hell. My god, the whole point of Batman is that his task is never ending, you think Chris and Team Nolan are suddenly going to fundamentally change what is essentially the core of the characters' story when for the past two films they've done their hardest to to stay faithful to it? They understand Batman and his motives and what his story is suppose to be, his job is never going to be over, that the point of Batman, he's a lone warrior on a fruitless crusade that can never be won, but he continues to do so because without him things in Gotham would be far worse. Batman will not die, there is no full stop after that character, end of story.

 

[Mister H.]

Batman already sacrificed himself at the end of TDK. But if Batman "dies" in TDKR it will be a faked death. It will be staged, and (as someone else also speculated) Bruce Wayne will do it to galvanize Gotham and inspire them to do better and not let his death be in vain. He is not going to actually bite the bullet though, I'm confident in that.

 

[Mr. Earle]

And why is it necessary to have the hero around for further adventures? Why does a hero have to remain a hero forever? Why can't he have closure? Why can't his work ever be done? In the comics, the publishers cannot help but to have this kind of perpetual, never-ending loops for such a popular character, but film is a much more restricted medium and is not required to adhere to the same unwritten rules of continuity.

What jmc said and also because its only his first year as Batman. Its too freaking early for that.

 

[Fenrir]

What jmc said and also because its only his first year as Batman. Its too freaking early for that.

Batman was already well into his second year in TDK. And no one has said that TDKR takes place immediately following TDK. On the contrary, TDKR may well take place a couple of years after TDK, which would not be too early for a DKR ending.

 

[The Joker]

Not true. Son-Goku stays dead at the end of Dragon Ball. And no, Dragon Ball GT does not count. It is not canon. Yes he comes back from the afterlife to help save the world one more time, but he is still dead and does not stay on earth (though he makes infrequent visits).

Son-Goku? Who the heck is that? Never even heard of him. This character is not even half as famous or iconic as the likes of Batman.

Barry Allen died, in an epic and fitting fashion, at the end of Crisis on Infinite Earths. Only recently (2008) has Barry Allen come back from the dead, meaning that he stayed dead for twenty-three real world years.

Bad analogy there. There's been like four different versions of The Flash. There is only Batman, and that's Bruce Wayne.

Killing off heroes and keeping them dead, is not some fantastic idea. Even though the meme is that comic death is not permanent and brief, some people rest in their graves for decades until some writer gets the wild itch to bring them back from the dead.

Show me a hero with the iconic status of Batman, Superman, Spider-Man etc who stayed dead for years, and I'll concede to your point.