The Dark Knight Rises Batman should die in the next film!

[paulbalarsky]

i agree with batmanfornever

 

[dru-zod2501]

I say no. Who wants to see Batman die? bad place DC didn't even really kill him in the comics. There's no way he'll die.

If we're going to get technical, yes they've killed Batman in the comics before, way back in the 70s, the Golden Age Batman died for good. And in several elseworlds that have been published since then; it's not like such a move would be unprecedented.

This is not a gimmick for the sake of gimmicks; this is meant as a closure to Nolan's story, which if you watch the first two movies, they flow like one long saga. It needs to have a real ending.

thruthfully why cant they veer off into the werid bat mythos stuff? I know nolans batman is realstic but wasnt the point off the dark knight and oringal bob kane series was esclation. The more batman pushed the response was the werider villans and bad guys .



plus i want to see christan bale in the JL movie it would make for some great interaction between bats and these super super heroes.



also isnt it possible to make pausible origins for people like clayface and killer kroc.

Because Nolan says his Batman doesn't get into that kind of stuff. I'm not going to second guess him on his own creation.

Baleman in the JL? HA!! keep dreaming!

 

[Chris Wallace]

I say that in all seriousness. I think if Bruce dies in the 3rd movie it would be the perfect cap to arguably the best comic book movie series to date.

Fans have been saying since Begins, The hyper-realism of Nolanverse leaves little room to explore the other, more far-out elements of the Bat mythos, that and Nolan himself has said several times there are characters and elements that have no place in his world and he never wants to use them.

I say fine, let someone else come in and do their own Batman their own way. But after Nolan leaves don't do us the disservice of making a "pseudo-sequel" a la Superman Returns & Batman Forever where no one but the director knows for sure whether it follows anything that came before. It's a ******** gimmick that causes more problems than it solves.

since this is kind of an elseworlds Batman story, there's no reason to keep it open ended like other stories. Unlike the previous series, Nolan's movies form a much more cohesive narrative, and that narrative needs a true, definitive ending in order to feel complete. How would any of you feel if they changed the ending of "Return of The King" in the hopes of milking a 4th LoTR movie? The height of absurdity, right?



It's almost a sure bet that Joker won't be back without Heath Ledger (as it should be), but the ambiguity of Two-Face's fate means he can be brought back without much difficulty. This serves several purposes:

1: Gordon & Batman's worst fears are realized, the myth of Harvey Dent is shattered as Gotham is forced to face the ugly truth and uglier face of its once revered savior

2: It means Batman can be vindicated, at least in the eyes of the public, they might finally realize that Bruce really was the hero they deserved AND needed all along.

3: C'mon... Two-Face is too good a villain not to give him a chance to wreak major havoc


Two-Face should go for broke, he should be bad place-bent on burning Gotham to the ground (or at least half of it). During the course of the action something will happen, and Batman has no choice but to rush headlong into a situation he knows he probably won't survive, but he never wavers even for a moment, as long as he can draw a breath Gotham will survive. Two-Face is finally defeated and dies conclusively as Bruce dies as well.

He lived as a warrior, let him die a warrior's death. Alfred remains to tell the story and set the records straight. In the end Bruce Wayne did just what he said he'd do back in "Begins," he returned long enough to show his people their city didn't belong to the criminals and the corrupt.

You could tell me I'm crazy, but I know I'm not. How ballsy would that be, if Nolan had the guts to kill off the hero in the end? And not just any hero, THE GODDAMN BATMAN!

No.

 

[dru-zod2501]

So... they should kill off Batman rather than have another actor play him? Seems a bit drastic to me.

sigh... they wouldn't be killing "Batman" off, they'd be killing this particular Batman off. The next actor will play a new Batman. simple.

How many more gang wars can Batman get into until everyone is sick of them? the same plot again and again, and again, and again, in slightly differently colored packaging, it's the Terminator syndrome. And I for one couldn't bear to see that happen to a series of this caliber.

 

[dru-zod2501]

If some director wanted to make a "pseudo sequel" to the nolan franchise its not the director you have to go after with torches and pitchforks...its WB for giving it the green light...btw just because we havent really had a good "pseudo sequel" yet doesnt mean its not possible for one to actually be liked by us you can always grow to the idea if you stay open minded I mean look what happend when we all saw that the jokers white face is just makeup and not his real skin...a lot of people were upset but what they lacked for in appearance they made up very much and then some staying true to character (which is what really matters). The point is ya never know (not that i liked BF or B&R) but to kill off batman just to sever any chance of trying to continue from that i think is...yea just not good lol

I'll be happy to eat my words if I'm proven wrong, but I'm confident I won't be.

If after the third movie Batman is still alive, and the fourth movie has only the loosest connection to the Nolan movies, apart from maybe one or two actors and a few references, it will be a colossal mistake on WB's part.

 

[bunk]

sigh... they wouldn't be killing "Batman" off, they'd be killing this particular Batman off. The next actor will play a new Batman. simple.

How many more gang wars can Batman get into until everyone is sick of them? the same plot again and again, and again, and again, in slightly differently colored packaging

Yes, they'd be killing off Nolan's version of Batman in lieu of a new actor playing him. Drastic. I never implied it would be the end of Batman on film.

You seem to have a fear of the same stories being rehashed, but also seem to want the franchise restarted every 3 movies. How do you reconcile these two wishes?

 

[kedrell]

You don't need to re-start the franchise over again. BB did the origin story well enough that another should really not be necessary, possibly ever again. We're not talking about reboots(that's what you need to do when you royally F it up) or a re-start(basically another name for a reboot), but rather a reimagining. A different take to be started somewhere with Batman already ensconced as Gotham's dark knight/protector.

 

[DarkReflections]

first of all i dont want batman to die in film unless the film is in the future and its precedessor was following what to them would be a past storyline like final crisis, batman rip, and battle of the cowl. i mean look what happend to the 3rd x-men when ratner used the gifted storyline involving a cure as an influence. it messed the film up hence why a modern storyline happening at the same time simply does not work. also whats the point with studios like wb to keep rebooting movie franchises anyway? i mean the whole point of the batman reboot was to make a good movie. seriously they went from batman and robin which is the biggest bomb in motion picture history to the dark knight which is now one of the greatist films ever and one of the highest grossing films ever. they shouldnt reboot batman just because heath died and apparently two-face died, and they definatley shouldnt do any "psuedo sequels", or any type of crap like that just so they can make more money of of future generations of kids. i couldnt care less if they keep making animated movies or a new animated series every 5 years or so. i just dont want wb to keep screwing around with the movies. nolan and bale should come back for one more and have the 3rd one end on a triumphant and ambiguous note. thats what should happen.

 

[bunk]

You don't need to re-start the franchise over again. BB did the origin story well enough that another should really not be necessary, possibly ever again. We're not talking about reboots(that's what you need to do when you royally F it up) or a re-start(basically another name for a reboot), but rather a reimagining. A different take to be started somewhere with Batman already ensconced as Gotham's dark knight/protector.

If one were unsatisfied with the current franchise, I could see why a re-imagining would be desirable. There are many "takes" on the character that could be explored. I fail to see how this approach is necessary to avoid "rehashing" stories. I would think the best way to avoid that would be to continue with a series which as already told certain stories, and thus is forced to imagine new ones.

 

[dru-zod2501]

Yes, they'd be killing off Nolan's version of Batman in lieu of a new actor playing him. Drastic. I never implied it would be the end of Batman on film.

You seem to have a fear of the same stories being rehashed, but also seem to want the franchise restarted every 3 movies. How do you reconcile these two wishes?

I never said I wanted the franchise restarted so quickly. If BB and TDK had been set up differently

1: to allow for the more garish, bizarre, and fantastic elements in the Nolanverse
and
2: so the story doesn't feel so serialized, like one long story

I wouldn't be saying any of this. The last franchise for example, if the quality hadn't dropped off so steeply they could've kept it going forever if they wanted. The movies were for the most part stand alone, and readily accepted the fantasy elements. They had all the room in the world to grow and expand, but they took it too far, like Silver Age too far

 

[bunk]

So you basically just like Nolan's particular brand of Batman enough to see it continue.

That's a perfectly valid viewpoint, it just isn't a a good argument for killing the character off.

 

[DDS]

Batman should die in the next film!

I don't mind the idea of Alfred dying though.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

I'd be open to it...

 

[AnorexicBatman]

Do you people have a problem with another director taking Nolan's Batman and moving forward with it? If so, why?

 

[kedrell]

^For a few reasons:

Bale is Nolan's Batman and he's likely not going to continue past the 3rd film anymore than Nolan is.

Also, Nolan's take on Batman(great as it is) is still limited. It cuts out entire swaths of Batman's mythos that would simply never work with that kind of take(too fantastical). I'd like the next Batman director to try to shoot right down the middle between Nolan's version and Burton's.

 

[Lighthouse]

I totally agree with this. I feel like this is where its all been heading. Batman 3 shouldn't end with a status quo Batman universe, where little has changed. I think this is a fully done story with and end. It would make a certain amount of sense if Batman sacrificed himself and actually saves Gotham from the crime. That doesn't mean there won't be more movies with Batman in them, but if its something like Justice League or a Worlds Finest movie, it'll have someone else playing Batman, with its own little universe in it. It would have to be that way anyway since Bale will unlikely be back after Batman 3.

 

[Eric Brooks]

kedrell........your av.....I can't stop looking



and I'm up for Nolan's Bats to recieve the death treatement

 

[Prison Mike]

I kind of like this idea. In all honesty, if Nolan truly wants his movies to be realistic then what's more realistic than the death of a vigilante? In the real world, I don't think an actual vigilante would survive as long as Batman has already. He's just one man. Sooner or later he is bound to make a mistake which will cause his downfall.

 

[bunk]

I kind of like this idea. In all honesty, if Nolan truly wants his movies to be realistic then what's more realistic than the death of a vigilante? In the real world, I don't think an actual vigilante would survive as long as Batman has already. He's just one man. Sooner or later he is bound to make a mistake which will cause his downfall.

He becomes more experienced as he goes along. He would probably be more likely to make one of those mistakes early on. If he just randomly dies from a mistake in the middle of his career, it sort of implies he'd been relying on luck to a larger degree the entire time. Now if he sacrificed himself, that would be different.

 

[dru-zod2501]

^For a few reasons:

Bale is Nolan's Batman and he's likely not going to continue past the 3rd film anymore than Nolan is.

Also, Nolan's take on Batman(great as it is) is still limited. It cuts out entire swaths of Batman's mythos that would simply never work with that kind of take(too fantastical). I'd like the next Batman director to try to shoot right down the middle between Nolan's version and Burton's.

your post is spot on, and your avi is hypnotic... perfect!!

 

[weezerspider]

They can end the Nolan series without killing Batman and still make it obvious that the next set of movies are not in the same universe as BB,TDK and the next film. Killing off Batman is a stupid idea.

 

[TheBatman072]

This is dumb.

 

[kedrell]

They can end the Nolan series without killing Batman and still make it obvious that the next set of movies are not in the same universe as BB,TDK and the next film. Killing off Batman is a stupid idea.

If they can, then sure. I've no problem with it. I just want Nolan's run book-ended to stand alone on it's own.

But having Batman die would certainly accomplish that.

 

[Caped Crusader]

Won't happen. Should not happen.

 

[Kurt Wagner]

it wouldnt make sense to have Batman die when WB is planning 8 batman films total in this franchise. If anyone should die, it should be Dick Grayson's parents and Dick Grayson can live at the newly built Wayne Mansion while Batman does his crime fighting... Robin doesn't need to enter the films, but having grayson there would add more drama in Bruce's life.