The Dark Knight Rises Batman: To "Die".. or Not To "Die:?

[The_Raganork]

There is any number of ways to have a "definite ending", only a few of which result in the death of the protagonist or the protagonists legacy. And please, let go of this 'Batman dies in the comics' argument; we all know no character is dead-dead in the comics and last I check Bruce Wayne is still Batman. Characters die in the comics because after 30-40-70 years writers run out of ideas. Nolan has about seven hours to frame his mythology and that's not so long so as to begin worrying about killing the character off. What really irks me about this whole idea is that in Begins Nolan gave us a Batman willing to give up the cowl, in TDK he gave us a Batman wanting to abdicate to Dent, and now he's going to serve him up on a slab! To hell with that.

If you're arguing Batman can't die,this is a stark contradiction.

 

[BatBat]

If Nolan ends this with Batman getting his back broken Knightfall style I will be PI**ED! That would open up for a Jean Paul Valley story that I NEVER HOPE to see!

 

[BatScot]

If you're arguing Batman can't die,this is a stark contradiction.

That is quite obviously not what I said, but now that you bring it up even a cursory knowledge of literature and myth suggests that even "death" is not a definite ending.

In any case, one "definite ending" that does not require the character's death is that Wayne comes to the realization that there is no end to the war and that Batman must endure and that he and he alone is the only man capable of leading the fight. There is no more doubt, he is no longer conflicted. He is Batman risen!

 

[The_Raganork]

That is quite obviously not what I said, but now that you bring it up even a cursory knowledge of literature and myth suggests that even "death" is not a definite ending.

In any case, one "definite ending" that does not require the character's death is that Wayne comes to the realization that there is no end to the war and that Batman must endure and that he and he alone is the only man capable of leading the fight. There is no more doubt, he is no longer conflicted. He is Batman risen!

I can't say this enough...

If Batman dies that's not what's making it a definite ending, it's his actions before this death that will conclude things.

His death (if it happens) will be a minute point in his legacy

 

[Kynergy]

If Nolan ends this with Batman getting his back broken Knightfall style I will be PI**ED! That would open up for a Jean Paul Valley story that I NEVER HOPE to see!

If he did get his back broken, we will not seen Jean Paul Valley, I wouldn't worry about it. Not in this movie, and not in the reboot movie.

 

[BatScot]

I can't say this enough...

If Batman dies that's not what's making it a definite ending, it's his actions before this death that will conclude things.

His death (if it happens) will be a minute point in his legacy

Well if that's the case and if that's what "definite ending" mean then it is, by definition, unnecessary to kill him off. And I don't care what sorts of arguments people put out; no one genuinely wants to have Batman and/or Wayne martyred at the end of this trilogy. And I can't say that enough.

 

[BatBat]

He's Batman. He's our hero. We don't want to see him die. We want to see him pull himself out of an almost impossible situation and come out triumphant as Batman usually does.

 

[The_Raganork]

Well if that's the case and if that's what "definite ending" mean then it's unnecessary to kill him off. And I don't care what sorts of arguments people put out; no one genuinely wants to have Batman and/or Wayne martyred at the end of this trilogy. And I can't say that enough.

I don't know why you think this. Depending on what he does, it can enhance what he's done, or serve some other purpose.

Neither you or I have read the script to say anything is unnecessary is premature.

Just say the truth: You don't like it and you don't like the suggestion that it can happen.

 

[Mandalore464]

How many classic works of literature end with the death of the protagonist? From ancient works, through to Shadespeare, to modern works of both literature and movies, it happens. And for people to get on here and say that a comic book character, translated to film, is above being killed off in one form or another is asinine. What you are basically saying is Batman is immune to literary devices that the xtian messiah was subject to. Really?

Obviously you haven't read my messages, because I never said Batman was immune to anything, I even said the exact opposite.

What I said was that killing him off would be a tricky thing to do, because killing off a popular character is such a commercial gimmick nowadays that Nolan would have to make his death mean something to the audience, and not just kill him to end his trilogy in a no-going-back kind of way.

I don't know what triggered this rant trying to convince me that killing off Batman could be done, because that's exactly what I've been saying all along in this thread.

The only thing you couldn't understand was my apparent contradiction when I said that killling off a character was hard because it looked like an easy way out, well what it means sounds obvious to me but apparently not to you so I hope this post can clarify that. It can look like an "easy way out" because it allows Nolan to get away with an abrupt ending that has great shock value but will be a devastating failure to his trilogy if he fails to give it an equally powerful meaning.

Like I said in one of my previous messages, which I wish you'd read instead of trying to convince me of what I already firmly believe in, Batman's death can only be accepted by the general audience if it allows the story to end, if it triggers something that saves the day...

Hope it's all clear now.

 

[Tatsumarushinob]

If Nolan kills Batman, Nolan screwed the whole story. Given what Bats has been through and what's left for him to go through, there is no point in killing him. Batman will die an old man, even in the movies it should be this way. This trilogy must end with Batman being the ultimate badass that he is. Although, it'd be awesome if Batman fakes his own death in this movie and returns in full force as a strategic way of creating his own 'immortality' or 'legend'.

 

[Sith Scotti]

He's Batman. He's our hero. We don't want to see him die. We want to see him pull himself out of an almost impossible situation and come out triumphant as Batman usually does.

We don't always get what we want in life , why should the movies be different?

 

[Doc Phosphorus]

We don't always get what we want in life , why should the movies be different?

Cause it's product, and you don't make money by pissing off 90% of your audience. And no, it doesn't matter that it's the last film. And no, it doesn't matter that Nolan's made WB billions already.

I will say, with 100% certainty, that WB would not allow Christopher Nolan to kill of Bruce Wayne.

 

[Sith Scotti]

Cause it's product, and you don't make money by pissing off 90% of your audience. And no, it doesn't matter that it's the last film. And no, it doesn't matter that Nolan's made WB billions already.

I will say, with 100% certainty, that WB would not allow Christopher Nolan to kill of Bruce Wayne.

Nolan has final cut . Whether he does or does not kill Wayne is up to debate but wb has no control here

Killing off Maxiomus in Gladiator didn't hurt the film ...

 

[BatScot]

I don't know why you think this.

You should, because it's the logical conclusion from your statement:

If Batman dies that's not what's making it a definite ending, it's his actions before this death that will conclude things.

If Batman's death "is not what's making it a definite ending" then logically the definite ending can exist independent of Batman's death therefore it is unnecessary to kill Batman since that definite ending — having occurred as a result of "his actions before this death" — is not dependent upon the death of Batman.

Depending on what he does, it can enhance what he's done, or serve some other purpose.

You can't have it both ways, you said quite plainly that ''[It is Batman's] actions before this death that will conclude things", i.e., the definite ending. You can not now come back and say his death might enhance what he's done when you previously stated his actions prior to his death were definitive and that "his death (if it happens) will be a minute point".

 

[Doc Phosphorus]

Sorry, final cut or not, if you don't think that there are SOME parameters, you're crazy.

First of all, the film must be PG-13. That's a mandate right there.

 

[The_Raganork]

You should, because it's the logical conclusion from your statement:



If Batman's death "is not what's making it a definite ending" then logically the definite ending can exist independent of Batman's death therefore it is unnecessary to kill Batman since that definite ending — having occurred as a result of "his actions before this death" — is not dependent upon the death of Batman.

You can't have it both ways, you said quite plainly that ''[It is Batman's] actions before this death that will conclude things", i.e., the definite ending. You can not now come back and say his death might enhance what he's done when you previously stated his actions prior to his death were definitive and that "his death (if it happens) will be a minute point".

It's not one or the other.

firefighters save people's lives all the time.

Sometimes they die doing that; the story becomes more tragic, sometimes this spurs some sort of action.

The DEATH isn't the heroic act; the saving of the life was, the death just adds another facet to that.

The death is NOT the defining feature but, adds something extra to the heroism and don't take that as dying makes you MORE a hero, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that sometimes dying makes people look at the act more closely.

These are not competing factors.

 

[BatScot]

Batman's death can only be accepted by the general audience if it allows the story to end, if it triggers something that saves the day...

I understand your meaning and agree in principle so please forgive me for using this extract as a jumping off point as where I'm going next is only tangentially related.

Anyhoo... Armageddon. Not the one due in 2012, the one with Bruce Willis in it. We all know how it ends, the hero triggers something that saves the day. And as tragic an ending as that was, no one left the theater with the idea of having Stamper survive to fight another day. The sacrifice was made. The world was saved. The End. And therein lies the difference: The general audience—and most devotees of the character—should they have just witnessed the death of an icon will not be able to leave the theater without desperately wishing that Batman had survived to fight another day. That's what the audience wants to believe will happen once the credits roll—that in that imaginary world Batman is still there fighting evildoers. This doesn't mean Nolan can't kill off Batman, but if he does its all but certain to leave things on a sour note and the only thing killing off this Batman will achieve is ending Nolan's trilogy. It will not end Batman nor prevent other Batman films from being made and as a result Nolan's trilogy will be relegated to something other and not part of the overall mythology. Batman—and Bruce Wayne—live it that mythology and killing off Batman/Wayne unequivocally takes this trilogy out of that stream.

 

[BatScot]

It's not one or the other.

firefighters save people's lives all the time.

Sometimes they die doing that; the story becomes more tragic, sometimes this spurs some sort of action.

The DEATH isn't the heroic act; the saving of the life was, the death just adds another facet to that.

The death is NOT the defining feature but, adds something extra to the heroism and don't take that as dying makes you MORE a hero, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that sometimes dying makes people look at the act more closely.

These are not competing factors.

Your arguing against yourself here, so I'm going to leave you to it.

 

[BatScot]

We don't always get what we want in life , why should the movies be different?

Because movies are escapist entertainment.

 

[Solidus]

Cause it's product, and you don't make money by pissing off 90% of your audience. And no, it doesn't matter that it's the last film. And no, it doesn't matter that Nolan's made WB billions already.

I will say, with 100% certainty, that WB would not allow Christopher Nolan to kill of Bruce Wayne.

Nolan has quite a bit control, and from the rumors where this started, WB was originally pissed about the ending, and they have said now they will reboot it.

And people won't be pissed off if the story wraps up well, I'm glad Nolan who has great imagination is writing it, because there are many ways to go about it where the audience will feel alright with the heroes death. If the actions of his death have greater purpose then it works. Like Spock said as he dies, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. You are just jumping to the conclusion that it would not be a hopeful ending with Batman dead, I guarantee (especially since Nolan is a master with endings) there will be a good hopeful feeling, but I'm sure it will be bittersweet, it worked for Cobb in Inception.

Sorry, final cut or not, if you don't think that there are SOME parameters, you're crazy.

First of all, the film must be PG-13. That's a mandate right there.

People die all the time in PG-13 movies that is a moot point.

I understand your meaning and agree in principle so please forgive me for using this extract as a jumping off point as where I'm going next is only tangentially related.

Anyhoo... Armageddon. Not the one due in 2012, the one with Bruce Willis in it. We all know how it ends, the hero triggers something that saves the day. And as tragic an ending as that was, no one left the theater with the idea of having Stamper survive to fight another day. The sacrifice was made. The world was saved. The End. And therein lies the difference: The general audience—and most devotees of the character—should they have just witnessed the death of an icon will not be able to leave the theater without desperately wishing that Batman had survived to fight another day. That's what the audience wants to believe will happen once the credits roll—that in that imaginary world Batman is still there fighting evildoers. This doesn't mean Nolan can't kill off Batman, but if he does its all but certain to leave things on a sour note and the only thing killing off this Batman will achieve is ending Nolan's trilogy. It will not end Batman nor prevent other Batman films from being made and as a result Nolan's trilogy will be relegated to something other and not part of the overall mythology. Batman—and Bruce Wayne—live it that mythology and killing off Batman/Wayne unequivocally takes this trilogy out of that stream.

He will, his legacy will live on, people like Catwoman, and the possibility of a second generation (like in the comics with Robin/Nightwing or Jean-Paul before he went bad) will continue his legacy, and just like Terry in Batman Beyond. Bruce can't do it forever he's a man, and the general audience knows this and has accepted the illusion of this being a more real world feel. They know he's mortal. But his symbol is not, he could continue to inspire people to do the right thing, that is what Batman stands for. If Gotham ends up fighting for themselves and breeding new people in the shadow of the Bat, then the audience will leave feeling like Armageddon, only much better because it was a terrible movie lol.

I honestly don't know what will happen, I think death/non-death could both be as powerful and work in many ways. We just can't look at one instance how it could go, Nolan is unpredictable, he though always makes the most powerful endings. That is his gift.

 

[Solidus]

Because movies are escapist entertainment.

Just because its escapist does not mean that art can have deaths of a hero in it, movies have done it for years.

 

[coderaven24]

Nolan has final cut . Whether he does or does not kill Wayne is up to debate but wb has no control here

Killing off Maxiomus in Gladiator didn't hurt the film ...

Sorta hurt the chances of a sequel

 

[Solidus]

Sorta hurt the chances of a sequel

They've already confirmed there will not be sequels off of Nolan's Batman films.

WB confirmed they have to reboot it after this one.

 

[BatScot]

He will, his legacy will live on, people like Catwoman, and the possibility of a second generation (like in the comics with Robin/Nightwing or Jean-Paul before he went bad) will continue his legacy, and just like Terry in Batman Beyond. Bruce can't do it forever he's a man, and the general audience knows this and has accepted the illusion of this being a more real world feel. They know he's mortal. But his symbol is not, he could continue to inspire people to do the right thing, that is what Batman stands for. If Gotham ends up fighting for themselves and breeding new people in the shadow of the Bat, then the audience will leave feeling like Armageddon, only much better because it was a terrible movie lol.

No offense, but I don't buy that for a second. To borrow a phrase, Batman is too big to fail. The general audience, regardless of the fact that they may know he's mortal, do not expect Batman to die nor are they likely to give much consideration to the complications of him doing it for ever because for them the story exists only within a two hour window... and this general audience isn't nearly as interested in that "second generation" as some here are willing to believe.

 

[Solidus]

No offense, but I don't buy that for a second. To borrow a phrase, Batman is too big to fail. The general audience, regardless of the fact that they may know he's mortal, do not expect Batman to die nor are they likely to give much consideration to the complications of him doing it for ever because for them the story exists only within a two hour window... and this general audience isn't nearly as interested in that "second generation" as some here are willing to believe.

LOL, I bet so. The fact is, a good film is a good film. I think it's more of a small chunk of the comic fans that don't want their hero to die. (Given I am a huge comic dork all my life) kinda like some don't want to know that Santa is not real.

There have been stories of Batman retiring or passing on his legacy before and people loved it, it will be no different.

What matters is what he does, and how the story goes. If a story is good and they like it, like Inception, a bittersweet ending will not bug them, whether it be Batman or John Doe. To suggest you know that the GA would just hate the film because of his death? Nah, if it fits, and is done well, and the story is intriguing they won't care, in the end that is what the GA wants is a good movie they don't' care about semantics as much as we do. If it is done poorly than yea there could be problems.