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

[redhawk23]

Ra's: "Their deaths galvanized the city into saving itself."

Bruce: "I'm using this monster to help other people just like my father did."

Bruce's mission is to inspire Gotham to take back their city. If death was the only way his father did it, then perhaps Batman has to make the same sacrifice in order to "shake the wealthy and the powerful into action."

However, doesn't Ra's try to show Bruce that he is stronger than is his father?

The will to act and all that.

 

[The_Raganork]

Ra's: "Their deaths galvanized the city into saving itself."

Bruce: "I'm using this monster to help other people just like my father did."

Bruce's mission is to inspire Gotham to take back their city. If death was the only way his father did it, then perhaps Batman has to make the same sacrifice in order to "shake the wealthy and the powerful into action."

But it wasn't Thomas' death alone that did it. He was already inspiring the city and his death happened to come along and push it further.

If we're to expect Batman to be more a legend than Thomas and Harvey I would think that hi surviving would be the ultimate win.

He breaks this cycle of Gotham only being receptive of legends post-mortem.

If Bruce Wayne can do what Thomas did in his life and reorganize the ideals of Ra's al Ghul to protect the city that way,then his lives have two distinct purposes but, work together.

That makes him more than a man, that makes him a force, a self cleaning machine. Taking one positive from the other and using it to become a more rounded inspiration.

THAT (to me) is the real legend. Not some notion that Batman overcomes some physical obstacle.

Anyone can shoot Batman and kill him; that's not what makes him legend.

Anyone can shoot and kill Bane, that's not what the battle is about.

The battle is about reconciling his life to become a force that uses both his lives to aide Gotham Wholly.

 

[ThePhantasm]

I think a good way to shift the reboot would be to have a radically different reboot film, like one with Clayface as a villain, one still dark but perhaps more fantastical than Nolan's films would be. I don't think anyone would confuse them if that happened.

I think they'll go this route as they'll need a more fantasy oriented Batman to set up a Justice League film.

 

[Nevincer]

However, doesn't Ra's try to show Bruce that he is stronger than is his father?

The will to act and all that.

But Ra's being wrong about his father is exactly where Bruce and Ra's don't see eye to eye.

"Like your father you lack the courage to do all that is necessary. If someone stands in the way of true justice, you simply walk up behind them and stab them in the heart."

This was about what Ra's viewed as Bruce's failing, just like his father's, to see that the only way to save Gotham was to "destroy" it. Which obviously wasn't the case, which is why Batman had to defeat and outdo his mentor.

 

[Pagan]

I think a good way to shift the reboot would be to have a radically different reboot film, like one with Clayface as a villain, one still dark but perhaps more fantastical than Nolan's films would be. I don't think anyone would confuse them if that happened.

I think they'll go this route as they'll need a more fantasy oriented Batman to set up a Justice League film.

I'm still holding out for Bat-Mite myself.

 

[redhawk23]

The battle is about reconciling his life to become a force that uses both his lives to aide Gotham Wholly.

This. Absolutely this. This is what I meant about him not having stepped fully into the mantle of the character we all know in love be it Batman or Bruc Wayne, especially on the Wayne side of the equation.

Wasn't it mentioned that the Tate character would be involved in some way with Waynes philanthropy work?

 

[Rodrigo90]

He's this fictional character who tries to be as cool as Batman. But he's not.

Right you and me, OUTSIDE!!!

Or better yet, lets duel on GoldenEye for the Wii. My username is 007/2 - We'll fight it out on Conflict!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[redhawk23]

But Ra's being wrong about his father is exactly where Bruce and Ra's don't see eye to eye.

"Like your father you lack the courage to do all that is necessary. If someone stands in the way of true justice, you simply walk up behind them and stab them in the heart."

This was about what Ra's viewed as Bruce's failing, just like his father's, to see that the only way to save Gotham was to "destroy" it. Which obviously wasn't the case, which is why Batman had to defeat and outdo his mentor.

Great point.


However as others have said, Ragnarok specifically, Batman bringing about change through his life rather than his death would be what would seperate him from both his father and Harvey.

 

[Sharkboy]

I think a good way to shift the reboot would be to have a radically different reboot film, like one with Clayface as a villain, one still dark but perhaps more fantastical than Nolan's films would be. I don't think anyone would confuse them if that happened.

I think they'll go this route as they'll need a more fantasy oriented Batman to set up a Justice League film.

Yes, I agree. I wouldn't go TOO fantastical, I'd keep more of the gritty, grounded nature of the Nolan series, but definitely add some supernatural aspects.

 

[Sharkboy]

post 1000...whoohoo! about time! I've been lurking on this forum since 2003.

 

[DTH]

Why is everyone so quick to pull the trigger to kill Batman? That is seriously the most ridiculous notion I have ever heard, and if it happens I will walk out of the movie.

It's not "Christopher Nolan's vision". That is such a bull**** statement to defend someone's arrogance and pretentiousness as a "director" it's ridiculous. 70 years + material trumps all over one director's "vision".

He has no definitive vision, he's basically copying and pasting from Year One, Long Halloween, Hush etc. While I love his Batman films, he is in no way entitled to act like he owns Batman. Joel Schumacher did the same thing.

Nolan has really stayed strong and true to the Batman mythos, and to just take one gigantic dump in the finale of these movies by killing the main character would be idiotic.

 

[Nevincer]

But it wasn't Thomas' death alone that did it. He was already inspiring the city and his death happened to come along and push it further.

If we're to expect Batman to be more a legend than Thomas and Harvey I would think that hi surviving would be the ultimate win.

Exactly, which is why the Batman persona is so important.

"As a man, I'm flesh and blood I can be ignored, I can be destroyed, but as a symbol I can be incorruptible, I can be everlasting."

Batman as a symbol can't die, but Bruce, his iteration of "Batman", most certainly can and will The difference is if it's a sacrifice in the narrative or it's off-screen due to old age.

 

[Vengeance of Bane]

People are discussing killing of Batman like they actually have a say in the matter.

 

[The_Raganork]

Exactly, which is why the Batman persona is so important.

"As a man, I'm flesh and blood I can be ignored, I can be destroyed, but as a symbol I can be incorruptible, I can be everlasting."

Batman as a symbol can't die, but Bruce, his iteration of "Batman", most certainly can and will The difference is if it's a sacrifice in the narrative or it's off-screen due to old age.

I never thought Batman would die as a symbol...he's on life support at the end of TDK.

If he dies in TDKR it just means something in TDKR makes Batman seen as the hero they needed. As someone who inspires the entire city to do good.

If he doesn't die in TDKR it just means the same thing without the death.

The death isn't what's important it's what he does before it that'll shape his character.

so all this discussion about will he die or not, seems a little...moot to me. I don't care if he dies or not, I care about what he does to become that symbol of hope.

And I think that's resurrecting Bruce Wayne

 

[Sharkboy]

Why is everyone so quick to pull the trigger to kill Batman? That is seriously the most ridiculous notion I have ever heard, and if it happens I will walk out of the movie.

It's not "Christopher Nolan's vision". That is such a bull**** statement to defend someone's arrogance and pretentiousness as a "director" it's ridiculous. 70 years + material trumps all over one director's "vision".

He has no definitive vision, he's basically copying and pasting from Year One, Long Halloween, Hush etc. While I love his Batman films, he is in no way entitled to act like he owns Batman. Joel Schumacher did the same thing.

Nolan has really stayed strong and true to the Batman mythos, and to just take one gigantic dump in the finale of these movies by killing the main character would be idiotic.

Be that as it may, I disagree, I still think his character, his universe, it belongs to him, but he still manages to stay true and respectful to the fans, the mythos and the character that his world is based on. I for one applaud that notion, and welcome and encourage more directors to do the same. It's no different to what graphic novelists do, Year one and DKR are his "visions" his take on the character, they aren't anymore part of "true batman continuity" than Nolan's films are. But they are respected all the more. It's not about staying true to one rigid continuity, it's about taking the spirit of the character and using your own creativity to expand the franchises boundaries.

Fox and Marvel Studios could learn a thing or two about that.

 

[Gianakin_]

Why is everyone so quick to pull the trigger to kill Batman? That is seriously the most ridiculous notion I have ever heard, and if it happens I will walk out of the movie.

No, you won't. Not if it's done well.

It's not "Christopher Nolan's vision". That is such a bull**** statement to defend someone's arrogance and pretentiousness as a "director" it's ridiculous. 70 years + material trumps all over one director's "vision".

Batman has died and been rebooted in the comics before. This is no different.

He has no definitive vision, he's basically copying and pasting from Year One, Long Halloween, Hush etc. While I love his Batman films, he is in no way entitled to act like he owns Batman. Joel Schumacher did the same thing.

Everyone makes any character their own when they're writing him/her, whether you like it or not. Nolan is not copy pasting anything and neither did Joel or Burton. It's called taking elements and *gasp* adapting material.

Nolan has really stayed strong and true to the Batman mythos, and to just take one gigantic dump in the finale of these movies by killing the main character would be idiotic.

He's changed stuff from the comics. He's true to the core and soul of the character, yes, but he's done loooooots of changes. Killing Batman is one aspect of the mythos that not many have dared to do before and if done well, it can be powerful.

Now, I'm not necessarily in favor of killing Batman, but if people here really DO trust Nolan, then they should trust him to have a good reason (and a good way) for killing the hero, IF he chooses to.

 

[Pagan]

I don't know that Nolan would kill him off. But I do think that at some point in this movie Gotham will believe that he's dead. Only to be proven wrong. This will enhance his legend. The criminals will believe that he's unstoppable.

 

[The_Raganork]

Why is everyone so quick to pull the trigger to kill Batman? That is seriously the most ridiculous notion I have ever heard, and if it happens I will walk out of the movie.

It's not "Christopher Nolan's vision". That is such a bull**** statement to defend someone's arrogance and pretentiousness as a "director" it's ridiculous. 70 years + material trumps all over one director's "vision".

He has no definitive vision, he's basically copying and pasting from Year One, Long Halloween, Hush etc. While I love his Batman films, he is in no way entitled to act like he owns Batman. Joel Schumacher did the same thing.

Nolan has really stayed strong and true to the Batman mythos, and to just take one gigantic dump in the finale of these movies by killing the main character would be idiotic.

Barring out any possibility because you don't like it is pretty absurd.

If Christopher Nolan didn't act like he owned Batman he'd be at the mercy of people like you the entire time and not free to write and direct the stories he wants to.

It's a good thing you're wrong, we've enjoyed his personal take on Batman and I'm willing to accredit him for his good work instead of insisting he's a copy cat.

 

[Jedm1991]

Nolan is the complete opposite of a copycat, his take on the joker character proves that.

 

[Nevincer]

I never thought Batman would die as a symbol...he's on life support at the end of TDK.

If he dies in TDKR it just means something in TDKR makes Batman seen as the hero they needed. As someone who inspires the entire city to do good.

If he doesn't die in TDKR it just means the same thing without the death.

The death isn't what's important it's what he does before it that'll shape his character.

so all this discussion about will he die or not, seems a little...moot to me. I don't care if he dies or not, I care about what he does to become that symbol of hope.

And I think that's resurrecting Bruce Wayne

Perhaps I phrased that a little wrongly. Put it this way, I -do- believe that, in the eyes of Gotham, "Batman" can die. Batman can die right in front of their eyes, and just like Thomas Wayne, can inspire Gotham to take back their city.

But what happens when this hope, this inspiration, runs out? When after Gotham is saved, its overrun yet again with criminals, injustice and a lack of hope? Then this "symbol", can literally rise from the grave, whether it's Bruce Wayne or someone else, and return to fight for Gotham and continue the cycle yet again.

Like Pagan was saying...

I don't know that Nolan would kill him off. But I do think that at some point in this movie Gotham will believe that he's dead. Only to be proven wrong. This will enhance his legend. The criminals will believe that he's unstoppable.

Think of this quote:

"Every time a civilization reaches the pinnacle of it's decadence, we return to restore the balance."

Now that the LOS is gone and Bruce's symbol has supplanted them, Batman will be the one to return to restore the balance, and unlike them, he won't destroy the civilization but inspire them to reform.

 

[Rodrigo90]

I'm going to quote Ivan Drago

"If he dies...he dies"

Batman's just going to be rebooted in a few years time anyway.

Its Nolan's story, his film, his decision. If Batman dies, then so be it. Sucks on a level if he did, but I'm sure it'll be - to quote Hugh Hefner - "tasteful".

 

[Pagan]

And I do believe Rags is right about Bruce wanting to leave behind more than just the legacy of Batman. Up to this point he hasn't done anything to honor his father's legacy publicly. matter of fact his playboy persona has tarnished his family name. And part of the focus of this film will be his trying to repair that. He probably rebuilt the hospital and it seems he's helping out the orphanage too. And as much as he wants to give up Batman and live that life of Gotham's philanthropic benefactor reality is not going to allow him that luxury.

 

[elsewhere]

It may be harder for me to re-watch the entire trilogy if Nolan kills off Batman.

 

[Sharkboy]

It may be harder for me to re-watch the entire trilogy if Nolan kills off Batman.

I don't want it to happen as much as anyone else does. In fact, I don't think that many people think it's an actual good idea, the argument is over people who think that it's an absolutely ludicrous idea to even mention the possibility of it happening.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Unless this film takes place many years after TDK, I don't think Bats will die. It would kill the effect of Joker's statement in TDK that "the two of us will be doing this forever." Also, Nolan's titles always appear at the end of the film. I can't see Batman dying and then the end title "The Dark Knight Rises" popping up... makes no sense. Dying and rising are almost exact opposites.

I think Nolan will have a more creative way to keep his series separate than killing Bruce Wayne.