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

[Doc Holliday]

Because it completely negates Nolan's story.

Does it? Would that not be the ultimate example of Batman becoming "whatever [Gotham] needs him to be?"

 

[Nevincer]

So? Your logic is that because movies came before it, why bother rebooting them? That's what you are saying. Nothing about quality or any of that.

You really think the studios think it's a better idea to make money through alienating the audience instead of milking the continuity they're familiar with and reusing the same actors? The reason the critical reception of the prior franchises usually have an impact on rebooting is because by the time general audience gets a bad taste in their mouth, it's easier to make the transition to a new interpretation of the same source material without them feeling more to be desired from the old one.

That's why Batman Begins was so well received after Schumacher's, but if it came after Batman Returns, I have a feeling a portion of the fanbase wouldn't have been ready to be as accepting of it.

 

[Joker'sHenchman]

I can't believe that this thread has gone on for 14 pages. Nolan or not, there's no way in hell Robinov will let Batman die in one of his films.

 

[TheBatman072]

Does it? Would that not be the ultimate example of Batman becoming "whatever [Gotham] needs him to be?"

Yes. It does. "Gotham will always need Batman." "This is your mask. Your true face is the one criminals now fear" as well as several other examples. Nolan is basically saying that Bruce is destined to be Batman forever in both Begins and TDK. killing him or having Bruce fake his death negates all of that completely.

You really think the studios think it's a better idea to make money through alienating the audience instead of milking the continuity they're familiar with and reusing the same actors? The reason the critical reception of the prior franchises usually have an impact on rebooting is because by the time general audience gets a bad taste in their mouth, it's easier to make the transition to a new interpretation of the same source material without them feeling more to be desired from the old one.

That's why Batman Begins was so well received after Schumacher's, but if it came after Batman Returns, I have a feeling a portion of the fanbase wouldn't have been ready to be as accepting of it.

Yeah. I do.

 

[Solidus]

I can't believe that this thread has gone on for 14 pages. Nolan or not, there's no way in hell Robinov will let Batman die in one of his films.

They can reboot it, and not unless Nolan made a deal with Robinov to help with the next franchise and attach his name to it via executive producer. Which he has.

But we still have very little info one way or another, there is a lot of people talking of it, I mean even some blog on CNN, and IGN suggested the same thing, the vibe of the trailer gives that to some. But again it could be misdirection.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Yes. It does. "Gotham will always need Batman." "This is your mask. Your true face is the one criminals now fear" as well as several other examples. Nolan is basically saying that Bruce is destined to be Batman forever in both Begins and TDK. killing him or having Bruce fake his death negates all of that completely.

Touché.

 

[Nevincer]

Yeah. I do.

Well I disagree. Don't get me wrong, when Batman gets rebooted, I think there'll be a turning point in terms of how comic book movies are adapted to the screen continuity-wise, and we'll probably see all different interpretations of characters on screen regardless of the era. But right now, rebooting is a last resort on the studio's part, and I think suggesting anything else is preposterous.

 

[Solidus]

However in Begins they do talk about making a symbol, and a legend, something that goes beyond a man. Even Ra's himself is a showmanship of this. In Nolan's world it even suggests that being Ra's Al Ghul may have been immortal in the eyes of the people, but in reality just a new Ra's steps up to the plate and keeps the legacy of Ra's and the league of shadows going. Batman in comics and cartoons has shown this, that his symbol can continue forth without the original man.

Again as others have said I'm not for or against it one way or another. I just care about them telling a story they want to tell and what works best for their thematic elements.

 

[KalMart]

You really think the studios think it's a better idea to make money through alienating the audience instead of milking the continuity they're familiar with and reusing the same actors? The reason the critical reception of the prior franchises usually have an impact on rebooting is because by the time general audience gets a bad taste in their mouth, it's easier to make the transition to a new interpretation of the same source material without them feeling more to be desired from the old one.

That's why Batman Begins was so well received after Schumacher's, but if it came after Batman Returns, I have a feeling a portion of the fanbase wouldn't have been ready to be as accepting of it.

Nolan's Batman version is ending with TDKR. So...if they're going to want more Batman movies, they'll have to reboot. Or offer an insane amount of money for the actors to come back without Nolan directing....which they most likely won't. If Nolan wants to end his version with this film, then he should be allowed to, and the continuity shouldn't be picked up with someone else. He's earned that, and the movies don't have to mirror the serial/ongoing nature of the comics. It's okay...audiences will go along fine with a reboot if it's good. Just give it some time...maybe 5-7 years before they start up again.

 

[Joker'sHenchman]

They can reboot it, and not unless Nolan made a deal with Robinov to help with the next franchise and attach his name to it via executive producer. Which he has.

But we still have very little info one way or another, there is a lot of people talking of it, I mean even some blog on CNN, and IGN suggested the same thing, the vibe of the trailer gives that to some. But again it could be misdirection.

Well I'd be shocked. Everyone needs to remember that while these movies are edgy, Batman is still a family-friendly franchise that has a lot of money to be made off of kids. Kids whose parents probably wouldn't be thrilled to take them to a movie where Batman kicks it.

That said, I've neither seen the script nor the movie, so there's no way to be sure. I will just be the first to say, I think there's no way in hell.

 

[Nevincer]

Nolan's Batman version is ending with TDKR. So...if they're going to want more Batman movies, they'll have to reboot.

I'm not saying it won't work, what I am saying is that Nolan has to be ending the franchise in a way that justifies the reboot. He has to leave WB no option, and that's either him telling them he won't direct unless they promise to not touch his material in the future, or if his story involves finishing Batman's mission. I don't believe that the third film being the ending of the Nolan saga is what WB intended themselves.

 

[KalMart]

I'm not saying it won't work, what I am saying is that Nolan has to be ending the franchise in a way that justifies the reboot. He has to leave WB no option, and that's either him telling them he won't direct unless they promise to not touch his material in the future, or if his story involves finishing Batman's mission.

He justifies it by the fact that neither he nor the actors will be returning to Batman as director/actors. His creative take on Batman is therefore over. Time for a new creative team to do their own version. That's as justified and as simple as it gets. It'll end how he wants it to end...and even if technically there's a narrative door to keep going, it shouldn't unless Nolan and crew want to continue it themselves. Just reboot later on, and if it's good, it'll be accepted just fine.

 

[Doc Holliday]

I'm not saying it won't work, what I am saying is that Nolan has to be ending the franchise in a way that justifies the reboot. He has to leave WB no option, and that's either him telling them he won't direct unless they promise to not touch his material in the future, or if his story involves finishing Batman's mission. I don't believe that the third film being the ending of the Nolan saga is what WB intended themselves.

WB will reboot at some point regardless of what Nolan leaves them with. They ultimately have the say here, because they own the rights and they fund the production. Nolan doesn't really have the leverage to make them leave it alone unless he ends it just the right way.

Plus, isn't that kind of a d-bag move?

 

[Solidus]

Well I'd be shocked. Everyone needs to remember that while these movies are edgy, Batman is still a family-friendly franchise that has a lot of money to be made off of kids. Kids whose parents probably wouldn't be thrilled to take them to a movie where Batman kicks it.

That said, I've neither seen the script nor the movie, so there's no way to be sure. I will just be the first to say, I think there's no way in hell.

Ya or where the bad guy shoves a pencil through a guys skull, or the love of his life being blown to bits. Trust me they don't care about that anymore. Kids go see anything. I did, when I was a kid everyone went to see T2 because it was good. No matter what it will stay PG-13 but they will come regardless. Hell TDK ended with him running away from the cops, and losing the battle against the Joker in a way. Not being able to save a man with good intentions after his FACE was BURNED off.

I mean we don't know this is true, but it is not outside the realm. And using that example won't work, the hero dying would not be any less "traumatizing" to the kids then a man in make up killing people brutally or a man losing half of his face putting guns to a kids face lol.

 

[TheBatman072]

He justifies it by the fact that neither he nor the actors will be returning to Batman as director/actors. His creative take on Batman is therefore over. Time for a new creative team to do their own version. That's as justified and as simple as it gets.

WB will reboot at some point regardless of what Nolan leaves them with. They ultimately have the say here, because they own the rights and they fund the production. Nolan doesn't really have the leverage to make them leave it alone unless he ends it just the right way.

Plus, isn't that kind of a d-bag move?

Exactly. Which means that Batman does NOT have to die in order for WB to reboot the franchise.

Why is this so difficult a concept to grasp?

 

[Solidus]

Exactly. Which means that Batman does NOT have to die in order for WB to reboot the franchise.

Why is this so difficult a concept to grasp?

I will agree it does not, but it is still a possibility. It can reboot with out but I wonder how it will go about.

It would be interesting if they do maybe flash forward to him at old age?

 

[Nevincer]

He justifies it by the fact that neither he nor the actors will be returning to Batman as director/actors. His creative take on Batman is therefore over.

So Nolan is ending his vision prematurerly? You know, if we're going by the fact that Batman's still in his early years, and it's 'too early' to have him die. Because if he's not, all I'm saying is that it's a possibility.

 

[Joker'sHenchman]

Ya or where the bad guy shoves a pencil through a guys skull, or the love of his life being blown to bits. Trust me they don't care about that anymore. Kids go see anything. I did, when I was a kid everyone went to see T2 because it was good. No matter what it will stay PG-13 but they will come regardless. Hell TDK ended with him running away from the cops, and losing the battle against the Joker in a way. Not being able to save a man with good intentions after his FACE was BURNED off.

I mean we don't know this is true, but it is not outside the realm. And using that example won't work, the hero dying would not be any less "traumatizing" to the kids then a man in make up killing people brutally or a man losing half of his face putting guns to a kids face lol.

I would say that there's a big difference between a goon getting killed off screen with a pencil (which was ****ing cool) and Batman being killed. Big difference. One's expendable and die in a funny/cool way. The other is an American icon, whose death would probably be neither funny nor cool.

 

[Solidus]

I would say that there's a big difference between a goon getting killed off screen with a pencil (which was ****ing cool) and Batman being killed. Big difference. One's expendable and die in a funny/cool way. The other is an American icon, whose death would probably be neither funny nor cool.

No no it would not. Parents care if there is sex/tons of blood and gore. They won't go...."we can't see this because the main character dies." Again the pencil trick was one of gore to a point. But do you think if they think that Bats can't die that they would not mind that a good girl that he loved is blown to bits?

Just because a few fans don't' want Batman to die does not mean the parents care. If they did, they would not want their kids to see TDK either due to the fact of a good man turning evil then dying, and a good innocent girl being blown to bits. Parents to discern the difference they think of it in another way. And trust me it will make money the kids will find a way to go we all did when we were young many years back.

 

[Doc Holliday]

So Nolan is ending his vision prematurerly? You know, if we're going by the fact that Batman's still in his early years, and it's 'too early' to have him die. Because if he's not, all I'm saying is that it's a possibility.

No, he's ending it on his terms. That way he doesn't have a "jump the shark" moment in his film franchise. The same with every good television show. If they go on too long, it gets bad. But if there's a specified point when it's done, and the writers aim for that, it can all turn out great.

 

[KalMart]

Exactly. Which means that Batman does NOT have to die in order for WB to reboot the franchise.

Why is this so difficult a concept to grasp?

Which is why if he did have Batman die, it probably wouldn't be motivated by 'not leaving the door open for others to continue'. It'd be because that's the story he wanted to do. Some feel he can't because it doesn't make sense in his overall trilogy logic. Some feel it could be a very impactful and poignant way to end it.

The only way he couldn't possibly have Batman die is if WB somehow forced/threatened him to, and he couldn't just walk away. I think there' at last a slim possibility that Batman could 'die' at the end (either for real in the story or as a deception)...but I don't think it's likely.

I think Nolan is a clever enough storyteller to have Batman not die, but still have the overall story come to a satisfying conclusion that can be respectfully left alone and not fed off of on future versions.

 

[TheBatman072]

Which is why if he did have Batman die, it probably wouldn't be motivated by 'not leaving the door open for others to continue'. It'd be because that's the story he wanted to do. Some feel he can't because it doesn't make sense in his overall trilogy logic. Some feel it could be a very impactful and poignant way to end it.

And once again it makes no sense for Batman to die within the confines of Nolan's own story and the themes and ideas he's been setting up for TWO movies.

 

[Nevincer]

No, he's ending it on his terms. That way he doesn't have a "jump the shark" moment in his film franchise. The same with every good television show. If they go on too long, it gets bad. But if there's a specified point when it's done, and the writers aim for that, it can all turn out great.

Then let it have an ending, if that's the case. The TV Show LOST gave closure to all the characters, it didn't just leave them stranded on the island after defeating the MiB and left the rest up to the viewers imagination because the producers didn't want to do anymore. For the same reason, if Nolan's ending his BB saga, Batman's war on crime needs closure, whether it's through his death or something else. They shouldn't just have Batman mature in some way and have him continue the same struggle, because again, after that there's more story that could be told...

 

[KalMart]

So Nolan is ending his vision prematurerly? You know, if we're going by the fact that Batman's still in his early years, and it's 'too early' to have him die. Because if he's not, all I'm saying is that it's a possibility.

Nolan isn't obligated to do a version of batman that fights for 30 years. His version could be one that ends his story after only 7-10 years of actually being Batman.

Also...even if these are the Nolan Batman's 'early years', it doesn't mean that we have to see this same Batman's 'middle' and 'later' ones, either. If te next filmmaker does Batman's middle years...it doesn't have to be the same Batman as this one. The next Bataman may see Two-Face again...which couldn't be possible if he died in the Nolan Batman's early years.

Nolan didn't approach these films to be the start of an everlasting series like in the comics. So they shouldn't be obligated to the same parameters as then, either.

This version of Batman ends with TDKR one way or another...if there are more Batman films afterwards, they'll have nothing to do with these. So be it.

 

[KalMart]

And once again it makes no sense for Batman to die within the confines of Nolan's own story and the themes and ideas he's been setting up for TWO movies.

Why not? The themes can be carried on by those who he inspired, solidified through martyrdom. If Gotham will 'always need a Batman'...maybe from now on they'll have the inspiration and courage to find it within themselves. That can make plenty of sense, as it does in mythology/folklore and religion....even if it's not the preferred way to go for some.