The Dark Knight Rises Batmans #1 rule

[severed]

What if batman broke his own rule? Would that be so bad?
As a fan of Nolans work I think its an injustice to kill bruce without exploring this...

I was just thinking, it seems they would not give away the ending and the commercials are asking/telling us Will Bruce Die? so... i see the movie having a focus on Bruce fighting with himself and his weakness of identity, fighting with the idea of who he is and what he stands for, and the whole ending is about him "breaking" his 1 and only rule, the rule that seperates batman from his villain but at the same time allows the joker to keep breathing. In my opinion the only line left to draw is Kill or be killed, Kill or let others kill; which is better for Batman? Is his legacy enough to leave behind? I dont think so not just yet. The whole reason Bane doesnt kill him is so batman can face his own creation and choose the impossible; kill or take off the mask

I know i know, thats what the jokers story is all about but... bane is going to be bruces way out, hes going to pull some trick like he did with Ras or 2face, the only way he can kill bane is to take himself out with him or even maybe he can fake it but i think thats a stretch... and i also say thats a weak ending and not a good way for his "legacy" to be left... so what other choice is there?? bruce needs to just start Killing!! Ha ha i know im ******ed, but seriously that would be a wild ending... he lost the girl, he lost his white knight, now hes losing his back, the whole freaking city so F the rules! Whats left if he loses his mask? Batman cant lose again in the end of this movie, he lost pretty bad in the dark knight, if he dies it just wont be fitting to have such a trilogy full of losses... who would buy that DVD boxset??

I also have hopes for nolan continueing the story someday, the 4th movie could be an older bruce passing on his legacy or something completely different idk who cares just give us moar!!! they are just saying the trilogy is over to build hype the movie is going to be too successful not to have at least one more! Just go crazy with it nolan!! UtRH or something F continuity LOL jk... i think having batman kill bane sets up a whole "did i do the right thing?" in the 4th movie and bruce could be going crazy with the death of al and the way the world is left behind . Thats the whole point of the commercials saying he is facing death

Thoughts? Would this cause a better/worse reaction from fans instead killing off our hero?? Would this ruin his character? Would this add a new layer of depth to the whole idea of what a hero truely stands for? Or is it simply rediculous to think he will break his #1 rule and that he should just die if he breaks his own rule? Or has he already broken his rule before??? Just for arguements sake... how does batman win? The joker proved it, either Kill or you cant win. If batman dies then theres no hope for the hero, if batman cant do it who will?? But without his one rule, he is not a hero... or was he never one to begin with? Cuz he let the joker live, which probably wasnt the right choice, or maybe it was in that situation but how will bane be different?

when its either kill or be killed, its tough to draw the line between vigilante and villain... he already "bent his rule" so how can he keep standing by it when faced with ever growing impossible odds. In my opinion bruce can only choose to accept that he is NO better then the villain, and instead of letting it destroy him he should embrace his darker side(like the title says). He needs to stop trying to be perfect everybody slips, because if he dies then the legacy becomes a fallacy. If he cant keep on fighting then the message becomes: you cant beat them, so join them. The symbol of his creation is to embrace the eternal struggle. He has to know that he can choose when to break his only rule in case of emergency. There is a difference between being a mindless executioner and a protector of principals that are greater then he can handle.

Am I crazy or did that make sense? I just think given the choice of batman either dieing or giving up, id rather see him break his own rule instead... Some people believe if batman didnt exhist the Joker wouldnt be evil, but what happens to batman when the joker doesnt exhist? You already know the answer is that a new villain always steps up to the plate, but if nolan is going to replace the hero at least dive deeper into why or else its not a fitting end.

TOO LONG DIDNT READ?? just read the first 2 lines...
breaking what the character represents is better ending then killing him

 

[Dannyboy3D]

BATMAN KILLED HARVEY DENT / TWO FACE IN TDK...
HE ALREADY BROKE HIS "ONE RULE"!!!


Unless...
-Dent isn't really dead.
-That wasn't Batman that pushed him over the ledge. (Oh wait a minute...)

 

[doctorkenyon]

BATMAN KILLED HARVEY DENT / TWO FACE IN TDK...
HE ALREADY BROKE HIS "ONE RULE"!!!


Unless...
-Dent isn't really dead.
-That wasn't Batman that pushed him over the ledge. (Oh wait a minute...)

Which raises the question, did the Joker win?

He pushed Batman to the point where he broke his most prized rule, and the game, breaking people, was what he was all about in TDK.

 

[Dannyboy3D]

which raises the question, did the joker win?

He pushed batman to the point where he broke his most prized rule, and the game, breaking people, was what he was all about in tdk.

of course the joker won...on soooo many levels!!!

 

[darkjedi4z]

That's what was awesome about The Dark Knight. In superhero movies, you expect the hero to come out on top in the end, but The Joker won. He didn't get the people of Gotham to blow themselves up but like he said, Harvey was his ace in the hole. He "forced" Batman to kill him in order to save Gordon's kid and Bruce and Gordon had to lie to the people of Gotham to protect Harvey's secret which was what the Joker wanted to expose to the world, so he accomplished what he set out to do... always one step ahead... I love it!

 

[Slushy]

I don't mind The One Rule, but when The Joker murders the woman Batman loves and is still shown mercy, I have to call bullsh** on it!

 

[bullets]

BATMAN KILLED HARVEY DENT / TWO FACE IN TDK...
HE ALREADY BROKE HIS "ONE RULE"!!!


Unless...
-Dent isn't really dead.
-That wasn't Batman that pushed him over the ledge. (Oh wait a minute...)

Dent's death wasn't intentional.

 

[Ras Al Fool]

BATMAN KILLED HARVEY DENT / TWO FACE IN TDK...
HE ALREADY BROKE HIS "ONE RULE"!!!

Batman killing Dent was an accident, so I wouldn't say that he broke his one rule.

 

[Suppis]

I think this is the same thing with Ra's Al Ghul: "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you." and with it either being innocent kid or Harvey he chose the kid.

 

[Dannyboy3D]

NO WAY...accidental deaths like Dent's are not exceptions to Batman's rule.

As for Ra's Al Ghul, he wasn't killed by Batman. He may have ended up in a deadly situation, but Batman didn't actually, physically kill him. Dent, however, was TACKLED OVER A BUILDING by Batman, and fell to his death. Batman could have gone about saving the boy differently, but no.

Ironic how Dent & Rachel died in the same place (250 52nd Street).
Also ironic how Bruce Wayne/Batman lost 2 people central to his crimefighting abilities in Rachel & Dent, and ALMOST lost a 3rd in Gordon.

Of course, this is ALL ASSUMING that Dent & Ra's Al Ghul are actually dead.

 

[darkjedi4z]

NO WAY...accidental deaths like Dent's are not exceptions to Batman's rule.

As for Ra's Al Ghul, he wasn't killed by Batman. He may have ended up in a deadly situation, but Batman didn't actually, physically kill him. Dent, however, was TACKLED OVER A BUILDING by Batman, and fell to his death. Batman could have gone about saving the boy differently, but no.

Ironic how Dent & Rachel died in the same place (250 52nd Street).
Also ironic how Bruce Wayne/Batman lost 2 people central to his crimefighting abilities in Rachel & Dent, and ALMOST lost a 3rd in Gordon.

Of course, this is ALL ASSUMING that Dent & Ra's Al Ghul are actually dead.

Maybe, perhaps. Of course no one but him (or Nolan) knows his situation at the time. He was just shot (separated plates leaves him vulnerable to knives and gunfire) and he had to do something suddenly at the right moment in order to save the boy, whom Harvey might've had a gun pointed to his head. Might've been the only thing he could do at a time, but there was no intention to kill. It was almost like self-defense, but this is just another way of looking at it. It's a debatable subject.

 

[Dannyboy3D]

Isn't it crazy how we're still talking about the nuances of TDK 4 years later? There were no such nuances with BB that I can recall.

 

[zmystico]

In Batman Begins I am certain Bruce said he would not be an executioner, what happened with Dent wasn't an "execution."

Batman's one rule is still perserved....maybe not technically in the comics, but it is in the Nolan-verse.

 

[TheGuy]

BATMAN KILLED HARVEY DENT / TWO FACE IN TDK...
HE ALREADY BROKE HIS "ONE RULE"!!!

You've got to put yourself on Batman's shoes to understand his perspective. Dent was flipping the coin to see whether he should kill Gordon's son. There's a 50/50 chance of that happening, and that's HUGE. Had he walked up to Dent saying "give me the gun or I'll beat you up", he would have shot Bats again. He might not be so lucky another time. Tackling him was the best option. So he did not kill Dent. When you're in such position, you either act or face the consequence.

 

[Bathead]

Isn't it crazy how we're still talking about the nuances of TDK 4 years later? There were no such nuances with BB that I can recall.

Well, I remember plenty of debate about whether he broke his rule when he blew up the monastery. The main point of contention being that it wasn't readily apparent if anybody did or didn't actually die, other than fake Ra's. Lots of debate.

 

[Silent_Guardian]

Dent's death wasn't intentional.

Killing is making a choice. He had to choose between one life or the other. The only choice he had was to let the kid die or save him. If anything he made the utilitarian choice. In the end he made the choice nobody else could make; the right choice.

 

[TomPiltoff]

Killing is making a choice. He had to choose between one life or the other. The only choice he had was to let the kid die or save him. If anything he made the utilitarian choice. In the end he made the choice nobody else could make; the right choice.

Oh where to begin?

First of all, Batman didn't have to make a choice between one life or the other. Dent doesn't have to die for Bats to tackle and disarm him, it's an accident.

Second, how is his choice utilitarian? It was based entirely on the fact that Harvey had done some terrible things, and Gordon's son was completely innocent.

Finally, what does "he made the choice nobody else could make; the right choice" mean? You think Jim Gordon or any other cop for that matter wouldn't have been capable of making the choice to save an innocent kid versus the man holding a gun to him?

 

[Arch Nerd]

I know I'm in the minority here but I HATE HATE HATE so called superheroes who kill!!! That is why Batman and Spider-Man are two of my favorite characters in comic books. In the old days it was simple, if you were a villain you robbed and or killed. If you were a hero you didn't. Simple. Comic books used to be good vs. bad and bad would lose. Now everyone is rooting for the bad guys or the heroes are just as bad. Now so called heroes have no regard for human life either. So should Batman take this step in the films. That would be the final straw for me. I'm already not completely on board with Nolan's so called "realistic" vision of Batman. Make him a murderer and I'll be done for sure. Just my two cents.

 

[TomPiltoff]

In the old days it was simple, if you were a villain you robbed and or killed. If you were a hero you didn't. Simple.

Oh is that why the original Batman of the good old days had no problem killing people?

Comic books used to be good vs. bad and bad would lose. Now everyone is rooting for the bad guys or the heroes are just as bad. Now so called heroes have no regard for human life either.

Yeah well keep in mind that comic writers originally had their hands bound in terms of what they were allowed to print to an absurd degree. It's not as if 'good guys were good, bad guys were bad' because the world once upon a time was actually like that.

 

[Arch Nerd]

That's the point though! Comic books aren't reality. They shouldn't leave us feeling the same as watching the evening news. And even if you wanted to portray some since of realism in comic books taking someone's life and spouting out a one-liner after doing so isn't what real life is all about. All that is is a total disregard for human life. Perhaps there was some censorship in comics, yes even to an extreme degree, but still people in general had higher standards morally speaking. Otherwise those restrictions wouldn't have been in place. Restrictions or not Stan Lee came out and said Spider-Man wouldn't be a killer because HEROES DON'T KILL! People today are blood thirsty. Extreme violence is supposed to make a good story or good character. Sorry I don't buy it. Give me a hero with a moral guideline. This is why I prefer bronzeage comics. Pre Joker cutting off his face and Curt Connors eating his own son.

 

[Arch Nerd]

As previously stated, I knew I'd be in the minority on the subject. It comes as no surprise to me.

 

[Dannyboy3D]

Yeah ok enough playing victim...

Batman killed Dent in TDK.
Batman did not kill anyone in the monastery in BB because he wasn't Batman yet.
And as far as superheroes that don't kill, both Spider-Man and Batman have killed in previous films.

 

[Silent_Guardian]

Oh where to begin?

First of all, Batman didn't have to make a choice between one life or the other. Dent doesn't have to die for Bats to tackle and disarm him, it's an accident.

Second, how is his choice utilitarian? It was based entirely on the fact that Harvey had done some terrible things, and Gordon's son was completely innocent.

Finally, what does "he made the choice nobody else could make; the right choice" mean? You think Jim Gordon or any other cop for that matter wouldn't have been capable of making the choice to save an innocent kid versus the man holding a gun to him?

1. Yes, it was unlikely his intent to kill Dent. He saved the kid, and as a result, Dent fell and died, like he himself could have done (died).

2. It is utilitarian because Dent was on a rampage, murdering the guilty and innocent alike. Not allowing him to continue, regardless of the means, results in a positive net utility to society; take one life to save countless. It's very similar to altruistic behavior; sacrificing yourself to save many. I don't think it was Batman's intent to kill Dent, but we will never know, unless they address it in DKR which I highly doubt would happen conclusively. He is afterall quite well versed in disabling but not killing people, maybe it was a mistake. But it resulted in positive utility regardless of intent; who knows how many murders he prevented? At least one that we know of, probably three in the immediate future...

3. Why so serious? I'm just spamming Batman quotes, just like I did with the "killing is making a choice..." bit. They're only slightly relevant

 

[TomPiltoff]

It is utilitarian because Dent was on a rampage, murdering the guilty and innocent alike. Not allowing him to continue, regardless of the means, results in a positive net utility to society; take one life to save countless.

Right but that's not the circumstances surrounding Harvey's death. Bruce didn't sit back and make the calculated decision that killing Harvey would result in a net positive for Gotham and then go assassinate him.

Harvey had murdered people and was now pointing a gun at an innocent kid - the shove wasn't to end Harvey's killing spree, it was to save the boy.

Put it this way, if Harvey hadn't created that situation there's no way Bruce would be hunting him down with the intent of killing him.

 

[Arch Nerd]

Yeah ok enough playing victim...


And as far as superheroes that don't kill, both Spider-Man and Batman have killed in previous films.

Try as I might to remember Spidey killing anyone in any of the previous movies I can't. Perhaps you are making reference to the man who shot Uncle Ben, tripped over a pipe and fell to his death, I dunno. I know in Batman '89, and Batman returns Batman did murder people. It was a gripe I had then, and a gripe I have now. Of course there is quite a bit that can be said against Batman returns in general. At the very least though, Catwoman looked cooler than in DKR.