The Dark Knight Rises Clearing up the ending of TDKR (MUST READ)

[Midnight Black]

There is no [BLACKOUT]dream or hallucination at the end of Batman. He lives![/BLACKOUT]

 

[DorneyDave]

Well you seem to be acting that way, if you're obtusely refusing to believe what's right in front of you.
Why does Blake rise the exact same way Bruce did earlier, in the final shot of the trilogy, if he is not about to become the Dark Knight? It would a meaningless finale to the trilogy, and Nolan would be letting himself down. The ONLY reason JGL would possibly be the final person we see as an audience, is if he is about to take up the mantle and become the Dark Knight. Bruce was the star of the trilogy, why would it not end on him, as the person we are closest to?
Batman's legacy isn't a closed thing, everyone accepts him as the hero of the city after his sacrifice, but him coming back doesn't tarnish this legacy, it proves he is an invincible and incorruptible symbol of good, that no matter what happens, will always exist in times of need. If you don't get that, I think you need to rewatch Batman Begins and pay more attention.

Honestly, you make a lot of valid points. I think it could be interpreted both ways, and that's why I love the ending. It closes Bruce's story but lets our imaginations run with what will still come next.

 

[jonnywhc]

Well you seem to be acting that way, if you're obtusely refusing to believe what's right in front of you.

If you don't get that, I think you need to rewatch Batman Begins and pay more attention.

lol...I made my post to get feedback and put some of my opinions out there, and that makes me a fanboy..okay..

You really dont need to be a prick about this, I like most interpretations but you are the one acting like you cant be wrong about this.

 

[BigEggo]

Well to be perfectly honest, I read your post at the top of page 10 thinking it was the beginning of the thread and you were "clearing up the ending". The combination did not sit well with me.

 

[jonnywhc]

So im not a Bale fanboy anymore? My opinion doesn't > anyone else's...

I'll say this once more, you keep ignoring it so its probably pointless but..Nolan himself said this trilogy is the END of Bruce AND Batman's journey and story. Done.

Blake isn't like Bruce in this world, he isn't of the dark. He's ''light'', basically. He just doesn't like the shackles of the police force.

 

[BigEggo]

So im not a Bale fanboy anymore? My opinion doesn't > anyone else's...

I'll say this once more, you keep ignoring it so its probably pointless but..Nolan himself said this trilogy is the END of Bruce AND Batman's journey and story. Done.

Blake isn't like Bruce in this world, he isn't of the dark. He's ''light'', basically. He just doesn't like the shackles of the police force.

Im not suggesting there will be anymore Batman stories by Nolan. The point I'm making, is that Nolan's Batman, more than any other incarnation, is far more about him being a permanent symbol Gotham can rally behind. There would be no reason for so many of the characters to mention it so many times in the trilogy if the symbol died. Batman's story is over as far as Nolan telling it. But the way he told it it should be obvious that he always meant it to continue beyond what he shows us, that there will always be a Batman. Creating a new hero is just ridiculous, and out of keeping with the tone of Nolan's films.

In what way are Bruce and Blake different? Blake admitted he was just as angry as Bruce. They are the same type of person, both dedicated to good at all costs, Bruce is only darker because he suffered as part of his vocation. JGL would go through the same thing is his childhood friend and lifelong love was killed.
This light and dark business is utterly ridiculous, frankly.

 

[DigificWriter]

BigEggo hit the nail squarely on the head. The point of TDKR's ending is that Batman will forever exist as a symbol regardless of who is wearing the armor, cape, and mask.

 

[jonnywhc]

Neither am I...he himself said he wasn't expanding the story and that it would have an end...and he wasn't talking about more films. Simply in universe.

Gotham shouldn't always need a Batman. Him saving the entire city redeems him and makes him into that legend. Blake being his own thing is more like a guiding hand in the new Gotham rather than what Batman's mission was.

Im not sure how thats ridiculous.

 

[BigEggo]

You're taking quotes from Nolan now and adding your own spin to them. You really think he would give quotes like that before the release of the film? That would make him a troll, seeing as he's giving you part of the ending before you've seen the film. He meant he was sealing off his trilogy and story, not Batman in general.

Its ridiculous because as much as Nolan did his own thing, he totally respected the Batman mythos. Creating a new hero as an "out" to finish the trilogy is a slap in the face to Batman's history. There is absolutely no precedent for Batman quitting and someone else becoming Gothams new superhero, nor should there be.

 

[jonnywhc]

''Not Batman in general''...wut? His Batman. He said it, not me.

It isn't..Batman's journey has came to a close in that world and now a new journey begins. Why's that so awful?

 

[DigificWriter]

Bruce's journey as Batman comes to an end, but Nolan clearly says that the symbol of Batman will live on through Robin John Blake.

 

[BigEggo]

A new journey begins? Are you kidding? I don't know if you just really have no interest in Batman or something, but saying Batman can be removed from Gotham and replaced by another hero, in any straight in carnation of the character, is like saying The Joker can be his sidekick, or Alfred can secretly be his father. Sure, believe it all you want. You'll just sound ridiculous.

 

[BigEggo]

''Not Batman in general''...wut? His Batman. He said it, not me.

His Batman story. He didn't say Batman the character is now retired, or dead, or gone forever. That gives away the ending. Jesus H.

 

[Rapunzel]

*sigh* people if Blake was meant to be Batman, then why

1. Would Bruce have meantioned Blake needing create his own mask.

2. Why the hell would the name Robin be mentioned

3. And why would Gotham believe Bats is dead??

It makes zero sense for Bats to continue since GOTHAM THINKS HE DIED FOR THEM!!

He can only be around in spirit now, not physically. That would just undo the whole sacrifice!

Think folks-- if Blake becomes Bats then the bomb thing is just another lie like harvey. What's gonna make Bruce's actions work is if Batman NEVER returns! Otherwise, it's all for nothing!

As for the Bat signal, has any of you considered that perhaps that's meant to be like the statue? A reminder?

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Well, I don't know what to think after reading this thread. When I watched the movie yesterday I assumed that Batman died saving Gotham and I was shocked that Nolan had the audacity to do so. Seeing Bruce with Selina at the end threw me, but I figured that it was just a visual depiction of Alfred's fantasy - of seeing Bruce happy with a woman at the cafe.

Thinking Batman died seemed to make the film so much more powerful to me. I actually felt sad because of it, but it also seemed to validate the tagline of the movie - "The Legend Ends". Batman had become a legend by saving Gotham, and now his story was at an end. Perhaps Blake would become the new Batman, or Robin/Nightwing. But as it was, I viewed the film as depicting Bruce's heroic sacrifice to save Gotham.

Reading about this tracking device in the necklace, blah blah blah...people seem so confident in this theory that Bruce is still alive and bewildered that anybody could think otherwise. I don't know...maybe that's true. But honestly, to me that interpretation cheapens the ending. If Bruce put The Bat on autopilot, why did he stop being Batman in the first place? It seemed like he just escaped with Selina and stopped being Batman - but why? His whole characterization was being driven to do good in order to avenge the death of his parents. If Bruce survived at the end of the movie, he goes from a hero and a legend who nobly sacrificed his life to save Gotham (my interpretation) to someone who undoubtedly did something heroic and saved the city but then inexplicably left it all behind to focus on his own personal happiness (the "Bruce survived" interpretation).

I prefer the noble sacrifice interpretation, but hey, maybe I'm wrong.

 

[ComicStalker]

I want to know... How did Lucius recover the "Bat" from ground zero of a Nuclear/Fusion bomb? Dont tell me that it survived? And there was never a mention of 2 of them either.

 

[Rapunzel]

I want to know... How did Lucius recover the "Bat" from ground zero of a Nuclear/Fusion bomb? Dont tell me that it survived? And there was never a mention of 2 of them either.

Good question. It's a plothole.

 

[The Guard]

You know what would have been cool?

Alfred enters cafe.

Alfred sits, sees Bruce and Selina. Bruce acknowledges him.

Alfred turns to a waiter. When he looks back, Bruce and Selina are gone.

Cut to Blake.

Was it real? Did Bruce just pull the disappearing act? Ambiguity ensues.

 

[Rapunzel]

Well, I don't know what to think after reading this thread. When I watched the movie yesterday I assumed that Batman died saving Gotham and I was shocked that Nolan had the audacity to do so. Seeing Bruce with Selina at the end threw me, but I figured that it was just a visual depiction of Alfred's fantasy - of seeing Bruce happy with a woman at the cafe.

Thinking Batman died seemed to make the film so much more powerful to me. I actually felt sad because of it, but it also seemed to validate the tagline of the movie - "The Legend Ends". Batman had become a legend by saving Gotham, and now his story was at an end. Perhaps Blake would become the new Batman, or Robin/Nightwing. But as it was, I viewed the film as depicting Bruce's heroic sacrifice to save Gotham.

Reading about this tracking device in the necklace, blah blah blah...people seem so confident in this theory that Bruce is still alive and bewildered that anybody could think otherwise. I don't know...maybe that's true. But honestly, to me that interpretation cheapens the ending. If Bruce put The Bat on autopilot, why did he stop being Batman in the first place? It seemed like he just escaped with Selina and stopped being Batman - but why? His whole characterization was being driven to do good in order to avenge the death of his parents. If Bruce survived at the end of the movie, he goes from a hero and a legend who nobly sacrificed his life to save Gotham (my interpretation) to someone who undoubtedly did something heroic and saved the city but then inexplicably left it all behind to focus on his own personal happiness (the "Bruce survived" interpretation).

I prefer the noble sacrifice interpretation, but hey, maybe I'm wrong.

Bruce has to be alive. The autopilot line was to make that clear, and how else would a new batsignal have gotten to Gordon?

It doesn't cheapen the ending because choosing to get past his pain and let batman go for gotham is a bigger sacrifice on Bruce's part than simply dying.

 

[jonnywhc]

I want to know... How did Lucius recover the "Bat" from ground zero of a Nuclear/Fusion bomb? Dont tell me that it survived? And there was never a mention of 2 of them either.

He built more than one, Bruce fixed the auto-pilot with the whole fleet. So the one at the end isn't the same one that exploded

I don't know if you just really have no interest in Batman or something, but saying Batman can be removed from Gotham and replaced by another hero, in any straight in carnation of the character, is like saying The Joker can be his sidekick, or Alfred can secretly be his father. Sure, believe it all you want. You'll just sound ridiculous.

What the **** are you talking about?

I'm saying Batman is over and now a new protector is in town. How does that mean I don't like Batman?

 

[Nightmare]

There is no [BLACKOUT]dream or hallucination at the end of Batman. He lives![/BLACKOUT]

My thoughts exactly!

 

[D-one]

There's more than one "Bat" he told him it comes in black. Also at the end when they were working on the “Bat” it was grey not black.

 

[DigificWriter]

*sigh* people if Blake was meant to be Batman, then why

1. Would Bruce have meantioned Blake needing create his own mask.

He didn't. He told Blake that he needed to wear a mask to protect the people he cared about, but that's not the same as saying 'You need to create your own mask'.

2. Why the hell would the name Robin be mentioned

Nolan gave JGL's character the full name of Robin John Blake to make it clear to the audience that the character was a homage to the various individuals to bear the mantle of Robin in the comics.

3. And why would Gotham believe Bats is dead??

It makes zero sense for Bats to continue since GOTHAM THINKS HE DIED FOR THEM!!

He can only be around in spirit now, not physically. That would just undo the whole sacrifice!

Think folks-- if Blake becomes Bats then the bomb thing is just another lie like harvey. What's gonna make Bruce's actions work is if Batman NEVER returns! Otherwise, it's all for nothing!

As for the Bat signal, has any of you considered that perhaps that's meant to be like the statue? A reminder?

Batman eventually returning isn't going to invalidate his heroic actions in saving them from the bomb, nor will it invalidate the people of Gotham memorializing him with the statue.

 

[jonnywhc]

It makes zero sense for Bats to continue since GOTHAM THINKS HE DIED FOR THEM!!

He can only be around in spirit now, not physically. That would just undo the whole sacrifice!

This x 100.

Bet im not a Batfan for agreeing

 

[D-one]

Bruce will be back, First blake doesn't have the training, then Bruce cares for Gotham to much, and I see Blake just as what his name says Robin.