The Dark Knight Rises How should Nolan End Batman's Story?

[Panthro]

As Dr. Manhattan said: "In the end nothing really ends." There's really only way it can end, and that's the ambiguous "adventure continues even if you don't see it" ending.

 

[TheBatman072]

I like that now we're calling for not only Batman dying, but maybe Bruce being forced to unmask himself to the public.

If the universe didn't want batman to unmask to actually save people's lives in TDK, what the **** makes you think someone like the Riddler could do it?

It's not edgy, it's not original, it's not compelling or dramatic. It's ridiculous. Both Batman dying and being unmasked. Plain and simple.

 

[Naite22]

You want Batman to DIE????! Suck_My_fat-One!!! What kinda dumbass ending would that be. He's already been through hell in these movies, and now we want him dead? Hey, I'm all for Dark, but not at the expense of killing off our hero. dumb.

 

[Rodrigo90]

I like that now we're calling for not only Batman dying, but maybe Bruce being forced to unmask himself to the public.

If the universe didn't want batman to unmask to actually save people's lives in TDK, what the **** makes you think someone like the Riddler could do it?

It's not edgy, it's not original, it's not compelling or dramatic. It's ridiculous. Both Batman dying and being unmasked. Plain and simple.

Then I guess you really hate my ending, right?

Although in mine,he fakes his death, and the whole world knows who he is,like at the end of TDKR. But that didnt stop him returning as Batman in TDKSA did it? Everybody wants a typical and obvious ending,not my vision.

The dumbest ending would be Batman getting let off and cleared for his murders.

People might not agree with me on this,but Batman giving up his entire life (Not dying) to save a few,is the most heroic thing a hero could do,thats why I wrote it. But most want him to go back to the old routine.

 

[TheBatman072]

Then I guess you really hate my ending, right?

Although in mine,he fakes his death, and the whole world knows who he is,like at the end of TDKR. But that didnt stop him returning as Batman in TDKSA did it? Everybody wants a typical and obvious ending,not my vision.

The dumbest ending would be Batman getting let off and cleared for his murders.

People might not agree with me on this,but Batman giving up his entire life (Not dying) to save a few,is the most heroic thing a hero a could do,thats why I wrote it. But most want him to go back to the old routine.

If you can't see the difference in the stories of DKR and DKSA and Batman Begins and TDK, then there's no help for you.

And no, Batman being redeemed of crimes HE DIDN'T commit and becoming the hero again isn't dumb.

 

[Rodrigo90]

How can he be redeemed? Nobody must know he didnt committ the murders,and if they did,then it makes TDK look entirely pointless. Including this movie if the police are chasing him around and then decide him murdering cops and Harvey Dent is no longer important.

 

[Gianakin_]

I, too, believe that what Nolan meant was the end of Batman's arc in this particular trilogy.

The difference between the ending of B3 and the ending of TDK is that when Nolan walks away from the franchise after B3, there will (hopefully) be no loose ends/subplots, as opposed to him leaving after TDK, which would cause his Batverse to be left hanging, story-wise.

 

[Gianakin_]

How can he be redeemed? Nobody must know he didnt committ the murders,and if they did,then it makes TDK look entirely pointless. Including this movie if the police are chasing him around and then decide him murdering cops and Harvey Dent is no longer important.

That's the beauty and the challenge of it, though, isn't it? To wait until 2012 and find out the answer to your (and everyone else's) question.

 

[TheBatman072]

How can he be redeemed? Nobody must know he didnt committ the murders,and if they did,then it makes TDK look entirely pointless. Including this movie if the police are chasing him around and then decide him murdering cops and Harvey Dent is no longer important.

I'm not writing the movie. You'll have to ask Christopher Nolan.

But what you're proposing is dumb.

 

[thedrizzle59]

You have no evidence. You are in the dark, like all of us. While I'm not 100% against Batman dying, there is no evidence right now to back it up.

I dont have evidence of batman dying. I was talking about the hyper realistic tone of the two movies. You said they're not hyper realistic, and you might be right. But im going off what Roven and Nolan said when they themselves described the movies. Thats all.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Thanks.

But how is it dumb? Im actually quite proud and not just cause I thought of it,as I believe it shows Batman's life as dedication and sacrifice,that he would go to any length to protect his city from any threat. Thats how I would want to see my favourite hero being redeemed in this situation. Doing something so selfless and heroic,that no hero would even consider. Anybody would realise unmasking himself is the biggest sacrifice,and faking his death would be necessary to protect and end things. Bruce unknowingly creates both himself and Batman as martyrs in death...as legends.

Unmasking isn't the end,it just brings into a new dynamic to when he returns in later life. Something that we haven't seen before in a Batman movie,or even the comics.

Although. I dont know about him unmasking in any other situation,other than what I wrote.

 

[Gianakin_]

I dont have evidence of batman dying. I was talking about the hyper realistic tone of the two movies. You said they're not hyper realistic, and you might be right. But im going off what Roven and Nolan said when they themselves described the movies. Thats all.

Nolan never mentioned anything about hyper-realism and Roven, being a producer and hardly a writer and/or director was just promoting the franchise-wrongly. Nolan usually describes his approach to Batman as "heightened realism" or "plausible". Roven talks too literally and his "hyper-realism" comment is to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Crook]

The biggest issue is Bruce would never lay out in hiding, especially in his prime. Martyrdom isn't going to save Gotham, at best it'll unite people for what...a couple months? That isn't going to last. And with people believing Batman out of the way, crime would go up exponentially to try and take advantage. At which point Batman is needed again. So he either does, negating the whole fake death...or he doesn't, which betrays the character completely.

Either way you've trapped yourself into a dilemma.

 

[Gianakin_]

The biggest issue is Bruce would never lay out in hiding, especially in his prime. Martyrdom isn't going to save Gotham, at best it'll unite people for what...a couple months? That isn't going to last. And with people believing Batman out of the way, crime would go up exponentially to try and take advantage. At which point Batman is needed again. So he either does, negating the whole fake death...or he doesn't, which betrays the character completely.

Either way you've trapped yourself into a dilemma.

Let alone the fact that if he faked his death at this point, not only would nobody give a ****, the whole city would probably celebrate.

 

[TheBatman072]

I dont have evidence of batman dying. I was talking about the hyper realistic tone of the two movies. You said they're not hyper realistic, and you might be right. But im going off what Roven and Nolan said when they themselves described the movies. Thats all.

You'd be wrong.

Nolan's words. Heightened realism.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2008/10/christopher-nol.html

 

[TheBatman072]

Thanks.

But how is it dumb? Im actually quite proud and not just cause I thought of it,as I believe it shows Batman's life as dedication and sacrifice,that he would go to any length to protect his city from any threat. Thats how I would want to see my favourite hero being redeemed in this situation. Doing something so selfless and heroic,that no hero would even consider. Anybody would realise unmasking himself is the biggest sacrifice,and faking his death would be necessary to protect and end things. Bruce unknowingly creates both himself and Batman as martyrs in death...as legends.

Unmasking isn't the end,it just brings into a new dynamic to when he returns in later life. Something that we haven't seen before in a Batman movie,or even the comics.

Although. I dont know about him unmasking in any other situation,other than what I wrote.

The biggest issue is Bruce would never lay out in hiding, especially in his prime. Martyrdom isn't going to save Gotham, at best it'll unite people for what...a couple months? That isn't going to last. And with people believing Batman out of the way, crime would go up exponentially to try and take advantage. At which point Batman is needed again. So he either does, negating the whole fake death...or he doesn't, which betrays the character completely.

Either way you've trapped yourself into a dilemma.

There you go.

Doesn't make sense story-wise either.

 

[Rodrigo90]

He retires in TDKR for ten years and lets crime go rampant there.

Heres what I wrote in points.

Bruce saves Gotham politically from Rupert Thorne.
Batman saves Gotham from the violence of Black Mask.
Bruce begins to shape the city into a better place,and considers retiring as Batman.
Joker wants a showdown.
Bruce,in order to protect everyone from the truth about Harvey and Joker,unmasks himself.
He fakes his death.
For his heroic contributions,both Bruce and Batman are seen a martyrs.
The city finally walms to him,but only in death.
He hopes that the city can maintain its level of peace,because of him But is aware that it might not.

I had in mind that the next movie would be over 10 years later.

 

[HULK (banned)]

He retires in TDKR for ten years and lets crime go rampant there.

Heres what I wrote in points.

Bruce saves Gotham politically from Rupert Thorne.
Batman saves Gotham from the violence of Black Mask.
Bruce begins to shape the city into a better place,and considers retiring as Batman.
Joker wants a showdown.
Bruce,in order to protect everyone from the truth about Harvey and Joker,unmasks himself.
He fakes his death.
For his heroic contributions,both Bruce and Batman are seen a martyrs.
The city finally walms to him,but only in death.
He hopes that the city can maintain its level of peace,because of him But is aware that it might not.

I had in mind that the next movie would be over 10 years later.

never thought of that before... But I Like it this would set up allot of opportunity's for an epic finale to the Batman trilogy.

 

[Infinity9999x]

He retires in TDKR for ten years and lets crime go rampant there.

Heres what I wrote in points.

Bruce saves Gotham politically from Rupert Thorne.
Batman saves Gotham from the violence of Black Mask.
Bruce begins to shape the city into a better place,and considers retiring as Batman.
Joker wants a showdown.
Bruce,in order to protect everyone from the truth about Harvey and Joker,unmasks himself.
He fakes his death.
For his heroic contributions,both Bruce and Batman are seen a martyrs.
The city finally walms to him,but only in death.
He hopes that the city can maintain its level of peace,because of him But is aware that it might not.

I had in mind that the next movie would be over 10 years later.

Well to begin with, in TDKR Batman retired at 45. Nolan's Batman is still in his early 30's.

Setting the movie ten years from the previous movie would make absolutely no sense. We left the last movie on a cliff hanger. We're supposed to assume that Bruce operated for 10 years as Batman with the cops trying like mad to apprehend him for murder? That's just not very logical, seeing how much trouble Bruce had with the cops in BB.

Ending the movie on Bruce's death or retirement is a foolish, and selfish choice on Nolan's part. This isn't TDKR. It's not a story about a Batman with a long experienced history who needs closure. BB and TDK have been about the rookie Batman. It's following his learning curve as he steps into the role. Bruce still isn't fully confident and comfortable in the role of Batman as we know he will become. Nolan's movies has been about this growth period. Bruce fully becoming the Batman we're familiar with. He still hasn't concluded that story yet.

Jumping to TDKR would be premature, and bad storytelling. It would be an all right idea for a movie set later on in the Batman series, were it to continue for a few more movies, but not now.

Essentially, what you're suggesting is for someone to read, Batman: Year One, then The Man Who Laughs, and then skip straight to TDKR, and that's Batman.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Maybe I was reading too much into Nolan's sentence and misinterpreted "unlike the comics, these things cant go on forever". Whatever the hell he means,lol.

I just cant find a suitable or logical way for Batman to get of his situation. It would send a really bad message if it was justifiable for him to kill Cops and Harvey Dent,and have the entie city pardon him just cause he saves it from a threat. That would seem rather disturbing. I feel this storyline will bring a rather abrupt end to a short lived career.

I should clarify a few things.

The 10 years would be AFTER 3.
Gotham criminals would still fear Batman,cause even though he appeared to have died,they never found his body...creating debates on wether he was a hero or not,and wether he is alive or dead.

 

[Rodrigo90]

deletet:

 

[Mr. Earle]

Batman should squidbomb Gotham. That would unite Gothamites against a bigger threat and end crime.

Oh, and he should do it 35 minutes before the movie starts. t:

 

[raybia]

Well to begin with, in TDKR Batman retired at 45. Nolan's Batman is still in his early 30's.

Setting the movie ten years from the previous movie would make absolutely no sense. We left the last movie on a cliff hanger. We're supposed to assume that Bruce operated for 10 years as Batman with the cops trying like mad to apprehend him for murder? That's just not very logical, seeing how much trouble Bruce had with the cops in BB.

Ending the movie on Bruce's death or retirement is a foolish, and selfish choice on Nolan's part. This isn't TDKR. It's not a story about a Batman with a long experienced history who needs closure. BB and TDK have been about the rookie Batman. It's following his learning curve as he steps into the role. Bruce still isn't fully confident and comfortable in the role of Batman as we know he will become. Nolan's movies has been about this growth period. Bruce fully becoming the Batman we're familiar with. He still hasn't concluded that story yet.

Jumping to TDKR would be premature, and bad storytelling. It would be an all right idea for a movie set later on in the Batman series, were it to continue for a few more movies, but not now.

Essentially, what you're suggesting is for someone to read, Batman: Year One, then The Man Who Laughs, and then skip straight to TDKR, and that's Batman.

QFT!

 

[akfj]

Maybe I was reading too much into Nolan's sentence and misinterpreted "unlike the comics, these things cant go on forever". Whatever the hell he means,lol.

I understood it to mean about what goes on behind-the-scenes. During the course of a movie series actors age, directors/writers eventually want to pursue other projects, and the audience can grow tired of a movie series after too many entries. I think a combination of those factors is what makes Nolan want to end his involvement as a director after the third one.

 

[Brother Jack]

How could Batman feasibly fake his own death anyway? No one knows who he is so there would be no proof that whoever was killed was really Batman, especially with the fake Batmen running around. Batman couldn't do it without revealing his secret identity, methods, etc. (like what happened at the end of DKR).