The Dark Knight Rises Should Bruce Wayne/Batman Die or Retire at the end?

[Banes_Dealer]

The Legend in that instance referring to the lie that Batman and Gordon put into play to cover up Dent's fall.

I think The Legend bit could refer to many different aspects of TDKR, from Bruce's initial defeat, the symbol of Batman as a whole, the notion of Dent as a white knight, the idea that Bane is untouchable... There's a lot of legends/symbols that are going to be torn down in this thing.

DAMN you're good. I couldn't have said it better. You kids from across the pond come up with great explanations of symbolism.

 

[dark_b]

does anyone have any theory how could Bruce fake his death? should Gordon knwo about it ?

 

[zmystico]

No he shouldn't die or retire, what he should do is accept that he doesn't HAVE to be Batman, but CHOOSE to be Batman. Knowing he no longer NEEDS Batman, but chooses to want to be Batman.

 

[TinkerTailor]

DAMN you're good. I couldn't have said it better. You kids from across the pond come up with great explanations of symbolism.

Blame my film degree and too much spare time.

 

[Banes_Dealer]

No he shouldn't die or retire, what he should do is accept that he doesn't HAVE to be Batman, but CHOOSE to be Batman. Knowing he no longer NEEDS Batman, but chooses to want to be Batman.

That was a choice he made when he became batty, tho. Nobody had a gun to his head.

 

[BestGirl]

No he shouldn't die or retire, what he should do is accept that he doesn't HAVE to be Batman, but CHOOSE to be Batman. Knowing he no longer NEEDS Batman, but chooses to want to be Batman.

I don't see that happening. We already know that TDKR is going to leave the Batman series in need of a total reboot and the ending you suggested wouldn't so that. Bruce is either going to die or retire.

 

[Nevincer]

Im wondering if "The Legend Ends" is actually referring to Bane. Maybe in TDKR Bane is the Legend that will end... I dont think Batman is considered a legend in Gotham or in these movies. The defenition of "legend" fits more with Banes character than Batmans imo..

July 2012

Nolan: "Sike! The Legend we were ending was Bane, a character only introduced in the same film respectively. My Batman saga will continue indefinitely, so long as there is a story to tell... y'know, more stories, without endings."

Is that what some of you are really getting from this? That or "Harvey Dent's" Legend, a character only introduced in the second film of the trilogy? Seriously guys, stop overthinking it... they're ending Bruce Wayne's legend, and this is meant to be the end of Nolan's Batman's journey/career, like the end of any other story about a hero who sets out on a quest. There's always a conclusion, and Nolan is brave enough to give us one even if it's an adaption of a serial hero. Just because it's never been done before doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

Ra's al Ghul: If you make yourself more than just a man, if you devote yourself to an ideal, then you become something else entirely. A legend, Mr. Wayne, A legend!

“Without getting into specifics, the key thing that makes the third film a great possibility for us is that we want to finish our story.” “And in viewing it as the finishing of a story rather than infinitely blowing up the balloon and expanding the story... I'm very excited about the end of the film, the conclusion, and what we’ve done with the characters. My brother has come up with some pretty exciting stuff.

Unlike the comics, these things don’t go on forever in film and viewing it as a story with an end is useful.

Viewing it as an ending, that sets you very much on the right track about the appropriate conclusion and the essence of what tale we're telling.” -Christopher Nolan

"We have the third Batman, but then we’ll have to reinvent Batman…Chris Nolan and [producing partner and wife] Emma Thomas will be producing it, so it will be a conversation with them about what the next phase is." -WB executive Jeff Robinov

 

[zmystico]

That was a choice he made when he became batty, tho. Nobody had a gun to his head.

In Begins he needed Batman as something to focus his anger and pain as well as to save Gotham.

I don't see that happening. We already know that TDKR is going to leave the Batman series in need of a total reboot and the ending you suggested wouldn't so that. Bruce is either going to die or retire.

The Burton Batman didn't die and that didn't stop Nolan from rebooting, The Hulk was technically rebooted without The Hulk dying in the last. Spiderman is getting rebooted and Toby Maguire'd Spidey didn't die/retire. Retirement and death are not contingent in rebooting a franchise.

 

[TinkerTailor]

July 2012

Nolan: "Sike! The Legend we were ending was Bane, a character only introduced in the same film respectively. My Batman saga will continue indefinitely, so long as there is a story to tell..."

Is that what some of you are really getting from this? That or "Harvey Dent's" Legend, a character only introduced in the second film of the trilogy? Seriously guys, stop overthinking it... they're ending Bruce Wayne's legend, and this is meant to be the end of Nolan's Batman's journey/career, like the end of any other story about a hero who sets out on a quest. There's always a conclusion, and Nolan is brave enough to give us one even if it's an adaption of a serial hero. Just because it's never been done before doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.

I'm not disputing that there's going to be a definitive narrative conclusion for Bruce, but on a thematic level there is more than just the symbol/legend of Batman to be addressed in this. We all thought TDK's title was solely just a cool title for a Batman film before we saw it, but there was a lot more at work in the actual narrative in terms of what it stood for. I don't think it's implausible to consider the same thing for TDKR.

 

[Banes_Dealer]

In Begins he needed Batman as something to focus his anger and pain as well as to save Gotham.

Ah, you got me there. I concede, maybe you're right about him making the choice to stick to the vigilantism.

 

[Nevincer]

The Burton Batman didn't die and that didn't stop Nolan from rebooting, The Hulk was technically rebooted without The Hulk dying in the last. Spiderman is getting rebooted and Toby Maguire'd Spidey didn't die/retire. Retirement and death are not contingent in rebooting a franchise.

1) Batman was rebooted because of the poor quality of Schumachers films and because Burton wasn't willing to come back.

2) Hulk was rebooted because Ang Lee's version wasn't exactly critically or financially acclaimed and they didn't want their ideas for a new film adaption to be limited to that film's universe.

3) Spider-Man was rebooted because of creative difficulties with Sam Raimi and the rest of the cast.

The relationship between Warnerbrothers and Nolan as far as we know is pitch perfect. They don't reboot franchises just for the hell of it, there are no difficulties with this production so the reason it's the last one is because Christopher Nolan wants it to be. This is obvious. Now why strictly speaking must this film be the last one? There must be something featured in the story Nolan wants to tell that stops the franchise from continuing, like death or retirement. That's it.

I don't know what the confusion is when people draw to these other franchises that got rebooted where the reason was clearly production problems. In the context of their stories, were any of them as successful as TDK and there were no production issues, Hulk, B&R, Returns, and Spider-Man 3 -all- would have had sequels. Heck, practically most of their endings with the exception of SM3 were clearly shouting "Gimme a sequel!" and SM4 was gonna happen but got scrapped. They didn't end them for the hell of it or because their storylines warranted closure, they encountered a problem which Nolan's Batman hasn't had (yet).

 

[KRIM]

I'm not disputing that there's going to be a definitive narrative conclusion for Bruce, but on a thematic level there is more than just the symbol/legend of Batman to be addressed in this. We all thought TDK's title was solely just a cool title for a Batman film before we saw it, but there was a lot more at work in the actual narrative in terms of what it stood for. I don't think it's implausible to consider the same thing for TDKR.

Not for the ones that followed the film closely. Nolan revealed pretty early on there was a particular reason he chose the title. Most of us caught on to his angle the moment we found out Dent was referred to as Gotham's White Knight.

 

[TinkerTailor]

Not for the ones that followed the film closely. Nolan revealed pretty early on there was a particular reason he chose the title. Most of us caught on to his angle the moment we found out Dent was referred to as Gotham's White Knight.

Wow I must have missed that, and I was lurking here throughout. Silly me. I'll still stand by the rest of my spiel though.

 

[Batman]

As far as neither goes, Batman not dying or retiring at all, well I just don't see that as a realistic proposition.

Exactly. It's not at all realistic.

And that's exactly what makes the character work. The idea of Batman defying the realistic expectations of a man on a mission as insane as the one he's chosen to embark on makes him beyond just a regular being in a silly mask, or a crazy billionaire with parental issues. His drive to continually go on, to always figure out ways to fight the unfightable even though he's only human, is what makes him a compelling as a hero. Take that out of the equation and he's no longer Batman, "end of the legend" or not.

Is it realistic? Nope, not at all, but it'd be needlessly depressing to see the alternative portrayed onscreen. Not that it's not going to be what happens in the movie, it very well might be, but that isn't the question posed by this thread at all. The question is whether it should. And I don't think so. Because I think if it does, it starkly defeats the point of believing in a hero like Batman. Especially given the many times Nolan has stated that he took on the first film with the belief that, while the world he lives in is supposed to be a recognizable and believable one, the character himself is never intended to be that. He's supposed to be extraordinary, transcending the limitations we have.

 

[zmystico]

1) Batman was rebooted because of the poor quality of Schumachers films and because Burton wasn't willing to come back.

2) Hulk was rebooted because Ang Lee's version wasn't exactly critically or financially acclaimed and they didn't want their ideas for a new film adaption to be limited to that film's universe.

3) Spider-Man was rebooted because of creative difficulties with Sam Raimi and the rest of the cast.

The relationship between Warnerbrothers and Nolan as far as we know is pitch perfect. They don't reboot franchises just for the hell of it, there are no difficulties with this production so the reason it's the last one is because Christopher Nolan wants it to be. This is obvious. Now why strictly speaking must this film be the last one? There must be something featured in the story Nolan wants to tell that stops the franchise from continuing, like death or retirement. That's it.

I don't know what the confusion is when people draw to these other franchises that got rebooted where the reason was clearly production problems. In the context of their stories, were any of them as successful as TDK and there were no production issues, Hulk, B&R, Returns, and Spider-Man 3 -all- would have had sequels. Heck, practically most of their endings with the exception of SM3 were clearly shouting "Gimme a sequel!" and SM4 was gonna happen but got scrapped. They didn't end them for the hell of it or because their storylines warranted closure, they encountered a problem which Nolan's Batman hasn't had (yet).

Why must Bruce/Batman die or retire for Nolan finish his trilogy? Did anyone predict Batman taking the fall for Two-face in TDK when we were still seeing the trailers?

Think about the line that Dent says "You either die the hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain." How many people honestly heard that quote in trailers and knew that Dent/Two-face would die and be considered the "hero" and Bruce/Batman would live to see himself become "the villain"...in the eyes of Gotham?

There is so many ways Nolan can end this without going for obvious death/retirement.

 

[dark_b]

because TDK had the despressed ending. the last movie needs to be inspiring and positive. Bruce deserves an ending where he will have a smile on his face. he can die with a smile or retire with a smile.

making a movie where Bruce's story ends on a building where he will be forever batman and where he will forever live in pain is lazy writting IMO

i dont think that its lazy to have a batman where he fights crime forever. i think its lazy writting to make the story the last chapter with Bruce being batman forever.

 

[TinkerTailor]

because TDK had the despressed ending. the last movie needs to be inspiring and positive. Bruce deserves an ending where he will have a smile on his face. he can die with a smile or retire with a smile.

making a movie where Bruce's story ends on a building where he will be forever batman and where he will forever live in pain is lazy writting IMO

i dont think that its lazy to have a batman where he fights crime forever. i think its lazy writting to make the story the last chapter with Bruce being batman forever.

Why do those two things have to go together though?

I'm not sure how Nolan is going to end this, but if Bruce overcomes the emotional pain that he's been in since his parent's death in BB then I'll take that as a happy ending, whether he remains in the cowl or not.

 

[dark_b]

Why do those two things have to go together though?

I'm not sure how Nolan is going to end this, but if Bruce overcomes the emotional pain that he's been in since his parent's death in BB then I'll take that as a happy ending, whether he remains in the cowl or not.

is Bruce going out in a black suit with a smile on his face?

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

because TDK had the despressed ending. the last movie needs to be inspiring and positive. Bruce deserves an ending where he will have a smile on his face. he can die with a smile or retire with a smile.

making a movie where Bruce's story ends on a building where he will be forever batman and where he will forever live in pain is lazy writting IMO

i dont think that its lazy to have a batman where he fights crime forever. i think its lazy writting to make the story the last chapter with Bruce being batman forever.

...And it was a cruddy movie in 1995.

 

[TinkerTailor]

is Bruce going out in a black suit with a smile on his face?

No, but is it inconceivable that he can come to terms with who he is, why he does what he does, and why he will continue to do it if Gotham needs him?

I'm not saying this is my preferred ending, but if it is the ending it doesn't immediately make it a lazy writing considering we don't know the exact circumstances that will bring him to the conclusion of the film.

... aaaand I just realised I missed your smiley.

 

[Poeman]

Batman Forever had a good script...But a terrible filmmaker.

Imagine Nolan directing Batman Forever.

You'd change your mind about the movie then.

 

[Naked Shia]

because TDK had the despressed ending. the last movie needs to be inspiring and positive. Bruce deserves an ending where he will have a smile on his face. he can die with a smile or retire with a smile.

making a movie where Bruce's story ends on a building where he will be forever batman and where he will forever live in pain is lazy writting IMO

i dont think that its lazy to have a batman where he fights crime forever. i think its lazy writting to make the story the last chapter with Bruce being batman forever.

I agree. TDK's ending was already like "bruce is gonna be Batman forever". Now, he needs to evolve as a character. And the ending can't be the same than in the previous movie.

 

[TinkerTailor]

I agree. TDK's ending was already like "bruce is gonna be Batman forever". Now, he needs to evolve as a character. And the ending can't be the same than in the previous movie.

I thought it was Bruce protecting Dent's legacy with the goal of having a Gothamite with a face inspire the citizen's of the city. Something that seems to have worked to an extent given the initial word that Gotham is relatively peaceful at the beginning of TDKR.

 

[Naked Shia]

I thought it was Bruce protecting Dent's legacy with the goal of having a Gothamite with a face inspire the citizen's of the city. Something that seems to have worked to an extent given the initial word that Gotham is relatively peaceful at the beginning of TDKR.

it was. But it was also about him being knighted as gotham's protector. That and what Joker said about them being doomed to fight until the end of times clearly indicates he's supposed to be Batman forever IMO.