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

[dark_b]

I would hope the end is somewhat tragic. I think this picture sums it up quite well. Bruce alone, realizing the his quest to fight injustice has become his curse.

this is IMO status quo. watch BB and TDK again.

 

[Godzilla2014]

I would hope the end is somewhat tragic. I think this picture sums it up quite well. Bruce alone, realizing the his quest to fight injustice has become his curse.

We saw that already in The Dark Knight.

 

[dark_b]

We saw that already in The Dark Knight.

since summer 2011 i am asking myself 2 questions.

-didnt they understand the TDK ending?
-do they want the same ending in TDKR like in TDK with different lighting ?

 

[Greens]

People need to stop bringing up the title in this discussion. The title of the movie in no way indicates what is going to happen at the END of the movie. That's like calling a movie ''And they lived happily ever after''. The ending COULD be happy, but you shouldn't use the title as an argument. The Dark Knight Rises merely means that Bruce is coming back as Batman, as everyone who's seen the trailer knows he's taken a break somewhere in the movie, or during those 8 years after TDK.

 

[DaveMoral]

I think the Rises part of the title has more to do with the Dark Knight rising as Gotham's true hero. The only they need and deserve.

 

[Greens]

It could also mean that Batman is finally revealed to the public as Bruce Wayne. I want to see this movie and be done with this guessing :P

 

[djkris]

I was thinking about the whole "The Legend Ends" promotion thing, the poster with the broken bat mask, etc. While I understand that it is necessary to show the hero's struggle, I don't want TDKR to turn into "Superman Returns" and have Batman suffer, get beaten and humiliated.

Sometimes I think, you know what would have been cool? To have a reverse poster, with Bane's mouthpiece broken and Batman standing in the background. Tease me on how awesome this fight is gonna be and how Batman is going to win THIS kind of foe.

 

[Greens]

Yeah it would be cool to have two of the same posters, but with the roles reversed. It would be COOL, not effective. This poster with Batman's broken mask makes people wonder what's gonna happen. The broken mask poster is a great piece of marketing.

 

[Nevincer]

since summer 2011 i am asking myself 2 questions.

-didnt they understand the TDK ending?
-do they want the same ending in TDKR like in TDK with different lighting ?

We saw that already in The Dark Knight.

Thank goodness there are some people here that get this. I can't understand the mentality behind wanting the end of this franchise to essentially be a repeat of TDK's ending only without the loose ends.

 

[Indy Flash]

No!

 

[Godzilla2014]

Thank goodness there are some people here that get this. I can't understand the mentality behind wanting the end of this franchise to essentially be a repeat of TDK's ending only without the loose ends.

Agreed!

 

[KRIM]

]People need to stop bringing up the title in this discussion. The title of the movie in no way indicates what is going to happen at the END of the movie. [/B]That's like calling a movie ''And they lived happily ever after''. The ending COULD be happy, but you shouldn't use the title as an argument. The Dark Knight Rises merely means that Bruce is coming back as Batman, as everyone who's seen the trailer knows he's taken a break somewhere in the movie, or during those 8 years after TDK.

Except that's precisely the formula Nolan has set up with the past two films. It's no coincidence the title cards have popped up at the end. The very meaning and summation of the title's relevance to the narrative is practically defined by what goes on in the final moments of the film.

 

[Damianwayne]

Personally i feel batman should die but not bruce. After the near destruction of gotham at the hands of bane . Batman finally breaks his number one rule and kills bane. But in the cross fire of banes death batman has the chance to fake his own death and decides to take that option. So in the aftermath of the near destruction of gotham and the fall of batman who will rise to help gotham. its bruce wayne of course gothams new white Knight with his money he rebuilds a sort of neo gotham ridding with of crime and making it a futuristic megalopolis . Happy ending and all that but the sad thing that the Ledgend has fallen that was batman .

On a side note . the rebooth as there calling it may just be a throw of.. im not saying direct sequel or anything but lets say neo-gotham 2039 perhaps? No real mention of the nolan trilogy but it still being the same world. Yea bat fans see were im going with this batman beyond ohhh yeah .. we all know WB were planning a batman beyond film before nolan came along. He'll stay on as producer as he is doing and there ya go the ledgend is rebord . thats what i'd use as the header on the posters anyways. I'd just love to see that. Any decent writer could come up with a great script with that ammo. As a fan of Batman i'd just love to see that play out on screen.

 

[munchie64]

Except that's precisely the formula Nolan has set up with the past two films. It's no coincidence the title cards have popped up at the end. The very meaning and summation of the title's relevance to the narrative is practically defined by what goes on in the final moments of the film.

Exactly t:

 

[TCCB]

Except that's precisely the formula Nolan has set up with the past two films. It's no coincidence the title cards have popped up at the end. The very meaning and summation of the title's relevance to the narrative is practically defined by what goes on in the final moments of the film.

Well put.

And let us not forget, Bruce has already discussed with Alfred why as simply a man he won't be able to do anything lasting but as a SYMBOL, as Batman he can. Batman and Bruce should both be warming up a corner in the Wayne family graveyard at the end of the film. It's the only way to truly END it.

 

[Greens]

Except that's precisely the formula Nolan has set up with the past two films. It's no coincidence the title cards have popped up at the end. The very meaning and summation of the title's relevance to the narrative is practically defined by what goes on in the final moments of the film.

Never thought about it that way. It would be awkward to have the title card ''THE DARK KNIGHT RISES'' if Bruce dies at the end.

 

[DaveMoral]

Personally i feel batman should die but not bruce. After the near destruction of gotham at the hands of bane . Batman finally breaks his number one rule and kills bane. But in the cross fire of banes death batman has the chance to fake his own death and decides to take that option. So in the aftermath of the near destruction of gotham and the fall of batman who will rise to help gotham. its bruce wayne of course gothams new white Knight with his money he rebuilds a sort of neo gotham ridding with of crime and making it a futuristic megalopolis . Happy ending and all that but the sad thing that the Ledgend has fallen that was batman .

On a side note . the rebooth as there calling it may just be a throw of.. im not saying direct sequel or anything but lets say neo-gotham 2039 perhaps? No real mention of the nolan trilogy but it still being the same world. Yea bat fans see were im going with this batman beyond ohhh yeah .. we all know WB were planning a batman beyond film before nolan came along. He'll stay on as producer as he is doing and there ya go the ledgend is rebord . thats what i'd use as the header on the posters anyways. I'd just love to see that. Any decent writer could come up with a great script with that ammo. As a fan of Batman i'd just love to see that play out on screen.

The way I see it, if Batman kills Bane he loses. It goes against everything he's about. More over, that would contradict the very theme behind TDK and the poignancy of him taking the rap for Harvey's crimes. He didn't kill those cops and wouldn't have killed those cops. The Dark Knight doesn't rise if he kills the bad guy.

And Batman Beyond is not happening. You can take that to the bank.

 

[Greens]

To be honest, I don't think Bane is the kind of guy who just gets arrested. Joker was pretty much trapped, and physically he doesn't pose much of a threat. If Batman kills Bane, it kinda weakens his moral code in the past two films. I say Bane dies, but not because of Batman. Well of course because of Batman, but indirectly, like the Ra's thing in Begins.

 

[The Morningstar]

What moral code in the past two films? He left Ra's to die whilst quipping "I don't have to save you" Errr... actually you do, you're Batman. Ra's was defeated by that point. The monorail track was destroyed, Ra's had no more back up etc.

And he knocked Dent of the roof, which killed him. In that instance I don't really mind though because it was either do that, or just watch Dent possibly blow a kids brains out.

Anyway as for the topic... I think Bruce will retire after Bane defeats him. Forced to retire, due to his injuries.

But then at the end Batman will RISE up again and defeat Bane, and finally realise that his crusade will never be over.

 

[Greens]

If he kills Bane it would just add to that list of people he supposedly killed. If he succeeds in defeating Bane without killing him, that proves a big point.

Opinions are divided about his code. He didn't directly kill Ra's and Harvey, but they died because he didn't save them. You could say that doesn't count, but it does seem kinda childish for Bruce to exploit a loophole in his very own code.

Maybe after killing Bane he realizes it just doesn't work the way he wants it to.

 

[dark_b]

there was no other way to defeat Ra's but to let him die. as long as he was alive there would be a big chence that he would escape.

i personal think that Bane is the kind of villain where Batman will have to kill him. he went way over the line comapred to any other villain.

 

[Nevincer]

Except that's precisely the formula Nolan has set up with the past two films. It's no coincidence the title cards have popped up at the end. The very meaning and summation of the title's relevance to the narrative is practically defined by what goes on in the final moments of the film.

Indeed, which is precisely why IMO if the ending is so integral to the whole trilogy Nolan isn't going to give it away in the title again. The formula was made clear as day at the end of the last two films, the ending corresponding to the titles with Batman beginning his career (Batman Begins) and Batman taking the fall for Harvey's crimes and operating as (The Dark Knight). Nolan knew the minute he'd reveal the title of the third film, he'd be hinting at the ending... and fans with a keen eye would pick up on this, which is probably why TDKR has come across so odd with some fans, it's meaning seems... far too obvious.

At first glance from The Dark Knight Rises what I got was that it meant the ending would be Batman being redeemed in the eyes of the public, and finally ascending as it were into the Batman from the comics. It's perfect for the character, but it's also kind of iffy because it contradicts themes Nolan keeps reiterating such as it being the conclusion to a story, instead of blowing up the balloon. This is why I'm of the belief that the title was purposely selected to trick the audience, to make them not expect something like a 'death' or 'retirement' when they go to actually see it in theaters.

That may seem far fetched, but think about that quote from Nolan's film "The Prestige".

The first part is called "The Pledge". The magician shows you something ordinary: a deck of cards, a bird or a man. He shows you this object. Perhaps he asks you to inspect it to see if it is indeed real, unaltered, normal. But of course... it probably isn't.

I think there's a symbolic meaning behind The Dark Knight Rises, but it's been put together in a way that seems sort of mundane and studio-ish so that you don't really look for it and just take the title at face value. And of course, taking the title at face value, would definitely rule out death or retirement, so I agree with that. I just don't think it's that simple. I don't think Nolan would want to give it away that easily, he'd want us to think that death or retirement aren't possible conclusions if they were part of the secret ending.

 

[Sith Scotti]

If he kills Bane it would just add to that list of people he supposedly killed. If he succeeds in defeating Bane without killing him, that proves a big point.

Opinions are divided about his code. He didn't directly kill Ra's and Harvey, but they died because he didn't save them. You could say that doesn't count, but it does seem kinda childish for Bruce to exploit a loophole in his very own code.

Maybe after killing Bane he realizes it just doesn't work the way he wants it to.

I can understand the debate about Ras , but really Harvey ? Thats just idiotic . Harvey had a gun at a child's head . Batman wasn't trying to kill Harvey but wanted to stop him killing the kid ......... He was only able to save the kid , but if people are saying Batman killed Harvey dent and wend it went against his code , than they are morons .... If Batman just sat there and allowed Harvey to kill Gordon's son that would go against the code ..


Batman was only able to save the innocent kid . Hell even he took a fall off the ledge . Just because he couldn'r save Harvey didn't mean her broke his code .. Even heroes can not save everybofy including Batman

 

[filmboy33]

Indeed, which is precisely why IMO if the ending is so integral to the whole trilogy Nolan isn't going to give it away in the title again. The formula was made clear as day at the end of the last two films, the ending corresponding to the titles with Batman beginning his career (Batman Begins) and Batman taking the fall for Harvey's crimes and operating as (The Dark Knight). Nolan knew the minute he'd reveal the title of the third film, he'd be hinting at the ending... and fans with a keen eye would pick up on this, which is probably why TDKR has come across so odd with some fans, it's meaning seems... far too obvious.

At first glance from The Dark Knight Rises what I got was that it meant the ending would be Batman being redeemed in the eyes of the public, and finally ascending as it were into the Batman from the comics. It's perfect for the character, but it's also kind of iffy because it contradicts themes Nolan keeps reiterating such as it being the conclusion to a story, instead of blowing up the balloon. This is why I'm of the belief that the title was purposely selected to trick the audience, to make them not expect something like a 'death' or 'retirement' when they go to actually see it in theaters.

That may seem far fetched, but think about that quote from Nolan's film "The Prestige".

The first part is called "The Pledge". The magician shows you something ordinary: a deck of cards, a bird or a man. He shows you this object. Perhaps he asks you to inspect it to see if it is indeed real, unaltered, normal. But of course... it probably isn't.

I think there's a symbolic meaning behind The Dark Knight Rises, but it's been put together in a way that seems sort of mundane and studio-ish so that you don't really look for it and just take the title at face value. And of course, taking the title at face value, would definitely rule out death or retirement, so I agree with that. I just don't think it's that simple. I don't think Nolan would want to give it away that easily, he'd want us to think that death or retirement aren't possible conclusions if they were part of the secret ending.

I love your theory if I am being honest. I think Nolan, as always, is playing his cards close to his chest on this one. He is being a bit cheeky with the title to this film. I do feel also that the title is a bit misleading. It implies that Batman wins in the end and ascends to be the protector he set out to be in BB. It also implies that Bruce/Batman is still very much alive at the end and perhaps even still out there fighting crime as Batman.

This could be only partially true. To be honest, I think one of three things is going to happen at the end of this film:

1) Batman and Bruce will both die saving the city from Bane. By having Batman and Bruce die at the end would cement Batman's legendary status with the citizens of Gotham. In addition, if Nolan decides for the citizens of Gotham to find out that Bruce is/was Batman (which I think he will) then it works against Bane's argument that the wealthy of Gotham are not interested in the plight of the poor and working class. In fact, it may inspire other wealthy Gothamites to work to give back to the city while also cementing Batman's folk hero status with the working class and poor in Gotham as well. This ending also fits with all that I am reading about the ending of this film being Shakespearean in nature with the level of tragedy on display.

2) Bruce dies at the end but The Dark Knight does not. Nolan could take a page from Miller's The Dark Knight Returns by having Bruce fake his death and then continue on as Batman only. It would still allow for the people of Gotham to find out Bruce is Batman and all that would play out afterward as I mentioned above. But also would be a tragic ending as Bruce simply can never get over his pain from his parents death and in turn let The Batman go.

3) Batman dies and Bruce continues on. Bruce could fake Batman's death while saving Gotham from Bane. It would redeem The Batman in the public's eye and also cement his legendary status among the population of Gotham. Then Bruce could work to help Gotham through charitable work just as his father had. However, this ending would mean that the people of Gotham would never find out that the billionaire Bruce Wayne was fighting for them each night as Batman. That I feel would be unfortunate. I think it is important for Bruce to be revealed in this film as The Dark Knight. It plays into the themes of class warfare that Nolan seems to be working within and it also defeats Bane's central argument about the aloof, selfish wealthy class in Gotham.

Personally, I hope it is ending one. I like the idea of Bruce being exposed as Batman and then sacrificing his life to save the city. It works in two ways: 1) it makes The Batman a true legendary hero to the people of Gotham and 2) it makes Bruce an example to the other wealthy of Gotham that they need to do more to help those less fortunate and that they too can create change in Gotham through their actions. It is a fitting ending to the series I feel.

 

[VOLCHKOV]

One other thing to consider. This is a mainstream movie of a huge, enduring franchise character marketed towards a mass audience. If they kill off Batman, (or Bruce Wayne), they basically kill off any future movies, and as a result, any future revenue.

Yes, the hardcore fans, the Nolan fans, the comic book fans, etc., will know this was only 1 man's interpretation of Batman, 1 separate storyline, and not "canon". However, there will be millions of people who'll think Batman actually "died", and can never come back in any other movie. So in say 5 years when a new director comes out with "The Batman Story" or something along those lines, people are gonna look back & go, "Wait, didn't he die in the last film? How is he back? Oh it's just a cheap marketing ploy."

Killing off a main character who's been around for decades is almost never done, and if he or she is, it's usually very temporary. There's a reason James Bond, Batman, Santa Claus, Superman, etc. are always fine, happy & smiling at the end of every movie they're in - money. They're proven money makers and risking that by killing the character could send tremendous backlash against the studio & company making the film, which hurts their bottom line.