The Dark Knight Rises The Official "What Do YOU Want in the Sequel?" Thread

[ALP]

LOL Guard +1

 

[Gianakin_]

I don't get it.

 

[Figs]

I dunno, I liked the bunker. It wasn't the most classically Batman thing ever, but I thought it worked nice. I liked the stark visuals. Something about that wide open white room seemed almost Kubrickian.

Although you could say the same about the Batcave, one of the things I liked about the bunker was how large and fairly empty it was. To me it reflected Bruce almost as much as the Batcave, in regards to being cold and empty.

 

[batman11]

To me it reflected Bruce almost as much as the Batcave, in regards to being cold and empty.

 

[ALP]

I don't get it.

Kubricks are the name of lego block-type toys. Such as the one Guard posted.

 

[Gianakin_]

Aaaaah, hehehehe!

 

[Saint]

It might be interesting to see the film question if there's still a place for Batman in Gotham, perhaps ending ambiguously, with Bruce questioning if he can or should continue in the role--if it's even possible to continue in the role with the public and law enforcement against him. Further emphasis on the costs (not to Bruce, but to others) of Batman's existence might also be useful. I think of Denny O'Neil's Knightfall novelization; in the end, Tim asks if, after all that's happened, Batman can still exist--and Bruce doesn't know the answer.

Many have suggested ending the film with some nod to Dick Grayson--like Bruce going to the circus or whatever. If the closing moments of the film depicted the murder of the Graysons, this would neatly underline the dilemma of Batman's uncertain future, bringing Bruce face to face with the reality that the evil that was done to him as a child is still out there, and people stil need to be protected from it. I think ending on that sort of somber note, with Bruce looking out at the murdered family and the orphan boy, with question in the air of whether he can fulfill his responsibility to fight such things, and at what cost, would be pretty neat.

Then, of course, you leave the theatre also wondering what's to be done about the boy who might follow the same questionable path.

 

[the amazing fro]

It might be interesting to see the film question if there's still a place for Batman in Gotham, perhaps ending ambiguously, with Bruce questioning if he can or should continue in the role--if it's even possible to continue in the role with the public and law enforcement against him. Further emphasis on the costs (not to Bruce, but to others) of Batman's existence might also be useful. I think of Denny O'Neil's Knightfall novelization; in the end, Tim asks if, after all that's happened, Batman can still exist--and Bruce doesn't know the answer.

Many have suggested ending the film with some nod to Dick Grayson--like Bruce going to the circus or whatever. If the closing moments of the film depicted the murder of the Graysons, this would neatly underline the dilemma of Batman's uncertain future, bringing Bruce face to face with the reality that the evil that was done to him as a child is still out there, and people stil need to be protected from it. I think ending on that sort of somber note, with Bruce looking out at the murdered family and the orphan boy, with question in the air of whether he can fulfill his responsibility to fight such things, and at what cost, would be pretty neat.

Then, of course, you leave the theatre also wondering what's to be done about the boy who might follow the same questionable path.

I doubt that Nolan would end his "trilogy" on a cliffhanger. A slight nod towards the end might be possible but I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

Many have suggested ending the film with some nod to Dick Grayson--like Bruce going to the circus or whatever. If the closing moments of the film depicted the murder of the Graysons, this would neatly underline the dilemma of Batman's uncertain future, bringing Bruce face to face with the reality that the evil that was done to him as a child is still out there, and people stil need to be protected from it. I think ending on that sort of somber note, with Bruce looking out at the murdered family and the orphan boy, with question in the air of whether he can fulfill his responsibility to fight such things, and at what cost, would be pretty neat.

I have always maintained that introducing Dick would be the best way to end the trilogy. You don't have to do Robin. Hell, they don't even have to allude that Dick will ever become Robin.

I just think that a great way to close Bruce's character arc and bring the trilogy full circle is to bring back the theme of fatherhood. Bruce's relationship with his parents, particularly his father, is such a strong element of Begins that I think it could be very powerful, mirrored in the same way Nolan mirrored the aftermath of the Waynes' death with Rachel's. This time it could be Dick having the crisis, blaming himself, etc - with Bruce there to be the one who consoles him. It might be considered cheesy to some, but I've always thought it would be a great place to bring back the "Why do we fall?" line, this time by Bruce to Dick.

It just makes so much sense, and yet Nolan seems dead set against ever bringing in Dick.

 

[Bat-Mite]

Bale's the one that's dead set against him. Nolan's just said that Dick would still be in diapers when these movies take place, which is a far cry from saying that he hates Robin, doesn't want him in his movies, etc. He could always change his mind about Dick still being a baby when these movies take place, though.

 

[ALP]

^I think those are nice ideas Saint. However like amazing fro said, I just don't see his trilogy ending on that kind of cliffhanger. Only comic fans would totally get it, the GA would be wondering why the film ends with Bruce Wayne at the circus. The average person might not get that the kid may become Robin.

I also like your idea PP, but would Nolan want to devote that much of his film to Dick Grayson/Robin? It doesn't seem to be a character he has a great interest in. One scene at the end is one thing, but to have a large focus on Grayson is another. But I agree that would be a very nice theme.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

Bale's the one that's dead set against him. Nolan's just said that Dick would still be in diapers when these movies take place, which is a far cry from saying that he hates Robin, doesn't want him in his movies, etc. He could always change his mind about Dick still being a baby when these movies take place, though.

I don't know, I think the difference in what Bale has said and what Nolan has said all comes down to the fact that one is a blunt SOB and the other is very coy.

I took the "Robin is in a crib somewhere" as Nolan politely declaring his disinterest in the character while remaining respectful to the fans and the mythos, whereas Bale is being brutally honest as usual - "We ain't doin' no bloody tights-wearin' fancy boy!"

 

[ALP]

Truthfully, I don't think it would fit the tone of Nolan's world to also have a little boy fighting crime with Batman at night.

If Grayson were ever in Nolan's world I imagine it would be like Dark Victory where he serves as a father figure to him and trains him for the future while not directly taking him out to fight crime and risk getting killed.

It won't be like Frank Miller's All Star lol

 

[The ?ion]

Robin is okay in the comics because he has been a part of the mythos for so long, but when given a chance to reinterpret the legacy, I am glad that most film makers choose to ignore the Robin character. It is illogical for anyone to have undergone the trauma that Bruce did, only to expose a child to all of that danger. I suppose deep down there is that connection that both Bruce and Dick are orphans, and that is a beautiful angle, but it would seem more likely that he would train him for the day he turns eighteen, rather than taking on a juvenile sidekick. Heck, it doesn't even make sense that Gordon lets it fly. I can understand the police looking the other way for a vigilante that makes the city safer and makes their jobs less of a living hell. But there is no way at all that a police commissioner that has his own daughter, would allow a grown man to take a child out in a costume, to risk severe injury.

 

[Saint]

I doubt that Nolan would end his "trilogy" on a cliffhanger. A slight nod towards the end might be possible but I wouldn't bet on it.

I wouldn't call that a cliffhanger. Nolan does like his ambiguous endings, though.

 

[Saint]

^I think those are nice ideas Saint. However like amazing fro said, I just don't see his trilogy ending on that kind of cliffhanger. Only comic fans would totally get it, the GA would be wondering why the film ends with Bruce Wayne at the circus. The average person might not get that the kid may become Robin.

I don't really think this is a problem; I think everybody knows that everybody knows Dick Grayson is Robin.

 

[Saint]

^I think those are nice ideas Saint. However like amazing fro said, I just don't see his trilogy ending on that kind of cliffhanger. Only comic fans would totally get it, the GA would be wondering why the film ends with Bruce Wayne at the circus. The average person might not get that the kid may become Robin.

I also like your idea PP, but would Nolan want to devote that much of his film to Dick Grayson/Robin? It doesn't seem to be a character he has a great interest in. One scene at the end is one thing, but to have a large focus on Grayson is another. But I agree that would be a very nice theme.

I have always maintained that introducing Dick would be the best way to end the trilogy. You don't have to do Robin. Hell, they don't even have to allude that Dick will ever become Robin.

I just think that a great way to close Bruce's character arc and bring the trilogy full circle is to bring back the theme of fatherhood. Bruce's relationship with his parents, particularly his father, is such a strong element of Begins that I think it could be very powerful, mirrored in the same way Nolan mirrored the aftermath of the Waynes' death with Rachel's. This time it could be Dick having the crisis, blaming himself, etc - with Bruce there to be the one who consoles him. It might be considered cheesy to some, but I've always thought it would be a great place to bring back the "Why do we fall?" line, this time by Bruce to Dick.

Agreed.

 

[Brother Jack]

I wouldn't call that a cliffhanger. Nolan does like his ambiguous endings, though.

There isn't a whole lot of ambiguity in the endings to his Batman films though, and I wouldn't expect the same especially for a movie that is supposed to conclude the story in whatever fashion. Actually, Nolan's only ambiguous ending that I can of at the moment is Inception.

 

[Mr. Earle]

This. There would be no point to watching a Batman movie if all it did was replicate exactly what is in the book. That is what some what undermines Watchmen. In fact, many reviews cited the high level of reverence as both a pro and the con. At this point, after two films, anyone still watching these movies should be aware that Nolan is creating his own interpretation of Batman and the mythos.

I love the fact that you address that Nolan's Batman is very utilitarian rather than flamboyant like the comic book Batman. Nolan's Batman is very much about function over form (for those unfamiliar with that ideology, look into Ferrari car design, as they never have useless cutaways, spoilers or curves). Realistically, it does make little to no sense for him to purposely dim the lights just to maintain a mood that would hamper his work.

Its fiction. Throw practicality out the window.

It is a con, because there is no real point to doing a 1:1 replication of something in a new medium. If you have new medium, you should be doing new things. I suppose there are those people who would love to see something live action that is an exact replica of a story that they already know, but for most, the fun in seeing something recreated, is also seeing it reinterpreted.

And sometimes, reinterpretation is necessary. I know that in David Hayter's script for Watchmen, he had wanted to abandon the cold war back drop and replace it with something more contemporary (I believe it was the war on terror). And if you think about it, I am sure a lot of young people watched Watchmen and had no real clue as to why Nixon was president or what the tensions were for the cold war.

There are certain things you should never change when adapting something from one source to the next, but that should not hinder interpretation or reimagining.

Nobody is asking for a 100% adaptation. But the bunker was crap.

It might be interesting to see the film question if there's still a place for Batman in Gotham, perhaps ending ambiguously, with Bruce questioning if he can or should continue in the role--if it's even possible to continue in the role with the public and law enforcement against him. Further emphasis on the costs (not to Bruce, but to others) of Batman's existence might also be useful. I think of Denny O'Neil's Knightfall novelization; in the end, Tim asks if, after all that's happened, Batman can still exist--and Bruce doesn't know the answer.

Many have suggested ending the film with some nod to Dick Grayson--like Bruce going to the circus or whatever. If the closing moments of the film depicted the murder of the Graysons, this would neatly underline the dilemma of Batman's uncertain future, bringing Bruce face to face with the reality that the evil that was done to him as a child is still out there, and people stil need to be protected from it. I think ending on that sort of somber note, with Bruce looking out at the murdered family and the orphan boy, with question in the air of whether he can fulfill his responsibility to fight such things, and at what cost, would be pretty neat.

Then, of course, you leave the theatre also wondering what's to be done about the boy who might follow the same questionable path.

I like it!

I doubt that Nolan would end his "trilogy" on a cliffhanger. A slight nod towards the end might be possible but I wouldn't bet on it.

One word: Inception.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I don't know, I think the difference in what Bale has said and what Nolan has said all comes down to the fact that one is a blunt SOB and the other is very coy.

I took the "Robin is in a crib somewhere" as Nolan politely declaring his disinterest in the character while remaining respectful to the fans and the mythos, whereas Bale is being brutally honest as usual - "We ain't doin' no bloody tights-wearin' fancy boy!"

THIS!

Robin is okay in the comics because he has been a part of the mythos for so long, but when given a chance to reinterpret the legacy, I am glad that most film makers choose to ignore the Robin character. It is illogical for anyone to have undergone the trauma that Bruce did, only to expose a child to all of that danger. I suppose deep down there is that connection that both Bruce and Dick are orphans, and that is a beautiful angle, but it would seem more likely that he would train him for the day he turns eighteen, rather than taking on a juvenile sidekick. Heck, it doesn't even make sense that Gordon lets it fly. I can understand the police looking the other way for a vigilante that makes the city safer and makes their jobs less of a living hell. But there is no way at all that a police commissioner that has his own daughter, would allow a grown man to take a child out in a costume, to risk severe injury.

Read Robin Year One. It adresses all these issues. Basically, like in Forever, Bruce cant stop Dick from doing what he wants, so instead of trying to stop him, why not guide him like others did him? Dont forget that it was a ninja that gave him guidance and saved him. That how he knows how to deal with it.

Besides, we re talking about a world where its normal to dress like a bat and fight crime.

 

[ALP]

Besides, we re talking about a world where its normal to dress like a bat and fight crime.

A man who dresses up as a bat clearly has issues.

I think the Batman deserves a medal.
And a straight jacket to pin it on.

 

[the amazing fro]

One word: Inception.

Here's two more for you: That's irrelevant.

Batman is a trilogy and in a trilogy a certain sense of closure is expected at the end of the third part. Leaving it on a cliffhanger (and it is a cliffhanger. A boys parents randomly dying in front of Bruce then the movie ending is a cliffhanger) would just be pointless. Inception was not part of a series. Also the nature of the movie allowed for an ambiguous ending (wouldn't really call it a cliffhanger because we will never find out if it was a dream or not)

Also,as mentioned before by ALP,most people would be like "who? what? where?" It would feel a bit random and if it didn't work it could ruin the entire movie.
I'm not object to perhaps Bruce receiving the tickets for Haley's circus at the end (like in dark victory). Actually showing it would be a bit much.

 

[The ?ion]

@ Mr.Earle

1) Just because something is fiction does not mean it has free reign to ignore a logical order. Even if it is logical in terms of the narrative, it must be shown that there is an order to the thought process or a motive behind the action. Otherwise, it is poor writing/story telling.

2) Nothing about Robin's existence makes sense. In fact, it has been one of the weakest points in Batman canon, while also being one of the strongest. Robin has proven to be an invaluable ally and anchor to the social world for Batman. Robin has also provided an entertaining lens from which the reader can view the world of Batman. However, in terms of narrative, it never did and never will make sense. Nobody would experience the childhood trauma that Bruce did, and expose a child to all of those risks. No police commissioner who has his own children would allow a grown man in a bat costume to put a child at risk. Not only would it threaten his job security (who would allow him to continue if he is tolerating child endangerment?) but it should in all right offend him as a parent.

Also, wasn't Robin added in by the then EIC because he felt the book was too dark and he wanted to attract a younger readership? Robin's very creation has little to do with credible construction of a proper narrative and everything to do with trying to milk the books for higher sales. I suppose in that regard it doesn't matter if Robin is a contradiction to the established mood of the story and motivations of the characters. The funny thing is that of all the horrible things Schumacher did to the Batman film franchise, one of the smartest things he did was make Robin a young teenage adult (eighteen) so that it would make more sense as to why Batman would willingly take him on as a sidekick. It still amazes me that he understood that fundamental flaw with that character relationship.

With that said, I do enjoy the character. I still like Tim the best of all. He really owned the character as his own identity, separate from the Batman (as shown through his leadership of Young Justice...how I miss that comic). His reverence for the role is still endearing as a long time reader of Batman and Batman related comic books. That still doesn't change my outlook on the questionable nature of the character. I definitely don't want to see him in the films.

 

[Bat-Mite]

Also, wasn't Robin added in by the then EIC because he felt the book was too dark and he wanted to attract a younger readership?

Yes, and then they made them add Batgirl because they didn't want people to think Batman and Robin were

Spoiler

 

[Mr. Earle]

2) Nothing about Robin's existence makes sense. In fact, it has been one of the weakest points in Batman canon, while also being one of the strongest. Robin has proven to be an invaluable ally and anchor to the social world for Batman. Robin has also provided an entertaining lens from which the reader can view the world of Batman.

Robin hasnt been very entertaining since Dick Grayson was wearing the costume.

However, in terms of narrative, it never did and never will make sense. Nobody would experience the childhood trauma that Bruce did, and expose a child to all of those risks. No police commissioner who has his own children would allow a grown man in a bat costume to put a child at risk. Not only would it threaten his job security (who would allow him to continue if he is tolerating child endangerment?) but it should in all right offend him as a parent.

Because comics make sense? Robin is hardly the only kid superhero. Its like half the kids in the DCU. As for Gordon, yeah that takes some suspension of disbelief, but so does the fact that Internal Affairs or the FBI havent come down on him because he's collaborating with a vigilante, the fact that Bruce thinks that beating criminals to a pulp is better than running for President, and so on.

Also, wasn't Robin added in by the then EIC because he felt the book was too dark and he wanted to attract a younger readership?

Yeah, so? Batman's very creation was to capitalize on Superman's success. In fact Kane chose the bat rather randomly.

Robin's very creation has little to do with credible construction of a proper narrative and everything to do with trying to milk the books for higher sales. I suppose in that regard it doesn't matter if Robin is a contradiction to the established mood of the story and motivations of the characters.

While a child in green and red isnt exactly the best fit for Batman's world, perhaps that's exactly what it and he need. And after 70 years of history and refinements, Robin has become integral to the mythos and to Bruce himself.

The funny thing is that of all the horrible things Schumacher did to the Batman film franchise, one of the smartest things he did was make Robin a young teenage adult (eighteen) so that it would make more sense as to why Batman would willingly take him on as a sidekick. It still amazes me that he understood that fundamental flaw with that character relationship.

Well he isnt stupid. He and DC just thought that camp is the way to go after Burton scared people with Returns.

Also, by making Robin a young adult you pretty much take away the son aspect about him because he would already be his own independent man. So at the end of the day if you can believe that one man can take down multiple armoured thugs without getting blown to bits, then why not a kid? Bruce is only doing what he knows. He's mentoring Robin to channel his pain for the greater good.

With that said, I do enjoy the character. I still like Tim the best of all. He really owned the character as his own identity, separate from the Batman (as shown through his leadership of Young Justice...how I miss that comic).

Dick has lead the Titans and is currectly leading the Justice League. In fact he is supposed to have leadership skills equal to those of Bruce, Clark and Diana. Just saying...

But anyway you re right. After Jason failed to win the fans, they tried their best to make Tim awesome and show that Robin is a worthy character.