The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion & Speculation Thread - Part 43

[Travesty]

The drive behind what makes Bruce put on the mask every night is a bit different in the comics than it is in Nolan's films. Comic Bruce pretty much made up his mind as a child and stuck to it all through adulthood. He was determined to ensure his tragedy wouldn't befall anyone else, if he has a presence in the situation. Movie Bruce was lost well into his adulthood. His purpose is also remarkably different; it isn't just about protecting people, but he wants his actions to have a resounding impact on the city. It wasn't explicitly stated, but certainly TDK gave insight into how Bruce never planned on making this a life for himself.

Of course he thought about retirement, as he tried to give the mantle to Harvey, so he can be with Rachel. Like SHH-Joker has said, many Batman stories/movies have dabbled in Bruce thinking about or seeking retirement, but in the end, he realizes that he can't stop being Batman. TDK definitely alluded to that in Gordon's little speech at the end.

 

[KRIM]

Of course he thought about retirement, as he tried to give the mantle to Harvey, so he can be with Rachel. Like SHH-Joker has said, many Batman stories/movies have dabbled in Bruce thinking about or seeking retirement, but in the end, he realizes that he can't stop being Batman. TDK definitely alluded to that in Gordon's little speech at the end.

Yes, but that accentuates my point in regards to your statement that it is a core trait. Applied to the comics, it's a solid point as Bruce has been living with that self-promise for years and in fact had trained precisely so he could live up to it and actually keep it. In the movies however, this is a new arc for Bruce. The revelation that he may be doing this for much longer than he anticipated has not even been developed or explored. As such, by Nolan's canon, it can't be a core trait.

 

[gillberg2k1]

I'm curious... as a fan of these films and the comics, as opposed to inside knowledge, where do you stand in the debate Gill?

That being a conclusion where Bruce:
A) Retires.
B) Dies/Sacrifices himself.
C) Maintains the Status Quo.

Which would be preferable to you?

For me, as a big fan of the character, but more importantly, of these films, it's B all the way. I completely understand why some would prefer that he retires or carries on; but I think it's important to remember who's telling the story here.

What made this series so great is the fact that it is grounded and has a strong element of realism, despite some fantastical elements. I feel like these films have sort of already sort of redefined just what Batman is. I don't think his story "has" to be represented in the same format that it is in the comics (i.e. a never-ending saga).

So since that's out of the way, and Nolan obviously has the same sentiment, we're now talking about what's best for the story and overall arc of the character, without necessarily being a slave to the source material. In this world he's created, and given the circumstances, and where this film picks up (8 years later). I think it makes perfect sense to put a finite ending on this saga and figure out where Batman actually ends. Because I believe, one way or another he will. And I think if he didn't it wouldn't be the same kind of film with the impact it's going to have. Keep in mind the weight that this story is going to have as far as the big picture is concerned. How else do you top TDK? You send thee characters off in the biggest way possible, and you finish their stories, in whatever way seems to fit. This film is going to add substantial weight to the two previous ones, that's something they set out to do from the get go. Fans wanted a definitive trilogy with one Batman and one director from beginning to end. I truly think we're getting that and much, much more.

For this reason, I've stayed clear of most of the big spoilers and I've let my guys know up front that I want to go into it as much in the dark as I can at this point.

 

[batman11]

The drive behind what makes Bruce put on the mask every night is a bit different in the comics than it is in Nolan's films. Comic Bruce pretty much made up his mind as a child and stuck to it all through adulthood. He was determined to ensure his tragedy wouldn't befall anyone else, if he has a presence in the situation. Movie Bruce was lost well into his adulthood. His purpose is also remarkably different; it isn't just about protecting people, but he wants his actions to have a resounding impact on the city. It wasn't explicitly stated, but certainly TDK gave insight into how Bruce never planned on making this a life for himself.

Yes, but that accentuates my point in regards to your statement that it is a core trait. Applied to the comics, it's a solid point as Bruce has been living with that self-promise for years and in fact had trained precisely so he could live up to it and actually keep it. In the movies however, this is a new arc for Bruce. The revelation that he may be doing this for much longer than he anticipated has not even been developed or explored. As such, by Nolan's canon, it can't be a core trait.

Really nicely stated. I like your views on the subject.

 

[The_Raganork]

Batman is a creative creation; not a science. Things that apply to comic batman are not applying in these films. It's a creative departure on familiar characters and themes.

AND these films represent a finite world where most other incarnations are in a world that can be infinite. Batman's drive In these films are not the same as others. His journey was finite from Batman Begins. This is very clear within the films. He cannot be Batman forever in these films; the struggle in these films is finding Bruce Wayne's place in a world dominated by Batman. Not Batman saving the day. That's why BB was laced with the troubles of dual identities and TDK laced with the two sides of human nature.

To end this it will have to focus on setting up an endgame for Wayne if not providing us with one

 

[Travesty]

Yes, but that accentuates my point in regards to your statement that it is a core trait. Applied to the comics, it's a solid point as Bruce has been living with that self-promise for years and in fact had trained precisely so he could live up to it and actually keep it. In the movies however, this is a new arc for Bruce. The revelation that he may be doing this for much longer than he anticipated has not even been developed or explored. As such, by Nolan's canon, it can't be a core trait.

I disagree. Yes, Bruce didn't make a promise at such a young age to avenge his parents, but he did after he came back and Rachel talked to him. Throwing the gun in the river was the point were it showed Bruce's devotion to seeking out justice, and shaking Gotham out of apathy. I think it's very much a core characteristic to Nolan's version. True, he probably didn't think he would be doing this forever, but Gotham shouldn't let him retire. Gotham is just as much a character in and of itself, and Gotham should always need someone like Batman. I don't think Gotham should house a utopian society. At the end of TDK, it showed Bruce's finite venture to be a false hope, hence, his eternal struggle.

Anyways, I'll be back in about 2-3 hrs. I gotta go for a bit.

 

[The_Raganork]

Why do you say utopia? Who said Gotham would be a utopia? Only that it wouldn't need batman (maybe) if Batman shakes them out of apathy isnt that it?

Doesn't mean no more crime it means Gotham, as a character, has evolved and become something more a place that can be trusted to defend itself. That's the ultimate win for Batman for this Batman at least.

 

[jmc]

Looking back at the series so far through objective eyes the series almost demands a conclusion. I think the issue from the start is that Bruce's goal has been more about getting Gotham to stand up for itself rather than waging a one-man clean up act. At the end of Rises I believe that Bruce will no longer be Batman, but I do believe the assumption from citizens will be he still exists, newspaper stories will continue about sitings and mysterious figures atop buildings, so the legend of Batman will grow, and when that happens he becomes eternal. In that sense his mission is never over, he will always be the city's defender standing amongst the gargoyles watching over them.

 

[Travesty]

Why do you say utopia? Who said Gotham would be a utopia? Only that it wouldn't need batman (maybe) if Batman shakes them out of apathy isnt that it?

Doesn't mean no more crime it means Gotham, as a character, has evolved and become something more a place that can be trusted to defend itself. That's the ultimate win for Batman for this Batman at least.

Ha, I guess using the word "utopian" wasn't the best decision. But I'll be back, I seriously have to leave right now, to get to this gig. I'll be back in a few hours.

 

[A.Stabelli]

If I cry at ANY point during the Dark Knight Rises, feel free to call me a wuss.

 

[The_Raganork]

Ha, I guess using the word "utopian" wasn't the best decision. But I'll be back, I seriously have to leave right now, to get to this gig. I'll be back in a few hours.

Good luck!

 

[MaceB]

So the only ending that can happen in Nolan's world, is either retirement or death?

I personally think Bruce will retire, and here's why. It looks to me like TDKR is setting up a dynamic where Gotham is doing better, but Bruce is doing worse. Although Batman may be helping Gotham right now, it has been at great personal sacrifice to Bruce... who's been stuck in the same moment for eight years. The only resolution that would do, then, is to see Bruce move on, to give up the cowl, and to live a public life. The goal is for Gotham to be doing great and for our hero to be doing great at the same time, and I haven't seen anything in the Nolan movies that would suggest Bruce can be happy while also being Batman.

What's different about the comics I think is that they portray Bruce as a tragic figure... someone who is doomed to failure. He can never totally defeat crime, and he'll never take off the cowl until he does. The comics don't want to resolve Batman's story, because it's a serial and they're designed to go on forever. You could argue that Nolan's movies should portray Batman tragically in the same way that the comics do, but I think that most movie watchers want to see a resolution and experience a catharsis at the end of this movie. It's just one of the big difference between reading a comic and watching a movie.

 

[KRIM]

I disagree. Yes, Bruce didn't make a promise at such a young age to avenge his parents, but he did after he came back and Rachel talked to him. Throwing the gun in the river was the point were it showed Bruce's devotion to seeking out justice, and shaking Gotham out of apathy.

Ah, but there remains an essential distinction between the methods. Comic Bruce employs the "let ME do it" approach, while Movie Bruce is instead going by "let me show you, then when you're ready, YOU can do it by yourself". The former is very much acting on his own terms with little regard for how the outside world reacts. The latter opts for a more symbiotic process to which ultimately both parties act to get rid of the other's dependency on each other.

Movie Bruce wants to inspire and change Gotham. Comic Bruce just wants to fight it. It's actually pretty intriguing how such polar ideologies could be present in the same character, without necessarily altering too much of what they represent.

I think it's very much a core characteristic to Nolan's version. True, he probably didn't think he would be doing this forever, but Gotham shouldn't let him retire. Gotham is just as much a character in and of itself, and Gotham should always need someone like Batman. I don't think Gotham should house a utopian society. At the end of TDK, it showed Bruce's finite venture to be a false hope, hence, his eternal struggle.

In what way should that be the case? To provide a foundation for the property to continue to thrive and tell stories, or are you indicating something within the context of the fictional realm?

 

[The_Raganork]

Really consider the effect of Bane on Gotham and what that might mean for Gotham's future

 

[Rocafella]

Looking back at the series so far through objective eyes the series almost demands a conclusion. I think the issue from the start is that Bruce's goal has been more about getting Gotham to stand up for itself rather than waging a one-man clean up act. At the end of Rises I believe that Bruce will no longer be Batman, but I do believe the assumption from citizens will be he still exists, newspaper stories will continue about sitings and mysterious figures atop buildings, so the legend of Batman will grow, and when that happens he becomes eternal. In that sense his mission is never over, he will always be the city's defender standing amongst the gargoyles watching over them.

Then isn't this essentially TDK whereby the people of Gotham are lied to for their own good? Batman is no more, but by allowing people to believe he will come to their aid should they need saving, would that be a suitable ending? In some ways that would be worse than the lying to cover up Dent's murders.

I think Batman wants Gotham to be able to police itself without his watch. Hence him either giving it up because he believes the job is done or sacrificing himself in the process. Either way, I think the people of Gotham will be told the truth and allowed to make up their own minds about what Bruce Wayne/Batman stood for.

 

[Nevincer]

I know I've backed down from this debate, both in part because it's a bit overwhelming and it's getting late for me, but I've read most of these fantastic posts and points on both sides and I'd like to thank everyone for participating. In the news drought, I haven't been able to so much as think about this film for months, but this exchange with all of you has really brought back that thought provoking sentiment I love about this franchise and I can only imagine things will get better from here with how the tide has suddenly changed.

 

[AnneFan]

Really consider the effect of Bane on Gotham and what that might mean for Gotham's future

Indeed. Bane wanted Gotham to take control, but in a way that suited his agenda. After all is said and done, Bane defeated and whatnot, they will have taken control (got out on the street and fought for their freedom). As you said, Gotham becoming a place that stands up for itself is Bale Batman's goal.

 

[The_Raganork]

Indeed. Bane wanted Gotham to take control, but in a way that suited his agenda. After all is said and done, Bane defeated and whatnot, they will have taken control (got out on the street and fought for their freedom). As you said, Gotham becoming a place that stands up for itself is Bale Batman's goal.

Also consider the destructive power of Bane, if he has the whole city fighting the cops and a machine that apparently creates earthquakes, then the city may be in a bad state.

Kind of like this world's 9/11 or worse. What then? Everyone's in the same rickety boat, there is no apathy. The rich are poor and the poor are poor. There's a unified Gotham under terror.

If they rebuild together then they don't NEED Batman. They have the chance to re-do the errors of the past. If the biggest horrifying event in Gotham's history is helped ended by Batman then he's done it. That memory lives on forever; like a George Washington or something. He lives on as an ideal for Gotham city for eternity.

 

[camp Blood]

i hope nolan gives us a better look at the batwing post effects

 

[gillberg2k1]

You know, I've been reading all of these posts, and there's some very thought provoking ideas and questions being raised. It amazes me how intelligent some of the posts around here can be.

Frankly, I'd stick around more often if this was the kind of thing going on, as opposed to pages and pages of endless gifs and nonsense that does nothing to engage good conversation. Not a knock on anybody specifically, but I think the level of intellect and discussion here is something that is often overlooked. Kudos to you guys for giving this thread a refresh and making things interesting.

I'll say this. People are watching. The more intelligent the fan community proves to be, the greater the chance of quality, higher brow material getting produced.... Something to keep in mind. It's up to you guys to give them a market to cater to, and they'll produce. I'll leave it at that.

Enjoy all this while you can. No matter what happens in the film and whatever direction they go from this point on; have fun. That's what it's all about.

It's an amazing time to be a fan of these films, and more importantly, the character.

 

[SpideyFan866]

I think another question we need to ask ourselves is whether , figuratively or negatively, Bruce or Batman is gonna die.

Which half of the man will die or will it cross that line where one becomes dominant?

 

[Kane52630]

You know, I've been reading all of these posts, and there's some very thought provoking ideas and questions being raised. It amazes me how intelligent some of the posts around here can be.

Frankly, I'd stick around more often if this was the kind of thing going on, as opposed to pages and pages of endless gifs and nonsense that does nothing to engage good conversation. Not a knock on anybody specifically, but I think the level of intellect and discussion here is something that is often overlooked. Kudos to you guys for giving this thread a refresh and making things interesting.

I'll say this. People are watching. The more intelligent the fan community proves to be, the greater the chance of quality, higher brow material getting produced.... Something to keep in mind. It's up to you guys to give them a market to cater to, and they'll produce. I'll leave it at that.

Enjoy all this while you can. No matter what happens in the film and whatever direction they go from this point on; have fun. That's what it's all about.

It's an amazing time to be a fan of these films, and more importantly, the character.

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[camp Blood]

I think another question we need to ask ourselves is whether , figuratively or negatively, Bruce or Batman is gonna die.

Which half of the man will die or will it cross that line where one becomes dominant?

a very though provoking question indeed

 

[jmc]

Then isn't this essentially TDK whereby the people of Gotham are lied to for their own good? Batman is no more, but by allowing people to believe he will come to their aid should they need saving, would that be a suitable ending? In some ways that would be worse than the lying to cover up Dent's murders.

I think Batman wants Gotham to be able to police itself without his watch. Hence him either giving it up because he believes the job is done or sacrificing himself in the process. Either way, I think the people of Gotham will be told the truth and allowed to make up their own minds about what Bruce Wayne/Batman stood for.

I'm talking about everyone not knowing, Gordon too. I'm looking at it from purely urban myth perspective, the symbol of Batman and what that means. The discussion here is about Batman's never ending task, by becoming myth the task becomes eternal just like in the comics.

 

[AnneFan]

I don't think Batman would 'die' from Bruce in a sense. I think it would just be a sense of finished business. That restless section of him is at peace. No longer feeling a need. It looks like it'll take total bedlam to unite everyone. You hear it all the time. When a cyclone hits, or there's some sort of disaster, people will unite and help each other out. They rise as one. It brings out the best in people, and we all say it's a shame it's not like that all the time on a day to day basis.