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

[SpideyFan866]

Also, If there must be a definite ending, I think it would be best to have an ending/story based on the idea that "Artifacts", the best episode, imo, of "The Batman", had that Batman or, if not him, his symbol will always be needed in Gotham.

That episose was based around how Bruce knew and felt the fight to save Gotham would never be over and that he, Batman, his symbol would always be needed in Gotham, with Batman refusing to retire, despite the pleas of Barbara and Dick and his aged, somewhat deteriorating body.

In that episode, Batman's fate was left ambigious. Whether he died fighting Freeze, the villain for the episode, was unknown.

The best message shown though was that even 1000 years into the future, long after the deaths of Batman and his loved ones, his symbol was still needed to defeat crime in Gotham.

So, I'd say that they should end the movie with Batman's fate being ambiguous. Show him in the Bat carrying the bomb from the city (which Bane has perhaps turned on without a way to turn it off). Have him not reappear for the rest of the film and his fate being unknown to us and perhaps the other characters in the movie and end the movie with Gordon on top of the MCU, lighting Bat-signal and the final image being the signal in the sky with (perhaps) a voice over by Gordon.

 

[kvz5]

I say it ends with fetus Bruce waking up inside Martha's uterus.

Fixed.

 

[Nevincer]

Not in the slightest. No more than Peter Parker, Clark Kent, or anyone else who has all the same human qualities and emotions and feelings as Bruce Wayne who continue the good fight.

It's a matter of perspective. Peter Parker comes from a lighter universe, and in that universe he uses Spider-Man as an outlet for himself. Peter not only feels it's his responsibility to be Spider-Man, but he enjoys being Spider-Man... I'm limited in my knowledge of the comics, but I did at least observe in SM2 that when Pete was looking for his escape, it was because his life as Spider-Man was overlapping with his life as Peter Parker, to the point he didn't have time to embody his alter ego and accomplish what he wanted to in his dual life. There was no anguish or stress being taken out on him like in Nolan's Batman trilogy, and more importantly, Spider-Man is a much younger guy and in a universe where he has superhuman powers. Same goes for Superman. I hate to draw out the 'realism' card, but it applies here because with this Batman, we're seeing injuries, scars, his own health being afflicted, and a Bruce that clearly never intended to be "Batman" forever. Given the conditions, I don't think it's ever possible for Bruce to embrace the Batman persona on anything other than pride and virtue that goes beyond what's reasonable for a human being.

Actually Rachel was sure the day would never come when he stopped being Batman, hence why she gave up waiting for him and moved on with Harvey.

Conveniently, you missed out the key line "I hope it does." You're right though, she does say she's sure, but she doesn't have to be right and there's still a slim chance that he can get over Batman, given the context.

The Joker claimed he and Batman were locked into a life long course of constant battle. TDK made it clear Batman was not something that was going to go away for Bruce.

I'll give you that, it's there. But what does it mean anymore? That Joker exists off screen now, and we'll have no idea what becomes of that line if anything. What we do know is that Christopher Nolan is planning an ending, something much more conclusive than what we got in Begins or TDK... so will Bruce maintain the status quo? It's possible, and it would validate Joker's line, but on what this movie is about, this is what Chris Nolan had to say:

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. And it hearkens back to that priority of trying to find the reality in these fantastic stories.

You can interpret the quote how you wish, but the way I do is that Chris is saying in spite of what the Joker said, Batman is not locked in this battle forever. They're hearkening back to finding the reality in these films, and they're going to give it a conclusion that truly ends Bruce's journey as opposed to implying it will go on endlessly off screen. You and others may do so differently, which is fine, but just so you see where I'm coming from this is what indicates to me that the direction will be ending the journey, along with all the rest of the emphasis in the marketing on this being the closing chapter of the story.

What immortal qualities does the comic Bruce have that Bale's Bruce is missing in regards to his mission as Batman?

A career that spans decades upon decades as Batman without dying or becoming a paraplegic. And when his back was broken in the comics by Bane, it was by paranormal means not present in the Nolanverse that allowed him to return iirc.

 

[The Joker]

And most of those people suffer from a severe psychological disorder.

http://www.toplessrobot.com/2008/07/the_10_mental_illnesses_batman_clearly_has.php

Granted, Bruce Wayne (along with various other vigilantes and heroes), himself, shows signs of a sociopath, but it differs from writer to writer. Take for instance, Batman Forever, Val's Bruce Wayne encountered an epiphany. He had arrived to the realization that his life was dedicated and consumed by retribution, rage and guilt. It wasn't, however, until Bruce fell in love with Dr. Chase that he had seen first-hand the 'monster' take over his life. Upon finally catching a glimpse of himself as this monster, Bruce wanted out of the hero life.

Indeed. That was a fool hardy thought as he was back on the job within minutes of making that decision, and embracing being Batman "Not because I have to be, but because I choose to be".

Bruce in Mask of the Phantasm was going to hang up his cape just so he could be with Andrea Beaumont when she came back into his life, and this was after years of being Batman.

It's not a new concept of Batman wanting to give up the life of Batman so he can have some normalcy. It's been addressed several times. But the end result is always the same; he never gives up being Batman.

Bale's Batman should be no different.

I understand this, but just because Rachel felt Bruce would always need Batman and Joker saying that they were destined to do this forever doesn't mean Bruce himself wants to do it forever.

It's not about wanting to do it forever, it's needing to do it forever. It's his outlet for his personal demons.

He won't kill criminals, crime never stops, and the Joker pointed out that because neither of them are going to destroy each other, they are in this together forever.

It's the perfect symbology of the life of Batman.

Hell, in TDK look at Bruce's face when Harvey is saying "The Batman doesn't want to do this forever, how could he!", as well as Bruce wanting to quit to be with Rachel at some point in the film.

Peter Parker wanted to quit being Spider-Man more times than I care to remember, and has done. Spider-Man 2 covered it. He hates the thankless task that being Spidey is.

But like with Bruce, he does it out of need rather than want.

When it comes to the ending of TDK, just because he chose to be looked at as a murderer for the greater good, doesn't mean he will stay as Batman forever. That was just a way to keep the light shining in Gotham for a lot longer, even if he isn't around.

Given the stack of evidence that TDK presented with Rachel's letter, Joker's lines, and then Batman wearing a murder rap for Two Face, I find it hard to believe that the message Nolan wasn't sending was that Batman is in this indefinitely.

 

[SpideyFan866]

But is a totally ambigous ending an 'epic conclusion'? I don't think so. Is it what Nolan had in mind when he said they'd had the story planned for 3 years? So I don't think there's any chance of that.

In Nolan's Batman, I don't think Bruce wants to do it forever, like Dent pointed out. He'll stop when he feels Gotham doesn't need Batman anymore. You can argue in depth about what that means however.

But Rachel said it best in TDK that there will never be a time when Bruce no longer needs Batman.

 

[gugumugats]

Ambiguous ending !!!!!!!!!!

 

[SpideyFan866]

Also, the only thing Bruce would consider quitting for in these films was Rachel. She's gone, so he doesn't have a reason because he knows that with her, and Harvey, gone, Gotham will still, and likely always, need Batman.

 

[gillberg2k1]

Interesting talk in here... keep it up. I'm down to discuss this stuff.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Also, the only thing Bruce would consider quitting for in these films was Rachel. She's gone, so he doesn't have a reason because he knows that with her, and Harvey, gone, Gotham will still, and likely always, need Batman.

But what if there is a reason? This version of Bruce has shown to at least contemplate retirement given the right reason presents itself. Rachel was a reason, Harvey was a reason. What if yet another reason, after eight long years (more; as we don't know how long the film will take place over), reveals itself.

 

[Milkman95]

Again, I can't wait to see how he "ends" this characters journey. Letting the audience decide is in fact an option, he's done it before. One popular theory is the way the Legend Ends is Batman's identity is revealed. If that does indeed happen, perhaps a definitive ending can and will happen.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Plus, given that it is Nolan, I highly doubt it would be a rosy, holding hands and riding to the sunset ending. It will more than likely be bitter sweet; like Inception. Cobb's fate at the films's coda was immensely fulfilling yet with a layer of sadness as well.

 

[Solidus]

To me I just want Nolan to end it the way he feels best. Mainly because it is his story, and compromising something to adhere just to pure comic fans to me can water down a film. When I sit down and read a Batman comic or what-have-you I don't go in saying "It must do this it can't do that, it can't do this, or that, or that." Because your setting yourself up to not like something just because its different. I still hear from my uncle who was a big comic guy from the 50's till the early 90's and he talks about all the times where Batman comics did something really new or different, or had a different interpretation of a character at the time people at first may not have liked the change, but in the end it becomes part of the mythos. I remember Saint saying wonderfully that comic books/mythos truly is a mosaic, not just a structured (has to be this way) story. Elements need to remain, but taking characters to new places or stories does not ruin what it is.

Nolan knows his trilogy well, and I doubt he is going to contradict himself. The thing about pulling out what you took from TDK or BB, is not fact, yet our opinions around it. He knows what he's doing to "tie it together" or whatever Oldman said. I think as long as it serves the story well, even if it is different I'm game. I want a good film first, adherence to "normalcy in comics" second.

 

[SpideyFan866]

But what if there is a reason? This version of Bruce has shown to at least contemplate retirement given the right reason presents itself. Rachel was a reason, Harvey was a reason. What if yet another reason, after eight long years (more; as we don't know how long the film will take place over), reveals itself.

True there could be a reason and perhaps its because he has grown weaker and, as the trailer showed that Gotham has gained and maintained moderate peace since TDK, so perhaps he has decided he should retire, that is, until Bane shows up.

 

[Milkman95]

To me I just want Nolan to end it the way he feels best. Mainly because it is his story, and compromising something to adhere just to pure comic fans to me can water down a film. When I sit down and read a Batman comic or what-have-you I don't go in saying "It must do this it can't do that, it can't do this, or that, or that." Because your setting yourself up to not like something just because its different. I still hear from my uncle who was a big comic guy from the 50's till the early 90's and he talks about all the times where Batman comics did something really new or different, or had a different interpretation of a character at the time people at first may not have liked the change, but in the end it becomes part of the mythos. I remember Saint saying wonderfully that comic books/mythos truly is a mosaic, not just a structured (has to be this way) story. Elements need to remain, but taking characters to new places or stories does not ruin what it is.

Nolan knows his trilogy well, and I doubt he is going to contradict himself. The thing about pulling out what you took from TDK or BB, is not fact, yet our opinions around it. He knows what he's doing to "tie it together" or whatever Oldman said. I think as long as it serves the story well, even if it is different I'm game. I want a good film first, adherence to "normalcy in comics" second.

Well said, totally agree....

 

[Van Petrol]

To me I just want Nolan to end it the way he feels best. Mainly because it is his story, and compromising something to adhere just to pure comic fans to me can water down a film. When I sit down and read a Batman comic or what-have-you I don't go in saying "It must do this it can't do that, it can't do this, or that, or that." Because your setting yourself up to not like something just because its different. I still hear from my uncle who was a big comic guy from the 50's till the early 90's and he talks about all the times where Batman comics did something really new or different, or had a different interpretation of a character at the time people at first may not have liked the change, but in the end it becomes part of the mythos. I remember Saint saying wonderfully that comic books/mythos truly is a mosaic, not just a structured (has to be this way) story. Elements need to remain, but taking characters to new places or stories does not ruin what it is.

Nolan knows his trilogy well, and I doubt he is going to contradict himself. The thing about pulling out what you took from TDK or BB, is not fact, yet our opinions around it. He knows what he's doing to "tie it together" or whatever Oldman said. I think as long as it serves the story well, even if it is different I'm game. I want a good film first, adherence to "normalcy in comics" second.

Exactly. The comics are always taking the characters, stories and arcs, etc. to new places. Why can't the films too?...

 

[Travesty]

To me I just want Nolan to end it the way he feels best. Mainly because it is his story, and compromising something to adhere just to pure comic fans to me can water down a film. When I sit down and read a Batman comic or what-have-you I don't go in saying "It must do this it can't do that, it can't do this, or that, or that." Because your setting yourself up to not like something just because its different. I still hear from my uncle who was a big comic guy from the 50's till the early 90's and he talks about all the times where Batman comics did something really new or different, or had a different interpretation of a character at the time people at first may not have liked the change, but in the end it becomes part of the mythos. I remember Saint saying wonderfully that comic books/mythos truly is a mosaic, not just a structured (has to be this way) story. Elements need to remain, but taking characters to new places or stories does not ruin what it is.

Nolan knows his trilogy well, and I doubt he is going to contradict himself. The thing about pulling out what you took from TDK or BB, is not fact, yet our opinions around it. He knows what he's doing to "tie it together" or whatever Oldman said. I think as long as it serves the story well, even if it is different I'm game. I want a good film first, adherence to "normalcy in comics" second.

So if Batman started shooting people with guns in TDKR, you would be cool with it, as long as it fits with the story?

 

[Nevincer]

Interesting talk in here... keep it up. I'm down to discuss this stuff.

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?

 

[SpideyFan866]

To me I just want Nolan to end it the way he feels best. Mainly because it is his story, and compromising something to adhere just to pure comic fans to me can water down a film. When I sit down and read a Batman comic or what-have-you I don't go in saying "It must do this it can't do that, it can't do this, or that, or that." Because your setting yourself up to not like something just because its different. I still hear from my uncle who was a big comic guy from the 50's till the early 90's and he talks about all the times where Batman comics did something really new or different, or had a different interpretation of a character at the time people at first may not have liked the change, but in the end it becomes part of the mythos. I remember Saint saying wonderfully that comic books/mythos truly is a mosaic, not just a structured (has to be this way) story. Elements need to remain, but taking characters to new places or stories does not ruin what it is.

Nolan knows his trilogy well, and I doubt he is going to contradict himself. The thing about pulling out what you took from TDK or BB, is not fact, yet our opinions around it. He knows what he's doing to "tie it together" or whatever Oldman said. I think as long as it serves the story well, even if it is different I'm game. I want a good film first, adherence to "normalcy in comics" second.

Agreed and I truly believe he will give us the best ending possible. He has said it multiple times himself that he was only interested in returning for a 3rd film if he could find a good/besy way possible to end the film and the series.

I don't think we have anything to worry about but discussion on how it should end is harmless and quite enjoyable if I say so myself.

 

[Solidus]

So if Batman started shooting people with guns in TDKR, you would be cool with it, as long as it fits with the story?

Well he did it in the comics lol. There are of course somethings that you may take too far.

The problem people seem to be having is the finite alterations Nolan has made. But that has nothing to do with the core of the character, it has to do with the medium and business models. Comics are made to be infinite, and go on and on, the target audience and business model allow this. It has taken 9 years for Nolan to create three films, and how many comics has come out in that time frame? A lot. Comics are allowed to go on because that's what they do. Because films take so long to make, the majority of the audience (film lovers, GA) are expecting a beginning, a middle and end. This is not TV where it could go on and on.

I think that was a problem with Burton's great films, is they were hurt and watered down because of Joel's two entries, they piggybacked off of what Burton created and in the process hurt Burton's universe more so. Kinda like Alien 3, and AR, does not mean the other films are not masterpieces but it does hurt the beginning middle end segment that most expect from a film. I think its great that Nolan is saying this is his franchise and universe, it will have an end, so no one can make films that may not live up to the others, or water it down. I think in film it works great and the medium allows for it.

 

[The Joker]

It's a matter of perspective. Peter Parker comes from a lighter universe, and in that universe he uses Spider-Man as an outlet for himself. Peter not only feels it's his responsibility to be Spider-Man, but he enjoys being Spider-Man... I'm limited in my knowledge of the comics, but I did at least observe in SM2 that when Pete was looking for his escape, it was because his life as Spider-Man was overlapping with his life as Peter Parker, to the point he didn't have time to embody his alter ego and accomplish what he wanted to in his dual life.

The conflicts are exactly the same as with Batman. Whereas Peter does often enjoy being Spider-Man, he does it out of need and obligation not for thrills. You mentioned Spider-Man 2, and in that he turned his back on Uncle Ben in that dream sequence. The very person who was the reason he became crime fighting Spider-Man in the first place. It wasn't Uncle Ben that made him come back as Spider-Man. It was the need to be Spider-Man when Doc Ock abducted MJ.

There was no anguish or stress being taken out on him like in Nolan's Batman trilogy

If you ignore his guilt of his Uncle's death, his isolation from MJ, his best friend blaming Spider-Man for the death of his father, failing college, losing jobs, unable to help his poor Aunt with her mortgage on the family home etc....sure his life was a bed of roses.

and more importantly, Spider-Man is a much younger guy and in a universe where he has superhuman powers.

What relevancy does that have? Is Peter any more immune to feelings and emotions than Bruce? No. It's got nothing to do with age or super powers. Peter feels anger, guilt, emotional pain just as bad as anyone.

Heck he is Spider-Man because he feels responsible for Uncle Ben's death. Being able to climb walls and shoot webs doesn't make your heart stone or your mind stress free.

Same goes for Superman. I hate to draw out the 'realism' card, but it applies here because with this Batman, we're seeing injuries, scars, his own health being afflicted, and a Bruce that clearly never intended to be "Batman" forever. Given the conditions, I don't think it's ever possible for Bruce to embrace the Batman persona on anything other than pride and virtue that goes beyond what's reasonable for a human being.

The realism card like your point about age and superpowers is not applicable. Bruce suffering injuries is no different to Spider-Man or Superman suffering injuries. All three Spider-Man movies ended with Peter looking like a battered up rag doll.

Flesh wounds heal. Emotional wounds....that's another story. Batman could take a bullet wound and not give it a second thought. Failing to save Rachel from blowing up....not so easy to heal from.

Conveniently, you missed out the key line "I hope it does."

Not conveniently, it was deliberate. What does Rachel's hope of Bruce getting to be normal some day have to do with her belief that it won't happen?

I hope world peace comes some day but that doesn't mean I think it actually will.

You're right though, she does say she's sure, but she doesn't have to be right and there's still a slim chance that he can get over Batman, given the context.

She doesn't have to be right, but it adds to the other messages given in TDK about Bruce always going to be Batman and it's obvious what Nolan was saying in the movie's narrative.

Then there's the obvious plot of Bruce banking on Harvey taking the reigns for him as Gotham's hero and look how that one turned out.

What could Nolan be trying to say with all of this?

I'll give you that, it's there. But what does it mean anymore? That Joker exists off screen now, and we'll have no idea what becomes of that line if anything.

Whether Joker was in TDKR or not wouldn't change the meaning of that line because showing one more battle with Joker wasn't going to show them in a life long battle was it?

Batman has faced Scarecrow twice so far, but that doesn't mean they're in it for life as enemies.

What we do know is that Christopher Nolan is planning an ending, something much more conclusive than what we got in Begins or TDK... so will Bruce maintain the status quo? It's possible, and it would validate Joker's line, but on what this movie is about, this is what Chris Nolan had to say:

You can interpret the quote how you wish, but the way I do is that Chris is saying in spite of what the Joker said, Batman is not locked in this battle forever. They're hearkening back to finding the reality in these films, and they're going to give it a conclusion that truly ends Bruce's journey as opposed to implying it will go on endlessly off screen. You and others may do so differently, which is fine, but just so you see where I'm coming from this is what indicates to me that the direction will be ending the journey, along with all the rest of the emphasis in the marketing on this being the closing chapter of the story.

I've seen that Nolan quote about the 'conclusion'. Saying these things don't go on forever like in the comics doesn't necessarily mean Batman stops being Batman. He ended both of his previous movies on a cliffhanger/loose end type ending. Begins had the talk of escalation and the revelation of the Joker card. TDK had Batman wearing the rap for Two Face's crimes and getting chased by the Cops.

Both of those movies left the audience feeling there was more to come. Having a conclusion doesn't mean Batman's going to hang up the cape.

A career that spans decades upon decades as Batman without dying or becoming a paraplegic.

The narrative of the stories is not decades upon decades. it's spaced between several years. A year's worth of Batman comics in continuity can have happened within three weeks in Batman's world.

And when his back was broken in the comics by Bane, it was by paranormal means not present in the Nolanverse that allowed him to return iirc.

Which is why his back will most likely not be broken. Same as how Ra's Al Ghul is not coming back after a dip in the Lazarus Pit.

Aside from how much screen time it would eat up having Bruce bed ridden with a broken back, and there's no way Gotham could be left under Bane's rule for as long as it would take for Bruce to recover from an injury like that. This isn't Knightfall where he has a Dick Grayson or Jean Paul Valley to take his Batman mantle while he's recuperating.

 

[WiseBrook]

I think it goes without saying that Nolan is going for the legend of Batman in a real world environment while trying to tell a cohesive, stand alone story. In the real world people grow, cities evolve, and nothing lasts forever. While I love never ending Batman tales, Nolan wants his story to end and is trying to answer that question of how would this rendition end. I guess I just dont understand the backlash against that.

 

[Solidus]

Also to me, TDK's theme was about "this is what the world will be like" if you continue to do things this way. Which Batman normally does in the comics, so yes the Joker was right in "we will be doing this forever". But TDKR is throwing a curve ball and saying what if this cycle breaks? What would happen? A great and unique question to me.

 

[Travesty]

The problem people seem to be having is the finite alterations Nolan has made. But that has nothing to do with the core of the character, it has to do with the medium and business models.

I firmly belive that Batman not retiring is a core characteristic. He made a promise, and has to stick with it, regardless of what happens to him. That's just part of it.

Comics are made to be infinite, and go on and on, the target audience and business model allow this. It has taken 9 years for Nolan to create three films, and how many comics has come out in that time frame? A lot. Comics are allowed to go on because that's what they do. Because films take so long to make, the majority of the audience (film lovers, GA) are expecting a beginning, a middle and end. This is not TV where it could go on and on.

I really don't see what this has to do with making an ending with Batman retiring. So the only ending that can happen in Nolan's world, is either retirement or death?

 

[Solidus]

I firmly belive that Batman not retiring is a core characteristic. He made a promise, and has to stick with it, regardless of what happens to him. That's just part of it.

I really don't see what this has to do with making an ending with Batman retiring. So the only ending that can happen in Nolan's world, is either retirement or death?

To me I think some believe its a core attribute because comics don't end. But now having a Batman tale that does asks a different question. That's fine if some want it to be his core, but to me, it's interesting to ask the other question if it is not. To me it would not take away anything from him if it did.

And the ending? I could care less which one it is, if it is him going on forever or what have you. To me what matters what Nolan thought would make the best ending for his story. Instead of a bunch of Producers and studios telling him differently (cough X3 and Spiderman 3). Again I am excited to see a comic film where the ending and its outcome has such a fog around it. It is different. Sometimes different can be bad, but not all the time. Again, many comics changed certain aspects of characters throughout the ages, why can't a film ask a unique one?

 

[KRIM]

I firmly belive that Batman not retiring is a core characteristic. He made a promise, and has to stick with it, regardless of what happens to him. That's just part of it.

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.