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

[Yurka]

I've never liked the idea of empowering the people of Gotham into action, then throwing in the towel in some way as soon as he accomplishes that goal. It certainly seems that is the general consensus on the ending at this point, but to me it just seems too....temporary. Who's to say that the corrupt wont take over again 5 or 10 years after Batman retires?

I'm not an advocate for a "Forever Batman" ending to this franchise, but I don't like the idea of Bruce being naive enough to believe that his time as Batman has inspired Gotham to be "good" from then on. The stars would really have to align for Bruce's "retirement" to seem rational IMO, so I've leaned more towards the dies/fakes death route in what I hope to see.

 

[jmc]

I've never liked the idea of empowering the people of Gotham into action, then throwing in the towel in some way as soon as he accomplishes that goal. It certainly seems that is the general consensus on the ending at this point, but to me it just seems too....temporary. Who's to say that the corrupt wont take over again 5 or 10 years after Batman retires?

I'm not an advocate for a "Forever Batman" ending to this franchise, but I don't like the idea of Bruce being naive enough to believe that his time as Batman has inspired Gotham to be "good" from then on. The stars would really have to align for Bruce's "retirement" to seem rational IMO, so I've leaned more towards the dies/fakes death route in what I hope to see.

Can you not say the same sort of thing for most stories though?

 

[The_Raganork]

I've never liked the idea of empowering the people of Gotham into action, then throwing in the towel in some way as soon as he accomplishes that goal. It certainly seems that is the general consensus on the ending at this point, but to me it just seems too....temporary. Who's to say that the corrupt wont take over again 5 or 10 years after Batman retires?

No one but this is the end and whatever comes, comes. A new Batman may happen, maybe Bruce will come back..who knows but you can't expect the rest of existence in Nolanverse to be explained at the end of TDKR.

I'm not an advocate for a "Forever Batman" ending to this franchise, but I don't like the idea of Bruce being naive enough to believe that his time as Batman has inspired Gotham to be "good" from then on. The stars would really have to align for Bruce's "retirement" to seem rational IMO, so I've leaned more towards the dies/fakes death route in what I hope to see.

Gotham needn't be "good" just functioning. That was always Bruce's goal to create a functioning Gotham using Batman as a tool to do that. Gotham doesn't need to be a place of peace for Bruce to retire, he only needs to have faith that the people in Gotham will be ok to protect themselves and fight injustice.

Faith in the police, the legal system and the people. That's the end goal. That's why the mob is featured in BB and the corrupt GCPD in TDK.

 

[Brother Jack]

To everyone:

Read The Dark Knight Returns.

Retirement/faking death/identity revealed can work.

 

[SpideyFan866]

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.

That reminds me of what Ra's said in begins that the Deaths of Thomas Wayne and Martha Wayne galvanized the city into saving itself and it limped on in "peace" ever since.

I believe that this has happened again following the death of Gotham's "White Knight" Harvey Dent, a man like Thomas Wayne who was a beacon of hope to Gotham.

Perhaps "peace" has finally set in Gotham and Bruce, despite perhaps not wanting to, retires as Batman in order for the better good of Gotham. He chooses to save in a way that doesn't involve being Batman but he then has to save it as Batman when Bane enters the picture.

 

[KRIM]

To everyone:

Read The Dark Knight Returns.

Not so sure that's really a necessary recommendation for this crowd.

 

[SpideyFan866]

To everyone:

Read The Dark Knight Returns.

Retirement/faking death/identity revealed can work.

Agreed and I'm more than certain TDKR borrows much in terms of those ideals from that story was well as from Knightfall.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Speaking of TDKReturns, if tweaked a little, it can credibly follow up the Nolan-verse in a Gotham that has gone to hell again. The only problem is Harvey Dent. Which can be cut out.

Oh, and Robin.

 

[AnneFan]

To everyone:

Read The Dark Knight Returns.

Retirement/faking death/identity revealed can work.

I would like to see a death faking in Rises. Perhaps not an actual planned fake, but something that just eventuates? Batman flying off in The Bat with the doomsday device attached. He reaches an open area and it goes off. The media and public assume nobody would survive such an incident. But it's implied Bruce bailed out well before that. Or something. I'm making it up as I go along.

 

[Brother Jack]

Not so sure that's really a necessary recommendation for this crowd.

You'd think it wouldn't be, but considering it's one of the most celebrated Batman stories out there and features many of the issues people are having with this film's hypothetical ending, I figured a reminder was in order.

 

[SpideyFan866]

I would like to see a death faking in Rises. Perhaps not an actual planned fake, but something that just eventuates? Batman flying off in The Bat with the doomsday device attached. He reaches an open area and it goes off. The media and public assume nobody would survive such an incident. But it's implied Bruce bailed out well before that. Or something. I'm making it up as I go along.

That's what I think it should be. It should feel definite despite being ambiguous.

 

[slimshady247]

......I dont see a tangerine.

You win because you used a Supernatural gif.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I would like to see a death faking in Rises. Perhaps not an actual planned fake, but something that just eventuates? Batman flying off in The Bat with the doomsday device attached. He reaches an open area and it goes off. The media and public assume nobody would survive such an incident. But it's implied Bruce bailed out well before that. Or something. I'm making it up as I go along.

It doesn't seem to have that solid sense of finality to me. Too ambiguous.

 

[AnneFan]

Batman becomes more of a sacrificial legend if he's presumed dead. Though I'm not sure where on Earth Bruce would go to avoid publicity. Everyone would've been following Bane's siege, and then Batman's identity. "The world is too small for someone like Bruce Wayne to disappear."

 

[Falcone]

I like ambiguous endings. Like Inception, The Prestige, and Memento. In fact, Batman is among one of the few movies Nolan has done that doesn't have everything spelled out for you. Maybe he's waiting for everything to conclude to be ambiguous. So we see all three as one long chronicle.

 

[SpideyFan866]

No one but this is the end and whatever comes, comes. A new Batman may happen, maybe Bruce will come back..who knows but you can't expect the rest of existence in Nolanverse to be explained at the end of TDKR.




Gotham needn't be "good" just functioning. That was always Bruce's goal to create a functioning Gotham using Batman as a tool to do that. Gotham doesn't need to be a place of peace for Bruce to retire, he only needs to have faith that the people in Gotham will be ok to protect themselves and fight injustice.

Faith in the police, the legal system and the people. That's the end goal. That's why the mob is featured in BB and the corrupt GCPD in TDK.

The mob and the corrupt GCPD really reinforce the theme of esculation in these films. Gordon was pushed to the point of desparation to where the only person he could trust is a vigilante and the mob the Joker and in this film possibly the people, Bane.

 

[Brother Jack]

Batman becomes more of a sacrificial legend if he's presumed dead. Though I'm not sure where on Earth Bruce would go to avoid publicity. Everyone would've been following Bane's siege, and then Batman's identity. "The world is too small for someone like Brice Wayne to disappear."

Maybe he could change his name. t:

 

[SpideyFan866]

Batman becomes more of a sacrificial legend if he's presumed dead. Though I'm not sure where on Earth Bruce would go to avoid publicity. Everyone would've been following Bane's siege, and then Batman's identity. "The world is too small for someone like Brice Wayne to disappear."

Bruce has a brother?

 

[AnneFan]

Hahah..honest mistake - and it has been corrected.

 

[SpideyFan866]

It doesn't seem to have that solid sense of finality to me. Too ambiguous.

It depends on how its portrayed/executed.

 

[Yurka]

Can you not say the same sort of thing for most stories though?

What do you mean? I think the situation here in Nolan's franchise is pretty unique to say the least.

No one but this is the end and whatever comes, comes. A new Batman may happen, maybe Bruce will come back..who knows but you can't expect the rest of existence in Nolanverse to be explained at the end of TDKR.

Gotham needn't be "good" just functioning. That was always Bruce's goal to create a functioning Gotham using Batman as a tool to do that. Gotham doesn't need to be a place of peace for Bruce to retire, he only needs to have faith that the people in Gotham will be ok to protect themselves and fight injustice.

Faith in the police, the legal system and the people. That's the end goal. That's why the mob is featured in BB and the corrupt GCPD in TDK.

That's how it's been set up and it certainly sounds like that will be the way it plays out, but to me that just seems like too much of a risk. Batman at his core is a calculated man of contingencies, (I know, Nolan Batman =/= Comics Batman) so the notion that after roughly 10 years his goal will have been achieved and he can now step away from his war on crime forever with complete faith in the people from then on is a bit of a stretch to me. Essentially, the cynic that Bruce/Batman is can't truly believe that he'll ever "win" against crime, he'll only keep up and hope to suppress it. He can empower the people, sure, but is that enough? and for how long will that last? (I know, he states that's his mission "to shake people out of apathy" and "their city doesn't belong to the criminals or the corrupt.....as long as it takes...") You would have to believe after fighting crime for a decade and seeing the worst in people, that he'd lose some faith in humanity, and even though he can help the citizens "take back" their city, there would still be a need for a watchful protector, in case things revert back to the way things were.

 

[KRIM]

That's how it's been set up and it certainly sounds like that will be the way it plays out, but to me that just seems like too much of a risk. Batman at his core is a calculated man of contingencies, (I know, Nolan Batman =/= Comics Batman) so the notion that after roughly 10 years his goal will have been achieved and he can now step away from his war on crime forever with complete faith in the people from then on is a bit of a stretch to me. Essentially, the cynic that Bruce/Batman is can't truly believe that he'll ever "win" against crime, he'll only keep up and hope to suppress it. He can empower the people, sure, but is that enough? and for how long will that last? (I know, he states that's his mission "to shake people out of apathy" and "their city doesn't belong to the criminals or the corrupt.....as long as it takes...") You would have to believe after fighting crime for a decade and seeing the worst in people, that he'd lose some faith in humanity, and even though he can help the citizens "take back" their city, there would still be a need for a watchful protector, in case things revert back to the way things were.

You say you know this, but the entire premise of your argument is directed against a characterization that does not exist in Nolan's series.

 

[The_Raganork]

That's how it's been set up and it certainly sounds like that will be the way it plays out, but to me that just seems like too much of a risk. Batman at his core is a calculated man of contingencies, (I know, Nolan Batman =/= Comics Batman) so the notion that after roughly 10 years his goal will have been achieved and he can now step away from his war on crime forever with complete faith in the people from then on is a bit of a stretch to me.

This counters your entire argument, you realize?

But to play along:

Never said he needed complete faith but sometimes you have to make tough choices. Sometimes you need to allow your faith to be rewarded. You can't hold everyone's hand forever and ever expect them to be able to go out on their own. Perhaps going away is the first step that's needed for Gotham to try to be independent. Perhaps all this time they kind of relied on Batman, unable to become the independent place it needed to be because they always looked to Batman for that.

Maybe having the example of Batman and then losing him will inspire people to live by that ideal. For how long? who knows but that ideal will be engrained in Gotham society which means even if it isn't him, someone will come up and do the job of Batman and reming the people of the man who fought for Gotham and carried them through the destruction of Bane.

Essentially, the cynic that Bruce/Batman is can't truly believe that he'll ever "win" against crime, he'll only keep up and hope to suppress it. He can empower the people, sure, but is that enough? and for how long will that last?

If he doesn't believe they he'll ever win against crime then why remain Batman forever? He can do what he can and let the people try to take over. Again Batman in this universe didn't spawn from crime but from corruption and a lack of justice. If Joe Chill had gotten the death penalty I doubt Batman would have happened.

(I know, he states that's his mission "to shake people out of apathy" and "their city doesn't belong to the criminals or the corrupt.....as long as it takes...") You would have to believe after fighting crime for a decade and seeing the worst in people, that he'd lose some faith in humanity,

Cue the real purpose of Rachel, Gordon, Alfred, Fox and Blake.

and even though he can help the citizens "take back" their city, there would still be a need for a watchful protector, in case things revert back to the way things were.

As a man he can watch them but as a symbol he can inspire them. We've seen it only takes one. If Batman can be the symbol that they look up to then he's always watching them. He becomes an immortal figure, he surpasses the man in Batman.

 

[Papa G]

I think the answers are in the comics-The Dark Knight Returns, Knightfall, No Man's Land, and TLH and Year One for the first two films, among others. Detective comics 701 was also mentioned here earlier or in another thread. I know some plot points are different from the comics, but I think that the characterization has been consistent with the comics to a degree. Bruce could retire with faith in Gotham like in TDKR; after all, he more or less began as he did in Year One with the exception of the LOS training being that early in his career.

 

[Yurka]

You say you know this, but the entire premise of your argument is directed against a characterization that does not exist in Nolan's series.

I wouldn't say it doesn't exist. Initially in TDK he's looking for a way out, by the end, he sacrifices himself on the notion that people will lose hope if they find out what Harvey did. He's lost faith in the citizens and decides to lie to them to protect them instead of being honest and trust them to make their own decisions. I would agree that throughout BB and most of TDK he is not, but by the end of TDK, he has gained a new perspective.

This counters your entire argument, you realize?

But to play along:

I was stating that because that's the obvious rebuttal, but it doesn't counter my argument in reality, as the traits I mentioned are inherent in both incarnations of the character. So I appreciate the play along

Never said he needed complete faith but sometimes you have to make tough choices. Sometimes you need to allow your faith to be rewarded. You can't hold everyone's hand forever and ever expect them to be able to go out on their own. Perhaps going away is the first step that's needed for Gotham to try to be independent. Perhaps all this time they kind of relied on Batman, unable to become the independent place it needed to be because they always looked to Batman for that.

Maybe having the example of Batman and then losing him will inspire people to live by that ideal. For how long? who knows but that ideal will be engrained in Gotham society which means even if it isn't him, someone will come up and do the job of Batman and reming the people of the man who fought for Gotham and carried them through the destruction of Bane.

If he doesn't believe they he'll ever win against crime then why remain Batman forever? He can do what he can and let the people try to take over. Again Batman in this universe didn't spawn from crime but from corruption and a lack of justice. If Joe Chill had gotten the death penalty I doubt Batman would have happened.

I can't really respond to any of this, too many hypotheticals lol.

Cue the real purpose of Rachel, Gordon, Alfred, Fox and Blake.

Indeed.

As a man he can watch them but as a symbol he can inspire them. We've seen it only takes one. If Batman can be the symbol that they look up to then he's always watching them. He becomes an immortal figure, he surpasses the man in Batman.

But is he able to simply walk away from it all at this point? Or is he going to be pulled away?