The Dark Knight Rises What the RISES might imply...

[Lungrocket]

We know that Nolan likes to have deeper or multiple meanings and themes to his films.

The first film dealt with fear. He chose two villains that best represented this. Scarecrow, and Ra's Al Ghul.

The second film dealt with order vs chaos (obviously the Joker best represents chaos)

So The Dark Knight RISES... I think this could possibly be some sort of theme of spirituality. This title could infer a biblical connotation.

And since Nolan likes to create a tightly woven plot and pick characters & villains that best represent the themes of his films, these are some of the characters that COULD work with that in mind.

AZRAEL (the name I believe is a hebrew translation of Angel Of Death)

THE REAPER (from Batman: Year Two) A figure of death.

Batman RISES could also imply he dies in the end of the film, like a Heavenly ascent, or some sort of mental ascention, becoming a spiritual figure. Just throwing those thoughts out there.

 

[Bat-Mite]

It definitely implies that Catwoman will be in the film.

 

[Lungrocket]

Or it could mean Batman gets his back broken and later he can stand or RISE up. lol. Or it could be Judson Caspian and the female lead could be the Reaper's daughter RACHEL CASPIAN could be the female lead.

No one but Nolan and a few others really know at this point.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

It definitely implies that Catwoman will be in the film.

Seriously, though - to the OP. Lungrocket? Hell of a handle there, bub. You've missed a few possible implications:

1.) "Rises" as in rising above his new reputation as a murderer and a bad guy.

After all, what did Batman and Alfred both talk about numerous times in the movie? Choosing NOT to be the hero. Being something more. Gordon even talked about it at the end. "He's the hero Gotham deserves, just not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him. Because he can take it. Because he's not a hero. He's a silent guardian. A watchful protector. A Dark Knight."

Man, just READING that still gives me shivers.

Anyway, that's key there. "The hero Gotham deserves, just not the one it needs right now." But Gotham DOES need him, and whatever happenes in DKR has to make that point. Gotham NEEDS Batman. And Batman must... ahem... RISE to the task of saving it once more.

I'd say there's no question that this is one of the, likely, several meanings that the title has.

2.) Another potential meaning is to rise from the grave. Nolan said that the title "The Dark Knight" referred as much to Harvey as it did Bruce. And we saw how, in the film. So could "The Dark Knight Rises" also refer to a return of Harvey? I call this much less likely than the first thing I talked about, but with Heath Ledger being dead Nolan said the Joker's not in the movie. And he's the only one of the two villains who clearly survived the film. Two-Face appears to have died, and the script apparently called for that, but it *could* be retconned if Nolan wants to bring him back to the party in lieu of Joker.

=====

While I wouldn't rule out a spiritual meaning, I don't think Batman lends himself to it and Nolan has never touched that subject before, so I wouldn't count on it here. I also wouldn't count on a Batman death.

 

[baleheadbrasil]

It definitely implies that Catwoman will be in the film.

Maybe yes...maybe not. t:

 

[Victarion]

I'd love to see a take on The Reaper. If Nolan wanted to delve into Batman's psyche, it could mean he'll have flashbacks of either Rachel or his mother ala Cobb and Mal from Inception.

 

[Lungrocket]

Seriously, though - to the OP. Lungrocket? Hell of a handle there, bub.

Cheers. t:

You've missed a few possible implications:

1.) "Rises" as in rising above his new reputation as a murderer and a bad guy.

After all, what did Batman and Alfred both talk about numerous times in the movie? Choosing NOT to be the hero. Being something more. Gordon even talked about it at the end. "He's the hero Gotham deserves, just not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him. Because he can take it. Because he's not a hero. He's a silent guardian. A watchful protector. A Dark Knight."

Man, just READING that still gives me shivers.

Anyway, that's key there. "The hero Gotham deserves, just not the one it needs right now." But Gotham DOES need him, and whatever happenes in DKR has to make that point. Gotham NEEDS Batman. And Batman must... ahem... RISE to the task of saving it once more.

I'd say there's no question that this is one of the, likely, several meanings that the title has.

Naturally. This film has to answer the questions that TDK posed at the end. I'm just saying I think there could be more.

Another potential meaning is to rise from the grave. Nolan said that the title "The Dark Knight" referred as much to Harvey as it did Bruce. And we saw how, in the film. So could "The Dark Knight Rises" also refer to a return of Harvey?

I highly doubt Nolan is going to bring Dent back from the grave. As you said its in the script, and Nolan isn't the type to retcon. And bringing characters back from the dead is more of a Burton thing to do. Nolan doesn't seem to go in for the soap opera type of retconning.

While I wouldn't rule out a spiritual meaning, I don't think Batman lends himself to it and Nolan has never touched that subject before, so I wouldn't count on it here. I also wouldn't count on a Batman death.

It depends on how its done. And because Nolan hasn't done it before is all the more reason he might. Filmmakers, especially Nolan as said they don't like repeating themselves. He wants to do something new with the characters, dealing with new themes.

I also find Batman's death far more plausible in Nolan's universe than actually ressurrecting characters. Not to mention IF Batman died, its not like WB won't just reboot the series anyway, since they are going to start over with a new cast and crew anyway. Nolan is pretty much free to do what he wants to dramatic purposes.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

I've always felt... and I might be wrong here... but I've always felt that Nolan wanted to do more than just make these movies for himself. That he was starting a new series of films. He said way back when Begins came out that there were a lot of mistakes with the older films that he wanted to correct - among them, the constant killing off of Batman's enemies.

Now I'm not saying that Nolan would bring Ra's or Harvey back himself, but I've always felt that he left these things a little bit open so that, once he steps aside, if WB wants to continue the series with another director they can build on the foundation he's laid, rather than rebooting. So I've always felt that he intentionally left Ra's and Harvey's deaths less explicit, for the future of the franchise.

 

[hegele]

i think Harvey comes back or batman/Bruce dies. it is the last movie. i honestly think Bruce dying would be pretty epic. screw comic book aficionados who want to see a character infinitely go on with no closure.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

i think Harvey comes back or batman/Bruce dies. it is the last movie. i honestly think Bruce dying would be pretty epic. screw comic book aficionados who want to see a character infinitely go on with no closure.

WB would never go for that. They want the DC films to replace the Harry Potter franchise. This is financially motivated. WB is a business and if they're not making money, they're doing it wrong.

Batman's one of their most instantly recognizable DC "brands." So the likelihood of Batman dying is probably about equal to the likelihood of Transformers 3 not sucking dog butt.

 

[Bat-Mite]

I really don't think Nolan would want Batman to die, anyway. Even though he likes to do dramatic and unexpected things, I think he has more respect for the character than to kill him off as a cheap shock tactic. And you can't really "rise" if you're dead, unless they're going to show Batman's angel strumming a harp at the end of the film.

 

[Lungrocket]

I've always felt... and I might be wrong here... but I've always felt that Nolan wanted to do more than just make these movies for himself. That he was starting a new series of films. He said way back when Begins came out that there were a lot of mistakes with the older films that he wanted to correct - among them, the constant killing off of Batman's enemies.

Now I'm not saying that Nolan would bring Ra's or Harvey back himself, but I've always felt that he left these things a little bit open so that, once he steps aside, if WB wants to continue the series with another director they can build on the foundation he's laid, rather than rebooting. So I've always felt that he intentionally left Ra's and Harvey's deaths less explicit, for the future of the franchise.

I do agree there deaths are ambiguous and are not complete. However, I also get the feeling that Nolan, like any filmmaker will also want new challenges and using the same villains again would not bring anything new to the table, unless Harvey is there to end up taking the blame for his actions.

I felt the only reason Scarecrow was reused in TDK was because he was a loose end that had escaped, and he was in and out of the picture so quickly it wasn't even funny.

Joker is caught. Probably in Arkham. So even though he's not going to be in the next film, it fits in with the comics that they will be future adversaries.

Goyer was quoted a while back about him hinting that they don't have to use bigger name villains for the third film, but some of the lesser known ones from the comics, like they did with Batman Begins.

Which implies they might go that route, although something Nolan said in a more recent interview gave me pause that might not be a 100%. Nolan mentioned that Goyer pitched the new superman concept to him while they were at a story impass. Meaning they were stuck.

So it is quite possible that they changed things along the way from Goyers old comments to finished script.

 

[Lungrocket]

I really don't think Nolan would want Batman to die, anyway. Even though he likes to do dramatic and unexpected things, I think he has more respect for the character than to kill him off as a cheap shock tactic.

I am not saying he will die, just that there is the possibility of it happening. And if it did happen, nothing is saying it has to be a cheap shock tactic. Something more like Braveheart or Gladiator.

And you can't really "rise" if you're dead, unless they're going to show Batman's angel strumming a harp at the end of the film.

Not really what I was thinking. t:

 

[Keyser Sushi]

I do agree there deaths are ambiguous and are not complete. However, I also get the feeling that Nolan, like any filmmaker will also want new challenges and using the same villains again would not bring anything new to the table, unless Harvey is there to end up taking the blame for his actions.

I felt the only reason Scarecrow was reused in TDK was because he was a loose end that had escaped, and he was in and out of the picture so quickly it wasn't even funny.

Joker is caught. Probably in Arkham. So even though he's not going to be in the next film, it fits in with the comics that they will be future adversaries.

Goyer was quoted a while back about him hinting that they don't have to use bigger name villains for the third film, but some of the lesser known ones from the comics, like they did with Batman Begins.

Which implies they might go that route, although something Nolan said in a more recent interview gave me pause that might not be a 100%. Nolan mentioned that Goyer pitched the new superman concept to him while they were at a story impass. Meaning they were stuck.

So it is quite possible that they changed things along the way from Goyers old comments to finished script.

Yeah, that could easily have happened. It's kind of inherent in the writing process.

However there's a difference between not using bigger name villains, and not using villains at all. Scarecrow and Ra's are not really known outside the comics, but to us geeks they're massively important.

Since Riddler is out, straight from the Nolan's mouth, that could easily suggest that what Goyer said is still true. In which case you're probably looking at Black Mask, Deadshot, or even Talia Head. I wouldn't rule out, though, an appearance from a more popular villain in a supporting role.

 

[Lungrocket]

Ok, lets forget what we want to have happen, and just think of this... TDK is a hard act to follow. Some pretty heavy stuff needs to go down in RISES for it to stand up by comparison.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Ok, lets forget what we want to have happen, and just think of this... TDK is a hard act to follow. Some pretty heavy stuff needs to go down in RISES for it to stand up by comparison.

That... is 100% true.

 

[Lungrocket]

Yeah, that could easily have happened. It's kind of inherent in the writing process.

However there's a difference between not using bigger name villains, and not using villains at all. Scarecrow and Ra's are not really known outside the comics, but to us geeks they're massively important.

True. But I'm saying they might go with villains slightly more on par with Scarecrow and Ra's (or even more less known) but still credible.

Since Riddler is out, straight from the Nolan's mouth, that could easily suggest that what Goyer said is still true. In which case you're probably looking at Black Mask, Deadshot, or even Talia Head. I wouldn't rule out, though, an appearance from a more popular villain in a supporting role.

I mean again though... I'm looking at Black Mask, and really not seeing much of anything special as a credible threat. Unless he's used as a Falcone level villain, what makes him stand out? Deadshot perhaps, as with Talia I could see happening.

But who knows. KGBeast could be one. Deacon Blackfire could be another villain. Fits in with my spirituality angle.

I could see Batman getting his back broken and Azrael moving into his territory and everyone thinks hes doing a good thing, and then he is an extremist vigilante and Batman has to heal and take him down.

They could also roll two character's into one (Reaper and Azrael) as they did with Ducard and Ras.

 

[Dark Sentinel]

Here's what I think:

• BATMAN BEGINS was obviously about Bruce's emergence as Batman in Gotham. It WAs in fact the first time Batman's origin had been fully laid out onscreen, which in and of itself is pretty significant if you ask me.

•THE DARK KNIGHT was about Batman's fall, where Bruce made the choice to cast himself out. Even Gordon said that Batman was not a hero to his son.

•THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, I think, is where Batman will become the legend he is in the comics. And I say this because it implies that Batman treats the "Dark Knight" moniker as part of his persona, literally becoming the Dark Knight Detective.

Just my opinion of course

 

[Keyser Sushi]

True. But I'm saying they might go with villains slightly more on par with Scarecrow and Ra's (or even more less known) but still credible.

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you.

I mean again though... I'm looking at Black Mask, and really not seeing much of anything special as a credible threat. Unless he's used as a Falcone level villain, what makes him stand out? Deadshot perhaps, as with Talia I could see happening.

You know, I've never even READ a comic with Black Mask in it. So I couldn't tell you why he might be a suitable character, except that, like many of Batman's rogues gallery, he is a distorted reflection of Bruce and there could be an interesting use for him in that capacity, since Bruce himself has fallen from grace, in a sense.

But who knows. KGBeast could be one. Deacon Blackfire could be another villain. Fits in with my spirituality angle.

I don't know who Deacon Blackfire is. The only problem with the Beast is that the KGB... okay, the KGB still exists, but under a different name, and the Beast is really a Cold War kind of character.

I could see Batman getting his back broken and Azrael moving into his territory and everyone thinks hes doing a good thing, and then he is an extremist vigilante and Batman has to heal and take him down.

Ugh. Azrael comes from the 1990's... the Dark Age of comics, and is a key figure in the Knightfall storyline... a frakking BLIGHT on the legacy of the Batman mythos.

They could also roll two character's into one (Reaper and Azrael) as they did with Ducard and Ras.

I think maybe we're looking at this the wrong way. What has Nolan historically done? He has drawn from two eras of Batman comics. The Bronze Age, and... okay, the second is not an era but a graphic novel. The Long Halloween.

TLH featured basically all of the major players in Batman's rogues gallery. This is also known as "The Jeph Loeb Effect".

The Bronze Age had some interesting characters, some of whom are not really used these days. Deadshot would be one of them. The Mad Monk (unlikely), Hugo Strange, Ra's and Scarecrow (already used), Talia, Nocturna (who disappeared post-crisis, dammitall) Captain Boomerang (dear Jesus, no), Catman (kill me now)... the list goes on and on.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Here's what I think:

• BATMAN BEGINS was obviously about Bruce's emergence as Batman in Gotham. It WAs in fact the first time Batman's origin had been fully laid out onscreen, which in and of itself is pretty significant if you ask me.

•THE DARK KNIGHT was about Batman's fall, where Bruce made the choice to cast himself out. Even Gordon said that Batman was not a hero to his son.

•THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, I think, is where Batman will become the legend he is in the comics. And I say this because it implies that Batman treats the "Dark Knight" moniker as part of his persona, literally becoming the Dark Knight Detective.

Just my opinion of course

I DO hope you're right.

 

[Wesley Dodds]

If I had to guess ( and it is just a guess, cos what the **** do i know?) I'd say it would have to do with the fall of traditional gangsters and their replacement with the "freaks". Batman realises his quest is not as finite or simple as he originally imagined and that he will be, in fact, Batman FOREVER.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

If I had to guess ( and it is just a guess, cos what the **** do i know?) I'd say it would have to do with the fall of traditional gangsters and their replacement with the "freaks". Batman realises his quest is not as finite or simple as he originally imagined and that he will be, in fact, Batman FOREVER.

My friend The Guard postulated something similar over in the "same characters" discussion. He dropped the "Rise of the Freaks" storyline in there as something that could be amazing if handled properly. I could see that happening.

 

[Lungrocket]

You know, I've never even READ a comic with Black Mask in it. So I couldn't tell you why he might be a suitable character, except that, like many of Batman's rogues gallery, he is a distorted reflection of Bruce and there could be an interesting use for him in that capacity, since Bruce himself has fallen from grace, in a sense.

I agree with you that is a nice quality that would translate, but outside of that they would need to do some heavy retooling of the character for him to be a worthy adversary.

I don't know who Deacon Blackfire is.

Ever read BATMAN: THE CULT? Check it out.

The only problem with the Beast is that the KGB... okay, the KGB still exists, but under a different name, and the Beast is really a Cold War kind of character.

True, outside of some minor retooling, he was one hell of an opposing force against Batman in TEN NIGHTS OF THE BEAST, and I always suspected BANE was a rip-off of the character down to his costume.

Bane just gained in popularity because they gave him a big dramatic moment in the comics.

Ugh. Azrael comes from the 1990's... the Dark Age of comics, and is a key figure in the Knightfall storyline... a frakking BLIGHT on the legacy of the Batman mythos.

I agree with this, except for the fact that Azrael could be a far more severe vigilante on the streets of Gotham and could be made to work.

 

[DarkJester]

Clearly the title implies that Batman will be taking viagra at some point in this film. Ba-dum, tiss.

 

[Lungrocket]

Clearly... but I was speaking outside of the obvious.