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

[Bat-Mite]

Catman (kill me now)...

It's a pity that Schumacher never found out about that one. He would've had a field day.

 

[TomPiltoff]

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.

Seriously? Batman Finds Jesus / St. Batman? No, those will not happen.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

It's a pity that Schumacher never found out about that one. He would've had a field day.

Oh my. That's just...terrifying.

Of course I'm more accustomed to this:

Some other random results from Google:

I can't decide which is worse...

 

[Wesley Dodds]

I hate to be the one to say this but Catman has been pretty badass in the comics the last few years. As any Secret Six fan is well aware...

 

[hegele]

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.

The quote about this Batman series being their "Harry Potter" series was before Nolan made it clear he was coming back and before he said it was the end of a trilogy.

I think we all need to actually understand what has been said,

- it is the end, a finale, the final act of a trilogy. This has been said by Nolan more than once. It is one of the specific pieces of information about the movie that has been said more than once.

That doesn't mean the character of Batman is over, just the specific franchsie Nolan made. This has never been done to a superhero motion picture property. Nobody has ever had the clought to finish a series. Every other damn supehero franchsie has burnt out in junk sequels without closure. How many f****** origins movies are there? We get dozens of origins, a handful of decent direct sequels and the minute another sequel doesn't critically or commercially satisfy it is back to the drawing board (usually back the origins).

Nolan is writing an end to his Batman. He probably made an ultimatum with WB, "I'll come back for a third, but the specific universe we made ends with that." No Ratner's or Shulmaker's are going to make this universe fade away. IT is going to burn out as brightly as it came in. The sooner we can all see that, the sooner we'll have a better understanding of what The Dark Knight Rises is really like.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

The quote about this Batman series being their "Harry Potter" series was before Nolan made it clear he was coming back and before he said it was the end of a trilogy.

They didn't say Batman is replacing Harry Potter. They said the DC films in general are doing so. I just figure that Batman has to factor into that.

I think we all need to actually understand what has been said,

I think we DO understand.

- it is the end, a finale, the final act of a trilogy. This has been said by Nolan more than once. It is one of the specific pieces of information about the movie that has been said more than once.

Yes, the end of a storyline.

That doesn't mean the character of Batman is over, just the specific franchsie Nolan made. This has never been done to a superhero motion picture property. Nobody has ever had the clought to finish a series. Every other damn supehero franchsie has burnt out in junk sequels without closure. How many f****** origins movies are there? We get dozens of origins, a handful of decent direct sequels and the minute another sequel doesn't critically or commercially satisfy it is back to the drawing board (usually back the origins)

.

Right. In this instance, Nolan gets to finish his series. But ending his series is not the same as ending the franchise. Which you just said.

Nolan is writing an end to his Batman. He probably made an ultimatum with WB, "I'll come back for a third, but the specific universe we made ends with that." No Ratner's or Shulmaker's are going to make this universe fade away. IT is going to burn out as brightly as it came in. The sooner we can all see that, the sooner we'll have a better understanding of what The Dark Knight Rises is really like.

Look at it like this: Nolan's story arc here may end. But I expect it to be both an end AND a beginning. When Nolan leaves this franchise, if in fact he does so after this film, it will be with a VERY badass foundation laid for any future Batman stories. Nolan's Batman series begins and ends, but I don't suspect it will close any doors. The studio should be able to make direct sequels that will not weaken the work that's been done here. That will connect loosely but will not have to tie up any story points from this series. Comics change creative teams all the time. Franchises can too. Just ask James Bond. But Nolan's trilogy will always be complete and inviolate.

Again, if DKR rakes in the cash, I bet WB asks him to do more. What his answer will be, only he could know. But if he doesn't do it... somebody else most assuredly WILL.

 

[Micah12345]

Yeah catman is badass in secret six.

 

[hegele]

Right. In this instance, Nolan gets to finish his series. But ending his series is not the same as ending the franchise. Which you just said.

Look at it like this: Nolan's story arc here may end. But I expect it to be both an end AND a beginning. When Nolan leaves this franchise, if in fact he does so after this film, it will be with a VERY badass foundation laid for any future Batman stories. Nolan's Batman series begins and ends, but I don't suspect it will close any doors. The studio should be able to make direct sequels that will not weaken the work that's been done here. That will connect loosely but will not have to tie up any story points from this series. Comics change creative teams all the time. Franchises can too. Just ask James Bond. But Nolan's trilogy will always be complete and inviolate.

Again, if DKR rakes in the cash, I bet WB asks him to do more. What his answer will be, only he could know. But if he doesn't do it... somebody else most assuredly WILL.

I see where you are coming from but I really, really fear that scenario. I think ending a series is the same as ending a franchise.... at least Nolan's franchise.

I think it is clear that this is what Nolan means when he says "this will finish the story." His franchise is the story and the story is his franchise.

I have no idea how "ending his series is not the same as ending the franchise." That doesn't make any sense, unless you mean that Batman as a character will have more films, in that case of course i agree. It just won't be Christian Bale in a direct follow up to TDKR.

Let's say your scenario is correct, is that what you really want?? So many series with a good starts are tainted by completely crap sequels- Spider-Man, X-Men, Superman, Burton's Batman, etc...

And the problem is that most fans can't seem to know when to stop asking for more. What do you want in this series after Nolan leaves? Do you really expect it to maintain integrity and quality? No, it will burn out like every other Superhero property if we keep asking for more.

One of the biggest weaknesses in the world of Superheros and comic books (not just their cinematic adaptations) is that there is hardly ever structured closure. They continue the characters indefinitely. Studios don't approach their Superhero adaptations like a contained graphic novel run that has a beginning, middle and end, they share the same mentality of the 40/50/60 years old comic series'- let's run it until it runs us out of money. Most all franchises are like this.

Now Nolan makes a deal with Warner Brothers for a three picture contained story and we want to deny him this? How many Schoomakers and Ratner's have to f*** up a property before it wares out its welcome?

 

[Keyser Sushi]

I see where you are coming from but I really, really fear that scenario. I think ending a series is the same as ending a franchise.... at least Nolan's franchise.

I think it is clear that this is what Nolan means when he says "this will finish the story." His franchise is the story and the story is his franchise.

I have no idea how "ending his series is not the same as ending the franchise." That doesn't make any sense, unless you mean that Batman as a character will have more films, in that case of course i agree. It just won't be Christian Bale in a direct follow up to TDKR.

Let's say your scenario is correct, is that what you really want?? So many series with a good starts are tainted by completely crap sequels- Spider-Man, X-Men, Superman, Burton's Batman, etc...

And the problem is that most fans can't seem to know when to stop asking for more. What do you want in this series after Nolan leaves? Do you really expect it to maintain integrity and quality? No, it will burn out like every other Superhero property if we keep asking for more.

One of the biggest weaknesses in the world of Superheros and comic books (not just their cinematic adaptations) is that there is hardly ever structured closure. They continue the characters indefinitely. Studios don't approach their Superhero adaptations like a contained graphic novel run that has a beginning, middle and end, they share the same mentality of the 40/50/60 years old comic series'- let's run it until it runs us out of money. Most all franchises are like this.

Now Nolan makes a deal with Warner Brothers for a three picture contained story and we want to deny him this? How many Schoomakers and Ratner's have to f*** up a property before it wares out its welcome?

I think perhaps we have a semantics issue here.

I have no doubt that when Nolan leaves, his cast will leave as well. I also have no doubt that WB will want more Batman movies. If Nolan won't do them, they will hire someone who will.

That person in turn will build a new cast and hire new writers.

Here's what I DON'T want: I don't want a reboot that goes back to Batman's origins. Nolan's done that, and done it well. I don't want any new films to act like Nolan's didn't happen, because that will mean they'll want to re-explore Batman's beginnings. We don't need that. I don't want to have him meet Joker again "for the first time." I don't want to see the same characters origins and deaths over and over again.

Here's what I DO want. I want to see more stories featuring Batman, Alfred, Gordon, Lucius, and the classic rogues gallery. I want a Riddler story that doesn't suck. I want more Joker. More Two-Face. More Ra's al Ghul. A Catwoman story that doesn't blow monkey meat. Mr. Freeze done in a kickass way. I want new films that don't try to re-cover old ground. I want them to build on the legacy that Nolan has created, without being directly related to it.

Does that make sense? Batman will always be a franchise. Just because Nolan's films and the story arc that he's created come to an end, it doesn't mean that the new films should disregard all that has come before them. In fact if they do they're more likely to be bad films than if they build on the legacy of three very solid films.

 

[hegele]

I think perhaps we have a semantics issue here.

I have no doubt that when Nolan leaves, his cast will leave as well. I also have no doubt that WB will want more Batman movies. If Nolan won't do them, they will hire someone who will.

That person in turn will build a new cast and hire new writers.

Here's what I DON'T want: I don't want a reboot that goes back to Batman's origins. Nolan's done that, and done it well. I don't want any new films to act like Nolan's didn't happen, because that will mean they'll want to re-explore Batman's beginnings. We don't need that. I don't want to have him meet Joker again "for the first time." I don't want to see the same characters origins and deaths over and over again.

Here's what I DO want. I want to see more stories featuring Batman, Alfred, Gordon, Lucius, and the classic rogues gallery. I want a Riddler story that doesn't suck. I want more Joker. More Two-Face. More Ra's al Ghul. A Catwoman story that doesn't blow monkey meat. Mr. Freeze done in a kickass way. I want new films that don't try to re-cover old ground. I want them to build on the legacy that Nolan has created, without being directly related to it.

Does that make sense? Batman will always be a franchise. Just because Nolan's films and the story arc that he's created come to an end, it doesn't mean that the new films should disregard all that has come before them. In fact if they do they're more likely to be bad films than if they build on the legacy of three very solid films.

ah, i see. I apologize, i think i just misunderstood and filled in a lot of blanks of what you wanted with what i assumed you were asking for myself that were not accurate. Where you see the franchise going is ok by me, i can definitely back that. Again, apologies for replying rudely!

 

[Keyser Sushi]

ah, i see. I apologize, i think i just misunderstood and filled in a lot of blanks of what you wanted with what i assumed you were asking for myself that were not accurate. Where you see the franchise going is ok by me, i can definitely back that. Again, apologies for replying rudely!

No worries, man. What would this place be if we didn't discuss and challenge each other's ideas?

BORING, that's what! t:

You from Baltimore Maryland? Or the Baltimore where they filmed some stuff for TDK?

 

[Mach2Infinity]

I'd hate to see Batman or Bruce Wayne rather being killed off. I loathe the idea that one has to finish off a character in order to give him a greater meaning. He needs to be tested, more than ever of course. However, I'd like to see Batman emerge from the ashes of "The Dark Knight" with a new reputation. I want to see the police and citizens of Gotham look up to him as a symbol of hope and justice. Remember, Batman was never the public hero in the first film as everyone was questioning whether he was a deranged man in a mask. Now, his reputation remains in tatters I relish the prospect of how they will turn around this reputation. I feel they must because the Batman of the comics is a hero for Gotham and a trusted ally of the G.P.D. He may have to work very hard to earn their trust and respect but he gets it in the end. As for the meaning of the third film's title, it's quite clear. Batman will step out of the shadows to save Gotham once more. Not only that but he'll ascend in the hearts and minds of Gotham's citizenry to become a legend. He'll be fully embraced by the city, its people and authorities and become a guardian like no other. A young boy once cradled the dead bodies of his parents, in the lowest and most decrepit level of Gotham. Now that boy has become a man whose symbol is everlasting and incorruptible. One which will shine brightly high above the rooftops of Gotham. What a great way to end the trilogy.

 

[truth]

Let me better clarify my problem with tbs title:

I have read on here people's very ingenius concepts on the title and the previous films. I am simply a viewer and all I cam say from Tdk is, what is he rising from?

Why should Gotham be against him? Why are they chasing him?

It seems Batman just decided to be this kind of person and was not forced into it. That is my first point.

My second point is how him deciding to take the fall means he has descended from someplace and thus must rise from it.

The title would make sense if Batman had been portrayed in the film as this outsider who was the cause of Gotham's demise becuase of the criminals he attracted. And if at the end of the movie we saw him fall and even question his path. THEN the third title would make more sense.

 

[Gianakin_]

I am simply a viewer and all I cam say from Tdk is, what is he rising from?

Why should Gotham be against him? Why are they chasing him?

Before the events of TDK they were chasing him as a vigilante. Now they're chasing him as a cop killer and a killer in general. Whole different dynamic, since in BB several Gothamites reluctantly viewed him as a necessary evil.

Now Gothamites will fear him, they won't think he's only going after mob bosses, but even cops (the "good guys"). Nobody's safe from Batman now!

It seems Batman just decided to be this kind of person and was not forced into it. That is my first point.

He decided to do it so as to keep the criminals locked up. Otherwise, all of Dent's efforts would have been in vain. Now the mob is completely on its knees. He didn't do it for the f**k of it.

My second point is how him deciding to take the fall means he has descended from someplace and thus must rise from it.

His status. He descended from being a mysterious protector to a vigilante killer.

The title would make sense if Batman had been portrayed in the film as this outsider who was the cause of Gotham's demise becuase of the criminals he attracted. And if at the end of the movie we saw him fall and even question his path. THEN the third title would make more sense.

If he falls in the 3rd film, and Nolan doesn't return for a 4th, then the Rises makes absolutely no sense.
As for Bats being portrayed as being partially the cause of the freaks coming there 1.Joker did predict it in TDK and 2.we might just get that for TDKR. But even that point you make has no connection to the Rises part. Could you elaborate?

 

[namtaB]

Don't understand why people are overanalyzing this. At the end of TDK, Batman is a villain to the public but he's actually a silent guardian or dark knight. He's wanted for the murder of civilians and cops. But although unclear and not explicitly stated in the film its reasonable to deduce that they probably penned Dent's death on Batman as well to provide an explanation that conforms with Dent being depicted as the hero and eulogized by Gordon as such.

TDKR will revolve around Batman moving from villain to hero in the eyes of the public. Hence the phrasing "rises."

That's all there is to it folks.

 

[Jeppoc]

Hopefully, "rises" implies that Batman WILL NOT DIE in this one, and that people will stop speculating that he will.

(Unless he rises in form of a zombie, of course, as suggested by jmc in the manips-thread. )

 

[ronny]

Hmmm. History never repeats itself.

 

[protoctista]

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.

 

[protoctista]

 

[Golgo-13]

Knowing Nolan, we'll probably get an ambiguous ending where we're not really sure if Batman is dead or not.

I also wouldn't mind an ending where they fast forwards 30, 40 years and Wayne is an old man, and there's some sort of monologue at his parents grave, or sitting in front of a dusty bat computer.....

 

[truth]

Why would they pin the death of Dent on Batman if they have no proof he did it?

And erm...didn't a bunch of cops see Batman fight off Joker's henchmen in the building and ultimately capture Joker for the authorities?

It just seems there is a lot of stuff you have to take for granted, rather than it being shown to you. This ending just does not make much sense because it still seems Batman is just deciding that he will be this "villain" to the public.

 

[truth]

My thought precisely.

Spiritual?

 

[namtaB]

Why would they pin the death of Dent on Batman if they have no proof he did it?

Nothing explicitly stated in TDK, its deductive reasoning on my part. Gordon, his family, Dent, and Batman are at the scene of a "situation" which forced Gordon to call his cops in to create a perimeter. The situation ends with Gordon and his family ok, Dent dead, and the cops chasing Batman. Later Gordon is seen publicly eulogizing Dent and calling him a "knight...shining" implying that Dent's virgin white public image is kept intact

One can reasonably conclude that the "official" version of events are that an altercation b/w Batman and Dent arose where Batman either intentionally (murder) or unintentionally/accidentally (manslaughter) caused Dent's death. This explains why Dent is laying dead and later heroically eulogized by Gordon.

 

[Naite22]

It definitely implies that Catwoman will be in the film.

**** Catwoman ! ! ! !

Dont wanna see the ***** in this movie. Focus on batman, this is his last movie from nolan

 

[baleheadbrasil]

**** Catwoman ! ! ! !

Dont wanna see the ***** in this movie. Focus on batman, this is his last movie from nolan

I won´t talk anything against Catwoman in this forum again.
I will keep my opinions abt her to myself and wait for what Nolan decided to do.