The Dark Knight Rises Why Batman WON'T Die in The Dark Knight Rises

[Pwz414]

I don't think whatever they have in store for the ending is based on them being bored of the saga and wanting to trash it, just a natural conclusion from the seeds that were planted in the first film that wraps the whole thing up in a nice bow. Nothing wrong with that. No resentment of the Batman character, the films or anything.

That's a fair position. It really depends on what they do at this point. We really only have half of the story. When the film is released that should fill the voids as to what the intentions of the filmmakers were. All I have to go on now is the sound bites, headlines, and interviews. They say to me: "Let's be done with this and move on." I could be completely wrong, I have to admit that.

 

[Carnotaur3]

oh wow, you mean alot like the MATRIX 3 ............ no thanks

Matrix 3 shoehorned that in. Batman has building to an ultimate sacrifice since the beginning. If that's all you can do to defend the idea, you haven't fully comprehended the real implications of how it can work.

 

[DKDetective]

Knowing Rag, I highly doubt this is the position he was coming from, and it's incredibly unfair to paint him as such. What people like us take issue with is not people disliking the idea of Batman dying, that would be incredibly petty. You can want Batman to live, you can wish Riddler was in this instead of Bane, and hell you can hate Nolan's direction to death as much as you see fit with all the liberties that have been taken from the source material. The point where this becomes a problem is when users come in here with this smug, stubborn and entitled attitude where they tell other fans they're gonna walk out of the theater, call the people involved hackjobs and influence others to boycott a film strictly because they didn't get their way and the creative team involved dared to make some choices they don't like the sound of (note, this is before seeing how it's executed themselves)... I mean, the audacity, right!? How arrogant and superior of someone on the batboards to call out people on such a closed minded attitude when expressed in such an abrasive and hateful manner.

You can deny it all you want but that's the kind of thing I've seen Rag react to. People jumping into threads and freaking out and inhibiting speculation and thought by screaming things like "That's ****ing dumb, dumb, dumb! And anyone who likes it is dumb!", "If that happens, Chris Nolan clearly doesn't get Batman." , "Batman dying is ******ed", "" and the like... People are free to post their opinions, even if they're negative, hell even if they're ignorant or not too constructive... but it only makes for an ugly environment for a discussion forum and for that one should be prepared for some retaliation. It damages people's spirits, and I think it's no wonder Rag has made some angry responses due to that fact. There is some closed minded sentiment there because not only does it mean you're not open to a creative possibility but you're also protesting others from doing the same by treating it like it's some unfathomable, insane discussion.

You know there's preferences, and then there's just behaving like a spoilt, unreasonable brat. Seeing as far as I know, Rag's preferred ending is Bruce living, I think minus his last post where he got a bit too hostile, he's taken a very noble position that I respect him for.

I know what negative attitudes he was responding to, but I still found his position offensive. Most of the posters opposing him were being inarticulate and irrational, but when I tried to explain reasoned arguments for why some people might disagree with Nolan's take, he continually called the position, no matter its reasoning, closed-minded and ignorant, which I can't stand.

 

[KalMart]

I think people get in bad moods, or it's just the wrong thing at the wrong time...and they say things the wrong way....when at the core there's some validity to the sentiment. It happens. By the way, you're all idiots.

 

[Norek]

The film is a month + away....

 

[Nevincer]

I know what negative attitudes he was responding to, but I still found his position offensive. Most of the posters opposing him were being inarticulate and irrational, but when I tried to explain reasoned arguments for why some people might disagree with Nolan's take, he continually called the position, no matter its reasoning, closed-minded and ignorant, which I can't stand.

Well I can't speak for that. Perhaps he misconstrued what you're saying? When it comes to people stating things like their personal view of Batman, it in essence becomes just that... a view, but not law for when it comes to adaption. So when you talk about how the comics establish how Bruce can never settle down and live a happy life because it's been reinforced so many times subliminally in various stories, I can see what you're saying, but then through the filmmaker's eyes you're likely gonna see something different. Take for example the age old debate "who's the real mask? Batman, Bruce Wayne, maybe a bit of both?" This has been discussed and differed on from the comics alone, but if Burton established in his universe that Bruce was the mask and Nolan established that Batman was the one in his, I wouldn't dislike either for making a stance or defying an ambiguity like that, nor would justify a fan outrage either IMO... after all they aren't the comic books, they're adaptions and they are what they are for the stories they're telling.

So maybe he shouldn't have mocked the idea of someone being upset by that, but I can see why he wouldn't validate the position so to speak as I don't think by any means it's necessary to vindicate as a flaw or an excuse not to do something. One can acknowledge that Batman means something different to everyone but when it comes to attacking other interpretations for whatever reason there's gonna be some disagreement and a counter opinion.

 

[KalMart]

The only real life athlete I can think of who actually stuck to their guns on this was Robert Smith, running back for the Vikings. Had Jordan stayed retired it would have been the all time going out on top story, but...

On another note, remember Spiderman 2, when Spidie's mask is off and he's unconscious? The people in the train tell Oc: "You'll have to get though me." Clears lump in throat. "And me."

Doc says: "Okay"

Arms out, weak people to the side, takes Spiderman, does what he likes.

So Spiderman was unmasked for all to see, the people were so inspired and they stood up against the super villain, but they were still swept aside instantly like the meager, all be it inspired, weaklings they were.

The problem with killing Batman in this universe to me is that the super villain seed has already been planted. They are coming out of the wood work. Joker, Dent, Catwoman, Ra's, Bane, Talia, but there is only one Batman. So Batman dies and everyone cries and is so inspired. Then, 5 years later next super villain shows up and the newly inspired people of Gotham are swept aside in a day. It has been clearly demonstrated that the people of Gotham lack the will to save their city. They even lack the guts to soak up the collateral damage if someone saves it for them. So Batman sacrifices himself and all is hunkidory. Bull ****, after Batman is gone Uma, Arnold, and Jim would rule the world as those cockroach Gothamites pray the Batman only faked his death.


If Nolan tries to sell me on everything being okay after Batman kick starts their courage I'll feel like he thinks I'm an idiot.

He'll never rid the world of crime...but if he helps the city to the point where they can guard against their own corruption, oppression and apathy, he's done what he's supposed to. I'm sure even in that fictional world, there's a New York, or another city that has its crime, but doesn't need a superhero. THat's more than enough to strive for, rather than some sort of of implausible utopia or the like.

 

[Carnotaur3]

He'll never rid the world of crime...but if he helps the city to the point where they can guard against their own corruption, oppression and apathy, he's done what he's supposed to. I'm sure even in that fictional world, there's a New York, or another city that has its crime, but doesn't need a superhero. THat's more than enough to strive for, rather than some sort of of implausible utopia or the like.

Yeah, there's kind of confusion here among fans of what Batman's true legacy is calling for and that probably is what settles some to accept that Batman must keep being Batman or stop being Batman.

If you look at it from this perspective, that Batman was meant to inspire people to do good for themselves, then that is an achievable goal. But if you look at it from the perspective that Batman is crusading for a Perfect Gotham then yes, he'll be fighting to his dying breath.

I don't think Bruce Wayne ever intended to fight something that can't be fought because if there is no end-game, what is really the point? The fact that he wanted to give up so easily his mantle to Dent means that he wants to live a life after Batman and that he seriously thought that Gotham was ready for the transfer. But he hadn't accounted for the fact that Batman had not inspired the whole of Gotham, which was his goal in Begins. He figured the people needed a face they could relate to. He's about to learn 8 years of peace (one could argue that peace is to the eye of the beholder) isn't enough.

 

[micahwave]

I think Batman could die in TDKR, but he won't stay dead. Here's the how I think things could play out based on the trailers and some of the information we've been given:

In the final battle, Batman will sacrifice himself in some way in order to stop Bane from destroying Gotham. Batman will die, but he'll be resurrected after being put in a Lazarus Pit.

Some reasons why I think this might happen:

- Report of filming a Lazarus Pit in India

- Nolan saying this is the same ending they had planned from the beginning. Batman Begins had a lot to do with Ra, so maybe they were already thinking about the pit.

- What Batman says in trailer 3:

Catwoman: "You've given them everything."
Batman: "Not everything, not yet."

This make you think that Batman might sacrifice himself in some way.

I could be way off with all this - the one thing that I do feel pretty certain of though is that Batman will make a sacrifice of some sort in the film. Whether that's the ultimate sacrifice, we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[Norek]

No one will be resurrected in this film, that I can guarantee.

By "Not everything, not yet" I believe he's talking about his identity, and not his life.

 

[KalMart]

Only thing is that actually dying can't really be a predetermined outcome or ingredient for success unless it's a part of a bigger plan like in the DKR comic....for the sake of disappearing and continuing in secrecy...or an actual desire to die. If 'dying' is involved, it would come as part of defeat, or an on-the-spot sacrifice with no other alternative, or rather unexpected after the main battle and we find out it was planned all along. I.e., we can't get a sense of actually wanting to die from Batman if it is to happen in the story. That, to me, is a kind of nihilism that's out of character for Batman....or to have a clear intent for a 'heroic death'. It's too reckless.

In the DKR comic, he clearly set up one final showdown that he knew was going to end in his 'death' one way or another. It was meticulously orchestrated. And in that story...a huge part of it was that it was against Superman, and he was making a point of that. That's very different from entering a war to defend the city, which has too many other variables and improvisation involved to control something like that.

So although many of us can look to the DKR comic as to how a death (albeit a faked one) 'worked'....it's not the same as it would be in this story, because that 'death' was planned AFTER he saved the city and for a specific purpose. Batman going down in battle would take a very different set of circumstances and outlook to work satisfyingly in this story.

 

[BatLobster]

Matrix 3 shoehorned that in. Batman has building to an ultimate sacrifice since the beginning. If that's all you can do to defend the idea, you haven't fully comprehended the real implications of how it can work.

Well to be fair, The Matrix pretty much set up Neo as a Christ figure from the very beginning. The cool thing about what the Matrix trilogy did was make him a savior to everyone including the machines, when they were setting us up to think he was just gonna be a dude that frees everyone from The Matrix and somehow defeats the Machines. To be honest, I was surprised more people didn't see his sacrificial death coming. Not to get into a Matrix debate though...

Now, as for Batman. The idea of him dying could work, because Batman is already established as a character that makes great sacrifices, culminating with his choice at the end of TDK. They've also established Bruce's belief that the city needs symbols to look up to, and the idea of him wanting to create a symbol that is everlasting.

Obviously though, that is certainly not the only route they could take with it, and not the one I feel they will...but they could get away with it without being a total WTF ending. That's what makes this third chapter so interesting, there's a legit will he/won't he factor there.

 

[Pwz414]

He'll never rid the world of crime...but if he helps the city to the point where they can guard against their own corruption, oppression and apathy, he's done what he's supposed to. I'm sure even in that fictional world, there's a New York, or another city that has its crime, but doesn't need a superhero. THat's more than enough to strive for, rather than some sort of of implausible utopia or the like.

This will definitely depend on what "peace time" means, but perhaps Batman's goal will be to return the city to this condition under honest circumstances. I could see this Batman giving his life for that, or retiring afterwards. Perhaps what ate Bruce inside during the 8 year gap was knowing it was all a lie. I bet in a way he'll be grateful for Bane reveling the deception and presenting a problem that he can solve in an honest way. With relative peace backed by truth I could see him dying or retiring.

 

[KalMart]

This will definitely depend on what "peace time" means, but perhaps Batman's goal will be to return the city to this condition under honest circumstances. I could see this Batman giving his life for that, or retiring afterwards. Perhaps what ate Bruce inside during the 8 year gap was knowing it was all a lie. I bet in a way he'll be grateful for Bane reveling the deception and presenting a problem that he can solve in an honest way. With relative peace backed by truth I could see him dying or retiring.

Sensibly, that's what you'd figure he'd hope for.

 

[Alienous]

I don't imagine Bruce Wayne will die. If anything they might do a 'Sherlock' ending, and have Bruce Wayne (after seemingly dying as Batman) go to his parents grave, lay down some flowers and walk away in the snow. (Though, that would only work if Alfred died).

As someone here said before, for Batman to die in a film called 'The Dark Knight Rises' seems ... silly. I'm sure it could work but it seems like a big risk, as it could leave a lot of fans and critics disliking it. I wouldn't want Batman to just 'die', I would like his end to be thematic. Like how Batman Beyond presented it, seeing Batman threaten Bane with a gun might be the kind of iconic image that could justify Batman's end, but also leave him alive.

Whatever the ending is, I'm sure we will be satisfied (even if it's 20 year from now, on reflection).

 

[uniqueweasel]

Personally I would prefer Bruce not to die at the ending, but if it serves the story as a whole I can live with it.

I wouldn't mind something along the lines of The Dark Knight Returns, where Bruce could just go 'underground' and perhaps help Blake, etc coordinate different missions, etc, perhaps minus the sons of the batman though!

 

[AnneFan]

I think Bruce will live and the 'sons of Batman' aspect could be the police force and the citizens that see Batman as a saviour, during the finale free-for-all and afterwards when victory is theirs.

 

[uniqueweasel]

I think Bruce will live and the 'sons of Batman' aspect could be the police force and the citizens that see Batman as a saviour, during the finale free-for-all and afterwards when victory is theirs.

Exactly!

 

[DrMylesOBoogie]

I really hope he doesn't die. I think it will hurt the film's earnings especially if they are looking for repeat customers and if word of mouthis negative. I also think that with only 3 films in the series it just doesn't have the right build up. He's faced 3 villians and then dies. It completely undermines the Batman myth. If they'd made 6 films, I'd think it a great way to finish it, but 3 just isn't enough.

 

[MrWayne]

Well to keep everyone satisfied, in the bluray edition Nolan should have at lease 2 alternate endings added.

 

[Crazy Quilt Man]

I think the ending will be pretty special. David Goyer said recently in that Empire Magazine interview that in the fall of 08' he met for lunch with Chris Nolan to discuss a potential sequel to TDK... and he recalls how after reminding each other how many third films in trilogies stink... he had a "synaptic flash" and envisioned the final scene of TDKR... not the plot or the villain or the beginning... but the ending scene first... and with his thought he made Chris Nolan smile in agreement. (Which is an accomplishment in itself)
Goyer goes on to say that the actual final scene of TDKR is exactly what he envisioned during lunch that day... I can imagine it's pretty darn cool.
So every time I read that the ending is potentially "Batman dying" or "someone else taking the cowl"... I don't know... but those things just don't seem interesting enough as the idea over lunch that day that launched TDKR... I think the ending is something we will be unable to comprehend until we see the film.

 

[Naite22]

It's kinda funny how these hot-shots in Hollywood always "met up for lunch", or "sat down for dinner" etc. Who gives a flying **** where you people meet up!! Whether you met up at home, out, or in freaken church - We don't care! You met_up, that's all we need to know.

 

[TDKR2012]

I've been thinking about "full-circle" these past few days, and after re-watching some of Batman Begins yesterday, something stood out to me.

When Alfred picks up Bruce Wayne from the mountains, he talks to him on their private jet,

They say something along the lines of this:

Alfred: how long will you be coming back for?

Bruce: As long as it takes/As long as I need to inspire people etc....


something tells me Bruce will once again leave Gotham by the time The Dark Knight Rises is finished, to be on his own again,

and he would have stood by his word in the sense that the people would have been inspired to take back their city, thus, Batman/Bruce achieving his goal of redeeming his city.

Also, in begins, Alfred has Bruce declared "dead", and i think the same thing could happen again, if the city believes Batman/Bruce is dead, even though he really isn't.

FULL CIRCLE!!!!!!!!!!! loll

 

[Rogzilla]

I've been thinking about "full-circle" these past few days, and after re-watching some of Batman Begins yesterday, something stood out to me.

When Alfred picks up Bruce Wayne from the mountains, he talks to him on their private jet,

They say something along the lines of this:

Alfred: how long will you be coming back for?

Bruce: As long as it takes/As long as I need to inspire people etc....


something tells me Bruce will once again leave Gotham by the time The Dark Knight Rises is finished, to be on his own again,

and he would have stood by his word in the sense that the people would have been inspired to take back their city, thus, Batman/Bruce achieving his goal of redeeming his city.

Also, in begins, Alfred has Bruce declared "dead", and i think the same thing could happen again, if the city believes Batman/Bruce is dead, even though he really isn't.

FULL CIRCLE!!!!!!!!!!! loll

You know, this variation of the "retirement" ending would be fine with me. Having Bruce not just stop being Batman, but stop being Bruce Wayne, would be an interesting take on it.

Maybe part of his motivation for leaving would be all the hard memories that would always torment him, tempting him to put on the mask again. Accepting that, the only way to escape that is to leave, would be fascinating.

Another possible variation could be (and I"m just putting it out there, not saying this will hapen) that if the LOS is part of the story and perhaps the events of the film leaves them leaderless, that maybe they would welcome Bruce as the Ra's al Ghul and he could lead them using his morals and ideals and not Ducard's. In essense, a variation of the Sons of Batman or Batman Incorporated idea.

 

[Alex Logan]

I can't believe there are people who still think there's going to be a pit in this movie.