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

[Harley2004]

Moreover, I know several casual fans and general audience members who want a daring ending.

Considering Begins and the Dark Knight. It would only make sense to end it like that. The Tim Burton movies were both solid but last thing I want to see in this movie is something like this.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btyqo7c5Cwk

 

[DKDetective]

I think you underestimate how the public would reaction to Bruce Wayne getting killed. However I agree that if he faked his death no one would have a problem. BTW I was one of those who defended the end of TDK . Aside from the assumption that I wasnt, I get your point.

I'm not assuming you were one of those people. I just meant people made similar arguments based on the same ideas when the plot of TDK was leaked.

However, you are not looking at the context of Bruce's death objectively. The fact that you phrased it "Bruce Wayne getting killed" denotes a negative connotation. Of course, the public will react negatively to Bruce "getting killed". "Getting killed" implies a senseless or ignoble death. Bruce "performing the ultimate act of heroism" and sacrificing himself for his city - I don't think that will garner the same reaction, especially considering that we are talking about a middle-aged Bruce who is past his prime, one whose body physically won't let him be Batman much longer.

Personally, that is always how I've seen Batman's career ending based on my understanding of the character, particularly in the comics. Bruce cannot give up Batman. He will be Batman until one day his body fails him and he has to give up his life to one last person because he's not physically capable enough to save both him and the person he is rescuing.

However, I have no idea if Nolan will choose that end for his interpretation of the character. I think it could go either way. On one hand, I can see him go the tragic route - the catharsis and closure represented by Miranda/Talia could be illusory just like Miranda's identity. Her betrayal could be a clue that Bruce can never have a normal life - that he can never turn back from Batman. That is consistent with Nolan's seeming great interest in trauma theory. Every movie he has made since Memento has been about a person dealing with trauma and never once has that person reached catharsis. (eg. Memento - arguably, the protagonist refuses to accept the truth of his wife's death, The Prestige - Angier's obsession since his wife's death gets him killed, Inception - arguably Cobb's catharsis is just a dream)

On the other hand, Inception could be an indication that Nolan is experimenting with the idea of catharsis. Does it matter that Cobb's happy ending is fake? Either way, he has moved on and is no longer living in the past - instead of dreaming about his dead wife - he dreams about a happy future with his kids. He has reached internal closure, even if he never made it back to the real world.

Either way, Goyer has made it pretty clear that the ending in the film is the one him and Nolan came up with 4 years ago. So all of your points about the studio not letting them do something are void because it is clear that the studio is letting them do what they wanted to do from the beginning even in spite of alleged studio upset with the ending. WB trusts him... so much that they they didn't even force 3D on Nolan! Let's face it, they wanted a third Nolan Bat-film at any cost.

 

[GREEN =w= DAY]

i was just thinking, it'd be pretty cool in a way if the film ends in a sort of Batman Inc theme. Bruce leaving Gotham to take his war on crime world wide.

looking back on Batman Begins when Alfred asks Bruce if "he's coming back for good" and Bruce responds "however long it takes". with Gotham going to hell in this film and Batman saving the city, i can definitely see Bruce wanting to do more outside of Gotham. especially after being out of commission for 8 years and doing the nearly impossible in saving Gotham from Bane and his followers.

 

[Nevincer]

I'm not assuming you were one of those people. I just meant people made similar arguments based on the same ideas when the plot of TDK was leaked.

However, you are not looking at the context of Bruce's death objectively. The fact that you phrased it "Bruce Wayne getting killed" denotes a negative connotation. Of course, the public will react negatively to Bruce "getting killed". "Getting killed" implies a senseless or ignoble death. Bruce "performing the ultimate act of heroism" and sacrificing himself for his city - I don't think that will garner the same reaction, especially considering that we are talking about a middle-aged Bruce who is past his prime, one whose body physically won't let him be Batman much longer.

Personally, that is always how I've seen Batman's career ending based on my understanding of the character, particularly in the comics. Bruce cannot give up Batman. He will be Batman until one day his body fails him and he has to give up his life to one last person because he's not physically capable enough to save both him and the person he is rescuing.

However, I have no idea if Nolan will choose that end for his interpretation of the character. I think it could go either way. On one hand, I can see him go the tragic route - the catharsis and closure represented by Miranda/Talia could be illusory just like Miranda's identity. Her betrayal could be a clue that Bruce can never have a normal life - that he can never turn back from Batman. That is consistent with Nolan's seeming great interest in trauma theory. Every movie he has made since Memento has been about a person dealing with trauma and never once has that person reached catharsis. (eg. Memento - arguably, the protagonist refuses to accept the truth of his wife's death, The Prestige - Angier's obsession since his wife's death gets him killed, Inception - arguably Cobb's catharsis is just a dream)

On the other hand, Inception could be an indication that Nolan is experimenting with the idea of catharsis. Does it matter that Cobb's happy ending is fake? Either way, he has moved on and is no longer living in the past - instead of dreaming about his dead wife - he dreams about a happy future with his kids. He has reached internal closure, even if he never made it back to the real world.

Either way, Goyer has made it pretty clear that the ending in the film is the one him and Nolan came up with 4 years ago. So all of your points about the studio not letting them do something are void because it is clear that the studio is letting them do what they wanted to do from the beginning even in spite of alleged studio upset with the ending. WB trusts him... so much that they they didn't even force 3D on Nolan! Let's face it, they wanted a third Nolan Bat-film at any cost.

Incredible post

 

[Naked Shia]

seconded

 

[Pwz414]

I'm not assuming you were one of those people. I just meant people made similar arguments based on the same ideas when the plot of TDK was leaked.

However, you are not looking at the context of Bruce's death objectively. The fact that you phrased it "Bruce Wayne getting killed" denotes a negative connotation. Of course, the public will react negatively to Bruce "getting killed". "Getting killed" implies a senseless or ignoble death. Bruce "performing the ultimate act of heroism" and sacrificing himself for his city - I don't think that will garner the same reaction, especially considering that we are talking about a middle-aged Bruce who is past his prime, one whose body physically won't let him be Batman much longer.

Personally, that is always how I've seen Batman's career ending based on my understanding of the character, particularly in the comics. Bruce cannot give up Batman. He will be Batman until one day his body fails him and he has to give up his life to one last person because he's not physically capable enough to save both him and the person he is rescuing.

However, I have no idea if Nolan will choose that end for his interpretation of the character. I think it could go either way. On one hand, I can see him go the tragic route - the catharsis and closure represented by Miranda/Talia could be illusory just like Miranda's identity. Her betrayal could be a clue that Bruce can never have a normal life - that he can never turn back from Batman. That is consistent with Nolan's seeming great interest in trauma theory. Every movie he has made since Memento has been about a person dealing with trauma and never once has that person reached catharsis. (eg. Memento - arguably, the protagonist refuses to accept the truth of his wife's death, The Prestige - Angier's obsession since his wife's death gets him killed, Inception - arguably Cobb's catharsis is just a dream)

On the other hand, Inception could be an indication that Nolan is experimenting with the idea of catharsis. Does it matter that Cobb's happy ending is fake? Either way, he has moved on and is no longer living in the past - instead of dreaming about his dead wife - he dreams about a happy future with his kids. He has reached internal closure, even if he never made it back to the real world.

Either way, Goyer has made it pretty clear that the ending in the film is the one him and Nolan came up with 4 years ago. So all of your points about the studio not letting them do something are void because it is clear that the studio is letting them do what they wanted to do from the beginning even in spite of alleged studio upset with the ending. WB trusts him... so much that they they didn't even force 3D on Nolan! Let's face it, they wanted a third Nolan Bat-film at any cost.

Bruce Wayne will die of a heart attack when he's 93. He'll be clinically dead for two minutes and then wake up. Why two minutes? That's how long it will take Bruce to tell his heart to get its **** together.

Killing Batman is not "daring". It's just an easy out for Nolan and Bale, and unless they go the fake death route it completely ends this Batman's journey. “Ooooo, good for you!” You told a complete story, with a beginning, middle, and end, bravo! Next Batman reboot, please.

"But Nolan is a genius, and his ending will be better than any ending any other person on the planet could imagine, and it will rock no matter what, because he's Nolan." Is getting old.

Nolan is brilliant beyond my wildest dreams when it comes to story and film, but if he kills Batman I'll disagree... However "heroic" it may be, and I'm sure if it goes down this road there will be a brilliant HISHE to back me up. Not that I'll need back-up. It's strange to me that anyone would actually want Batman to die. Yes, if movies sequels keep being made they will likely get worse, and people will let that detract from the earlier films because that's how we are, but it won’t change them... This "Kill him so we can quit" crap sucks, period. "Oh, but Nolan and Goyer came up with this ending years ago...." Aka bla blah blah. Bale and Nolan have both alluded to wanting this franchise over, and to say they are ending the story no matter what this go round is extremely limiting.

So now this has to be looked at objectively? You are saying that people should look at a character they've grown up with, idolized, and dreamt of being... objectively? This is subjective media, which is exactly why I could never say that Nolan is wrong, but he or you or anyone else can't say that I or anyone else am wrong for wishing he lived... if he dies

Regardless of whether we viewed it with a lens you deem appropriate.

Damn fine post, by the way.

 

[DKDetective]

Bruce Wayne will die of a heart attack when he's 93. He'll be clinically dead for two minutes and then wake up. Why two minutes? That's how long it will take Bruce to tell his heart to get its **** together.

Killing Batman is not "daring". It's just an easy out for Nolan and Bale, and unless they go the fake death route it completely ends this Batman's journey. “Ooooo, good for you!” You told a complete story, with a beginning, middle, and end, bravo! Next Batman reboot, please.

"But Nolan is a genius, and his ending will be better than any ending any other person on the planet could imagine, and it will rock no matter what, because he's Nolan." Is getting old.

Nolan is brilliant beyond my wildest dreams when it comes to story and film, but if he kills Batman I'll disagree... However "heroic" it may be, and I'm sure if it goes down this road there will be a brilliant HISHE to back me up. Not that I'll need back-up. It's strange to me that anyone would actually want Batman to die. Yes, if movies sequels keep being made they will likely get worse, and people will let that detract from the earlier films because that's how we are, but it won’t change them... This "Kill him so we can quit" crap sucks, period. "Oh, but Nolan and Goyer came up with this ending years ago...." Aka bla blah blah. Bale and Nolan have both alluded to wanting this franchise over, and to say they are ending the story no matter what this go round is extremely limiting.

So now this has to be looked at objectively? You are saying that people should look at a character they've grown up with, idolized, and dreamt of being... objectively? This is subjective media, which is exactly why I could never say that Nolan is wrong, but he or you or anyone else can't say that I or anyone else am wrong for wishing he lived... if he dies

Regardless of whether we viewed it with a lens you deem appropriate.

Damn fine post, by the way.

You misunderstand what I was saying about objectivity. I was only referring to Frodo's comments about audience reaction. His argument was based on false characterizations and assumptions. eg. Batman "getting killed" will anger people. He was viewing it as Batman "getting killed". By defining Batman`s death in his initial premise in such a way, he was making his conclusion that people would react poorly all but certain through faulty argumentation. Using the words "getting killed" implies an unfitting and ignoble death. Depending on the structure of the film as a whole, if Bruce does die, his death might have the exact opposite connotations and illicit a completely different audience response as a result.

I actually agree with you about a basic sacrificing himself for the city ending being an easy way out. It is a cliche. I was arguing that there is a good chance the general audience will react positively to it for that very reason. Heroic sacrifices are cliche for a reason, they work at some basic level.

I think the ending will be more complex than that.

Now please do not think I am telling you that you are wrong for wanting Bruce to live. That is your interpretation and preferred ending. I had a big fight with Raganork a few months back where I defended people for not wanting Bruce to retire happily because some feel that Bruce can psychologically never not be Batman. He was calling people close-minded and being extremely arrogant and superior about it, just like he as in this thread when he got banned. So please, do not accuse me of being the very thing that has kept me out of threads like this one for a while.

My posts in this thread were a reaction to posters like Frodo declaring that their preferred ending can logically be the only one and making huge sweeping generalizations about what audience reaction will be to certain endings.

Now you ask why someone would want Batman to die? Because perhaps we do not believe it suits the character for him to achieve catharsis and retire? I mean that is what much of The Dark Knight Returns was about. Bruce cannot not be Batman. He was miserable and dead inside while in retirement. He became an actual alcoholic and tempted death as much as he could to try and fill the void. He is meant to be Batman until he dies. That is why some prefer Bruce to die in this film. Because based on their reading of the comics and understanding of the character, if this film is supposed to be about the end of Batman`s story, there is a large body of comics canon that suggests it can end only one way.

 

[KalMart]

To me it's a question as to whether a fighter should die in the ring or not.

 

[Naite22]

We've been hearing a lot about that final scene in Rises, and how it brought the studio people to tears (some of them, anyways)... I just don't know what to expect. Can't wait to sit down in that theater chair and just fly off!

 

[DKDetective]

To me it's a question as to whether a fighter should die in the ring or not.

In the "good" old days, many all but did and that was often just for one last paycheque. Bruce arguably has a much more compelling reason to keep getting back in the ring until it kills him. There is a sense of duty, necessity and obligation to do it. If he doesn't, people may die. Some other child may be forced to endure that he has.

 

[Carnotaur3]

I think the clue with what Nolan will do with Batman is hidden structurely in his films.

The series is Bruce's journey. Batman is a huge part of it, but the films are about a man's ideological crusade here. And all crusades come to an end, whether they failed or succeeded. Bruce is also a man. "Flesh and blood. I can be destroyed. But as a symbol... I can be incorruptible. I can be everlasting."

Batman has been creeping forth as a symbol ever since. You're going to see less of Batman as a persona in this film. Only a symbol can be incorruptible and everlasting. And his absence makes the symbol come stronger. Kids are drawing it with chalk on concrete walls. As much as the Batman has simultaneously been keeping him from having a life, it's calling again to let him make the last leap. To purify and redeem his tortured soul.

Why don't we just say it. Batman is starting to become a analogous to Christian symbolism. The cross is the Bat symbol. He's building his own followers in TDKR like Jesus with the apostles. Miranda Tate might betray him like Judas. Bane represents the devil, an evil that has grasped and encompassed the whole world, and only Batman can saves the souls of Gotham.

He's already took upon himself the sins. Now he must resurrect physically to complete the process.

Batman will die a martyr in this film. I'm not going to press my analogy to the point that he makes people create a Bible about him, but the mythology and stories will be passed down from generation to generation as a lesson to Gotham.

There was a man who defied corruption. And because of him there won't need to be another.

 

[KalMart]

In the "good" old days, many all but did and that was often just for one last paycheque. Bruce arguably has a much more compelling reason to keep getting back in the ring until it kills him. There is a sense of duty, necessity and obligation to do it. If he doesn't, people may die. Some other child may be forced to endure that he has.

I get the feeling that these writers want Bruce to live after finishing on top and leave it behind. It'd be kind of a tragedy for him not to be able to leave the ring...as we would feel about anyone we cared for.

 

[Bat]

I get the feeling that these writers want Bruce to live after finishing on top and leave it behind. It'd be kind of a tragedy for him not to be able to leave the ring...as we would feel about anyone we cared for.

 

[yads]

I've thought for a while that he'll die.

There are a bunch of obvious reasons you could go into - the Warner suits who left the screening in tears, the constant whispers the last few months, which tend to mean something en masse. Like, I get why folks are cynical of rumors but when they keep on happening they're nearly always borne out. Oh, plus Bruce's line "Not everything. Not yet."

Nolan also knows, BTW, he has to top The Joker. Bane and Catwoman will be great, but if you really wanna top TDK killing Bruce Wayne is a pretty frickin' nailed on way of doing it.

But anyway, the real reason is because it makes thematic sense. The central theme of the whole trilogy is Batman inspiring Gotham's citizens, showing them that a better world with better people is possible. Bruce doesn't want to be the hero, but altruistic dude that he is, feels he has to until someone else comes along to do the job. So Bruce dies, someone else takes up the mantle (the one he wanted Harvey to take up), and thus in death Batman's goal is achieved.

For any hero the ultimate altruistic action is sacrificing his own life. It makes heroic sense, dramatic sense, thematic sense, and is exactly the epicness Nolan would want to end his trilogy with.

At this point I see no way Bruce doesn't die. Bruce, not Batman, whose name will live on. Rise even.

Act 3 of this film is gonna OWN. Can't wait.

 

[Naked Shia]

he already sacrificed a great deal for his city. He doesn't need to die in order to inspire people. That's not to say he won't though.

 

[yads]

I agree, but imagine what an event this movie will be if Bruce Wayne dies saving Gotham. TDKR will become the must-see movie of the year for the general public.

For us it already is, but this would make it so massive for everyone else too. Like the Vader revelation in TESB type big. I don't see Nolan not doing it.

I could be wrong... I usually am. But this time I don't think so.

 

[DarkKnight]

I think the clue with what Nolan will do with Batman is hidden structurely in his films.

The series is Bruce's journey. Batman is a huge part of it, but the films are about a man's ideological crusade here. And all crusades come to an end, whether they failed or succeeded. Bruce is also a man. "Flesh and blood. I can be destroyed. But as a symbol... I can be incorruptible. I can be everlasting."

Batman has been creeping forth as a symbol ever since. You're going to see less of Batman as a persona in this film. Only a symbol can be incorruptible and everlasting. And his absence makes the symbol come stronger. Kids are drawing it with chalk on concrete walls. As much as the Batman has simultaneously been keeping him from having a life, it's calling again to let him make the last leap. To purify and redeem his tortured soul.

Why don't we just say it. Batman is starting to become a analogous to Christian symbolism. The cross is the Bat symbol. He's building his own followers in TDKR like Jesus with the apostles. Miranda Tate might betray him like Judas. Bane represents the devil, an evil that has grasped and encompassed the whole world, and only Batman can saves the souls of Gotham.

He's already took upon himself the sins. Now he must resurrect physically to complete the process.

Batman will die a martyr in this film. I'm not going to press my analogy to the point that he makes people create a Bible about him, but the mythology and stories will be passed down from generation to generation as a lesson to Gotham.

There was a man who defied corruption. And because of him there won't need to be another.

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

 

[Nevincer]

Now please do not think I am telling you that you are wrong for wanting Bruce to live. That is your interpretation and preferred ending. I had a big fight with Raganork a few months back where I defended people for not wanting Bruce to retire happily because some feel that Bruce can psychologically never not be Batman. He was calling people close-minded and being extremely arrogant and superior about it, just like he as in this thread when he got banned. So please, do not accuse me of being the very thing that has kept me out of threads like this one for a while.

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.

 

[Gianakin_]

 

[Nevincer]

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

Here's a post in question that illustrates exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[Norek]

 

[Naked Shia]

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.

So beautifully told!

 

[Pwz414]

You misunderstand what I was saying about objectivity. I was only referring to Frodo's comments about audience reaction. His argument was based on false characterizations and assumptions. eg. Batman "getting killed" will anger people. He was viewing it as Batman "getting killed". By defining Batman`s death in his initial premise in such a way, he was making his conclusion that people would react poorly all but certain through faulty argumentation. Using the words "getting killed" implies an unfitting and ignoble death. Depending on the structure of the film as a whole, if Bruce does die, his death might have the exact opposite connotations and illicit a completely different audience response as a result.

I actually agree with you about a basic sacrificing himself for the city ending being an easy way out. It is a cliche. I was arguing that there is a good chance the general audience will react positively to it for that very reason. Heroic sacrifices are cliche for a reason, they work at some basic level.

I think the ending will be more complex than that.

Now please do not think I am telling you that you are wrong for wanting Bruce to live. That is your interpretation and preferred ending. I had a big fight with Raganork a few months back where I defended people for not wanting Bruce to retire happily because some feel that Bruce can psychologically never not be Batman. He was calling people close-minded and being extremely arrogant and superior about it, just like he as in this thread when he got banned. So please, do not accuse me of being the very thing that has kept me out of threads like this one for a while.

My posts in this thread were a reaction to posters like Frodo declaring that their preferred ending can logically be the only one and making huge sweeping generalizations about what audience reaction will be to certain endings.

Now you ask why someone would want Batman to die? Because perhaps we do not believe it suits the character for him to achieve catharsis and retire? I mean that is what much of The Dark Knight Returns was about. Bruce cannot not be Batman. He was miserable and dead inside while in retirement. He became an actual alcoholic and tempted death as much as he could to try and fill the void. He is meant to be Batman until he dies. That is why some prefer Bruce to die in this film. Because based on their reading of the comics and understanding of the character, if this film is supposed to be about the end of Batman`s story, there is a large body of comics canon that suggests it can end only one way.

I understand what you're saying about looking at how the general audience will perceive a heroic death.

Having heard everything regarding “The Legend Ends”, "our final Batman film", "The last time wearing the suit", "I don't want to do Batmans forever"... coupled with the Warner executives and fans pushing so hard for another movie, here's what I'm sensing: "Okay, FINE, we'll do it, but this is the last one and we're going to make sure of it. We'll kill Batman off and that will be the end of it. But don't forget we're making the best movie possible."

Considering the reluctance of the film makers and the rumors and allusions to the death of Batman I wouldn’t put it past them to “kill him” so they can be done with it.

I really think the film will be great, but to use your word it will be tough to view any ending objectively after hearing how much the filmmakers just want to be done with Batman.

 

[Nevincer]

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.

 

[Pwz414]

I get the feeling that these writers want Bruce to live after finishing on top and leave it behind. It'd be kind of a tragedy for him not to be able to leave the ring...as we would feel about anyone we cared for.

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.