Why...

[the last son]

I also don't see for certain he becomes Batman. That was not the point.

 

[Boom]

So clearly the ending wasn't all that definitive if so many interpretations have come of it.

 

[DareDemon]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Maybe you saw a version of the movie I didn't, but the version I saw did not have any definitive say what Blake did after the credits started rolling.

 

[The Guard]

One of the great ironies about Batman is that despite being the sole human representative of The Justice League (insofar as not having superhuman abilities), he is arguably the least human among them. He's cold, calculated, obsessive, paranoid, detached, and above all hyper-intelligent. That's where the Superman/Batman dynamic is so interesting. The demigod is the more human of the two.

I disagree. These things do not make one less human. If anything, they're just another side (perhaps a cautionary approach to showing it) of humanity.

The Batman/Superman dynamic is interesting because they both have unique, powerful perspectives on the human race, and ideas about power, control, and morality. Not because one is "less human".

 

[The Guard]

Superman and Justice League connections aside...the best reason to reboot the Batman franchise is this:

Christopher Nolan, for all the good he did in this franchise, barely scratched the surface of the Batman mythos, their meaning and their relevance, and some key ways, did the character of Batman a disservice. There is still immense unused potential in the mythology that has not been tapped yet.

 

[Blake II]

Lol at people that think rebooting the batman series is a good idea. TDKR came out in theaters just last year. Rebooting it for a justice league movie that can happen in 2-3 years means rebooting batman in the next 2-3 years. What kind of logic is that? I asked 5 of my cousins and their friends who are huge batman fans if they like the idea of rebooting batman for a justice league film and they all said no.

You have to take in for consideration the reaction of the mass public if they rebooted batman so damn soon. Bad business.

Sure batman has many more stories to tell, so why not tell them in the same universe? Even if it's with a different actor than Bale. But rebooting it completely and expecting fans just to disregard Heath Ledger's Joker and Tom Hardy's Bane is just crazy talk because then if batman was rebooted you have to worry about making a good joker that can live up to half of the legacy of Heath Ledger's joker.

And why do people think a Justice League can be successful if it comes out in 2015? They have batman, they'll have superman, but what else? Is a Flash movie even confirmed for 2014? Are they going to do anything else with Reynolds or completely reboot GL? What about other iconic heroes such as Wonder Woman and Aqua Man? They don't have enough time from here till summer 2015 to make movies for them.

I see a Justice League film at the EARLIEST, summer 2016.

 

[BatLobster]

So clearly the ending wasn't all that definitive if so many interpretations have come of it.

The concrete part of the ending is that Bruce Wayne moves on with his life while cementing the immortality of the symbol of Batman. The "open to interpretation" part is how the symbol may be carried forward into the future and/or evolved should Gotham need someone outside the system to save it again.

Perfect balance of delivering closure while acknowledging the unknowable future, I thought.

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

The ending is definitively open to interpretation. Whatever you imagine John Blake to do, that's what he does.

 

[shauner111]

^ Actually, I CAN say with certainty that Blake becomes Batman because that was the entire point of TDKR's ending.

I've already stated why I believe that it is entirely within the realm of possibility for Warner Bros. to continue to utilize the TDKT universe with or without Nolan's involvement, but in the end, the company will do what they think is in their best interest.

No it wasn't. The point was to pass the symbol on. The symbol is not about everyone wearing a cape and cowl and fighting bad guys for a thousand years. If you think that's the point of the end, and the point of the symbol then you simply aren't able to look past the surface of the true meaning.

When Bruce said "Anybody could be batman" he's not on the nose about it, he's talking about what Batman stands for, anybody could stand up and fight for their city. Not everybody will but that's why Bruce decided to go to extreme measures so he can inspire people to fight for Gotham. It all traces back to the scene on the plane in Begins. Nolan even said in this version it was always supposed to be temporary, this Batman thing, he'll let go when he sees an opening for the people to be inspired by. Blake and the death of Batman by a nuclear blast is what tells Bruce it's time.

Blake can simply be anybody. Bruce doesn't know for sure that Blake will take the cowl, how could he? Things are left there for him in case. He knows Blake will carry the symbol and defend the city, but how? That's up to Blake. He could be a vigilante like Nightwing or Batman for a long time or only for a bit. They show the cave because there's tech that will be used, detective stuff for Blake to use if he doesn't want to use it as a cop (under the radar like Bruce).

Bruce couldn't predict that Blake was going to throw his badge in the river and walk away from his career. The cave is given to Robin as a gift "here, you do what you want with it, it's yours. You can use this tech with your police force to help catch the bad guys. Or use it secretely if you want to be a vigilante like me". That's the message.

Blake has a choice. That's why it's open to interpretation man.

Robin, Batman or none.

 

[DigificWriter]

Blake taking on any identity other than Batman doesn't constitute the 'symbol of Batman' enduring.

 

[Shikamaru]

Lol at people that think rebooting the batman series is a good idea. TDKR came out in theaters just last year. Rebooting it for a justice league movie that can happen in 2-3 years means rebooting batman in the next 2-3 years. What kind of logic is that? I asked 5 of my cousins and their friends who are huge batman fans if they like the idea of rebooting batman for a justice league film and they all said no.

You have to take in for consideration the reaction of the mass public if they rebooted batman so damn soon. Bad business.

Sure batman has many more stories to tell, so why not tell them in the same universe? Even if it's with a different actor than Bale. But rebooting it completely and expecting fans just to disregard Heath Ledger's Joker and Tom Hardy's Bane is just crazy talk because then if batman was rebooted you have to worry about making a good joker that can live up to half of the legacy of Heath Ledger's joker.

And why do people think a Justice League can be successful if it comes out in 2015? They have batman, they'll have superman, but what else? Is a Flash movie even confirmed for 2014? Are they going to do anything else with Reynolds or completely reboot GL? What about other iconic heroes such as Wonder Woman and Aqua Man? They don't have enough time from here till summer 2015 to make movies for them.

I see a Justice League film at the EARLIEST, summer 2016.

The difference between Batman and other superheroes when it comes to this department is that having a new version of Batman with a new actor playing him so soon is nothing new at this point. Each generation had to at one point in their life adapt to the idea of a new version of Batman and/or a new actor playing him within a short period of time. Batman is by far the closest superhero to reaching James Bond status in that regard, if he hasn't reached it already.

Plus, if the rebooted Batman is the prep time Batgod of the comics that takes down aliens, I don't think it would take too long before the general audience grows to like him. That type of Batman would be a win with the GA when you think about it. Just look at the way the GA perceives Chuck Norris and Daryl Dixon.

Bringing back Bale may seem like a better business decision on the surface but in fact, rebooting Batman is a far better business decision in the long run. I explain why this is the case in my signature:
http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=25864531&postcount=377

 

[BatLobster]

No it wasn't. The point was to pass the symbol on. The symbol is not about everyone wearing a cape and cowl and fighting bad guys for a thousand years. If you think that's the point of the end, and the point of the symbol then you simply aren't able to look past the surface of the true meaning.

When Bruce said "Anybody could be batman" he's not on the nose about it, he's talking about what Batman stands for, anybody could stand up and fight for their city. Not everybody will but that's why Bruce decided to go to extreme measures so he can inspire people to fight for Gotham. It all traces back to the scene on the plane in Begins. Nolan even said in this version it was always supposed to be temporary, this Batman thing, he'll let go when he sees an opening for the people to be inspired by. Blake and the death of Batman by a nuclear blast is what tells Bruce it's time.

Blake can simply be anybody. Bruce doesn't know for sure that Blake will take the cowl, how could he? Things are left there for him in case. He knows Blake will carry the symbol and defend the city, but how? That's up to Blake. He could be a vigilante like Nightwing or Batman for a long time or only for a bit. They show the cave because there's tech that will be used, detective stuff for Blake to use if he doesn't want to use it as a cop (under the radar like Bruce).

Bruce couldn't predict that Blake was going to throw his badge in the river and walk away from his career. The cave is given to Robin as a gift "here, you do what you want with it, it's yours. You can use this tech with your police force to help catch the bad guys. Or use it secretely if you want to be a vigilante like me". That's the message.

Blake has a choice. That's why it's open to interpretation man.

Robin, Batman or none.

I have nothing to add to that.

 

[Bathead]

So clearly the ending wasn't all that definitive if so many interpretations have come of it.

And I think that was deliberate on Nolan's part. He left it ambiguous enough that you could interpret it pretty much any way you want.

 

[Rockerartist]

Why are people so embracing of the concept of a "Batman" who's story has completely ended doing a JL movie with a brand new fresh interpretation of Superman in a film world that's so different from TDKT? The idea of being able to put the Batman from the comics, the insanely well prepared detective and master martial artist (not the brawler who got taken out by a bad knee) should be the most amazing opportunity ever if it's done correctly. Utilizing JGL isn't just unoriginal and uncreative, it's just...dumb. You're taking a completely original creation from Nolan's trilogy who's whole purpose was to help establish a theme of Batman being a symbol and also to give the audience a view of an essentially average Joe stepping up to make a change. Carrying that over into the Justice League just makes zero sense from every perspective possibly. Finally...how horribly boring would it be to have a Justice League film and NOT have Bruce and Clark having that comic book chemistry.

 

[shauner111]

Blake taking on any identity other than Batman doesn't constitute the 'symbol of Batman' enduring.

Yes it does.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

If Jl is a continuation of TDKT, It' about finding a way to get Bruce in and Blake out,
So why does it matter which one Blake becomes?

that being said, I think Nightwing should be Graysons thing.

 

[shauner111]

If Jl is a continuation of TDKT, It' about finding a way to get Bruce in and Blake out,
So why does it matter which one Blake becomes?

that being said, I think Nightwing should be Graysons thing.

Blake should just be his own version of Robin, if JL is connected to TDK-T. He can have a cameo or just be referenced, I don't care. But he needs to be waaaay on the side of everything, in the backround.

He would serve best as his own version of Robin/Nightwing but without being called "Robin" as his superhero name by the public because it's his real name (maybe called that by Gordon would be enough), and not "Nightwing" because it's too random and it should belong to Grayson. The first time we see Nightwing on film in the future, it should be through the sole character that has that name.

Think Selina Kyle in the trilogy who was never definitively called "Catwoman". Same thing here.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Blake should just be his own version of Robin, if JL is connected to TDK-T. He can have a cameo or just be referenced, I don't care. But he needs to be waaaay on the side of everything, in the backround.

He would serve best as his own version of Robin/Nightwing but without being called "Robin" as his superhero name by the public because it's his real name (maybe called that by Gordon would be enough), and not "Nightwing" because it's too random and it should belong to Grayson. The first time we see Nightwing on film in the future, it should be through the sole character that has that name.

Think Selina Kyle in the trilogy who was never definitively called "Catwoman". Same thing here.

not Robin and not Nightwing, so how about.....Batman ..?

Personally, I don't really buy the notion that he's not 'allowed' to be Batman because he's not 'Batmany' enough, but he's 'allowed' to somebody else. So he's a less intimidating Batman; so what. So was Dick Grayson; and especially so was Terry McGinnis.

I do think your unnamed vigilante could work. That's how they do it in Arrow.
However, Blake was such a 'believer in the Batman' and seemed to recognize the power of the Batman symbol specifically, what with the chalk symbols and all, that I don't imagine that he'd actively forego keeping that symbol alive.

 

[BatLobster]

I love how the chalk symbol is different than the actual Bat-symbol though (kind of reminiscent of the Nightwing logo actually). I think it's a good way to foreshadow him becoming the new custodian of the symbol and evolving it/changing it. Plus, it just makes some sense that normal people would have never seen the actual chest logo up close and could only approximate it based on a blurry bat-signal in the sky. Genius.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

I guess the main question is whether Blake thinks it's best people remain thinking that Batman died or that he survived like the mysterious elemental figure he is.

If it's the former, he'd have to be something different (who the public know as a new person inspired by Batman, who carries on his symbol). If it's the latter, he'd be Batman (and the public thinks it's the same guy).

However, if Batman is going to be in the JL anyways, I'd like to imagine that Bruce wanted Batman to resurface, to reveal to Gotham that the actual person somehow survived. I wouldn't want to discover that Blake misinterpreted what Bruce wanted by suiting up as a new hero.

 

[BatLobster]

It's all little more than fanfiction at the moment though, as Nolan is reportedly not on board with them merging his Bat-universe with the Man of Steel-verse.

I know anything can happen, but as far as we know those talks between Nolan and WB did not pan out. If they're playing long ball with this, maybe they'll wait until after MOS 2 is released to breach the subject with him again. But my gut says TDK Trilogy will be left alone, which is fine with me.

 

[Skrilla31]

So clearly the ending wasn't all that definitive if so many interpretations have come of it.

In more ways than one. I'm still not entirely against the idea that Bruce died.

 

[The Batman]

I can't honestly believe that people are so desperate and unable to accept TDKT's end....that they would sacrifice Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent FINALLY meeting on the bigscreen.

Unbelievable. No wonder Nolanites have a bad rep.

 

[BatLobster]

I can't honestly believe that people are so desperate and unable to accept TDKT's end....that they would sacrifice Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent FINALLY meeting on the bigscreen.

Unbelievable. No wonder Nolanites have a bad rep.

I think that's inaccurate. True "Nolanites", at least how I've come to understand the term, would be the crowd arguing for the sanctity of Nolan's trilogy and saying that it should be left untouched, since it's a masterpiece. Potentially also arguing that nobody else should ever attempt rebooting Batman either because his films can never hope to be topped.

Also, any hypothetical extension of the Nolanverse implicitly leaves the door open for Bruce to return to the cowl if something should happen to Blake.

But none of it will happen. The reboot is inevitable. Though let's not lump just any fan of the trilogy into the derogatory "Nolanite" camp. Coming up with scenarios to extend franchises past their expiration date is something that's been happening since the dawn of fandom. Heck, I still lament never getting Burton's Batman 3. And I'd totally jump for joy if miraculously, it was announced that the next Batman film would be the conclusion to Burton's trilogy featuring the return of Keaton as DKReturns-esque Batman. And I am far from a "Burtonite".

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Because Nolan,in his Infinite Wisdom thought it was better to give us a Batman who fought crime for 1.5 years,came back with a bum leg and gave the mantle over to another guy while he went off to sip champagne in France....instead of leaving the series open ended,so other DC characters might have a chance to use it's success to lead us to a World's Finest/Justice League movie.

I kinda suspect you're being sarcastic but I applaud Nolan for this.