Rises ending contradict itself?

The 2012 superhero epic about Batman's struggle to overcome the terrorist leader Bane, as well as his own inner demons.
Posts: 459
Joined: November 2012
Law wrote:
nolangoatdirector wrote: He has no right to swear at me like that.
Image
Hmm I guess using the word "fuck" all the time makes you a badass or something. :roll:

Posts: 238
Joined: November 2013
I came out of the ending in the cinema thinking batman and bruce wayne had died. That was my initial response. However, I know Nolan made it somewhat open-ended, much like Inception. However, it was a bit strange I thought that he showed Bruce Wayne at the cafe having set it up to be open-ended.

I though this (no shot of Bruce and Selina) should have been the very last, final shot of the film, then fade to black. This way the audience would truly have been able to decide whether or not it wanted Bruce/Batman to live.

Image

I actually think Nolan should do a Director's Cut of The Dark Knight Rises, replacing it with this ending instead of the current one.
Last edited by davids on December 31st, 2013, 2:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Law
Posts: 16555
Joined: July 2010
Location: Moonlight Motel
I actually agree with you .. but still

Posts: 534
Joined: November 2013
Location: Earth*
No the whole point was in Batman Begins batman flys torwars the camera. The Dark Knight he goes away from the camera. In The Dark Knight Rises he rises. :gonf:

Posts: 13312
Joined: May 2010
Location: Mumbai
Who is this guy?

Posts: 3728
Joined: June 2011
davids wrote:I actually think Nolan should do a Director's Cut of The Dark Knight Rises, replacing it with this ending instead of the current one.
No.

Posts: 7738
Joined: February 2012
Location: Boston, Taxachusetts.
nolangoatdirector wrote:My big problem with the ending is that it seems to encourage/continue the idea of masked vigilantism and working outside the barriers of the law. Bruce stated in Begins that he wanted to set a dramatic example to shake people out of apathy (to the point where the citizens of Gotham learned to take care of their own city by taking positive action). But didn't Bruce ultimately fail if another vigilante crimefighter was still necessary after he left Gotham? I understand the whole "Batman is a symbol" bit, but IMO a much more appropriate ending would be one where Gotham doesn't need a Batman or any kind of vigilante protector anymore, and the "symbol" of Batman remained as:

1. A statue like we saw at the end as a physical reminder of his heroism
2. More importantly, a reminder to Gotham of the dark and corrupt place it once was - hence the "dramatic example" that shook the people out of apathy rather than John Blake actually inheriting Bruce's crimefighting stuff and taking the law into his own hands. There should have been no more "watchful protectors" necessary in Gotham once Bruce was finished. That is why I think Blake should've continued to work as a cop, while continuing Bruce's legacy only in spirit and mindset, and not by physically becoming the next vigilante protector of Gotham which I think is a somewhat dubious ending.

Yeah that always bothered me. The reason Bruce becomes Baman was, like you said... "to shake the people put of apathy". In TDK he condemns all the copycats. The whole point was to get the city of Gotham to the point where "it no longer needs Batman", as him and Rachel said in TDK. In Rises, all of the sudden as soon as he meets Blake, he's training him to take up the mantle. Now that may have been okay if there was a clear reason for it, but there was no development of this. We never see the event that change Bruce's mind, we are NEVER given a reason as to why the whole point of the trilogy has suddenly been altered. All of the sudden he's just supposed to pass on the torch? It does contradict the 2 previous films. And if that's suddenly what Nolan felt like doing, that's where he wanted to go despite what is said in the previous films. then there needed to be some kind of big reason for this change in order forint to work. Instead it just has me scratching my head.

Posts: 18678
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
The Dark Knight is the perfect ending for Batman. The Dark Knight Rises is the perfect ending for Bruce.

Also, It doesn't contradict itself. Bruce realizes the city's system is imperfect, and no matter how 'good' it becomes, it will still be rife with problems. Enter Robin.




-Vader

Posts: 3
Joined: April 2014
ComptonTerry wrote:Yeah that always bothered me. The reason Bruce becomes Baman was, like you said... "to shake the people put of apathy". In TDK he condemns all the copycats. The whole point was to get the city of Gotham to the point where "it no longer needs Batman", as him and Rachel said in TDK. In Rises, all of the sudden as soon as he meets Blake, he's training him to take up the mantle. Now that may have been okay if there was a clear reason for it, but there was no development of this. We never see the event that change Bruce's mind, we are NEVER given a reason as to why the whole point of the trilogy has suddenly been altered. All of the sudden he's just supposed to pass on the torch? It does contradict the 2 previous films. And if that's suddenly what Nolan felt like doing, that's where he wanted to go despite what is said in the previous films. then there needed to be some kind of big reason for this change in order forint to work. Instead it just has me scratching my head.
He condemned the copycats because he doesn't want the people of Gotham to simply "copy" what he does. Bruce does what he does because, simply put, he was made to do it, and he wants the people to use their own individual gifts to achieve good. Copying Bruce is a shortcut.

He's not training Blake to be a vigilante crimefighter, he simply gave Blake his resources.

Post Reply