ancap27 wrote: You're looking at the purpose of 'Batman' much too literally. Bruce even said that he doesn't want copy-cats, he wanted to INSPIRE people. Blake becomes 'Batman' in a symbolic sense, he is holding the torch.

But someone must uphold the company, Bruce cannot do it forever, and Bruce wasn't even running it well-enough himself, as Lucius stated.

And remember, while Wayne Enterprises has done a lot for Gotham, it still didn't save it from becoming the shithole that it did.

Once again, you're thinking of 'Batman' much too literally.

And he also becomes Batman in a physical sense, hence he quits the police force, inherits Bruce's gadgets, and swings into the cave. And Bruce wasn't running Wayne Enterprises all that well because he became depressed when he learned that his fusion project could become a nuclear bomb. A poor reason to become a recluse, imo, but I feel that if he really wanted to run his company well he easily could have. Instead he chose to ignore his company after the failed project, which was proven when he didn't know that the Wayne Foundation had stopped funding orphanages. He clearly could have done a lot more to steer Wayne Enterprises in the right direction and help the city. Remember, only the R&D budget was invested into the fusion project. Bruce the Philanthropist could have done a lot more.

Statues are only statues. We have statues of many great people of the past, such as Thomas Jefferson, but if he were alive today he would weep at what has become of America. Why is this? Because not enough people actually value what Jefferson believed in, let alone able to act on these values. The statue is not enough.

We can't just have people look at a statue and say "Those were the times..." and then walk off. We need people to actually uphold the values that this statue represents, we need someone to take action and MAINTAIN these values.

Blake is that person.

Well put, and this is true. However, I still feel that Batman's sacrifice by flying away a nuke should have been enough to galvanize the people into saving themselves. I fail to see how Bruce succeeded in his quest to make Gotham a better place if more self-appointed vigilantes were still necessary after his faked death and retirement. He saved Gotham from nuclear annihilation, yes, but if it was still necessary for Blake or anyone for that matter to still have to work from outside the legal system (read: take the law into his own hands) then I feel like his job wasn't truly done.

Cilogy wrote: He wanted to get out of it because he himself knows he can't do it forever, but maybe someone else can. He as a man can only go so far, he can only do so much, but a symbols is everlasting.

I think you're looking at this the wrong way. That quote from Alfred is appropriate, but remember what Bruce says right before that "If this man is everything you say he is, then this city needs me". In a way, they're both right. The city needs Bruce's resources, but the city was also at a point in which it needed Batman. There's only so much he could do as a man. Seriously, what could Wayne Enterprises have done to stop the LOS? or the Joker? or Bane? That's the very reason Bruce decides to become Batman, because a symbol can do so much more than just one man.

8 years pass between TDK and TDKR, crime was down and the city seemed to be doing okay, but despite even that, Bane still arose. Despite Gotham being okay without Batman, evil still came about.

That's the goal of every major city, but it doesn't mean all crime and all negative factors are eliminated. That's also the goal of Gotham itself, but that doesn't mean all the bad guys suddenly disappear. Batman is not a firm long term solution, Batman is more of a necessary evil from the perspective of Gotham.

He might not be needed immediately after Bruce flew the bomb out to sea, which gives Blake time to maybe train himself or see what he can do as Batman, but he might be needed in the future. Bruce can't be entirely sure whether Batman will truly be needed or not, but most probably he will, so he sets up Blake to carry on that legacy.

Yes, a symbol is everlasting. But like I said, Batman should only have to be everlasting in terms of the good he fought for and the heroic sacrifices he made - as in, everlasting in spirit. He shouldn't be everlasting in terms of "get replaced by a younger crimefighting vigilante" which is what the ending of the film implies, and honestly, the only difference between Blake and the TDK copycats was that Blake wasn't a dumbass with a gun. It's still vigilantism.

And yes, Wayne Enterprises DID stop the League of Shadows in a way, years before Begins took place. Alfred stated that Thomas Wayne almost bankrupted the company combating poverty during the Depression, which Ra's revealed was an economic attack by the LOS which was thwarted by the philanthropic efforts of Thomas and Martha Wayne. "But we underestimated certain of its citizens. Such as your parents. Gunned down by one of the very people they were trying to help. Create enough hunger and everyone becomes a criminal. Their deaths galvanized the city into saving itself..." Alfred alluded to this also when he said that the murder of Bruce's parents shocked the wealthy and the powerful into action. Note how none of this required masked vigilantism.

Like I said before, Bane and Joker were outliers. Joker was a perfect example of the idea of "escalation" - how more crazy villains started popping up in response to Batman. Yet, in The Dark Knight Returns, didn't the Joker not do anything at all in the ten years Batman was retired because he felt he had no purpose with Bats out of the picture? And Bane and Talia only came to Gotham because they wanted to extract revenge on Bruce; otherwise, the peace would have remained. Long-term in post-TDKR, Gotham will not have to worry about these kinds of extreme terrorists.

Of course it's true that all crime and negative factors will never fully be eliminated. I'm just saying that a more fulfilling ending might have been one where Gotham's citizens finally realized the integrity needed to fend for themselves and take action to fix their own city, thus rendering the necessity of any kind of vigilante working outside of the law to be obsolete and no longer necessary. Like you said, Batman cannot be a firm long-term solution. Instead, the ending of TDKR as it plays out implies that Nolan's Gotham will always require a masked protector, which if anything only proves the League of Shadows right when they talked about how Gotham will never be able to legitimately save itself.

nolangoatdirector wrote: And he also becomes Batman in a physical sense, hence he quits the police force, inherits Bruce's gadgets, and swings into the cave.

Yes, but this has more symbolic weight than it does literal. For instance, The Joker's symbolic presence is much more significant to the themes being presented than his literal presence.

Perhaps Blake will be the last 'Batman', but that's not the point in the fantasy world of Gotham, he is symbolic, a representation of personal responsibility.

]And Bruce wasn't running Wayne Enterprises all that well because he became depressed when he learned that his fusion project could become a nuclear bomb. A poor reason to become a recluse, imo

That's not the reason he became a recluse. He became a recluse personally because of his loss of Rachel, and because his commitment to Batman had become unnecessary because Gotham didn't need him anymore, they relied on the state to protect them.

He clearly could have done a lot more to steer Wayne Enterprises in the right direction and help the city. Remember, only the R&D budget was invested into the fusion project. Bruce the Philanthropist could have done a lot more.

I think you overestimate what a company can do in such situations. A company like Wayne Enterprises can only do as much as say Microsoft can in our world, it's purely an economic asset.

Well put, and this is true. However, I still feel that Batman's sacrifice by flying away a nuke should have been enough to galvanize the people into saving themselves. I fail to see how Bruce succeeded in his quest to make Gotham a better place if more self-appointed vigilantes were still necessary after his faked death and retirement. He saved Gotham from nuclear annihilation, yes, but if it was still necessary for Blake or anyone for that matter to still have to work from outside the legal system (read: take the law into his own hands) then I feel like his job wasn't truly done.

Batman didn't directly succeed in making Gotham a better place immediately, he simply laid the inspiration. The end of the film is one of self-reflection, where Gotham can BEGIN to correct itself, although obstacles will stand in the way. This can be seen in Gordon's reading of a passage from A Tale of Two Cities, "I see a beautiful city and a brilliant people rising from this abyss. I see the lives for which I lay down my life, peaceful, useful, prosperous and happy. I see that I hold a sanctuary in their hearts, and in the hearts of their descendants, generations hence. It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known."

Blake is to take up the mantle, and guide the people so they do not lose sight of what they need to accomplish. 'Batman' cannot die in this world, he must live on, because he is not just a literal protector, but a symbol of personal responsibility and good. if Batman dies, that means those ideas die.

You seem to be obsessing over the idea of Batman as just simply a vigilante, but he is more than that in this fantastical world.

the only difference between Blake and the TDK copycats was that Blake wasn't a dumbass with a gun. It's still vigilantism.

Bruce passed on the duty to Blake, which is symbolic. The 'copy-cats' were just egos obsessing over vigilantism.

And yes, Wayne Enterprises DID stop the League of Shadows in a way, years before Begins took place. Alfred stated that Thomas Wayne almost bankrupted the company combating poverty during the Depression, which Ra's revealed was an economic attack by the LOS which was thwarted by the philanthropic efforts of Thomas and Martha Wayne. "But we underestimated certain of its citizens. Such as your parents. Gunned down by one of the very people they were trying to help. Create enough hunger and everyone becomes a criminal. Their deaths galvanized the city into saving itself..." Alfred alluded to this also when he said that the murder of Bruce's parents shocked the wealthy and the powerful into action. Note how none of this required masked vigilantism.

Alfred Pennyworth: In the depression, your father nearly bankrupted Wayne Enterprises combating poverty. He believed that his example could inspire the wealthy of Gotham to save their city.
Bruce Wayne: Did it?
Alfred Pennyworth: In a way. Their murders shocked the wealthy and the powerful into action.

Economically speaking, bankrupting a company (especially one as important as Wayne Enterprises) to "combat poverty" is not an effective way to actually combat it.

Poverty will never go away, and I think that was idealistic naivety on Thomas' part. Bruce understood this, and he saw Batman as a moral obligation, rather than an economic incentive.

And Bane and Talia only came to Gotham because they wanted to extract revenge on Bruce; otherwise, the peace would have remained. Long-term in post-TDKR, Gotham will not have to worry about these kinds of extreme terrorists.

Right, but the state of Gotham was still corrupt and crony, thus men like Dagget and Lau. Batman wasn't just stopping masterminds and terrorists, he was stopping big-time gang crime and corporate crime.

TDKR as it plays out implies that Nolan's Gotham will always require a masked protector

But you fail to understand why Batman does this, it's not because he must, it's because he CAN. The vision that Bruce had is not that Gotham must be dependent on Batman, but rather they become inspired by him, and he is the mascot for which to characterize this inspiration. Batman is a part of Gotham, he is a symbol and representation of the good in Gotham. It's a symbolic relationship. Stop being so literal.

^ I'm kinda seeing both points here. I get your point ancap of what Blake's ending means symbolically and thematically, and it makes sense in that respect .. but I think in terms of the story you have to somewhat take it literally as well. We don't know absolutely that he's going to be Batman but it is implied somewhat -- and this goes back to my original question, doesn't this defeat the purpose of what Batman did at the end of the movie? (sacrifice himself).

I thought the whole point of his sacrifice was to become that symbol of hope / inspiration / change that he set out to be from the beginning. What kind of statement would it be to Gotham for Batman to suddenly return?

I'd also wonder how Bruce would feel about Blake or anybody else literally taking up the mantle of Batman?

Bruce to Alfred about the copycats: "That's not what I meant when I said I wanted to inspire people."


btw , how does Blake find the Batcave anyway?

stanley wrote:^ I'm kinda seeing both points here. I get your point ancap of what Blake's ending means symbolically and thematically, and it makes sense in that respect .. but I think in terms of the story you have to somewhat take it literally as well. We don't know absolutely that he's going to be Batman but it is implied somewhat -- and this goes back to my original question, doesn't this defeat the purpose of what Batman did at the end of the movie? (sacrifice himself).

I thought the whole point of his sacrifice was to become that symbol of hope / inspiration / change that he set out to be from the beginning. What kind of statement would it be to Gotham for Batman to suddenly return?

I'd also wonder how Bruce would feel about Blake or anybody else literally taking up the mantle of Batman?

Bruce to Alfred about the copycats: "That's not what I meant when I said I wanted to inspire people."


btw , how does Blake find the Batcave anyway?

Bruce gives him co-ordinates of the cave.

stanley wrote:I've had some trouble wrapping my head around the ending, if anyone wants to help me out.

At the end of the movie we see Bruce in effect sacrificing himself (or Batman really)

But at the very end we see Robin rising up the pillar, basically hinting that he could be the next Batman and also bringing full circle the theme 'anybody can be batman.' However, doesn't this contradict Batman's sacrifice of fulfilling his original goal, i.e. becoming a symbol of hope and change for Gotham?

Also in TDK when we see the copycat Batman's who are clearly unequipped / without training to be like Batman -- does that not also contradict the theme that anybody can be Batman?

"What's the difference between me and you?" "I'm not wearing hockey pads?"

Or is the theme simply metaphorical in that anybody can be a cause for change?

With that said, assuming Blake becomes the next Batman (which seemed implied) wouldn't that defeat the purpose of Batman's sacrifice at the end of TDKR?

Bruce says: "A hero can be anyone, even a man doing something as simple and reassuring as putting a coat around a young boy's shoulders to let him know the world hasn't ended." Gordon also was being a hero at that moment. It's more than just wear a black suit and fight crime, is about do good.

"What's the difference between me and you?...I'm not wearing hockey pads." It's like "I'm ready for do this, your'e not".

nolangoatdirector wrote:Yes, a symbol is everlasting. But like I said, Batman should only have to be everlasting in terms of the good he fought for and the heroic sacrifices he made - as in, everlasting in spirit. He shouldn't be everlasting in terms of "get replaced by a younger crimefighting vigilante" which is what the ending of the film implies, and honestly, the only difference between Blake and the TDK copycats was that Blake wasn't a dumbass with a gun. It's still vigilantism.

You're looking at this only as an audience member. Look at it through the eyes of the actual citizens of Gotham. They would be absolutely awestruck at "Batman" surviving that blast and remaining the city's hero. That's what is truly inspiring. If Batman never showed up again after that blast they would agree that he was only human, that he was mortal, and that the symbol would not return. If they see "Batman" again (which would be Blake) it would further propel them to remain hopeful and optimistic.

Imagine if that happened in our world. Imagine if we had a "Batman-like" figure that seemed invincible and everlasting after "surviving" an atomic explosion. In fact, to support your theory of there being no need for Batman anymore, Blake would need to show himself as Batman, even if just to prove to the people of Gotham, and even potential terrorists, that Batman is more than a man.

stanley wrote:I've had some trouble wrapping my head around the ending, if anyone wants to help me out.

At the end of the movie we see Bruce in effect sacrificing himself (or Batman really)

But at the very end we see Robin rising up the pillar, basically hinting that he could be the next Batman and also bringing full circle the theme 'anybody can be batman.' However, doesn't this contradict Batman's sacrifice of fulfilling his original goal, i.e. becoming a symbol of hope and change for Gotham?

Also in TDK when we see the copycat Batman's who are clearly unequipped / without training to be like Batman -- does that not also contradict the theme that anybody can be Batman?

"What's the difference between me and you?" "I'm not wearing hockey pads?"

Or is the theme simply metaphorical in that anybody can be a cause for change?

With that said, assuming Blake becomes the next Batman (which seemed implied) wouldn't that defeat the purpose of Batman's sacrifice at the end of TDKR?

Who's saying that he's becoming batman? Nightwing seems much more likely if he is indeed a mixture of all Robins from the comics...

ancap27 wrote:Yes, but this has more symbolic weight than it does literal. For instance, The Joker's symbolic presence is much more significant to the themes being presented than his literal presence.

Perhaps Blake will be the last 'Batman', but that's not the point in the fantasy world of Gotham, he is symbolic, a representation of personal responsibility.

Blake is to take up the mantle, and guide the people so they do not lose sight of what they need to accomplish. 'Batman' cannot die in this world, he must live on, because he is not just a literal protector, but a symbol of personal responsibility and good. if Batman dies, that means those ideas die.

You seem to be obsessing over the idea of Batman as just simply a vigilante, but he is more than that in this fantastical world.

Bruce passed on the duty to Blake, which is symbolic. The 'copy-cats' were just egos obsessing over vigilantism.

you fail to understand why Batman does this, it's not because he must, it's because he CAN. The vision that Bruce had is not that Gotham must be dependent on Batman, but rather they become inspired by him, and he is the mascot for which to characterize this inspiration. Batman is a part of Gotham, he is a symbol and representation of the good in Gotham. It's a symbolic relationship. Stop being so literal.

Um, I'm being literal because it IS literal. Bruce (as Batman) LITERALLY TELLS BLAKE TO WEAR A MASK IF HE IS GONNA WORK ALONE. That's my point; you're saying that I'm being too literal and not understanding the symbolism enough when in fact the film literally hammered home the point that Blake will become a masked vigilante. "If you're working alone, wear a mask." <---- There's this line that Bruce says to Blake, then there's the part where Blake literally inherits Bruce's gadgets and batcave. Bruce didn't leave him with all that stuff and all that advice just for show or for the heck of spiritual realization or whatever the heck else. He wanted Blake to become his literal successor, which is why he left Blake with the physical tools of Batman and told him to wear a mask. It's a freaking underground cave full of gadgets, computers, and movable platforms that has to be entered through a secret waterfall entrance; it's not a showroom or a chapel or a play area just for fun. Blake is meant to physically use it to fight evil.

That's not the reason he became a recluse. He became a recluse personally because of his loss of Rachel, and because his commitment to Batman had become unnecessary because Gotham didn't need him anymore, they relied on the state to protect them.

Yes, the failed energy project is why Bruce became a total recluse. Pay more attention to Miranda's dialogue next time you watch the movie. He was depressed since the end of TDK, yes, but TDKR made it quite clear that Batman was gone for the entire eight years while Bruce was a total recluse for only three (the last three years before TDKR took place).

Right, but the state of Gotham was still corrupt and crony, thus men like Dagget and Lau. Batman wasn't just stopping masterminds and terrorists, he was stopping big-time gang crime and corporate crime.

Economically speaking, bankrupting a company (especially one as important as Wayne Enterprises) to "combat poverty" is not an effective way to actually combat it.
Poverty will never go away, and I think that was idealistic naivety on Thomas' part. Bruce understood this, and he saw Batman as a moral obligation, rather than an economic incentive.

Indeed, poverty will never go away, but mass poverty a la the depression is what must be prevented, and by any means necessary. Bruce's parents were killed by Joe Chill because he was so desperate and needed money. Bruce, as Batman, fought the victims of poverty when you really think about it (though Dagget and Lau are exceptions to this).

Cilogy wrote:You're looking at this only as an audience member. Look at it through the eyes of the actual citizens of Gotham. They would be absolutely awestruck at "Batman" surviving that blast and remaining the city's hero. That's what is truly inspiring. If Batman never showed up again after that blast they would agree that he was only human, that he was mortal, and that the symbol would not return. If they see "Batman" again (which would be Blake) it would further propel them to remain hopeful and optimistic.

Imagine if that happened in our world. Imagine if we had a "Batman-like" figure that seemed invincible and everlasting after "surviving" an atomic explosion. In fact, to support your theory of there being no need for Batman anymore, Blake would need to show himself as Batman, even if just to prove to the people of Gotham, and even potential terrorists, that Batman is more than a man.

You can look at this in the exact opposite light as well. First of all, if Blake becomes the next masked protector of Gotham, it will be obvious that he is not the original Batman. Citizens and criminals will figure this out very quickly. Heck, if Blake starts fighting crime, people might not like it at all because they may feel that this new guy's antics are a slap-in-the-face and/or he is just a wannabe. There's absolutely no guarantee that the people will be "absolutely awestruck" if "Batman" returns in the form of Blake, and like I just said, it will be obvious that Blake is a new guy and not the one who died flying a bomb over the water. This goes back to the OP's point that if "Batman" returns, his huge heroic sacrifice may be cheapened and lessened in value. Remember, the big inspiring thing about the ending was that Batman died saving Gotham City. If he returns in the form of some new kid, it might very well just be spitting on the original Batman's sacrifice.

nolangoatdirector wrote: Um, I'm being literal because it IS literal. Bruce (as Batman) LITERALLY TELLS BLAKE TO WEAR A MASK IF HE IS GONNA WORK ALONE. That's my point; you're saying that I'm being too literal and not understanding the symbolism enough when in fact the film literally hammered home the point that Blake will become a masked vigilante... Blake is meant to physically use it to fight evil.

I think you're misunderstanding my perspective. It is 'literal' in the fantasy world of Gotham, but it is symbolic to the viewer looking in.

Anyway, Blake actually represents more than just himself, he represents the 'individual' (the people of Gotham) waking up and RISING to 'become Batman'. Blake is simply the one to keep that idea realized, to keep it alive. Batman is the mascot of this idea in Gotham.

Yes, the failed energy project is why Bruce became a total recluse. Pay more attention to Miranda's dialogue next time you watch the movie. He was depressed since the end of TDK, yes, but TDKR made it quite clear that Batman was gone for the entire eight years while Bruce was a total recluse for only three (the last three years before TDKR took place).

"Even before you became a recluse, you never came to these things."

Okay, so he wasn't a 'total recluse', but what personally drove him to be a recluse in the first place was his personal issues. And where exactly is it made "quite clear" that Bruce was a total recluse for only three years?

Indeed, poverty will never go away, but mass poverty a la the depression is what must be prevented, and by any means necessary. Bruce's parents were killed by Joe Chill because he was so desperate and needed money. Bruce, as Batman, fought the victims of poverty when you really think about it (though Dagget and Lau are exceptions to this).

Except Thomas' actions didn't do much good, as Rachel says in Begins, "People talk about the depression as if its history. It's not. Things are worse than ever down here."

And Batman fought victims of poverty? He was fighting the criminal gangs that had connections to the corrupt Justice system of the city, not just some petty thieves.

Bruce does his part to combat poverty by running an industry that creates thousands of jobs for the economy, and he still goes out of his way to stop the CORRUPT.

You can look at this in the exact opposite light as well. First of all, if Blake becomes the next masked protector of Gotham, it will be obvious that he is not the original Batman. Citizens and criminals will figure this out very quickly. Heck, if Blake starts fighting crime, people might not like it at all because they may feel that this new guy's antics are a slap-in-the-face and/or he is just a wannabe. There's absolutely no guarantee that the people will be "absolutely awestruck" if "Batman" returns in the form of Blake, and like I just said, it will be obvious that Blake is a new guy and not the one who died flying a bomb over the water. This goes back to the OP's point that if "Batman" returns, his huge heroic sacrifice may be cheapened and lessened in value. Remember, the big inspiring thing about the ending was that Batman died saving Gotham City. If he returns in the form of some new kid, it might very well just be spitting on the original Batman's sacrifice.

Nonsense. I've made this point clear with my earlier analogy about Jefferson's statue/memory. A statue and remembrance is not enough, you need someone to actually maintain those values into the future.

Think about Andrew Jackson, who made a sacrifice (like Batman) to stop America from being overrun by a central banking institution, yet does anyone remember or care about that these days? No. As America's economy is now managed by a central bank (The Federal Reserve) for which Jackson stood against.

There's very few people these days that will actually stand up to fight for what Jackson believed in to maintain those values. One of those people, though, is Ron Paul.

Blake is to Batman, what Ron Paul is to Andrew Jackson.

stanley wrote:I thought the whole point of his sacrifice was to become that symbol of hope / inspiration / change that he set out to be from the beginning. What kind of statement would it be to Gotham for Batman to suddenly return?

I'd also wonder how Bruce would feel about Blake or anybody else literally taking up the mantle of Batman?

Bruce to Alfred about the copycats: "That's not what I meant when I said I wanted to inspire people."

Well, Batman wouldn't suddenly return, he has to train and whatnot. Regarding Bruce's sacrifice, he made it to save Gotham, and it should be remembered, but even in our own world the great sacrifices made by great people of the past may be remembered, but the values of that person are usually forgotten, unless someone upholds the values for which that person stood for. Blake is that person to uphold the values of Batman, to maintain the symbol. And keep in mind that Bruce did not want everyday regular people to be vigilantes as copycats of Batman, but Blake is not a copycat, he was chosen by Bruce to represent him in the coming ages.