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.
I see what your saying. I think the idea of Batman coming back after he had 'sacrificed' himself seemed a bit strange and didn't make sense in the context of what Bruce was trying to accomplish. But I'm sure it was the symbolic / thematic importance that Nolan was emphasizing at the end more then anything else.
Also I guess we don't know for a fact that Blake will be the next batman. As someone else said, maybe he'll be Nightwing, or something else. Or maybe not a superhero at all. The point is he's looking to uphold what Batman represented, no?
ancap27 wrote:
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.
OK, we're never gonna agree on the Blake thing. You're fine with him becoming Batman's successor; I would rather have seen the people as a whole stand up for what's right rather than watch a loner prepare to take the law into his own hands to end the trilogy. Let's just agree to disagree on that.
ancap27 wrote:"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?
Miranda said that Bruce "became wounded and went into hiding" when the energy investment failed. Anyway, here's a snippet from IMDB's FAQ to further clear it up:
"After Batman tells Commissioner Gordon to pin Harvey Dent's crimes on him, Bruce Wayne hangs up the cape and the cowl and ceases to be Batman. Using small tidbits of information supplied in The Dark Knight Rises, this is the story that can be reconstructed:
After The Dark Knight, Bruce Wayne decided to "grow up" and actually start becoming a billionaire philanthropist, starting charities for various causes such as the Saint Swithen's orphanage and then placing his entire R&D budget into a clean energy project. The project resulted in the creation of a brand new, unique fusion reactor which was labelled as the first real hope for humanity to have a sustainable source of energy. Then Dr. Pavel had released a thesis on how it would be possible to turn this exact same technology into a nuclear bomb. Upon learning this, Bruce feared that someone could turn the reactor into a bomb and effectively destroy Gotham with it (which just happens to explain the reason behind Bane's kidnapping of Dr. Pavel in the opening scene). Bruce stated that the reactor was developing problems and the project would be put on hold unless a solution to this possible problem is found. After this, he felt that he had nothing else left in the world and locked himself away in Wayne Manor, becoming a recluse, waiting for things to go bad in Gotham again in the hopes of once again becoming Batman and having a purpose in life."
Bruce the Philanthropist and Businessman did not hide or retire until the energy project went south. Batman however was retired for the full eight years. Bruce wasn't.
ancap27 wrote: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.
I never said that Batman didn't fight the corrupt. I was alluding to what Rachel said in BB about how Falcone creates new Joe Chills every day.
ancap27 wrote:
nolangoatdirector wrote: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.
Nonsense?! Wow, everything I said in that quote is quite plausible. Yet in your most recent rebuttal you mentioned that someone needs to continue to uphold Batman's values (which I didn't necessarily deny), whereas my statements were in response to what Cilogy said about "people will be absolutely awestruck if "Batman" comes back" which has no logical basis or guarantee and is pure optimistic conjecture.
First of all, quit relating Andrew Jackson and banks to Batman flying a nuclear bomb out of the city. You're right; no one remembers or cares about whatever Jackson did for America financially. And not too many people care for Ron Paul either. But what I'm saying is that Batman's nuclear sacrifice is a DRAMATIC EXAMPLE that will be remembered forever, unlike a man behind a desk vetoing a renewal charter which no one physically saw happen. Gotham's people were complacent. EVERYONE saw Batman fly that bomb away and god knows some people probably even made a video of it. What Batman did in TDKR is 1000000000 times more tangible and memorable that what some wig-wearing political figures may have done several centuries ago. Not an effective comparison at all. If Batman were real and he saved New York City from nuclear annihilation by flying a bomb away and dying in the blast, trust me when I say that people WOULD remember it for years and years. Most common people don't even necessarily have great knowledge of America's background or of Jackson/Jefferson, but a man flying a bomb away to save 12 million people would be spoken of on the streets for years and years to come.
Plus, I don't see any Martin Luther King Jr 2.0's anywhere, yet African-Americans and their rights seem perfectly fine to me. His memory, efforts, and death were dramatic examples that helped America get rid of racial inequality. So there goes your point. Physical successors are not always necessary.
^ nolangoat, I think ajax point in regards to Blake's ending isn't that Gotham will always need vigilantes or Batman needs a successor per se , it's simply a symbolic look at a man living up to the ideals of Batman. Whether he becomes Batman or not, we don't know, and that's ultimately not the point. He's attempting to live up to Batman's legacy, which brings full circle the theme "anybody can be Batman" (metaphorically, not literally).
The reason I think Batman gives him the coordinates to the cave is that he sees a reflection of himself, someone with a similar past, and a high moral code who wants to do good. So he sees Blake as worthy to take up that the mantle -- if he chooses to do so. Although it's sorta implied at the end that Blake is the 'new Batman' , it's the symbolic meaning that is important.
If he returns as Bats , some other super hero, or not, that's his decision -- but the point is he's been inspired and he's trying to do good things , which was Batman's mission all along.
stanley wrote:
If he returns as Bats, some other super hero, or not that's his decision -- but the point is he's been inspired and he's trying to do good things, which was Batman's mission all along.
I understand that. I just wish that Blake continued his work as a police officer or as some kind of legal figure (a la the "legitimate hero with a face" that Bruce saw as so critical to have in TDK) and not outside the realms of the law as I said before. Surely Bruce didn't want his successor to break the law.
nolangoatdirector wrote:
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.
stanley wrote:
If he returns as Bats, some other super hero, or not that's his decision -- but the point is he's been inspired and he's trying to do good things, which was Batman's mission all along.
I understand that. I just wish that Blake continued his work as a police officer or as some kind of legal figure (a la the "legitimate hero with a face" that Bruce saw as so critical to have in TDK) and not outside the realms of the law as I said before. Surely Bruce didn't want his successor to break the law.
nolangoatdirector wrote:
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.
I think Blake personally saw issues or contradictions within the police / law which is why he threw his badge out.
Gordon: "There’s a point. Far out there. When the structures fail you. When the rules aren’t weapons anymore, they’re shackles, letting the bad get ahead."
I don't think the movies ever really made the point that you have to work within the law, but they don't promote vigilantism either. It's just about doing good deeds, whether your doing it legally or not.
Alfred in Begins: "Well, we both care for Rachel, but what you're doing has to be beyond that. It can't be personal, or you're just a vigilante. "
Ducard: "A vigilante is just a man lost in the scramble for his own gratification. "
nolangoatdirector wrote:]
OK, we're never gonna agree on the Blake thing. You're fine with him becoming Batman's successor; I would rather have seen the people as a whole stand up for what's right rather than watch a loner prepare to take the law into his own hands to end the trilogy.
But that is what happens, as the Gordon's last monologue is meant to parallel the people of Gotham, as he reads, "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."
Blake rising is symbolic of the people rising, but he is also meant to guide the people, and maintain the values for which Batman stood for. In Gotham's universe, Batman must live on, even physically. It's symbolic. Get over it.
Bruce the Philanthropist and Businessman did not hide or retire until the energy project went south. Batman however was retired for the full eight years. Bruce wasn't.
Fair enough.
I was alluding to what Rachel said in BB about how Falcone creates new Joe Chills every day.
And if you stop Falcone, there will be less Joe Chills. Falcone profits off of such petty poverty and crime.
First of all, quit relating Andrew Jackson and banks to Batman flying a nuclear bomb out of the city. You're right; no one remembers or cares about whatever Jackson did for America financially. And not too many people care for Ron Paul either. But what I'm saying is that Batman's nuclear sacrifice is a DRAMATIC EXAMPLE that will be remembered forever, unlike a man behind a desk vetoing a renewal charter which no one physically saw happen. Gotham's people were complacent. EVERYONE saw Batman fly that bomb away and god knows some people probably even made a video of it. What Batman did in TDKR is 1000000000 times more tangible and memorable that what some wig-wearing political figures may have done several centuries ago. Not an effective comparison at all. If Batman were real and he saved New York City from nuclear annihilation by flying a bomb away and dying in the blast, trust me when I say that people WOULD remember it for years and years. Most common people don't even necessarily have great knowledge of America's background or of Jackson/Jefferson, but a man flying a bomb away to save 12 million people would be spoken of on the streets for years and years to come
Why are you taking this so literally? My argument is about principal, and symbol.
1. Jackson didn't just sign bills, he actually challenged his opponents to duels, where it would end in fatalities for them and him being wounded. That's pretty badass if you ask me.
2. I could also take many more examples of great war heroes, for instance, that fought against the tyrannical British empire, dying for YOUR freedom.
I also think you overestimate people, since China back in the 80s was a tyranny of epic proportions, but remember that famous video of a brave young lad that was a symbol of dissent and freedom for many at the time?
Yet, today, China is still a tyrannical state, that treats its citizens just as it did then, if not worse...
Plus, I don't see any Martin Luther King Jr 2.0's anywhere, yet African-Americans and their rights seem perfectly fine to me. His memory, efforts, and death were dramatic examples that helped America get rid of racial inequality. So there goes your point. Physical successors are not always necessary.
LOL. Are you kidding me? Jesse Jackson? Al Sharpton? These guys are MLK incarnate. Also, all the black politicians now that were obviously not around at the time...uh...BARACK OBAMA?
Anyway, this is beside the point. You're making this much too literal, trying to see Gotham as a real city existing in our world, but it's NOT, it's a city of fantasy.
Batman is not just a physical successor, he is a SYMBOL. Him living on through physical successors is SYMBOLIC of the preservation of values for Gotham.
ancap27 wrote:But that is what happens, as the Gordon's last monologue is meant to parallel the people of Gotham, as he reads, "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."
Blake rising is symbolic of the people rising, but he is also meant to guide the people, and maintain the values for which Batman stood for. In Gotham's universe, Batman must live on, even physically. It's symbolic. Get over it.
At the end of the day, that was Gordon reading an excerpt from a damn book. A damn good book, but a book nonetheless. Lol it does not guarantee that the people of Gotham will "collectively rise" or what have you. In fact, the people of Gotham did nothing in the movie to prove that they will be able to rehabilitate themselves. In fact, they proved quite the opposite, as shown when the poor citizens threw the rich out of their homes, occupied them, and supported the court sentencings and executions of the rich. The citizens of Gotham did nothing in TDKR to imply that they are ready or willing to fix themselves. A brief shot of people stepping out of their homes while putting on their coats during a Gordon voiceover does not mean that they are changed for the better.
1. Jackson didn't just sign bills, he actually challenged his opponents to duels, where it would end in fatalities for them and him being wounded. That's pretty badass if you ask me.
Duels are outlawed in society now anyway so that is a moot point.
2. I could also take many more examples of great war heroes, for instance, that fought against the tyrannical British empire, dying for YOUR freedom.
You don't even know where I'm from. What are you trying to prove or support with this statement, anyway?
I also think you overestimate people, since China back in the 80s was a tyranny of epic proportions, but remember that famous video of a brave young lad that was a symbol of dissent and freedom for many at the time?
Yet, today, China is still a tyrannical state, that treats its citizens just as it did then, if not worse...
No, not worse. I visited most of China's major cities and historical sites last year. There are these intimidating-looking security guards in special uniforms in every large area, but the citizens themselves are not directly oppressed the way they once were.
LOL. Are you kidding me? Jesse Jackson? Al Sharpton? These guys are MLK incarnate. Also, all the black politicians now that were obviously not around at the time...uh...BARACK OBAMA?
No, they are not MLK incarnate. That's too strong a word to describe how they fit in. They are activists yes but not the second coming of MLK Jr. And Obama is not carrying on MLK Jr's legacy. Lol. Obama being president is largely because of MLK Jr's efforts, but that does not mean that he is carrying on MLK Jr's legacy the way Blake does with Bruce.
Anyway, this is beside the point. You're making this much too literal, trying to see Gotham as a real city existing in our world, but it's NOT, it's a city of fantasy.
Oh really? I thought Gotham was real.
Batman is not just a physical successor, he is a SYMBOL. Him living on through physical successors is SYMBOLIC of the preservation of values for Gotham.
You're being picky, get over it.
My point is that Gotham should no longer need any one man to work outside the law to help preserve the values of good and justice. I don't care how much symbolism you see in Blake; the point is that by the end of Rises, he is prepared to work outside of the law, which shouldn't be necessary if Bruce was truly successful.
