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?

'Anybody can be Batman.'
That doesn't mean you should go out at night wearing Batman costume and brandishing guns. Being Batman is more than putting on a costume. The John Blake is given the mantle of Batman because he is a worthy successor and is able to become a symbol of hope and justice.

Pratham wrote:'Anybody can be Batman.'
That doesn't mean you should go out at night wearing Batman costume and brandishing guns. Being Batman is more than putting on a costume. The John Blake is given the mantle of Batman because he is a worthy successor and is able to become a symbol of hope and justice.

I get your first point. But doesn't John Blake taking the mantle for Batman contradict Batman's sacrifice at the end of TDKR? Why would he need to become a symbol of hope and justice - wasn't that already accomplished?

stanley wrote:

Pratham wrote:'Anybody can be Batman.'
That doesn't mean you should go out at night wearing Batman costume and brandishing guns. Being Batman is more than putting on a costume. The John Blake is given the mantle of Batman because he is a worthy successor and is able to become a symbol of hope and justice.

I get your first point. But doesn't John Blake taking the mantle for Batman contradict Batman's sacrifice at the end of TDKR? Why would he need to become a symbol of hope and justice - wasn't that already accomplished?

Yes, it was accomplished. But we don't know whether he becomes Batman or not. All we know is Bruce trusted him and allowed him to access the technology of Batman. Now it is John Blake choice to put on the costume or not. He may not put it on immediately, but he will be there when Gotham needs him.

stanley wrote:However, doesn't this contradict Batman's sacrifice of fulfilling his original goal, i.e. becoming a symbol of hope and change for Gotham?

Don't see how it contradicts anything. Batman is a symbol, and like he explained in BB, a symbol is everlasting. So, dead or alive, what difference does that make? He'll keep being a symbol, whether Blake becomes the next Batman or not.

If Blake becomes Batman, that will imply some kind of mystery that will make people see the Batman as an immortal being, thus, a symbol (to my mind anyway). If there's no more Batman, he's already a symbol by the end of TDKR. So either way, I don't really see the big deal.

another one of these threads

:suicide:

Cilogy wrote:another one of these threads

:suicide:

Perhaps batman wasn't thick, solid, and tight enough for the films actual ending to work.

SomeFrenchToast wrote:

stanley wrote:However, doesn't this contradict Batman's sacrifice of fulfilling his original goal, i.e. becoming a symbol of hope and change for Gotham?

Don't see how it contradicts anything. Batman is a symbol, and like he explained in BB, a symbol is everlasting. So, dead or alive, what difference does that make? He'll keep being a symbol, whether Blake becomes the next Batman or not.

If Blake becomes Batman, that will imply some kind of mystery that will make people see the Batman as an immortal being, thus, a symbol (to my mind anyway). If there's no more Batman, he's already a symbol by the end of TDKR. So either way, I don't really see the big deal.

He's a symbol but he's dead now from the perspective of Gotham. So him returning would be kind of a wtf, wouldn't it?

The ending feels like a mashup of two themes - #1 Anybody can be like Batman and #2 Batman is a symbol of hope and change

These two themes coincide with one another, but the fact that it's implied Blake may become the new Bats just doesn't seem to gel with Batman's sacrifice. I'd be glad to be proved wrong here or get further insight, which is why I made this thread.

Perhap's it's only to be interpreted in a metaphorical / thematic sense and not literally.

stanley wrote:He's a symbol but he's dead now from the perspective of Gotham. So him returning would be kind of a wtf, wouldn't it?

The ending feels like a mashup of two themes - #1 Anybody can be like Batman and #2 Batman is a symbol of hope and change

These two themes coincide with one another, but the fact that it's implied Blake may become the new Bats just doesn't seem to gel with Batman's sacrifice. I'd be glad to be proved wrong here or get further insight, which is why I made this thread.

Perhap's it's only to be interpreted in a metaphorical / thematic sense and not literally.

No actually it would be awesome and inspirational, and that sort of what Bruce wants. If Blake decides to carry on that legacy, the people of Gotham will think think Batman is virtually invincible.

I don't see how that makes Bruce's "sacrifice" not gel with Blake continuing the legacy.

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.