Warner Brothers will reboot Batman.

Did you miss the funeral scene? There was a headstone with 'Bruce Wayne' on it so I figured he was pretty much dead... I realise that all the people there also knew he was Batman, but because he was bequeathing all his assets and property (and building the memorial boys home) I figure it must've been public knowledge that he died.

EDIT: That is to say, I don't think the public know he was Batman. I think that the suggestion is that he died during the whole Bane occupation time, which would be easy enough for the public to believe.
 
Last edited:
The end part had Bruce Wayne's will being read, where the remainder of his still formidable wealth was given to Alfred, and the Wayne Manor was to be used as a foster home.
 
Cracker Funk said:
But it was a lot more than that. Lucius was checking out the Bat-plane, and noticed that somebody had finally successfully programmed the auto-pilot. And then right after that, Alfred sees Bruce and Selena in the restaurant. And there was no indication that it was a fantasy scene or imagination of Alfred, or anything like that. Bruce Wayne is alive and living his life. And I personally disagree -- I think the ending is all the more powerful because of that.

:)
Click to expand...

Although I will say,
it would've been a lot more powerful in the Paris scene if they hadn't shown Batman w/Selena at all, just show Alfred recognizing, smiling, etc. then cut scene.
 
Gogmagog said:
Although I will say,
it would've been a lot more powerful in the Paris scene if they hadn't shown Batman w/Selena at all, just show Alfred recognizing, smiling, etc. then cut scene.
Click to expand...

I think the fact that it didn't end like that makes it quite obvious that Wayne is still alive. If they had not cut to Wayne/Kyle at all, then a whole lot more people would've thought that Alfred was simply dreaming or seeing things.
 
Well, the scene with Lucius is a good indication that Bruce was still alive; but the one with Alfred seemed like a dream sequence, or at least, it could have been done better so it would be shown to be a real one. The thing is, why would Bruce Wayne want to fake his death???
 
Aspiring Mogul said:
why would Bruce Wayne want to fake his death???
Click to expand...

jax_rox said:
Had he not faked the death of Bruce Wayne, then he wouldn't be able to live a normal, simple life.
Click to expand...

How do you possibly live a normal life outside of the public eye when you're the richest man? How do you walk down the street to the grocery store without media packs? You've bankrupt yourself and your company. He needed to start afresh just like Selina did.
 
If he faked his death so he could live a normal life, that would take a bit out of the current bit about him leading a playboy life to cover everything. And it would also deprive writers and fans of Wayne Technologies as a plot device.

I'm really enjoying this thread, so thanks, everyone, for your contributions. :)
 
Excellent essay! :)

I think the part of Bane being an anarchist would fit with the Occupy movements. But I also think many people in this post-Soviet age - including probably many Occupiers - would say capitalism is needed. So the movie can be consistent in saying a company has to make profits, but excessive greed should be curtailed.

I'm not saying I agree with that ideology, because I don't. I'm saying that the movie can be interpreted that way.

I don't see this as a British movie; I see it as an American one, because it was filmed in NYC and other American locales.
 
Aspiring Mogul said:
Excellent essay! :)

I think the part of Bane being an anarchist would fit with the Occupy movements. But I also think many people in this post-Soviet age - including probably many Occupiers - would say capitalism is needed. So the movie can be consistent in saying a company has to make profits, but excessive greed should be curtailed.

I'm not saying I agree with that ideology, because I don't. I'm saying that the movie can be interpreted that way.

I don't see this as a British movie; I see it as an American one, because it was filmed in NYC and other American locales.
Click to expand...

Thanks!

Yeah, I think that a line has to be drawn at some point and, perhaps for me, that's where the movie blurs the line. Where do capitalism and altruism meet? Do they ever?

As for it being a British or American movie... British director, British writer, British lead actor (Christian Bale), British chief villain (Tom Hardy), British supporting actors (Michael Caine and Gary Oldman)... It might be shot in America and have American money behind it but I'm sure as hell gonna claim it as a British movie ;)

Here's my review for The Clapper Bored, in case anyone's still interested.
 
That's a very well-written essay. Nicely done. Of course I don't think there is a right or wrong, but I definitely see it differently.

I see this movie as casting much less of a moral judgement on either side of the Occupy movement. To me, it felt like nothing more than a compelling contemporary backdrop for a story that shows one hypothetical scenario in which a genius mad-man could send a city into chaos. In this movie, there are both good and bad people in both the 99% and 1%.

Basically, I think Nolan saw a current social/political situation that is a highly flammable, and he imagined a way to strike a match. And it was done to tell a good story, not necessarily to cast judgement on either side of the political issue.
 
Cracker Funk said:
That's a very well-written essay. Nicely done. Of course I don't think there is a right or wrong, but I definitely see it differently.

I see this movie as casting much less of a moral judgement on either side of the Occupy movement. To me, it felt like nothing more than a compelling contemporary backdrop for a story that shows one hypothetical scenario in which a genius mad-man could send a city into chaos. In this movie, there are both good and bad people in both the 99% and 1%.

Basically, I think Nolan saw a current social/political situation that is a highly flammable, and he imagined a way to strike a match. And it was done to tell a good story, not necessarily to cast judgement on either side of the political issue.
Click to expand...

I think you're almost certainly right about Nolan's motivations. What I think is interesting is that in as liberally minded a sphere as Hollywood, what we have is, essentially, a fairly socially and politically conservative fable.

I also thought that morally it was very confusing, and I wasn't sure who the story wanted us to root for (bear in mind that I loved the film, I think the ambiguity served it very well). Was I the only person who was kind of rooting for Bane? Maybe it was the English accent...
 
I agree -- it is a little conservative, but not so overtly, just a little bit. But no, I was not rooting for Bane, not even slightly.
I did feel some sympathy for the guy at the end, though, when it was revealed his true nature and motivations. For a moment, he became vulnerable and human, and I liked that. Still loved it when Catwoman blasted him to hell!
 
You know, sometimes a cat is just a cat. Lots of movies about anarchy / greed, the timing of this one was just convenient.

I would say that the more relevant topic is the 9 meals or bread for the mob concept. Lots of people seemed cool with taking other people's stuff, regardless of its origin because you know there weren't rules anymore.

I think your point regarding who to root for is not a moral ambiguity, but the fact that Bale's Batman wasn't a particularly likeable protagonist
 
Very interesting essay, Nick, and I was very pleased to read you writing about those issues.

You touch on some things that have quietly bothered me about all of the movies, not only about this one now. It's one of the things that has kept me on the outside looking in on all the adulation for Nolan and for what is at this point a Batman trilogy.

From the beginning I have been discomforted by what felt to me suspiciously like a reactionary, even biblical subtext working not at all that far below the films' surfaces. Really, are those things below the surface at all? Just hardly.

But that's probably inevitable for any movie that celebrates and romanticizes vigilantism.

I felt like it was unfortunate and annoying that they chose to bring -and they did bring- Occupy Wallstreet into it. Maybe they didn't mean to paint an unbalanced picture (um, and I'm not so sure about that), but essentially it was Occupy Wallstreet people who became the mob, dragged the rich out of their palaces into the ditches (gutters), held kangaroo court, and sent those poh poh rich folks to their deaths. Because, uh, that's what would happen if a terrorist organization like Bane's would enter New York -and we are talking about New York here-, commit many atrocious acts of terrorism, murder (including the mass murder of one of the city's football teams --on television!), mayhem, and bring an a-bomb (Pardon me, I can't recall if it was supposed to be an a-bomb or an h-bomb. I suppose the latter?). New Yorkers, the Occupy Wallstreet types anyway, would go all French Revolution and join in.

Really?!

Is that all that a frightening, bodybuilding terrorist guy has to do to win New Yorkers over after he's just wiped their football team out? All he has to do is to threaten the entire populace with annihilation by an H- or by a fusion- (I guess it would be) bomb? He only has to announce that he's there to give the have-nots their freedom and to bring them social justice to win them over? Oh, and that's moments after he's summarily executed some foreign national scientist guy before their very eyes and screens?!

Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly the formula to win the hearts and minds of New Yorkers --especially those Occupy Wallstreet rabble types.

So, I guess I've had some trouble suspending disbelief with these films.

More to the point, I feel a somewhat vague resentment toward this film's sentiment. No, mabye it's more to the point to speak of resenting it's temerity.

I don't know where the British versus American pedigree thing came up. I don't see what the issue is other than noting with interest and pleasure how people from both countries are working -together- to make cool movies.

I think most of us like Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and he's very good in this film. Full disclosure: I'm kind of prejudiced when it comes to Robin. That is, I seem to have a difficult time getting very excited about him. If I were a producer, I would be uneasy about investing much money into a Robin or a Nightwing or a whatever he is solo movie. Is that what ticket buyers really want? I think they want The Batman. If Robin is his sidekick, fine. Maybe I'm wrong. I hope they give JGL his solo Robin film (because of course I want him to have the work and the money), and I hope it surprises me by being awesome and making lots of money.

I agree that it's clear that Bruce/Batman survived. I don't think it was a dream. I would have felt cheated if he and Selina hadn't been revealed. I'm a romantic at heart. It's romantic. I'm pretty sure someone here linked us to a report that Bale was unwilling to reprise his role as Batman. But my niece told me today that he's said he could be persuaded to do it again. Which is it?

Cracker, me too, I was lost wondering when the hell Wayne had died or been exposed to the public. Hahhah. But yeah. I think it's too much to assume that he actively faked his death. He no doubt had a will made or had it modified earlier in case of his death. When everyone assumes that he died, the will kicks in. That's not necessarily the same thing as planning to fake his death.

As far as reemerging as Bruce Wayne in the future, I don't think that's a problem at all. Remember, there's precedent. He's been declared dead before and returned. And I can easily imagine Batman meeting up with JGL in the Batcave and resuming operations from it. Not very elegant, but hey.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top