|
Post by supermanisbetter on Jun 22, 2009 2:31:56 GMT -5
I say that in all seriousness. I think if Bruce dies in the 3rd movie it would be the perfect cap to arguably the best comic book movie series to date. Fans have been saying since Begins, The hyper-realism of Nolanverse leaves little room to explore the other, more far-out elements of the Bat mythos, that and Nolan himself has said several times there are characters and elements that have no place in his world and he never wants to use them. I say fine, let someone else come in and do their own Batman their own way. But after Nolan leaves don't do us the disservice of making a "pseudo-sequel" a la Superman Returns & Batman Forever where no one but the director knows for sure whether it follows anything that came before. It's a ******** gimmick that causes more problems than it solves. since this is kind of an elseworlds Batman story, there's no reason to keep it open ended like other stories. Unlike the previous series, Nolan's movies form a much more cohesive narrative, and that narrative needs a true, definitive ending in order to feel complete. How would any of you feel if they changed the ending of "Return of The King" in the hopes of milking a 4th LoTR movie? The height of absurdity, right? It's almost a sure bet that Joker won't be back without Heath Ledger (as it should be), but the ambiguity of Two-Face's fate means he can be brought back without much difficulty. This serves several purposes: 1: Gordon & Batman's worst fears are realized, the myth of Harvey Dent is shattered as Gotham is forced to face the ugly truth and uglier face of its once revered savior 2: It means Batman can be vindicated, at least in the eyes of the public, they might finally realize that Bruce really was the hero they deserved AND needed all along. 3: C'mon... Two-Face is too good a villain not to give him a chance to wreak major havoc Two-Face should go for broke, he should be hell-bent on burning Gotham to the ground (or at least half of it). During the course of the action something will happen, and Batman has no choice but to rush headlong into a situation he knows he probably won't survive, but he never wavers even for a moment, as long as he can draw a breath Gotham will survive. Two-Face is finally defeated and dies conclusively as Bruce dies as well. He lived as a warrior, let him die a warrior's death. Alfred remains to tell the story and set the records straight. In the end Bruce Wayne did just what he said he'd do back in "Begins," he returned long enough to show his people their city didn't belong to the criminals and the corrupt. You could tell me I'm crazy, but I know I'm not. How ballsy would that be, if Nolan had the guts to kill off the hero in the end? And not just any hero, THE GODDAMN BATMAN!
|
|
|
Post by jlavaia on Jun 22, 2009 10:02:02 GMT -5
^ what you fail to realize is that Nolan doesnt own the character and doesnt have carte blanche either. even if he wanted to do that he couldnt. the franchise is too big of a money maker to throw away with a pointless death. if he even suggested it, its a good bet he'd be fired and Goyer would tell a better story and do a better job by himself.
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Jun 22, 2009 12:13:06 GMT -5
I say that in all seriousness. I think if Bruce dies in the 3rd movie it would be the perfect cap to arguably the best comic book movie series to date. Fans have been saying since Begins, The hyper-realism of Nolanverse leaves little room to explore the other, more far-out elements of the Bat mythos, that and Nolan himself has said several times there are characters and elements that have no place in his world and he never wants to use them. I say fine, let someone else come in and do their own Batman their own way. But after Nolan leaves don't do us the disservice of making a "pseudo-sequel" a la Superman Returns & Batman Forever where no one but the director knows for sure whether it follows anything that came before. It's a ******** gimmick that causes more problems than it solves. since this is kind of an elseworlds Batman story, there's no reason to keep it open ended like other stories. Unlike the previous series, Nolan's movies form a much more cohesive narrative, and that narrative needs a true, definitive ending in order to feel complete. How would any of you feel if they changed the ending of "Return of The King" in the hopes of milking a 4th LoTR movie? The height of absurdity, right? It's almost a sure bet that Joker won't be back without Heath Ledger (as it should be), but the ambiguity of Two-Face's fate means he can be brought back without much difficulty. This serves several purposes: 1: Gordon & Batman's worst fears are realized, the myth of Harvey Dent is shattered as Gotham is forced to face the ugly truth and uglier face of its once revered savior 2: It means Batman can be vindicated, at least in the eyes of the public, they might finally realize that Bruce really was the hero they deserved AND needed all along. 3: C'mon... Two-Face is too good a villain not to give him a chance to wreak major havoc Two-Face should go for broke, he should be hell-bent on burning Gotham to the ground (or at least half of it). During the course of the action something will happen, and Batman has no choice but to rush headlong into a situation he knows he probably won't survive, but he never wavers even for a moment, as long as he can draw a breath Gotham will survive. Two-Face is finally defeated and dies conclusively as Bruce dies as well. He lived as a warrior, let him die a warrior's death. Alfred remains to tell the story and set the records straight. In the end Bruce Wayne did just what he said he'd do back in "Begins," he returned long enough to show his people their city didn't belong to the criminals and the corrupt. You could tell me I'm crazy, but I know I'm not. How ballsy would that be, if Nolan had the guts to kill off the hero in the end? And not just any hero, THE GODDAMN BATMAN! NO.
|
|
|
Post by batfan93 on Jun 22, 2009 12:34:43 GMT -5
I think Batman's death will be a clever ending to a 3rd movie, if they pull it off properly. It doesn't have to be something major, though if this ever happanes it probably will. As I said it's a good way to end a story, but only if they could pull it off properly.
|
|
|
Post by supermanisbetter on Jun 22, 2009 13:09:34 GMT -5
^ what you fail to realize is that Nolan doesnt own the character and doesnt have carte blanche either. even if he wanted to do that he couldnt. the franchise is too big of a money maker to throw away with a pointless death. if he even suggested it, its a good bet he'd be fired and Goyer would tell a better story and do a better job by himself. you have a point, but I still think it would be a big mistake on the part of WB if they don't bring proper closure to the story Nolan & Co. have started. This isn't a string of stand-alone incidents, it's one long narrative saga. Killing this particular Batman would be far from pointless. And I'll reiterate, Nolan has said his Batman wouldn't fit with some of the more fantastic elements of the Batmythos. I'm not going to second guess him on his creation, but I will say with those kinds of limitations the franchise could run out of gas much sooner than expected. It's not as if killing this Batman would mean the end of Batman movies forever, but at least it's respecting the work done in the last two movies
|
|
|
Post by Dark Nightwing on Jun 22, 2009 13:19:01 GMT -5
Come on now All Star. You can be more constructive than that.
I think this is a terrible idea. Batman doesn't need to die for this series to have a conclusion. A better way to wrap things up is for Bruce to come to the sad realization that he is going to have to be Batman for the rest of his life, and that what he started can't be undone. The door should be left open for another director to pick up because there is already too many continuities out there.
Batman isn't a warrior. He's a knight. He will do anything to protect those in his domain. That's a pretty big difference.
|
|
|
Post by MuksC on Jun 22, 2009 13:56:54 GMT -5
i see your logic but as others have said, it won't happen.
Two-Face is definitely dead, Nolan has said so a few times since TDK came out, and whatever the actual plot of the next Nolan movie is, it will end with Batman being forgiven/exonerated and seen as the hero again (reaching equilibrium again) at best, or will end with him realising he's going to struggle on for longer than he anticipated (as Dark Nightwing said above me).
|
|
|
Post by Eric on Jun 22, 2009 18:38:44 GMT -5
I say that in all seriousness. I think if Bruce dies in the 3rd movie it would be the perfect cap to arguably the best comic book movie series to date. Fans have been saying since Begins, The hyper-realism of Nolanverse leaves little room to explore the other, more far-out elements of the Bat mythos, that and Nolan himself has said several times there are characters and elements that have no place in his world and he never wants to use them. I say fine, let someone else come in and do their own Batman their own way. But after Nolan leaves don't do us the disservice of making a "pseudo-sequel" a la Superman Returns & Batman Forever where no one but the director knows for sure whether it follows anything that came before. It's a ******** gimmick that causes more problems than it solves. since this is kind of an elseworlds Batman story, there's no reason to keep it open ended like other stories. Unlike the previous series, Nolan's movies form a much more cohesive narrative, and that narrative needs a true, definitive ending in order to feel complete. How would any of you feel if they changed the ending of "Return of The King" in the hopes of milking a 4th LoTR movie? The height of absurdity, right? It's almost a sure bet that Joker won't be back without Heath Ledger (as it should be), but the ambiguity of Two-Face's fate means he can be brought back without much difficulty. This serves several purposes: 1: Gordon & Batman's worst fears are realized, the myth of Harvey Dent is shattered as Gotham is forced to face the ugly truth and uglier face of its once revered savior 2: It means Batman can be vindicated, at least in the eyes of the public, they might finally realize that Bruce really was the hero they deserved AND needed all along. 3: C'mon... Two-Face is too good a villain not to give him a chance to wreak major havoc Two-Face should go for broke, he should be hell-bent on burning Gotham to the ground (or at least half of it). During the course of the action something will happen, and Batman has no choice but to rush headlong into a situation he knows he probably won't survive, but he never wavers even for a moment, as long as he can draw a breath Gotham will survive. Two-Face is finally defeated and dies conclusively as Bruce dies as well. He lived as a warrior, let him die a warrior's death. Alfred remains to tell the story and set the records straight. In the end Bruce Wayne did just what he said he'd do back in "Begins," he returned long enough to show his people their city didn't belong to the criminals and the corrupt. You could tell me I'm crazy, but I know I'm not. How ballsy would that be, if Nolan had the guts to kill off the hero in the end? And not just any hero, THE GODDAMN BATMAN! NO. seconded
|
|
|
Post by havedunter74 on Jun 23, 2009 8:08:51 GMT -5
Thats the most ridiculous thing Ive heard, I can hear the WB executives now "lets kill Batman in the next movie because we dont want all that lovley money rolling in from merchandising,cinema ticket sales etc..... from the 4the movie"
Its a money making bussiness at the end of the day so why would they wanna kill off a massive cash cow like Batman? Every Batman movie since 1989 has been a blockbuster (even Batman and Robin) and has made millions for WB.
If anything finish the 3rd movie with something like " I am Gotham's protector,its something I must do" blah blah blah, end credits and leaves it open for if they wanna release another movie in the future or leave it at that.
|
|
|
Post by havedunter74 on Jun 23, 2009 8:11:03 GMT -5
They should have killed off Superman though, all due respect to Brandon Roth but Christopher Reeve is and always will be Superman.
|
|
|
Post by havedunter74 on Jun 23, 2009 8:12:37 GMT -5
Sorry but I mispelt Brandon Routh, my apologies
|
|
|
Post by Jack the Skull on Jun 23, 2009 12:54:27 GMT -5
[shadow=red,left,300]Like others have said before me, ending such a huge and multi- million dollar franchise with the death of the main character would be extremely stupid and would destroy the purpose of the series! [/shadow]
|
|
twistedlaugh
Legions of Gotham Police Officer
No more rules... I'm a vampire!
Posts: 246
|
Post by twistedlaugh on Jun 24, 2009 13:57:17 GMT -5
Count me in!
The film makers would be extremely stupid to kill of Batman! Plus it would make the first two films feel rather pointless!
I like the idea Dark Nightwing came up with. Much better and smarter then just killing Batman off!
|
|
jokermatt
Legions of Gotham Police Officer
Posts: 145
|
Post by jokermatt on Jun 24, 2009 14:19:52 GMT -5
I think the 3rd should be like the dark knight returns. Set it in the future and have bruce come back then "die" like he did in that story. Could you imagine it. The cops chase him for a while, he retires, the city goes to hell, and then he comes back.
|
|
|
Post by havedunter74 on Jun 25, 2009 3:56:52 GMT -5
I wouldnt like to see that storyline as part of the current series of movie but I would like to see that made into an animated story,a manga style cartoon would be cool
|
|
|
Post by DrGreenEvil on Jun 25, 2009 22:23:23 GMT -5
No, he should not die at the end of the third one.
|
|
|
Post by /\/\att on Jun 29, 2009 13:16:09 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but I don't think that this Nolan-verse has provided enough range of the Batman universe to kill off the Dark Knight just yet, lol. There isn't really any logical point to killing him off. I think Nolan not making any further films is enough. If we're all too stupid to see the stark differences between Batman Returns and Batman Forever, perhaps we have bigger problems, lol. Forever actually had elements in the original script that tied it into Returns, but they edited it out.
Christopher Nolan isn't the only filmmaker alive. He isn't the best, either. Regardless of what some fanboys may think. Now, we had a bad run of things in the 90s, no one can deny that...but what happened was gears were shifted. If the studio can try not to shift gears too much, the franchise can continue in this way, maybe even with Bale in the cowl, if they do it right.
My opinion is, however, they should take a cue from DC Universe and start hitting on specific story arcs. Make a Dark Knight Returns film. Make a Knightfall film, etc. They can be stand alone films, all taking place in the same universe. We don't have to do Batman vs InsertVillainNameHere over and over. It gets old. You have decades of written comic book material...use it.
|
|
clownprince1
Legions of Gotham Police Officer
Why so Serious?
Posts: 114
|
Post by clownprince1 on Jul 11, 2009 9:20:04 GMT -5
No killing of Batman...
|
|
|
Post by supermanisbetter on Jul 12, 2009 13:07:42 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but I don't think that this Nolan-verse has provided enough range of the Batman universe to kill off the Dark Knight just yet, lol. There isn't really any logical point to killing him off. I think Nolan not making any further films is enough. If we're all too stupid to see the stark differences between Batman Returns and Batman Forever, perhaps we have bigger problems, lol. Forever actually had elements in the original script that tied it into Returns, but they edited it out. Christopher Nolan isn't the only filmmaker alive. He isn't the best, either. Regardless of what some fanboys may think. Now, we had a bad run of things in the 90s, no one can deny that...but what happened was gears were shifted. If the studio can try not to shift gears too much, the franchise can continue in this way, maybe even with Bale in the cowl, if they do it right. My opinion is, however, they should take a cue from DC Universe and start hitting on specific story arcs. Make a Dark Knight Returns film. Make a Knightfall film, etc. They can be stand alone films, all taking place in the same universe. We don't have to do Batman vs InsertVillainNameHere over and over. It gets old. You have decades of written comic book material...use it. How much range can this Batman show when there aren't any superpowers or characters with more-than-human abilities? Batman vs. the mob part 5 isn't very interesting. It would be great if they did start adapting a few storylines. I understand this all about the $$, but my biggest concern is that the story gets a proper LOGICAL conclusion
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Jul 12, 2009 15:10:09 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but I don't think that this Nolan-verse has provided enough range of the Batman universe to kill off the Dark Knight just yet, lol. There isn't really any logical point to killing him off. I think Nolan not making any further films is enough. If we're all too stupid to see the stark differences between Batman Returns and Batman Forever, perhaps we have bigger problems, lol. Forever actually had elements in the original script that tied it into Returns, but they edited it out. Christopher Nolan isn't the only filmmaker alive. He isn't the best, either. Regardless of what some fanboys may think. Now, we had a bad run of things in the 90s, no one can deny that...but what happened was gears were shifted. If the studio can try not to shift gears too much, the franchise can continue in this way, maybe even with Bale in the cowl, if they do it right. My opinion is, however, they should take a cue from DC Universe and start hitting on specific story arcs. Make a Dark Knight Returns film. Make a Knightfall film, etc. They can be stand alone films, all taking place in the same universe. We don't have to do Batman vs InsertVillainNameHere over and over. It gets old. You have decades of written comic book material...use it. How much range can this Batman show when there aren't any superpowers or characters with more-than-human abilities? Batman vs. the mob part 5 isn't very interesting. It would be great if they did start adapting a few storylines. I understand this all about the $$, but my biggest concern is that the story gets a proper LOGICAL conclusion The mob is breaking down though. Now is the time for the insane.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Nightwing on Jul 12, 2009 15:11:57 GMT -5
How much range can this Batman show when there aren't any superpowers or characters with more-than-human abilities? Batman vs. the mob part 5 isn't very interesting. It would be great if they did start adapting a few storylines. I understand this all about the $$, but my biggest concern is that the story gets a proper LOGICAL conclusion There are many LOGICAL conclusions out there. I gave one example in a previous post. Killing him off would be cheap. There are a ton of possibilities for real world Batman villains. Who could have seen how they adapted Ra's and Joker coming ahead of time? While some villains may not seem to fit, if given the right story and the right changes, they can work out quite well. To kill of Batman would be awful because then his crusade to stop crime will be over before he has had the chance to inspire others into action. Also, the mob was basically dismantled by the Joker. I doubt that is where they are going. TDK marked the shift from organized crime to villains crime.
|
|
arniegar
Gotham Tourist
Certified nutso
Posts: 1
|
Post by arniegar on Jul 30, 2009 3:32:37 GMT -5
Thats the most ridiculous thing Ive heard, I can hear the WB executives now "lets kill Batman in the next movie because we dont want all that lovley money rolling in from merchandising,cinema ticket sales etc..... from the 4the movie" Its a money making bussiness at the end of the day so why would they wanna kill off a massive cash cow like Batman? Every Batman movie since 1989 has been a blockbuster (even Batman and Robin) and has made millions for WB. If anything finish the 3rd movie with something like " I am Gotham's protector,its something I must do" blah blah blah, end credits and leaves it open for if they wanna release another movie in the future or leave it at that. You're right they aren't going to give up all of the potential money they can keep making by killing batman. And speaking of robin, are they even going to have him in any of the recreated batman movies?
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Jul 30, 2009 12:04:20 GMT -5
Thats the most ridiculous thing Ive heard, I can hear the WB executives now "lets kill Batman in the next movie because we dont want all that lovley money rolling in from merchandising,cinema ticket sales etc..... from the 4the movie" Its a money making bussiness at the end of the day so why would they wanna kill off a massive cash cow like Batman? Every Batman movie since 1989 has been a blockbuster (even Batman and Robin) and has made millions for WB. If anything finish the 3rd movie with something like " I am Gotham's protector,its something I must do" blah blah blah, end credits and leaves it open for if they wanna release another movie in the future or leave it at that. You're right they aren't going to give up all of the potential money they can keep making by killing batman. And speaking of robin, are they even going to have him in any of the recreated batman movies? Nolan and Bale are keeping him out, and Bale REALLY doesn't want Robin.
|
|
|
Post by snooch2dnooch on Aug 16, 2009 23:17:27 GMT -5
I've said this before on a different post, but this 3rd film is set up so perfectly for the introduction of Dick Grayson (NOT Robin). Taking Dick under his wing and providing him with a sense of direction that he himself lacked would be the redemption that the Nolan-Batman needs to end his story with.
|
|
|
Post by lyricist on Aug 20, 2009 17:31:57 GMT -5
I agree with everyone who said no to killing him. Killing batman would be stupid and depressing. It's too sad a scenario to even think about too much.
|
|
|
Post by blackmask on Sept 19, 2009 21:22:26 GMT -5
that would be really stupid.
|
|
mr. battastic
Legions of Gotham Police Officer
Eat floor.... high fiber
Posts: 124
|
Post by mr. battastic on Sept 24, 2009 19:03:00 GMT -5
i really dnt think they would give it a conclusion, if nolans done with the films youd think they would leave it open for other directors. that and if you want it to stay more realistic theres tons of villians that can adapt to the story. they could bring in black mask in since the mobs going under or they could later on bring bane in. and start knight fall(or at least a good fight)
|
|
Shadow
Legions Of Gothamite
Posts: 40
|
Post by Shadow on Oct 2, 2009 9:15:30 GMT -5
Killing Batman would be stupid. There's no need for me to elaborate.
|
|