Warner Brothers will reboot Batman.

[jax_rox]

Originally Posted by Aspiring Mogul

Spoiler: why would Bruce Wayne want to fake his death???

Originally Posted by jax_rox

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

Spoiler: 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.

[Aspiring Mogul]

Spoiler: 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.

[NickClapper]

Just whilst we're talking about The Dark Knight Rises, I thought I'd share this piece that I wrote about the complex politicisation of the movie.

I'd be curious to know what American's think. Even though it's really a British movie, Batman is an American franchise and it might play slightly differently to a US audience.

[Aspiring Mogul]

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.

[NickClapper]

Originally Posted by Aspiring Mogul

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.

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.

[Cracker Funk]

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.

[NickClapper]

Originally Posted by Cracker Funk

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.

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...

[Cracker Funk]

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. Spoiler: 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!

[Miken]

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

[richy]

Very interesting essay, Nick, and I was very pleased to read you writing about those issues.

Spoiler: 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.

[jax_rox]

Spoiler: I think my biggest issue with it was that tease at the end of a Robin movie. I don't really want to see a Robin/Nightwing solo movie. I want to see Batman, and if Robin's in it great - if not, then I'm not fussed. Plus, it was relatively obvious that this was going to be the last one - I don't want to see a Robin film just because the studio wants to make more money, and I'd be heartily disappointed if their reasoning for putting it in there was to leave it open 'just in case'.

I think Nolan created a decent three-part series, the standout of which was TDK. IMO, Batman Begins is firmly seated in the fantasy/superhero genre, whereas TDKR is firmly seated in the gritty/realistic genre. I think TDK bridges the two in a middle-ground genre combining both the cool superhero Batman we like to see, as well as keeping it firmly in a gritty reality.
The issue now is that this series was so good, and received so well, it's going to be hard for WB to completely reboot Batman and have audiences follow them, at least for quite a few years. I;d like this series to be the one that channels into the Justice League movie, but I don't know I can see that happening. I feel they're going to want to go for more of the Avengers feel.

That said, with Nolan producing Man of Steel, it's quite possible he will help bring that similar gritty feel to it, so maybe we'll see a grittier Justice League series and movie - I personally think that would be great and would provide a great juxtaposition to the airy, fluffy, fantastical Avengers series and movie. Plus, I'd rather watch a realistic, gritty 'superhero' movie over a fun fantasy type one.

I do hope though that they reboot Green Lantern for a Justice League movie

[richy]

I think it would be very interesting if WB went that gritty crime drama route indeed. Like you say, Jax, if for no other reason than to provide that juxtapostional superhero world to Disney's light and airy one. Variety is the spice of life. =)

[JoshL]

Okay, now I've seen the movie and I can play too! Now, there is no *need* for a reboot. You can keep it going, even without Nolan and Bale. Spoiler: But Wayne surviving/retiring was foreshadowed really early in the film, the first time Catwoman mentions the "Clean Slate" tool. Wayne had been spending years aquring technology he felt would be "dangerous" in the hands of someone other than him (because putting all your eggs in one metaphoric basket is always a good idea....) But also bear in mind that a significant portion of time was spent on the "Batman can be anyone...it's a symbol, not a person" concept. Leading into the end (he could be Robin, Nightwing or even just a new Batman and it would work within the context of that world). Anyway, given the Clean Slate, I think it's a fair assumption to make that he faked his death...though Alfred would have to had faked his death, not knowing that he was doing so. He thought that Batman had died, and if he wasn't pro-active in making Bruce dead too, people would have put 2 and 2 together.

I don't expect Nolan to do another film, but on the other hand, I don't trust a word he says. After Begins, he said he didn't want to do another. Or put Robin in a film EVER (that's debatable with the ending to TDKR, but still). After Dark Knight, he said he was done with Batman. Then he said he had always planned a trilogy (did you REALLY, Chris?). Now he's done with Batman forever. Again. I like his films, but the man seems a bit flaky. Or maybe just prone to making absolute statements.

I'd like to see more Batman films. If they're going to do JLA, I'd like to see them start setting it up with the next one. I would NOT like to see the series rebooted to do so. Let it change and grow, but we don't need to see the origin story again. If they're going to do JLA, Batman's world needs to be more supernatural than Nolan's vision, but you can meet halfway.

[jax_rox]

I'd personally like to see Nolan direct a film without all the same actors..

[Cracker Funk]

Might I be so bold as to suggest that at least we all are in agreement on one thing? Spoiler: There is no need to reboot this franchise in order to make Justice League. Agreed -- any future installments would have to start involving the supernatural, but since the series would be taking a major tonal shift by adding/staring Robin, who cares? The spirit of this trilogy is finished, but no need for a new origin story. I really hope they don't reboot.

Spoiler: As for the Occupy stuff -- I can see how some might see the Occupy movement as being vilified, but when I was watching, I didn't feel the same way (and for what it's worth, I'm super liberal). Just because it was a bunch of poor people terrorizing the rich, I didn't feel like they represented all poor people -- just the criminal portion of the poor. It is worth mentioning, after all, that Bane's first move, after blowing up the Steelers, was to release all prisoners from lockup. So, I interpreted the chaos as criminals running wild, with no authorities to keep them in check, while all the sane people (including those who sympathize with Occupy) stayed holed up in their homes.

Spoiler: Josh -- one of the first things I wondered, regarding the inclusion of Robin, was whether or not Nolan's hands were tied on that one. It's possible that the studio might have insisted on it, to leave room for sequels, with or without Nolan's direction. Maybe. Just a thought.