It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
It's the same character. When he is sentencing Commissioner Gordon and the others Gordon called him Crane.
There was a fun little ripple of recognition in the audience when he first appeared as the 'judge'. You could hear a murmur of 'that's him, isn't it?' in the cinema.
It's obviously the same character. He is mentioned by name, and Nolan brings him in every Batman film. He makes an ironic statement. The doctor to the crazies is just as mentally unhinged as them, yet he is put into command as judge.
I know that he knew Wayne was an orphan and he met him as a kid, but they never really explained how he knew he was Batman. It could be what you said or what @Virage said, but they never really explained it in the film, is what I'm saying.
Oh thanks. I couldn't remember Scarecrow's real name. I had to look it up on the internet after the film.
Yes, I wanted that for him too. He deserved to survive and live a happy life.
But we did see him still in the Bat moments before it exploded. And you need to be pretty far from that explosion to survive it.
Of course, I could find many arguments for him surviving as well. In the end, it's what you make of it. Like Inception.
He's not becoming Robin. He'll be the new Batman. The name Robin is just a wink from Team Nolan.
I doubt they'll make a film with him as Batman, I think they're rebooting it with a new actor. I think he became Robin at the end, and from now on he would protect Gotham instead of Batman.
That won't make a film with him as Batman, but he will become Batman in the 'Nolanverse', if get understand. I believe that is how it's meant to work.
I'd be happy if they continued the series in the same tone as the Nolan films but to reboot it again just seems so unnecessary as Nolan did it so well. We've already had two origin films - Burton's and Nolan's. Another just seems ridiculous yet at the same time what does one do unless of course they'll be another Batman who is not Bruce Wayne. Or if another actor who is playing Bruce Wayne decides to return to Gotham to continue the fight. Then we'll have the immortal scenario like James Bond...
He's got the Batcave. It makes sense to me that, if Blake choices, Batman would return when Gotham needs him. The legend of Batman continues on.
A complete reboot is the only way to go and from there you could do whatever you want with that blank slate. Warner's are said to be aiming for anytime from 2017 for this film but who knows if this will hold. You may as well leave Batman alone for a good while now, even though he's very popular.
I thought he'd become Robin in the nolanverse, and that Batman was done. He could've become the new Batman I suppose, but I like to think that he became Robin.
None of that would have done anything. As you saw with the gas and other theatrics Batman used, they failed because Bane has become immune to their effects. Anything Batman has in his arsenal he learned about from his training, the same training Bane had. They have dealt with all those tactics before and now invulnerable to them. When it came down to it it was a straight fist fight.
It wouldn't have stopped him is what I am saying.
As has been said it was just a wink to the fans. A bit like his initials being J B. That is also a wink, to another group of fans.
Nah, I'd say the initials is just a coincidence. Now we are looking way too much into names I fear...
Did they confirm it was just a wink to the fans? tbh I'd rather think that he was Robin because I think only Bruce can be Batman.
Exactly. It shows that the symbol of Batman has now become so powerful it isn't about the man who is underneath. It can be anyone who continues the fight in its guise, because only that very symbol matters.
I loved it. I have so much to say but with it all fresh in my head it's hard to narrow down what I want to write-- don't you hate that??
These last few pages though I notice some confusion on the whole 'Robin' business... @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 & @RC7 are right on the money. In Batman Begins, Bruce clearly says that as a man he can be ignored but as a symbol he can be everlasting. That's why John Blake was given the directions to the Batcave. He is Batman now. His birth name being 'Robin Blake' was simply a wink to the audience. Nolan said in the beginning that 'Robin' would not be in his movies and he meant it.
Blake is not this guy:
Blake is THIS guy:
Typically I don't like Batman stories where Bruce Wayne quits being Batman, but since I know this is Nolan's conclusion, I was very happy with how it was handled!!
When did he mention that? He wasn't even sure he was going to make a sequel, let alone two.
Which is what? Bruce's death would be a lot more closure than this.
Please don't think of me as an idiot. I know that it's not Inception. But it comes from the same filmmaker. So it is not far-fetched to think it is.
I am not saying that he died; I am saying that it may be interpreted as such, and that Nolan purposefully made it slightly ambiguous. He is a magician with more in his sleeves than just "clever editing."
I agree that they won't be making a film with Levitt. That is not what I meant.
A great end to the trilogy. Only Indiana Jones was a better trilogy. Bane was awesome. So was Hathaway as Catwoman, but Julie Newmar still is the best Catwoman. Loved the way Anne rode the motorcycle.
My only complaint is that they relied on Batman Begins for the storyline too much. Otherwise a surprising, but brilliant ending. I would normally poo-poo on the Robin character, but I think Joseph Levitt-Gordon could pull it off.
Nolan has said he has viewed Bruce's story as three parts:
http://www.geeksofdoom.com/2012/06/11/christopher-nolan-says-he-wont-direct-a-sequel-to-the-dark-knight-rises/
The end scene was what he always had in his mind of the ending to the story. It didn't matter what Bruce went through, the ending would always stay the same. The meaning behind it isn't hard to see. We finally see Bruce happy and living the life that Alfred had always wished for him to live once he quit his crusade as Batman. That is the best possible closure, and not Bruce dying of all things. Just because Nolan's past work had questionable endings doesn't mean every consecutive film following it will have that as well. BRUCE IS ALIVE. Nolan said that he wanted a true closure to this story, and that is what it is. Bruce retired and off to live the normal life he always should have had away from the cape and cowl.