Customer Discussions > The Dark Knight Rises [Blu-ray] forum

Was This An Ambiguous Ending? What Are Your Thoughts? - Spolier Warning-


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 44 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jul 22, 2012 7:50:07 PM PDT
Having seen the movie 4 times in 4 days, something I planned to do in my anticipation despite the damage it did to my wallet, I have some thoughts I would like to discuss...

So most people I talk to seem to think definitively that Bruce Wayne lives on at the end of the movie. They see the explosion but then hear the lines about the auto pilot and the pearl necklace and see him in the cafe with Selina assuming he lived

While I don't disagree with this ending here is the thing, we also see clearly that Bruce is still piloting the Bat only about 5 seconds before explosion. They very specifically show the shot of him piloting it and then the timer, there is no place he could realistically drop out without being seen unless he does it in the smoke, so based on that it would seem he chooses to die despite having fixed the autopilot

I see the merit and agree with both endings being possible and making sense, the thing is, for either to be correct there has to be some editing trickery (here I mean trickery in a good way, an intelligent way that inspires interpretation and provokes thought)

So, Either the shot of Batman piloting the craft after the smoke from his blast is a time cut back to his face at the moment before the smoke making the decision to bail out
OR
That shot is true and linear while the shot at the cafe is in fact the lie, Alfred sees Bruce with Selina based of the picture on the computer he saw earlier and he sees them in the exact situation he joked at earlier

In either case I think the ending is intentionally ambiguous so that fans and audience members can honestly justify it either way depending on the perception they bring to it

Does anyone else have any thoughts? Moreso does anyone have any theories on why so many people immediately think Nolan went with the straightforward happy ending of the faked death? It's not that I'm saying he didn't but it seems more like Nolan (especially post Inception) to craft a film for this legendary character with a truly unique and legendary ending, one that hasn't been done before (and faked deaths have been done, excuse the pun, to death)

Then further weight I would argue to the ambiguous ending is that Nolan loves dualities, especially in this series, so why not craft a dual ending?

Further he based the themes strongly on A Tale of Two Cities, which might seem to add weight to an original intent to have Bruce die... as the ending of the film has echoes from the final chapter of that book and directly quotes it, and the final chapter has the death of a major character as well as the title "The Footsteps Die Out Forever". However, the quote read by Gordon from that novel can have a dual meaning also, was it far better for Bruce to move on, or far better for him to give his life? I love that the film is so smartly crafted that it can open this type of discussion but find it odd that almost no one is having it as far as I can find

Posted on Jul 23, 2012 2:56:58 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 23, 2012 2:58:50 PM PDT
P. O'Rourke says:
No, it is not ambiguous. Bruce Wayne lives, Selina is wearing the peril necklace that is unaccounted for, Alfred is not hallucinating as he never saw Bruce and Selina together or ever knew that they had a fling or that she wanted him to leave and run away with her. Bruce fixed the autopilot and could have dropped the bomb at any time over the water or the part that he's in could be like a Cobra helicopter and he could have already ejected from the rest of The Bat (though still be in the cockpit) when they show him and then the 5 seconds left on the bomb.

Nolan is NOT trying to pull an "Inception" here. This film was about closure and ending a trilogy, not setting up ambiguity like "Inception". The only thing that is ambiguous is HOW he survived, but the story and plot points prove that he did.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 23, 2012 3:24:46 PM PDT
I think the directing and specifically chosen shots seem to suggest that it could be interpreted either way, it all depends on what backstory one wants to make up. It's either a geniously crafted interpretable ending or a fairly stock and rushed ending, I prefer the former

Posted on Jul 23, 2012 4:44:36 PM PDT
P. O'Rourke says:
How was it rushed? The ending was fine. It wasn't abrupt like Transformers or overly long like Lord Of The Rings. And please give me your definition of "stock" because I found there to be quite a few good surprises and twists in the end.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 23, 2012 5:24:01 PM PDT
Sorry if my answer sounded short tempered, I really am just looking to discuss people's views on the ending and what the specific reveals and moments seeded throughout the movie mean regarding it

To answer your question as best I can, I say stock meaning an ending that has been used traditionally and therefore can be called upon by anyone and traced over time, my justification for saying it, though I respect you seem to disagree, was that I felt the faked death is an ending that has been used before.
Recently it has been used in Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows and on the series finale of House, granted both are taken from the same source that source is fairly old and it stands as another example. Perhaps an example you don't count, based on your response, would be in Transformers 3 - wherein Optimus and the Autobots are seen boarding a ship and then the ship blows up, they then return later revealing they faked their deaths, I felt that was quite clunky in that film and still feel as if there is a gap in the story if it was used in DKR

I personally didn't find that many good twists to the ending, until I thought perhaps it could be interpreted in different ways, so we seem to simply have different opinions. May I ask what twists you found and whether or not you've read the comics? Just curious as to whether I missed something or if perhaps the twists are things someone familiar with the comics wouldn't be surprised by.

Can I also ask kindly, are there any reasons you find in the film that it would show Bruce piloting the Bat before the 5 second mark, other than to convince the audience he is flying it and cheat them? To me Nolan is too smart a film maker to simply trick the audience that way, the shots before Bruce blows that building clearly show him piloting the craft on his own, each time the craft moves they show an insert of him operating the controls to perform that same movement, then after the explosion there are no more of those shots (which would support your theory) but then what is that shot of him in a steady cockpit chair looking contemplative?

I think the non linear cut makes sense since it is used multiple times throughout the film, but you seem to think that shot is linear and that it just speaks to Batman having ejected later or flying after dropping the bomb or whatnot

Posted on Jul 23, 2012 10:12:18 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 24, 2012 9:37:59 AM PDT
P. O'Rourke says:
I didn't read the comics, I began my fandom of Batman through the Burton films and the animated TV show.

I think Nolan's decision to show Batman in The Bat with 5 seconds left was to make the audience feel like he died in the blast (or give the illusion that he had) - which is what I initially thought when I watched it. I thought Batman had just died. With that in mind, the twists were when Fox found out the autopilot was fixed (even with that knowledge, I figured Bruce had fixed it but lied and still chosen to sacrifice himself) and then learning about the missing necklace, recalling that Selina wanted him to run away with her and then Alfred seeing him in the cafe. These were all twists and surprises for me that revealed he had indeed survived.

Yea, the Transformers deaths were stupid because it was only half way through the film and you knew they'd come back, and yes, they did it similarly in Sherlock Holmes, but that doesn't make it stock and TF wasn't its ending. Also in Sherlock Holmes, it was the middle film in a supposed franchise so you knew Holmes wasn't dead. In TDKR, it had been advertised as the conclusion of Nolan's trilogy, the last one for him and Bale, so there was a lot of speculation that Bruce would die, which is why it worked in this case compared to the other two examples you listed. Nolan was able to play with our expectations.

Posted on Jul 24, 2012 7:39:23 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 24, 2012 7:41:10 AM PDT
RED_SETTA says:
No it is not like Inception. Everything from the auto pilot being fixed to Selina Kyle being at the cafe shows it was not a dream or something, but the actual events. Look at Lucious Fox's facial expression when he realizes the auto pilot has been fixed and Alfred never knew about Bruce Wayne and Selina Kyle having a thing, so why would he imagine her there to? Bruce lives and he and Selina have both wiped their slates clean and started a new life together.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2012 10:20:55 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 5, 2012 7:56:23 PM PDT
RED_SETTA says:
That was just a joke. Alfred didn't know about the extent of their interactions. People need to stop with the Inception ending comparisons. Let Bruce Wayne be happy. Michael Cane even said that the ending to Inception was not a dream.

Posted on Sep 28, 2012 2:40:07 PM PDT
Ryan Laing says:
I do think Nolan wanted people to question this, to be slightly ambiguous, but I don't think the final edit quite works either way. On one hand, it's literally impossible Bruce could have survived, they show him in the plane seconds before the nuke goes off. Alfred has said he has gone to a cafe and imagined and hoped he'd see bruce one day. It's possible the shot is in his head. But it also brings up the auto-pilot was fixed by Wayne, the pearls are gone, etc, and, really, Alfred probably wouldn't just have a vision, it's a stretch. So I do think this was meant to be the true ending, he lives. Although part of me wants to just pretend he died, because it was a perfect ending this way, it made sense, was a powerful last 10 minutes. It's a nice positive moment to end on when you see him, but it just doesn't make sense.

Posted on Oct 1, 2012 9:29:42 PM PDT
AH-1Z says:
I don't see the ending as ambiguous at all. Nolan deliberately set out to have a fitting and satisfying conclusion to his trilogy and his Batman story, and he achieved this brilliantly.

As others have pointed out, there' s no reason for Alfred to imagine Selina and Bruce together. He wasn't around to see their relationship develop; it didn't develop until After he left Bruce. He saw them there because they Were there, and because Bruce went there with Selina so Alfred could see that Bruce left Batman behind and found peace. Note also that Selina was wearing Bruce's mother's pearls, which he had taken back at the party, so the only way they could have gotten from where he kept them (pay close attention to the disposition of property scene) is if Bruce was alive to give them to her.

Further, the repair of the Bat-signal clearly took place after Batman's supposed death. It was there for Commissioner Gordon to find so that he'd know the truth. Look at Gordon's expressions when he finds it, even though he knows it'll never be used again. This scene makes no sense in the movie except as a final message to Gordon to let him know Bruce is alive.

Finally, the autopilot. There's absolutely no reason for the revelation that it had been fixed and was done by Bruce Wayne except to allow Lucius Fox (and the audience) to realize that his friend did have a way out. Yes, I know that in reality even with the ability to eject some distance out to sea (where people on shore wouldn't be able to see him) before the explosion, Batman could not have gotten far enough away to survive. C'mon, it's artistic license. It makes the ending of the story work. Hey! In reality, the Batplane as designed wouldn't have been able to fly. I don't hear any complaining about that.

Christopher Nolan and the other writers provided one of the most satisfying endings I've ever seen. Let's just enjoy it and all try not to be too clever by half.

Posted on Oct 2, 2012 9:15:35 PM PDT
The VERY ending of the film is naturally ambiguous as far as John Blake "rises" on the Cave's platform (because it's his film as much as it is Bruce's), but as far as whether or not Bruce lives or dies, it's clear he lives. Nolan does use some time trickery as far as cutting to Batman still in "The Bat" five seconds before the bomb explodes, but everything following that, from the autopilot software patch to the cafe discovery, all pretty much explains what happened to Bruce. However, Selina is not wearing the pearl necklace in the cafe scene. When I've rewatched the film, I look for that and always think I've missed it, but no, it's not there. I'm much more interested on where John "Robin" Blake is going to go after this ending. Does he use the tech to create his own hero, or does he carry the mantle of The Batman into the future?

Posted on Oct 3, 2012 8:12:14 AM PDT
SuckaMC says:
Since when did it become a bad thing for a storyteller to misdirect the audience for the sake of being entertaining? This whole thing about not being able to accept that Bruce Wayne lives simply because their wasn't literally a scene of him jumping out of the Bat is as ludicrous and pointless as people who complain why some zombie films don't explain where the zombies came from.... or wondering why no one ever has to reload in a classic John Woo movie. Films are fantasy and its all in the presentation. Plausibility is dependent on whether the filmmakers give you enough to rationalize. In the case of The Dark Knight Rises, there is PLENTY to help one rationalize, and above all else, because its BATMAN. The mythology of Batman says he studied and learned all there is to being an escape artist. All this combined with the points already outlined, its pretty clear Wayne escaped. You throw in the bit about the software that wipes your slate clean... it all makes sense. Not to mention, and my final point, the ONLY argument for Wayne being dead is 'he couldn't have escaped in time' VS the 5 or 6 points that argue he's not dead.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 4, 2012 6:47:17 PM PDT
AH-1Z says:
James:

I think the platform rising is just an artistic way of drawing the curtain on end of the story. Regarding John "Robin" Blake, IMHO this was just a smiling nod to the audience. By "coincidence" his name happens to be "Robin". I think we're reading too much into his name otherwise. As the movie ends, he's about to discover the wonders of the cave (although the Batpod, Bat and Tumbler/Batmobile are no longer there). But he's too old to start and doesn't have the training, background, connections or money to become Gotham's new hero.

Always keep in mind that this is NOLAN's Batman, not the comics'. There is no place or need for a Robin.

I'll freely accept that Selina might not be wearing the pearls, that comes from my recollection and what others have said. Have to wait for the DVD to check. However, in the property disposition scene mention is made that the pearls aren't accounted for; clearly, Bruce took them.

Posted on Oct 5, 2012 10:12:33 AM PDT
M. burns says:
Well, considering Batman was able to fly all around Gotham, stop the truck carrying the bomb, attach the bomb to the ship and fly it miles offshore in the span of 8 minutes on the timer, I wouldn't put to much stock into the time.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 21, 2012 1:28:50 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 21, 2012 1:32:14 PM PDT
Selina is NOT wearing the pearls at the end. Her neck is bare.

IMO, the ending is ambiguous. It's the exact image Alfred always said he would imagine for Bruce. As for it being Selina and not Miranda, one would assume by that point that he'd heard about Tate's treachery, so it's unlikely he'd see her there. Also, she hooked up with Bruce after Alfred left, so he never knew they were together. And he did comment to Bruce that Selina was attractive, and perhaps he should take her to coffee.

Then there's the implausibility that Bruce could be at ground zero for a nuclear explosion and escape in :05. Unless he has a fridge on the batplane he can hide in, which seems doubtful.

On the other hand, he is Batman. He always has an escape route.

Either way, IMO, it's open to interpretation. I think that anyone who says, with absolute certainty, that Bruce is either dead or alive is wrong. You have to decide for yourself.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 22, 2012 6:54:37 AM PDT
Not for me, I was expecting an awesome ending, I didn't get it

When Bruce flies off apparently everyone else is thinking, oh no! He's gonna die!

I'm thinking, okay well if they kill batman off screen by having him fly off over the ocean into a nuclear blast I'm gonna pisse cause that's so lame
Then it happens

Everyone else seems to get sad, I'm sitting there like no way, if they had batman die that way I'm gonna be pissed, especially now that we're quoting dickens and showing a creepily carved statue while having JGL reveal in the most awkward clunky way his name is Robin (which relates to the comics about as much as if he said he liked Dick, get it Dick Grayson)

So by the time they start revealing these 'twists' everyone else gets happy and I just think okay then so he chose to die despite being able to use autopilot
Then we see him in the cafe and everyone loves it but I'm thinking, that has almost nothing to do with Bruce as a character (as previously established)
It would be like having Maximus in gladiator die, but then when they start to carry him away he gives a thumbs up and a wink to his friend
That's their perfect ending for this guy? He gives everything until he's broken then he says you know what, instead of learning to cope I'm gonna just up and completely leave, abandon the city at its worst time (cause that statue of me will surely inspire them enough)

For me, this part is completely subjective, I'd rather batman died or appeared to and then the twist reveal was that Bruce Wayne is revealed at his public funeral, Gordon notices him, Blake notices him, he smiles and then Alfred and Bruce reunite and Bruce reveals he's taken Alfred's advice, Selina shows up and she and bruce go, and then we get the John Blake entering the batcave reveal

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 22, 2012 7:03:03 AM PDT
I don't think the ending to inception is a dream, I actually think inception is a film with an unreliable narrator which means what we're seeing is subjective throughout the whole film, I still say he gets home at the end, his kids look the same cause that's what he subjectively is experiencing - like mal and him on the tracks, when he flashes back they are young, it's not until the end we see those were subjective and that in actuality they were old

I'm also tired of people discounting an ambiguous ending just because they think people are looking to strongly at inception
Inception is one piece of a filmmaking career that gives one reason to believe Nolan would want to do an interpretable or ambiguous ending, have none of you people seen his other films?

I concede this film seems to (after reading the script) indicate in everyday Nolan wanted Bruce to live, I just think they way he did it is shite, for lack of a better word. I also concede that the other batman films are the only Nolan exceptions where e doesn't have ambiguous endings other than how one chooses to interpret the final monologues

I'd still like to have a discussion about the film but everyone keeps coming in dropping a dump and saying that's it, that's the bottom line no ifs ands or buts, well of it is then its a crap ending to one of the greatest trilogies ever (dark knight rises suffers from similar problems as xmen last stand and spiderman 3 but no one seems to notice and everyone hates those movies - myself included)

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 22, 2012 7:07:54 AM PDT
Yeah, that's how I feel, I do now concede that he lives hands down - I just wish it was more ambiguous because I find it to be a clunky ending and can't see why everyone loves it do much, there are huge problems with the film despite its accomplishments

Also, no guns, no killing apparently doesn't mean much because later batman leads hundreds of gothamd finest to their deaths, why doesn't e just blast the guys with his gun ship - because he can't kill (which I like) but the. All those cops die because he lead them into battle so where does he draw the line, remember dark knight "no one else will die because of me" well hundreds of innocent people died because he couldn't think of a better plan, like I don't know, using his stealth to sneak in and take bane down (since bane is to egotistical to do anything other than fight him one on one)

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 22, 2012 7:21:06 AM PDT
Thing is this is t a John woo Gil , this is t a zombie film, this is t expendables or a McG production , this isn't pirates of the Caribbean curse of the black pearl where will escapes the blown up ship god knows how, this is the sequel to dark knight.

Nothing previously established in this franchise gives credence to the idea of an off screen faked death that is supported by two lines

Another analogy of my own to counter yours

Regardless of whether one likes dead mans chest you have to logically admit that if they'd had jack sparrow get eaten by the kraken or even just showed the ship destroyed by it and the. The others row up to shore and Jack is already there waiting for them you'd be like, "what? How?"
If the characters asked him how and he said, "I'll never tell" you'd be pissed and feel like it was a cheat
Or maybe not, maybe you like under thought out cinema, I enjoy entertainment cinema too but when I see a nolan film I expect plot points to be thought out not slapped together

Posted on Oct 22, 2012 7:04:20 PM PDT
First off, the idea of the police marching out to meet their doom is hardly Batman's idea. The Joker was one man with a gang; Bane has an army that includes members of the League of Shadows. Batman has a code. He will not kill. He does not kill, even to save others. He does what he can to provide support, but everyone makes their own choice. The police finally banding together to do something to take their city back is done partially out of justice and partially out of knowing that there's nothing left to lose because that bomb is going to go off. So that kind of kills that argument. Using stealth to take out Bane? In what way can that happen? How does this best serve the city? Even if he was somehow able to make his way back into the city totally silently, not save Gordon and his men, or John Blake, somehow sneak up on a man who is constantly surrounded by assassins and criminals... I'm not even going to bother with that argument, because it's far too silly.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 22, 2012 7:33:39 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 22, 2012 7:57:15 PM PDT
Yeah genius, the point of my argument is that it's silly -- the entire way the climax happens is silly, there is no clarification or context provided clearly for what's happening or why (to clarify here, i don't mean i don't understand what's happening, its all elementarily clear, what I mean is there's no reason to care or expect the characters have any coherent purposes outside of "stop that guy!") their plans all seem thin or nonexistent despite having had months of "what if we" time.

Batman attacks bane and tells Gordon to get the device on the bomb in case he pushes the trigger, but then Gordon doesn't get it on the bomb until much later into the fight so the whole city could've been blown anyway (cinematic license sure but the difference between this and the cinematic license during the blow up the ferry scene in dark knight is that there it was justified and earned -- I could tell you why but I'll just take a page out of your book and say if you don't get it your silly and I can't even go there with you :))

(but since I'm not you I will kindly explain, the difference (between cinematic license in Dark Knight climax vs Dark Knight Rises climax) is the ferry boat scene had a moral dilemma at the center of it, it was an analogy being played out in heightened fashion and was great while fitting the story and setting up an impossible task for batman that he then overcomes. Going in to stop joker from blowing up the ferries we know he has to stop joker (Objective 1, which has two related points, a stop the ferries from blowing up and b stop the joker overall which will accomplish objective 1a), but then that he also has to save the hostages in the building (2), stop the swat team (3) and take down jokers fake hostages (4) all with a ticking clock in two counts (the boats could blow up at any time and will at midnight, and Gordon has given word for SWAT to move in after a short time and once they do we get consistent updates of the new timeframes Bats has to work in from FOX, i.e. SWAT team will be coming out of the elevator in 60 seconds), genius, pure genius, all of it, despite the cinematic license of a city with a lunatic threatening to blow things up not checking the ferries over for hundreds of drums full of fuel. And that basic layout doesn't go into the deeper layers/conflicts of Fox conceding to use a technology he disapproves of that Bruce developed under his nose from his own idea, or Dents actions pulling Gordon out of things at a crucial moment.

In comparison, dark knight rises we get a trigger, some arbitrary trigger man (Talia) - which I understand, the trigger man prevents anyone from making a move on Bane --Gordon or those in the city and also those outside the city-- but that is never explained/laid out for story's sake, most of them think Bane himself is the trigger man including Gordon and Batman so its almost redundant other than the lame Talia reveal - and then we get a bunch of cops charging aimlessly (unless you count forward as a human aim in anything more than a general directionality sense) while batman fights bane in a one on one while Gordon fumbles around with a mechanism on a truck and a timer is running (that everyone seems aware of exactly how much time is left on despite never checking any watches) and the only semblance of moral analogy here could be that if you don't act then your doomed anyway, but that's never really played up at all.
Basically here it's so elementary and childish it's from a 1990's animated series (and not a good one like Batman: TAS) where the finale is "let's stop this guy", "everyone charge full steam ahead". Batman, you find the trigger by strong arming a mercenary who has already committed himself to die in the blast in less than a hour, Gordon you stop the bomb's remote trigger activation with this device, despite that making batman's search for the trigger redundant (because you see if Gordon succeeds then it doesn't matter if Bane hits the trigger) - especially with so little time - Catwoman you open up a tunnel so we don't have to involve you in the action and then you can save batman later, cops you fight these mercenaries (I know it's about fighting to take back their city but that wasn't presented as a problem at the beginning so it means nothing, the cops had control of their city at the opening of this film) so mostly they are doing it because it looks cool. Blake you lead these people to safety, don't bother with the tunnel which will surely be free and accessible, take the bridge that is blocked by military force so you and a bus load of children and a priest can almost be killed and then see me fly to my 'death' so you toss away your badge arbitrarily and become the next hero/batman/whoever.
This is what happens, I've joked about it a bit but its all derived from the actual intentions demonstrated int he film. The one thing that also might give it another layer is if Batman's lesson in the pit, you have to jump without the rope, is in action in his decision to have everyone fight during the process to stop the bomb. Perhaps Batman wanted the bomb to keep ticking so they would all find fear and fight their hardest as the prison doctor suggested, but why risk all those innocent lives? Based on your own point Batman wouldn't needlessly risk lives. So if thats true why not stop the trigger transmission and get control of the bomb and then run and face Bane's army with all the cops? Why? Well because then they lose the arbitrary ticking clock Nolan or someone wanted to paste onto this picture.)

If I'm wrong in any of my points in an objective story sense, understanding that outlandish points are made with hyperbolic intention, please explain why.

Sorry for any misspellings, I typed this in my iPhone lol

Oh yeah,
Then batman ends up getting stabbed and essentially could've been killed (despite all the cops outside)

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 22, 2012 7:42:56 PM PDT
Well, in Alfred's fantasy, he has children as well, and for someone who caught a glimpse of Selina Kyle, a criminal, and think that's somehow the person that Bruce would end up with as opposed to any other woman in the world is a little absurd. If it's his fantasy, why would he make it incomplete? There's not really an argument for it being totally or even somewhat ambiguous regarding the fate of Bruce Wayne. Despite how people may feel about the ending, it's concrete.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 22, 2012 8:03:16 PM PDT
It is concrete, you're right and I finally concede it is, but excuse me for trying hard to make this film a worthy ending the the greatest hero trilogy of all time, since you are right that the ending is concrete then you must admit (I know you mustn't do anything but) I would think surely you could at least appreciate that based on my post above that it is nowhere near as good as the Dark Knight's ending and thus not a fitting ending, let alone one that even makes sense or has a context greater than a thin line

This ending is more along the lines what I would expect from Michael Bay or even a Pirate's of the Caribbean 5, not a Nolan finale to the most equally original and successful (that's important because there are other original takes, they just weren't as successful, and there were other original takes they just weren't good) take on a comic book character that there has ever been

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 22, 2012 8:14:47 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 22, 2012 8:18:42 PM PDT
And by the way, I concede it is concrete that Bruce lives based on the official script, not because of anything anyone has said. All the arguments I've heard against the Bruce could have died argument are merely counter arguments, no one has so far laid out the actual inherent problems with Bruce being alive other than that he is seen with Selina at the end -- hold on, i hear you say, that's the most concrete hole in an argument about someone not being dead you can have (seeing them alive that is), if you think this please read what follows--, but based on other subjective shots in the film there is reason for an avid watcher to question if that scene showing Bruce with Selina was another subjective viewpoint,

Everyone acts like the argument just got pulled out our arse or something but in a film with an old man having a cutaway vision (which hadn't happened previously in the series as shot), another man having a hallucination about his old dead mentor arriving in a prison and threatening him, and a bunch of back story cutaway scenes that are narrated in a purposefully unreliable fashion to mask their true meaning the idea that Bruce is not really there at the end is not that much of a stretch when all the evidence to the contrary is just as subjective - aside from the fact that Bruce is visibly seen (which I just explained, avid watchers have reason to question based on the style established in the film up until that moment)
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Participants:  20
Total posts:  44
Initial post:  Jul 22, 2012
Latest post:  Sep 9, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
The Dark Knight Rises [Blu-ray]
The Dark Knight Rises [Blu-ray] by Christian Bale (Blu-ray - 2012)
4.1 out of 5 stars   (4,091)