Dark Knight Rises question *SPOILERS*

[Sebastian]

It's a small hiccough caused be a 'real-world' reason, and between us chatting we've already come up with several feasible 'in-story' explanations.

IÆve been very impressed by the ability of many here to fill in some story gaps merely by chatting, as Sinclair Fan said. IÆm hoping perhaps you all can work some of your magic on a nagging story issue IÆve had with the Dark Knight Rises, the question being:

How in the *&[email protected]*!% does Batman survive the bomb at the end!?!?

I like this film and I like Christopher Nolan, which is why this bothers me so much. ThereÆs the shot of him apparently still flying the Bat RIGHT BEFORE the nuclear blast goes off. How does one live through that? Now, I realize I am being rather selective in what I allow to bother me in a picture where our heroÆs spine is punched back into place and he later wastes untold time making a bat symbol on a bridge with lighter fluid during a nuclear countdown. But, thatÆs just how it is. The other issues donÆt bother me as much as the bomb question.

My google results have yielded the following top choices:

- Batman actually dies and Alfred just imagines seeing him (and by extension, Catwoman) in the cafÚ. Not buying this theory for several reasons. First of all, this isnÆt Inception. Second, that would render the whole autopilot bit and LuciusÆs knowing smile totally pointless. Third, thereÆs no reason to think Alfred completely lost his mind, which is what would have happened if heÆs getting emotional with & nodding to phantoms in a public place. CanÆt even spin it as some sort of ôglimpse of the afterlifeö thing because Catwoman is there, and sheÆs not dead.

- He ejects out of the Bat at some point and is actually in some sort of ejection pod as he watches the Bat, on autopilot, fly away & blow up. Only if this happened between the time he flew away with the bomb & buzzed the crowd on the bridge, otherwise they would have seen it. But that would mean the pod was resting on a roof somewhere and he just sat in it until the bomb exploded. ThereÆs also no evidence of anything missing when we see the Bat fly by. This one just seems odd.

- HeÆs Batman. DonÆt worry about how he did it, just accept that he did. Unfortunately, the ôHeÆs Batmanö card was already maxed out before this scene. I canÆt charge any more disbelief to it.

- He made the cockpit of the Bat out of a refrigerator, which, thanks to Indiana Jones & the Crystal Skull, we all know can let a person survive a nuclear blast. While this is my favorite theory, I donÆt find it plausible even if the cockpit was constructed out of material hardier than a refrigerator (especially considering the Batmobile got destroyed by a RPG). A cockpit that can survive being in the middle of a nuclear bomb is one badass cockpit, to say nothing of how Bruce managed to get back to land not irradiated. Maybe it turned into a submarine?

- ThereÆs more than one Bat; the shot of Bruce right before the explosion is actually him in the cockpit of this other Bat, watching the progress of the one with the bomb. I guess this is possible, because we are shown that more than one Bat exists, but the logistics of this scenario are problematic, to say the least. And last of all:

- Christopher Nolan just fudged it on purpose to make you think Batman might have died for a minute or two. I fear this is most likely, that nobody would really think he had died unless he tossed in the cockpit shot right before the explosion because of the autopilot foreshadowing. But I really donÆt understand why there wasnÆt any sort of obligatory ôhow he did itö flashback right at the end. And IÆd be very disappointed b/c Nolan is not known for using cheap tricks.

So I put it to you all: any more likely possibilities I havenÆt thought of? Or is this something I simply have to get over?

[Sebastian]

Nobody? Not one theory?



Help me, JMS News Forums community! You're my only hope!

[Ubik]

How I read the end of the film; he doesn't survive. The scene with Alfred is metaphorical, it's Nolan's way of saying Bruce is finally free. Nothing supernatural, just Alfred saying goodbye in his own way, sitting there in the cafe visualising the ideal that he knew Bruce could never truly realise with his dual life as Batman. Bruce is gone, but he's at rest.

I think the ultimate point to be made is that anyone can be Batman. Once Bruce is gone, someone else can (and will) pick up the mantle, hence the closing scene.

That's my 2p.

[Sebastian]

Ah, thank you for contributing, Ubik

I want to believe this theory, I really do (Inception spoiler next)

especially as I subscribe to the theory that all of Inception was a dream

, but I think there was too much setup in other areas for it to be that simple. It just doesnÆt feel right.

But IÆll admit that nothing else seems plausible. Maybe he just had a Bat-anti radiation pill in his utility belt? ThatÆs what Adam West would have done.

[Marsden]

I didn't see the movie, so I can't rightly answer you. The reason I didn't see it is it seems too divorced from reality. I think they tried to do too much because there is a trend that every superhero movie has to be practically end of the world stuff. No catching bank robbers or even a super villian that just wants to steal stuff. It's way too ramped up. I saw the trailer many times, the thing that really detered me was the bridges blowing up. Unless Gotham is a Singapore like independent state, wouldn't a national and state government be a little concerned? I'm sorry, I'm not trying to knock your movie, but I'm saying any interpretation of the end you like would fit with that type of movie. I would like to see it someday, but it's not on my short list.

[Sebastian]

I know what you mean, Marsden, but Nolan actually worked in a reason for the government/military not being able to interfere. If this were one of those earlier, atrocious flicks like Batman Forever I wouldn’t even be bothering to ask the question, lol. However, I think Nolan did a great job making these films at least somewhat plausible and more cerebral instead of making them just about bat-gadgets & explosions. That's why I'm so bothered by what seems like a lazy fake-out scene at the end (unless Ubik's theory is correct).

I don’t know if you saw the first two in the trilogy, but I’d recommend all three. You can almost believe that, okay, here is this eccentric & scarred kid who watched his parents get murdered b/c he made them leave the theater early, then he inherits this company which just so happens to have all these prototypes that were deemed too expensive for military use….etc. And not to give too much away, but there’s a great little scene where Bruce sees the doctor in the third movie who essentially informs him that his body is completely messed up (from his capers as Batman) and tells him he shouldn’t even go parasailing.

IMO they are the most thought-provoking comic book-based films out there. And I don’t even like Batman that much and don’t care at all for the DC universe. If you give them a watch, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts, good or bad!

[Ubik]

I didn't see the movie, so I can't rightly answer you. The reason I didn't see it is it seems too divorced from reality. I think they tried to do too much because there is a trend that every superhero movie has to be practically end of the world stuff. No catching bank robbers or even a super villian that just wants to steal stuff. It's way too ramped up. I saw the trailer many times, the thing that really detered me was the bridges blowing up. Unless Gotham is a Singapore like independent state, wouldn't a national and state government be a little concerned? I'm sorry, I'm not trying to knock your movie, but I'm saying any interpretation of the end you like would fit with that type of movie. I would like to see it someday, but it's not on my short list.

If anything I think Nolan’s Batman films are far more rooted in reality than most. Towards the end of the film, when the exploding bridge scene takes place, the state does become more heavily involved. There is an effort to keep it rooted in a 'real world' type scenario. You are right though, there’s a definite trend towards the apocalyptic, and world shattering events in action films these days. However, I feel that Nolan’s films still have a downbeat thoughtful quality to them that most don’t. He managed to elevate the Batman franchise well above the average superhero flick. Metaphorically speaking, the film still had plenty to say about our world, with plenty of references to post 9/11 politics and the occupy movement. I think he struck a good balance between reality and high adventure action film shenanigans.

In terms of the ambiguous conclusion... I find it admirable that Nolan hasn’t gone for an obvious, hammered home ending, and leaves the viewer to draw some conclusions of their own. That’s a rare thing with this type of film.

Marsden, I’d say give it a look some time, there’s more to it than the explosion heavy trailer would have you believe.

On the flip side, I was massively underwhelmed by Inception. Some nice set pieces and stunts, but the film thought it was way smarter than it actually was. A genuine case of style over substance, give me Chronenberg’s ‘Existenz’ any day of the week.

[Marsden]

I know what you mean, Marsden, but Nolan actually worked in a reason for the government/military not being able to interfere. If this were one of those earlier, atrocious flicks like Batman Forever I wouldnÆt even be bothering to ask the question, lol. However, I think Nolan did a great job making these films at least somewhat plausible and more cerebral instead of making them just about bat-gadgets & explosions. That's why I'm so bothered by what seems like a lazy fake-out scene at the end (unless Ubik's theory is correct).

I donÆt know if you saw the first two in the trilogy, but IÆd recommend all three. You can almost believe that, okay, here is this eccentric & scarred kid who watched his parents get murdered b/c he made them leave the theater early, then he inherits this company which just so happens to have all these prototypes that were deemed too expensive for military useà.etc. And not to give too much away, but thereÆs a great little scene where Bruce sees the doctor in the third movie who essentially informs him that his body is completely messed up (from his capers as Batman) and tells him he shouldnÆt even go parasailing.

IMO they are the most thought-provoking comic book-based films out there. And I donÆt even like Batman that much and donÆt care at all for the DC universe. If you give them a watch, IÆd be interested to hear your thoughts, good or bad!

I'm encouraged to see it more now, I did want to, but your recomendation is has made me want to see it sooner than later.
I'll let you know after I do, I did see Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.
It's hard to say, they were both certainly better than previous Batman movies, but is that saying a lot? I really thought the first "Batman" was ok but not great, Batman Returns I disliked, Batman Forever was a little better for me but not too good and I fell asleep watching Batman & Robin, but what I saw of it, wasn't good. And I don't think 60s Batman, Adam West, is properly comparable, as it was a comedy rather than a drama, but that's my favorite after the Nolan films.

[Sebastian]

I have to say I can watch most of NolanÆs movies over & over again, especially with a friend who hasnÆt seen them before, despite how dialogue-heavy many of them are. There are admittedly some plot problems with Dark Knight Rises but I still like it a lot. FWIW, though, I do know folks who just thought it was lame and think I give Nolan too much credit by reading too much into his films

However, I feel that NolanÆs films still have a downbeat thoughtful quality to them that most donÆt...In terms of the ambiguous conclusion... I find it admirable that Nolan hasnÆt gone for an obvious, hammered home ending, and leaves the viewer to draw some conclusions of their own. ThatÆs a rare thing with this type of film.

I completely agree with this statement not just about Batman, but NolanÆs movies in general. They remind me of B5 a bit in how diverse types of people take different things away from them but still generally like them.

That being said, Ubik, IÆm shocked that you didnÆt like Inception! When I get a moment, let me put my take on it down in a separate thread and see if I can sell you on it, eh? If not, I understand. A buddy of mine who shares similar taste in movies fell asleep during it, lol.

[Ubik]

That being said, Ubik, I’m shocked that you didn’t like Inception! When I get a moment, let me put my take on it down in a separate thread and see if I can sell you on it, eh? If not, I understand. A buddy of mine who shares similar taste in movies fell asleep during it, lol.

Don’t get me wrong, I didn’t absolutely hate it, but I think my good will was sapped after the tidal wave of critics that hailed it as ‘clever’, ‘inventive’ and ‘intelligent’. I thought it was a good solid action film, with a few nice ideas up its sleeve. The widespread reports of people being ‘confused and confounded’ by its complex plot, which really isn’t all that complex, detracted from my enjoyment a great deal. Of course, all this isn’t really Nolan’s fault, more the gushing pens of over eager critics and Hollywood pundits. After all the hype I couldn’t help but feel the film had been mis-sold as something it wasn’t.

Have you ever seen the South Park episode that parodys the film? That’s kinda how I feel about it!

Have you seen Existenz? I think it does far more interesting things with a similar premise (with a far more meagre budget!).

[Sebastian]

...I think my good will was sapped after the tidal wave of critics that hailed it as æcleverÆ, æinventiveÆ and æintelligentÆ. I thought it was a good solid action film, with a few nice ideas up its sleeve. The widespread reports of people being æconfused and confoundedÆ by its complex plot, which really isnÆt all that complex, detracted from my enjoyment a great deal.

I hear you. Hype is poison. ThatÆs the main reason I try to never watch so much as a preview of a film I know I will want to see (e.g. I am glad I didnÆt go into Dark Knight Rises already knowing all of GothamÆs bridges were going to be blown up; I hate spoilers in previews like that and got much more enjoyment out of being completely surprised by BaneÆs plot).

As for InceptionÆs plot, I think it is pretty complex and IÆll explain why later. IÆll concede ahead of time, though, that it could simply be me giving the film too much credit.

Have you ever seen the South Park episode that parodys the film? ThatÆs kinda how I feel about it!

Yes! That was hilarious. I think everyone could use a guy who pops out and mimics Inception music during dramatic moments; or to make ordinary moments seem dramatic!

[becket]

I think it was left up to the viewer to decide.

[JoeD80]

Have you seen Existenz? I think it does far more interesting things with a similar premise (with a far more meagre budget!).

Yep, had to watch that one for film class. That movie immediately popped into my mind when I saw Inception. existenz was a very interesting film. Definitely a more artsy take on the concept.

[Andrew_Swallow]

Death by radiation = a different actor will play the character in the next film.