What Could Be In Store for The Batman- Spoilers

What Could Be In Store for The Batman- Spoilers

Caution, spoilers are expected. After watching The Dark Knight Rises, I've examined a few things that I'd like to point out.

Editorial Opinion
By Advocate - Jul 26, 2012 08:07 PM EST
Filed Under: Batman

Remember, there is the possibility of spoilers in this piece so caution yourself and proceed with such intent.




Okay, so as most of everyone has gotten a chance to see The Dark Knight Rises, the question on everyone's mind may possibly be, "what happens next?" And while I assure you I am no inside source on the direction of The Batman franchise, I can at least offer up some examination on not only what a sequel to the Nolan-inspired universe may be, but also how a reboot (if so chosen) would have to struggle with, and stand on its own.

I would also like to point out that I am no supporter of either outcome. I am simply backing the further installments of any superhero movie/franchise. Each glimpse, however misshapen, offers another idealogical lens for the general public to reflect upon themselves, and in high hopes, to aspire to something better. They are steps. Insignificant at times. But in time, we all learn the ability to carry on.

So without further adieu, my analysis of the final sequences in The Dark Knight Rises.

Some have presented the idea that Bruce and Selina's presence at the end is just Alfred's imagination as it always was on his holidays in Florence. But this is quickly rejected by the lab technicians' statement about The Bat being fixed, and the people handling Bruce's estate claiming a string of pearls was the only thing not accounted for. This string of pearls is seen, although blurry, around Selina's neck. I don't mean to stir up controversy, but all I mean to point out is that it is clear Bruce Wayne is alive and well.

Now comes the next question, perhaps the biggest one from the aftermath of this finale to the trilogy. Does this leave room for a Nightwing movie sequel? In one word, no. But remember, this is not me rejecting the idea as something I don't fancy. Because to be quite honest, and some of you may know if you've noticed my comments on other articles, I think a Nightwing take on Nolan's universe (yes, I know, he probably won't be involved- godfather, maybe?) would be a great way to continue this series of fabulous comic book movies.

The reason I say no, and why I believe this is the case (how Nolan intended it), is because if you remember the small scene of Commissioner Gordon, you'll know that the Bat signal was fixed. It wasn't remodeled with a different logo (implying that Bruce Wayne's purpose of bequeathing the location of the Batcave to Blake wasn't a direct inheritance). And to further cement this notion, this scene was important as it was only a few seconds long. Nolan's intent is pretty clear to establish that The Batman is still around. Batman can be a man of subtleties so it's beyond feasible that he could have informed Gordon in some other way. But no, he repaired the Bat signal. The only thing missing was a note that read, "Call me whenever you need me."

Upon this, I couldn't help but wondering how something like this could be carried on. So as to say that instead of rebooting Batman, how could this imply longevity of Bale's character?

One, we could assume that Bruce Wayne is indeed "dead" and will not return. This could be stated by the fact that his home is no longer his property. He can't all of sudden come back and get his big bed again. Although, I must point out he did show interest in Selina's place (so that's always a loophole for the mansion thing). Which means it might be easier to admit that John Blake would literally take up the mantle of The Batman. Maybe people could tell he's different. Maybe it wouldn't matter. But the Bat signal is something specifically made for calling Batman, although it's not too hard to accept that other Bat-affiliates could respond as well (not to mention anyone else interested in following the light source). So that's one possibility. Gordon takes up the role as Batman, plugging a new actor into the role of the same character in a way that no Batman movie before it ever explained. I don't know about you, but when I saw Batman Forever I had stop the movie and put Batman Returns on just to figure out how bad my memory could have been. Believe me, it was a scary moment in my childhood. This is where I say kudos to Nolan for keeping the Batman alive. And it fits with the continuity since Robin was reinvented as an amalgamation. No one can really decide the true destiny of John Blake.

Two, the first idea makes sense if you don't think about the relief on Gordon's face as if it say, "Bruce is alive!" This would correlate with Bruce's presence in a familiar place, one that Alfred specifically addressed for Bruce earlier in the film, so that it would be known Bruce has simply acquired a life outside of The Batman (an allusion from the conversation between Alfred and Bruce earlier on). Now sure, Gordon's reaction might not have triggered the same inference, but with that I refer you to outcome number one. Gordon may be disappointed that Bruce doesn't return, but it may be a chance to replace to mystery to who Batman actually is. In any manner, say Bruce (Nolan) is hinting at Batman's persistence to continue as Bruce Wayne. He is only shown at a different location, a location suggested to be a holiday location (while Bruce and Selina may be looking for more). Still, there are no hints at settling down elsewhere, so Bruce could easily assume the position in a sequel. The contents of this sequel, you ask, would be a story originating around a dynamic duo between Batman and Robin (or even Nightwing). Batman would be the leader, as to why he maintains his relationship with the police commissioner. Selina could be present, perhaps. But the more important part of this path is how to then start bringing a DC cinematic universe into play.

There is no one way of going about doing this, but as the next film could be the origin of Robin/Nightwing, it could essentially be the next "trilogy" in The Batman franchise. Nolan kept referring to his films as a trilogy, that they were meant to be a trilogy. But this trilogy was telling the story of Bruce Wayne and of course, Batman. So maybe the next step is another unfolding story of Robin/Nightwing, and consequently Batman as well. Nolan's films redefined Batman. Let the next set reinstall him into a larger world, with a larger purpose. At some point, if DC so wished, they would have an established character to take in a spin-off direction for Teen Titans. Perhaps, since there was only an indirect mentioning of the Lazarus Pit, there is still hope for an actually labeled "Lazarus Pit" to be a key to restoring Ra's as a mighty adversary. Even if that's not ideal, the fact of the matter is, just because Nolan swore to not introduce the Batman mythology as something out-of-this-world (metahumans, etc.) doesn't mean a reboot is necessary.

However, if the reboot is a prepared solution to the upcoming JL project, then Batman needs to stand alone from Bale's image. Not in some grand way, but in a way that triggers a different audience reaction as well as yet another reinvented version of Batman (as Nolan offered this advice to the next person to do a Batman film). What better way to do it than make Batman more similar to his comic book, or cartoon television self? Agile, detective, peak physical human condition/expert martial artist? Let's see that unfold in a darker world. Grounding Batman in our world was good, but grounding it too much makes it impossible to believe the ongoing sinister capabilities of many of his foes. Of course, that challenge is accepted by those looking to use reality for interesting character interpretation, but then the film sacrifices elements of making a character like Batman look so great. Ever wonder why The Dark Knight is probably still the coolest comic book movie we've ever seen? The Joker has no definite story. There is no origin of sorts, how he comes to be Batman's nemesis. If you ask me, there's too much redefining thought out a little too late. Setting up villains for future films is the way to go and a reboot brings the perfect opportunity.

Any way you look at it, Batman is coming back sooner than later. But it's how we embrace his return that he stands a chance of being justified by his next adaptation. Holding Bale's performance on a pedestal only makes it impossible to consider the never-ending possibilities that comic books offer us. We have the eyes to obtain perspective. If only we had the voice to pursue it.

BANE And DEATHSTROKE Live-Action Movie In Development At DC Studios
Related:

BANE And DEATHSTROKE Live-Action Movie In Development At DC Studios

Hayden Christensen Responds To BATMAN Rumors And Explains Why Darth Vader Would Beat Thanos
Recommended For You:

Hayden Christensen Responds To BATMAN Rumors And Explains Why Darth Vader Would Beat Thanos

DISCLAIMER: ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]

ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

TheAcuario
TheAcuario - 7/26/2012, 9:46 PM
great article but it will be hard for the next actor to play "Batman" to surpass Bale
Minotauro
Minotauro - 7/26/2012, 9:57 PM
@Cswag12 - I agree. The next movie will just be pumped out so it ties into the JLA movie.
Advocate
Advocate - 7/27/2012, 12:11 AM
@BattlinMurdock This makes sense and while it's all speculation as to what it could possibly mean, I was under the impression that Gordon made the final statement about Batman's legend when him and Blake were talking about Batman's efforts right when Blake announced he was leaving the force. Also, just for the sake of practicality issues, if we are to believe Blake takes up some mantle (Batman, Nightwing, or some other title), then it's safe to assume the Bat signal would be used, or at least some signal. So I see the fact that it's restored as it originally was to be the potential for Batman's more immediate return. It's probably to solidify the legend, but all I mean to allude to is the fact that just because Nolan says his Batman's over doesn't mean it's necessarily so.

@Cswag12 You're definitely right on that one. For the longest time I've been logically thinking about who could bring something new to the Batman, aside from the screenwriters doing their magic to bring a different character to Batman's screen presence. I don't mean to declare some unofficial fancast, but the person who first came to mind was Joe Manganiello solely because of his build and how this could give a new portrayal of a more burly Batman. However, I'm aware of his inability to act well so this is where I'm stumped. Essentially what I thought could come with a more built Batman (not to say Bale wasn't) would be to have a different appearance in costume, something that allows super flexibility for the actor. This would enable the practicality of Batman to dodge gunfire ala that small scene in The Dark Knight Rises. Zig-zagging, rolling, just being very swift on his feet with an adept mind. So naturally, the more built the actor was, the more intimidating the suit would look. I imagined the grey and black coordination to kind of give it this old school, dirty look.

But where I feel Bale can be surpassed is the balancing of the two characters, Bruce Wayne and Batman. I was sold on both characters, and Bale is forever (in my mind) the best-trained actor for that role. But what I noticed from the screenwriting was that Batman's obsession never manifested in a way that seemed beyond normal human capacity. I wanted to see him swamped in research, thinking out 100 moves ahead, etc. But what we got was a man struggling to find himself (as an origin usually is), then a man dealing with those consequences, and then lastly, resolving with its overall impact. Like Nolan said, he wanted to tell Bruce Wayne's story. I loved it. I just want to see Batman's story, full-fledged.
BooYah
BooYah - 7/27/2012, 12:16 AM
Great article @Supes! Im actually sad to see Nolans Batmans go. TDKR left you wanting more because of all the posibilities it opened. People always complained about Nolan's movies being too realistic but in my opinion they weren't realistic they were just Nolan's vision of Batman.
Advocate
Advocate - 7/27/2012, 1:01 AM
@BooYah Yeah, there's this huge philosophical question I've often tossed up in regards to reality and films that I feel isn't justified by people assuming Nolan's Batman films are meant to be realistic. Stories, no matter what's being told, are supposed to be believable, even if the scenarios are ridiculous. The characters are usually what drive a believable story. Nolan just so happened to do it a certain way. It's not impossible to replicate, but it will still require his vision.
CPBuff22
CPBuff22 - 7/27/2012, 3:06 AM
Great article but I am rather sure that we will see this series rebooted most likely after Justice League but possibly in the same year. Christopher Nolan's world clearly is void of super powers. That doesn't fit into the plan DC has to bring their franchises together in a Marvelesque fashion.
Advocate
Advocate - 7/27/2012, 3:37 AM
@CPBuff22 While it seems the most likely (a reboot), I'm still rather weary about the whole idea and one of my points above referenced a "soft" reboot, if you will, where new elements like super powers are introduced into Nolan's world ala a new director.

My gripe with the JL movie shaping up is that for some odd reason, I feel DC is going to get the JL movie out and then branch out with independent films afterward. It's a different formula, but to me it just sounds rushed. In order for a reboot to be done right it has to let tension build up as a natural character development for Batman, as well as any other characters he might interact with (for instance, Batman and- I mean vs- Superman). It's a slower process, but if DC is worried about a great story instead of whatever Marvel does then they should be fine.
CaptainDC
CaptainDC - 7/27/2012, 9:54 AM
Great article, love the ideas. But has anybody even considered that Gordon redid the Bat symbol in respect of what he did for Gotham? To show that Gordon and the city of Gotham respect what he did for their city, and to admire his accomplishments? Batman may be still "alive," but this could just be out of respect.
dezdigi
dezdigi - 7/27/2012, 10:28 AM
Any guesses as to when we'll get some announcements from WB? Do you really think they will wait till after the box office numbers come in from MOS before they make decisions about other DC properties? I really hope not.
Get Bruce Timm involved!
Advocate
Advocate - 7/27/2012, 10:32 AM
@CaptainDC In my article I point out the expression on Gordon's face. It doesn't suggest by any means a look of satisfaction in his own admiration for keeping the legend alive. It was an uplifting, shocking, revelation that transcends Gordon's character and takes hold on the audience. This is a typical story element I've seen most recently in Nolan's films- giving the audience the mystery of what the character is literally experiencing. Refer to Inception for more specific detail. I'm aware this is a common method in stories in general, but the feel is different. Certainty, in any number of possibilities, is suspended until the information is explicitly revealed. Nolan doesn't give leads as to what may come next. He surprises us. And that's the reaction shown on Gordon's face

Now, I could withhold judgment for a moment and take your proposal as fact (though nothing is), in which case I would then be stumped by John Blake's initiation to the Batcave. There is a strong sense of discourse between having a successor to the Batman and immortalizing him by means of keeping a beacon lit. Mainly because Gordon has no knowledge that the Batcave has now been bestowed (in some fashion) upon Blake. And to make matter more complicated, as I've point out in the article, say Blake rises as the next Gotham City vigilante (since we have no clue who he might become). Would he respond to the Bat signal? If so, he would sacrifice any image he may hold as a separate entity from the Batman, meaning he would definitely be Batman and no one else (making it very hard to continue and build off of Nolan's Batman for a DCU). If he doesn't respond, then that only strengthens the discourse as now you have two vigilantes essentially, and as they would be fighting for the same causes, there would be a struggle in power domination over infamy. Not necessarily a competition, but in the eyes of the people, there would be a nagging idea that presents two sides to the same coin- Batman or this other figure. Maybe both are believed in by citizens, but then it would be odd to only see one present during any situation.

I understand that this could be the intended direction for the scene, where Gordon is simply making Batman everlasting. But when you play out that kind of role, stretching it into the logical story lines to follow (regardless of their canonical attachment), nothing builds in a way that is the Batman we all know and love. What would result is an even more unique take on Batman, one that would warrant its own reboot (of the character himself, not the series). My article, at greatest detailing capacity, takes the probabilities and stacks them to see which ones are strongest in the end.
Advocate
Advocate - 7/27/2012, 10:40 AM
@dezdigi I feel Bruce Timm is definitely the creative mind required for a Batman reboot, in its greatest appeal (as to not make him a face of seven, or six, in a starter JL movie prior to solo routes). However, I'll refrain from getting my hopes up as I have certain expectations of Batman (not grand, just more superheroic) that have yet to really captivate me (although Nolan's trilogy gave me many a goosebump).

I've been projecting the possibilities of wise creative decision making for DC, to kind of estimate where and when to expect certain adaptations. And, so long as they start on some more franchises (Flash, Green Lantern, etc.) for a JL round up, my guess would be that Batman could be rebooted earliest 2015.

Some people may think that's too soon. But I must remind them of Nolan's quote about Batman's thriving on reinterpretation. From Batman Returns to Batman Forever it's meant to be a sequel, but it's very possible to consider it a soft reboot, or more so another reinvention of Batman. Batman's story is so monumental that I have yet to see every aspect, every angle, covered in any number of films. That being said, a "reboot" could tell the same story, but apply more depth in different places (similar to Spiderman, remotely).
dezdigi
dezdigi - 7/27/2012, 11:20 AM
I have a strange feeling that we won't see a new Batman until a World's Finest or JLA film. It just seems to soon to start a new franchise, also I can't see a "soft" reboot taking place because of how Nolan's trilogy ended. When we see the next Batman, he will be new, fresh, and more "superheroic" to fit in a new universe with other more fantastical heroes.
Advocate
Advocate - 7/27/2012, 12:08 PM
@dezdigi The unfortunate circumstance that comes with the two possibilities you mention is that 1) if Batman's first appearance in "fresh form" is in World's Finest or JLA, then we would have no introduction to the character and people may easily confuse him with Bale's take, resulting in a misdirected course of strung-together films or 2) Batman's fresh start is exactly where I was hinting at, in order to meet DCU standards, but this would inevitably call for a fresh origin story to set up the newer version of Batman (meaning a rather sooner than later reboot of the character).

In any case, the best way for DC to maintain continuity, fan base, and overall story development, a "soft" reboot or alteration extending the current trilogy would be the only solution.

The only thing DC should copy from the Avengers is the establishment of a franchise, story, and fan base. A JLA movie wouldn't make sense for the general audience. There'd be no imminent threat for the public to be attached to to draw them into the story. DC would have to solely rely on excellence in story (which should never be compromised) and the current fans waiting for a JL screen presence. Characters would be rushed or minimal, and at best the film would have to be two parts. I'm not opposed to this, but I believe the two part sequence should result from a collaboration in superhero team ups, which ultimately stem from solo features.
dezdigi
dezdigi - 7/27/2012, 12:45 PM
So according to your take, is this a logical release schedule:

2013-MOS
2014-Flash & WW
2015-Batman Reboot & GL Soft Reboot
2016-MOS Sequel & JLA
Advocate
Advocate - 7/27/2012, 3:18 PM
@dezdigi That actually seems more feasible with movie production, etc. However, it matches up too similarly with Marvel's Avengers. My focus of film projection was to alter the make up of what the world now knows to be superhero team-ups.

So I'd say:
Flash and Green Lantern Soft Reboot (2014)
Batman Reboot and Man of Steel 2 (2015)
Aquaman (2016) -possibly Martian Manhunter as well
Batman Sequel and Wonder Woman (2017)
Flash Sequel and World's Finest (2018)
Justice League and Green Lantern 3 (2019)
Wonder Woman 2 and Man of Steel 3 (2020)
Batman 3 and Flash 3 (2021)

Post-JL projection could simply replace any mainstream leaguer with a new character, but the reason why I don't have an expanding thought for more leaguers is because I assessed the story elements to a proper JL build up and as an effect, continued each character's story arch to where the origins and sequels suggest.

But like I said, your plan might be more realistic in terms of studio efficiency as opposed to my "ultimate" course. Usually when I sit down and methodically plot these things out they take off into monsters of their own and I just let them run their course. Still, my meticulous analysis is supposed to reflect the level of detail I believe (as a superhero fan and story writer) the world deserves to see.
foxfan
foxfan - 7/28/2012, 9:27 PM
Although us comic fans would be thrilled to see Robin/Nightwing give it a go, I don't think a studio is going to take a risk on long time supporting character. Nor do I think Teen Titans will put enough butts in the seats to merit an attempt. Not saying it wouldn't be cool, just that movie companies have to make money.
Advocate
Advocate - 7/30/2012, 2:38 PM
@foxfan While I don't necessarily think comic fans wouldn't be thrilled, I do feel the continuation just wouldn't be as strong, similar to Teen Titans. Just because there's a lot of material doesn't mean it's always going to be a cash cow.
View Recorder