The Dark Knight Rises - Brilliant film!!! (Spoiler alert)
After all, how often do things end in real life in a conclusive and satisfying manner? So putting an ending in that did this would actually be quite artificial and the opposite of what he set out to achieve.
Very possibly, but that fictional world could have continued without the need to end with a glance between two characters (I'm carefully avoiding spoilers here). I thought it a cop out. For an allegedly "dark" film it seemed to end on a false note.
With regard to "real life," as Chebby points out, this is a film about a billionaire vigilante that wears a bat costume.
With regard to "real life," as Chebby points out, this is a film about a billionaire vigilante that wears a bat costume.
Indeed, and as soon as I posted that I knew that it was going to come back at me for commenting about "real life" in a Batman film! However, Nolan has at most times attempted to set his films in a reasonably realistic (read "fantastically possible") universe. So to have characters with unknown futures just beginning wouldn't be unusual in that sense, rather than no thought to the ongoing future of the world.
I guess what I'm saying is I don't think the ending in any way indicated it was a shoe in for a follow up movie, just that, should audiences think of that world again, they can imagine what might have happened next...
That's just my thoughts on it anyway.
With regard to "real life," as Chebby points out, this is a film about a billionaire vigilante that wears a bat costume.
Indeed, and as soon as I posted that I knew that it was going to come back at me for commenting about "real life" in a Batman film! However, Nolan has at most times attempted to set his films in a reasonably realistic (read "fantastically possible") universe. So to have characters with unknown futures just beginning wouldn't be unusual in that sense, rather than no thought to the ongoing future of the world.
I guess what I'm saying is I don't think the ending in any way indicated it was a shoe in for a follow up movie, just that, should audiences think of that world again, they can imagine what might have happened next...
That's just my thoughts on it anyway.
Fair enough, the recent Batman films were sold on their "realism," while the 1980s Batman reboot was sold on its gothic, expressionist styling.
Thinking about it in less concrete terms, I felt underwhelmed by the conclusion having invested almost three hours in the film. We can debate the reasons for this, but they're ultimately irrelevant. I felt the way I felt.
We're all entitled to our opinions. Those that enjoyed the ending will no doubt purchase the Blu-ray and enjoy it all over again. And who am I to argue with them...
Looking forward to the next few instalments 
With regard to "real life," as Chebby points out, this is a film about a billionaire vigilante that wears a bat costume.
Indeed, and as soon as I posted that I knew that it was going to come back at me for commenting about "real life" in a Batman film! However, Nolan has at most times attempted to set his films in a reasonably realistic (read "fantastically possible") universe. So to have characters with unknown futures just beginning wouldn't be unusual in that sense, rather than no thought to the ongoing future of the world.
I guess what I'm saying is I don't think the ending in any way indicated it was a shoe in for a follow up movie, just that, should audiences think of that world again, they can imagine what might have happened next...
That's just my thoughts on it anyway.
Well, you should be able to afford a Batmobile to be Batman! 
After all, how often do things end in real life in a conclusive and satisfying manner? So putting an ending in that did this would actually be quite artificial and the opposite of what he set out to achieve.
Very possibly, but that fictional world could have continued without the need to end with a glance between two characters (I'm carefully avoiding spoilers here). I thought it a cop out. For an allegedly "dark" film it seemed to end on a false note.
With regard to "real life," as Chebby points out, this is a film about a billionaire vigilante that wears a bat costume.
True, though I think the US military paid for it (well, perhaps he forked out for the respray).
After all, how often do things end in real life in a conclusive and satisfying manner? So putting an ending in that did this would actually be quite artificial and the opposite of what he set out to achieve.
Very possibly, but that fictional world could have continued without the need to end with a glance between two characters (I'm carefully avoiding spoilers here). I thought it a cop out. For an allegedly "dark" film it seemed to end on a false note.
With regard to "real life," as Chebby points out, this is a film about a billionaire vigilante that wears a bat costume.
I stand corrected. It costs less that one billion dollars to be Batman (and that's using the less impressive US criterion) . What a cheapskate...
After all, how often do things end in real life in a conclusive and satisfying manner? So putting an ending in that did this would actually be quite artificial and the opposite of what he set out to achieve.
Very possibly, but that fictional world could have continued without the need to end with a glance between two characters (I'm carefully avoiding spoilers here). I thought it a cop out. For an allegedly "dark" film it seemed to end on a false note.
With regard to "real life," as Chebby points out, this is a film about a billionaire vigilante that wears a bat costume.
(and that's using the less impressive US criterion)
That's gone too I'm afraid:
It suddenly all seems so achievable!
And now I know I only need $684 million (that's less than half-a-billion pounds in the current British context), I can start making plans. First thing on the list, a house with a spacious cellar, preferably detached so as not to disturb the neighbours...
It suddenly all seems so achievable!
And now I know I only need $684 million (that's less than half-a-billion pounds in the current British context), I can start making plans. First thing on the list, a house with a spacious cellar, preferably detached so as not to disturb the neighbours...
TBVH take away the extortionate cost of the batcave and it does indeed seem pretty achievable.
Indeed, launching the batmobile from beneath a three bed terrace would seriously jeopardise your secret identity. Other than that, you'd be ready to roll...
Are you all having a pint too much? 
The whole Blake thing was badly sone. How are we supposed to believe he's going to be, well, anyone? Remember all the time Nolan spent convincing us of Bale as Bruce as Batman in BB?
However, Nolan always focused on Buce Wayne's story. This story, he pretty much brought to an end, as he said he would.
Despite everything that's wrong with this rather rushed mess, which only featured the feline one (well played, mind) because Nolan persuaded Nolan to do it.
They will completely reboot, there won't be a JGL sequel. Though I'm sure he's tart enough to do it if asked (but which actor isn't?).
If Nolan and co. are so certain this is the last Batman film they'll make, why leave an opening for future instalments? A film providing genuine closure would have been more courageous. I'm sure someone will suggest that corporate philistines forced their demands on filmmakers, but really, if Nolan and his DP stood their ground on not shooting in 3D, this seems an unlikely circumstance.
It may be Nolan's last Batman film, not Warner's. Why will Warner kill off a cash cow? Look what happened to Spiderman. Warner may agree to Nolan's demands of not shooting in 3D, but will not allow Nolan to put a full stop to the franchise.
Well, it's supposedly Nolan and Bale's last Batman film. If so, any future films in the franchise would be markedly different, so why not simply reboot the franchise? It could start anew without any problems, which is precisely what happens with tedious regularity now anyway.
It's not only Spider Man. Numerous filmmakers have "re-imagined" (to use a Burtonism) an array of comic book characters in recent years.
If Nolan, Bale, and other cast and crew wanted to make more Batman films, the ending would perhaps be more excusable. However, as they say they otherwise, why not sign off on a trilogy in conclusive and satisfying manner? You say look at what happened to Spider Man. I say look at what happened to the Batman franchise last time round after Burton signed off. There's every chance post-Nolan Batman films would be awful with new personnel involved.
I'm not stating the ending has nothing to do with the studio. I'm not privy to boardroom discussions, so how would I know. However, Nolan reportedly had free rein when it came to TDK and TDKR (both were scripted by his brother, after all).
When we lionise a particular filmmaker or filmmakers, it's easy to blame corporate philistines when we're less satisfied with how a film turns out. I was merely trying to complicate such assumptions.
Or perhaps his intention was to indicate that, although it was the last film in his trilogy, he has created a fictional world and, much like in the real world, that doesn't mean things just end and no one does anything else.
After all, how often do things end in real life in a conclusive and satisfying manner? So putting an ending in that did this would actually be quite artificial and the opposite of what he set out to achieve.