Originally Posted by shauner111
Ummm no. I personally feel like he brought most of the essence of the character to the screen. The only stuff he didn't focus on too much was the detective work and fighting, which he displayed, just not enough. Everything else IMO was the essence. The bulk of Batman's stories are psychological and are crime stories. The bulk of the characters are mobsters/criminals & freaks who aren't that unrealistic most of the time.
He didn't hijack anything. He did 3 movies because WB wanted him to continue, and he could have done more (AKA hijacking) but stopped at 3 because he told his story. That's the opposite of hijacking a franchise.
You have to understand that Nolan most likely looked at Batman and saw that it will go on forever. In 100 years from now there will be batman movies. There's different interpretations and he wanted to tell a story that asked "what if Batman and his villains existed in our world?". Why not? Director's need to have creative freedom or else it's compromised art. There was always going to be a Batman/Superman movie eventually, so let someone else do it. Same with Justice League or something based on the Paul Dini world. Horror, sci-fi....it's all bound to happen. Nolan decided to focus on the crime element. Good for him.
but shaunre, he didnt stand by gargoyles the mots important part of batmen character is stand by gargoyel