Bear with me a moment before unilaterally dismissing this, (then unilaterally dismiss it.)
Batman movie to date have worked in twos. Now, before you accuse this of being coincidence, let me explain. I think there's a reason WHY they work in twos, and why Nolan may fall into the same trap:
Here's the deal: the three filmmakers who have tackled the modern Batfilms to date, (Burton, Schumacker, and Nolan) none of them have tried to make a definitive Batman movie. As in, a movie that is pure to the vision of Batman. Instead, they have all decided to adapt the Batman material to their own unique style of filmmaking. Burton didn't create Batman movies as such, as much as he made Tim Burton movies with Batman. The same for Schumacker and Nolan.
But it creates a 2-movie pattern. In the first film a director tackles, he does adapt Batman to his style, but he doesn't go overboard with it, and tries to maintain a balance with a more definitive Batman. It's hesitance. They know they are unproven, so they cast their net a little wider to appeal to more people. This is why the odd-numbered Batman movies are the less controversial set. (Batman, Batman Forever, Batman Begins.)
In the second film, the filmmaker has earned his cred. He's a proven commodity. So, he feels he has the right to engage in a Batman movie that is far more individualistic, far more a product of his own unique vision, with less emphasis on definitivity or hewing to the source material. As such, these movies tend to alienate both general audience members and general Batfans for straying as far as they do. They tend to only be embraced by those who are particularly enamored of that director's specific vision of Batman.
Now, it may be coincidence that this has happened twice, and may not happen again. But damn, if the early rumors are right, and the clown prince of crime is not clownish looking nor enamored of low comedy with a lethal twist, well, that suggests to me that Nolan is already thinking of departing further from established Batman lore.
Now, understand, there's nothing wrong with different people exploring different visions of Batman. It's just that the audience usually isn't that indulgent. Batman Returns not doing as good as Batman, Batman and Robin not doing as well as Batman Forever, and such. Also, the second film in the director's run on Batman tends to define his entire run. Batman Forever was not nearly as hokey or over the top as B&R, but they are remembered similarly. Batman Returns is more remembered for it's dark qualities, (many people I know describe it as gross, but I don't) and the first one is then remembered similarly. It also causes the director's vision to be ignored. Remember, there was a time when both Burton and Schumacker were hailed as the men who saved Batman, even if they are largley dismissed now.
And don't think it can't happen to Nolan, (witness the once coddled Bryan Singer now being savaged for Superman Returns.) I can just imagine what might happen with the next one: The "Joker" is not at all what people remember or were expecting. Therefore, People will feel let down. They were promised the Joker, and the promise wasn't properly fulfilled. This will leave a bad taste in their mouths. They will then start picking at other parts of the movie, perhaps calling it too dreary or full of itself, (if certain failins of BB continue, that is.) They will then notice some of these complaints also apply to BB, the movie will retroactively be rated negatively, Nolan's work will be dismissed and a new director will take over for the 7th one.
Again, I'm not saying this WILL happen, but, based on facts known and patterns to date, I think there's a good possibility it may happen.
Wait, did I just disparage Nolan and his vision of Batman? Let the flaming begin!
Batman movie to date have worked in twos. Now, before you accuse this of being coincidence, let me explain. I think there's a reason WHY they work in twos, and why Nolan may fall into the same trap:
Here's the deal: the three filmmakers who have tackled the modern Batfilms to date, (Burton, Schumacker, and Nolan) none of them have tried to make a definitive Batman movie. As in, a movie that is pure to the vision of Batman. Instead, they have all decided to adapt the Batman material to their own unique style of filmmaking. Burton didn't create Batman movies as such, as much as he made Tim Burton movies with Batman. The same for Schumacker and Nolan.
But it creates a 2-movie pattern. In the first film a director tackles, he does adapt Batman to his style, but he doesn't go overboard with it, and tries to maintain a balance with a more definitive Batman. It's hesitance. They know they are unproven, so they cast their net a little wider to appeal to more people. This is why the odd-numbered Batman movies are the less controversial set. (Batman, Batman Forever, Batman Begins.)
In the second film, the filmmaker has earned his cred. He's a proven commodity. So, he feels he has the right to engage in a Batman movie that is far more individualistic, far more a product of his own unique vision, with less emphasis on definitivity or hewing to the source material. As such, these movies tend to alienate both general audience members and general Batfans for straying as far as they do. They tend to only be embraced by those who are particularly enamored of that director's specific vision of Batman.
Now, it may be coincidence that this has happened twice, and may not happen again. But damn, if the early rumors are right, and the clown prince of crime is not clownish looking nor enamored of low comedy with a lethal twist, well, that suggests to me that Nolan is already thinking of departing further from established Batman lore.
Now, understand, there's nothing wrong with different people exploring different visions of Batman. It's just that the audience usually isn't that indulgent. Batman Returns not doing as good as Batman, Batman and Robin not doing as well as Batman Forever, and such. Also, the second film in the director's run on Batman tends to define his entire run. Batman Forever was not nearly as hokey or over the top as B&R, but they are remembered similarly. Batman Returns is more remembered for it's dark qualities, (many people I know describe it as gross, but I don't) and the first one is then remembered similarly. It also causes the director's vision to be ignored. Remember, there was a time when both Burton and Schumacker were hailed as the men who saved Batman, even if they are largley dismissed now.
And don't think it can't happen to Nolan, (witness the once coddled Bryan Singer now being savaged for Superman Returns.) I can just imagine what might happen with the next one: The "Joker" is not at all what people remember or were expecting. Therefore, People will feel let down. They were promised the Joker, and the promise wasn't properly fulfilled. This will leave a bad taste in their mouths. They will then start picking at other parts of the movie, perhaps calling it too dreary or full of itself, (if certain failins of BB continue, that is.) They will then notice some of these complaints also apply to BB, the movie will retroactively be rated negatively, Nolan's work will be dismissed and a new director will take over for the 7th one.
Again, I'm not saying this WILL happen, but, based on facts known and patterns to date, I think there's a good possibility it may happen.
Wait, did I just disparage Nolan and his vision of Batman? Let the flaming begin!
