The Dark Knight Rises How long before the fan community turns on the Nolan films?

[BatBat]

To give my opinion on the poll. I gave up on Nolan's trilogy after The Dark Knight. The final film just sealed the deal for me.

 

[BatLobster]

The thing is, part of the realism included establishing a psychological credibility. And that included Bruce seeing his endeavor as Batman being a finite one with a specific goal: cleaning up organized crime and shaking Gotham out of apathy.

He was never a guy who just planned to punch criminals in the face forever and ever. And if that makes him less like the comic book character, so be it. It fit in perfectly with the realistic tone the films were going for and made for a good story, because Bruce actually had a specific goal that he was trying to accomplish with it all.

 

[ThreadPool]

Like someone said before, I think it's all up to preference. There are plenty of movies that I don't like but can admit are technically sound. They're well made films period. It's about whether or not you specifically like this interpretation. With the mostly solid acting (and some truly outstanding performances by some main characters), cinematography, practical effects it's going to age well. Very well. All this talk about the way Batman is really, "supposed to be" can get tiresome. There so many ways to approach the character. Next one might not be what I want, but it also could be great at the same time. I'm looking forward to another vision, and I'll always treasure these movies.

 

[BatLobster]

Like someone said before, I think it's all up to preference. There are plenty of movies that I don't like but can admit are technically sound. They're well made films period. It's about whether or not you specifically like this interpretation. With the mostly solid acting (and some truly outstanding performances by some main characters), cinematography, practical effects it's going to age well. Very well. All this talk about the way Batman is really, "supposed to be" can get tiresome. There so many ways to approach the character. Next one might not be what I want, but it also could be great at the same time. I'm looking forward to another vision, and I'll always treasure these movies.

A-frickin'-men.

 

[shauner111]

The thing is, part of the realism included establishing a psychological credibility. And that included Bruce seeing his endeavor as Batman being a finite one with a specific goal: cleaning up organized crime and shaking Gotham out of apathy.

He was never a guy who just planned to punch criminals in the face forever and ever. And if that makes him less like the comic book character, so be it. It fit in perfectly with the realistic tone the films were going for and made for a good story, because Bruce actually had a specific goal that he was trying to accomplish with it all.

I think it's fair to say that Nolans version of Batman wasn't about random criminals. It was about organized crime and the big threats. This is why i now believe that Blake may never have to create a suit or go out as a Batman or Nightwing. Because Bruce accomplished his goal for the time being and Blake is there incase. Gotham was REALLY bad and corrupt and filled with organized crime. Unless a new mafia starts up or another big time nutjob like the Joker or the League happens.....i dont think he is needed.

I think the idea is for the city to become a regular American city minus mob activity. Kind of like it was during the 8 year gap, but minus the lies/secrets in the system. You'll still have ur little robbery incidents, ur fights, ur domestic violence situations which unfortunately happen. People are sick everywhere, so Arkham will still take in patients. But Blake doesn't need to do anything other than feed the cops information MAYBE. The cops can take care of these normal issues like every other place does.

This is what makes Nolans trilogy different and polarizing now. Because fans want a Batman who goes on forever and who is there for the sole purpose of punching a 20 year old pick-pocketer in the mouth. Burtons Batman was that kind of Batman. Nolans just wasn't. And people are single minded with what they want for their favourite character.

 

[Victarion]

Anyone dissatisfied with the TDK trilogy could look at it in a positive light: they can not only get a Batman franchise that feels more like the comics--more outlandish villains like Freeze and Clayface--but that maintains a serious tone and features a Batman who can go on forever.

 

[shauner111]

It's a long wait til the reboot, but it's coming. And those fans that you mention Mr. Wooden...they'll be rewarded im sure. They still have the comics, animated series, etc in the meantime.

 

[jaqua99]

I disagree with you. I'm not saying how batman should be, but a comic book character, in a comic book movie, doesn't need to be grounded in realism. That's what I disliked most about the nolan trilogy.

I didn't see them as comic book movies whatsoever, I saw them as action/crime dramas that just happened to star batman and some characters associated with them. The only one I really liked was Batman begins (i am a sucker for origin stories) I've seen the dark knight 3 times, I couldnt sit through it the 3rd, and TDKR was good.

 

[BatLobster]

I think Nolan's philosophy was that by grounding something, you elevate it at the same time.

The example I always point to is the Ninja Turtles movies. The first one was gritty and reality based. It took a very out there concept and played it against a real world. This heightened the excitement of seeing the Turtles IMO. The cartoon was HUGE at the time, yet the movie felt much more grounded than the cartoon. And that movie is much more highly regarded by most fans than the second film, which went for a more cartoony approach. I mean, if you think about it, that was a really ballsy way to approach it. It's to this day one of my favorite comic book films.

So I'll always be very grateful that someone did a more sober, grounded take on my favorite comic book character. It was very cathartic to see Batman operating in a world that didn't seem too far removed from our own.

 

[The Joker]

The example I always point to is the Ninja Turtles movies. The first one was gritty and reality based.

.....it's got four talking ninja trained giant turtles and a giant talking rat lol. I know the concept of a man in a Bat costume fighting crime is unbelievable, too. But compared to TMNT, it's nothing.

Didn't the sequels have time travel and more mutant creatures that Shredder created?

 

[TheBat812]

I think Nolan's philosophy was that by grounding something, you elevate it at the same time.

The example I always point to is the Ninja Turtles movies. The first one was gritty and reality based. It took a very out there concept and played it against a real world. This heightened the excitement of seeing the Turtles IMO. The cartoon was HUGE at the time, yet the movie felt much more grounded than the cartoon. And that movie is much more highly regarded by most fans than the second film, which went for a more cartoony approach. I mean, if you think about it, that was a really ballsy way to approach it. It's to this day one of my favorite comic book films.

I fullheartedly agree. So I'll always be very grateful that someone did a more sober, grounded take on my favorite comic book character. It was very cathartic to see Batman operating in a world that didn't seem too far removed from our own.

Not to mention it took classic batman stories and themes and interwove them ingeniously which actually gave them more weight than they ever had in comic form (imo). I think it being a contained trilogy with bruce actually having a definitive goal with an end was something that brought it to life from the pages of the comics better than anything i could have imagined. Instead of it feeling like a bond episode with no real grand arc, it really tied together, while each film felt incredibly unique in its execution. Now, I'm looking forward to the serialized approach they will probably go with now, but to get a real trilogy (which IMO is the best trilogy ever for cinematic reasons) that can't be ruined by other incarnations is amazing to me. Here's hoping what they do next can appease all those who wanted something more 'fantastical' but still have it be good and intelligent filmmaking, not just another comic book movie.

 

[shauner111]

I disagree with you. I'm not saying how batman should be, but a comic book character, in a comic book movie, doesn't need to be grounded in realism. That's what I disliked most about the nolan trilogy.

I didn't see them as comic book movies whatsoever, I saw them as action/crime dramas that just happened to star batman and some characters associated with them. The only one I really liked was Batman begins (i am a sucker for origin stories) I've seen the dark knight 3 times, I couldnt sit through it the 3rd, and TDKR was good.

It doesnt need to be but it was. There are many elements in batman that could be done in a more realistic fashion compared to other superheroes because he's a human being without superpowers, and so are most of his rogues. Ive always felt as a fan that there were more real elements about Batmans universe than the fantasy elements. But make no mistake..Nolans movies were far from realistic. There's plenty of fantasy. it's just more mature, more serious, and a little more real world when you put it up against the other CBM's.

You didnt see them as comic book movies but as crime dramas? No problem. They were made to be that way, cuz it was Nolans version. You have the option of disliking it. But for me, i dont enjoy comic book movies much in general. But i love crime dramas. And my favourite Batman stories were like crime dramas anyway. Batman taking on the mob, taking on the Joker, the League of assassins, Catwoman, etc. The monster stories never did it for me.

Opinions differ.

Nolans movies focused on Bruce Wayne and his humanity before anything else. So they placed it in a more relatable world and city. Burtons and Shumachers focused more on Batman, going on forever, mission after mission. Nolans was Batman as an out-of-the-ordinary character in a ordinary world. Burton/Shumacher treated Bats as something that fit in perfectly with its universe.

 

[DACrowe]

I disagree with you. I'm not saying how batman should be, but a comic book character, in a comic book movie, doesn't need to be grounded in realism. That's what I disliked most about the nolan trilogy.

I didn't see them as comic book movies whatsoever, I saw them as action/crime dramas that just happened to star batman and some characters associated with them. The only one I really liked was Batman begins (i am a sucker for origin stories) I've seen the dark knight 3 times, I couldnt sit through it the 3rd, and TDKR was good.

That's the thing for some of us. Nolan made great films instead of disposable popcorn entertainment like the Marvel movies. Some find that off-putting. I, like others, do not.

 

[BatLobster]

.....it's got four talking ninja trained giant turtles and a giant talking rat lol. I know the concept of a man in a Bat costume fighting crime is unbelievable, too. But compared to TMNT, it's nothing.

Didn't the sequels have time travel and more mutant creatures that Shredder created?

Wait, I'm not sure where you're coming from on this one Joker. I know that Batman is an inherently more realistic character than the TMNT, that's part of my point. Even for something as blatantly outrageous as the Ninjas Turtles, you can still play it as happening in the real world. The sequels got more outlandish and as a result they don't have nearly the same kind of dramatic weight as the first one. Most fans love the first film, while opinions tend to be much less favorable towards the second and especially third films.

I'm just trying to state my case on why it's totally justifiable to do Batman with a more realistic tone, when it's been done for even more outrageous comic book characters, and to good effect. Why not go that route with the superhero that's just a wealthy guy who does a lot of pushups?

 

[The Joker]

Wait, I'm not sure where you're coming from on this one Joker. I know that Batman is an inherently more realistic character, that's part of my point. Even for something as blatantly outrageous as the Ninjas Turtles, you can still play it as happening in the real world. The sequels got more outlandish and as a result they don't have nearly the same kind of dramatic weight as the first one. Most fans love the first film, while opinions tend to be much less favorable towards the second and especially third films.

I'm just trying to state my case on why it's totally justifiable to do Batman with a more realistic tone, when it's been done for even more outrageous comic book characters, and to good effect.

Ok, I think I see what you mean. You're saying that the Turtles, while totally outrageous characters, were placed in a world with no Technodrome, or Dimension X etc. It was normal New York, and their enemy was just an evil ninja in a metal helmet.

Am I right?

 

[TheBat812]

Wait, I'm not sure where you're coming from on this one Joker. I know that Batman is an inherently more realistic character, that's part of my point. Even for something as blatantly outrageous as the Ninjas Turtles, you can still play it as happening in the real world. The sequels got more outlandish and as a result they don't have nearly the same kind of dramatic weight as the first one. Most fans love the first film, while opinions tend to be much less favorable towards the second and especially third films.

I'm just trying to state my case on why it's totally justifiable to do Batman with a more realistic tone, when it's been done for even more outrageous comic book characters, and to good effect.

STM is the best example in terms of comics, and we know that had direct influence on the direction of BB. The idea that a man could fly and miraculously turn the world to reverse time just worked storywise, no matter how nonsensical it is. This kind of break in reality has been an important part of storytelling since the dawn of man, and it still works well, despite some people being so married to realism that that's too much to handle. That's why the TMNT movie plays straight for people despite it obviously being a bunch of dudes in costumes. I'd say that this is why when an effect has practical elements to it it always works better than pure CGI, and I thank Nolan for holding that viewpoint when so few do these days.

 

[BatLobster]

Ok, I think I see what you mean. You're saying that the Turtles, while totally outrageous characters, were placed in a world with no Technodrome, or Dimension X etc. It was normal New York, and their enemy was just an evil ninja in a metal helmet.

Am I right?

Bingo

STM is the best example in terms of comics, and we know that had direct influence on the direction of BB. The idea that a man could fly and miraculously turn the world to reverse time just worked storywise, no matter how nonsensical it is. This kind of break in reality has been an important part of storytelling since the dawn of man, and it still works well, despite some people being so married to realism that that's too much to handle. That's why the TMNT movie plays straight for people despite it obviously being a bunch of dudes in costumes. I'd say that this is why when an effect has practical elements to it it always works better than pure CGI, and I thank Nolan for holding that viewpoint when so few do these days.

Exactly...and it's really a testament to the amazing animatronic work in that movie that you could truly emotionally invest in Turtles as much as you could the humans.

 

[The Shape]

The "turning on Nolan" thing has happened already. Now, anyone who is still a whole-hearted fan is considered to be an apologist, helplessly defending his/her beloved Nolan. I just love the guy and his work. His take on Batman will always be there us to watch/enjoy/analyze/criticize.

But the best thing about Batman is that this was ONE TAKE on the character. Now, we have the pleasure of anticipating the NEXT TAKE, which you can bet will be wildly different from Nolan's trilogy. As fans, we ALWAYS WIN. We already have 4 different eras of Batman on film and this **** is going to go on forever. I love it.

 

[BatLobster]

The "turning on Nolan" thing has happened already. Now, anyone who is still a whole-hearted fan is considered to be an apologist, helplessly defending his/her beloved Nolan. I just love the guy and his work. His take on Batman will always be there us to watch/enjoy/analyze/criticize.

But the best thing about Batman is that this was ONE TAKE on the character. Now, we have the pleasure of anticipating the NEXT TAKE, which you can bet will be wildly different from Nolan's trilogy. As fans, we ALWAYS WIN. We already have 4 different eras of Batman on film and this **** is going to go on forever. I love it.

Beautifully said man.

 

[georgec]

+1 to shauner, theShape, BatLobster, and others saying similar things.

 

[CoolCadaver49]

That's the thing for some of us. Nolan made great films instead of disposable popcorn entertainment like the Marvel movies. Some find that off-putting. I, like others, do not.

Hey now, everyone prefers different movies, and I honestly don't consider Nolan's bat-films (other than TDK) of a higher caliber than Iron-man or The Avengers . Personally, I would call The Dark Knight a great film, I would call Batman Begins a good film, and I'd call The Dark Knight Rises a... film.

Anyway, all I'm saying is, you sound like a *****e because of the way you present your opinion of the films as established fact. Some find that off-putting. I, like others, do too.

The "turning on Nolan" thing has happened already. Now, anyone who is still a whole-hearted fan is considered to be an apologist, helplessly defending his/her beloved Nolan. I just love the guy and his work. His take on Batman will always be there us to watch/enjoy/analyze/criticize.

I've noticed this attitude, and I agree that it is a shame. Even if I don't necessarily agree with fans that love the whole trilogy, I can't understand why they should be prosecuted for their personal tastes. Plus, Nolan deserves respect for what he gave us: the most cohesive superhero trilogy put to film (so far!).

But the best thing about Batman is that this was ONE TAKE on the character. Now, we have the pleasure of anticipating the NEXT TAKE, which you can bet will be wildly different from Nolan's trilogy. As fans, we ALWAYS WIN. We already have 4 different eras of Batman on film and this **** is going to go on forever. I love it.

Ah, but is there really any guarantee of that? I think a lot of fans want to see a shift into the more fantastical parts of the Bat-Mythos (so do I). But will the studio be so eager to move away from the gritty "realism" that (apparently*) made this series so successful?

*: I say apparently, because while the tone was a vital part, it certainly wasn't responsible for every successful element of the films.

 

[JackWhite]

One thing I'm nearly positive on, is that the reboot will not have nearly as much weight and emotional depth as Nolan's Bat-trilogy. That will be what I think Nolan will have over whatever comes next for sure.

I remember watching BB for the first time, during Bruce's conversation with Alfred about Wayne Manor being a mausoleum and wanting to pull it down brick for brick, I thought to myself "wow, I really give a damn about what happens to this guy."

 

[Figs]

One thing I'm nearly positive on, is that the reboot will not have nearly as much weight and emotional depth as Nolan's Bat-trilogy. That will be what I think Nolan will have over whatever comes next for sure.

I feel the same way. Maybe WB will prove us wrong in the future but I have a feeling the route they're going to take Batman is back to the typical comic book movie style. By that I mean, it's going to be more by the numbers, villian is born/created, Batman goes to stop him...done. As you said, I don't think it's going to have nearly as much emotional depth to it. I think they'll still be done in a serious manner without the cheese of Schumacher's films but I think they're going to be kind of empty films.

I'm not saying Nolan is the only person who can make a deep or deeper type of comic film, I just don't think they're(WB)going to literally copy/rip off his style. That and Nolan did really well with Bruce Wayne's journey in BB more than any other comic film. Good luck to anyone trying to redo that in the future.

I'm not at all saying it's impossible for WB to get a creative team to make the next version of Batman as deep and meaningful as Nolan's, but they have their work cut out for them. I just don't want them getting lazy about it.

 

[RustyCage]

The "turning on Nolan" thing has happened already. Now, anyone who is still a whole-hearted fan is considered to be an apologist, helplessly defending his/her beloved Nolan. I just love the guy and his work. His take on Batman will always be there us to watch/enjoy/analyze/criticize.

Yep, I've been seeing this grow monstrously since TDK (believe it or not). Even after BB, there were a couple of toxic seeds being planted.

There's always gonna be some hipster bandwagon out there that wants to be above what's popular, or defend what's unpopular, just for the sake of feeling unique or superior. Just let it roll off your back. Make a point of defense if no one else is, then go back to enjoying things.

In the end, they're not what's important.

But the best thing about Batman is that this was ONE TAKE on the character. Now, we have the pleasure of anticipating the NEXT TAKE, which you can bet will be wildly different from Nolan's trilogy. As fans, we ALWAYS WIN. We already have 4 different eras of Batman on film and this **** is going to go on forever. I love it.

 

[BatLobster]

I feel the same way. Maybe WB will prove us wrong in the future but I have a feeling the route they're going to take Batman is back to the typical comic book movie style. By that I mean, it's going to be more by the numbers, villian is born/created, Batman goes to stop him...done. As you said, I don't think it's going to have nearly as much emotional depth to it. I think they'll still be done in a serious manner without the cheese of Schumacher's films but I think they're going to be kind of empty films.

I'm not saying Nolan is the only person who can make a deep or deeper type of comic film, I just don't think they're(WB)going to literally copy/rip off his style. That and Nolan did really well with Bruce Wayne's journey in BB more than any other comic film. Good luck to anyone trying to redo that in the future.

I'm not at all saying it's impossible for WB to get a creative team to make the next version of Batman as deep and meaningful as Nolan's, but they have their work cut out for them. I just don't want them getting lazy about it.

Yeah, bottom line is they're in a position where they probably don't want to just repeat what Nolan did, yet Nolan did so much was that was good. And beyond the "realism", the three movies just covered a rich spread of thematic and emotional territory. It touched on a lot of universal themes and followed a classic hero's arc.

In order for the next film to separate itself, it might have to be intentionally less weighty. That doesn't mean it can't be good or even great, but if they go with the serialized approach where it's a loose continuity of endless stories, by its very nature it would be less emotionally involving. Again, doesn't mean it can't lead to some incredibly enjoyable movies.

One thing I will definitely miss about the Nolan movies is the "homemade" feel they have, despite being massive. It's not too often you find a creative team where the director, writer and production designer are sitting around in a garage swapping ideas and the director is actually building models of the Batmobile himself. It's that super singular vision and hands-on approach that I think will be very tough to replace. For better or worse, those movies are really his babies. Right now it feels like the next franchise will be the studio's baby once again.