Because, as I said before, for me it's not about what else there is to cover that hasn't been covered. I feel that the particular story presented to us is nearing its climax...like a graphic novel would, instead of just becoming the main ongoing periodical comics. I like it as that kind of condensed, self-contained package...and if it doesn't include certain aspects, there's still plenty of other places to get that. I think that approach makes better use of the feature film format and it's how these pieces are done, rather than stretching out the films to accommodate more characters or try to cover all there is.
But what you re saying could be done. I assume you ve read some comics so look at "Heart of Hush" for example. A series of 4-5 issues with one arc which is contained in the wider continuity. The same with B:RIP, No man's land, Death in the family, Long Halloween, etc. So in the same way, Nolan's 3 movies could be one package about Batman's beginning, how he started, how he affected the city and so on. Then another director could do 1, maybe two or 3 movies about a different issue. Let's say about Bruce descending deeper into his obsession. Whatever.
And in any case, i dont care if Nolan's movies are self contained, or if another director destroys his work. For all i know, he could do it himself in B3.
If they want to approach the films as an ongoing continuity over 4+ movies and such, then they should start it over in that way and have the installments be more like TV/Miniseries episodes...where one could be a day-in-the-life, or have bigger plots over longer timelines that we see in pieces with each installment, etc.
I dont see why we have to bring another director to do something different when there is so much more to be done. Why would i want to see Snyder adapt TDKR page by ****ing page, why would i want a gore's gallore by Tarantino, a black and white movie with some coloured details and ****es by Miller, or a movie by Shyamalan that ends up with Batman being his parents killer all along?
I dont want other people doing elseworlds stories or tackling the same things with different direction methods. I want to see what happens to bruce.
But what i really, really, really dont get is why we have to wait quite a while until that happens. The public loves batman, and he is DC's only successful movie franchise right now. Why not give the people what they want? Why wait? If people get bored of it, then the ticket sales will drop and they will take longer to make the next one, in order to think it through more. What the hell is your problem if we get the next movie in 3 years? Why waiting equals a better movie? Have you seen S:Returns?
And the reason i dont want a TV series is that they have a certain modus operandi. They would shoot in 5-6 different sets with people walking in to spit out their dialogue, then progress to the next set to spit out some more. The limited budget will also affect the action scenes which will be mediocre and the need for 20 episodes each season will make them stretch the plots too far and destroy any ties to continuity, logic or good taste. Look at Smallville and what a travesty it is.
In any case, i really dont get your position. What is your problem if we get a good movie every 3 years? As i said, longer intervals dont mean better movies. And if you feel you will get bored of Batman, just stay away, i wont.
I think that would be cool, its just that Nolan is a type of director who wouldn't do a HP like franchise. And if he goes, then Bale, Oldman and Caine go with him, leaving us with another Shumacher
Nolan has already done a few bat movies and i am pretty sure that after a potential third he will walk away for fear of becoming stale or getting stereotyped as the batman director.
But he could be instructed to leave the door open for someone to take over after him instead of giving B3 a finite ending.
t:
