The Dark Knight Rises Life after Nolan: What comes next...

Status
Not open for further replies.

DieSmiling

Can't Be Stopped
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
2,657
Reaction score
1
Points
33
So let's make a few assumptions here before I get to my point...

1) Christopher Nolan does three movies. Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and the third movie. Then he moves on -- he's done his take on Batman.

2) Christian Bale and the rest of the cast are done after three, have no desire to do another Batman without Nolan.

3) WB has every intention of making more Batman movies after the third Nolan film (duh)

To me, the direction of future Batman movies after these ones is clear in light of the success of 300 -- green screen CGI based movies that are direct adaptations of the most important and iconic Batman graphic novels.

Allow me to say, first of all, that I enjoy all five of the Batman live action movies (yes, even the crappy B&R). I love the original Batman, but I'm not a wild BM '89 fanboy who hates on everything that isn't Keaton... I'm a defender of Schumaker (I still like Forever) but I recognize the obvious cheese and flaws of his movies... And obviously I love Nolan as a director, love BB and am incredibly excited for TDK...

But I think there's something missing with all three directors.

With Burton's take, the movie is too Burton. It's dark and gothic to the extent of being weird. Every character has that sunken black look, it's overdone (this is especially true in Returns, obviously).

With Schumaker he tried to go for a more lavish and exciting Batman, and clearly went way too far and we got neon lights, horrific puns, bat-nipples, cringe inducing one-liners, and giant naked statues.

With Nolan, there is an emphasis on realism as well as the best storytelling and acting ever in a superhero movie, but it doesn't have that sensational superhero mystique and action that other movies seem to have captured...

To me the solution for the next era of the franchise is clear -- forget a given director's "vision" or "take." Go back to the source material. Look at the recent success of Sin City or 300, and imagine what "Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns" could look like... And there is so much great material to work with...

Plus it has its benefits... You don't need to keep together the same cast, every graphic novel has its own significance and take in and of itself...

Frank Miller's Batman: Year One
The Man Who Laughs
The Long Halloween
Dark Victory
The Killing Joke
No Man's Land
Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns

And that just scratches the surface.
 
All very great points... we just need to accept that every movie or set of movies have their flaws... you can't satisfy everyone... Nolan is what he is... sort of like Singer with the Xmen movies... the action and the superhero mystique will always be lacking... but it is what it is... its still an accurate depiction and I like it better than Burton's ultra dark tone... we aren't going to see that Gothic edge to Gotham... we aren't going to see Batman do these amazing stunts... etc etc... it is what it is.

All the more reason WB WILL go in another direction... I think it will be a crossover first moving into a JLS... I think WB will try to get Bale and Routhe and SPacey to reprise their roles for a World's finest flick if the budget is within reason... if they can't make it happen... they should sit on both franchises a while and maybe make sequels with a new cast and director to do some other stories about the less realistic villains to capture that superhero edge. And as you mentioned, there is no shortage in the source material
 
Honestly, I'll take anything over "green screen" movies like Sin City or 300. Both fine movies for what they are, but I found them to be pretty hollow and artificial. Such a "comic book come to life" is a fine idea but both came off very mechanical to me. A fun ride and a great experiment in film, but ultimately I'm looking for something with more substance than style.
 
Honestly, I'll take anything over "green screen" movies like Sin City or 300. Both fine movies for what they are, but I found them to be pretty hollow and artificial. Such a "comic book come to life" is a fine idea but both came off very mechanical to me. A fun ride and a great experiment in film, but ultimately I'm looking for something with more substance than style.
Of course, that my just be due to the fact both Sin City and 300 are about style rather than substance.
 
Of course, that my just be due to the fact both Sin City and 300 are about style rather than substance.

Exactly. They wouldn't have to hollow if you were telling a good story.
 
Of course, that my just be due to the fact both Sin City and 300 are about style rather than substance.

I did consider this, so I suppose I'll have to reserve my judgment until I see a movie done in that style that feels like more to me than a human cartoon.
 
I think possibly after Bale and Nolan finish their Batman films, WB will do the JLA movie, then I see Batman coming back with a new cast and director. We may then see more elaborate or not as " realistic" villians.
I'd love to see villians like Mr. Freeze, Man-Bat, Killer Croc, and Clayface on the screen.
 
I actually had the idea of continuing the stories in a tv series. Keep the tone and style of Nolan's films, and do a weekly 1-hour tv series. It would have a new cast, but it would keep in continuity with the movies, taking place right after the third film

Think about it. Think how many great characters and storylines will never see the light of day if they stick to movies, because they just aren't big enough. You can only fit in so many characters when you have one 2.5 hr movie every 3 years. An hour a week though gives you so much time to explore all kinds of things. Joker would be a recurring villain, so you could really get into the depth of their relationship.

It would basically be a live-action, more adult-oriented B:TAS. Best show ever, in my opinion. And give it to NBC, they could handle it. Look at Heroes, afterall.
 
If Nolan, Bale, and everyone else leaves after 3... I think it'll be a LONG time before we see another Batman movie... maybe more than 10 years.

Look at Spider-Man... Raimi and Maguire are done after 3, so is there really much hope for that franchise in the NEAR future?? I don't think so.

We won't see a Bat-film after 3 until we're all in our 40's and 50's, I reckon.
 
I did consider this, so I suppose I'll have to reserve my judgment until I see a movie done in that style that feels like more to me than a human cartoon.
Another thing to consider is there was A LOT of CGI in Sin City and 300, making it seem even more unreal. If they shot a direct adaptation of a Batman film that actually used sets and real places, it would probably remove a lot of the cartoony feel.
 
If Nolan, Bale, and everyone else leaves after 3... I think it'll be a LONG time before we see another Batman movie... maybe more than 10 years.

Look at Spider-Man... Raimi and Maguire are done after 3, so is there really much hope for that franchise in the NEAR future?? I don't think so.

We won't see a Bat-film after 3 until we're all in our 40's and 50's, I reckon.
Dude, the head of Sony has said they're making 6 Spider-Man films.

It's a simple fact, movie studios will continue making movies as long as they're successful. If Nolan's third movie does well, I can guarantee you WB will be looking to make another Batman movie - Nolan directed or not.
 
If Nolan, Bale, and everyone else leaves after 3... I think it'll be a LONG time before we see another Batman movie... maybe more than 10 years.

Look at Spider-Man... Raimi and Maguire are done after 3, so is there really much hope for that franchise in the NEAR future?? I don't think so.

We won't see a Bat-film after 3 until we're all in our 40's and 50's, I reckon.

Wrong. The determining factor in how quickly they're brought back is how much money they make. If there's money to be made, you'll see the movies.
 
No, I don't want a Batman movie a la '300.' I want a real movie, something that both Tim Burton and Christopher Nolan pulled off perfectly! After Nolan I want another great filmmaker to deliver his take on the myth.
 
when Batman Forever came out in 1995 (or was it 1996?) were any of us thinking of Chris Nolan and David Goyer being the big guns in reviving Batman? Or Bale being the ultimate incarnation of Bruce/Batman? Hell, even Raimi and Tobey came out of nowhere. Whatever happens when Nolan/Bale decide to part ways with the character, we may end up with a filmmaker/actor combo that today aren't even in the industry.
 
I actually had the idea of continuing the stories in a tv series. Keep the tone and style of Nolan's films, and do a weekly 1-hour tv series. It would have a new cast, but it would keep in continuity with the movies, taking place right after the third film

Think about it. Think how many great characters and storylines will never see the light of day if they stick to movies, because they just aren't big enough. You can only fit in so many characters when you have one 2.5 hr movie every 3 years. An hour a week though gives you so much time to explore all kinds of things. Joker would be a recurring villain, so you could really get into the depth of their relationship.

It would basically be a live-action, more adult-oriented B:TAS. Best show ever, in my opinion. And give it to NBC, they could handle it. Look at Heroes, afterall.
I would love to see that!
 
As long as Batman movies make money, there will be more Batman films.
 
After Nolan: Bring Sam Raimi on board!
 
Honestly, I'll take anything over "green screen" movies like Sin City or 300. Both fine movies for what they are, but I found them to be pretty hollow and artificial. Such a "comic book come to life" is a fine idea but both came off very mechanical to me. A fun ride and a great experiment in film, but ultimately I'm looking for something with more substance than style.

Couldn't have said it any better.
 
While I'm not the biggest fan of the Spiderman films (although 3 does look a lot better than the other two) I think Sam Raimi doing Batman would be awesome. I wonder what Batman Forever would have been like if he had of directed it?
 
I actually had the idea of continuing the stories in a tv series. Keep the tone and style of Nolan's films, and do a weekly 1-hour tv series. It would have a new cast, but it would keep in continuity with the movies, taking place right after the third film

Think about it. Think how many great characters and storylines will never see the light of day if they stick to movies, because they just aren't big enough. You can only fit in so many characters when you have one 2.5 hr movie every 3 years. An hour a week though gives you so much time to explore all kinds of things. Joker would be a recurring villain, so you could really get into the depth of their relationship.

It would basically be a live-action, more adult-oriented B:TAS. Best show ever, in my opinion. And give it to NBC, they could handle it. Look at Heroes, afterall.

I agree with that idea, I think a live action TAS style Batman would be amazing.

I hope WB doesn't make the same mistakes they did with Forever and Batman & Robin.
 
A 3 year hiatus for Batman after Nolan would be good then continue with the Batman movies again. I think Sam Raimi deserves a long break too but if he wants to direct Batman then why not? Being able to direct Spidey and Bats that is cool in one'e resume. If WB can redeem Batman from its mess then how about making a Robin franchise. Its time to dust off the insults and gay jokes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"