The Dark Knight Rises Nolan not coming back?

[Eric Brooks]

yea, not a fan of villains getting killed off at the end of films

it happens 95% of the time and I hate it every.....single......time

 

[itsthebatman]

I agree. Nolan underplayed Two Face in order for him to evolve naturally from TDK's narrative, and to lead it to some sort of thematic conclusion. But there was a whole lot of the character still left to cover, and it was a great shame that Nolan decided to kill him- not that the decision is irreversible.

My view on is is that it's a shame Two-Face was killed off, but in the context of TDK and Harvey Dent's overall character arc, it was a fantastic ending, and even after watching it six or seven times, the ending (from Gordon arriving at the warehouse to the final shot of Bats flying up the underpass) still fills me with glee.

 

[BatMatt]

I think we'd all like to see more Two-Face, and while unquestionably he is dead after the end of TDK, in Batman 3 he could appear in flash backs, especially so we know exactly who "five dead, two of them cops" are.

 

[Darlton]

I wouldn't want any more of the Two-Face I saw on the screen. Let me elaborate: it's not that I didn't like the character. I loved him. But any other end would've been unfitting for him. The Two-Face in the film is not exactly the Two-Face from the comics. No character in the films is its exact counter-part. The Two-Face in the film was completely driven by revenge and corruption of his ideals... he wouldn't engage in things like robbing banks and such. That would've been out of character for him. And that's the most probable route for the character to stay: become a mob boss. But how could he, given his past of trying to bring down the mob, become the boss of any criminal in town? It would be unrealistic too.

It's the same with the Scarecrow. He had not one but TWO quick unimportant defeats, one in each film, and that happened because he was not a big villain. In Begins he was only a henchman, a secondary villain. The big climatic defeats were reserved for the main villain, Ra's al Ghul. Nolan doesn't think in terms of individual characters, but in the scope of the whole story.

However, with Two-Face, I think he may have made an exception... Would it really serve the character he was making to become a mob lord like his counter-part in the comics? No. I wouldn't want to see that. I don't know exactly what other people mean when they say Nolan cut off the character's potential, but I think that specific (and great) version of Harvey Dent ran its entire course.

 

[bgates87]

Posted this over in the release date thread of the non-spoilers section but that place is pretty dead so I thought I'd post it here too since it's still relevant.

The filming schedule and budget (holy crap!) for Inception was released today [source], they're supposed to finish filming in December. If WB is holding off on serious sequel talks because Nolan doesn't want to be distracted from his current project then we probably won't get any real news until sometime early next year.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I wouldn't want any more of the Two-Face I saw on the screen. Let me elaborate: it's not that I didn't like the character. I loved him. But any other end would've been unfitting for him. The Two-Face in the film is not exactly the Two-Face from the comics. No character in the films is its exact counter-part. The Two-Face in the film was completely driven by revenge and corruption of his ideals... he wouldn't engage in things like robbing banks and such. That would've been out of character for him. And that's the most probable route for the character to stay: become a mob boss. But how could he, given his past of trying to bring down the mob, become the boss of any criminal in town? It would be unrealistic too.

I agree that the Two-Face we saw was purely driven by revenge, and this is where I find the problem with him. The character of Two-Face can be so much more than that. In the movie, we only saw a Two-Face driven by revenge and obsessed with chance. However, there are multiple things I would have loved to see Nolan explore about him.

1.) The fact that Two-Face is a fully formed and separate personality from Harvey Dent. One that actually battles with Harvey, a personality slowly created from years of abuse (from his father), and pressure from other outlets of his work, and finally released by the climatic moment of scarring.
2.) His obsession with the duality of everything and everyone. And I'm not talking the hokey motif, "I'm going to rob Gotham 2nd National Bank on 2pm of the 2nd month on the 2nd" kind of thing. I'm talking about how he is obsessed with the light and dark of everything, how everyone has those two sides.
3.) Exploring the theme that Harvey is one of humanity's greatest fears: the worst part of yourself gaining control of your body. Not only that but he is the living example of a battle that goes on inside every person throughout our lives, the battle between the best and worst part of ourselves. Also, he is an even more poignant parallel to Batman, illustrating the worst possible outcome of letting your own duality destroy you.

I haven't even talked about the mob boss thing, I just would have liked to see them explore the themes I mentioned above. I actually prefer it when Two-Face is a one-man wrecking ball, manipulating and tearing apart both sides, like he did in the end of TLH. We saw a bit of this in TDK, but we didn't see his manipulative side, working to tear apart both the mob and his former friends with his deranged mind, and not just with violence.

However, I think you could explore the mob angle as well. I'm going to put in spoiler tags so my post isn't five years long.

Spoiler

You said yourself that Harvey was driven by a corruption of his ideals, and now that his ideals have turned on him, it would make sense if he set out to control the thing that destroyed him.

However, I would have had him control the mob for one purpose only: to use it as a tool to tear everything in Gotham apart. I would have him gain control of the mob, and then force the mob into open warfare with the Gotham PD, one even more intense that what had been previously been happening, forcing Gotham into a state of open warfare. A situation that he knows no one can win, and that it will only destroy the city.

At the same time, I would have him gain control of specific mebers of the GPD and justice system, through bribery and threats, and force through extreme legislation and measures that escalate what the police can do (shoot on sight orders for anyone associated with the mob, that kind of super-extreme thing).

Basically, he would set both sides on eachother to tear themselves apart, reflecting how both of those orgainzations led to the destruction of himself. Not only that, it would appeal to him that he was using the dual sides of gotham to destroy eachother: the mob and the justice system, the light and the dark.

 

[Darlton]

1.) The fact that Two-Face is a fully formed and separate personality from Harvey Dent. One that actually battles with Harvey, a personality slowly created from years of abuse (from his father), and pressure from other outlets of his work, and finally released by the climatic moment of scarring.
2.) His obsession with the duality of everything and everyone. And I'm not talking the hokey motif, "I'm going to rob Gotham 2nd National Bank on 2pm of the 2nd month on the 2nd" kind of thing. I'm talking about how he is obsessed with the light and dark of everything, how everyone has those two sides.
3.) Exploring the theme that Harvey is one of humanity's greatest fears: the worst part of yourself gaining control of your body. Not only that but he is the living example of a battle that goes on inside every person throughout our lives, the battle between the best and worst part of ourselves. Also, he is an even more poignant parallel to Batman, illustrating the worst possible outcome of letting your own duality destroy you.

1) I have always loathed (and will continue to loath) dual personality characterizations. Even in its best moments, I found it cartoonish at best. A man can have innner conflict, but I cannot take seriously anyone that externalizes that conflict by acting like two different people aguing to each other.
2) That could have been interesting. But Nolan would probably have no choice but to make it in detriment of the route he used... a Two-Face enraged and completely disenchanted with the world.
3) The problem with Two-Face is that he doesn't really lives two lives. He is the enbodiment of two opposites, not an alternation of them. Bruce has to live two lives, and cannot reunite them. Dent has. Bruce can take off the mask, or put it on. Dent cannot take off his scars. He's not so much a symbol of duality as a symbol of a contradiction that's exposed to the world. And as such he was represented in the movie. I'm satisfied with that.

I'll comment on the rest of your post later, I'm heading for a place right now. Great points, by the way. See ya.

 

[Cunning Stunts]

1) I have always loathed (and will continue to loath) dual personality characterizations. Even in its best moments, I found it cartoonish at best. A man can have innner conflict, but I cannot take seriously anyone that externalizes that conflict by acting like two different people aguing to each other.

My mother is a psychologist, and said she's seen and dealt with patients who kind of "argue" with themselves. Not to the point where it's like, "Should I eat this?" "No, eat that!" "No, I want this!" kind of thing, but where one side takes control and has malicious intent, while the other is usually afraid of it, if not unaware of it altogether.

 

[Alex Logan]

Posted this over in the release date thread of the non-spoilers section but that place is pretty dead so I thought I'd post it here too since it's still relevant.

The filming schedule and budget (holy crap!) for Inception was released today [source], they're supposed to finish filming in December. If WB is holding off on serious sequel talks because Nolan doesn't want to be distracted from his current project then we probably won't get any real news until sometime early next year.

Nice find!

 

[DarkKnight245]

Nolan is putting all his energy into Inception. He's a one movie at a time director.

 

[Reek]

im sure the healthy paycheck and recognition hes gotten from TDK will change that a little. when it comes to batman, especially now that its one of the biggest movies of all time, im sure there have already been plenty of discussions between wb and nolan.

 

[Eric Brooks]

Nolan is putting all his energy into Inception. He's a one movie at a time director.

which is a damn good thing and why no one else is fit for the job

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Nolan and BATMAN 3: FAR From a Done Deal?
Author: Jett
June 16, 2009

When I got the chance to visit with David Goyer and Jonathan Nolan a year ago, one of the things I heard them tell us media folk was that they had to lobby and “convince” Chris Nolan to do THE DARK KNIGHT and they’d probably have to do the same thing for there to be a Nolan-helmed BATMAN 3.

Maybe the sale-job on Chris for a third BATMAN is going to be a really tough one this time.

Despite the fact that BOF has had some unofficial assurances that Chris would indeed return and direct a third BATMAN, industry scuttlebutt says – and has been saying – differently.

I’ve been told that while they desperately want another Chris Nolan BATMAN, Warner Bros. does have a shortlist of directors (Zack Snyder's reps told BOF that he wasn't interested) they’d consider and ultimately turn to if (and when) Nolan’s done with The Caped Crusader. And frankly, it certainly wouldn’t be prudent of them not to have such a list.

Several (and unrelated) industry friends of BOF have been telling me over the last year that it’s far from a given that Chris will do another one. And alarmingly, this one’s starting to pick up steam.

Case it point, a report I received from an old friend of the site overnight via email. This cat works in the business behind the camera and has proved to me long ago to be legit. With that said, this again is what I term “Industry Scuttlebutt,” so keep that in mind. Also, if any of my friends at Warner Bros. or reps of Mr. Nolan want to refute the following, you’ve got an open forum here. Anyway, according to our source…

* The death of Heath Ledger in January of 2008 rocked Mr. Nolan hard. So hard that Chris was convinced that TDK was going to be it for him and Batman on film.

* The Joker was going to return in BATMAN 3.

* “You are correct in reporting that he is developing story ideas with [Jonathan Nolan] and David Goyer, but it will be until AT LEAST 2012 before we see the Caped Crusader back [in theaters]. And that is only an EARLY ESTIMATE at best right now. They are even saying it might not be until 2013.”

* Basically, the BATMAN film franchise is back to square one. As far as a story or a BATMAN 3, “Right now, there is none,” says our guy.

Now, there was some other stuff that was off the record (mainly to protect our guy's identity), but really, it doesn’t affect the jest of this story. The bottom line here is that we may be a ways away from a BATMAN 3 -- with or without Chris Nolan.

Look, I want Mr. Nolan to return as much as anyone else and have TONS of respect for him, Emma Thomas, Charles Roven, David Goyer, Jonathan Nolan, and the rest of the folks who’ve given us the BEST two BATMAN films ever. But if Chris is done, then he’s done and I’m sure as hell not going to begrudge the guy. Despite the fact that I am a “Batman Fan” first and foremost, I’ve also grown to be a big Chris Nolan fan as well. BUT…

As a Batman fan, I certainly hope that Warner Bros. has a contingent plan in place – and one much better than the one they had back in the early 90s.

Despite the bummer vibe that permeates this report, let me remind you of the positives. One, Warner Bros. has not officially announced that Chris is done and the search is underway for a new Bat-director. Secondly, Nolan himself has admitted to “musing” with David Goyer about the storyline of a third film. And finally, the same industry scuttlebutt that produced today’s story also says that Chris’ deal with WB for INCEPTION included at least a handshake agreement for BATMAN 3.

Keep those fingers crossed Bat-Fans!

http://www.batman-on-film.com/BATMAN3_nolan-far-from-B3_6-16-09.html

 

[FlawlessVictory]

^My thoughts: WB, even with what TDK brought in for the studio, doesn't give Nolan $200 mil to do his movie(Inception) without knowing they will be getting another Nolan directed Batman film out of it.

He'll be back to direct. Bank on it.

 

[Crook]

Always had a feeling that Ledger's death threw a wrench in things, but Jett makes it seem like it started a chain of events that plain halted this franchise.

 

[simplysuperhero]

I didn't expect Nolan to count on the Joker for the sequel.

 

[Saint]

Always had a feeling that Ledger's death threw a wrench in things, but Jett makes it seem like it started a chain of events that plain halted this franchise.

Ugh, that would suck. Jett's article is a phantom nightmare; a doomsday prophecy of... well, doom. I don't want to think about it. Somebody call the Ghostbusters to make it go away.

 

[thedrizzle59]

first of all Nolan has stated countless times that he does not "think in terms of sequels, but single movies at a time." So the fact that the source told jett that the joker was supposed to appear in the third one is most likely full of crap!!!

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

If I was Nolan and I really wanted Joker to be in it, I'd put Joker in it. Okay, so Ledger's dead, but you can still recast. Sounds like he was really relying on Joker to return, so don't have Ledger's death ruin a story.

I'm sure you want to honor his role in The Dark Knight, but if you find an actors who can be as good as Ledger as the Joker, go for it. But only if you find an actor good enough.

 

[Figs]

The fact that it's from Jett doesn't have me too worried.

Yes, his insiders have been right about some things but frankly I'm not going to start getting bummed that Nolan might not return at this point.

 

[LostSon88]

The thing is...Nolan is a stickler for continuity. I mean he was VERY disappointed when Katie Holmes decided not to return.

But at the same time, I guess he could do it if he wanted to (i'd prefer he didn't but that's another discussion).

My best bet though...he'll be back.

I don't think he'd like the idea of some other guy coming in and possibly ruining his interpretation on Batman.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

first of all Nolan has stated countless times that he does not "think in terms of sequels, but single movies at a time." So the fact that the source told jett that the joker was supposed to appear in the third one is most likely full of crap!!!

GB: Watching "The Dark Knight," it’s very easy to imagine the Joker returning to Gotham, the way his fate remains unresolved. When you were writing the film, did you anticipate that the Joker would be back in the third film?

NOLAN: No, really and in truth, I only deal with one film at a time. I find myself sort of protesting this issue a lot. We’ve never attempted to save anything for a sequel or set up anything for a sequel. That seems improbable to some people because, particularly with "Batman Begins," the film ended with a particular hook [with Jim Gordon showing Batman a Joker playing card announcing the arrival of a new villain in town]. But for me that was just about the excitement of people leaving the theater with the sense that now we have the character up and running. I wanted people to walk away with that sense in their head. You know, that he’s become the Batman in the movie. That’s why we had the title come up at the end, because it was "Batman Begins," and it was all very specific to that.
Then I got excited about seeing where that character would go. It was planned in advance, but it followed in that way. But we tried our hardest to really do everything in this movie that we would want to see the Joker do and to get that in the fabric of the story as much as possible. We wanted the Joker’s final taunt to Batman to be that they are locked in an ongoing struggle because of Batman’s rules. There’s a paradox there. Batman won’t kill. And the Joker is not interested in completely defeating Batman because he’s fascinated by him and he enjoys sparring with him. It’s trapped both of them. That was really the meaning of it. Of course what happened is Heath created the most extraordinary character that you would love to see 10 movies about. That’s the bittersweet thing. It was incredible characterization. It is a bittersweet thing for all of us.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2008/10/christopher-nol.html

 

[Anjow1060]

Seriously......aside from the "He took Ledger's death hard and Joker was supposed to return" ---- I don't believe a word of this.

- Jow

 

[ChrisB]

Seriously......aside from the "He took Ledger's death hard and Joker was supposed to return" ---- I don't believe a word of this.

- Jow

Amen! Arent you the "a-hole" who "ruined TDK for everyone" ?

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

The thing is...Nolan is a stickler for continuity. I mean he was VERY disappointed when Katie Holmes decided not to return.

But at the same time, I guess he could do it if he wanted to (i'd prefer he didn't but that's another discussion).

My best bet though...he'll be back.

I don't think he'd like the idea of some other guy coming in and possibly ruining his interpretation on Batman.

I wonder why? Hmm, it's off the tip of my tongue. I'm having a hard thinking why she didn't come back.