The Dark Knight Rises NOW which film is your favourite??

[Ryan]

Batman Begins is my favorite batman film, and the one I can watch over and over and get equal enjoyment every time.

TDK is about equal to BB mostly because of the Joker and Heath Ledger. Heath Ledger's spectacular performance, and the cat and mouse nature of the story is ace.

TDKR I have a love/hate relationship with. Some days I want to chuck it in the trash, and some days I find myself wanting to watch it. Then after watching it I'm back to wanting to chuck it in the trash.

I feel the same way about BB and TDK, great post.

 

[Saint]

It's a tough question. I think the strongest overall film in the series is The Dark Knight, probably. However, they all have particular strengths and weaknesses that make it tough to judge as a fan.

Batman Begins had the biggest "adventure" element to it, and even though some of it's action was much weaker than Dark Knight (and especially Rises), it really delivers the most value in terms of a traditional Batman adventure. That said, it lacks a strong antagonist because Ra's spends most of his time unknown and off screen. Dark Knight and Rises, by contrast, delivered what I would argue are the two best villain performances in modern superhero films.

The Dark Knight had the strongest script and delivered the most the most drama--even though the stakes were smaller than Rises, TDK was much more of a thriller. It also delivered some staggering emotional content, but most of it was focused on the supporting players--Batman's role in Dark Knight was, really, to be the rock. He just had to endure everything, which while satisfying in the end, didn't provide as strong a character arc as the other installments.

Rises, while not as strong in some terms, delivers I think the best story content of the series, even though it wasn't always executed as strongly as Dark Knight. It was a story much more heavily focused on Bruce, and even though he was only Batman for a fraction of the film, it delivered the most satisfying character arc for him. I also applaud it for being the most daring of the films in that it did something nobody ever does in Batman mythos--write a happy ending and a definitive conclusion. I think the core emotional story about four people struggling to leave their pasts behind was some of the most poignant in the series.

It's hard to really pick one--which is a satisfying problem to have because it means these films fit together really well. Contrary to some reactions I don't think there was much variance in quality in these three films; they were all strong, despite particular flaws in each. Good batch. Satisfying to watch in a row.

 

[shauner111]

I cant pick. It's one giant story to me now. Everything just flows into the next. I don't separate it. It's just simply...The Dark Knight Trilogy.

Even if Bale were to return in Justice League, the trilogy is still the trilogy. I doubt there would be more solo films even if that were the case.

It's one thing that it has over Stars Wars or Lord Of The Rings, etc. There's no prequels to Batman Begins. There's no spin-offs (at this point), and there's no "sequel trilogies" like what they're doing with Star Wars.

 

[JackWhite]

It's a tough question. I think the strongest overall film in the series is The Dark Knight, probably. However, they all have particular strengths and weaknesses that make it tough to judge as a fan.

Batman Begins had the biggest "adventure" element to it, and even though some of it's action was much weaker than Dark Knight (and especially Rises), it really delivers the most value in terms of a traditional Batman adventure. That said, it lacks a strong antagonist because Ra's spends most of his time unknown and off screen. Dark Knight and Rises, by contrast, delivered what I would argue are the two best villain performances in modern superhero films.

The Dark Knight had the strongest script and delivered the most the most drama--even though the stakes were smaller than Rises, TDK was much more of a thriller. It also delivered some staggering emotional content, but most of it was focused on the supporting players--Batman's role in Dark Knight was, really, to be the rock. He just had to endure everything, which while satisfying in the end, didn't provide as strong a character arc as the other installments.

Rises, while not as strong in some terms, delivers I think the best story content of the series, even though it wasn't always executed as strongly as Dark Knight. It was a story much more heavily focused on Bruce, and even though he was only Batman for a fraction of the film, it delivered the most satisfying character arc for him. I also applaud it for being the most daring of the films in that it did something nobody ever does in Batman mythos--write a happy ending and a definitive conclusion. I think the core emotional story about four people struggling to leave their pasts behind was some of the most poignant in the series.

It's hard to really pick one--which is a satisfying problem to have because it means these films fit together really well. Contrary to some reactions I don't think there was much variance in quality in these three films; they were all strong, despite particular flaws in each. Good batch. Satisfying to watch in a row.

I'm saying it first.....great post.

 

[Anno_Domini]

I cant pick. It's one giant story to me now. Everything just flows into the next. I don't separate it. It's just simply...The Dark Knight Trilogy.

Even if Bale were to return in Justice League, the trilogy is still the trilogy. I doubt there would be more solo films even if that were the case.

It's one thing that it has over Stars Wars or Lord Of The Rings, etc. There's no prequels to Batman Begins. There's no spin-offs (at this point), and there's no "sequel trilogies" like what they're doing with Star Wars.

This is true. I think it can always be viewed as what it is, a trilogy. A story of a beginning, middle and end. I think how I view the film is the fact that it's the build up of the story and the pay off. That's why I find The Dark Knight Rises to be the best because it's the pay off that was started from back in 2005 and grew in 2008.

 

[Shikamaru]

Personally, I felt the whole "It's a trilogy with a beginning, middle, and end!" thing was really shoved down our throats. They do not feel at all as if they were building into a trilogy with them being a beginning and middle respectively. They felt like stories #1 and #2 of a franchise. It really annoys me how TDKR tries to act as if, in retrospect, this was always meant to be a three-act trilogy in the same vein as Star Wars and LOTR. It wasn't. Batman Begins was considered the first movie in the current Batman franchise, just like how Man of Steel is currently considered the first in a new franchise, and The Dark Knight was considered the second movie in the current Batman franchise. It wasn't until production on TDKR started when Nolan said that he will not come back for a third film that the whole "the epic conclusion to this epic 3-act trilogy!" thing came along.

I believe that Nolan had to contrive a story with an 8-year retirement gap and closed ending in a franchise where it looked as if Batman would be Batman for a long time just so that he could say "I'm done! I don't want to make any more Batman movies!" to WB. That's just what I believe. I know many would disagree.

 

[Anno_Domini]

TDK always felt like the middle of a story to me. Getting rid of the mob finally showed that a third film could definitely feel like an ending and going back to the LoS when the mob was dealt with really made it feel like a trilogy.

Also, the talk of what Goyer had an idea of with Joker being captured in the second film and scarring Dent in the third...that could be some hint of Nolan wanting a trilogy.

 

[The Joker]

Personally, I felt the whole "It's a trilogy with a beginning, middle, and end!" thing was really shoved down our throats. They do not feel at all as if they were building into a trilogy with them being a beginning and middle respectively. They felt like stories #1 and #2 of a franchise. It really annoys me how TDKR tries to act as if, in retrospect, this was always meant to be a three-act trilogy in the same vein as Star Wars and LOTR. It wasn't. Batman Begins was considered the first movie in the current Batman franchise, just like how Man of Steel is currently considered the first in a new franchise, and The Dark Knight was considered the second movie in the current Batman franchise. It wasn't until production on TDKR started when Nolan said that he will not come back for a third film that the whole "the epic conclusion to this epic 3-act trilogy!" thing came along.

I believe that Nolan had to contrive a story with an 8-year retirement gap and closed ending in a franchise where it looked as if Batman would be Batman for a long time just so that he could say "I'm done! I don't want to make any more Batman movies!" to WB. That's just my I believe. I know many would disagree.

I agree with you 100%

TDKR never felt like a natural continuation to the story. The 8 year gap, the crime free city, Batman's absence, the return of the LOS etc. None of this felt like where TDK left the story off or where it was going.

Whereas when BB ended on a foreboding of escalation because of Batman, and the prelude to a new theatrical criminal who leaves Joker cards at his crime scenes, that's what we got in TDK. It felt like a natural continuation to Begins.

 

[Anno_Domini]

But that's the idea to a fan though. Christopher Nolan has said how he thought of a natural progression would be and I'd have to think the director and writer would know how to continue the story, lol.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Batman's role in Dark Knight was, really, to be the rock.

Joker: A little fight in ya, I like that.

Batman: Just know your role and shut your mouth.

 

[Shikamaru]

I agree with you 100%

TDKR never felt like a natural continuation to the story. The 8 year gap, the crime free city, Batman's absence, the return of the LOS etc. None of this felt like where TDK left the story off or where it was going.

Whereas when BB ended on a foreboding of escalation because of Batman, and the prelude to a new theatrical criminal who leaves Joker cards at his crime scenes, that's what we got in TDK. It felt like a natural continuation to Begins.

Well said.

Joker, I gotta say that I love your posts on these forums. You always seem to know what you're talking about and to knock it out of the park. Just a little compliment from me to you .

 

[The Joker]

Well said.

Joker, I gotta say that I love your posts on these forums. You always seem to know what you're talking about and to knock it out of the park. Just a little compliment from me to you

Thank you very much. High praise coming from you

 

[Shikamaru]

But that's the idea to a fan though. Christopher Nolan has said how he thought of a natural progression would be and I'd have to think the director and writer would know how to continue the story, lol.

The thing is that I believe Nolan & Goyer had a different idea for TDKR that didn't make it to the big screen for several reasons. Those reasons could be one or more of the following:

-The original third story had the Joker. With them not wanting to recast him, they had to scrap him out entirely which changed the story.

-Nolan's heart wasn't in TDKR as much as it was in BB & TDK due to Ledger's death having a big personal impact on him.

-Nolan deciding this would be his last film, putting his franchise before the story at hand and contriving a story with events that would prevent WB from continuing his franchise after he left (in case they wanted to).

-Nolan given a time limit to come back to WB with a story to tell. If he wouldn't have had a story by that time limit, WB would've replaced him with another director. Not wanting his franchise continued by someone else, he came back with a story not fully thought/fleshed out. Keep in mind that he returned to Batman 2 years after TDK hit theatres. WB waited for him a lot longer than a studio would usually wait for a director.

These are all just my personal theories. Nothing more than that.

 

[Shikamaru]

Thank you very much. High praise coming from you

Thank you. That's why I have Christopher Hitchens as my avatar.

 

[Ryan]

Personally, I felt the whole "It's a trilogy with a beginning, middle, and end!" thing was really shoved down our throats. They do not feel at all as if they were building into a trilogy with them being a beginning and middle respectively. They felt like stories #1 and #2 of a franchise. It really annoys me how TDKR tries to act as if, in retrospect, this was always meant to be a three-act trilogy in the same vein as Star Wars and LOTR. It wasn't. Batman Begins was considered the first movie in the current Batman franchise, just like how Man of Steel is currently considered the first in a new franchise, and The Dark Knight was considered the second movie in the current Batman franchise. It wasn't until production on TDKR started when Nolan said that he will not come back for a third film that the whole "the epic conclusion to this epic 3-act trilogy!" thing came along.

I believe that Nolan had to contrive a story with an 8-year retirement gap and closed ending in a franchise where it looked as if Batman would be Batman for a long time just so that he could say "I'm done! I don't want to make any more Batman movies!" to WB. That's just what I believe. I know many would disagree.

Brilliant post. 100% agree

 

[Saint]

I agree with you 100%

TDKR never felt like a natural continuation to the story. The 8 year gap, the crime free city, Batman's absence, the return of the LOS etc. None of this felt like where TDK left the story off or where it was going.

Whereas when BB ended on a foreboding of escalation because of Batman, and the prelude to a new theatrical criminal who leaves Joker cards at his crime scenes, that's what we got in TDK. It felt like a natural continuation to Begins.

It's like Nolan always said--he only ever planned one film at a time. The end of the Dark Knight, I htink, was designed so that it could have easily been the "end" of the series if Nolan decided he didn't have another film in him.

I did feel, at the end of TDK, the message was that Bruce had realized he would need to be Batman for the long run. Of course, that's not what Nolan went with when he decided to do another film--but I think the inconsistency was handled reasonably. Even if Bruce wanted to be Batman--and Alfred definitely thought he still did--TDKR's solution to the problem is that there was no longer any need. Doesn't jive with traditional Batman mythos, but makes more sense in a universe where it would be kind of asinine to have this high tech urban soldier roaming the streets for muggings.

So there's definitely a disconnect there, I agree--but I forgive it as a necessary evil for the story Nolan ultimately decided to tell in the third film.

 

[Anno_Domini]

The thing is that I believe Nolan & Goyer had a different idea for TDKR that didn't make it to the big screen for several reasons. Those reasons could be one or more of the following:

-The original third story had the Joker. With them not wanting to recast him, they had to scrap him out entirely which changed the story.

-Nolan's heart wasn't in TDKR as much as it was in BB & TDK due to Ledger's death having a big personal impact on him.

-Nolan deciding this would be his last film, putting his franchise before the story at hand and contriving a story with events that would prevent WB from continuing his franchise after he left (in case they wanted to).

-Nolan given a time limit to come back to WB with a story to tell. If he wouldn't have had a story by that time limit, WB would've replaced him with another director. Not wanting his franchise continued by someone else, he came back with a story not fully thought/fleshed out. Keep in mind that he returned to Batman 2 years after TDK hit theatres. WB waited for him a lot longer than a studio would usually wait for a director.

These are all just my personal theories. Nothing more than that.

-The original third story had the Joker. With them not wanting to recast him, they had to scrap him out entirely which changed the story.

^ The only thing I believe as I think if Ledger had lived, Joker would play a part in TDKR, although what kind of role exactly will never be known.

For the rest, just sounds like a slap to the face just from someone who didn't even enjoy the film.

Nolan's heart, I feel was very much into wrapping up Bruce Wayne's story as the films came down to the character of Bruce Wayne first and foremost and Warner Brothers were obviously fine with him doing such with making an ending since we have heard zilch about WB having a problem with it since they started the idea of an expanded universe for DC.

And the time limit...c'mon now, this isn't Sony. They gave Nolan room to breath between BB and TDK and now they gave him a limit between TDK and TDKR? Lol, I don't buy this, or most of your reasons quite frankly. Let alone he had an idea before he even began to work on Inception.

 

[JackWhite]

The only time limit that Nolan had going against him was the IMAX limitations.

 

[Anno_Domini]

It's like Nolan always said--he only ever planned one film at a time. The end of the Dark Knight, I htink, was designed so that it could have easily been the "end" of the series if Nolan decided he didn't have another film in him.

I did feel, at the end of TDK, the message was that Bruce had realized he would need to be Batman for the long run. Of course, that's not what Nolan went with when he decided to do another film--but I think the inconsistency was handled reasonably. Even if Bruce wanted to be Batman--and Alfred definitely thought he still did--TDKR's solution to the problem is that there was no longer any need. Doesn't jive with traditional Batman mythos, but makes more sense in a universe where it would be kind of asinine to have this high tech urban soldier roaming the streets for muggings.

So there's definitely a disconnect there, I agree--but I forgive it as a necessary evil for the story Nolan ultimately decided to tell in the third film.

 

[Anno_Domini]

The only time limit that Nolan had going against him was the IMAX limitations.

 

[Shikamaru]

It's like Nolan always said--he only ever planned one film at a time. The end of the Dark Knight, I think, was designed so that it could have easily been the "end" of the series if Nolan decided he didn't have another film in him.

I did feel, at the end of TDK, the message was that Bruce had realized he would need to be Batman for the long run. Of course, that's not what Nolan went with when he decided to do another film--but I think the inconsistency was handled reasonably. Even if Bruce wanted to be Batman--and Alfred definitely thought he still did--TDKR's solution to the problem is that there was no longer any need. Doesn't jive with traditional Batman mythos, but makes more sense in a universe where it would be kind of asinine to have this high tech urban soldier roaming the streets for muggings.

So there's definitely a disconnect there, I agree--but I forgive it as a necessary evil for the story Nolan ultimately decided to tell in the third film.

Technically, both BB and TDK had endings that didn't need sequels. Batman Begins isn't just an origin story; it stands on its own. Had TDK & TDKR not have existed, it still would've been a great conclusion to that Batman. The same thing can be said about TDK's ending. In fact, TDK's ending was so good that one of my biggest fears was that they wouldn't have found any good way to top that ending in future films. BatLobsterRises brought up a great point when he said that regardless of who you are, whether you thought TDKR honored or went against TDK's ending, TDK's ending was an absolutely fantastic ending for all of us. And yet, there was still room for more stories after both BB's ending and TDK's ending.

I think Nolan may have perfected storytelling in comic book movies. The man found the perfect balance between focusing on one movie at a time while still leaving small things here and there for sequels. There are CBM's like the MCU films that focus too much on setting up for Avengers instead of fully focusing on the story at hand. The Amazing Spider-Man is also guilty of this to an extent - it sets up too much for sequels instead of having complete focus on the movie at hand. Then there are movies that do the exact opposite and literally have nothing there that could be continued or developed in a sequel, making the movies far too stand-alone from each other. Burton's Batman and Raimi's Spider-Man are the best examples of this. Nolan found a good balance between both. He focused on the movie at hand - one movie at a time - and didn't let the future bug him too much to the point where he made movies that would still work well even if they never had sequels. But at the same time, he also left little things here and there that have set up things for the future of the franchise (Joker's card at the end of BB, Scarecrow on the loose, the rise of "freaks", Batman on the run, etc.) and never let the time gap in between the movies fast forward too much (excluding the 8 year gap in TDKR). That is how CBM's should be done IMO. Man of Steel is following that same film philosophy according to Goyer, and we know that MOS will give birth to a DC Cinematic Universe. What I think this means is that even though the Nolan Batman films will possibly not be part of this universe (unless WB gets greedy and decides to tie them in), their "heart" or "spirit" or whatever you wanna call it will still live on in this universe because they have given that universe the blueprints for how to do CBM's that have that perfect balance. Heck, MOS and the DCCU may just be the next step in this evolution of DC films - not only do they keep the blueprints from the Nolan films but take it up a notch by bringing in fantasy elements and finding the perfect balance between fantasy and realism, not restricting any possibilities like the TDK trilogy did.

As for the whole crime-free city scenario, I don't believe Gotham didn't need Batman for several reasons. I already talked about them over and over again though and the opposing side probably already knows my arguments.

 

[shauner111]

I trust in the creators more than I trust in the audience members. They had the image of the end of the trilogy for Bruce during the Begins era, even if they didn't know if they would be the ones to do the sequels themselves, they still had an image of what they wanted it to be.

Before they completed writing the script for TDK, Goyers idea was to have Joker continue and have Two-Face the main villain of the third movie. But that changed when they wrote Dent off in the 3rd act.

Ledger died, so they went from probably sticking him in the 3rd in a very small role to not featuring Joker at all. But they chose the third movie to tell that retirement story so it would match that "final Bruce Wayne image" they had in their heads since 2005. Why did they do that? Because they figured it would probably be the last movie they made together.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if the trilogy was intentional or not. The fact is, it ended up happening. And it's a beginning, middle and end of a story.

I disagree that Nolans heart wasn't in it for TDKR. I actually think it has the most heartfelt writing in the whole trilogy when it comes to Bruce's arc.

I will say that as much as I love (ya, im in the minority) the 8 year gap because it did something that made sense TO ME within the story and it was an unexpected move...and I really love that with a film, when I get something im not expecting...I have to say...a part of me feels like fans wouldn't be *****ing so much if there was a film in between TDK & TDKR to show a lengthier career. Maybe it would have felt more fulfilling by the end of Rises if he was Batman for longer during the gap.

As in, if Bruce was dealing the clean energy project during those 5 years but still going out to clean up the remaining members of the mob, on the down-low. I feel like that would make the haters feel OK about it.

 

[Saint]

Technically, both BB and TDK had endings that didn't need sequels. Batman Begins isn't just an origin story; it stands on its own. Had TDK & TDKR not have existed, it still would've been a great conclusion to that Batman. The same thing can be said about TDK's ending. In fact, TDK's ending was so good that one of my biggest fears was that they wouldn't have found any good way to top that ending in future films. BatLobsterRises brought up a great point when he said that regardless of who you are, whether you thought TDKR honored or went against TDK's ending, TDK's ending was an absolutely fantastic ending for all of us. And yet, there was still room for more stories after both BB's ending and TDK's ending

Yes, I agree on all counts. You're definitely correct in that the ending of Begins was also designed in such a way that it could have been one-and-done.

 

[shauner111]

I honestly think that the ending of each of the 3 could be stand-alone endings. They're all designed for it. Begins could have bombed big time or Nolan stopped right there, and that movie would have been a cult classic like Bladerunner. General fans would look at it as a prequel to the old Burton/Shumacher films (the ones who don't follow every detail) and fans would see it as the definitive origin story with an exciting ending.

But Nolan started thinking of the Joker and who he would be in that world, especially if he was the same age as that younger version of Bruce/Batman. There was also the "escalation" line, Gotham needed a DA...so it was logical to wonder who Harvey Dent could be in that story. Even if Nolan didn't want to do a sequel at first.

TDK was designed as a stand-alone. An exciting ending where Batman sacrifices himself. That Gordon speech defined Batman in a lot of ways. Two-Face was dead, Joker was locked up. The end. But there was that image of a happy Bruce they apparently had back in 2004/5. That PLUS the success of TDK, which u know WB hounded Nolan to come back for...all played a part in getting Chris' wheels turning again.

You have the thought of finishing Bruce's story in Gotham as something Nolan thought of. You had the question of "well, TDK kind of ends on a cliffhanger, sooo people are wondering, what's it going to take to get Batman as a hero in the eyes of Gotham??". Also the question of "when is the truth of Dent's murder going to come out?? It has to come out some time!". There's also what Jonah Nolan said, when he mentioned how they couldn't wrap it up without having Catwoman in there as a character. Im sure some people felt the same about Robin. And we know the League of Shadows was something that didn't exactly end. Us fans know Ra's has a daughter in the comics, we knew from Neeson's speech in Begins that something happened to his wife....well.....what happened? And would the LOS just go away after Ra's was "murdered"??? I don't think so.

There were a LOT of cliffhangers there. TDK could have birthed a sequel just as much as it could have ended right there.

I imagine TDKR could be the end. But who knows? Nolan's done this before, where he thought it was done, then several months later his mind starts wandering. Ya never know if he's thinking "Who would Blake's Robin be in this world? And what would he tackle in the future?"

"Will Gotham be safe for a long while? Or will it become worse now that Batman is known to be dead?"

"What if Superman (an alien) arrived in that world, and a threat hit earth and Bruce was coaxed into returning to save the planet?"

Anything is possible. But that's the point. They all had a stand-alone element to them and that's because Nolan/Goyer like to try to fit everything they have into one film at a time. But they all have some sort of cliffhanger, and that's where the sequels kept getting made. It turned into a trilogy with a 3 part story arc, and it was done brilliantly.

My favorite trilogy of all time!

 

[Shikamaru]

^ The only thing I believe as I think if Ledger had lived, Joker would play a part in TDKR, although what kind of role exactly will never be known.

For the rest, just sounds like a slap to the face just from someone who didn't even enjoy the film.

I apologize if it sounds like that. I have no mean intentions by saying that nor do I hold grudge or anger towards Nolan for TDKR.

Nolan's heart, I feel was very much into wrapping up Bruce Wayne's story as the films came down to the character of Bruce Wayne first and foremost and Warner Brothers were obviously fine with him doing such with making an ending since we have heard zilch about WB having a problem with it since they started the idea of an expanded universe for DC.

I really felt his heart wasn't here. I don't mean to sound rude but a lot of the film feels very half-ass to me. There are 2 main things that give me this feeling from it.

The first is that it's not as intelligent (don't know if that's the right word) as the first two. What I mean is that Nolan was always careful to have most of his things make sense within the context of the story and not make the audience say "Well, I have to accept that because it's a CBM". Sure that that exists in all CBM's to an extent but you never had to think like that with most things in BB and TDK. Now with TDKR, about half of the movie has that "accept this because it's a CBM" mentality almost to the same extent as The Avengers. You have to constantly give things a pass because it is a CBM. Take Catwoman's costume for example. Why is she wearing it? It makes no sense for her to wear it other than in the 2 scenes where she steals. It doesn't protect her against anything; it doesn't hide her identity; she doesn't use any of the weapons on it. The only reason she seems to be wearing it most of the time is because she is Catwoman and this is a superhero movie. Another example is Bruce healing his back because, well, he just does because it's a CBM. It is that type of Avengers logic that is majorly present in half the film. That's one of the things that makes me feel Nolan's heart wasn't in the right place.

The second reason is the amount of story that TDKR borrows from the comics. It's late and I'm getting tired of typing so I'll keep this short. TDKR has the most story influences out of the 3 films. While the other 2 films did have major story influences, they blended very well together and created 2 stories that are still very unique to the stories the films were based on. TDKR's story feels very cut-and-paste. It feels as if Nolan didn't have a story for TDKR so he looked at the comics and said "Well, what can I find here? Oh, I know. I'll do No Man's Land over here, Knightfall over here, and Dark Knight Returns over there and I got a story!" whereas BB and TDK felt more like "I have these stories here from the comics. How could I create a unique perfect story out of these by meshing them together?" I don't know if I'm making sense or not in what I'm trying to say.

And the time limit...c'mon now, this isn't Sony. They gave Nolan room to breath between BB and TDK and now they gave him a limit between TDK and TDKR? Lol, I don't buy this, or most of your reasons quite frankly. Let alone he had an idea before he even began to work on Inception.

Every studio gives a director a time limit, especially for a franchise as big as Batman. You think TDKR would've still been made by Nolan if he came now in 2013 and told WB he finally has a story? It wouldn't have. Yes, this isn't Sony, which is exactly why Nolan was able to announce he is coming back to do a sequel two years after TDK hit theatres and three years after he finished working on TDK. WB basically gave him a lot of time, something that not too many directors get.