The Dark Knight Rises Should the Nolanverse Continue After Batman III?

[jmc]

As soon as you introduce a character like Clayface you're automatically losing any plausibility aspect the series has. You either stay the coarse and stick to the plausibility tone and stick with more grounded characters, or you start from scratch go the more fantastical route, you can't have it both ways when you start adding characters like Clayface or Man-Bat.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

Casino Royal was no fun, had no gadgets and it was boring. If i wanted to watch a Poker tournament i would have done so instead. Yeah i know that's how Flemming wrote Bond but i didnt have a good time watching it.

"Goldeneye" is my favourite Bond movie. The combination of fun, action, drama, insight into Bond's psych and rogue 006 made the movie for me.

"Tomorrow Never Dies", "Goldfinger" and "The man with the golden gun" are tied in second place.

MWTGG gets a lot of flack for some reason, but I enjoyed it. You can't go wrong with Christopher Lee as the villain.

Unless you're George Lucas, and then you can do a lot of wrong with Lee. How badly do you have to SUCK to have that happen, Lol.

 

[ChickenScratch]

Well...if we could spend the same kind of time to watch a movie as we would to read a book....

Would that we all could man. I work in publishing and still don't read nearly as much as I need to. But as I stated before, that's why the literary and filmic characters exist separately. Be it Batman, Bond or Bourne, liberties are taken, if you can spot the differences then cool but films are usually for general audiences who don't delve as deeply into the character.

Having said that, I welcome change after Nolan's run. After all, Live and Let Die is the sequel to Casino Royal but there's not a mention of any of the events in the movie yet he's chasing the people who killed Vesper anyway. As a sequel to CR, QOS was fine on it's own though.

 

[KalMart]

Would that we all could man. I work in publishing and still don't read nearly as much as I need to. But as I stated before, that's why the literary and filmic characters exist separately. Be it Batman, Bond or Bourne, liberties are taken, if you can spot the differences then cool but films are usually for general audiences who don't delve as deeply into the character.

Having said that, I welcome change after Nolan's run. After all, Live and Let Die is the sequel to Casino Royal but there's not a mention of any of the events in the movie yet he's chasing the people who killed Vesper anyway. As a sequel to CR, QOS was fine on it's own though.

I feel the same when it comes to anything and film, really....comics, novels, etc. But that doesn't necessarily put film at a disadvantage, either. It's its own unique way of representing stories...and honestly, when I go to a film, I want to see a film...and even if it's based on a book or a comic, I'm not going for the purpose of experiencing what it's like to read a book or comic. If I wanted that...I'd read a book or comic. But hopefully, the movie does at least capture the essence of what it's being based on...albeit in a more condensed and/or alternative way.

 

[ChickenScratch]

I didn't say one was at an advantage to another, just different. Being different it's open to interpretation and after Nolan is gone I wanna see a big, fantastic interpretation. I love digital backlot films like Sky Captain and Casshern an would love to see something like that applied to Batman.

 

[KalMart]

I didn't say one was at an advantage to another, just different.

I didn't say you did. Just addressing some general thoughts about narrowing books down to movies that are often implied when discussing it.

Being different it's open to interpretation and after Nolan is gone I wanna see a big, fantastic interpretation. I love digital backlot films like Sky Captain and Casshern an would love to see something like that applied to Batman.

I think if someone like Del Toro would do the next version, it could be really cool...at least visually/feel-wise. And I'd still like them to keep the tone quite serious as well.

 

[IBRAH08]

Being different it's open to interpretation and after Nolan is gone I wanna see a big, fantastic interpretation. I love digital backlot films like Sky Captain and Casshern an would love to see something like that applied to Batman.

I would love a fantasy/sci-fi Batman. Comicbooky but well done and still serious (dark even).

 

[IBRAH08]

As soon as you introduce a character like Clayface you're automatically losing any plausibility aspect the series has. You either stay the coarse and stick to the plausibility tone and stick with more grounded characters, or you start from scratch go the more fantastical route, you can't have it both ways when you start adding characters like Clayface or Man-Bat.

when I think about it now, if you keep Nolan's continuity to some degree and then throw in some sci-fi, that would be even cooler. It would really but you in Batman's position. like, here is this world that we live in where have a very strong understanding of what is possible and what isn't and then Imagine something like clayface and how that would turn that notion on its head and how disorienting that would be. With the hyper realistic backdrop it makes any sci-fi villains all the more frightening.

 

[jmc]

But you can't have both science fiction and realism, even quasi realism together, it's a contradiction. Characters like The Joker and Ras are at their core terrorists, maybe more fantastical ones but terrorists none the less, there's grounds there for at least some level of plausibility. A character like Clayface however is only ever going to make believe, no amount of 'grounding' is going to convince the audience this character can ever exists because it can't exist. The Joker is frightening for a reason, because there are people like him in real life, Clayface is just a monster made of CGI, the audience knows there's nothing to fear. It's either one way or the other, either stick to plausibility route or restart things to be the more fantasy based.

 

[IBRAH08]

But you can't have both science fiction and realism, even quasi realism together, it's a contradiction. Characters like The Joker and Ras are at their core terrorists, maybe more fantastical ones but terrorists none the less, there's grounds there for at least some level of plausibility. A character like Clayface however is only ever going to make believe, no amount of 'grounding' is going to convince the audience this character can ever exists because it can't exist. The Joker is frightening for a reason, because there are people like him in real life, Clayface is just a monster made of CGI, the audience knows there's nothing to fear. It's either one way or the other, either stick to plausibility route or restart things to be the more fantasy based.

I'm not saying you should explain him away. And just because we haven't seen any fantasy elements doesn't mean they don't exist in that world. It's like: what if Clayface started tearing up New York tomorrow in yours and my world? There are no previous examples of this sort of occurrence, but obviously it is happening. It's a realistic setting (it's the realist setting possible, our actual world) but that doesn't mean things that we previously thought impossible can't happen. In many monster movies, the people live assuming there are no monsters, in a world that would be called realistic. Once that monster shows up it does not become a different world. It is the same world but somethingnew is discovered about it.

 

[IBRAH08]

Also a lot of people loved seeing scarecrow. Obviously there are no people like that in the world; people that go around gassing people with fear toxin. The character played on the basic human instinct that is fear, especially your own personal worst fear, because it is embedded in our personality and psyche. Clayface could function something like this, he represents the fearof that which you cannot detect, that what you don't expect. In the same way the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" works. the idea of clayface being able to replace anyone, even someone close to you. You don't have to have villains that exist in real life, look at the successof the first two spiderman films.

 

[regwec]

Very good points.

In general, I would say that the 70+ years of Bruce's adventures as Batman cannot be done justice in three movies. It's great that Nolan is able to complete a fantastic run, but he hasn't reached the try line. He should off load the ball to someone else, rather than kicking it into touch.

 

[Laderlappen]

jmc is right about this. These Batman movies are not much different than any action/thrillers in the world. Adding a character like Clayface in B4 is like having aliens as the villians in the next James Bond movie. And yes nothing says they wouldnt exist in that world, but its so out of place.

 

[Man of Tomorrow]

It's setting a very BAD example to reboot these franchaises EVERY decade...

Especially one as incredibly successful as Nolan's Batman.

 

[jmc]

I'm not saying you should explain him away. And just because we haven't seen any fantasy elements doesn't mean they don't exist in that world. It's like: what if Clayface started tearing up New York tomorrow in yours and my world? There are no previous examples of this sort of occurrence, but obviously it is happening. It's a realistic setting (it's the realist setting possible, our actual world) but that doesn't mean things that we previously thought impossible can't happen. In many monster movies, the people live assuming there are no monsters, in a world that would be called realistic. Once that monster shows up it does not become a different world. It is the same world but something new is discovered about it.

Clayface will never tear up New York in our world because Clayface is impossible, it's pure imagination. You can't go around saying a film is set in a plausible world and then throw in an implausible character like Clayface, no matter how hard you try the film from that point becomes pure fantasy, there's no if, ands, or buts about it.

 

[IBRAH08]

Clayface will never tear up New York in our world because Clayface is impossible, it's pure imagination. You can't go around saying a film is set in a plausible world and then throw in an implausible character like Clayface, no matter how hard you try the film from that point becomes pure fantasy, there's no if, ands, or buts about it.

Clayface is impossible based on what we now of our own reality. But so was space flight 200 years ago. But sure, adding clayface out of the blue would probably leave people like "WTF". But I'm just saying (by exaggerating) a shift to a more fantastical world is possible from the realistic world of Nolan, without a complete reboot. I would love a more fantasy/scif-fi batman.

 

[IBRAH08]

jmc is right about this. These Batman movies are not much different than any action/thrillers in the world. Adding a character like Clayface in B4 is like having aliens as the villians in the next James Bond movie. And yes nothing says they wouldnt exist in that world, but its so out of place.

Not exactly. Bond has never fought aliens (books or movies). Batman (in the source material) fights aliens all the time. Hell, one of his friends is an alien (Superman) so it's not the exact same really.

 

[General Vulcun]

Clayface will never tear up New York in our world because Clayface is impossible, it's pure imagination. You can't go around saying a film is set in a plausible world and then throw in an implausible character like Clayface, no matter how hard you try the film from that point becomes pure fantasy, there's no if, ands, or buts about it.

If this film is set in the complete plausible, then eplain The Joker. He may look like a real person, he may have the same desires and perform similar actions that a serial killer could possibly perform in our world, but that doesn't exclude The Joker's supernatural abilities.

The character plans with such intricacy and precision, knowing certain actions and decisions are going to be made before they happen, knowing exactly what Gordon, Batman, and Dent are planning to do. The Joker is practically an omniscient character. He reminds me of/inspired Hannibal Lector, another character that has supreme intelligence, a master of manipulation, abilities beyond what any normal human being are capable of possessing.

Yet, like Lector, The Joker exists in a world that looks like ours and at times can feels like ours. But the fact that these characters, with their superhuman mental capabilities, exist in their respected worlds, it immediately calls the plausibility (in relation to our world) of this world into question. What kind of worlds allow for characters with this type of knowledge?

It may not be as glaring as a monster made out of clay, but it has to be recognized. Something like this clearly sets the Nolanverse apart from our world, no matter how much they may resemble each other, and definitely offers up fewer limitations than what some people originally thought of the Nolanverse.

 

[IBRAH08]

If this film is set in the complete plausible, then eplain The Joker. He may look like a real person, he may have the same desires and perform similar actions that a serial killer could possibly perform in our world, but that doesn't exclude The Joker's supernatural abilities.

The character plans with such intricacy and precision, knowing certain actions and decisions are going to be made before they happen, knowing exactly what Gordon, Batman, and Dent are planning to do. The Joker is practically an omniscient character. He reminds me of/inspired Hannibal Lector, another character that has supreme intelligence, a master of manipulation, abilities beyond what any normal human being are capable of possessing.

Yet, like Lector, The Joker exists in a world that looks like ours and at times can feels like ours. But the fact that these characters, with their superhuman mental capabilities, exist in their respected worlds, it immediately calls the plausibility (in relation to our world) of this world into question. What kind of worlds allow for characters with this type of knowledge?

It may not be as glaring as a monster made out of clay, but it has to be recognized. Something like this clearly sets the Nolanverse apart from our world, no matter how much they may resemble each other, and definitely offers up fewer limitations than what some people originally thought of the Nolanverse.

Good post man. I think this allows for the plausibility to be lightened in the future as well without a total reboot.

 

[Laderlappen]

Not exactly. Bond has never fought aliens (books or movies). Batman (in the source material) fights aliens all the time. Hell, one of his friends is an alien (Superman) so it's not the exact same really.

You see it as a possibility in Nolan's batman world because you think of the comics. What happens in the source material doesnt matter really because its not part of this movie series. I mean if you found out there exist a James Bond book where he fight aliens, would you be ok with it in the movie?

 

[the dmg]

It's setting a very BAD example to reboot these franchaises EVERY decade...

I honestly wouldn't mind a reboot for Batman, mostly because I want to see another director explore their own vision. The only way I can see the Nolanverse sticking around without Nolan at the helm directing like Hideo Kojima wanted to do with the MGS series. Like Hideo Kojima, I can see Nolan getting involved more than he wanted and taking over again.

Especially one as incredibly successful as Nolan's Batman.

I can see another director tackling the franchise with success as well, and I don't think WB would let it become camp.

 

[IBRAH08]

You see it as a possibility in Nolan's batman world because you think of the comics. What happens in the source material doesnt matter really because its not part of this movie series. I mean if you found out there exist a James Bond book where he fight aliens, would you be ok with it in the movie?

Yeah I suppose that's fair. I'm just biased as all hell because I really want to see a more fantastical Batman well done, a real comic coming to life. (you can have fantasy and a serious, dark, take)

 

[KalMart]

It's setting a very BAD example to reboot these franchaises EVERY decade...

Especially one as incredibly successful as Nolan's Batman.

Quite the opposite....it's a very good example if a trio of movies can go out on top and forever preserve its quality and achievement. Movie series that have gone on past three (with the exception of Harry Potter, perhaps) have, if nothing else, shown why you shouldn't keep pounding away...as they've just run themselves into the ground. Until they...y'know.....reboot. Movies in general are more about being a special event than being serials...even if they're based on serials. that's why so much time and money go into them for such an ultimately short presentation.

However, I'd like to see someone try a big-budget cable miniseries with comic-based material sometime.

 

[crazy monkey]

Doesn't the artistry and commercial success of the animated series settle this argument before it starts? That series had episodes completely grounded in the real world like It's Never Too Late and Appointment in Crime Alley, stories with no fantasitc elements whatsoever, coexisting in the same continuity as House and Garden, Terror in the Sky and Feat of Clay (featuring the much debated Clayface). These all melded seamlessly into one universe, one rendition of Batman, and no one I know of ever raised an eyebrow.

I don't think the choice of medium matters either, as I'm sure some will point to animation making these concepts easier to swallow. I think that any audience entering a Batman film is mentally prepared for fictional concepts. They know its not set in the 'real world.' The Nolanverse is littered with science fiction already, from the magical micro-emitter and fear toxin in Begins to the sonar cell phones and Dent's wounds in TDK. Not one complained. The very concept of Batman is fanciful and would not work in the real world, so applying the limitations of reality to him is superfulous.

No, what matters when merging the real and not real (in storytelling, at least) is tone. Nolan has established a certain tone, and that's what is sticking in your minds as 'reality.' Its not; it's simply an emotional and visual palette that he has chosen to limit himself to. Another, skillful enough director could set a different tone, with subtle visual cues and a change in cinematogrophy. A new creative team could easily set a new look, a new scope, a new tone, one that fits a more fanciful or adventurous story. Such a choice would be much, much more desirable than another reboot, at least for my money.

 

[KalMart]

Doesn't the artistry and commercial success of the animated series settle this argument before it starts?

It might if it wasn't animated.

That series had episodes completely grounded in the real world like It's Never Too Late and Appointment in Crime Alley, stories with no fantasitc elements whatsoever, coexisting in the same continuity as House and Garden, Terror in the Sky and Feat of Clay (featuring the much debated Clayface). These all melded seamlessly into one universe, one rendition of Batman, and no one I know of ever raised an eyebrow.

I don't think the choice of medium matters either, as I'm sure some will point to animation making these concepts easier to swallow.

Oops.

I think that any audience entering a Batman film is mentally prepared for fictional concepts. They know its not set in the 'real world.' The Nolanverse is littered with science fiction already, from the magical micro-emitter and fear toxin in Begins to the sonar cell phones and Dent's wounds in TDK. Not one complained. The very concept of Batman is fanciful and would not work in the real world, so applying the limitations of reality to him is superfulous.

No, what matters when merging the real and not real (in storytelling, at least) is tone. Nolan has established a certain tone, and that's what is sticking in your minds as 'reality.' Its not; it's simply an emotional and visual palette that he has chosen to limit himself to. Another, skillful enough director could set a different tone, with subtle visual cues and a change in cinematogrophy. A new creative team could easily set a new look, a new scope, a new tone, one that fits a more fanciful or adventurous story. Such a choice would be much, much more desirable than another reboot, at least for my money.

I'd still like a new version to have both its own look/feel AND continuity, though....just for the sake of Nolan's films standing on their own, and for taking the new movies for what they are only as well. If you give some time in between, audiences will be fine starting over, and you don't even have to do the origin again right from the start, either. Not to say that someone couldn't pick up the continuity in an different way, either...but I would think a filmmaker would want to be able to do the story their own way and not be bound by what came before if the last version wrapped itself up nice and tidily. Part of respecting something like the Nolan trilogy is letting it be while one does their own thing. But you never know. I think audiences should be equally open to either.