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

[Mr. Earle]

Nice post regwec.

 

[IBRAH08]

Strong words. I like Nolan's Batmovies, and I am grateful to him for them. At the same time, I have enjoyed them as a kind of bridge between our world and the world of Batman comics, with the narrative being an interpretation of how the latter might emerge from the former. I think that both BB and TDK both did this very well (albeit with a bit too much caution, as evidenced by The Joker's silly facepaint), but I'm not sure my enthusiasm wouldn't have been dampened at the outset if I had thought that Nolan did not really want to leave square one.

That is why I am in favour of future directors taking the same Batman by the scruff of the neck, and dragging him into a comicbook world.

THis is a great post. I agree whole heartedly

 

[jmc]

I always find it funny when people want a comic book world on film.

 

[IBRAH08]

I always find it funny when people want a comic book world on film.

Why? it's not like they are opposing ideas. The two ideas function very differently in their uses as well. Let me explain. You can have a comicbook world, it connotes a certain feel. However, no one would say you want a "film world" that sounds absurd. There can be a comicbook feel to a film, it's essentially a genre of film. It's just another way of saying a more fantasy-like film, with an adventure feel, involving characters from a comic medium.. Now of course you can argue there are very grounded comics, but despite this, the phrase "comicbook world" has come to mean something that ignores this. This is just how language functions. In conclusion I would argue that it is not contradictory to say you want a comicbook world on film.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I always find it funny when people want a comic book world on film.

Way to be mature about people having different opinions than you.

 

[jmc]

Why? it's not like they are opposing ideas. The two ideas function very differently in their uses as well. Let me explain. You can have a comicbook world, it connotes a certain feel. However, no one would say you want a ''film world'' that sounds absurd. There can be a comicbook feel to a film, it's essentially a genre of film. It's just another way of saying a more fantasy-like film, with an adventure feel, involving characters from a comic medium.. Now of course you can argue there are very grounded comics, but despite this, the phrase ''comicbook world''has come to mean something that ignores this. This is just how language functions. In conclusion I would argue that it is not contradictory to say you want a comicbook world on film.

And exactly what does a comic book movie 'feel' like? Comic books are a medium, not a genre.

 

[IBRAH08]

And exactly what does a comic book movie 'feel' like? Comic books are a medium, not a genre.

You missed the whole point of my post,which was explaining that comicbook has become a genre of film (language is constantly evolving) and I highlighted a few features of this genre. Adventure, based on comicbooks (the medium) it may try to mimic some of the techniques or even artistic vibe of comics. It may have an almost surreal feel and often includes exaggerated realty and even fantasy.

 

[jmc]

No, that's a Superhero film and/or fantasy film, that is a genre, comic books are form of story telling. Stories like A History of Violence and Road to Perdition are based on comic books, surely if comic book were a ''genre'' they would fall into that same description you gave, but they don't, there's nothing even remotely surreal or fantastical about those. The term comic book movie has come about because of laziness.

 

[Mr. Earle]

jmc you re splitting hairs. You know what we mean when we re asking for a comic book world instead of a crime drama one (spiderman/BB/Xmen vs TDK).

 

[Jokers_Wild]

Personally, I think the Nolanverse should end with Nolan.

New ideas and films with Batman can be done, but let's start fresh again. Then, more fantastical ideas such as Batman vs. Superman can be made, without the restrictions of Nolanverse. Just my two cents.

 

[Steyin]

I will say yes for the sake of avoiding a "reboot" or any form of such. However, it should be used as a building block from here on out. Keep the core elements established, but for whomever takes over, thay should mend it to their vision; in the sense that it is like a painting where one person after another adds a stroke. I agree with someone earlier saying that this universe should slowly and elegantly dive more into the realm of fantasy, or begin to bend the "realism" established by Nolan. I also strongly feel that this universe should start to bleed slowly into a greater DC universe, perhaps after the next Superman film, as a sequel to that new film should do as well. I really don't think its so hard to carry on with established elements for someone new while incorporating their own flavor.

 

[KalMart]

I will say yes for the sake of avoiding a "reboot" or any form of such. However, it should be used as a building block from here on out. Keep the core elements established, but for whomever takes over, thay should mend it to their vision; in the sense that it is like a painting where one person after another adds a stroke. I agree with someone earlier saying that this universe should slowly and elegantly dive more into the realm of fantasy, or begin to bend the "realism" established by Nolan. I also strongly feel that this universe should start to bleed slowly into a greater DC universe, perhaps after the next Superman film, as a sequel to that new film should do as well. I really don't think its so hard to carry on with established elements for someone new while incorporating their own flavor.

What's the aversion to having someone else do their own painting from the ground up, though? They don't even have to do the 'origin' again, but they can still have it be completely independent from the last version...and even do their own versions of R'as and Dent as they go along.

 

[Visceral]

What's the aversion to having someone else do their own painting from the ground up, though? They don't even have to do the 'origin' again, but they can still have it be completely independent from the last version...and even do their own versions of R'as and Dent as they go along.

Maybe they have fallen in love with these versions of the characters and will not care if they find themselves having to reinvesting their time and emotions into new versions completely separate from the last version they already like.

This is why webb's spider-man will fail. I like the characters that have already been established.

 

[KalMart]

Maybe they have fallen in love with these versions of the characters and will not care if they find themselves having to reinvesting their time and emotions into new versions completely separate from the last version they already like.

Given enough time between versions, I think most people won't have a problem getting into a totally new direction with equal enthusiasm.

This is why webb's spider-man will fail. I like the characters that have already been established.

Again, if people really like the new version, it shouldn't be hard to pick up that stride.

But really, though...if they do want to continue the 'Nolanverse', then they should continue it directly, or not at all and start with a completely different take.

 

[Visceral]

Given enough time between versions, I think most people won't have a problem getting into a totally new direction with equal enthusiasm.


Again, if people really like the new version, it shouldn't be hard to pick up that stride.

But really, though...if they do want to continue the 'Nolanverse', then they should continue it directly, or not at all and start with a completely different take.

I disagree I think that people have to dislike the previous version before they take stride. Again one must consider how much time in between as well.

I have seen only three reboots that have been a complete success and no remakes. The reason I think that those films were successes was because the previous versions had come to a complete stop and they were careful not to tell the same story over and venture into remake territory. (For instance B89 and TDK have the same characters but tell a different story, Star trek's origins were never told only alluded to and Bonds first mission was never told.)

There is nothing here that suggest people are looking to see new artistic versions of their characters, we are the only ones who claim nitpicky things that should be the basis of a new version.

Spider-man 3 was not good but it didn't shoot those characters down completely, I mean it made enough money to garner a direct sequel. I want to see Peter marry MJ. Instead I have to watch another origin story? I won't be there. I'm still waiting for spider-man 4.

EDIT:

That said I don't care if the next director is less realistic than Nolan I just don't want the characters to lose their already rich history. I wanna see this run fail before starting it over.

 

[KalMart]

I disagree I think that people have to dislike the previous version before they take stride. Again one must consider how much time in between as well.

6-7 years oughtta' do it.

I have seen only three reboots that have been a complete success and no remakes. The reason I think that those films were successes was because the previous versions had come to a complete stop and they were careful not to tell the same story over and venture into remake territory. (For instance B89 and TDK have the same characters but tell a different story, Star trek's origins were never told only alluded to and Bonds first mission was never told.)

I really don't think audiences are as 'into' this saga as you're alluding to beyond just enjoying them as cinematic entertainment, despite TDK's success. It's still just a superhero movie, and not the only one on the block...not quite the same entity unto itself like, say, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Bond, etc. It might be the best of the genre for its time, but I really don't think that people are investing their time/emotion, as you put it, as comic fans would with their favorite characters and such. Not to say that BB/TDK/Batman3's achievements will be totally forgotten...if anything, I hope they'll always be appreciated as the unique interpretations that they are. And no, a series doesn't have to go bad, by default, in order to facilitate starting over. The quality of the restart is really all that's needed to justify itself. And making it different altogether will help even more in distinguishing it from its predecessor for those looking for a connection. In this respect, the 'short attention spans' of general audiences is an advantage.

IThere is nothing here that suggest people are looking to see new artistic versions of their characters, we are the only ones who claim nitpicky things that should be the basis of a new version.

Spider-man 3 was not good but it didn't shoot those characters down completely, I mean it made enough money to garner a direct sequel. I want to see Peter marry MJ. Instead I have to watch another origin story? I won't be there. I'm still waiting for spider-man 4.

EDIT:

That said I don't care if the next director is less realistic than Nolan I just don't want the characters to lose their already rich history. I wanna see this run fail before starting it over.

Basically, if you're looking at it form an audience's perspective, they'll roll with things pretty easily if they like what they're seeing. So you really shouldn't go into the idea of starting over concerned with 'losing' anything from the past. Those movies will always be there for those who want to see and enjoy again. From a creative standpoint, I think that you'd be showing the most respect to it by allowing it to start and finish on its own terms...and subsequently for the next version as well, giving it a clean slate to start with. If a new creative team has a great different version of the story to tell, but there are some crucial differences in essential narrative details from the Nolan ones that would basically make it impossible for them to share a story history...then the new filmmakers shouldn't be bound to compromise their version for the sake of connectivity. Now...if they're intention is to actually continue it, then fine...but if they don't want to, they shouldn't be obligated to in any way. Both approaches have their own merits, but they should be treated as specific paths/options...instead of trying to morph some sort of middleground.

Put it this way...they should go for the best story that comes along, judging by its story alone. If it happens to be a continuation of Nolan's continuity, then fine, But if it doesn't, that should be fine as well and given just as much support as the other would get once greenlit.

 

[Visceral]

Yeah but you get to a point where having too many variations of a character will take the audience out of the experience. This happens all the time in the comic medium. Just look at Superman Secret Origins. Is it written well? Yes it is. Do I care? No not really, I've seen the origin story done well since I first started watching movies, why would I care to see it again no matter how well its written. In the end its just the same character, I get the point, I like the character, now take him somewhere else, don't start over and waste my time.

 

[Steyin]

What's the aversion to having someone else do their own painting from the ground up, though? They don't even have to do the 'origin' again, but they can still have it be completely independent from the last version...and even do their own versions of R'as and Dent as they go along.

I don't want new versions of R'as and Dent, because in my mind its starting over, and I want to avoid that. As much as I don't like how Dent was handled as TF, I'd rather the integrity of what has been established stay, so leave him dead. R'as can still be used as his death was ambiguous, so its all good there. Newer films can still be construed from the ground up so to speak while leaving certain things in place. All in all, I'd rather not have a new film be totally independent of the former. For me, thats like a reboot, or like a Punisher War Crime scenario.

 

[KalMart]

Yeah but you get to a point where having too many variations of a character will take the audience out of the experience. This happens all the time in the comic medium. Just look at Superman Secret Origins. Is it written well? Yes it is. Do I care? No not really, I've seen the origin story done well since I first started watching movies, why would I care to see it again no matter how well its written. In the end its just the same character, I get the point, I like the character, now take him somewhere else, don't start over and waste my time.

I really don't think it'll take them out if there's ample space between them, and they actually like what they're seeing. Again, I don't think that audiences are looking to 'live' with the character/saga for 20-something years of their life or what have you, nor should they be have to get the 'full story' from movies that were from the last decade, either. Whether or not the last Batman movies before BB ended well, they picked up on BB and TDK pretty smoothly, and they'll be just as fine starting with another version down the road if that's what happens. And honestly, if some of it seems redundant to you, there's a whole new generation of moviegoers that'll be more than eager to take it as it comes. So personal preferences aside, the option of starting should absolutely be as equal an option as continuing.

 

[KalMart]

I don't want new versions of R'as and Dent, because in my mind its starting over, and I want to avoid that. As much as I don't like how Dent was handled as TF, I'd rather the integrity of what has been established stay, so leave him dead. R'as can still be used as his death was ambiguous, so its all good there. Newer films can still be construed from the ground up so to speak while leaving certain things in place. All in all, I'd rather not have a new film be totally independent of the former. For me, thats like a reboot, or like a Punisher War Crime scenario.

And part of starting anew is specifically for preserving the creative integrity and uniqueness of Nolan's version as well....and insuring that it won't be run into the ground like other franchises.

How about this...newer versions will have no connection whatsoever to the Nolan ones...but they just won't use characters that died in the Nolan versions. That way there won't be any 'confusion' over that, but the storylines themselves will be their own with no dependence on the earlier ones. So it's a reboot, but it won't 'step on the toes' of certain key things that happened in the Nolan stories.

 

[IBRAH08]

No, that's a Superhero film and/or fantasy film, that is a genre, comic books are form of story telling. Stories like A History of Violence and Road to Perdition are based on comic books, surely if comic book were a ''genre'' they would fall into that same description you gave, but they don't, there's nothing even remotely surreal or fantastical about those. The term comic book movie has come about because of laziness.

That's absurd to call a development of language laziness. That's like calling contractions laziness because you don't want say the whole word. You used at least three contractions in your post, so I guess you're just lazy too.

jmc you re splitting hairs. You know what we mean when we re asking for a comic book world instead of a crime drama one (spiderman/BB/Xmen vs TDK).

Thank you mr. earle, you understand.

 

[Laderlappen]

My prediction is that we will be old enough to have grandchildren by the time we see another Batman movie.

 

[Brother Jack]

jmc you re splitting hairs. You know what we mean when we re asking for a comic book world instead of a crime drama one (spiderman/BB/Xmen vs TDK).

I don't, mainly because more often than not the stories in the Batman comics ARE crime dramas...

 

[KalMart]

My prediction is that we will be old enough to have grandchildren by the time we see another Batman movie.

At least we got some really good ones. Imagine if someone were waiting that long for another Daredevil or Punisher movie?

 

[Visceral]

If it aint broke don't fix it