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

[maenalus]

Letting Batman do that stuff is a far cry from letting him get away with multiple homicides. Besides, the whole reason why Gordon can include Batman in the way he does by giving him evidence, etc. is that he is not seen as such a negative threat, which he would be if he started murdering.

Just like you can have a version of Batman that kills, you can have a version Gordon that has no problem withBatman killing. In all versions Batman and Gordon are criminals, that is they conscientiously break myriad laws, having them violate homicide laws is just a variation a theme.

 

[aty990]

I think that the quintessential theme of Batman has always been, as a vigilante in an attempt at order, how far can a man go outside the law, to uphold the peace and greater good?

 

[Rodrigo90]

^ Far enough to see the TRUE limit and stop before crossing it.

 

[aty990]

^ Far enough to see the TRUE limit and stop before crossing it.

Agreed. Batman does go outside the law. Batman sees the limit and knows the limit as he doesn't want to considered a villain. No? One can be a hero and still be considered a vigilante without considered an anti-hero? No?

 

[Rodrigo90]

Batman doesn't want to go beyond the limit of murder,because that separates him from the worst criminals. He doesn't agree with murder as its morally wrong,and not for him to decide,even though he goes above the law for other things. Its his own personal limit of what he will and wont do.

Gotham shouldn't look up to a murderous anti-hero,they should look up to a morally correct vigilante.

 

[aty990]

Batman represents a grand standard for a hero. His heroic status hinges on whether or not he goes beyond that limit because once doing so, he's considered an anti-hero or even further, a villain. Even as a vigilante, he does not cross the limit, remaining a hero. Setting a high standard towards, he merely does not talk the talk, but also walks the walk, indicative of the human-being that he is. A morally struggling, though, enduring, human-being.

 

[TheBatman072]

I think it would be big mistake (and really boring) for whoever comes after Nolan to approach BM feeling like he can't contradict anything Nolan did. One thing I would want the next franchise to contradict Nolan on, is making BM not afraid to take life. Batman shouldn't be blood-thirsty executioner like the Punisher, but as he was in his first few appearances and in the Burton films, he shouldn't hesitate to kill in self-defence, and in defence of innocent life.

Of course they will.

Movie studios are in the business of making money. Sadly, plain and simple.

If it works out that a property makes both money and fans and critics happy, than so be it. It worked out great.

But once Nolan is done, and no one comes to them with their good ideas, they'll give it to the first schmuck that comes along so he can crank out a movie or two for as little money as possible. They're pretty much all about "throwing **** on the wall and seeing what sticks." Only once in a blue moon does what they throw on the wall turn out to be really good and really profitable.

We REALLY lucked out with Nolan and company.

We won't get that lucky again, at least not for a LONG time.

See?

We'll have a Batman with a big Skull on his chest in no time.

 

[maenalus]

Batman doesn't want to go beyond the limit of murder,because that separates him from the worst criminals.

That's what I dislike most about the no-killing-Batman. To say that killing an evil man, is the same as killing innocents is just plain not true. The line separating the moral character of BM from the Joker, would not be crossed, or even remotely blurred, if BM were to drop the Joker from a tall building.

 

[maenalus]

One explanation for why BM wouldn't kill,that I think could work better, ( for me anyway) is to make him have some kind of psychological/emotional hangup over it.

 

[aty990]

Out of honor, Batman wasn't killing. This shows the obvious separation from his foes. Now, without crossing the line, Batman has to the utmost, realized how to keep honor and still protect the city, which, of course, killing may involved in the defense, thereof.

 

[mcallima]

Batman is a moral absolutist. Yes, he does operate outside of the law, but he has a black and white view of the world. According to his ethos, killing is wrong. Plain and simple.

There are many, many defects with Nolan's Batman, but having a Bruce who doesn't kill isn't one of them.

 

[maenalus]

Batman is a moral absolutist. Yes, he does operate outside of the law, but he has a black and white view of the world. According to his ethos, killing is wrong. Plain and simple.

That's definitely the most popular take on Batman, and I enjoy it greatly, but it doesn't make any sense.
Is it "Wrong, plain and simple" for police officers in an armed standoff to kill? For soldiers in a war? For a regular citizen to shoot a mugger? Of course not.

 

[mcallima]

That's definitely the most popular take on Batman, and I enjoy it greatly, but it doesn't make any sense.
Is it "Wrong, plain and simple" for police officers in an armed standoff to kill? For soldiers in a war? For a regular citizen to shoot a mugger? Of course not.

Well, I'm a pacifist, so I believe that the only reason for murder is when there is absolutely no way to disarm someone with intent to murder without lethal means.

Batman is a master of non-lethal combat. He can take on 20 gunmen with his bare hands. He doesn't kill because he doesn't need to kill. And at the same time, he doesn't view himself as the final arbiter of justice. Were he to kill the Joker to prevent future death, he'd be making himself into judge, jury, and executioner. Batman isn't Judge Dredd.

And let's look at it from another angle. Batman is perfect in almost every way. Genius level intellect, master tactician, veritable master of all. But perfect characters aren't interesting. So Batman is also obsessive, closed off, and has a rigid dogma that has indirectly lead to the very evil he seeks to prevent. That's a BRILLIANT thematic paradox that you kill by turning him into a generic murdering vigilante.

 

[IBRAH08]

Triple your post

 

[IBRAH08]

Triple your fun

 

[IBRAH08]

No more Nolanverse after this. Nolan is leaving. so after that a director would have to just imitate Nolan, which is a terrible idea and will just give us a cheap imitation version of Nolan. Plus let's have some variety and a serious take on some other interpretations of Batman?

 

[aty990]

No more Nolanverse after this. Nolan is leaving. so after that a director would have to just imitate Nolan, which is a terrible idea and will just give us a cheap imitation version of Nolan. Plus let's have some variety and a serious take on some other interpretations of Batman?

Not necessarily a terrible idea. If a director imitates Nolan, there would be more great movies. Thinking, that if a director puts their personal touch on the Batman mythos, straying too far from Nolan's formula would suggest dangerous territory. The Nolan-Verse holds realism that's an important foundational structure for Batman Comic to film adaptation. Without the realism you've another Joel Schumacher, creating a campy and unnecessary take on the environment, remaining untrue to the comics.

 

[Gianakin_]

Without the realism you can also have Burton, which was far from campy and "unnecessary take on the environment" (whatever that means).

 

[ico]

I'm with Gianakin. Just because the realism may be taken back a notch by another director does not necesarilly mean that it will devolve into a camp-fest.

As one simple example, the director could take it in a similar direction to the Batman Animated Series. There isn't much realism there, but it's far from campy.

 

[Gianakin_]

A trilogy more inspired by BTAS and its universe in general (Batman Beyond, JLU etc) would be a(nother) dream come true.

Not to mention that both BB and especially TDK were full of unrealistic moments that were simply shot in a way to make suspension of disbelief an easier job for the audience.

Come to think of it, all the moments where Bats disappears and appears out of the blue were right out of BTAS.

 

[aty990]

Did Burton follow the comics as Nolan does?

 

[Gianakin_]

Not as much, imo (though plenty will disagree with me), but he did give a pretty close portrayal of the atmosphere and style featured in the first Batman comics. The characters, not so much.

But, let me tell you, Schumacher was pretty accurate to some aspects of the comics and even BTAS and you see that this didn't prevent his movies from becoming grade A comedies.

 

[aty990]

A good idea, then, if there would be a qualified director after Nolan whom balances a candid portrayal of the comics with a sense of realism. Quite frankly, with the realism aspect, Nolan hasn't yet been perfect. I think that we both agree there's certainly space for improvement, not only in Batman 3 but beyond such as well.

 

[Gianakin_]

You need to leave a door open to the possibility that B3 will be even more unrealistic than TDK, what with the freaks taking over Gotham and all.

And I don't really believe that realism automatically equals good quality. It's just something that Nolan feels comfortable with. Another director could give us equally fantastic films with no "realism" at all.

 

[aty990]

Another director could give us equally fantastic films with no "realism" at all.

While I believe that the case for that is slim, there could still be a good movie
without the realism.