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

[ALP]

Yeah TDK is only after a few months after BB at most. Definitely not more than that b/c like someone else said, Batman wasn't around a year ago.

But I also get what Kal is saying...even though Batman is in his first year by way of specific timeline...he has also grown vastly and with each movie also comes a new stage of Batman.

I actually hope this sequel takes place at least a year away and not just a couple of months because I want to see Wayne Manor built back up and the batcave too. Although like its been said, Nolan's trilogy is all about Batman's formative years so if the next takes palce only a few months after TDK I could imagine B3 could end with Wayne Manor being built back up along with the cave...as a sign of more things to come. Someone also metnioned the movie could end with another Joker card.

 

[ross2287]

It's been stated by either the Nolans or Goyer that TDK takes place six months after BB.

I'm good with another six months.

 

[KalMart]

Plus, the whole deal with Gordon's kid being a baby in BB should be handled like the Rocky V situation, where Rocky's son was an infant in IV and a teenager in V (Rocky V took place several minutes before Rocky IV).

The beginning of Rocky V was a flashback to Rocky IV, the rest took place years afterwards.

 

[Original Spawn]

I said that the dark knight was set months after BB not that he was around one year ago, i also remember hearing that of 6 months, i hope this one takes place in a lesser period of time since we had the gotham knight animated film to fill the 6 months gap and it would make more sence since this is year one.

 

[Gianakin_]

The beginning of Rocky V was a flashback to Rocky IV, the rest took place years afterwards.

I'm pretty sure that's not true. I ditinctly remember the airplane that brought Rocky back from Russia and 1 scene later they show Rocky's now teenage son welcoming him back.

 

[KalMart]

I said that the dark knight was set months after BB not that he was around one year ago, i also remember hearing that of 6 months, i hope this one takes place in a lesser period of time since we had the gotham knight animated film to fill the 6 months gap and it would make more sence since this is year one.

And as we've discussed...the actual amount of time covered in years isn't as relevant as the overall story arc being presented, and where it's progressed/heading. Nolan is not making these movies as an introductory set to establish a Batman world that can continue seamlessly in movies afterwards...it's not like Nolan is handling the early years, the director A will do the middle ones, and director C the final ones, etc.. He's not building a passageway...more like an entire room or building.

So it's not so much about the size/expanse of it, as it is the completeness of it as a whole. Whether it's 3 years or 30 years, he's setting up to close out his version of Batman narratively without any regard as to how the established fictional continuity will live on afterwards, or how many actual years of Batman's career will be covered. If other filmmakers want to pick up afterwards, they'll have to manufacture that connectivity without him and likely without the cast as well, and probably without any cliffhangers or narrative paths begging to be tread.

Can it be done? Sure...even if it requires a real stretch of plausibility. Should it be done?...depends on your perspective. The only reason I see for continuing is for the sake of quantity...more money from movies, and more Batman movies for Batman fans. Understandable, but quality-wise...three good movies are more than enough to make a stamp on a cinematic era. It's a very fulfilling serving that will continue to resonate even in the years of absence between the last movie and another restart years down the road. And I also think it will work out better for the movies themselves, as they need their space.

 

[KalMart]

I'm pretty sure that's not true. I ditinctly remember the airplane that brought Rocky back from Russia and 1 scene later they show Rocky's now teenage son welcoming him back.

Could be...I only saw parts of Rocky V. If anything, Joker's line about "let's rewind a year" is probably the strongest indicator, and it could be only several months. But again, the amount of time passed isn't the real issue.

 

[Original Spawn]

And as we've discussed...the actual amount of time covered in years isn't as relevant as the overall story arc being presented, and where it's progressed/heading. Nolan is not making these movies as an introductory set to establish a Batman world that can continue seamlessly in movies afterwards...it's not like Nolan is handling the early years, the director A will do the middle ones, and director C the final ones, etc.. He's not building a passageway...more like an entire room or building.

So it's not so much about the size/expanse of it, as it is the completeness of it as a whole. Whether it's 3 years or 30 years, he's setting up to close out his version of Batman narratively without any regard as to how the established fictional continuity will live on afterwards, or how many actual years of Batman's career will be covered. If other filmmakers want to pick up afterwards, they'll have to manufacture that connectivity without him and likely without the cast as well, and probably without any cliffhangers or narrative paths begging to be tread.

Can it be done? Sure...even if it requires a real stretch of plausibility. Should it be done?...depends on your perspective. The only reason I see for continuing is for the sake of quantity...more money from movies, and more Batman movies for Batman fans. Understandable, but quality-wise...three good movies are more than enough to make a stamp on a cinematic era. It's a very fulfilling serving that will continue to resonate even in the years of absence between the last movie and another restart years down the road. And I also think it will work out better for the movies themselves, as they need their space.

I know that but somebody in another thread told me that they are planning batman 3 to be set 6 months after TDK

 

[KalMart]

I know that but somebody in another thread told me that they are planning batman 3 to be set 6 months after TDK

So Nolan's Batman story may only span 2-something years. That's fine...as long as moviegoers feel a lot has happened in those 2-something years. Doesn't mean that particular Batman storyline HAS to go on for another 20.

 

[Original Spawn]

I guess that the events spawn something of a 1 year and 1 or 2 months

 

[KalMart]

I guess that the events spawn something of a 1 year and 1 or 2 months

Lots of things can happen in even less time. Wars have been fought in less time.

I guess the better way of putting it is...

Should the Nolanverse Continue After Batman III? Sure....just not necessarily in movies.

 

[Gianakin_]

Could be...I only saw parts of Rocky V. If anything, Joker's line about "let's rewind a year" is probably the strongest indicator, and it could be only several months. But again, the amount of time passed isn't the real issue.

I remember Rocky V and I brought it up as an example because I recall many people being upset by Rocky Jr's age difference between Iv and V. Anyway, I read in a pretty well-known back in 2007-08 that the time passed between BB and TDK is about 6 months.

 

[KalMart]

I remember Rocky V and I brought it up as an example because I revall many people being upset by Rocky Jr's age difference between Iv and V. Anyway, I read in a pretty well-known back in 2007-08 that the time passed between BB and TDK is about 6 months.

It could be two days or two years and not make much difference, though. These movies don't have to be the first set of an eleven-volume whatever. They can be just those three books as a set and cover whatever they want, then let other authors create their own stories covering whatever they want as well.

 

[Gianakin_]

It could be two days or two years and not make much difference, though. These movies don't have to be the first set of an eleven-volume whatever. They can be just those three books as a set and cover whatever they want, then let other authors star their own stories covering whatever they want as well.

I agree, generally, but for one point: It's pretty obvious that Batman's still not ready. In BB he had the mentality "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you", in TDK he was ready to give up his identity the moment a really challenging villain appeared and cornered him. I "blame" those mistakes on the fact that he's a rookie, thus the movies need to be close to each other, time-wise.

 

[KalMart]

I agree, generally, but for one point: It's pretty obvious that Batman's still not ready. In BB he had the mentality "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you", in TDK he was ready to give up his identity the moment a really challenging villain appeared and cornered him. I "blame" those mistakes on the fact that he's a rookie, thus the movies need to be close to each other, time-wise.

I can see that, but again, if you think about what the movies are more likely out to achieve/address.....that could just be this version of Batman in this world. I don't think the filmmakers, or most moviegoers for that matter, are there to see the full extent of a man's career or what have you over several generations. Or to be companion to an ongoing purpose, like comic fans and what not. This is this Batman in this world and this story...and if they choose to end this story, then that's the approach they'll take within whatever timeline they choose.

I don't think they'll have Batman die...it's likely that there will be a world of possibilities ahead, at least technically. But they probably won't set it up as having those possibilities be pressing, so to speak, like at the end of TDK or even BB. So narrative-wise, there probably won't be any urgency to see what happens next....even if it is just two years. It's up to WB when they start Batman up again whether they want to connect the new set to that or start up fresh. I'm hoping they choose the latter. Whichever it is, the incentive will be more about money and what the new filmmakers bring to the table, rather than 'we've only covered the first 18 months of Batman's career'.

 

[Gianakin_]

Sure, I'm just arguing why each movie takes place not long after the previous one.

 

[KalMart]

Sure, I'm just arguing why each movie takes place not long after the previous one.

Oh I can see that...but really, it's just a technicality compared to the bigger picture.

 

[ALP]

Sure, I'm just arguing why each movie takes place not long after the previous one.

Do you guys really want B3 to take place exactly after TDK!?

We would get no Wayne manor, no batcave,(for the second time in a row) and no batmobile/tumbler. Might as well just strip him off the batsuit too. Christian Bale can just fight crime in his footsie pyjamas.

 

[KalMart]

Do you guys really want B3 to take place exactly after TDK!?

We would get no Wayne manor, no batcave,(for the second time in a row) and no batmobile/tumbler. Might as well just strip him off the batsuit too. Christian Bale can just fight crime in his footsie pyjamas.

Personally, I'd like there to be at least five years of no Batman/Batman in hiding before the last chapter to do a kind of TDKR-type of story. But TDK ended with things pretty immediately on edge, so I can see how they might pick up pretty close to it.

 

[Two-Face]

What? We would get Wayne Manor or Batcave build already in Batman 3. I'm thinking TDK took off a year after Begins (Joker mentions this when he mets the mobs) we could get them a year later after events in TDK.

 

[Gianakin_]

Do you guys really want B3 to take place exactly after TDK!?

We would get no Wayne manor, no batcave,(for the second time in a row) and no batmobile/tumbler. Might as well just strip him off the batsuit too. Christian Bale can just fight crime in his footsie pyjamas.

What? Who even mentioned that we wanted B3 to take place right after TDK? And how do we know at what stage the re-building of Wayne Manor and the Batcave are in TDK? B3 could take place 1 month after TDK and they could both be ready. I don't care if the Tumbler is back either way.

 

[thebatsam]

There's not really much need to reboot the franchise, considering Nolan did so well to make Batman's origins modernised and within the realms of possibility
A new director could easily take over and the way I would like it to go would be to possibly set it like 20 years after batman 3 where he's older can possibly introduce Robin (Nolan said he imagines Dick Grayson to be in the cradle during his movies)....the plot could be like 'The Dark Knight Returns' but not with him coming out of retirement but someting similar

Casting wise they could go with Jon Hamm (Don Draper from Mad Men) who has that mature Bruce Wayne look to him

In theory the next film could be made like 2-3 years after batman 3

 

[ALP]

What? Who even mentioned that we wanted B3 to take place right after TDK? And how do we know at what stage the re-building of Wayne Manor and the Batcave are in TDK? B3 could take place 1 month after TDK and they could both be ready. I don't care if the Tumbler is back either way.

Good point.

 

[antsman41]

After B3, they should just let Superman, Green Lantern, etc start with 2-3 each then in 2020ish have Nolan, Bale and Oldman come together for their own type of TDKR storyline...

 

[daywalker2007]

I can see that, but again, if you think about what the movies are more likely out to achieve/address.....that could just be this version of Batman in this world. I don't think the filmmakers, or most moviegoers for that matter, are there to see the full extent of a man's career or what have you over several generations. Or to be companion to an ongoing purpose, like comic fans and what not. This is this Batman in this world and this story...and if they choose to end this story, then that's the approach they'll take within whatever timeline they choose.

I don't think they'll have Batman die...it's likely that there will be a world of possibilities ahead, at least technically. But they probably won't set it up as having those possibilities be pressing, so to speak, like at the end of TDK or even BB. So narrative-wise, there probably won't be any urgency to see what happens next....even if it is just two years. It's up to WB when they start Batman up again whether they want to connect the new set to that or start up fresh. I'm hoping they choose the latter. Whichever it is, the incentive will be more about money and what the new filmmakers bring to the table, rather than 'we've only covered the first 18 months of Batman's career'.

I think WB has learned their lesson when it comes to Batman.

If Nolan quits after the 3rd movie and the third movie has made another billion dollars, then I very much doubt they are going to let another director carry on with the same batman universe. they are most likely going to wait rather than risk another Joel Schumacher scenario.

They know now that good films can also be big box office winners if you treat the the movies with the respect they deserve, not just make them for the sake of it.