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

[KalMart]

There will be ups and downs regardless of whether or not there are gigantic gaps between movies. You can't guarantee quality.

But you could do more to ensure it by not trying milk the cow until it's dead. That's one of many reasons why it takes over a year to put out just one 2-hr movie, as opposed to, say, 13 1-hr TV episodes, or a periodical publication every month. They're different approaches altogether, and you can absorb the 'down's more with the latter, whereas the former takes a lot more out of it.

Better to make a TV series that's better suited to an ongoing episodic approach than a whole new feature film every 2 or so years, if quantity is what you're after. Give the movies the time and space they both need and deserve....it's more conducive to having better movies along with a fresher, less overloaded viewership coming in.

 

[Ziggyman]

I love the Nolan series and all...but it kinda stings that the timespan of the trilogy will only be like 2 or 3 years...

 

[KalMart]

I love the Nolan series and all...but it kinda stings that the timespan of the trilogy will only be like 2 or 3 years...

As long as it was a really good 2 or 3 years though, no?

 

[Ziggyman]

For me at least...I don't even know if that could compensate for it...the timespan is one thing that really really bugs me about the trilogy...

 

[KalMart]

For me at least...I don't even know if that could compensate for it...the timespan is one thing that really really bugs me about the trilogy...

Well...when you think about it, he hasn't really changed in age in the comics over decades, so....

 

[Brother Jack]

For me at least...I don't even know if that could compensate for it...the timespan is one thing that really really bugs me about the trilogy...

It would be extremely difficult to do justice to Batman's entire career in three films. And besides, unless Nolan kills him off (which isn't going to happen) it's not as if it won't have some open-endedness to it. I stand by my sentiment that Nolan's films are primarily chronicling Batman's early years.

 

[KalMart]

It would be extremely difficult to do justice to Batman's entire career in three films. And besides, unless Nolan kills him off (which isn't going to happen) it's not as if it won't have some open-endedness to it. I stand by my sentiment that Nolan's films are primarily chronicling Batman's early years.

And whatever version comes next doesn't necessarily have to be THIS Batman's middle years, either.

 

[Ziggyman]

...It won't be...

 

[Gianakin_]

And besides, unless Nolan kills him off (which isn't going to happen) it's not as if it won't have some open-endedness to it. I stand by my sentiment that Nolan's films are primarily chronicling Batman's early years.

The funny thing is that, while I was playing Arkham Asylum, I felt that I was playing a "vague" sequel of Nolan's trilogy. It was like the idea me and others here have expressed in tha past: Have a Burton and Schumacher approach. Different styles, actors etc. but don't directly negate everything the previous (Nolan's trilogy) did.

PS: I swear to God I heard one of Joker's goons from the bank heist in TDK do a thug's voice in Arkham Asylum.

 

[jakinj]

Not sure about a Nolan Batman 4, but I'd dig another Gotham Knights run with a bunch of animated shorts somewhat in the Nolanverse

 

[KalMart]

The funny thing is that, while I was playing Arkham Asylum, I felt that I was playing a "vague" sequel of Nolan's trilogy. It was like the idea me and others here have expressed in tha past: Have a Burton and Schumacher approach. Different styles, actors etc. but don't directly negate everything the previous (Nolan's trilogy) did.

PS: I swear to God I heard one of Joker's goons from the bank heist in TDK do a thug's voice in Arkham Asylum.

I don't think you have to negate anything, but then again, you don't have to hold true/consistent to anything from the Nolan films either. For example, if the next version wants to use Harvey Dent/Two Face for something, then by all means let them...even though he died in Nolan's version. If it's a brand new version, it's not negating, continuing, or explaining anything...just doing its own story.

 

[Gianakin_]

Exactly. They shouldn't directly address the facts in the Nolan trilogy. Like in BF, when Kidman tells Batman (paraphrasing here) "Or are you into leather and whips?". This told us they accepted Catwoman's existence from BR, but nothing else. That's how I think they should proceed with B4.

 

[Micah12345]

I'm not so sure that was a BR reference.

 

[KalMart]

Exactly. They shouldn't directly address the facts in the Nolan trilogy. Like in BF, when Kidman tells Batman (paraphrasing here) "Or are you into leather and whips?". This told us they accepted Catwoman's existence from BR, but nothing else. That's how I think they should proceed with B4.

Or like in BB and TDK, where they had Bruce's parents killed by Joe Chill and not Napier/Joker, and a Joker that hadn't died....for example.

No half-references, no inside-wink-winks, no it-could-be-but-not-confirmed, etc. Just a brand new story with no need to even acknowledge that there were other Batman movies made before....other than being their own unique style different than Nolan's, of course. A good 5-7 year separation from the last Nolan film should help keep people from wondering if it's part of the 'same series', along with a brand new storyline.

 

[Gianakin_]

Yeah, that's the thing, I'm not sure I want a reboot. They've set up a great universe and I do believe that not many directors would take the Incredible Hulk approach, aka hinting at the origin and moving on.

The Bond/Batman Quadrilogy approach is what I want the most. Plus, its the closest things to the comics: Retconning all the time, but somehow keeping things in the same continuity.

 

[Gianakin_]

I'm not so sure that was a BR reference.

I'm pretty confident it was. As was the Waynes' murder flashback, shot to look almost identical to the scene in B89.

 

[KalMart]

Yeah, that's the thing, I'm not sure I want a reboot. They've set up a great universe and I do believe that not many directors would take the Incredible Hulk approach, aka hinting at the origin and moving on.

I think it would be the most respectful thing to do, creatively, by allowing the Nolan set of films to stand on their own...even though it's based on an ongoing character. Plus, it'll completely free up the next filmmakers to make their own version from the ground up. the next one doesn't have to do the whole origin and early life again, but it should definitely do its own thing and leave the 'Nolanverse' completely unassociated.

The Bond/Batman Quadrilogy approach is what I want the most. Plus, its the closest things to the comics: Retconning all the time, but somehow keeping things in the same continuity.

I don't think the 'Bond approach' is good for any feature films, even Bond (it dragged itself out after just four films). Movies really aren't like comics or television. They're treated and made...logistically and creatively...like special events, rather than episodes or slices of an ongoing life. The only real incentive to 'keep going' is financial...which is a big incentive, to be sure, but its bound to wear out its welcome with anything, and that's their way of knowing that they squeezed every last drop of milk and blood from the cow, so to speak. I really feel that if people want Batman on the moving screen to reflect the comics more in terms of an ongoing storyline, then you're better off going with either a TV show or something akin to the older Saturday matinee serials. It might not be quite as epic as a big feature film each time, but it can still be good and fulfilling, and take advantage of the open-ended episodic nature of TV, like the better TV shows have.

Yeah, they could leave just enough of a continuity window open to technically keep going, but let the movies be the rare special events they're intended to be, and leave the ongoing serials where they're meant, and designed, to be as well....like TV and comics/periodicals. Obviously, fans just want more, but it'll really be better to insure more quality in less installments by not overdoing it.

 

[Micah12345]

Modern day batman serials would kick so much ass.

 

[Gianakin_]

I think it would be the most respectful thing to do, creatively, by allowing the Nolan set of films to stand on their own...even though it's based on an ongoing character. Plus, it'll completely free up the next filmmakers to make their own version from the ground up. the next one doesn't have to do the whole origin and early life again, but it should definitely do its own thing and leave the 'Nolanverse' completely unassociated.

See, the Nolan films will either way stand on their own. Nothing changes. As for the new filmmaker, sure, it will give them more freedom, but, again, look at Schumacher. I don't think he was in any way tied by the Burton films, even when he acknowledged them. Perfect example for that? Harvey Dent. Black in B89, white in BF. Problem solved, no hands tied.

I don't think the 'Bond approach' is good for any feature films, even Bond (it dragged itself out after just four films). Movies really aren't like comics or television. They're treated and made...logistically and creatively...like special events, rather than episodes or slices of an ongoing life.

And in no way would I want them to be any different. I'm not talking quantity here. How more Batfilms will there be, ever? Let's say 30. All I'm saying is they could break some them in trilogies, which have all one thing in common: They share a vaguely same backbone. In B16, for example, I wouldn't mind if they acknowledged that 2Face once threatened Gordon's still infant son.

I really feel that if people want Batman on the moving screen to reflect the comics more in terms of an ongoing storyline, then you're better off going with either a TV show or something akin to the older Saturday matinee serials.

I don't want them to reflect the comics history. I'm just talking about the format here, not the content.

Yeah, they could leave just enough of a continuity window open to technically keep going, but let the movies be the rare special events they're intended to be, .

That's exactly what I'm suggesting.

 

[Gianakin_]

Modern day batman serials would kick so much ass.

They sure would.

 

[KalMart]

See, the Nolan films will either way stand on their own. Nothing changes. As for the new filmmaker, sure, it will give them more freedom, but, again, look at Schumacher. I don't think he was in any way tied by the Burton films, even when he acknowledged them. Perfect example for that? Harvey Dent. Black in B89, white in BF. Problem solved, no hands tied.

Harvey Dent....dead in TDK. Is it okay for the next version to use him without....alive...having to even address that yet still leave the possibility of being tied to the Nolanverse? Could Schumacher have just had another Joker show up without explaining that he wasn't dead after all?

Just let the new Batman movies do their own thing like Nolan did with his with no regard to earlier movies....if they want to, of course. If someone actually wants to build off of the 'Nolanverse'...well, if it were my decision, I'd look for another filmmaker who wanted to do their own thing.

And in no way would I want them to be any different. I'm not talking quantity here. How more Batfilms will there be, ever? Let's say 30. All I'm saying is they could break some them in trilogies, which have all one thing in common: They share a vaguely same backbone. In B16, for example, I wouldn't mind if they acknowledged that 2Face once threatened Gordon's still infant son.

I don't think people are missing a sense of solidarity or what have you by having the first two trilogies as completely separate entities with no common 'backbone', so there's no reason another set can't be its own thing separate from the Nolanverse's backbone as well. I doubt most people would mind if a new Two Face had nothing to do with Gordon's anything in the past, either.

I don't want them to reflect the comics history. I'm just talking about the format here, not the content.

I'm talking strictly about format, why they're different, and why they're approached differently. If you want them to be a series of ongoing episodes or the like...like comics and TV are...then do them in a format that's best suited to that...like comics and TV are...and do that as well as possible.

That's exactly what I'm suggesting.

But why, though? Why not do it on TV where it naturally lends itself to that better? Never mind movies, there's never been a better time to do something like Batman on TV than now...with all the different cable networks and HDTV's, etc. Someone could still take a cinematic live-action approach to Batman that doesn't have to dilute itself for kids, and treat it episodically like in the comics. Make a Batman equivalent of Smallville (as a loose example), without having to be so teen-oriented.

Of course, this doesn't mean that I don't understand and respect how you...as well as a lot of Batman fans...feel. I just feel that for films to continue being really good, they also need to be treated with a certain respect for their individuality/uniqueness as a format, if that makes any sense. And I think that's more important in this case because Batman will always continue to be what he originally is in comics et al, whereas the movies can concentrate on being as good as they can as movies, even if they don't quite mirror the experience of the comics.

 

[Gianakin_]

Valid points all. Characters dying sure pose a problem for my proposed loose continuity, but it's nothing insurmountable in my opinion. I get you, though, and I would love a TV Batman show, especially if it's a Nolanverse spinoff (like BTAS was kind of a Burtonverse spinoff).

I just don't want rehashes. We never got a Batman origin with Burton and Nolan had the luxury of rebooting it while keeping it fresh.
The Incredible Hulk skipped the origin and, to me, it made the new setup of the character a bit lacking. I mean, IM got his origin movie. Now, if you see TIH as a vague sequel to Ang Lee's Hulk, you have the origin problem covered, but... it's not intended for the new Marvel universe.
Now, take the new Superman movie. No idea if they're gonna reboot (no way they're continuing the DonnerSingerverse), but my guess is they will. The origin was done perfectly in STM. I'm not familiar how the origin has changed after the Crisis (or after every other crisis since that), but other than both Kents being alive, I'm not sure major changes have happened. What do they do? Give us the same origin, just shot differently? Or skip the origin and give us bits here and there, thus making the new rendition incomplete?

My point is, Nolan gave us an ideally detailed origin, with enough unchronicled periods in Bruce's training to give space to future directors with their visions. Nolan only used Ra's. Batman's had many mentors. A new director can take another period from Bruce's early years and use it to fit his story.
With the exception of 2Face being dead, the rogue's gallery is all there. And they can get 2Face back if they want. I'm just saying, we have a pretty strong and convenient basis for Batman on film, there's not necessarily a need to start all over again.

 

[KalMart]

Valid points all. Characters dying sure pose a problem for my proposed loose continuity, but it's nothing insurmountable in my opinion. I get you, though, and I would love a TV Batman show, especially if it's a Nolanverse spinoff (like BTAS was kind of a Burtonverse spinoff).

I kinda' disagree about TAS in that I think one of the things that made it so good was that it was so DIFFERENT than the Burton stuff...and was more about the classic qualities of the character, than some filmmaker's weirdo vision. In a lot of ways, I saw much more artistic respect for classic cinema and film noir in TAS than anything that Burton did.

I just don't want rehashes. We never got a Batman origin with Burton and Nolan had the luxury of rebooting it while keeping it fresh.
The Incredible Hulk skipped the origin and, to me, it made the new setup of the character a bit lacking. I mean, IM got his origin movie. Now, if you see TIH as a vague sequel to Ang Lee's Hulk, you have the origin problem covered, but... it's not intended for the new Marvel universe.
Now, take the new Superman movie. No idea if they're gonna reboot (no way they're continuing the DonnerSingerverse), but my guess is they will. The origin was done perfectly in STM. I'm not familiar how the origin has changed after the Crisis (or after every other crisis since that), but other than both Kents being alive, I'm not sure major changes have happened. What do they do? Give us the same origin, just shot differently? Or skip the origin and give us bits here and there, thus making the new rendition incomplete?

My point is, Nolan gave us an ideally detailed origin, with enough unchronicled periods in Bruce's training to give space to future directors with their visions. Nolan only used Ra's. Batman's had many mentors. A new director can take another period from Bruce's early years and use it to fit his story.
With the exception of 2Face being dead, the rogue's gallery is all there. And they can get 2Face back if they want. I'm just saying, we have a pretty strong and convenient basis for Batman on film, there's not necessarily a need to start all over again.

Oh I know...the fact that Nolan's take IS so good only makes one want more. But there's also something to be said for 'less is more', too. Basically, I'm more of a cinema fan than a comic/Batman fan, so that's what dictates what my heart chooses...so in that respect I think separation has its advantages moreso from a creative standpoint, so to speak. And the fact that most movies just get worse the farther along they go isn't just bad luck or incompetence...it's kinda' the natural by-product of putting all your eggs in one basket at each go-around, y'know? That's how movies are made, even the bad ones.

Also, instead of having Batman continue on this course or what have you, I'd rather that this kind of effort and quality being brought to other characters so there's more variety, instead of just Batman getting all the attention. Blasphemy, I know, for a Batman fan, but hey...it'd probably be better for the genre as a whole, no?

 

[Gianakin_]

Eh, not blasphemy. You said it yourself in a previous post, when you mentioned the money issue. Batman is popular=makes money=generates more movies. It's like Spiderman and it would be like Superman, if that particular character wasn't cursed by the celluloid (has a longevity in TV, though).

I really get your points, I do. I'm equally a film and a comics fan when it comes to Batman, thus my preference for his cinematic continuation format. However, if WB decided to make one-off Batman movies like they do with Under the Red Hood, or with Year One shortly, I'd have no problem whatsoever.

 

[Ipodman]

The story should continue because it's a good story.

But the tone can be changed according to the director or screen writer... thats how I see it