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

[KalMart]

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

Or they could start up a completely new good story. Lots of stories end while still good.

I think that Nolan should decide whether his version of the story continues in any fashion. I think he's earned at least that. It's not like an entirely different story continuity and style can't be good or even better if it's not this one.

 

[KalMart]

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).

Spiderman's rebootin', yo?

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.

I think they should go with the best individual stories that they can as a priority, then let it follow or start whatever continuity it chooses to.

 

[Ipodman]

Well... I just think that with Batman Begins, it's such a strong origin story. People will be interested in THIS Batman more than a new one. (If Bruce Wayne gets recasted, then I dont know)

Or another director could come in and do a movie in Nolan's world, but ten years after or something. Would be interesting, although if it gets too experimental then that's not healthy.

 

[KalMart]

Well... I just think that with Batman Begins, it's such a strong origin story. People will be interested in THIS Batman more than a new one. (If Bruce Wayne gets recasted, then I dont know)

Or another director could come in and do a movie in Nolan's world, but ten years after or something. Would be interesting, although if it gets too experimental then that's not healthy.

Well, if the Nolans end this last story/installment in a way that feels complete...which I think they're very capable of without doing anything too narratively drastic...then moviegoers who do hold the Nolan movies dearly will be well prepared to start over. And ample time in between will also help. Say...seven years. Of course, financial incentives may motivate them to do it sooner, to say nothing of fan-clamoring, etc. But audiences are sophisticated enough to take restarts as they come now, and the concept of starting over has already gone over well enough with BB, Star Trek, and Bond anyway. They'd be fine with a restart....'audience confusion' or what have you should be quite low on the concern list. They're still just movies, after all.

And it'll almost definitely be a different cast unless they really offer insane money to Bale & company. It's pretty clear that they all respect it's Nolan's vision that made these movies what they are, so I doubt they'd be eager to continue without him.

 

[Gianakin_]

Spiderman's rebootin', yo?

I know, I wasn't talking about continuity anymore, I was commenting on your post saying that they should focus on other characters, too. And my point was that as much as they'll try and shift focus to others, it will always be heroes like Batman and Spiderman that will get the focus. Even if Orson Welles returned from the dead and directed Blade 4, or if Kubrick came back and did X-Men, they would never reach the popularity of some particular characters.

 

[KalMart]

I know, I wasn't talking about continuity anymore, I was commenting on your post saying that they should focus on other characters, too. And my point was that as much as they'll try and shift focus to others, it will always be heroes like Batman and Spiderman that will get the focus. Even if Orson Welles returned from the dead and directed Blade 4, or if Kubrick came back and did X-Men, they would never reach the popularity of some particular characters.

I know, just messin' with you. t:

I dunno, though. Iron Man was kinda' low on the character 'totem pole' before those movies came out. These days, I think the playing field is pretty level, though. Just make the movies really good/fun, and poeple will have no qualms about their kids wanting to dress up like Iron Man....or a Pirate...more than Superman or Batman and what not. Heck, if Green Lantern is a big hit, it'll make it that much easier to take more time between Bat-franchises. I'm kinda' hoping it is just for that reason.

On a broader note, I also think that the whole Superhero movie genre will need a break altogether sometime in the near future. But that's another ball of wax.

 

[Gianakin_]

I dunno, though. Iron Man was kinda' low on the character 'totem pole' before those movies came out. These days, I think the playing field is pretty level, though. Just make the movies really good/fun, and poeple will have no qualms about their kids wanting to dress up like Iron Man....or a Pirate...more than Superman or Batman and what not. Heck, if Green Lantern is a big hit, it'll make it that much easier to take more time between Bat-franchises. I'm kinda' hoping it is just for that reason.

Sure, IM got something going, but the issue lies with the hero himself. There's a reason why some characters are more popular in the comics than others. This popularity carries on in the movies, too. I'm pretty confident that people will always be more hyped for a new Batman movie than a new Thor, GL, PotC movie. But, sure, if there are several DC movies that do well enough to keep people busy until another director is ready to give us a fantastic Batmovie again, by all means they should go for it.

 

[KalMart]

Sure, IM got something going, but the issue lies with the hero himself. There's a reason why some characters are more popular in the comics than others. This popularity carries on in the movies, too. I'm pretty confident that people will always be more hyped for a new Batman movie than a new Thor, GL, PotC movie. But, sure, if there are several DC movies that do well enough to keep people busy until another director is ready to give us a fantastic Batmovie again, by all means they should go for it.

Well, when POTC first came out, it's not like people were saying...'yeah, it's good....but it ain't no Batman, that's fer sure...!' Unless we're talking Star Wars or maybe even Raiders, you're pretty much old news once something bigger and better comes along. If you want to point to what made Batman so popular, point to Nolan and his team, not so much the characters' inherent qualities vs. others and so on. 'Cuz when it comes down to it...they're ALL still just comic book characters and these are just movies. So if, say, a GL or Thor or something else is rakin' in the dough and even setting records, it's not like it'll be any less meaningful/valid by not being Supes, or Batman, or Spidey....or that they don't really have a chance by not being one of those characters. A movie based on a friggin' 40-yr-old pirate-themed amusement park ride got a big star to steal the show, and look what happened. What chance did that have based on its inherent character appeal alone until the right ingredients came together?

If they want to capitalize on Batman 'hype', then they'll probably have to continue or at least associate with the Nolan movies pretty soon because of recent success...not so much the franchise/character as a 'legacy' or what have you. Not that Batman doesn't have its own iconic appeal, and of course something like the Joker is too juicy to pass up, and so on. But it's really fair game for anyone...so even though the Batman movies are riding high right now, chances are that they'll have to earn their stripes all over again once a new series starts up after several years in between, because with so many other characters and big franchises, nobody's seat is being saved. i.e.. I doubt moviegoers would really miss Batman that much if there are other big movies out there to enjoy, especially if they feel that this Nolan trilogy has completed itself. And that's not really a bad thing aside from not making money off of Batman films...which again, could be quelled quite nicely by a different mega-hit franchise. The Superman franchise saw this with SR...it's like yeah, he returns, but there wasn't exactly a big gaping hole during his absence...except for WB, perhaps. But hey, find the next Harry Potter, and then they could just send Supes a Christmas card while he's away. Same goes for Batman or anyone else.

But bigger in the comics or not, as far as the movies go, it all depends on those two hours that people buy a ticket for. Because I have a feeling that if Hulk got Nolan and Batman got Ang Lee...we'd be looking Hulk 3, and Batman being in developmental limbo....like Superman was until recently.

 

[Gianakin_]

I'm just saying, take a great Hulk movie and a great Batman movie, the Batman movie is still gonna make more.

 

[KalMart]

I'm just saying, take a great Hulk movie and a great Batman movie, the Batman movie is still gonna make more.

Maybe, maybe not. I think it has more to do with familiarity than a public awareness as to who's 'better' or what have you. then again, Superman's as familiar as it gets, but they'll have to come up with something really great if they want to even hang with the likes of Iron Man.

But yeah, with both Batman and Iron Man's gadgetry, the billionaire lifestyles, the 'edginess' of other characters, etc...some may have more to work with in a contemporary cinematic setting. On the other hand, you might have something that's considered legendary amongst the comic community such as Watchmen, and even transferred 'faithfully' to film, you get something that's awful, or just unpalatable because it IS so comic-like. It still matters more on how it's delivered than where they rank in the comic polls.

 

[ALP]

Watchmen being awful and unpalatable is nothing but your opinion. I felt it was brilliant on nearly every level. Don't act like your view is universal. It's not.

As for the topic at hand, no one really wants another reboot that begins with a full origin story. Nolan did it beautifully and I think it'd only be completely boring if just one decade after BB there is yet another retread. But I also wouldn't want anyone else to continue the "nolanverse" other than him...it leaves us in a bind.

 

[ScottJRamsey]

Once the Nolan series ends, the best thing to do would be to wait five to seven years and release a fourth installment that is faithful to Nolan's continuity but independent in its style. It would likely have its own unique cast, crew, and limit to "realism"; it may not necessarily shoot in Chicago. However, it would keep what Nolan has established and accept that as the "history" for the new Bat films. In other words: Joe Chill killed Bruce's parents, Two Face was scarred by Joker and died, Rachel existed and died, Ra's is presumed dead, Joker is in Arkham, Gordon is Commissioner, Fox is CEO of WE, Ra's trained Bruce, Wayne Manor was burned down and has been rebuilt. They can do what they will with the characters in their futures, but keep their pasts intact.

The best thing, in fact, would be to completely ignore the Nolan films and simply not address any issues that would confirm continuity had been kept intact or erased-- just use different villains and don't revisit the past too much.

The origins of Bruce, Two-Face, Joker, Scarecrow, and Batman 3's villain don't need to be revisited again ANYWAY. They've been done PLENTY of times and Nolan will have JUST done them RIGHT about ten years before. So go forward with new villains and plots.

 

[Daredevil]

I say make sequels until they stop doing well. I think quitting after 3 great movies is a little stupid on Nolans part especially when everyone loves his movies :/

 

[KalMart]

Watchmen being awful and unpalatable is nothing but your opinion. I felt it was brilliant on nearly every level. Don't act like your view is universal. It's not.

The movie was awful, dude...unless you're already really into the comic book. Sorry if that offends you.

As for the topic at hand, no one really wants another reboot that begins with a full origin story. Nolan did it beautifully and I think it'd only be completely boring if just one decade after BB there is yet another retread. But I also wouldn't want anyone else to continue the "nolanverse" other than him...it leaves us in a bind.

Unless a new Batman movie universe is really good in its own right. Then...bind solved.

I say make sequels until they stop doing well. I think quitting after 3 great movies is a little stupid on Nolans part especially when everyone loves his movies :/

To be fair...as filmmaker, he has more interests than to keep doing a Batman movie interspersed with others every three years from now on. Three movies, and the time it takes to make them, is giving a lot. Hopefully, if you loved those, you'll love his other ones too.

Meanwhile, let another talented crew do a brand new Batman completely unrelated to Nolan's..

 

[ALP]

If you think the movie was awful then that is fine. But using it as your template to prove staying true to the comics doesn't make it good is one of the stupidest examples you can think of. On it's own, Watchmen made perfect sense.

A new Batman movie universe can be good "in it's own right" but the vast majority of us just don't want another origin story. We've already been through it, there's really nothing new to be added in an origin story that Nolan didn't give us. That's why a lot of people want the Nolanverse to continue, they just don't want to completely have to start over from the beginning. If(when) there's a new series after this one I'd want Batman already established.

 

[Micah12345]

Watchmen is one of my favorite comics of all time. I was so hyped, I was hyping everyone around me, and we all went....and it was terrible. I was so disappointed, and ashamed for talking my friends and family into watching it too.

 

[KalMart]

I think some things are meant to specifically work in their original format, Watchmen being one of them...unless you really wanted to reinterpret and adapt it more for film. From a comic perspective, you respect Snyder for trying to stay as true as possible to the comic...but in doing so it made it even more inaccessible and alienating as a motion picture, because the comic itself was so specific in its appeal to those with an inherent affinity for comics. And any movie should work well as a movie first and foremost.

 

[StevieNicks1988]

Batman has the potential to be like James Bond. There are so many possibilities, but I don't want to see the franchise rebooted every decade so that by the time I'm sixty that are four or five different origin movies....that's just lame as hell. Do it right and keep it going. No point in trying to out-do yourselves, eventually you're going to fail...

 

[KalMart]

Batman has the potential to be like James Bond. There are so many possibilities, but I don't want to see the franchise rebooted every decade so that by the time I'm sixty that are four or five different origin movies....that's just lame as hell. Do it right and keep it going. No point in trying to out-do yourselves, eventually you're going to fail...

James Bond really ran itself into the ground though, even as early as the fifth film in. So it might be better to leave this Batman at three good (hopefully) films so it won't eventually implode...and fail....like James Bond (hence the reboot).

How about this....let the Nolan movies end on their own terms, then pick up and continue the Burtonverse from where that left off, and keep it going forever. That way, there'll only be one reboot ever done, but still one big contniuity by the time you're sixty-four.

 

[ALP]

^I'm 100% sure you're joking so I'll just say....ha ha

WB is greedy. It wouldn't really be surprising if they make a Batman 4. What if Nolan stayed on as producer? But even then, it still wouldn't be the same.

 

[KalMart]

^I'm 100% sure you're joking so I'll just say....ha ha

On a more serious note....if keeping a Batman continuity going for ages is really important, how about they start the next brand new version off that way with the specific intent to keep that series ongoing...no deaths for major characters, etc. That way you won't be bound by things as much and have to work around them, as well as keeping the style more consistent throughout. Probably an approach better suited for television, but still, do it by design from the get-go.

WB is greedy. It wouldn't really be surprising if they make a Batman 4. What if Nolan stayed on as producer? But even then, it still wouldn't be the same.

As we discussed earlier...greed/financial incentive is really the only motivation to justify 'continuing' from the 'Nolanverse' if Nolan himself treats this last film as an ending to his story arc. And again, aside from the Superman project he's already got on the horizon, he has a whole career of other films ahead of him to make...he's put his time in for Batman very well already. Yeah, it wouldn't be the same....so might as well have it be completely different altogether with a fresh canvas.

 

[ALP]

That would only happen if it's what WB wants creatively. Burton killed the Joker, Nolan killed Two Face, etc. Any filmmaker that has a vision of the characters will want to do things their way, not the way WB demands. James Bond for example just goes through a cycle of filmmakers many of whom were directors for hire(Foster!). Most filmmakers like to keep their work contained and make a trilogy, have a beginning and ending like Nolan is doing.

If a great number of rules applied to the Batman reboot in the early 2000s, Nolan probably would not have signed on. He had 100% creative freedom with BB.

 

[KalMart]

That would only happen if it's what WB wants creatively.

And if it's not want the filmmaker wants creatively...well...doesn't exactly brighten the future.

Burton killed the Joker, Nolan killed Two Face, etc. Any filmmaker that has a vision of the characters will want to do things their way, not the way WB demands. James Bond for example just goes through a cycle of filmmakers many of whom were directors for hire(Foster!). Most filmmakers like to keep their work contained and make a trilogy, have a beginning and ending like Nolan is doing.

Because that's pretty much how movies are approached and made..a.s featured events that capitalize on narrow time windows, instead of ongoing periodicals that deal in volume. Otherwise, you'd end up with more than just two hours of screen time for every two or so years of work and money......like TV or the Sat. matinee serials of old.

How about a combination of things....an ongoing TV series with a feature film every 2-3 years or so. Basically two seasons of TV, then the the next year is taken up by the feature, and so on. It'll be like working in a big graphic novel between the biannual runs of monthly comics.

 

[ALP]

Sounds like every fanboy's dream but can't say if it's very feasible.

Like we mentioned James Bond...some are really good while others are bad. If Batman went that route it would be the same, a very mixed bag. We don't need someone like Brett Rattner throwing in their sloppy input, we need a real filmmaker doing this. So I'm not sure how well a never ending on-going series would do. Just bring in another filmmaker with a vision like Nolan and he can do his own thing for a trilogy or so.

 

[KalMart]

Sounds like every fanboy's dream but can't say if it's very feasible.

And ultimately not really needed in movies...or for Batman...either. Better to let the movies remain the rare gems while comics and TV will always be ongoing.

Like we mentioned James Bond...some are really good while others are bad. If Batman went that route it would be the same, a very mixed bag.

With the result probably being similar as well....people got pretty bored with James Bond, and the stories got stale...forcing a reboot (for all intents and purposes) and a different approach.

We don't need someone like Brett Rattner throwing in their sloppy input, we need a real filmmaker doing this. So I'm not sure how well a never ending on-going series would do. Just bring in another filmmaker with a vision like Nolan and he can do his own thing for a trilogy or so.

I agree...as long as it's a brand new trilogy, completely separate from the Nolanverse.