The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - Part 152

[Decepticonus]

OK I am NOT going to quote all of that BUT... the two of you both have good, interesting points.

The whole thing of "you dropped me into those chemicals, don't think I didn't trying moving on" spiel was a lie in my opinion. I just watched Batman '89 like two weeks ago now and ALL of the special features over a 2-3 day period. In it Alex Ross shows up noting he did not care much for Alan Moore's origin, stating he preferred this one. The way he viewed it was Jack Napier was ALWAYS psychotic, always crazy, always mean and sadistic. But something was holding him back. Then he gets dropped into that vat of chemicals and now all the craziness comes out! He has finally embraced it. As far as the make-up I honestly do not know why they did that. I have no theories, the theories presented here are interesting. And I will add it made great for that scene...
"I have taken off my make-up, let's see if you can take off yours." - Joker challenging Batman
I'm sure there's some deep theme hidden in there by Burton.

I am not sure I am buying the trophy wife thing. Again, I like the thinking of I'm going to trade up for a new one now that the boss is out of the way. But again, not very Joker at all. And as I mentioned earlier, look at the pictures Bob brings back to him. They look fine, why can't he photograph the Joker's "art"? Now the whole idea presented of him & Batman fighting over her??? I can maybe buy that... maybe. Now Joker has picked on people - Joker's Favor because Charlie was so pathetic, hence it was hilarious to Joker. The Laughing Fish with the "paper pusher" who claimed he did nothing wrong and can't change anything, so why is he "picking on me" and in Joker's "sick mind" that is the joke. They could have done something like that with Vicki I feel... maybe.
Overall, Vicki is just there to provide as a damsel in distress. A sorta classic dragon takes the princess and the hero must save her kind of scenario.

I do like the poisoning of Gotham, it's boring because yeah it was handled poorly. There is no fear, no panic. Yet, Joker's method poisoning Gotham is GENIUS! I love it! You have that line where he talks about how people are obsessed with looks "this is attractive, that isn't". I felt that could of played into it. Here, Joker could be attacking the sorta vanity, self conscience nature of people. We have to look like those young models in the pictures and what not. I don't know, regardless I feel there is something there you could do.

You brought up good points about the changes to Ra's and Chill, which yeah don't bother me. In fact, I prefer Nolan Ra's but just add a lazarus pit. But The Joker killing his parents really identifies Batman. Think, the only way to truly defeat Batman is go back in time and stop Joker. Plus, why did Joker do it? Both him and young Bob looked like nice, slick gangsters. Whereas poor, homeless Joe Chill needed money for a drink, food, w/e made sense. I mean I guess it's because Joker is just crazy he killed them? But again, I dunno. He really spends his time stalking couples at night to kill?
I will say his killing of the parents doesn't bother me as MUCH as others. I think it's off, yeah, but I don't loose sleep over it. However, it is certainly interesting and I honestly wouldn't mind seeing it again in an elseworld but handled better.
It doesn't help how shoe horned this was in as well. Part of me didn't even buy it. An 8 year old kid who saw this guy ONCE, then roughly 20-30 years later see this guy and says "Hey that's him" .... NO! I ain't buying it, but you have the dumb devil moon light quote to help with it and the fact he was referred to as Jack. However, I would argue as you age earlier events become even more fuzzy. But you could argue this event in his life is so crucial, how could he forget any of the details... he obsesses over it.
Plus, there is this idea of oh, you avenged your parents' killer now it's time to hang up the cape, right? : BATMAN RETURNS: Ooooo never mind. Regardless, I think that is a very debatable issue. I mean we're obviously not following the source material too much so far.
What makes these two characters work is that they are NOT directly connected at all, but due to their history, the nature of their conflict you would swear that they are. I don't think Burton got that.

 

[craigdbfan]

Haha good times. I can't believe I was pretty much alone in interpreting Nolan's comment correctly.

http://lax.forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=22071773

 

[BlueLightning]

I guess we really wanted to believe that Batman continued his crusade, so we could fill those gaps with our own interpretation or leaving it open for other possibilities. But I understand the path chosen and ultimately very content with the results. It makes sense.

 

[ComicChick]

the jan/feb fan art contests are back and this theme is Deadpool +1!
there are some great hype prizes you can win (larger avvy, for instance), but you can also win a Deadpool t-shirt.

Can't you imagine The Caped Crusader teaming up with the Merc with a Mouth? Let's see what you can come up with!
http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=491427

 

[kvz5]

Haha good times. I can't believe I was pretty much alone in interpreting Nolan's comment correctly.

http://lax.forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=22071773

Until now, in my mind, Bruce dealing with Rachel's death and being so consumed all throughout those 8 years with just being Batman still makes so much sense to me.

 

[AnneFan]

Eight years? Hah. The 11th Doctor spent 900 years defending a backwater planet/prevented the Time War from restarting.

 

[Travesty]

Haha good times. I can't believe I was pretty much alone in interpreting Nolan's comment correctly.

http://lax.forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=22071773

It's because nobody thought Batman retired at the end of TDK. The movie never even hinted at it, in fact, it pretty much told us that he would go on, even if he was chased by cops.

 

[The Batman]

^ This. Not only that, the crew used to describe BB/TDK Batman as being in his YO phase.

I believe the theory that "Justice League: Mortal" changed Nolan's plans. Having Bats quit right after TDK helped keep the Nolanverse self contained.

 

[The Shape]

I believe the theory that "Justice League: Mortal" changed Nolan's plans. Having Bats quit right after TDK helped keep the Nolanverse self contained.

It also served the specific story Nolan was trying to tell with TDKR -- with elements of The Dark Knight Returns, Knightfall, and the whole "rise from the ashes" theme.

I honestly don't think JL: Mortal had any effect on Nolan's plans for a third film.

 

[shauner111]

I dont mind if the original plan was for BB/TDK to be the Year One phase, then it changed..

I hate recasts, especially for lead characters. And i hate when studios try to make as many sequels as possible, even if Batman's career calls for that. It's the movies, and no matter what we would have had to deal with Bale being recast. New director after director. Im happy Nolan said "screw the formula of Batman having a 20 year career, let's do a self contained story".

The end of TDK works both ways. Carrying on forever or retiring later that night. It all works, that's how open that ending was. Gordon's speech to his kid is his thoughts. I like that we're not hearing it from the mouth of Bruce Wayne/Batman, that he'll continue being Batman night in-night out after that night. We don't know what his exact intention is, and we don't know the future of how the police/government will handle this entire situation. All we know is Batman is taking the blame and Gordon believes Batman is a watchful protector because he can take it. We dont know for sure if Batman retires that night, only that he's last "seen" in the public eye that night. We don't know if he went out again or not. It's almost like the internal monologue of Jim Gordon.

We want to hear what we want to hear. We also have expectations as batman/comic fans. Nolan tore that down and im glad because there's ALWAYS time to tap into the pure comic book Batman who carries on forever. Look at what we're getting right now with Affleck.

That TDK speech is from Gordon's perspective only.

 

[Shikamaru]

I don't think we can be as specific as to boil it down to JL: Mortal, but I think the idea of a shared universe itself being part of the reason for Nolan's decision is by no means a stretch.

Suppose Nolan went with a story (and by extension an ending) more in line with what some of us felt was more fitting with previous events. What then? We knew he wouldn't come back for a 4th one (understandably so), which would've left the franchise in WB's hands. And of course, what would WB have done with a still active critically acclaimed Batman? Don't think they wouldn't have tried their hardest to go that route. These are the same people who at one point entertained the idea of John Blake in the JL.

Then there's the matter of time. Having only been Batman for about a year, there's no way Nolan could have "ended" the franchise with a story immediately after TDK. "He begins, fights x, then fights y then done" would come off unnatural, even to the fans. You almost needed a time gap to make the trilogy idea work, especially a gap with an inactive Batman so WB wouldn't even be able to go back and tell stories in between TDK/R.

My point is that in some ways, it was a necessary evil. It was the choice between ending his take in such fashion or letting it continue by suits that would take it in a place it wasn't naturally meant for. Even if you're in the crowd who believes the entire story flows naturally, I don't think it's a stretch to argue such political reasons were on the back of Nolan's mind while writing, for better or worse.

It's an understandable perspective on Nolan's part, I can't really fault him for it. But being someone who's not looking forward much to the DCCU (don't mean to beat that dead horse again), TDKR probably disappoints me even more in retrospect. Since with or without a good TDKR, I probably wouldn't have been a fan of what came after either way.

 

[The Shape]

I just don't buy that Nolan would allow "studio politics" or an eventual/incoming shared universe to dramatically alter/change/rewrite his plans for a third Batman film and trilogy-capper, in an effort to "preserve" his Batman series and make sure no one else would revisit it. We're talking about a Chris Nolan who was just coming off Inception and seemingly had the power to do whatever we wanted with his film series. So if he truly wanted to make Batman an active crime-fighter during those 8 years or if he wanted to deliver a finale that was more open-ended in nature, I think he would have.

Now, if Bruce or the thematic elements of BB and TDK had asserted that Batman's war on crime would be never-ending (or lead us to believe as much), then it would be clear that Nolan switched things up and suddenly decided to deliver that relatively definitive ending. However, from BB and throughout TDK, it was always suggested that his crusade as Batman would one day end, and one of the biggest plot points of TDK was Bruce seeking out a new hero for Gotham (someone who could take up the "mantle" of the city's protector). I don't think it was a happy coincidence that Bruce found someone else to take up his mantle and that he was able to move on from "Batman".

 

[shauner111]

I agree Shika. I think it was in the back of his mind even though he still had a plan and wanted Bruce to retire happy. I think for Nolan himself, everything that happened with the suits and JL, was just a good excuse for him to end the story like he always wanted.

Also very true Shape. I always forget that part of TDK when making my arguments. That he was willing to hand it over, but Dent wasn't the right guy. He found the right guy in the end. Someone who stood between Harvey Dent and Bruce Wayne. Best of both worlds in a way. The grey knight between the white and black (dark).

 

[The Shape]

In fact, it was said that Nolan became personally became involved with making sure JL: Mortal never came to fruition. That's something I can certainly believe (and don't fault him for doing), rather than him altering his own Batman plans so that no one else could touch it in the near or distant future.

 

[The Joker]

That TDK speech is from Gordon's perspective only.

I don't see how you came to that conclusion. The speech at the end was the narration to the audience about Batman's situation. It was not meant to be one person's perspective on the situation. It didn't have to come from Batman's mouth for it to be true. He's not the only character in these movies to spell out something to the audience about another character as you well know. Besides there was nothing Gordon said (apart from labeling him a Dark Knight) that Batman himself had not already said. All the TDK ending basically said was Batman can be what ever Gotham needs him to be, and that he can be hunted and take it. Batman had already said that to Gordon. And Alfred had said that to Bruce even earlier in the movie.

Travesty is right. There's no implications about retirement or it being the end of Batman. That's why nobody was predicting it when TDKR rolled around. It never gave that impression. An ending which works both ways like you suggest would have had more people thinking that maybe Batman had retired. There would have been less controversy over the fact that he had been out of action for 8 years.

I have no problem in principle with the 8 year retirement thing. After all The Dark Knight Returns Batman retired for 10 years, and he did it when Gotham still needed a Batman. At least Bale's Batman did it when Gotham didn't need him any more. But the ending to TDK never felt like that was the direction the character was going. It didn't feel like the next natural chapter of the story. Unlike the Begins ending which talked about escalation because of Batman, and the arrival of a new theatrical criminal leaving Joker calling cards, both of which TDK delivered on.

 

[Ryan]

I don't see how you came to that conclusion. The speech at the end was the narration to the audience about Batman's situation. It was not meant to be one person's perspective on the situation. It didn't have to come from Batman's mouth for it to be true. He's not the only character in these movies to spell out something to the audience about another character as you well know. Besides there was nothing Gordon said (apart from labeling him a Dark Knight) that Batman himself had not already said. All the TDK ending basically said was Batman can be what ever Gotham needs him to be, and that he can be hunted and take it. Batman had already said that to Gordon. And Alfred had said that to Bruce even earlier in the movie.

Travesty is right. There's no implications about retirement or it being the end of Batman. That's why nobody was predicting it when TDKR rolled around. It never gave that impression. An ending which works both ways like you suggest would have had more people thinking that maybe Batman had retired. There would have been less controversy over the fact that he had been out of action for 8 years.

I have no problem in principle with the 8 year retirement thing. After all The Dark Knight Returns Batman retired for 10 years, and he did it when Gotham still needed a Batman. At least Bale's Batman did it when Gotham didn't need him any more. But the ending to TDK never felt like that was the direction the character was going. It didn't feel like the next natural chapter of the story. Unlike the Begins ending which talked about escalation because of Batman, and the arrival of a new theatrical criminal leaving Joker calling cards, both of which TDK delivered on.

Excellent post. My thoughts exactly.

 

[Shikamaru]

I just don't buy that Nolan would allow "studio politics" or an eventual/incoming shared universe to dramatically alter/change/rewrite his plans for a third Batman film and trilogy-capper, in an effort to "preserve" his Batman series and make sure no one else would revisit it. We're talking about a Chris Nolan who was just coming off Inception and seemingly had the power to do whatever we wanted with his film series. So if he truly wanted to make Batman an active crime-fighter during those 8 years or if he wanted to deliver a finale that was more open-ended in nature, I think he would have.

What does that have to do with TDKR? I'm not talking about the control he had during the film, but the lack of control he would have after the film. If anything, having more control is what secures directors with the ability to go in any direction they want for whatever reason.

I'm not saying it's a concrete fact, but we have to at very least entertain the idea.

Now, if Bruce or the thematic elements of BB and TDK had asserted that Batman's war on crime would be never-ending (or lead us to believe as much), then it would be clear that Nolan switched things up and suddenly decided to deliver that relatively definitive ending. However, from BB and throughout TDK, it was always suggested that his crusade as Batman would one day end, and one of the biggest plot points of TDK was Bruce seeking out a new hero for Gotham (someone who could take up the "mantle" of the city's protector). I don't think it was a happy coincidence that Bruce found someone else to take up his mantle and that he was able to move on from "Batman".

This topic's been discussed over and over again for 2 years. I'm sure you can find an explanation to this wherever you look, we all know where to find each point after all.

 

[The Shape]

What does that have to do with TDKR? I'm not talking about the control he had during the film, but the lack of control he would have after the film. If anything, having more control is what secures directors with the ability to go in any direction they want for whatever reason.

Did you read what I wrote? You seemed to indicate that one of the reasons Nolan may have chosen to opt for the relatively definitive TDKR ending we received was that he wanted to prevent future filmmakers or the upcoming "shared universe" from using his Batman or revisiting his own Batman "universe" without it.

I don't think we can be as specific as to boil it down to JL: Mortal, but I think the idea of a shared universe itself being part of the reason for Nolan's decision is by no means a stretch.

Which is why I said this:

I just don't buy that Nolan would allow "studio politics" or an eventual/incoming shared universe to dramatically alter/change/rewrite his plans for a third Batman film and trilogy-capper, in an effort to "preserve" his Batman series and make sure no one else would revisit it.

And this:

In fact, it was said that Nolan became personally became involved with making sure JL: Mortal never came to fruition. That's something I can certainly believe (and don't fault him for doing), rather than him altering his own Batman plans so that no one else could touch it in the near or distant future.

So what doesn't my comment have to do with TDKR? You're suggesting JL: Mortal and/or the upcoming DCU were reasons that Nolan might have decided to make Batman retire at the end of TDKR, along with choosing to have Batman inactive during the period between TDK and TDKR. I'm suggesting that I don't think Nolan would have morphed or changed his original plans for a 3rd film because of studio rumblings of future Batman films. He doesn't strike me as that kind of guy. If he wanted to tell a specific story -- with Batman remaining active those years and continuing his crusade in the end -- then I think he would have, whether a new DCU was coming or not.

His control not only comes in the form of being able to do whatever he wanted with the films, but also, he was probably very vocal about that JL film not being made while he was still making Batman films. If anything, the studio wouldn't have wanted to piss or turn him off from them. I certainly don't think his eventual "lack of control" after the film had any bearing on what he wanted to do with TDKR.

I'm not saying it's a concrete fact, but we have to at very least entertain the idea.

We are entertaining the idea. You think it might be true, I think it might not be. That's all.

 

[BatLobster]

Honestly, it never really bothered me that retirement wasn't hinted during TDK's ending. Sometimes you think a story is going to zig, then it zags. Nothing wrong with subverting expectations a little. Just cause BB blatantly hinted at where the next movie would go doesn't mean TDK's ending had to do the same. In fact TDK's ending didn't feel like a teaser to me, it was a grand statement about the character of Batman and felt cathartic enough to be THE END of the whole series. I'm glad it didn't turn out to be, but yeah. I do see Shika's point about some "political" aspects behind the decision, but even without those I think there were plenty of legitimate story reasons.

Nice blast from the past with that interview though craigb. I definitely remember being one of the believers that Batman was active.

 

[shauner111]

A part of me will always believe he was active, even just a bit, after TDK. As a fan you can't help but think about Riddler and Penguin in any universe. Whether you like those characters or not. And more Joker of course. I think any Bat-fan who says they aren't at least curious about those things, are lying.

I don't see how you came to that conclusion. The speech at the end was the narration to the audience about Batman's situation. It was not meant to be one person's perspective on the situation. It didn't have to come from Batman's mouth for it to be true. He's not the only character in these movies to spell out something to the audience about another character as you well know. Besides there was nothing Gordon said (apart from labeling him a Dark Knight) that Batman himself had not already said. All the TDK ending basically said was Batman can be what ever Gotham needs him to be, and that he can be hunted and take it. Batman had already said that to Gordon. And Alfred had said that to Bruce even earlier in the movie.

Travesty is right. There's no implications about retirement or it being the end of Batman. That's why nobody was predicting it when TDKR rolled around. It never gave that impression. An ending which works both ways like you suggest would have had more people thinking that maybe Batman had retired. There would have been less controversy over the fact that he had been out of action for 8 years.

I have no problem in principle with the 8 year retirement thing. After all The Dark Knight Returns Batman retired for 10 years, and he did it when Gotham still needed a Batman. At least Bale's Batman did it when Gotham didn't need him any more. But the ending to TDK never felt like that was the direction the character was going. It didn't feel like the next natural chapter of the story. Unlike the Begins ending which talked about escalation because of Batman, and the arrival of a new theatrical criminal leaving Joker calling cards, both of which TDK delivered on.

It doesn't matter what it was meant for, it was still coming from one mans perspective. Jim Gordon.

Whether they were in the minority or not, there were people who thought Batman would retire after TDK. Even Batlobster said his friend believed this up until Rises. It doesn't matter what the majority thought anyway. Nolan did whatever he wanted and i felt both ways could have worked. Others feel it didn't flow, i thought everything lined up perfectly. I dont really care what the ending was trying to say to the audience, Batman had nowhere to go after TDK. Lending a helping hand to victims by taking down criminals is not the logical way to deal with the aftermath of TDK, where Batman must be seen as a murderer who kills innocent/inspiring figures such as Harvey Dent.

I dont mind that you think it's unnatural though. I see both sides, and i think they both work.

Yeah, at least in Nolans universe Bruce retired because crime was taken care of for the most part AND he made an attempt to help people instead of just drinking while channel surfing the news to see countless people mugged, murdered and raped. Which im sure is what happened in Millers version.

 

[Decepticonus]

Yeah, at least in Nolans universe Bruce retired because crime was taken care of for the most part AND he made an attempt to help people instead of just drinking while channel surfing the news to see countless people mugged, murdered and raped. Which im sure is what happened in Millers version.

Aside from the one scene in the comic there is no indication in the comic that was the status quo the entire time he was retired. I would add, this came upon his 10 year anniversary (if you can call it that) of being retired and it took place during summer, when crime usually does climb. Plus, the Mutants were a relatively recent gang. Meanwhile, you got both Joker & Harvey locked up in Arkham, which no mention of the others doing anything wrong so I can only assume they too were locked up being helped by that hack shrink Wolper.

Anyways, we're getting off topic here.

There is one problem with the ending. He saw right before Batman helped the police, save citizens and stop the Joker even leaving him alive for the proper authorities to take him away. But then he now play along - "kills those cops and Harvey"? I think some people might be scratching their head about this. Go Batman you saved the city yeaaah but you killed some cops and our dashing D.A. so boo Batman???" I dunno, if anyone wants to take a stab at that.

 

[BatLobster]

I think Gotham probably assumes Batman just snapped and went crazy. Not the biggest stretch, considering he's a guy that dresses up like a bat. Also, there's no reason to assume that too many people know that Batman took down that SWAT team because they were about to target the hostages. I always thought even before TDKR that the scene of Batman taking out the SWAT team was a big foreshadow of Batman eventually "becoming the villain" in the eyes of Gotham and would eventually play right into that perception. I really don't think it's common knowledge that Batman stopped the Joker.

 

[The Joker]

It doesn't matter what it was meant for, it was still coming from one mans perspective. Jim Gordon.

Whether they were in the minority or not, there were people who thought Batman would retire after TDK. Even Batlobster said his friend believed this up until Rises. It doesn't matter what the majority thought anyway. Nolan did whatever he wanted and i felt both ways could have worked. Others feel it didn't flow, i thought everything lined up perfectly. I dont really care what the ending was trying to say to the audience, Batman had nowhere to go after TDK. Lending a helping hand to victims by taking down criminals is not the logical way to deal with the aftermath of TDK, where Batman must be seen as a murderer who kills innocent/inspiring figures such as Harvey Dent.

I dont mind that you think it's unnatural though. I see both sides, and i think they both work.

Yeah, at least in Nolans universe Bruce retired because crime was taken care of for the most part AND he made an attempt to help people instead of just drinking while channel surfing the news to see countless people mugged, murdered and raped. Which im sure is what happened in Millers version.

Of course it matters what it was meant for. The film maker's intention behind the monologue always matters above anything else. I mean Gordon even gave Batman the name the movie was called after. You going to tell me the movie was named on behalf of what Jim Gordon thought lol.

Come on, Shauner, if we're going to go into what small minorities thought, then we might as well dredge up the more common false theories that Harvey Dent was still alive, or Joker would be back in TDKR even though Ledger was dead etc. Saying some tiny minority believed it is not saying much.

Fair enough you don't care what the ending was saying to the audience, a strange stance to take about the message an important final scene is saying (remember all those people falsely thinking TDKR's ending was a dream), but that's your prerogative. But it's a very valid criticism for other people to make against TDKR, whether it didn't personally bother you or not. Which is the point. This wasn't some little nit picky thing.

I will say I did think it hypocritical of some people to hate on the idea of Bale's Batman retiring "because Batman would never do that", when these are the same people loving Dark Knight Returns where Batman retired for even longer, and when the city needed him. That's why I say I never had any problem with the principle of Batman retiring. He has done it in the comics. He wants to do it in the comics.

It's not like he enjoys being Batman:

It's not like Nolan plucked the idea out of thin air. But disliking it because it felt like an unnatural out of the blue direction to go after TDK, that's valid.

 

[Decepticonus]

It never bothered me he retired at the end. As fans don't we think Batman DESERVES a happy ending?

 

[Shikamaru]

Did you read what I wrote? You seemed to indicate that one of the reasons Nolan may have chosen to opt for the relatively definitive TDKR ending we received was that he wanted to prevent future filmmakers or the upcoming "shared universe" from using his Batman or revisiting his own Batman "universe" without it.



Which is why I said this:



And this:



So what doesn't my comment have to do with TDKR? You're suggesting JL: Mortal and/or the upcoming DCU were reasons that Nolan might have decided to make Batman retire at the end of TDKR, along with choosing to have Batman inactive during the period between TDK and TDKR. I'm suggesting that I don't think Nolan would have morphed or changed his original plans for a 3rd film because of studio rumblings of future Batman films. He doesn't strike me as that kind of guy. If he wanted to tell a specific story -- with Batman remaining active those years and continuing his crusade in the end -- then I think he would have, whether a new DCU was coming or not.

His control not only comes in the form of being able to do whatever he wanted with the films, but also, he was probably very vocal about that JL film not being made while he was still making Batman films. If anything, the studio wouldn't have wanted to piss or turn him off from them. I certainly don't think his eventual "lack of control" after the film had any bearing on what he wanted to do with TDKR.




We are entertaining the idea. You think it might be true, I think it might not be. That's all.

I was responding in particular to this:

I just don't buy that Nolan would allow "studio politics" or an eventual/incoming shared universe to dramatically alter/change/rewrite his plans for a third Batman film and trilogy-capper, in an effort to "preserve" his Batman series and make sure no one else would revisit it. We're talking about a Chris Nolan who was just coming off Inception and seemingly had the power to do whatever we wanted with his film series. So if he truly wanted to make Batman an active crime-fighter during those 8 years or if he wanted to deliver a finale that was more open-ended in nature, I think he would have.

The unbolded part seems to be the opening opinion, the bolded seems part of the supporting argument. That's what I was referring to. The idea of a "Nolan straight off Inception wanting whatever he wanted to do with his film series" as in while it's active. By "film series", I mean a Batman film in his continuity. If his Batman would have shown up in a JL film, that's arguably a different series in the same continuity and not Nolan's. I'm saying that's what he considered avoiding.

From what I've read, JL Mortal fell through because of the Writers' Strike. I know he was against the film's Batman being a pseudo version of his Batman, which is what WB wanted to do, but the idea he was a major reason the project fell through was only a rumor AFAIK.

We are entertaining the idea. You think it might be true, I think it might not be. That's all.

Fair enough.