The Dark Knight Rises Time Frame of the Movie?

[Bats]

I believe Alfred said Wayne Manor was almost finished anyways in TDK, or at least hinted it.

I believe he said "It'll be nice when Wayne Manor's rebuilt..."

 

[Closerframe]

I'd honestly love for it to pick up right where The Dark Knight left off.

 

[IBRAH08]

I would like it to be far enough in the future that wayne manor is finished (or at least livable) and the Batcave is up and running, even more so than in BB. That would be super cool

 

[Doctor Jones]

Well, I think Wayne Manor would be rebuilt by now. TDK takes place a year after BB so maybe the manor was being built in that time. The beginning of the film could have Bruce and Alfred move back into the manor, set up the batcave which would provide with Fox's help.

 

[IBRAH08]

I hope so

 

[jmc]

What do people think of Batman 3 spanning several years? It could be interesting to see the character evolve say over a 10 year period, you could also have multiple rogues appear in some form or another, maybe even multiple vehicles and evolving technology. Perhaps even have him 'retire' at one point only to be brought back.

 

[TheBatman1]

I'd want Batman 3 to take place a year after the events of the Dark Knight. Not a couple years. That doesn't make sense to me. Batman's on the run from the police. If you want that story to make sense, It needs to be a year after the Dark Knight.

 

[jmc]

Not really, you don't need an entire movie to bring a resolution to that story line. You could easily have the film set over a long period of time and finish off that plot point from film 2.

 

[IBRAH08]

What do people think of Batman 3 spanning several years? It could be interesting to see the character evolve say over a 10 year period, you could also have multiple rogues appear in some form or another, maybe even multiple vehicles and evolving technology. Perhaps even have him 'retire' at one point only to be brought back.

I feel like that's trying to do way too much in one film (kinda like SM3). And people already complain about the length of the Nolan batfilms so you couldn't just extend it there.

 

[jmc]

How is telling the story over a long period of time doing to much? Begins was set over 20+ years and it worked fine.

 

[IBRAH08]

How is telling the story over a long period of time doing to much? Begins was set over 20+ years and it worked fine.

That isn't what you said though, you were more specific and perhaps I should have been as well. I think having several rogues in time and technology and such would be far too much. And also having a span of 20 years is very different for an origin film is very different than a finale (unless you count like a small sort of prologue at the end). and again there is the length issue and doing everything justice. It just becomes jumbled.

 

[jmc]

There's no difference whatsoever, it's about execution, you can have as many villains as you want or have the film span 10, 20 or 30 years if you want and as long as its narrative is solid the film is not going to collapse under that weight. You're assuming the worst when it could just as easily (as has been proven in Begins) work perfectly fine, it's only a jumbled mess if it's presented in that way, and with Nolan at the helm it's unlikely to be. And as for doing things justice, well Nolan's already done more than enough justice to this series. People keep going on about film 3 needing to be more about Bruce again, showing Batman evolve over a decade or so would certainly do that.

 

[IBRAH08]

There's no difference whatsoever, it's about execution, you can have as many villains as you want or have the film span 10, 20 or 30 years if you want and as long as its narrative is solid the film is not going to collapse under that weight. You're assuming the worst when it could just as easily (as has been proven in Begins) work perfectly fine, it's only a jumbled mess if it's presented in that way, and with Nolan at the helm it's unlikely to be. And as for doing things justice, well Nolan's already done more than enough justice to this series. People keep going on about film 3 needing to be more about Bruce again, showing Batman evolve over a decade or so would certainly do that.

there is a huge difference and besides BB doesn't REALLY span 20 years, it has a few flash backs. It really spans about 7. And yes it being an origin matters because more past (and therefore time) is required to show the creation of something. And while it is theoretically possible to make a good film with so much stuff, the chances are lowered. The possibility of it becoming a jumbled mess only exists when you try to throw s much stuff into a film, so why increase said chances? And wouldn't it feel kind of strange to have this film that is part of huge narrative arc suddenly just start blasting through Bat's life and moving way beyond it's purposes. I could maybe see the film spanning like 3-5, maybe, but only in a very very superficial sense like a VAST majority dedicated to one time period and then just a bit from earlier (or later). But tons of rogues and all that? it's like why? Finish the story and let other directors take a stab. Don't get all hung up on trying to do everything

 

[Brother Jack]

I don't understand how Begins doesn't span 20+ years. The flashbacks are part of the story, they're just interwoven into the present day events of the movie.

 

[jmc]

there is a huge difference and besides BB doesn't REALLY span 20 years, it has a few flash backs. It really spans about 7. And yes it being an origin matters because more past (and therefore time) is required to show the creation of something.

Hate to tell you, Begins does span 20+ years whether you like it or not, just told in a non linear format.

And while it is theoretically possible to make a good film with so much stuff, the chances are lowered. The possibility of it becoming a jumbled mess only exists when you try to throw s much stuff into a film, so why increase said chances?

You do know who is helming this film right? The same guy who not only did Begins that spanned 20 year, but also the Prestige which spanned several years too.

And wouldn't it feel kind of strange to have this film that is part of huge narrative arc suddenly just start blasting through Bat's life and moving way beyond it's purposes.

Each of the films are stand alone movies so no it wouldn't.

I could maybe see the film spanning like 3-5, maybe, but only in a very very superficial sense like a VAST majority dedicated to one time period and then just a bit from earlier (or later). But tons of rogues and all that? it's like why? Finish the story and let other directors take a stab. Don't get all hung up on trying to do everything

You're assuming they would show everything in a 10 or so year period. Again Begins didn't do that, it showed glimpses of the 20+ years of Bruce's life. You've really given no valid reason why a long time span isn't an option other the 'potential mess' argument, which is ludicrous given the director involved.

 

[IBRAH08]

Hate to tell you, Begins does span 20+ years whether you like it or not, just told in a non linear format. You do know who is helming this film right? The same guy who not only did Begins that spanned 20 year, but also the Prestige which spanned several years too. Each of the films are stand alone movies so no it wouldn't.

You're assuming they would show everything in a 10 or so year period. Again Begins didn't do that, it showed glimpses of the 20+ years of Bruce's life. You've really given no valid reason why a long time span isn't an option other the 'potential mess' argument, which is ludicrous given the director involved.

Ok I'm being difficult about the 20 years thing, I'll give you that (even though I wouldn't say it covers 20 years, just mentions them. But, OK let's just call that semantics.) They aren't total stand alone films otherwise why would Nolan talk about "finishing our story"? You asked "What do people think about..." and I told you I think it would be risky and tricky, you asked. And forget the timespan, I don't care about the timespan. It's like Idea of have several rogues over the timespan that I dislike. It's too much. It doesn't (or is unlikely to) allow for one to build any sympathy or sense of character (even if they are the "bad guy" it's still important). ESPECIALLY in a film series where people complain about extraneous length. and don't diminish the "jumbled mess argument". Sam Raimi is a very talented director that was thrown too much stuff for SM 3 and look at that mess. we are STILL hearing about that, Yes Nolan is talented. But that doesn't mean he should try and pull off some tricky plot that YOU designed.

And I say this all, of course, with no malice towards you JMC.

 

[Mace Dolex]

A while back on these boards there was a thread that detailed the time frame of each Batman movie, that was cool maybe someone can do something similar again?

It's been a while so I don't think doing a search will bring any of the old threads.

 

[Bruce Malone]

As for the time that begins spans do flashbaks really count as time spanned? So any movie with a flash back counts as spanning years throughout? So batman 89 also spanned decades?

I think to span you need to start with a certain period then work from there. I think the begins spanning starts when bruce is seen in his early twenties and goes from there til he's 30 or however old.

 

[IBRAH08]

As for the time that begins spans do flashbaks really count as time spanned? So any movie with a flash back counts as spanning years throughout? So batman 89 also spanned decades?

I think to span you need to start with a certain period then work from there. I think the begins spanning starts when bruce is seen in his early twenties and goes from there til he's 30 or however old.

Yeah that's kind what I was saying. that it only spans decades superficially. But i offered to call that semantics

 

[jmc]

They aren't total stand alone films otherwise why would Nolan talk about ''finishing our story''?

Do you need to have watched Begins to understand TDK? Nope. They are stand alone movies.

You asked ''What do people think about...'' and I told you I think it would be risky and tricky, you asked. And forget the timespan, I don't care about the timespan. It's like Idea of have several rogues over the timespan that I dislike. It's too much. It doesn't (or is unlikely to) allow for one to build any sympathy or sense of character (even if they are the ''bad guy'' it's still important). ESPECIALLY in a film series where people complain about extraneous length. and don't diminish the ''jumbled mess argument''.

I'll say again, it's about execution. You seem to be assuming multiple villains means they're each gonna take up a large chunk of screen time when in fact they could just as easily be cameos or brief flashbacks a la Begins.

Sam Raimi is a very talented director that was thrown too much stuff for SM 3 and look at that mess. we are STILL hearing about that, Yes Nolan is talented.

Let's not confuse the SM3 situation with Batman's okay? Everyone and their dog knows SM3 was nothing but pure studio interference, Raimi played his part too but as a whole it was the studio who wanted to cram everything in. You know what studio interference Nolan is gonna get? Minimal at best.

But that doesn't mean he should try and pull off some tricky plot that YOU designed.

I designed no such plot, I threwout some suggestions as to what areas a long spanning 3 film could cover.

 

[jmc]

As for the time that begins spans do flashbaks really count as time spanned? So any movie with a flash back counts as spanning years throughout? So batman 89 also spanned decades?

I think to span you need to start with a certain period then work from there. I think the begins spanning starts when bruce is seen in his early twenties and goes from there til he's 30 or however old.

Wherever you want to label it as Begins still spans a long period of time.

 

[IBRAH08]

Do you need to have watched Begins to understand TDK? Nope. They are stand alone movies. I'll say again, it's about execution. You seem to be assuming multiple villains means they're each gonna take up a large chunk of screen time when in fact they could just as easily be cameos or brief flashbacks a la Begins.

Let's not confuse the SM3 situation with Batman's okay? Everyone and their dog knows SM3 was nothing but pure studio interference, Raimi played his part too but as a whole it was the studio who wanted to cram everything in. You know what studio interference Nolan is gonna get? Minimal at best. I designed no such plot, I threwout some suggestions as to what areas a long spanning 3 film could cover.

Actually no you are claiming the opposite of what I'm claiming. I'm saying having multiple villainss at a purely superficial level is pointless. And BB definitely enhances the veiwing of TDK and BB3 will likely be more tied to TDK than BB

 

[jmc]

And I'm not suggesting having multiple villains for superficial reasons. Perhaps several villain cameos shown in brief sequences could show how Batman handles each of the different threats, thus showing how he develops as a crime fighter over a long period of time. I've not once suggested having multiple villains for the sake of it. And whether Begins enhances TDK is not the point, they still work independently of each other.

 

[Crook]

And BB definitely enhances the veiwing of TDK and BB3 will likely be more tied to TDK than BB

Can't you say this for any series? Enhancements are far more different than prerequisites for any given material.

The Hobbit enhances Lord of the Rings, but in no way shape or form do you "miss out" if you just read the latter.

 

[IBRAH08]

Can't you say this for any series? Enhancements are far more different than prerequisites for any given material.

The Hobbit enhances Lord of the Rings, but in no way shape or form do you "miss out" if you just read the latter.

Fair, but this was not my whole point so don't let it side track you