I respect that then and I mean no disrespect to you when saying this but you happen to be in a small minority. Prior to Nolan coming back for TDKR, the view on BB and TDK were that they were movies 1 & 2 out of the current franchise. The speculation that it was going to end after the third movie was just like the current speculation that Nolan's Batman will show up in the Justice League movie and was just that - speculation.
It's cool, I respect your opinion too but how sure are you that your opinion reflects the majority's? Everyone I know (general audience types, not hardcore Bat-fans) was discussing the third Batman film in the context of it closing out a trilogy back even before we knew anything about it. Even if that meant a trilogy that might have an open-ending and allowed other filmmakers to continue from. It was such a big question as to whether or not Nolan would even come back for a third, that it seemed most people assumed he would do a third and final film. Would that not make it a trilogy? If he was only going to make one last movie, it stands to reason that he would make it a conclusion he would be satisfied with enough to walk away. I mean, Star Wars is now continuing its story beyond ROTJ but that doesn't make the OT any less of a trilogy.
And it was also speculation purely on the fact that Nolan said there weren't a lot of superhero franchises with good movies past the second one. There was in fact more speculation that the franchise would continue. No one really knew they outcome including WB & Nolan himself (I'll address the Nolan part in a sec). WB since came out and said they were hoping for 7 Batman movies overall in the current franchise. Overall, the general belief by everyone was that it was the first movies in the current franchise, not trilogy. Now like I said, I personally didn't want a franchise that long either but that doesn't change the fact that it wasn't until production started on TDKR when the Nolan production crew and WB decided that this would a trilogy and not a franchise.
As for what Nolan said, first of all I'm really interested in reading that book since I good things about it. Second, I personally don't trust his word anymore post TDKR production due to all the contradictions I heard from him and other people in the production crew. There's many examples I can think of but let's go back to the Robin example from my last post. He said that Robin would not appear anytime soon because Bale was portraying a young Batman at the start of his career which meant that, in Nolan's own words, Robin wouldn't appear for "a few more films". "A few more films" yet now he apparently always planned for this to be a trilogy, no questions asked. That quote implies that while he didn't necessarily want multiple movies, he was open to the idea as the future of the franchise could go either way. Then there is either Goyer or Jonathan Nolan (can't remember which) one of the things that would've happened in the next film's story was that Batman the police would've looked for Batman anywhere he is and Batman had to avoid them at all cost whenever he was out (or something like that).
Regarding the bold, I've already asked if you can provide a link for this because I simply think that is untrue or hearsay. I don't recall either Goyer or Jonah saying the next film would be about Batman being hunted by the police, nor do I remember them spilling anything specific about what the third film might be post TDK.
There is also the fact that Goyer specifically said that the next main villain will not be a villain that was done before in live-action and Nolan himself even said that he doesn't want to do Catwoman. There's more examples that I can't remember off the top of my head but my overall point remains that I cannot take Nolan's word post TDKR. I can't really be sure what was planned from the beginning and what he changed his mind on.
What Goyer actually said was that the Batman rogues gallery was vast and that a lot of them could fit into the "realistic" tone they had established. He also noted how Ra's and Scarecrow were villains never before seen on the TV show and they used them for Batman Begins. It was more about not just using the "A list" villains that were known from the TV show.
http://www.batman-on-film.com/TDK_junket_davidgoyer-jonahnolan_7-3-08.html
It has since come out that he had already honed in on Bane right around the time TDK was released. Of course, yes Bane was used before in the movies (but arguably it was SO bad and wrong that it doesn't count). He may have also been referencing Talia when talking about big characters from the comics that haven't been used yet.
As for the three-part tale act, first of all, that doesn't mean one tale per movie. It can be seen throughout more movies or even in one movie. Jon Favreau described Tony's story in Iron Man as being a story comprised of 3 separate parts that built his character and journey throughout the movie. Second of all, I never argued that Nolan had no plan for Bruce's character throughout the franchise and that every movie would be "He fights [insert villain] then the end". I argued that he changed Bruce's character in the third movie from what he originally planned Bruce to deal with/be like and that his character there does not naturally go together with his character in BB & TDK. And third, just because you have a three-part tale for a superhero's journey and one tale per every movie does not necessarily mean you will end the franchise at 3. The current Spider-Man franchise is a good example of that.
I think a lot of what you're saying reflects the increase in clout at WB Nolan attained from 2008-2010. Maybe at one point he felt unsure if he'd really be allowed to keep it contained to a 3-part story due to Batman being such a viable franchise for the studio. He knew they'd want to milk it. In that sense it's understandable why he'd be hesitant to do a third if there was a chance he couldn't end things on his own terms. Knowing the way Nolan tends to work, would he have really be interested in doing a kinda/sorta "ending" (ala Spider-Man 3) that ultimately just serves to tee up an entirely new set of films set in his version of Gotham? I think we all knew Nolan better than that by that point in time. Especially when you get into the prospect of other filmmakers recasting Heath's Joker, etc. I think it simply made the most sense for him creatively to put a period on the thing.
But with the enormous success of TDK, and then Inception, he had earned enough clout to basically do whatever he wanted. WB knew how much the stock of his name had gone up and understood how important it was that he return for a third film. I think most fans who were paying attention observed this shift, and understood that Nolan now had the ability to end the story pretty much any way he wanted, which made the prospect of a true trilogy closer an exciting uncharted territory for a comic book franchise. Hence the rampant speculation that Batman would die in the film.
I think the view of it being an ongoing franchise was largely wiped away the moment Nolan did that interview with Geoff Boucher where he said he wasn't interested in "infinitely blowing up the balloon". This was long before any advertisement of it being the "Epic Conclusion" even came into play- it was before
Inception even came out. I think we as fans had quite a long time to process the likelihood that this was going to lean more towards a closed ending.
I personally think a lot of the franchise expectation has to do with the ongoing and infinite nature of the comic books. But I never viewed Nolan's vision as simply the comic books. I viewed them as snapshots of the key ideas and characters from various books, presented as a purely cinematic epic. And epics tend to come in threes.
That's why it was okay for me for Bruce to be forced into retirement as a result of his sacrifice in TDK. It didn't negate TDK's ending for me. That remains a beautiful snapshot of what Batman is all about. He did what was needed because no one else could, at the expense of his own soul even. Because he cared that much about keeping hope alive for Gotham.
So what happens? Gotham gets better (on the surface) as Bruce deteriorates internally. It's still a logical progression from the end of TDK. Batman never said "I must be Batman forever". That's just how some might've fans read it, again due to the fact that he's eternally Batman in the comics. The moment still exists as a "snapshot" of that idea though, just like the eternal nature of the Batman/Joker conflict gets its "snapshot" in the "we're destined to do this forever" line. But if you look at the ending, Batman just said, "I'm whatever Gotham needs me to be." That means he will adapt himself to whatever circumstance requires him to in order to help Gotham. They just configured the story so the sacrifice would actually work and Gotham no longer needed Batman. So by staying away he's being true to his word of being whatever Gotham needs him to be. Just because it's not what was
expected, doesn't mean it contradicts what came before.
And fast forwarding 8 years actually pays respect to how good and satisfying an ending TDK was by giving it room to breathe and having it actually affect change in Gotham.
