Haha, yeah you did call it Shika. I agree with JackWhite here though:
I disagree with the last part though. Could you imagine Snyder just continuing off with Nolan's version if it didn't have a definitive ending? He would have found some way to screw it up no matter what, IMO.
In a lot of ways Snyder's Batman IS like an alternate history of what happened to Bale's Batman after TDK. Complete with the burned Wayne Manor and everything. Just sub out Rachel for Robin and you're basically there.
And I think regardless, having a Batman series with a loose continuity where the integrity of the story slowly got watered down over time would've led to a repeat of what happened in the 90s, so I think a reboot was inevitable no matter what.
With any luck, maybe Affleck's Batman will be in the inverse of what happened with the Burton/Schumacher series. Starts out with a poorly received film, but works his way to a great stand alone film to end on a high note.
Btw, I've noticed a few fun little parallels between BvS and B&R.
- Fourth film after a 'trilogy'. (Forever can be viewed as a trilogy capper to Burton's first film)
- Both have an Oscar winning screenwriter. Goldsman after writing it, Terrio before.
- Both are the only Batman films to feature Batman + another hero in the title.
- Ditto for their logos.
- Both have the titular heroes at odds with one another throughout the movie.
- Both have a trinity of heroes (two male, one female) come together for the climax.
- Arguably, they are "jump the shark" moments for opposite ends of the tonal spectrum- 'dark and gritty' and 'light and fun'.
- Both were critically panned and despite being profitable, were underperformers at the box office.
Biggest difference? In 1997 they pulled the plug on the franchise, but today WB is all