Why ruin a perfectly good trilogy with a 4th film?
The whole setup is gone. The next film would be John Blake vs. the Mob, with a little help from Fox when the Bat-Wing needs fuel.
Silly question - because a 4th film could make a shed load of money and will do nothing to diminish the pre-existing trilogy unless they really screw up and kill the surviving characters from the earlier movie in the opening scene...
This movie moved the timeline on by 8 years. The 'set-up' after a few more years could be very different indeed.
Like I said in the other thread on John Blake (specifically here
), Warners should take a look at the returns on The Bourne Legacy
before deciding on the direction they take with the Batman films. If Bourne
is successful, then the studio may seen profit in continuing the series with Joseph Gordon Levitt.
Another route, and no one's discussed this, would be to treat the series like the Bond films. Bale and Nolan are done? Fine. Replace them but continue the continuity of the films. The same thing will happen with the Marvel films when the talent (actors and
directors) become too expensive.
I don't think either approach would "ruin" the trilogy any more than Bourne Legacy
will ruin the Bourne
films or Before Watchmen
. Nolan's three films are still there, and you can watch them whenever you want. Just because someone else picks up the toys and runs with them doesn't harm them.