Nolan -verse update

[Kegg]

Lapis Exilis wrote:

---

When you look at the story developed so far there are plenty of places to go and in terms of tone and scale, it doesn't really have to "top" TDK. Remember Begins was a relatively quiet movie.

Begins also came before TDK, though. There's often a tendency in sequels for the subsequent films to need to be louder, which can feel detrimental - Star Wars, for example, has never found a climax as elegantly-to-the-point as the canyon run of X-Wings.

It seemed as informed by stories like The Godfather as it was by the cheeseball adolescent muscleman fantasies superheroes often devolve into.

Let's hope he doesn't take a page from The Godfather Part III, then.

Admiral Shran wrote:

---

I've never understood the hate for the "Batman voice." It always made perfect sense to me.

It sounds silly. Sense has nothing to do with it, and if we want to bring sense into the equation there's reams of stuff about Batman that don't make a whole lot of sense.

[Lapis Exilis]

Kegg wrote:

---

Begins also came before TDK, though. There's often a tendency in sequels for the subsequent films to need to be louder, which can feel detrimental - Star Wars, for example, has never found a climax as elegantly-to-the-point as the canyon run of X-Wings.

Granted. But it's easy to make the case that TDK was actually not louder than Begins - certainly it's climatic scenes weren't. Begins ends with massive explosions and falling towers. TDK ends with a standoff, where nothing ultimately happens, a few fistfights and then a dramatic character scene. It's a more tense movie, indeed it functions largely on anxiety and it does include some fairly loud set pieces but it didn't seem set up to be bigger and louder in the traditional way of action sequels. The villain was more frightening though and that may be the thing that is difficult to "top".

Let's hope he doesn't take a page from The Godfather Part III, then.

YIKES! Perish the thought. Wouldn't mind something along the lines of Godfather II though - dissension and betrayal in the ranks while trying to bring a brutal underground operation into the light.

It sounds silly. Sense has nothing to do with it, and if we want to bring sense into the equation there's reams of stuff about Batman that don't make a whole lot of sense.

Too true. That's why the voice doesn't trip me up. When it comes to a vigilante dressing up in a giant bat costume, his growly voice is the least of things I need to suspend my disbelief over.

[RoJoHen]

His voice never bugged me until I watched it for a second time. When I saw it the first time I was too busy paying attention to the story to notice, but upon rewatching, the voice bugs the shit out of me.

[JacksonArcher]

I think Nolan will end the series in a satisfying if slightly shocking way. I don't think he'll do anything for pure shock value, but I think he'll end it in a way which will be unconventional and yet ultimately satisfying at the same time.

I don't think Bruce will reveal himself as Batman, even though things were leading that way in The Dark Knight, but I do have a strong sense that Bruce will give up the mantle or realize that he can never give up the mantle and must be Batman forever (hey, what a good title for the third installment... oh, wait, nevermind...). I think Nolan likes somber endings and I know he thinks Batman is a tragic character, so I can see an ending where it is somewhat hopeful yet tragic at the same time, with Bruce slowly and gradually realizing he must be Batman.

I think the ending of The Dark Knight was implying that, with him on the run as a vigilante. It's a plot point that's been in development since Batman Begins .... that he's not a vigilante, that he's something more, yet now he is exactly what he didn't want to be. So unless Nolan reverses that cycle, I think a big part of the next film will be Bruce coming to terms that he is Batman indefinitely.

[Lapis Exilis]

JacksonArcher wrote:

---

I think the ending of The Dark Knight was implying that, with him on the run as a vigilante. It's a plot point that's been in development since Batman Begins .... that he's not a vigilante, that he's something more, yet now he is exactly what he didn't want to be. So unless Nolan reverses that cycle, I think a big part of the next film will be Bruce coming to terms that he is Batman indefinitely.

Oh, I think that was the major character development of TDK. Bruce accepting his dark destiny so to speak by taking on the murders of Harvey Dent. The whole character arc of TDK hinges on him wanting to give up being Batman to the hero-in-the-light, but events force him in the exact opposite direction.

I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't some sort of Dark Knight Returns ending. An army of inspired Guardian Angels sort of thing. We could see a sort of descent into darkness as Bruce bitterly comes to terms with being forced to stay as Batman evolving into a more hopeful acceptance of his ability to inspire others to justice. No death, no unmaksing, no direct passing of the singular torch to a successor, but more a change from singular warrior to underground general.

One thing Nolan has been good at has been taking inspiration from existing material and mixing it with outside influences so it seems natural he'd look at things like DKR, Kingdom Come and Batman Beyond.

[Trent Roman]

Lapis Exilis wrote:

---

Granted. But it's easy to make the case that TDK was actually not louder than Begins - certainly it's climatic scenes weren't. Begins ends with massive explosions and falling towers. TDK ends with a standoff, where nothing ultimately happens, a few fistfights and then a dramatic character scene. It's a more tense movie, indeed it functions largely on anxiety and it does include some fairly loud set pieces but it didn't seem set up to be bigger and louder in the traditional way of action sequels. The villain was more frightening though and that may be the thing that is difficult to "top".

To me, the difficulty in 'topping' Dark Knight will be a question of scale. Begins was, despite the threat to Gotham as a whole, very much a film about one character's psyche--the scale of the peril was to motivate the character. DK, though, was a film about the psyche of a city--Gotham itself taking center stage as a character of sorts. So I wonder, after turning the very conscience of the city into the film's ideological battleground, what can he do for an encore?

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

[Lapis Exilis]

Trent Roman wrote:

---

To me, the difficulty in 'topping' Dark Knight will be a question of scale. Begins was, despite the threat to Gotham as a whole, very much a film about one character's psyche--the scale of the peril was to motivate the character. DK, though, was a film about the psyche of a city--Gotham itself taking center stage as a character of sorts. So I wonder, after turning the very conscience of the city into the film's ideological battleground, what can he do for an encore?

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

True - but the issue of Gotham's psyche was not at all resolved by TDK. In fact it was a pretty classic Act Two ending, that is things seem at their worst. Yes, the city has its hero in Harvey Dent - but it's a lie and its true hero is in exile. All a new story has to do is continue with the resolution of redemption of the city's soul. And when I say classic, I mean classic - the echoes are of Thebes and Oedipus, or the Fisher King and the Grail.

[The Borgified Corpse]

Lapis Exilis wrote:

---

Granted. But it's easy to make the case that TDK was actually not louder than Begins - certainly it's climatic scenes weren't. Begins ends with massive explosions and falling towers. TDK ends with a standoff, where nothing ultimately happens, a few fistfights and then a dramatic character scene. It's a more tense movie, indeed it functions largely on anxiety and it does include some fairly loud set pieces but it didn't seem set up to be bigger and louder in the traditional way of action sequels.

Agreed. Here, the signature action set piece seemed to be the armored car chase midway through the movie. In that respect, The Dark Knight reminds me of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. That movie climaxed halfway through with Gandalf's encounter with the Balrog at the bridge. Everything after that felt like an hour's worth of winding down (even when Boromir died and they were all attacked by Orcs).

I think Nolan's problem with Batman III will be finding a villain to top or even equal the Joker. Batman Begins dealt with the 2 remaining great villains that Burton & Schumacher never got around to-- Ra's al-Ghul & Scarecrow. The Dark Knight gave us Nolan's take on Batman's most iconic villain--the Joker--and a non-botched take on Two-Face, making up for Tommy Lee Jones' half-assed Joker-rip-off in Batman Forever. But beyond them, who else is there?

No matter what they did with the Riddler, I don't think they can help him feeling like Joker-lite. Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, & Bane are all too scientifically goofy to fit in Nolan's universe. I'm not sure the Penguin has the proper villainous heft to be the big bad. Catwoman brings too many shades of gray to be the big bad.

I'd say that Nolan's best bet would be to bring back the Joker had Heath Ledger not died.

[Brikar99]

The Borgified Corpse wrote:

---

No matter what they did with the Riddler, I don't think they can help him feeling like Joker-lite.

If they can focus on Edward Nigma's intelligence and find an actor who won't turn him into a rubber-faced goon, I think Riddler could work out quite nicely. I also vote for the gangster/club owner version of the Penguin.

[The Borgified Corpse]

Captaindemotion wrote:

---

The consensus is that the third movie in virtually any superhero franchise (which has gotten that far) is weaker than its predecessors. Superman III, Spider-man 3, X3, Batman Forever, Blade Trinity.

Indeed, nearly all third movies in a trilogy end up being the weakest, from Godfather III, to Return of the Jedi. Only Bourne and Die Hard break the jinx (well, you could also include Revenge of the Sith and some might include Indiana Jones 3).

While it is the general critical consensus (and my opinion as well) that Batman Forever & X-Men: The Last Stand were the weakest of the 1st 3, that's not the financial result. X-Men: The Last Stand made far more than either of the 1st 2. Batman Forever didn't come close to Batman (1989) but was a marked improvement over Batman Returns (a Tim Burton masterpiece that just gets better with age).

As for other threequels, I hated The Bourne Ultimatum and Die Hard with a Vengeance was my least favorite of the 4 Die Hards.

There are some threequels that I feel end up being the best in the series, or close to it. Examples:
Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith. Although, it's not like the other 2 prequels were very tough acts to follow anyway.
Indiana Jones & the Last Crusade. IMO, the 1st 3 are almost always in equal position to capture 1st place. But when it comes to fun & character development, you can't beat The Last Crusade.
Back to the Future, Part III. Granted, it probably would end up in 3rd place if I ranked the trilogy. But each movie carries a different element. Part I is the funniest. Part II is the most exciting. Part III has the most heart.

Mr. Adventure wrote:

---

Everyone gets so pissed when they reboot a property instead of making a continuation yet this gets thumbs up? Interesting.

I suppose it's because there have already been so many other different interpretations of Batman. There is no unified continuity or even unified style. The Nolan movies are different from the Burton movies are different from the animated series is different from the Adam West TV series. Even the Joel Schumacher movies, which seem intended to be direct follow-ups to the Tim Burton movies and use some of the same actors, still feel like they are a very separate thing.

So unless Nolan's successors make a concerted effort and manage to get Christian Bale & Michael Caine back, it's a foregone conclusion that the post-Nolan movies are going to be a completely different thing. With that in mind, there's no reason to bend over backwards to keep the franchise going. This is a rare chance to firmly end an iconic, very profitable film franchise, or at least one interpretation of it.

Admiral Shran wrote:

---

It was a very smart move on Nolan's part to do this. Unlike in the Spiderman movies, where Peter Parker makes absolutely no attempt to disguise his voice. The scene in Spiderman II where he saves his aunt makes no sense. This woman is his mother for all intents and purposes, and yet she doesn't recognize her "son's" voice when Spiderman speaks to her?

I was always under the impression that Aunt May knew pretty early on that Peter was Spider-Man. She was just playing coy.

[Thespeckledkiwi]

If Warner Bros was smart, they would force Nolan to keep the ending a little open for either a tie in, a continuation or something so they can keep making money off of Batman.

Personally what I want to see is the end where Bruce is getting there up in age and Terry McGuiness is the new Batman thus leading into Batman Beyond.

[Aragorn]

Completely unsubstantiated internet rumor via "Batman on Film" that has no real source:

Emily Blunt passed on Captain America to remain eligible for Catwoman in the next Batman movie according to an "industry insider friend." But the site also states that there's no evidence Catwoman will even be in the next movie.

[JacksonArcher]

^Emily Blunt just talked about that in a recent interview and said she was flattered by the rumor but it had no validity. She did make a claim that she would love to play Catwoman if there was an offer, however she admitted it would be hard to top Michelle Pfiefer's performance. http://www.batman-on-film.com/BATMAN...il-9-2010.html

Anyway, as for Nolan finding villains to top The Joker, I think there are plenty. You have to realize that Nolan never really goes for a singular leading villain. With both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight he had a main villain (i.e. Ra's al Ghul & The Joker) but they were supplemented by supporting villains like The Scarecrow, Two-Face, Carmine Falcone & Salvatore Maroni. In fact, when you dissect it, each of his films had three big villains -- one representing the main villain element (i.e. the "freak"), one representing the secondary villainous element (i.e. Two-Face was the emotional backbone of The Dark Knight) and then one representing the mob element (Falcone & Maroni). So one would assume if Nolan intends to follow that pattern that we'll see the same structure in the next Batman film.

The Riddler probably wouldn't be enough to support an entire film as the villain, at least not after Batman Forever, but if he's supplemented by Catwoman and The Penguin, then that makes sense. However, there has been slight talk of Nolan creating a new villain (whether main or minor) for the third film, but personally, I would like to see Nolan come up with villains we haven't seen yet. Nolan has denounced The Penguin, saying he doesn't fit within his "realistic" approach for some reason, but what about Black Mask taking up the reigns in the fractured mob factions in wake of The Dark Knight? I'd love to see Deadshot, who played a role in the Batman Begins/The Dark Knight tie-in Gotham Knight, co-penned by David Goyer. Nolan mentioned at one point that he could be a possibility for the third film. Even though this is a purely unconventional choice, I'd love to see Hugo Strange as a FBI criminal profiler brought in to take down Batman now that he is a vigilante and on the run. So there are many possibilities for villains. I don't think one should be concerned about "topping" The Joker -- because you can't -- but instead focus on a good, strong story and allow the characters to play roles based on that story. Ignoring that and worrying about which villain can top the last one is the same type of poor storytelling that ruined the Burton/Schumacher Batman films.

[Admiral_Young]

I've been toying with the idea of Black Mask being the villain along with Taila al Ghul returning with a rebulit League of Shadows and introducing Selina Kyle in the movie.

[Broccoli]

T'Baio wrote:

---

I'd like to see, if there ever is a reboot, Kerry Conran do a period Batman flick in the vein of Sky Captain. I know it'll never happen, but one can dream.

Personally, I'd like to see this done with Superman, as I think that character would fit the concept better than Batman. However, that doesn't mean I don't think it would work with Batman.

Lapis Exilis wrote:

---

Not me - give us a real ending to the story please.

Who says that a "real ending" has to include the character dying/giving up the mantle/etc? Can't a "real ending" be a thematic ending with the issues that have been building since BB resolved, but with Batman still around for (potential) future adventures?

For example, the original Star Wars trilogy. If you look at the trilogy as a whole, the Emperor and Darth Vader were defeated, but the Empire was still around and the good guys were still there to have future adventures.