Nolan -verse update

[Jax]

After Nolan's 3rd film which I want to be called The Batman or Batman if they can get away with it...I wonder if the reboot (which will happen) can use some of Nolan's origin story and then ignore the need to do one and just have Batman already in place right off the bat...

So basically a little like SR, where we use some of number 1 but ignore 2 & 3. I'd be happy though if Nolan trilogy was the last for a long time TBH because can anything else come as close to it.

 

[Admiral Shran]

I've never understood the hate for the "Batman voice." It always made perfect sense to me. He's disguising his voice so nobody will pick up on the fact that he's Bruce Wayne. He is, after all, one of the richest and most powerful people on Earth and one of the most well-known people in Gotham City.

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?

Next time I talk to my mom on the phone, I'm gonna do this...
1.) Not identify myself,
2.) Wear a mask,
3.) See if she thinks it's someone other than her son talking to her.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

^^ It's not that he's disguising his voice but that the voice he's using sounds so ridiculous.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

So, no-one in favour of making the 3rd movie the weakest one in the series

I wouldn't be surprised if that happens.

Call me a doomsayer; but it is hard to see how they can go anywhere but down after The Dark Knight. That is a hard act to follow and an even harder act to top. If the next film is merely okay, or just good, it could be slammed as the worst thing ever - and heaven forbid if it's a little bad.

I don't know. I mean, you're right that it's likely the fanboy reaction will be negative no matter what happens because Joker is one of those characters that just gives comics fanboys a major hardon, so they may be disappointed in any case. But I think critics and people with a little bit of perspective on story (that is, not just interested in having their wish fulfillment fantasies up on screen) will give a third installment a fair shake. 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. The only standard I will hold it to is I want to see it have the same sort of balls the first two have had in terms of laying out a vision of the character and his world that is consistent and unbound by comic book and the conventional wisdom of superhero movies. What had my mouth hanging open during TDK was just that it went places I never expected a comic book movie to go. It seemed as informed by stories like The Godfather as it was by the cheeseball adolescent muscleman fantasies superheroes often devolve into.

So, no-one in favour of making the 3rd movie the weakest one in the series

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).

Unfortunately for Superman and Batman, Supes IV and Batman & Robin were even worse than their predecessors ...

I wouldn't say Bourne broke the usual pattern. The third movie almost put me to sleep and it had about zero story. All that build up and the final character crisis is just the basic assassin's dilemma? La Femme Nikita told that story much better in one-third of the time.

The threequel issue may indeed be hard to circumvent (I would definitely include Indiana Jones, Pirates, Star Wars, and Star Trek for that matter), but it can be done. Return of the King, Back to the Future, Army of Darkness, Escape from Planet of the Apes. They're a minority, but they're out there.

 

[RoJoHen]

As much as I hate to say it, I'd almost like it if the 3rd movie ended with Bruce retiring as Batman and having someone like Robin take over for a while.

Or maybe have Bruce turn himself in to the authorities and accept responsibility for being a vigilante.

 

[The Fatman]

Personally, I always wanted the last scene of Nolan's movies to be Bruce adopting Dick Grayson. Have a scene where Bruce and Alfred welcome him into Wayne Manor, and maybe have a wink and nod reference to the foundation in the southeast corner.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

One thing I always keep in mind here.

TDK is not perfect. However, it is clear that, using what they established in the previous film as a jumping-off point, they tried to make the best follow-up they could. They had no idea it would be the hit it was, and, unlike many insanely popular films, it was not made with the idea in mind that would be at all bigger than the previous film. They just wanted to make a good film. I hope they go into 3 with the same mindset. Just make a good movie. Even if it is not better than TDK, just make it good.

 

[ClayinCA]

The third alternative is an ending that is not an ending; that is, Batman is still out there, but the third film wraps things up thematically somehow. That does leave more wiggle room for a non-Nolan fourth picture to suggest it's a semi-sequel, though.

This is what I'm hoping for, and what I would imagine Warner Bros. would want, too.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

The third alternative is an ending that is not an ending; that is, Batman is still out there, but the third film wraps things up thematically somehow. That does leave more wiggle room for a non-Nolan fourth picture to suggest it's a semi-sequel, though.

This is what I'm hoping for, and what I would imagine Warner Bros. would want, too.

Not me - give us a real ending to the story please. As Alan Moore notes in his introduction to The Dark Knight Returns, it's impossible to have a great story without a great ending. This has potential to be a great story and it needs a real ending. Something that absolutely cannot have another chapter. I'm talking a "Louis, this looks like the beginning of a beautiful friendship." and "My dear, I don't give a damn." kind of ending. A done, character irrevocably changed forever ending. That would be unexpected and courageous storytelling, and Nolan has shown he has that skill by ending TDK the way he did.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ I respectfully disagree. In the words of The Ood - the song may be ending ... but the story never ends.

 

[Kegg]

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.

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]

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.