The Art And Making Of The Dark Knight Trilogy - I got this from Amazon.ca this week. So far I'm only two chapters into it and it's worth the read. The book is brimming with gorgeous photos and illustrations yet it's bolstered by interesting insights into the "how and why" of the films---how Christopher Nolan and company went about crafting these films. They put a lot of thought into how to approach the superhero genre particularly with a character who despite his extraordinary feats and abilities is still genuinely human and mortal. I'm eager to continue reading and see what other things might be revealed.
Actually it does touch on it although little has been said in what I've read so far. The first film is almost wholly the origin story of how Bruce becomes Batman. Gotham is treated as almost this sort of mythical place that becomes corrupted over the years. The burning of Wayne Manor and the wrecking of the monorail are symbolic of whatever left Bruce held dear being completely laid to waste. TDK is much more a crime drama with Harvey Dent rather than Bruce/Batman as more the protagonist and Gotham is now depicted as a modern city neck deep in trouble and corruption. It's also where Bruce is drawn deeper into being Batman rather than being able to see a light at the end of the tunnel. TDKR is more a disaster story where the supposed respectable facade of a bright city---a facade built on lies---is brought crashing down.
The first film also pretty much establishes an alternate reality USA, with a major economic depression referenced several times, that is totally ignored in the sequels.
They describe the Gotham in BB as "New York on steroids"---this city gone crazy with wealth and development even while large parts of it are struggling. I tend to see the Gotham in BB in terms of how young Bruce remembered it from his childhood rather than the way it really was. The city in TDK is more what Gotham is really like after the blinders are pulled away with the burning of Wayne Manor and wrecking of the monorail. Note that for the night scenes in particular whole sections of Gotham in BB were constructed within an abandoned airship hangar in England. This allowed them to do their aerial stunts and night shots under controlled conditions without having to worry about the unpredictability of weather. Those shots were interspersed with on-location shots of Chicago. A large point of the Gotham in BB was to bridge the half expected mythical look of Gotham in the comics with the look of a real city. That's why there is a deliberate hyper-reality to the city's look in BB. In TDK the mythical look is completely gone. Some fans will object to that yet it was a deliberate choice of Nolan's in how he wanted to tell this over-arcing story. It's also interesting to read how much Nolan was fixated on what the new batmobile would look like. Just as Gene Roddenberry pushed to make the Enterprise seem as credible as possible to convey Star Trek's ideas and approach to science fiction television, Nolan wanted the look of the Tumbler to instantly convey his ideas and approach to Batman. As told here the pretty much finalized Tumbler is what really green-lit the film for production.
About halfway through the book now and while some of it can be seen as a bit self-congratulatory there is a distinct sense of them really thinking their ideas through. In particular I'm thinking of Batman's hardware (including his suit) and how every aspect of it has some real world connection in terms of being at least theoretically possible to ideas and prototypes actually being explored in the real world.
I've read through The Art and Making Of. I've been meaning to purchase it, but I'm fairly certain my friend wants to buy it for me for my birthday, which is coming up, so I'm holding off. Which has been very difficult to do since the more I read through it, the more I become infatuated with it. The book is very interesting because as Warped9 says it explores how Christopher Nolan, David Goyer, Jonathan Nolan and everyone else explored the films from a conceptual, thematic, and artistic sense. It actually touches on something that I didn't like about Nolan's films, or at least The Dark Knight: how Bruce Wayne wasn't the protagonist in the story. In Batman Begins, it was very much the classic hero's journey and Bruce Wayne was the centerpiece of that story. However, in The Dark Knight, it appeared that Bruce Wayne was no longer the centerpiece of that story, and Nolan's comments cemented that. According to Nolan and Goyer, early on in the story development process for The Dark Knight, they decided to make Harvey Dent the protagonist. He's the one that goes through a transformation and has the most character development. While I'm glad Dent got such a thorough character examination (even though his transformation into Two-Face didn't feel as natural as it could have), I felt that undermined Bruce's story by nudging him to the side. Like I've always said, The Dark Knight feels more like Dent, Gordon and The Joker's story with Batman being a supporting character in his own movie. I love The Dark Knight, but that's always why I ultimately prefer Batman Begins. At least in that movie it was most definitely Bruce Wayne's story. Anyway, the book is a great read (from what I've read), and this is coming from someone who obviously loves Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy. I think it's a must-own for anyone who loves Nolan and loves Batman. I can't wait to own it one of these days.
I do think it weird that the city looks very different in all three movies, but I guess that's the least of my complaints with 'em...
Turning Batman into the unsung hero is one of the things I like most about The Dark Knight. It makes him feel more like a real hero than a comic book hero.