Christopher Nolan talks Batman and Superman

[JacksonArcher]

Empire Magazine had the chance to sit down with director Christopher Nolan and discuss some topics, such as his involvement in a proposed Superman reboot and of course the next Batman film, which is scheduled for a July 20, 2012 release.

On the Superman film, he elaborates:

It was recently revealed that he would take on a mentor (or "godfather) role for the Superman movie, but he's not that comfortable with that title. "It's much more specific than that," he explained, "What it is, while David Goyer and myself were putting together the story for another Batman film a few years ago - you know, thrashing out where we might move on from The Dark Knight - we got stuck. We were just sitting there idly chatting and he said, ' By the way, I think I know how you approach Superman and he told me his take on it. I thought it was really tremendous. It was the first time I had been able to conceive of how you would address Superman in a modern context. I thought it was a very exciting idea."

He also addresses rumors for the third Batman film, and admits that he isn't officially signed to direct that film... as-of-yet.

He still hasn't officially signed on to direct new Batman movie. "No I haven't. There is a point where you're just being precious about it and people get annoyed, but the God's honest truth is I work on one movie at a time. I'm only capable of doing that, so my head will continue to be firmly in [Inception] for another few months."

He also speaks about whether or not he plans to re-cast Heath Ledger as The Joker...

Empire asked whether the villain could be a returning (and recast) Joker. "No," said Nolan resisting to elaborate, "I just don't feel comfortable about it."

Not surprising at all, and I hope this ends all of the rampant fan-wank speculation suggesting The Joker will be recast in the next movie. Save The Joker for the next cinematic intereptation of Batman. It would've been since to see him return, but Ledger left such an impact on audiences in the role, and because of the delicate nature of his death (and how people might respond to his recasting), I think this is a good idea. At least Nolan has class.

He also reveals some more about Batman 3, basically repeating some of the things we've heard from him before:

There are some things, though, that Nolan can confirm. "My brother is working on the screenplay. We came up with a story that we are very excited about. We particularly like where we are taking the characters and what the ending is... There are things for me to be very excited about in addressing the characters again. But ultimately it always comes down to the script, and can we make a great film from this? That's something I will firmly be turning my attention to figuring out fairly soon." It will be, he said, "the finishing of a story rather than infintely blowing up the balloon and expanding the story."

So, basically, even though he isn't officially set to return -- we all know he pretty much is. I'm excited by the notion that Nolan is excited about returning to the characters again and that he has some interesting ideas on how to move forward. I think it is clear that he has a certain story in mind for the third film, and I think that is important, verses doing it for financial reasons or because he feels pressured into doing it. So that's a relief, and exciting to hear.

For more from Nolan about the Superman film and whether or not his Batman will crossover with Superman, click the link embedded above.

 

[Shazam!]

So don't expect Batman and Superman to be sharing the screen any time soon >: (

 

[Aragorn]

Don't expect THIS Superman and Batman to crossover anytime soon.

 

[Gaith]

Aye, but should they?

So the only even remotely new info is that the Joker won't be back. That's it.

 

[Jetfire]

^
That one and the other one is great.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

I wish he'd be a bit more specific about what exactly their take on Superman is or how it's different/similar compared to other versions.

Thinking about it recently, I think I've figured out what it is about Superman that makes him Superman to me. I.e. the one thing you absolutely cannot fuck with, lest you turn the character into something he's not. It is: At no point does Superman ever truly consider not being Superman.

There's this emo nature to most superheroes, like Batman & Spider-Man, where they occasionally seriously flirt with the idea of permanently quitting. They're haunted by a compulsion, nearly a psychosis, usually stemming from grief or guilt. They'd like to stop doing it but they won't allow themselves to. Superman, due to his solid, mid-western upbringing, never seriously considers not being the hero, not doing everything possible to help people & promote justice.

There are moments of conflict when he is simply unable to do everything that he wants to do. In Superman II, he gave up his powers to be with Lois Lane. He did this because being with Lois was the thing he wanted most in the world. But even without his powers, you still see the confident superhero swagger in the diner scene. And the instant he realizes the dire consequences of his powerlessness, he hightails it back to the Fortress of Solitude to try to get them back. In Superman Returns, he abandons Earth for 5 years to go on a quest to find Krypton. He's certainly human enough that he needs "me time" like all of us. But being the hero, being a man always endeavoring to do good, is an inherent, irrevocable part of his psyche. He can be emotionally wounded. He can lament that the people don't truly appreciate the sacrifices he makes. But in the end, that inherent nobility must shine through. He does good deeds because he can, not because some neurosis tells him he must.

 

[Frontier]

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/17419/nolan-talks-superman-batman-

Like his take on "Batman" which went back to the character's darker and more serious roots, Nolan says that approach is what's needed with Superman - "what makes those the best superhero characters there are, the most beloved after all this time, is the essence of who those characters were when they were created and when they were first developed. And you can't ever move too far from that."

I think that's the key quote. He's saying specifically that like he took Batman back to his roots, Superman needs to be taken back to his own roots just as much.

Which sounds mighty good to me.

 

[Jetfire]

^
Hopefully that is what he will do.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Ah, but how far back for those "roots". A return to the Superman who was saving innocent men from the electric chair, stopping domestic violence and exposing corrupt politicians, while occasionally tossing a badguy off a building or into a propellor?

 

[Samurai8472]

Or saving America from the Japanese.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Or saving America from the Japanese.

He prefered to kick Hitler and Stalin's asses in those days. He got around to the Japanese later.

 

[Broccoli]

If this isn't in the next film, I am boycotting it!

 

[Mr. Adventure]

^^ C'mon, that is so outdated...I mean, who reads newspapers anymore?

 

[JacksonArcher]

^^ C'mon, that is so outdated...I mean, who reads newspapers anymore?

Who takes the Japanese seriously anymore?!

*ducks*

 

[AviTrek]

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/17419/nolan-talks-superman-batman-

Like his take on "Batman" which went back to the character's darker and more serious roots, Nolan says that approach is what's needed with Superman - "what makes those the best superhero characters there are, the most beloved after all this time, is the essence of who those characters were when they were created and when they were first developed. And you can't ever move too far from that."

I think that's the key quote. He's saying specifically that like he took Batman back to his roots, Superman needs to be taken back to his own roots just as much.

Which sounds mighty good to me.

Funny, because I don't think he took Batman back to his original roots. Just his Frank Miller reboot roots.

 

[Snaploud]

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/17419/nolan-talks-superman-batman-

Like his take on "Batman" which went back to the character's darker and more serious roots, Nolan says that approach is what's needed with Superman - "what makes those the best superhero characters there are, the most beloved after all this time, is the essence of who those characters were when they were created and when they were first developed. And you can't ever move too far from that."

I think that's the key quote. He's saying specifically that like he took Batman back to his roots, Superman needs to be taken back to his own roots just as much.

Which sounds mighty good to me.

Funny, because I don't think he took Batman back to his original roots. Just his Frank Miller reboot roots.

Batman had a fairly dark beginning. The character lightened up and then went dark again with Miller.

Early years

The first Batman story, "The Case of the Chemical Syndicate," was published in Detective Comics #27 (May 1939). Finger said, "Batman was originally written in the style of the pulps,"[17] and this influence was evident with Batman showing little remorse over killing or maiming criminals. Batman proved a hit character, and he received his own solo title in 1940, while continuing to star in Detective Comics. By that time, National was the top-selling and most influential publisher in the industry; Batman and the company's other major hero, Superman, were the cornerstones of the company's success.[18] The two characters were featured side-by-side as the stars of World's Finest Comics, which was originally titled World's Best Comics when it debuted in fall 1940. Creators including Jerry Robinson and Dick Sprang also worked on the strips during this period.


Over the course of the first few Batman strips elements were added to the character and the artistic depiction of Batman evolved. Kane noted that within six issues he drew the character's jawline more pronounced, and lengthened the ears on the costume. "About a year later he was almost the full figure, my mature Batman," Kane said.[19] Batman's characteristic utility belt was introduced in Detective Comics #29 (July 1939), followed by the boomerang-like batarang and the first bat-themed vehicle, the Batplane, in #31 (September 1939). The character's origin was revealed in #33 (November 1939), unfolding in a two-page story that establishes the brooding persona of Batman, a character driven by the loss of his parents. Written by Finger, it depicts a young Bruce Wayne witnessing the death of his parents as part of a street robbery. Days later, at their grave, the child vows that "by the spirits of my parents [I will] avenge their deaths by spending the rest of my life warring on all criminals."[20][21][22]


The early, pulp-inflected portrayal of Batman started to soften in Detective Comics #38 (April 1940) with the introduction of Robin, Batman's kid sidekick.[23] Robin was introduced, based on Finger's suggestion Batman needed a "Watson" with whom Batman could talk.[24] Sales nearly doubled, despite Kane's preference for a solo Batman, and it sparked a proliferation of "kid sidekicks."[25] The first issue of the solo spin-off series Batman was notable not only for introducing two of his most persistent antagonists, the Joker and Catwoman, but for a story in which Batman shoots some monstrous giants to death. That story prompted editor Whitney Ellsworth to decree that the character could no longer kill or use a gun.[26]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman#Creation

 

[Broccoli]

Miller is given too much credit for bringing Batman back to his dark roots. Other writers starting in the 70s were bringing Bats back to darker and "more serious" story lines. Miller wrote one popular, out of continuity story (DKR) that was really dark and everyone credits him with re-making Bats. That really wasn't so much the case. Even if you look at Batman: Year One, it's really not that dark, at least no more than the typical Batman stories being told around that era.

 

[byron lomax]

Miller is given too much credit for bringing Batman back to his dark roots. Other writers starting in the 70s were bringing Bats back to darker and "more serious" story lines. Miller wrote one popular, out of continuity story (DKR) that was really dark and everyone credits him with re-making Bats. That really wasn't so much the case. Even if you look at Batman: Year One, it's really not that dark, at least no more than the typical Batman stories being told around that era.

Correct - since at least the early 70s the Batman we now know came into formation. Denny O'Neil, the quintessential Batman writer, should take most of the credit, at least in my book. That's not to take away from Miller's extraordinary work in the 80s.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

So don't expect Batman and Superman to be sharing the screen any time soon >: (

His logic is flawless. Superman would take away from Batman and just create plotholes. This isn't Marvel where most characters are on even footing (although I'd argue for keeping X-Men and the Avengers separate if at all possible).

BTW, the darkness of Batman can be seen even in the 90s kids cartoon. The 60s show was unquestionably popular, but it was a bit of an aberration (and some of the later movies tried to intentionally copy the hamminess of that show, although I'm not sure how much was a deliberate stylistic choice and how much was just by virtue of the fact that they suck).

 

[MeanJoePhaser]

BTW, the darkness of Batman can be seen even in the 90s kids cartoon. The 60s show was unquestionably popular, but it was a bit of an aberration .

It wasn't that much of an aberration at the time, the Batman comics of the 50's and early 60's were quite silly, maybe even more so than the 60's show where at least no aliens visited. That said, part of the show's quirk was that its producer apparently hated comic books.

Fox, in turn, handed the project to William Dozier and his Greenway Productions. ABC and Fox were expecting a hip and fun—yet still serious—adventure show. However, Dozier, who loathed comic books, concluded the only way to make the show work was to do it as a pop art camp comedy.

The Batman cartoons of the 70's and 80's certainly weren't dark, either. (For obvious reasons, kid audiences.) The 90's toon broke the mold for Batman and superhero cartoons, celebrity voices, serious stories, etc.