Nolan 'Unsure' about Batman Sequel

[nx1701g]

I remember reading in the other threads here that Nolan has three franchises fates resting in his hands.

WB is waiting for Nolan to sign on to Batman 3. Then WB can go ahead with Green Lantern and Superman

Which makes absolutely no logical sense.

Actually it does. Batman is, at the moment, WB's cashcow franchise. The Dark Knight shattered records and came close to dethrowing Titanic at the Box Office. They want to make sure it's taken care of and if Nolan doesn't sign off they need to find someone else to take over it of his ability. If they don't get Nolan they'll probably spend a lot of time and resources looking for a suitable replacement and then - after finding one - I bet he/she'd have an increased presence from management (which otherwise would have went to Green Lantern or Superman).

 

[Gaith]

I certainly can't think of many particularly good chapter three movies, not even BttF and Jedi; though there were wonderful parts to both of those. (Azkaban doesn't really count, since it's part three of seven.)

I think the crux of the matter is that we inevitably expect trilogies to have a three-act structure. Threequels should really be the third act of one big movie, which is why Return of the King and the Luke vs. Emperor parts of Jedi work so well. And I think a main reason why third movies tend to fail is that third acts should be the shortest acts, and they should have less conflict than the middle. But since half-hour movies aren't possible, directors try to cook up another second act, and we get messes like Spider-Man 3 and Pirates 3.

If not a half-hour wrap-up, what should filmmakers aim for? I think taking the series in a whole new direction, a sort of reboot/spinoff/new first film. I thought T3 worked great because it was all about John, who wasn't in T1 and hadn't really developed during the Sarah-centric T2; T3 was sort of a spinoff in that regard. Heck, even to use the Azkaban example, that story really hinged on Sirius, Lupin and Pettigrew, all new characters. (Even disregarding the quality jump, the fact that the whole movie's aesthetic was radically different didn't hurt either.)

So, what should a Batman 3 be like? Different. With TDK's mid-movie death and twist-ish ending, Nolan's already on a promising track. Maybe Bats should have to work with someone as an equal - Catwoman or a Batwoman or something; maybe he should be injured early on and have to play an Alfred-ish part, and have the main focus be on the new person.

But to just re-do TDK with the Penguin or Riddler, I think, is to invite disaster.

Whoops! Forgot the terrific Bourne 3. Since Bourne didn't really develop during Supremacy, or learn anything new about himself (it was really Joan Allen's, and especially Brian Cox's, movie), that threequel did feel like a proper third act. Also, like Luke and Frodo, he had a specific paramount threat to face in a way Nolan's Batman doesn't.

 

[T'Baio]

The Dark Knight...came close to dethrowing Titanic at the Box Office.

Actually, it didn't at all. In foreign box office, it's roughly a billion dollars short of Titanic. Titanic is #1, The Dark Knight is 21st. In domestic, it's almost $90 million short. It didn't really come close at all.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

I certainly can't think of many particularly good chapter three movies, not even BttF and Jedi; though there were wonderful parts to both of those. (Azkaban doesn't really count, since it's part three of seven.)

I think BttF has a solid and satisfying Third. And, of course, there's always Return of the King.

I think the crux of the matter is that we inevitably expect trilogies to have a three-act structure. Threequels should really be the third act of one big movie, which is why Return of the King and the Luke vs. Emperor parts of Jedi work so well. And I think a main reason why third movies tend to fail is that third acts should be the shortest acts, and they should have less conflict than the middle. But since half-hour movies aren't possible, directors try to cook up another second act, and we get messes like Spider-Man 3 and Pirates 3.

You've got a good point regarding threquels and their relationship to third acts, but I disagree that they always need to be third acts, and that those should be the shortest acts. That's a relatively recent development of narrative, and it's based largely on the time constraints of a single movie. That is, the structure of movies has bled over into novel and storytelling in general, yet it's a constant complaint of many that endings of modern stories are too quick and don't really resolve everything. Remember Shakespeare worked in a five act structure, with the acts being pretty much the same length. It is possible, and probably beneficial to take some time with a third act rather than following the Hollywood dictate that the final act be the shortest and fastest paced.

If not a half-hour wrap-up, what should filmmakers aim for? I think taking the series in a whole new direction, a sort of reboot/spinoff/new first film. I thought T3 worked great because it was all about John, who wasn't in T1 and hadn't really developed during the Sarah-centric T2; T3 was sort of a spinoff in that regard. Heck, even to use the Azkaban example, that story really hinged on Sirius, Lupin and Pettigrew, all new characters. (Even disregarding the quality jump, the fact that the whole movie's aesthetic was radically different didn't hurt either.)

So, what should a Batman 3 be like? Different. With TDK's mid-movie death and twist-ish ending, Nolan's already on a promising track. Maybe Bats should have to work with someone as an equal - Catwoman or a Batwoman or something; maybe he should be injured early on and have to play an Alfred-ish part, and have the main focus be on the new person.

Different I think is a necessity, and considering the utterly different tones of BBegins and TDK, I'd assume it's a given if Nolan helms a third movie. But I think, following the nature of these particular movies, the different has to be a different direction for Bruce Wayne as a character rather than a focus on a different character altogether. TDK spun off of some very particular points in Begins, especially the idea that Bruce is looking for a way out of being Batman. But it spun off of that very loosely, which I think was a real strength. There was no attempt to make the two movies look and feel like a single story, and that looseness would probably serve Nolan well in a third movie. Meaning, I'm not sure that in this particular trilogy, it's really necessary to see a threquel as a third act, per se. TDK really stands on its own - you don't have to have seen Begins to follow it. Maybe the smartest approach would not to feel any need to resolve things, but to simply tell another good Batman story in much the same way TDK simply told a good Batman story and didn't worry about advancing any particular plot points or themes of Begins.

 

[nx1701g]

^ The point I was trying to make still stands. Right now Batman is WB's cashcow and they want to make sure it's provided for.

 

[RobertScorpio]

If no Nolan?

Then who would be your pick to take his place. We know there will be a third batman movie, with or without Nolan.

My pick? Fincher? I think thats his name. The guy who did Seven and Fight Club...(Yes, Alien 3 too) He also did THE GAME, I think, and I loved that movie though it flopped..

Rob
Scorpio

 

[Supervisor 194]

Part of the problem, i think, is that TDK gives a terrific thematic ending to Batman. Nolan is wise to be careful.

 

[Supervisor 194]

Re: If no Nolan?

If not Nolan, I'd prefer they go in a completely different direction rather than try to find someone close to Nolan's style. Hmm. I'll have to think about this one.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Although, I like the idea of a more intimate movie rather than a huge epic film like TDK which I enjoyed a great deal. I'd like a third film to be something where the drama is more intimate and claustrophobic. Moreover, I'd like to see the detective aspect of Batman take center stage rather than being peripheral to the story. Perhaps a Hard Boiled or Noir Batman movie. A story of detection in which Gordon must enlist, on the sly, Batman to solve a crime of the underworld instead of going directly against a big name villain. Perhaps a gruesome murder which, like in many good Noir/Hard Boiled stories, only leads Batman into a deeper web of deceit and lurid behavior.

 

[theenglish]

Although, I like the idea of a more intimate movie rather than a huge epic film like TDK which I enjoyed a great deal. I'd like a third film to be something where the drama is more intimate and claustrophobic. Moreover, I'd like to see the detective aspect of Batman take center stage rather than being peripheral to the story. Perhaps a Hard Boiled or Noir Batman movie. A story of detection in which Gordon must enlist, on the sly, Batman to solve a crime of the underworld instead of going directly against a big name villain. Perhaps a gruesome murder which, like in many good Noir/Hard Boiled stories, only leads Batman into a deeper web of deceit and lurid behavior.

I like this idea quite a bit. Perhaps, since he is left to his own devices, Bruce Wayne will be pressed to become that brilliant scientist, psychologist, and detective that Batman is in the comics.

 

[Good Will Riker]

A third Batman movie that is "not as good" as The Dark Knight? Wouldn't that still be in the realm of "better than almost anything out there?"

They said the same for Spider-Man 3, and look what happened?

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Although, I like the idea of a more intimate movie rather than a huge epic film like TDK which I enjoyed a great deal. I'd like a third film to be something where the drama is more intimate and claustrophobic. Moreover, I'd like to see the detective aspect of Batman take center stage rather than being peripheral to the story. Perhaps a Hard Boiled or Noir Batman movie. A story of detection in which Gordon must enlist, on the sly, Batman to solve a crime of the underworld instead of going directly against a big name villain. Perhaps a gruesome murder which, like in many good Noir/Hard Boiled stories, only leads Batman into a deeper web of deceit and lurid behavior.

I like this idea quite a bit. Perhaps, since he is left to his own devices, Bruce Wayne will be pressed to become that brilliant scientist, psychologist, and detective that Batman is in the comics.

Thanks. The Great Detective is the Batman that I'm most fond of not the grim avenger of the night or the anti-social extremist of the last decade of DC Comics, especially the Miller Bats.

 

[nx1701g]

Part of the problem, i think, is that TDK gives a terrific thematic ending to Batman. Nolan is wise to be careful.

That's a very good point IMO.

 

[Good Will Riker]

Re: If no Nolan?

Bryan Singer

I really liked his take on the X-Men universe, and would like to see what he can do with a Batman adaptation.

 

[Gaith]

I certainly can't think of many particularly good chapter three movies, not even BttF and Jedi; though there were wonderful parts to both of those. (Azkaban doesn't really count, since it's part three of seven.)

I think BttF has a solid and satisfying Third. And, of course, there's always Return of the King.

I wasn't countring RotK as I consider it all one big movie.

You've got a good point regarding threquels and their relationship to third acts, but I disagree that they always need to be third acts, and that those should be the shortest acts.... Remember Shakespeare worked in a five act structure, with the acts being pretty much the same length.

I meant "three-act" as in "beginning, middle, end" rather than modern screenplay three-act guidelines, though I admit I wasn't too clear about that. As for Shakespeare, I gather he only did one trilogy (the Henry VIs), which I have no familiarity with. My point was that trilogies like Pirates and Matrix seem to go for "beginning, middle, middle", instead of finding a quicker, more natural conclusion.

Maybe the smartest approach would not to feel any need to resolve things, but to simply tell another good Batman story in much the same way TDK simply told a good Batman story and didn't worry about advancing any particular plot points or themes of Begins.

That's an interesting suggestion. And in the "beginning, middle, end" scheme, part 3 doesn't have to be the end; indeed, in Harry Potter, 3 is the end of the beginning.

What with TDK's deaths and no chance of a Ledger return (and thus, I assume, no Joker), it doesn't seem as though Nolan has much choice! The worst-case scenario would be for Dent, the Joker, Batman and a new villain or two all running around trying to Jinx each other, with Rachel still debating which guy to go with.

So I guess Nolan could either approach the next movie as another episode in a series with no fixed end, or try to wrap up Bruce's time as Batman to some degree. Regardless, he seems to be on a promising track... besides, since I'd just as soon forget about Begins, I can always pretend the next one is part two.

It's movie four I'm worried about.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Re: If no Nolan?

^
Dear God no.

Singer is a terrible director. His action is mediocre and his plotting is awful.

Why does he get so much love?

 

[RoJoHen]

Re: If no Nolan?

If not Nolan, then I have to admit I'm not really interested in a 3rd movie. I love what Nolan has done with the first two, and I'd hate to lose that feel.

 

[Philo]

Re: If no Nolan?

^
Dear God no.

Singer is a terrible director. His action is mediocre and his plotting is awful.

Why does he get so much love?

Thank you. I wanted to say the same.

My main objection to Singer in this case, though, is that he's too whimsical and adolescent for Batman, especially after Nolan.

I actually really like the suggestion of Fincher. Artistically, I should have a problem with an emulation of Nolan, but I think Fincher is one of the few who would be capable of doing his own eminently stylistic thing yet remain comfortably in tune with the first two films.

 

[Captain Craig]

A third Batman movie that is "not as good" as The Dark Knight? Wouldn't that still be in the realm of "better than almost anything out there?"

They said the same for Spider-Man 3, and look what happened?

True enough.
However do you think Warners has an Avi Arad counterpart that is going to try and force a character or situation on Nolan like Arad&SONY did to Raimi with Venom?

I'm guessing no.
SONY was stupid to interfere with Raimi after he had made 2 great Spiderman movies and Warnes would be equally if not more stupid to interfere with Nolan. Especially having the Raimi/Arad/Sony situation as an example.

 

[John Picard]

With where TDK left off there has to be a third movie. Batman's on the run, we have no batmobile anymore and we haven't seen the new cave.

IIRC, there were two Tumblers.