You can't put Batman mythology into a 3-Film 'Trilogy'...

[riddler]

It'll be interesting to see what these 'Nolan Nazis' do when the next batman film comes along; they don't seem to have the mentality to accept more than 1 version. Some are the 'newer is better' mentality and thus would likely abandon Nolan, perhaps some stay loyal to him.


And yes I agree as well that the 'trilogy' aspect was stupid and hypocritical; didn't Goyer say at one point that Burton had no business killing the Joker (something Nolanites went off on a tangent about until the dark knight and Dent was killed)... well Nolan Killed Batman more or less! That's breaking a golden rule in comics. I can understand killing the villains, there's plenty to go around so they don't need to be re used in films but killing the hero? And you can go on about how Wayne isn't really dead; he painted the series into a corner. It'll need some clever writing to be salvaged.

[Silver Nemesis]

And yes I agree as well that the 'trilogy' aspect was stupid and hypocritical; didn't Goyer say at one point that Burton had no business killing the Joker (something Nolanites went off on a tangent about until the dark knight and Dent was killed)... well Nolan Killed Batman more or less!

The advantage of a 'trilogy' is that it mirrors the three act structure in classic narratives. Batman Begins is the introduction, laying the groundwork and familiarising the audience with the main protagonists. The Dark Knight is the middle act, the central period of conflict that irreversibly changes the protagonists' lives. The Dark Knight Rises is the resolution, the final act that wraps everything up and concludes the journey embarked upon in the first act. It's not perfect, but overall I think Nolan did a good job of coordinating his three films into a coherent structured series with a beginning, a middle and an end. No previous Batman filmmaker had the foresight to do that before now.

So Batman dying/retiring at the end of TDKR will have no detrimental impact upon the next film, because the next film will take place within a separate continuity. I think killing the Joker at the end of Batman 89 did have a negative impact on the sequels because it ruled out any possibility of Batman's greatest adversary making a return appearance. But again, that's down to Burton's structural approach to the franchise. He viewed each of his Batman films as standalone projects with little to no connections linking them.

Unfortunately that made it a lot easier for the series to get off track once Schumacher came onboard.

And you can go on about how Wayne isn't really dead; he painted the series into a corner. It'll need some clever writing to be salvaged.

I believe that was his intention. Nolan proprietarily capped off the trilogy to make it impossible – or at least extremely difficult – for anyone else to continue. In doing so, he's effectively safeguarded his work from being retroactively damaged (or, to coin a phrase, "Schumachered") by a less talented filmmaker.

[Dagenspear]

It'll be interesting to see what these 'Nolan Nazis' do when the next batman film comes along; they don't seem to have the mentality to accept more than 1 version. Some are the 'newer is better' mentality and thus would likely abandon Nolan, perhaps some stay loyal to him.


And yes I agree as well that the 'trilogy' aspect was stupid and hypocritical; didn't Goyer say at one point that Burton had no business killing the Joker (something Nolanites went off on a tangent about until the dark knight and Dent was killed)... well Nolan Killed Batman more or less! That's breaking a golden rule in comics. I can understand killing the villains, there's plenty to go around so they don't need to be re used in films but killing the hero? And you can go on about how Wayne isn't really dead; he painted the series into a corner. It'll need some clever writing to be salvaged.

Into a corner? It's the conclusion of the series. Besides even if it wasn't it still isn't hard to bring him back.

[Dagenspear]

Gotham apparently needing a hero with a face, to Bruce handing over to a pipsqueak vigilante and advising him to wear a mask. Again, it's off. We were led down a path of certain expectation and then it was taken away from us. But apparently that's our fault. All we did was watch the previous two movies. It makes one feel hollow as if the true conclusion hasn't been reached.

This happened a lot in the movie, and something I noticed on my first viewing. The biggest contradiction to the other movies that I noticed, was in TDK, Alfred tells Bruce there's been more copycat Batman sightings, and then he tells Alfred "that's not what I had in mind when I said I wanted to inspire", and then cut to then end of the TDKR, and Batman tells Gordon that "that's the point of Batman, anybody can be him". WTF?

He tells that to Blake. That also doesn't mean at all that he wants people to be Batman without the proper resources. It means, like he says in Batman Begins, that he wants to inspire the people to save their city, to show them that anyone is capable of being a hero in Gotham. Batman is symbolic of the idea of anyone being a hero.

[Dagenspear]

Sad, really. The movie has a lot of good ideas but it comes off like Nolan is desperate to talk about anything other than Batman. There's an amazing Batman movie lurking around there somewhere underneath all the puffed up speeches, Blake figuring out Batman's identity based on nothing and Occupy Gotham bloat. You could make a very powerful film about a man and his city each clawing their way back from their respective personal hells from the raw elements of TDKRises... but every time that aspect of the story is about to get some attention, we cut to The Have Nots wreaking havoc on The Haves, GCPD pissing in the wind or whatever else. It's maddening.

Coming back to this.

The Nolan trilogy is over. Done with. On balance, there are a lot of good ideas at work in each movie. Frankly, TDKRises doesn't hit a false note until about the time Batman comes back. And from there, the movie never recovers until after Batman somehow survives a nuclear fvcking explosion. In my opinion, anyway. But the stuff that works in his movies WORKS. There's a lot to enjoy. I've come off a bit anti-Nolan in a lot of my posts... and, sadly, a great big part of that is because of obnoxious behavior from the Nolan lovers (particularly the owner of another Batman web page/message board and his little band of Hitler Youths). What I guess I'm saying is that I'm backing off a little when it comes to criticizing Nolan's movies. Is his Batman "my" Batman? No. But there are some good ideas therein and I find I enjoy Batman Begins more now than I did in the years following its release. End of the day, it's Batman. Nothing more, nothing less. No reason his version can't take its place along side Adam West, Tim Burton, Joel Schumacher, the animated stuff and all the rest.

Nothing's perfect and there are things that probably could've been executed better but it's time to make peace.

He doesn't survive a nuclear explosion. He ejects before the Bat even flies over the bridge. Remember the explosion he sets off? That's him covering his ejection.

[Dagenspear]

I don't care how arrogant this sounds, but frankly yes, people on this board could have written TDKR better than what we received. How? Just by watching the previous two movies. For example the tonal shift of TDK's ending with Gordon saying Batman's a badass that can endure anything – and then picking up with Bruce as a bearded recluse. It felt off.

Gotham apparently needing a hero with a face, to Bruce handing over to a pipsqueak vigilante and advising him to wear a mask. Again, it's off. We were led down a path of certain expectation and then it was taken away from us. But apparently that's our fault. All we did was watch the previous two movies. It makes one feel hollow as if the true conclusion hasn't been reached.

Couldn't agree more. Hell if the film where basically the same, but at first we see Bruce and battered because he's been battling crime and the cops for 8 years instead because he's sad he's retired it would've fixed a lot with me. That and giving me a logical explanation on how he got back from the pit with no funds...

The same way he got around in Batman Begins without any funds.

[Dagenspear]

I don't care how arrogant this sounds, but frankly yes, people on this board could have written TDKR better than what we received. How? Just by watching the previous two movies. For example the tonal shift of TDK's ending with Gordon saying Batman's a badass that can endure anything – and then picking up with Bruce as a bearded recluse. It felt off.

Gotham apparently needing a hero with a face, to Bruce handing over to a pipsqueak vigilante and advising him to wear a mask. Again, it's off. We were led down a path of certain expectation and then it was taken away from us. But apparently that's our fault. All we did was watch the previous two movies. It makes one feel hollow as if the true conclusion hasn't been reached.

The hero with a face idea completely imploded, showcasing how wrong it was. Hence the changing of his tune in the next movie.

[Paul (ral)]

Sad, really. The movie has a lot of good ideas but it comes off like Nolan is desperate to talk about anything other than Batman. There's an amazing Batman movie lurking around there somewhere underneath all the puffed up speeches, Blake figuring out Batman's identity based on nothing and Occupy Gotham bloat. You could make a very powerful film about a man and his city each clawing their way back from their respective personal hells from the raw elements of TDKRises... but every time that aspect of the story is about to get some attention, we cut to The Have Nots wreaking havoc on The Haves, GCPD pissing in the wind or whatever else. It's maddening.

Coming back to this.

The Nolan trilogy is over. Done with. On balance, there are a lot of good ideas at work in each movie. Frankly, TDKRises doesn't hit a false note until about the time Batman comes back. And from there, the movie never recovers until after Batman somehow survives a nuclear fvcking explosion. In my opinion, anyway. But the stuff that works in his movies WORKS. There's a lot to enjoy. I've come off a bit anti-Nolan in a lot of my posts... and, sadly, a great big part of that is because of obnoxious behavior from the Nolan lovers (particularly the owner of another Batman web page/message board and his little band of Hitler Youths). What I guess I'm saying is that I'm backing off a little when it comes to criticizing Nolan's movies. Is his Batman "my" Batman? No. But there are some good ideas therein and I find I enjoy Batman Begins more now than I did in the years following its release. End of the day, it's Batman. Nothing more, nothing less. No reason his version can't take its place along side Adam West, Tim Burton, Joel Schumacher, the animated stuff and all the rest.

Nothing's perfect and there are things that probably could've been executed better but it's time to make peace.

He doesn't survive a nuclear explosion. He ejects before the Bat even flies over the bridge. Remember the explosion he sets off? That's him covering his ejection.

Think you might want to watch it again. He's clearly in the Bat as it sails over the bridge and into the sunset.

It's obvious by the final scene in the restaurant that he is alive, but when he ejected....is a mystery (to quote Bane)

[Dagenspear]

Sad, really. The movie has a lot of good ideas but it comes off like Nolan is desperate to talk about anything other than Batman. There's an amazing Batman movie lurking around there somewhere underneath all the puffed up speeches, Blake figuring out Batman's identity based on nothing and Occupy Gotham bloat. You could make a very powerful film about a man and his city each clawing their way back from their respective personal hells from the raw elements of TDKRises... but every time that aspect of the story is about to get some attention, we cut to The Have Nots wreaking havoc on The Haves, GCPD pissing in the wind or whatever else. It's maddening.

Coming back to this.

The Nolan trilogy is over. Done with. On balance, there are a lot of good ideas at work in each movie. Frankly, TDKRises doesn't hit a false note until about the time Batman comes back. And from there, the movie never recovers until after Batman somehow survives a nuclear fvcking explosion. In my opinion, anyway. But the stuff that works in his movies WORKS. There's a lot to enjoy. I've come off a bit anti-Nolan in a lot of my posts... and, sadly, a great big part of that is because of obnoxious behavior from the Nolan lovers (particularly the owner of another Batman web page/message board and his little band of Hitler Youths). What I guess I'm saying is that I'm backing off a little when it comes to criticizing Nolan's movies. Is his Batman "my" Batman? No. But there are some good ideas therein and I find I enjoy Batman Begins more now than I did in the years following its release. End of the day, it's Batman. Nothing more, nothing less. No reason his version can't take its place along side Adam West, Tim Burton, Joel Schumacher, the animated stuff and all the rest.

Nothing's perfect and there are things that probably could've been executed better but it's time to make peace.

He doesn't survive a nuclear explosion. He ejects before the Bat even flies over the bridge. Remember the explosion he sets off? That's him covering his ejection.

Think you might want to watch it again. He's clearly in the Bat as it sails over the bridge and into the sunset.

It's obvious by the final scene in the restaurant that he is alive, but when he ejected....is a mystery (to quote Bane)

I actually don't see him in the Bat as he sails over the bridge.

However I do agree that the movie does make it more sketchy than I said.

[Paul (ral)]

He's shown in the cockpit after passing over the bridge