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

[Batman333]

It always makes me angry when people are 'satisfied' with Batman being a 'trilogy'.  It just seems there is so much material missing.  I think when you take Batman stories and incorporate it into movies, it should be a saga instead of taking all this awesome material and cutting out most of it and calling it a trilogy.

Nolan had an interesting take on the character.  But when I left 'Rises', I just felt it wasn't enough.  I wanted more.  Not only was there only three scenes with Bruce in the Batman costume, but it was something more... I wanted the story of how Nolan's Bruce deals with Riddler...  Or Penguin....  Or how John Blake becomes Robin or Bat or whatever...  As the film concludes, I didn't say  "ah, what a great trilogy and ending", I said , man it would be cool to see Joseph Gordon Levitt in the Robin suit ... or what if Leonardo DiCaprio or Guy Pearce was Nolan's Riddler...  I didn't say "ok, its over, no more.".

I wouldn't even mind if the actors changed if Freeman, Oldman, Bale, Caine were 'burnt' out of the characters - let the story CONTINUE.  Reboot isn't very appealing.

[thecolorsblend]

That's a gripe of mine too. Basically, Batman shows up, does his thing for about one year (at the most), vanishes for eight years, comes back for, what, two or three appearances over a five or six month stretch. And I'm supposed to believe that on the strength of that, he becomes a hero that Gotham City will never forget.

Sorry. Don't buy it.

But I GET it. Filmmakers have a boner for trilogies. They create the universe, they build it and then they end it. From their perspective, it's probably a very satisfying experience. The beef is that the characters were designed to be revisited virtually in perpetuity. Trilogies defeat that. After TDK, I'm sure WB had an attitude of "right away, Mr. Nolan" for basically everything. I mean, who wants to be the guy who pisses off Chris Nolan to the point where he walks away from what's likely to be another billion dollar gravy train? But I don't think that serves the character in the long term.

For those reasons, I'm all for a reboot so long as it leaves room for further installments. Actually, my ideal would be an anthology franchise where new filmmakers, casts and crews are brought in for each movie so they can put their own spin on the material, have their fun with it and then move on... and maybe the next movie will tie in but maybe it won't. You go from a Guillermo del Toro Batman to a Robert Rodriguez Batman to M. Night Shamaladingdong's Batman, etc. Any new "Batman saga" will inevitably be compared to Nolan's... and probably also inevitably be found wanting. So why set yourself up for the comparison? Check continuity at the door because this is a big screen version of Legends of the Dark Knight.

[The Dark Knight]

Continuity can be good but it's not the be all and end all.  It can be a restriction. I greatly prefer one shot, individual adventures. A day in the life type things. Rocking up at Wayne Manor where Bruce is chilling at home and then the signal goes off. He gets his gear on and goes out to deal with the threat. Simple and what the fans want to see from the character. Just like how Bond movies handle things for the most part. B89 and BR went this way and it worked. I get much more satisfaction in seeing how Batman – and all characters, think.  What would he do in this situation, etc.

[Azrael]

For those reasons, I'm all for a reboot so long as it leaves room for further installments. Actually, my ideal would be an anthology franchise where new filmmakers, casts and crews are brought in for each movie so they can put their own spin on the material, have their fun with it and then move on... and maybe the next movie will tie in but maybe it won't. You go from a Guillermo del Toro Batman to a Robert Rodriguez Batman to M. Night Shamaladingdong's Batman, etc. Any new "Batman saga" will inevitably be compared to Nolan's... and probably also inevitably be found wanting. So why set yourself up for the comparison? Check continuity at the door because this is a big screen version of Legends of the Dark Knight.

Funny, this is exactly what the old films feel like. We got issues #89, 192, 295 and 397. Some basic elements, like the actors playing Alfred and Gordon, remained constant, there were very brief references to events of previous entries, but the films felt like picking up Batman comic issues from different periods. There's maybe a reason they were never numbered (unlike, say, Superman, Spider-Man, X-Men, Iron-Man, Hellboy, Blade - all had 2s). Then, Nolan's weren't numbered too, but Batman Begins had to follow the Batman Subtitle tradition, and they couldn't title the sequel Batman Begins Part II.

[phantom stranger]

In my opinion, all of the film's flaws (and let's face it, it had a lot) can be attributed to Nolan's need for finality. In Dark Knight, all he wanted to do was tell an amazing story. With Dark Knight Rises, he wanted to (a) tell an amazing story, (b) have the story come full circle with the first film and (c) have that story serve as an ending point for the franchise.

These goals unfortunately conflicted with each other and the end-result was a haphazardly-edited film which tried to be everything to everyone but, imho, failed miserably. 

[thecolorsblend]

You're more charitable than I am. I chalked much of TDKRises up to Nolan (A) having a bad taste in his mouth for all things Batman after Ledger's passing (B) freaked the hell out (and not in a good way) over TDK's runaway success (C) wanting to do Bale a solid in not leaving him at some other director's mercy and (D) why the hell not, just take the money and run, knock out another Batman movie while he figures out his real next film. Maybe he didn't intend it but I walked away with the distinct impression that he just didn't give a crap anymore about certain things.

[The Dark Knight]

In my opinion, all of the film's flaws (and let's face it, it had a lot) can be attributed to Nolan's need for finality. In Dark Knight, all he wanted to do was tell an amazing story. With Dark Knight Rises, he wanted to (a) tell an amazing story, (b) have the story come full circle with the first film and (c) have that story serve as an ending point for the franchise.

These goals unfortunately conflicted with each other and the end-result was a haphazardly-edited film which tried to be everything to everyone but, imho, failed miserably.

Exactly. Nolan bit off more than he could chew and didn't execute things as good as he could've. It was a mess that fell flat on its face. TDKR is no way near the level of TDK or BB - and I don't particularly like those. But they were better by a long shot. For example, having Bruce down in a hole in the ground for the finale was just a silly move. They could have done anything but they gave us this. Going back to Begins here was pointless. He simply didn't need to do that.

[Bobthegoon89]

It always makes me angry when people are 'satisfied' with Batman being a 'trilogy'.  It just seems there is so much material missing.  I think when you take Batman stories and incorporate it into movies, it should be a saga instead of taking all this awesome material and cutting out most of it and calling it a trilogy.

Nolan had an interesting take on the character.  But when I left 'Rises', I just felt it wasn't enough.  I wanted more.  Not only was there only three scenes with Bruce in the Batman costume, but it was something more... I wanted the story of how Nolan's Bruce deals with Riddler...  Or Penguin....  Or how John Blake becomes Robin or Bat or whatever...  As the film concludes, I didn't say  "ah, what a great trilogy and ending", I said , man it would be cool to see Joseph Gordon Levitt in the Robin suit ... or what if Leonardo DiCaprio or Guy Pearce was Nolan's Riddler...  I didn't say "ok, its over, no more.".

I wouldn't even mind if the actors changed if Freeman, Oldman, Bale, Caine were 'burnt' out of the characters - let the story CONTINUE.  Reboot isn't very appealing.

All I can say to you really is welcome to my world mate lol In 2004 when it was revealed Batman Begins would be a reboot I was furious. The filmmakers we're basically f***ing with my childhood. What? You mean all those movies never happened? It smelt like a whiff of Nazi propaganda, all those events in history never happened so forget them immediately because they weren't done correctly. When I saw the film I accepted it. Yes it was totally brand new but it also had enough similarities and references even to feel like a continuation also. So it never mattered. Unfortunately Nolan's too will be rebooted and for me that's absolutely right. They'll still be there to enjoy but their timespan is now officially up. Seems fair to me after relegating Burton and Schumacher to the "archives".

[ElCuervoMuerto]

That's a gripe of mine too. Basically, Batman shows up, does his thing for about one year (at the most), vanishes for eight years, comes back for, what, two or three appearances over a five or six month stretch. And I'm supposed to believe that on the strength of that, he becomes a hero that Gotham City will never forget.

Sorry. Don't buy it.

Yep. And I really liked the Nolan films. Robin aside, in the first two films Nolan's Batman was a good 90% the Batman in my head. But he took a sharp left turn with Rises.

In my opinion, all of the film's flaws (and let's face it, it had a lot) can be attributed to Nolan's need for finality. In Dark Knight, all he wanted to do was tell an amazing story. With Dark Knight Rises, he wanted to (a) tell an amazing story, (b) have the story come full circle with the first film and (c) have that story serve as an ending point for the franchise.

These goals unfortunately conflicted with each other and the end-result was a haphazardly-edited film which tried to be everything to everyone but, imho, failed miserably.

I wouldn't say failed miserably, but it was definitely the weakest of the trilogy and IMHO the weakest of his filmography. But agreed on the 3 points. And again, really really like Nolan. Memento is still one f my all time favorites. And to see him make his one mediocre film be a Batman film bummed me the heck out...

[The Dark Knight]

A theme I'm seeing with TDKR apologists is "people conjured up what they wanted to see and that's why they were disappointed." I agree to an extent, but first and foremost the movie is the movie. People sat down and viewed what was presented. Me, like others, wanted to enjoy it. Indeed, I did not like the direction the movie went down. But it is up to the filmmakers to sell their direction convincingly. They failed to do so.

The main criticisms regarding TDKR are narrative based. It is hard for a filmmaker to sell a plot that doesn't fit. But they chose it. Way I see it, these are points that can be robustly argued and aren't in the quibble category. If I believe the narrative of the third film clashes with what was previously established, that's a legitimate complaint that can't be fobbed off.

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.