The official The Dark Knight Rises thread...

[JohnnyL]

I think this will depend on how well this new Spiderman film does next year. Spiderman came out in 02 and made a killing, then Spidey 2 comes out and does more. With Spidey 3 the sales don't do as well (but still good)

Spiderman 3 sold more than the previous two

Not domestically , where it counts the most. Worldwide markets get caught up more in taxes and tariffs and the figure is used mainly for marketing purposes "so and so" world wide sales sound great, but as far as actual cash in hand after a film is released you want it from te US market if you're a hollywood producer.

 You're probably right, but man, I hate that they're constantly rebooting everything, now.  I'm even beginning to hate the word "reboot." lol  That's not to say I wouldn't give a different director's take on the material, a chance if it looked interesting.  But personally, I would rather a different director do their own storyline, but not start the franchise over.  I understand that studios are going to look at these things largely from a financial standpoint.  So from that perspective, maybe it makes sense to them to start things over just to keep the property fresh for the audience.  Personally though, I find it frustrating that you get so far with a continuous storyline in a movie franchise, and then you have to start all the way over.  That's one thing that irks me about this newest Spider-man movie.  With the first series of Batman movies, it made sense to reboot the franchise because enough damage had been done to the property that they really couldn't continue on from "Batman and Robin" and hope to make money.  Also, by then a considerable amount of time had passed (eight years, I believe) where Warner Bros. had left Batman alone.  This new "Spider-man" though seems to be part of an increasing trend in Hollywood to use "rebooting" as a crutch for any bump in the road the a film series encounters, rather than just being creative and fixing the problems.

Comics do it all the time though. They change a creative team and in essence change the whole lay out of the character. Sometimes it's sudden, and sometimes it's gradual but it's still very different by the end of it. You think you can read Batman issues 1 to 700 in order and have any sense of the same universe? They're is probably 10 to 15 completely different Gothams and Bruce Waynes if you really want to read through it all.

When Nolan and Bale leave, I would NOT reboot the franchise, I'd build off it. They did a great job of building a great story of young Bruce Wayne. I'd hire someone to play an older Bruce Wayne, someone who needs a Robin to help him, and someone who in the comics is looking to build a sense of family, even through his own twisted Batman world. Start with Robin in part 4, you can bring back Two-Face, and have Dick Grayson help Batman as an older Batman is not cutting it. Part 5 can start with the Dick Grayson split and turn to Nightwight, move to a different city and forge his own identity. Since you have a new Batman, why not a new Joker and bring in Jason Todd's Robin to be killed by the Joker. This would solidify Joker as Batman's main villain and continue their story. Maybe even get Batgirl in there as Barbara Gordon and have her suffer the fate of getting paralyzed by Joker as well. Part 6 can deal with Tim Drake becoming Robin, and how he helps Batman capture the Joker.

You don't have to do a reboot, just have Batman move eras. If they get the right director and actor for Batman, they should be able to do another trilogy of older Batman. Hell, maybe a 3 trilogy with Bruce Wayne's death and Dick Grayson coming back to claim the cowl. I forgot you need to have Bruce Wayne's love story with Talia al Ghul. So much to do with Batman for another trilogy, Warner Brothers be thinking ahead.

They don't have to do another origin story to do a reboot, but they also don't have to keep the character in the same exact continuity. Let's be serious; even if Nolan and Bale stayed on for 5 more films there would be huge gaps in the continuity eventually. Hugh Jackman played different Wolverines already, even though it's supposedly the same universe and same character.

All I'm saying is if I was a director with a vision for Batman a great story in mind, I could still use a Batman universe based closely on Nolan's but still have my own actor play Bruce in his way and someone else play Joker in his way. I wouldn't get a guy to mimic Heath. The mainstream audience that doesn't get it will still understand the basics of the Batman and the Joker and they already did before Nolan's films (many of fans did anyway).

Would I want another Batman origin story? Maybe, maybe not. I definitely would with Spider-man because I hated it so much, but with Bats they could do plenty of things with a new director that would be fine with me if done right.

 You're right, but I believe that "rebooting has become an overused device in comics as well.
  DC Comics handled "rebooting" their comics about the best in the 1980's with "Crisis on Infinite Earths," which basically rebooted the entire DC Universe.  In that instance it was necessary because there was 40 years plus of continuity errors in the stories which resulted from so many different writers working on the comics over the years.  But at least with that storyline, while it served the function of a reboot, the story managed to keep even the events that occured before the reboot, in-continuity.
  I also didn't mind what Marvel did with their answer to convoluted continuity problems, when they introduced the "Ultimate" universe.  Rather than mess around with trying to fix the various continuity problems that had occurred over the years, they just introduced a different universe.  That seemed like a pretty good compromise because readers of the original Marvel comics still had their comics, but someone that didn't follow every single issue of "Amazing Spider-Man" that just wanted to read a few comics hear and there could pick up "Ultimate Spider-Man" and actually know what was going on.  So, I give them points for coming up with an alternative to a reboot.
  I do not however think that Marvel has handled their later attempts at rebooting the storyline within "Amazing Spider-Man" well at all.  Granted, many fans didn't like J. Michael Straczynski's storyline in "Amazing..." very well either, but their reboot to the "Brand New Day" storyline was completely bungled by lazy story telling and their then editor-n-chief taking it upon himself to re-write the author's original ending. (You can read about this fiasco here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man:_One_More_Day and here: http://uk.comics.ign.com/articles/843/843196p1.html)
  I hope I'm wrong, but I'm afraid this latest Spider-Man movie will suffer from the same tinkering that that awful reboot of "Amazing Spider-Man" comics did.  (From some of the early pics I've seen, I'm also a little worried this movie is going to end up more like ""Twilight"-er-Man" than "Spider-Man" but I guess that should probably be saved for discussion in a Spider-Man thread).
  Having said all this, I'm not taking issue with your reasoning when it comes to the future of the "Batman" franchise.  I'm sure Hollywood will consider a reboot.  They're going to do whatever they think it going to make them the most money and being that reboots seem to be all the rage as of late, I'm sure they will at least strongly consider one.  Especially if Christopher Nolan decides that he's definitely finished making Batman movies after "The Dark Knight Rises."
  All I'm saying is that while I have certainly liked some of the rebooted franchise (Batman being one of them), it's all beginning to seem so formulaic, much like prequals, sequals, "re-imaginings," and releasing everything in 3-D.

[Shallow]

Until Sins Past I would have said JMS's run on Spidey was exactly what was needed.

As for rebooting comics and film, I simply don't think continuity should be emphasized at all when creative teams change, unless the new team coming in really really wants to build off of the previous team then fine but I feel it's refreshing when a creative team can have their run and then end it and then a new team can bring something great to it. What I hate is when a creative team gets dropped or leaves half way and then the new team comes in and brings anew style in the same continuity kind of mid story. What happened to Gen 13 in the 90s when Campell and Choi left and Arcudi and Frank jumped in basically killed the book. It was too completely different styles set in the same time and place and it was horrible.

If Arnofksy did Batman with Miller and it was a year one it'd bea great project. If they wanted to do a DK Returns it'd be great. Or even a No Man's Land style movie. You wouldn't have to say with any one (except for a Year One) that this is or isn't based on Nolan's films. It's just a Batman story by Arnofksy.

[JohnnyL]

Until Sins Past I would have said JMS's run on Spidey was exactly what was needed.

As for rebooting comics and film, I simply don't think continuity should be emphasized at all when creative teams change, unless the new team coming in really really wants to build off of the previous team then fine but I feel it's refreshing when a creative team can have their run and then end it and then a new team can bring something great to it. What I hate is when a creative team gets dropped or leaves half way and then the new team comes in and brings anew style in the same continuity kind of mid story. What happened to Gen 13 in the 90s when Campell and Choi left and Arcudi and Frank jumped in basically killed the book. It was too completely different styles set in the same time and place and it was horrible.

If Arnofksy did Batman with Miller and it was a year one it'd bea great project. If they wanted to do a DK Returns it'd be great. Or even a No Man's Land style movie. You wouldn't have to say with any one (except for a Year One) that this is or isn't based on Nolan's films. It's just a Batman story by Arnofksy.

 I never got to read all of JMS's run on Spider-man, but from what I did read of it, I personally didn't think it was too bad at all.  In fact, JMS seemed to me to have a knack for writing the Peter Parker/Mary Jane  elements of the story particularly well.  I didn't even bother reading the "Brand New Day" story though because how they got there (by basically having Mephisto undo everything that happened in the previous runs as well as the events pertaining to Spider-Man that occured in Marvel's "Civil War" series) was in my opinion an insult to the readers' intelligence not to mention, quite lame.  From what I've heard the current Spidey series has attempted to restart things again, basically trying a "Brand New Day" 2.0 type of thing.  Haven't read any of those either, but from the reviews I've read, the reception seems mixed at best.
  Regarding the rebooting of comics and films, I don't think it's necessary to reference every single element of a previous story or run.  By all means, if something didn't work before, I have no problem with a particular element or elements being dropped.  And really, when it comes to comics that sort of thing is done all the time when creative teams switch.  But I think completely rebooting a series while sometimes necessary, has the potential of becoming a crutch for lazy story telling if writers aren't careful with how it's used. 
  Also, I agree that there would be nothing wrong with a "Dark Knight Returns" or "No Man's Land" movie that isn't directly related to the Nolan films.  But there would be no reason that they would have to make those movies directly contradict the Nolan films either.  To me, just ignoring the Nolan films and telling a different story would be preferable to starting all the way over.  Although I have to concede that if Aronofsky and Miller were to do a "Batman: Year One," I really see no way that it could exist in the same continuity as the Nolan films, as "Year One" would basically be covering the same period of time that was covered in "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight." 

[Shallow]

Also, I agree that there would be nothing wrong with a "Dark Knight Returns" or "No Man's Land" movie that isn't directly related to the Nolan films.  But there would be no reason that they would have to make those movies directly contradict the Nolan films either.  To me, just ignoring the Nolan films and telling a different story would be preferable to starting all the way over.  Although I have to concede that if Aronofsky and Miller were to do a "Batman: Year One," I really see no way that it could exist in the same continuity as the Nolan films, as "Year One" would basically be covering the same period of time that was covered in "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight."

Exactly. The way the Nolan films rebuilt the idea of who Batman is can be taken advantage of to some extent. To me personally there is no reason to completely re-tell the origin of Batman or the Joker in anyway. If you recall I had 3 stories laid out with regards to The Batman origin, the Joker, and the third story, but (and it's super hypothetical of course) if DC were to read my plots and say let's run with it, I'd say there is no reason to do my stories on feature film. They're too close to the Nolan stuff and it would be silly to me to just ignore the Nolan films. Now as 12 issue sets each or even as 6 to 12 episode TV or straight to DVD, or even animated films I'd be all for it. But if I were per chance a Hollywood writer or director and the third film came and went and in 2013 they came to me and said we want another Bat film, I'd personally say let me see what I can think of and it would either take place way after the Dark Knight rises or with in the same realm somewhere, because in the end I really did like the Nolan-verse. Where as I hated Raimi's Spider-man and would want that redone.


There is plenty that cane be done with Batman that a new director would not have to re-educate the fans on who Batman is and just take the established Begins Batman and just tell a good Bat story. No matter who the Villain was. But if the mythos was played around with a bit and let's say Talia was introduced in flash back scenes of when Bruce was being trained by Ghul, I wouldn't mind at all, but if it was cemented as a sequel to the Nolan films it would be harder to get away with stuff like that.

Now Robin I've always been torn on, because in a complete fantasy based world like Burton's Batman I could do it easy, but from a Nolan-verse perspective I could never justify Bruce bringing a teenage boy into battle with him. Now if he trained him until the easrly 20s and then used him that'd be different. It's also a lot harder to write how Bruce Wayne could take in a ward like Grayson in to his home and very public life and have it seem realistic. Bruce Wayne is more or less Spencer Pratt or if you're good on history, Conrad "Nicky" Hilton. And if a socialite celebrity took in a 14 year old cirque du soliel orphan after an accident in 2011 it'd be gay-dar story of the year.

I mean if this is an event where super-socialite Bruce Wayne is attending then it has to be a Nolan-verse equivalent to cirque, rather than some run down circus act. The story would have to be handled very carefully so it makes sense in modern times. Now you could keep Tony Zucco and have him as the Italian that takes over the streets with Maroni out of the way and connect him somehow to the travelling circus show. It might have to be more than just an average mob shakedown, but maybe not. Zucco could be seen a loon too stuck in the old ways and not realizing how things have to work in modern times. He might not have to go down for it by the cops, but the thugs responsible would, or he would go down and go into hiding. Batman gets the Penguin to reveal the where a bouts of Zucco and Bats goes after him, but a young Grayson already managed to sneak his way in and get to Zucco as well. Batman sees the kid about to get himself killed for vengeance and saves him, but also sees a kindred spirit. And the thirst for blood by a young teen is the only reason Batman takes it upon himself to help the kid later on, but from a Bruce Wayne mentoring a young kid stand point and Batman wouldn't be known to Grayson for a few years.

I don't know. I'm just thinking aloud. it's hard to plot a Robin story in a Nolan-verse.

[JohnnyL]

Also, I agree that there would be nothing wrong with a "Dark Knight Returns" or "No Man's Land" movie that isn't directly related to the Nolan films.  But there would be no reason that they would have to make those movies directly contradict the Nolan films either.  To me, just ignoring the Nolan films and telling a different story would be preferable to starting all the way over.  Although I have to concede that if Aronofsky and Miller were to do a "Batman: Year One," I really see no way that it could exist in the same continuity as the Nolan films, as "Year One" would basically be covering the same period of time that was covered in "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight."

Exactly. The way the Nolan films rebuilt the idea of who Batman is can be taken advantage of to some extent. To me personally there is no reason to completely re-tell the origin of Batman or the Joker in anyway. If you recall I had 3 stories laid out with regards to The Batman origin, the Joker, and the third story, but (and it's super hypothetical of course) if DC were to read my plots and say let's run with it, I'd say there is no reason to do my stories on feature film. They're too close to the Nolan stuff and it would be silly to me to just ignore the Nolan films. Now as 12 issue sets each or even as 6 to 12 episode TV or straight to DVD, or even animated films I'd be all for it. But if I were per chance a Hollywood writer or director and the third film came and went and in 2013 they came to me and said we want another Bat film, I'd personally say let me see what I can think of and it would either take place way after the Dark Knight rises or with in the same realm somewhere, because in the end I really did like the Nolan-verse. Where as I hated Raimi's Spider-man and would want that redone.


There is plenty that cane be done with Batman that a new director would not have to re-educate the fans on who Batman is and just take the established Begins Batman and just tell a good Bat story. No matter who the Villain was. But if the mythos was played around with a bit and let's say Talia was introduced in flash back scenes of when Bruce was being trained by Ghul, I wouldn't mind at all, but if it was cemented as a sequel to the Nolan films it would be harder to get away with stuff like that.

Now Robin I've always been torn on, because in a complete fantasy based world like Burton's Batman I could do it easy, but from a Nolan-verse perspective I could never justify Bruce bringing a teenage boy into battle with him. Now if he trained him until the easrly 20s and then used him that'd be different. It's also a lot harder to write how Bruce Wayne could take in a ward like Grayson in to his home and very public life and have it seem realistic. Bruce Wayne is more or less Spencer Pratt or if you're good on history, Conrad "Nicky" Hilton. And if a socialite celebrity took in a 14 year old cirque du soliel orphan after an accident in 2011 it'd be gay-dar story of the year.

I mean if this is an event where super-socialite Bruce Wayne is attending then it has to be a Nolan-verse equivalent to cirque, rather than some run down circus act. The story would have to be handled very carefully so it makes sense in modern times. Now you could keep Tony Zucco and have him as the Italian that takes over the streets with Maroni out of the way and connect him somehow to the travelling circus show. It might have to be more than just an average mob shakedown, but maybe not. Zucco could be seen a loon too stuck in the old ways and not realizing how things have to work in modern times. He might not have to go down for it by the cops, but the thugs responsible would, or he would go down and go into hiding. Batman gets the Penguin to reveal the where a bouts of Zucco and Bats goes after him, but a young Grayson already managed to sneak his way in and get to Zucco as well. Batman sees the kid about to get himself killed for vengeance and saves him, but also sees a kindred spirit. And the thirst for blood by a young teen is the only reason Batman takes it upon himself to help the kid later on, but from a Bruce Wayne mentoring a young kid stand point and Batman wouldn't be known to Grayson for a few years.

I don't know. I'm just thinking aloud. it's hard to plot a Robin story in a Nolan-verse.

  You're right.  As you well pointed out in your post, it would be difficult to place Robin in the context of the universe that Nolan has established.  On one hand, I would like to see them try to come up with a way to make the character work as he is integral to the Batman mythology.  But on the other hand, I see why they don't bother.  I think if he stayed with the series past "The Dark Knight Rises" Nolan could probably think of a way, perhaps by taking a more minimalist approach to the character and phasing in the Robin identity slowly over a series of two or three films.  But my feeling from reading different interviews with Christopher Nolan is that even if he were to stay on as director for more Batman films, he would not introduce Robin, simply because he does not like the character.  That's not to say that perhaps some other director wouldn't introduce Robin into a later Batman film, sometime down the road.  Interestingly enough, Warner Bros. very nearly began production on a t.v. show called "The Graysons" a couple years ago that would have been in much the same vein as "Smallville," following around Dick Grayson and family before his time as Batman's sidekick.  I'm glad that didn't happen.  Especially given that their last attempt at a Batman-related show was "Birds of Prey" and that was a train wreck.

[Shallow]

You're right.  As you well pointed out in your post, it would be difficult to place Robin in the context of the universe that Nolan has established.  On one hand, I would like to see them try to come up with a way to make the character work as he is integral to the Batman mythology.  But on the other hand, I see why they don't bother.  I think if he stayed with the series past "The Dark Knight Rises" Nolan could probably think of a way, perhaps by taking a more minimalist approach to the character and phasing in the Robin identity slowly over a series of two or three films.  But my feeling from reading different interviews with Christopher Nolan is that even if he were to stay on as director for more Batman films, he would not introduce Robin, simply because he does not like the character.  That's not to say that perhaps some other director wouldn't introduce Robin into a later Batman film, sometime down the road.  Interestingly enough, Warner Bros. very nearly began production on a t.v. show called "The Graysons" a couple years ago that would have been in much the same vein as "Smallville," following around Dick Grayson and family before his time as Batman's sidekick.  I'm glad that didn't happen.  Especially given that their last attempt at a Batman-related show was "Birds of Prey" and that was a train wreck.

Smallville worked mainly because it's more or less the Superboy comic book of years ago as a TV show. You couldn't season after season of Dick Grayson with his family. No matter who was behind it.

[JohnnyL]

You're right.  As you well pointed out in your post, it would be difficult to place Robin in the context of the universe that Nolan has established.  On one hand, I would like to see them try to come up with a way to make the character work as he is integral to the Batman mythology.  But on the other hand, I see why they don't bother.  I think if he stayed with the series past "The Dark Knight Rises" Nolan could probably think of a way, perhaps by taking a more minimalist approach to the character and phasing in the Robin identity slowly over a series of two or three films.  But my feeling from reading different interviews with Christopher Nolan is that even if he were to stay on as director for more Batman films, he would not introduce Robin, simply because he does not like the character.  That's not to say that perhaps some other director wouldn't introduce Robin into a later Batman film, sometime down the road.  Interestingly enough, Warner Bros. very nearly began production on a t.v. show called "The Graysons" a couple years ago that would have been in much the same vein as "Smallville," following around Dick Grayson and family before his time as Batman's sidekick.  I'm glad that didn't happen.  Especially given that their last attempt at a Batman-related show was "Birds of Prey" and that was a train wreck.

Smallville worked mainly because it's more or less the Superboy comic book of years ago as a TV show. You couldn't season after season of Dick Grayson with his family. No matter who was behind it.

  Yeah.  That's what I was thinking.  If it was just about his story prior to meeting Batman, I'm not sure how they would have been able to keep that going, week after week.  The people developing this show must have finally realized this too.

[Shallow]

You're right.  As you well pointed out in your post, it would be difficult to place Robin in the context of the universe that Nolan has established.  On one hand, I would like to see them try to come up with a way to make the character work as he is integral to the Batman mythology.  But on the other hand, I see why they don't bother.  I think if he stayed with the series past "The Dark Knight Rises" Nolan could probably think of a way, perhaps by taking a more minimalist approach to the character and phasing in the Robin identity slowly over a series of two or three films.  But my feeling from reading different interviews with Christopher Nolan is that even if he were to stay on as director for more Batman films, he would not introduce Robin, simply because he does not like the character.  That's not to say that perhaps some other director wouldn't introduce Robin into a later Batman film, sometime down the road.  Interestingly enough, Warner Bros. very nearly began production on a t.v. show called "The Graysons" a couple years ago that would have been in much the same vein as "Smallville," following around Dick Grayson and family before his time as Batman's sidekick.  I'm glad that didn't happen.  Especially given that their last attempt at a Batman-related show was "Birds of Prey" and that was a train wreck.

Smallville worked mainly because it's more or less the Superboy comic book of years ago as a TV show. You couldn't season after season of Dick Grayson with his family. No matter who was behind it.

  Yeah.  That's what I was thinking.  If it was just about his story prior to meeting Batman, I'm not sure how they would have been able to keep that going, week after week.  The people developing this show must have finally realized this too.

Now the original idea for Smallville I remember was about a young BRuce Wayne before he became Batman, not that could have went on for ten seasons and had been amazing. Now I'm not sure how the WB would have handled it but in theory stretching out the first hour of Batman Begins really could have went on for years. If it started at the year Bruce decides that he will be the one to avenge his family and bring order to the City of Gotham and deals with the deaths as flashbacks. Let's ay from the years 14 to 25 for the whole series, and have it end with him finally putting on the batsuit and driving out of the bat cave in the batmobile.

[white Boy]

i like hardy, and from the bulked up pics of him, he looks great, however, i dont know ANYTHING about bane, so im going into this shit tabula rasa. as far as anne goes, i really dont like her, but javier ill peep that movie, but yea shallow i think itll be the worst of the 3 but more as a testament to how good the first 2 were.

[M Dogg™]

When Nolan and Bale leave, I would NOT reboot the franchise, I'd build off it. They did a great job of building a great story of young Bruce Wayne. I'd hire someone to play an older Bruce Wayne, someone who needs a Robin to help him, and someone who in the comics is looking to build a sense of family, even through his own twisted Batman world. Start with Robin in part 4, you can bring back Two-Face, and have Dick Grayson help Batman as an older Batman is not cutting it. Part 5 can start with the Dick Grayson split and turn to Nightwight, move to a different city and forge his own identity. Since you have a new Batman, why not a new Joker and bring in Jason Todd's Robin to be killed by the Joker. This would solidify Joker as Batman's main villain and continue their story. Maybe even get Batgirl in there as Barbara Gordon and have her suffer the fate of getting paralyzed by Joker as well. Part 6 can deal with Tim Drake becoming Robin, and how he helps Batman capture the Joker.

You don't have to do a reboot, just have Batman move eras. If they get the right director and actor for Batman, they should be able to do another trilogy of older Batman. Hell, maybe a 3 trilogy with Bruce Wayne's death and Dick Grayson coming back to claim the cowl. I forgot you need to have Bruce Wayne's love story with Talia al Ghul. So much to do with Batman for another trilogy, Warner Brothers be thinking ahead.

They don't have to do another origin story to do a reboot, but they also don't have to keep the character in the same exact continuity. Let's be serious; even if Nolan and Bale stayed on for 5 more films there would be huge gaps in the continuity eventually. Hugh Jackman played different Wolverines already, even though it's supposedly the same universe and same character.

All I'm saying is if I was a director with a vision for Batman a great story in mind, I could still use a Batman universe based closely on Nolan's but still have my own actor play Bruce in his way and someone else play Joker in his way. I wouldn't get a guy to mimic Heath. The mainstream audience that doesn't get it will still understand the basics of the Batman and the Joker and they already did before Nolan's films (many of fans did anyway).

Would I want another Batman origin story? Maybe, maybe not. I definitely would with Spider-man because I hated it so much, but with Bats they could do plenty of things with a new director that would be fine with me if done right.

The Batman universe is one that so far in the movies is not hard to follow. If this is the end of Bruce Waynes younger years, you can easily set up his older years. Robin does not become part of the Batman story until Batman is older anyways. The next trilogy can focus on the Robins, from Dick Grayson and his eventual rebellion, to Jason Todd and his death, to Tim Drake and his role as the best Robin. In there you'd Batgirl who evenually become paralyzed and photos given to Commissioner Gordon in a way to try to make him insane. It does not have to be a complete reboot, Just reference these movies as the origin, and go from there.

[Shallow]

The Batman universe is one that so far in the movies is not hard to follow. If this is the end of Bruce Waynes younger years, you can easily set up his older years. Robin does not become part of the Batman story until Batman is older anyways. The next trilogy can focus on the Robins, from Dick Grayson and his eventual rebellion, to Jason Todd and his death, to Tim Drake and his role as the best Robin. In there you'd Batgirl who evenually become paralyzed and photos given to Commissioner Gordon in a way to try to make him insane. It does not have to be a complete reboot, Just reference these movies as the origin, and go from there.

My point is that once you go the 3 Robins route or anything like that the entire Nolan tone has to go away. You simply cannot keep his style with the intro of Robin, and Nolan knows that; which is why won't bring Robin in.

So if you have a new Bruce Wayne, a Director, and a new style, whether you like it or not it's a reboot. You can try and say otherwise but it still is. Batman Forever even had Burton on board and you could still argue reboot because of how different it was from the last two. Where X-3 changed directors, but not direction. The new Bat films don't have to make you forget the Nolan films existed but they could be enjoyed and fully appreciated with out ever seeing the Nolan trilogy. Unlike something like Star Wars, where the new trilogy has to be seen after the old trilogy to get what you're seeing. Because no one that has not seen the old films can appreciate just how bad the new films were.

Look at Batman the Animated series; it was entirely it's own entity and based off a lot of Batman entities and never really re-established Batman or set an origin in play, but it was a reboot of the character. It was not someone else's Batman animated on TV. So Nolan's Batman and who ever takes Batman in 5 to 10 years will be very different Batmen, but it is still possible to keep them in the same loose continuity that comics have Batman in. I'll simply know better. What I mean by that is if you try and say something in the new trilogy doesn't make sense because of something in the old trilogy then you're better off trying to find continuity in the 20 seasons of the Simpsons. Because Bart being in the 4th grade for 20 years will make more sense than this Batman and the new Batman being the same Batman.

[JohnnyL]

The Batman universe is one that so far in the movies is not hard to follow. If this is the end of Bruce Waynes younger years, you can easily set up his older years. Robin does not become part of the Batman story until Batman is older anyways. The next trilogy can focus on the Robins, from Dick Grayson and his eventual rebellion, to Jason Todd and his death, to Tim Drake and his role as the best Robin. In there you'd Batgirl who evenually become paralyzed and photos given to Commissioner Gordon in a way to try to make him insane. It does not have to be a complete reboot, Just reference these movies as the origin, and go from there.

My point is that once you go the 3 Robins route or anything like that the entire Nolan tone has to go away. You simply cannot keep his style with the intro of Robin, and Nolan knows that; which is why won't bring Robin in.

So if you have a new Bruce Wayne, a Director, and a new style, whether you like it or not it's a reboot. You can try and say otherwise but it still is. Batman Forever even had Burton on board and you could still argue reboot because of how different it was from the last two. Where X-3 changed directors, but not direction. The new Bat films don't have to make you forget the Nolan films existed but they could be enjoyed and fully appreciated with out ever seeing the Nolan trilogy. Unlike something like Star Wars, where the new trilogy has to be seen after the old trilogy to get what you're seeing. Because no one that has not seen the old films can appreciate just how bad the new films were.

Look at Batman the Animated series; it was entirely it's own entity and based off a lot of Batman entities and never really re-established Batman or set an origin in play, but it was a reboot of the character. It was not someone else's Batman animated on TV. So Nolan's Batman and who ever takes Batman in 5 to 10 years will be very different Batmen, but it is still possible to keep them in the same loose continuity that comics have Batman in. I'll simply know better. What I mean by that is if you try and say something in the new trilogy doesn't make sense because of something in the old trilogy then you're better off trying to find continuity in the 20 seasons of the Simpsons. Because Bart being in the 4th grade for 20 years will make more sense than this Batman and the new Batman being the same Batman.

 I agree with the points you're making here. I guess I just tend to think of reboots as movies that start the continuity over.  "Rebooting them," I guess you'd say. But if you're talking about a different director bringing his own vision to a Batman film and not necessarily dealing with any of the events that happened in the Nolan films but not erasing them either, I'm totally fine with that.  I just don't have that much interest seeing another Batman origin story, being that it's been covered in several different films now.  That's part of my problem with this new Spider-man movie, although maybe if they make this one more like the comic it would be worth it.  Regarding Batman though, even with the "Year One" screenplay that Aronofsky and Miller developed, I think at this point I would rather them try to do a movie that tells a different Batman story than the origin.

[Shallow]

 I agree with the points you're making here. I guess I just tend to think of reboots as movies that start the continuity over.  "Rebooting them," I guess you'd say. But if you're talking about a different director bringing his own vision to a Batman film and not necessarily dealing with any of the events that happened in the Nolan films but not erasing them either, I'm totally fine with that.  I just don't have that much interest seeing another Batman origin story, being that it's been covered in several different films now.  That's part of my problem with this new Spider-man movie, although maybe if they make this one more like the comic it would be worth it.  Regarding Batman though, even with the "Year One" screenplay that Aronofsky and Miller developed, I think at this point I would rather them try to do a movie that tells a different Batman story than the origin.

Like I said before, Raimi's Spiderman was so bad in my eyes that I really want a reboot. It was completely out of touch with teens and that's what Spider-man is in an origin story.

The current Batman origin story will stand up for a couple decades, but as society changes the 2005 film will begin to look very dated to new audiences and kids and teens that want to better relate with Batman will need a new film. And it may be completely different than the current one, depending on how action films look in 2005. Imagine a serious toned action film about Batman was filmed in the 60s, and how it would look to us as kids in the 80s or 90s. The same thing will happen. But no, we don't need it now. And since we've never had a film of a Gotham with a fully establish Batman who has root in the city's crime fighting history I think it is time for it. And yes, these are the best films, the Nolan ones, to build off that history.

But I'd rather have an amazing completely reworked origin film than a second rate trilogy built off this one. Of course there is no reason both couldn't be done. I know Warner doesn't want to over-saturate the Bat. But if the film was different enough from the Nolan films and still amazing I see no reason why it couldn't be made and released. It would have to be a more fantasy based world and shot in a very different way, but then you wouldn't need it to be an origin. If Robert Rodriguez released a film that looked like Sin City in color, albeit dark colors, and had it be something along the lines of No Man's Land, Broken City, Hush, or even Batman being made in public and sent to Arkham and have to escape to stop whatever villain sent him there and figure out a way to convince Gotham he isn't Batman, I'd be okay with all that. If the films were good.

[white Boy]

^ i liked spiderman 1, but couldn't stand 2 (even though everyone liked it, and it was unanimously looked at as the best of the 3) and the 3rd was a joke. i see what you mean, i checked out that spectacular spiderman and thats what you mean when you mean getting in touch with kids, no?

[Shallow]

^ i liked spiderman 1, but couldn't stand 2 (even though everyone liked it, and it was unanimously looked at as the best of the 3) and the 3rd was a joke. i see what you mean, i checked out that spectacular spiderman and thats what you mean when you mean getting in touch with kids, no?

The cartoon? More or less. I wouldn't an exact translation to film, but I want to feel that a teenage Spiderman isn't older than me, and Tobey Maguire is older than me by 7 years. And I wasn't even a teen anymore when the first Spidey came out.

on a side note I just realized that Tobey is a full year older than Peyton Manning and Donovan McNabb, but they seem like old men and Tobey still looks like a young guy. Not sure why I mentioned that. It just feels weird to think about it that way.