(This is the post I famously lost, finally reconstructed. There will be a lot of typos, just bear with me, I had to write it over a period of days, and the spurts were very intense).
Ah, and so begins the eternal debate. Heath Ledger has passed on, “The Dark Knight” is probably the most successful comic book movie ever made, and Christopher Nolan has to decide if he’s coming back for round three. There’s no way to meaningfully have this debate without considering it on two separate axes: should he do it, and will he do it. If you try to isolate one, you end up talking about the other too. We can’t know the man’s mind, he’s notoriously secretive, and his comments to the press contradict themselves and lead nowhere. Some days he seems to be in a good mood, and makes mention of “ideas” that he’s batted around with the creative team. Other days, he sounds more pessimistic, and he goes on about how third movies are never any good. The point is, this movie isn’t coming out any later than 2012, and it’s a massive production, so Warner Brothers is going to move one way or the next before too long. It’s crunch time.
I always like putting myself in positions where I could be completely wrong, because it helps keep me humble. So, allow me to bat (no pun intended!) these questions around, consider the arguments, and arrive at my predictions for each of them. Then, when word gets out, you can either laugh at me derisively or concede my unremitting brilliance. You can go ahead and do the second one anyway.
ROUND ONE: Will Christopher Nolan do a third Batman movie?
Arguments For: Of course he will. The narrative is not finished. Chris talks a big game about not saving anything for the sequel, but even he cannot deny that both of his films about the Caped Crusader end with question marks; there’s more story here and he knows it. I don’t doubt that he always intends to say everything he wants to say, but unlike any of his other projects, the very nature of the Batman narrative demands that things cannot come to a neat conclusion yet. At the end of “Begins,” Batman stood on the brink of a long career, preparing to face down challenges that would define him as a man. At the end of “The Dark Knight,” he finds himself at a Pyrrhic Victory (look it up), his principles intact at the cost of unbearable sacrifices, and the city’s future is far from certain. In both cases, we have resolutions, deeply gratifying character arcs which are expertly completed. But not endings, nothing has ended here. Even after Two Face’s (presumed) death, Batman is not really Batman yet. He is young, inexperienced, clumsy. Anyone who argues that there is no more fresh meat for a compelling story is simply incorrect. Nolan himself has stated that they have a sense of what the third film could be, and this dude does not make such a statement lightly. It’s not like Goyer and Jonah are sitting in a room staring at a blank sheet of paper saying, “We got nothing.” The story is there. It’s just a question of developing and telling it.
Chris loves the Batman movies, but even putting that aside, you can’t argue that he’s finished with them. He’s not. The fight scenes were okay, but anyone who compares TDK to “Begins” can see that Nolan is still figuring action scenes out. The first time, he tried for shaky-cam, and the results were mixed. The sequel doesn’t contain a single jumpy-edit fight scene, so clearly he scrapped that and started looking for something else (and indeed, he has said so in interviews). The car chases I think he feels pretty good about, but the hand-to-hand stuff is still developing. And who can deny that the Batman voice needs work? They had a pretty good one in “Begins,” then they blew past the mark with TDK, so the third time is likely going to be a charm. How can Nolan resist perfecting his craft with the knowledge he’s gained from the first two movies? We all know that he was dissatisfied with the Bat-suit from “Begins,” and a strong impetus to return was the desire to get it right (which he did). There are still more fine points to iron out.
As for the concern that Ledger’s death changes things, that goes against Nolan’s basic rule of never saving anything for the next round. He made his Joker movie, and whatever the Clown’s presence in Batman 3 might have been, there’s no way it was primary. The movie is not undone by Heath’s passing.
One last point: notice how secretive everyone is being. Would the Nolan creative team really be so hush-hush about a movie they had no intention of doing? I mean, what’s with all the sealed lips if they’re just jumping ship? It doesn’t make any sense. He’s coming back.
Argument Against: He’s not coming back, the dude is done. First of all, it took hell and high water to sign him on for “The Dark Knight.” Sequels is not how Chris Nolan rolls. David Goyer and Warner Brothers had to pin him in a corner and noogie him until he agreed to another go (metaphorically). All his so-called “talk” about making the movie he wants and then being done with it is anything but. He means it. Look at his catalog, this guy is not a franchise filmmaker. He likes definitive stories, things that open and close for good. He returned to “The Dark Knight” for one reason and one reason only: to do the Joker. He’s admitted that, he wanted to do the Joker. Okay, fine, he did the Joker, and he did it better than anyone else could have. It’s over. Everybody knows you can’t top the Clown Prince of Crime, there’s no villain in Batman’s admittedly extraordinary rogue’s gallery that matches his arch-nemesis. There’s nowhere to go but down, and that also is not how Nolan rolls. What are they gonna do now, the Riddler? Please. Catwoman? Bane? Mad Hatter? Are you seriously suggesting that even these characters combined matches the Joker?
And anyway, he’s said what he wanted to say. I mean he burned down Wayne Manor, killed or incapacitated all the best villains, and blew up the Batmobile—anybody else catching the hint? Those who argue that Batman has not “matured” yet have not been paying attention to Chris Nolan’s view of Batman. This is a grounded take on the character, and the Dark Knight was never going to transform into some stunning crime-fighting machine. He’s always going to make mistakes and be kind of clumsy, because that knock-around quality is the heart of this take on the entire franchise. This is not a comic book, this is the (sort of) real world where punches hurt and rubber suits slow you down.
Also, Heath Ledger is gone. No one can look at the end of “The Dark Knight” and avoid one simple fact: the Joker was coming back. As the lead villain? No. But there were still substantial things to do with the character, and it seems perfectly obvious he was going to do them. With Heath gone, a man who is already prone to avoiding sequels just got one more reason to stay away. I mean it would’ve been a hard sell if everything had been perfect, but now he’s not even going to get to make the movie he would want to. Please, this cat is done.
ROUND TWO: Should Christopher Nolan do a third Batman movie?
Argument Against: Goodness gracious no. Hell no. Stay as far away from that thing as you can, it’s career poison. Getting away with a sequel that surpasses the original is quite a thing, but even Francis Ford Coppola got bit when he went back to the petting zoo too many times on “The Godfather.” I don’t deny that Chris would make a quality motion picture out of “Batman 3,” but what the hell good does that do if no one notices? People aren’t going to watch the movie he makes, they’re going to watch the movie in their heads and then get annoyed when that’s not what’s on the screen. If he bows out now, some other jerk can step in, fail to live up to expectations, and then everyone will fantasize about how great Chris’ movie would have been. That’s the sad truth about human nature: we prefer the movie he doesn’t make to the movie he does.
No one should mistake “Batman 3″ for a “challenge.” A Rubicks Cube is a challenge, this is a suicide mission. Meeting the expectations for this movie will be like playing a game of Calvinball, everything will constantly be shifting against Nolan’s favor. If they go the action heavy route, we’ll all gripe about the story (a la “X-Men 3″); if they go for story, we’ll gripe about the action (a la “Superman Returns”). If they nail both, we’ll gripe about the length. There is no right answer here, because the freshness of Nolan’s bold take on comic books is gone. Each “Batman” movie up until now was a sneak attack on an unsuspecting audience, still chuckling and feeling superior after “Batman and Robin.” But they’re wise now, and now they’re going to sit smugly in the theater and demand your movie be so good it cure cancer. It’s not that people want you to fail, it’s that they want you to succeed too much.
Let’s be honest: Chris needs his mystique. He doesn’t make family-friendly films, so his edge and popularity amongst snobs is his bread and butter. Pumping out crass sequels which exist for financial reasons does not bode well for that. He can’t be the guy who doesn’t know when to get off the train, and he definitely can’t screw the franchise up and then escape out the back door. He leaves now, it’s an Honorable Discharge; he leaves after 3, and he’s slipping out with a slap on the wrist….which will be crap, because I’m sure the movie will be fabulous. But if it doesn’t cure cancer, it isn’t going to be good enough.
So far, Nolan has exemplified business smarts. He was careful to do a movie in between “Begins” and TDK, a savvy move that kept his reputation in a good place and broadened his spectrum. “Inception” is an even smarter choice, because it’s got a giant budget and huge stars, it’s coming out in the summer, and it’s probably going to be a hit. This is just A-level movie politics, it basically puts him at the wheel of two tent-pole success stories at the same time. No other director since Spielberg has so adroitly positioned himself, walking a tightrope between mega-director status and indie credibility. Even those who think “The Prestige” was a disappointment must now realize it was likely a stepping stone to the gigantic “Inception.” Every single move has been flawless. He even did the impossible and topped a great original with a sequel. To do a third movie will only slightly increase his reputation as a Batman director, since people will be expecting greatness now. There won’t be this amazement when it’s really good, there’ll be, “Hey, that didn’t move me to tears and blow my mind with special effects while also feeding my cat and doing my taxes for me! What a crap movie!”
For the love of all that is good and holy, Chris Nolan’s agent, talk him into leaving this franchise. He’s got his own things to deal with now, his own bright future. Let some other tool box come screw the third Bat-flick up.
Argument For: Of course he should do another Batman movie! To even suggest he shouldn’t is ridiculous. Sure, “The Dark Knight” was a great accomplishment, but let’s not kid ourselves and pretend that it was perfect. That Bat-voice needed some work, the fist-fights are still not perfect, and…er…okay, so it’s hard to come up with flaws in that movie, but still! We’re not dealing with Hitchcock making “Psycho” here, this is not a director at the peak of his powers. Just because both flicks were blindingly good doesn’t mean we’ve hit the ceiling, and it’s rather presumptuous to assume otherwise.
Okay, yes, the Rotten Tomato-meter might settle for a robust 86%. That is not the end of the world. Or it might not, you never know. “The Bourne Ultimatum” was a big pile of inconsequential nonsense and everyone called it the best in the series, just because people loved Bourne. “Return of the King” won all those Oscars when it was really the second-best in the series (”Fellowship” is still the top of the pile). “Episode III” got free kisses from everyone when it had all the same problems of the first two. Batman 3 has a lot more in common with these movies than it does with something like “The Godfather Part III”: it’s being made fairly soon after the last one by the same creative team, and there is without question more story left in the characters. Undeniably, you’re going to get snot-nosed critics beginning their reviews with, “No one could replace Heath Ledger,” even though they know there’s nothing anyone could do about that. But so what? If the movie is good, people are going to be happy. They’ll get the Blu Ray, they’ll argue with their friends about whether “Begins” or “Batman 3″ is best, you’ll have a bona fide trilogy masterpiece.
But more than that, leaving now is unwise for Chris on a professional level. Yeah, he’s doing great and everyone’s happy for him, but he’s also not a household name by any stretch of the imagination. His work is too dark and edgy for mainstream America, the silent majority only likes him when he’s tempered by the blockbuster genre. Put him in a popcorn movie, he gives it that extra kick that makes the inevitable happy ending all the better, and that’s wonderful, but it’s a whole new ball of wax when he pumps out a $200 million movie starring one of his typical obsessing, unsympathetic protagonists. Indie kids love Leonard Shelby, but average Joe or whoever finds him weird. They don’t latch on like they will to the noble warrior Jason Bourne, or the lovable rascal Jack Sparrow, and so forth. Nowhere will this better be displayed than when “Inception” comes out next summer and does good but not stunning business. “The Prestige” turned profit easily because it was small, but that flick’s ticket sales would not recoup the kind of money that’s going to go into “Inception.” This thing has to hit theaters like a wrecking ball, and there’s no reason to believe it will. It has stars, but DiCaprio is on Forbes’ overpaid list (unfairly, but he is), Page hasn’t escaped the “Juno” vortex, and Gordon Levitt is still building his foundations. None of these people are Will Smith, they can’t carry you to the finish line. Maybe the script is great, but we don’t live in a fair world, and if there’s some better-established brand hitting around the same time, “Inception” could be in real trouble. Point is, you don’t want to get this far with “Batman” just to end up hinging your future on a new, untested IP. If Nolan makes Bat-3 AND “Inception,” he’s guaranteed some success with a good shot at stunning, overwhelming victory.
Also, you leave “Batman” right now and you run the risk of someone stepping in and improving on your work. I know it’s unlikely, but it is possible, and if it happened it would be far worse for “indie cred” than doing a slightly-less-stunning third act. Nolan has only had one colossal hit so far, and that’s “The Dark Knight” (”Begins” was the textbook definition of “moderate success”). If he does the third picture, he’s guaranteed disgusting amounts of money no matter what the movie’s like, and that will bring his number up to 2 (”Inception” could also sneak up from behind and make that 3). At that point, he would have a genuine hit-maker reputation, and could begin to really muscle his way around town. Right now, muscling would be quite presumptuous.
People who advocate him leaving always cite “history,” claiming that third movies disappoint and diminish careers. Very well, but perhaps there is a precedent for directors jumping ship and cashing in their chips too soon as well. Doug Liman started the “Bourne” franchise, but Greengrass takes all the credit while he sank with “Jumper.” Bryan Singer abandoned X-3 for “Superman Returns,” but both ended up tanking, and with the failure of “Valkyrie,” the man’s career is demonstrably lower than it was five years ago. People wanted Bryan for the third round, and in a way I think they were reluctant to forgive him when he left.
Directors often get a little heady when things are going good: they taste some victory and want to immortalize themselves too soon, so they rush away and stumble. Look at Spielberg’s career: the dude never left a franchise until the people were okay with it. Did that lead him to some mediocre sequels? Sure. But people don’t resent a little bit of disappointment, they resent huge, crushing failure. “Spiderman 3″ and “The Lost World” cannot be compared in this way; one was an embarrassment that harmed everyone in it (and deservedly so), the other was a movie people just complained about. Richard Schiff, Vince Vaughn, Jeff Goldblum, Spielberg himself, they all profited from being involved, their careers all accelerated. Since I find it unlikely that Chris is going to insert a dance number in Bat-3, I think it’s safe to say that the worst case scenario if he returns is that some people will gripe. Not the end of the world.
So hear this, folks who control Nolan’s future: keep him in place. He’s on the fast track to becoming a living legend, but if you let him get too precious about his successes, he’ll lack the humility to make the movies his audience wants. The people want another Bat-flick from this guy, and he’s not yet the kind of titan who can refuse them and not suffer for it.
PS: The Academy Awards people know they screwed you, Chris, so much so that there are now ten nominees for the Big Prize. The year they snubbed you, they got the worst ratings in their history. If Batman 3 holds the line on TDK’s adult, sophisticated drama, they’re going to give you a Best Picture nod. I guarantee you. How’s that for living up to expectations?
AND NOW MY VERDICT…
SHOULD Christopher Nolan do a third Batman movie: You know, when I wrote this article the first time and lost it, my answer was “no.” This time, I honestly think I argued the point better and now I’m changing sides. Yes. He should. I think the Bryan Singer case study is very relevant, and should inform his decision intensely—his situation and Bryan’s are incredibly similar. Leaving now would be depriving yourself of stunning success and widespread recognition just so bloggers will say how cool you are. Not worth it.
WILL Christopher Nolan do a third Batman movie: Yup. The secrecy argument, as famously coined by Jett at Batman-on-Film, is the deal-breaker. In the time since I’ve written this, Morgan Freeman has come out publicly stating that he can’t fathom Nolan not returning. Even that aside, Chris likes to challenge himself, and this franchise still has a lot of juice left in it. He knows he hasn’t mastered every corner of the action blockbuster yet, and I don’t think he’ll rest till he does.