By now you’ve probably read Geoff Boucher’s substantial interview with Christopher Nolan at the Los Angeles Times. As Kris mentioned, it’s strategically placed to launch “The Dark Knight” into the awards season. And Nolan has, in my view, a very strong claim for a Best Director nomination. Whether or not he receives it has more to do, realistically, with Ron Howard, Sam Mendes, Danny Boyle, Gus Van Sant, Steven Soderberg, Clint Eastwood, David Fincher, Baz Luhrmann and a slew of other directors waiting for their films to arrive.
There will be plenty of time for Oscar jockeying and opinion slinging, something we all do well here at In Contention. But I write this piece not to lobby for Mr. Nolan, but to plead with him. As “The Dark Knight” nears the $1 billion worldwide mark, it’s become apparent — if not obvious — that Warner Bros. will be looking towards a third installment. How could they not? The question on their mind –- and mine -– is whether Mr. Nolan will return to direct.
In his interview with Mr. Boucher, Nolan said that he was still considering it, and that he appreciated the studio’s patience in allowing him time to recover from the monumental undertaking of “The Dark Knight.”. But Mr. Nolan also notes something curious. His ambivalence towards making a third Batman film appears to be that there aren’t any good part threes. If you take a trip through cinema history, you’ll see that he’s right, mostly.
You can start with the Batman franchise. “Batman Forever,” while not nearly as awful its dreadful follow-up, “Batman and Robin,” still stunk, painfully. Everyone who enjoys cinema, of any sort really, has labored through “The Godfather Part III.” Meanwhile, “Back to the Future Part III” was hokey, “The Matrix Revolutions” was incoherent and “Spider-Man 3,” clearly, never should have been made.
“Once Upon a Time in Mexico” contained none of the mastery or coolness of “El Mariachi,” or even “Desperado.” And then there’s “Superman III,” “Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith,” “Rocky III,” “Blade: Trinity” and “Terminator III: Rise of the Machines.” Gross.
Furthermore: “Star Trek III,” “Scary Movie III,” “Shrek the Third,” etc.
Major studio franchises have mistakenly gone the trilogy route too many times. “Rush Hour,” “Pirates of the Caribbean,” “The Mummy,” “The Fast and the Furious” and “The Mighty Ducks” immediately come to mind. And I must admit that I don’t remember “Jaws 3” any more than I remember “Die Hard with a Vengeance” or “X-Men 3” or “Beverley Hills Cop 3” or “Rambo III,” Jurassic Park III,” or “Scream III.”
I had to be told that there was an “Exorcist III,” “RoboCop III,” “Naked Gun 33 1/3,” “Austin Powers: Goldmember,” “The Crow: Salvation” and “Friday After Next.”
On the other hand, “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” won a hobbit-house full of Academy Awards, including Best Picture, and “The Bourne Ultimatum” was so damn good that talk of a fourth Bourne hit the Internet quicker than a Lindsay Lohan arrest. “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly,” was the third film in the Man With No Name trilogy from Sergio Leone starring Clint Eastwood. “Moulin Rouge!” was the third film in Baz Luhrman’s “Curtains” trilogy (a stretch, of course). “Goldfinger,” released in 1964, was the third film in the James Bond franchise and remains one of the best.
“Mission: Impossible III” delivered, and might have done to a more substantial degree had Tom Cruise not freaked out on Oprah’s couch. So did “Ocean’s Thirteen.” I enjoyed “Return of the Jedi” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade,” although both films had their detractors.
It goes without saying that profit talks in any business, but especially the movie business. Studios are always on the lookout for tent pole franchises, and Batman is Warner Bros. Thus, we all know that they’ll make the film with or without Mr. Nolan, as unfortunate as it may be. The result, in all likelihood, is a lesser talent stepping behind the camera, and the franchise ending on a sour note. That’s what will happen if Brett Ratner, Roland Emmerich, Paul W.S. Anderson or, God forbid, Michael Bay get their hands on it.
But maybe that won’t happen; maybe Warner Bros. will land David Fincher or Guillermo Del Toro or Alfonso Cuaron or Darren Arnofsky, and maybe I’ll be able to stand it. Still, I can’t help but be reminded of the HBO series “Entourage” and Vincent Chase’s reaction to Ari Gold’s declaration that Michael Bay, not James Cameron, would direct the second installment of “Aquaman.”
Only Mr. Nolan knows whether he has another Batman film in him. I hope history –- and it’s plethora of bad examples –- doesn’t deter him. Great things can and do come in threes.
Comments
13 responses to “Memo to Christopher Nolan: Come back!”
On Entourage, it was Smith that was writing it; Bay was apparently directing Aquaman 2. That’s when Vince freaked and said he wouldn’t do it.
I agree with you for the most part on Part 3’s — they mostly suck. Though I did really love BTTF 3 and found T3 to be an lean-and-mean action movie (though without the depth and pathos of T2). Jedi, Oceans 13, and Crusade were all fun as well.
Nolan definitely needs to come back and finish what he started. If they go beyond a trilogy, then fine, someone else can step in. But after TDK, I’d be hard-pressed to understand how Nolan would allow anyone to come in and finish up what he created.
I will say one thing about Bay — WB needs to pay him his quote for the next Superman movie. He should have done Superman Returns. Bay is ideally suited for a superhero flick like Superman. But in all likelihood, after Transformers 2 comes out and makes a billion dollars worldwide in theaters, Bay will go back for part 3 of the robot saga. At least that’s my guess…
Out of curiosity as much as anything else, I wonder — are we guaranteed to get Christian Bale (and Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldman) if we don’t get Christopher Nolan? Because, in that sense, we might not only be fighting for the director that we find best-suited for the series, but also the actors that have revived it.
But I agree with Nick, as much as Nolan seems to be debating it, I have to believe he comes back to the series. The two films have had to be deeply personal for him, given his involvement from the scripting to the final cut, and now, even to campaigning for Heath. It’s a much deeper connection than most directors get, and I have to believe he feels some inherent sense of finishing what he started.
People dont remember a film called ROTK? I know they were filmed at the same BUT not released at the the same so ROTK is part 3 and is easily the best of 3 movies.
I enjoyed Die Hard with a Vengeance, it is my favorite of the series, I know people that feel the same way…
Like Leone’s other loose trilogy, there is Once Upon a Time in America in the Once Upon a Time Trilogy.
Mike — I adore Die Hard with a Vengeance. It’s an incredible action film. The physical quality of the filmmaking is just awesome to behold. Light years ahead of Die Hard 2 but not quite as good as the original.
Didn’t like the third Die Hard. Loved ROTK.
But Batman Forever, for me, was the best of the 90s films. I didn’t like the original or Returns (sorry, but Tim Burton wasn’t the right director for the world of the dark knight) and positively hated the fourth film. I truly enjoyed Forever.
Die Hard 3 is a classic. Star Wars Ep III the best of the prequels. ROTK doesn’t count because it was always intended as a trilogy and the story couldn’t be told other wise.
You’re overreaching a bit on those films here. The rest is obvious, but with Batman there’s no way they can top TDK. Ever.
The Exorcist III is surprisingly excellent. It seriously is.
I thought Nolan and Bale both signed 3 film contracts…hmmm…
I mean 3-film contracts.
I don’t think the trilogy thing is true, as there will always be bad films in between the good ones if you look for them.
“Terminator 3” is a great, fun action flick, as is “Matrix Revolutions,” “Bourne Ultimatum,” “Revenge of the Sith,” and “Pirates 3.”
“Scary Movie 3” is stupid and hilarious, “Austin Powers in Goldmember” is stupid as well and also kind of fun, and I don’t see many people bashing “Return of the Jedi.”
Then there’s Bergman’s Silence of God trilogy, which isn’t really a trilogy but still. And the third film, “The Silence,” is the best of the three.
I always sort of enjoyed Die Hard with a Vengeance, much more than Die Hard 2; it was fast-paced and violent with few if any of the lulls that made the seconds so unbearable…
…and even though I agree that Back to the Future III is pretty hokey, it has a sweet charm to it that made up for the unpleasant and unfunny part II, plus the climactic train sequence is one of the highpoints of the series.
I have to chime in on the BTTF III support. I agree with Chris that it’s not a great film, but it was much better than part II was. I felt the same way watching BTTF II that I did watching POTC II, in that I felt that the second film was just a very long trailer for the third film.
I also enjoyed The Last Crusade more than the Temple of Doom. The latter was okay, but Short Round was the Mutt of his day, and it was great to see all the male bonding in the former. I also enjoyed Naked Gun 33 1/3 as much as I enjoyed the second one in their own ways.
Finally, I think that they should have just stopped at one for most of these trilogy franchises like Rush Hour, The Mighty Ducks, Fast and the Furious, etc., so there’s not much of a quality difference between the second and third parts for me. The third Batman probably couldn’t top TDK, but I do hope that Nolan does do a third film.