I would have preferred it if the Chris Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy had of all been psychological crime thrillers which focused on the motivations of why Bruce Wayne became Batman and explored the ramifications of the existence of Batman and focused solely on Batman as a detective.

The closest we got to this is The Dark Knight which is the best film in the trilogy in my opinion.

I would have liked to have seen an even more realistic version of Batman with all the same actors in the main roles but key differences in the storylines.

First of all no League of Shadows because they lessened the realism of the trilogy in my opinion. For me Batman should have been set against a completely realistic backdrop which does not permit the existence of a far fetched secret society.

Also the trilogy should have omitted characters like Rachel Dawes and the third instalment should have been a completely different film. I would have liked to have seen Nolan only use characters from the very early issues of the Batman comic in the 40s as well.

So this is how the trilogy should have been played out:

The first two films are character driven psychological crime thrillers completely grounded in realism and the main focus is Batman as a detective. These are not action films but suspenseful crime thrillers.

Batman Begins - Bruce Wayne becomes Batman and attempts to counteract the deep set corruption in the police and the influence of the Mafia. The main characters are Sal Maroni and Dr Jonathan Crane (aka Scarecrow) a brilliant psychologist involved in narcotics. Also it would be great if Alfred Stryker the corrupt businessman (one of Batman's first adversaries) could have had a slight role in the film as a rival to Bruce.

The main theme explored in this film is WHY Bruce became Batman not how. So there will be no scenes of Bruce training or learning martial arts only him honing his skills as a detective. There will be few scenes of Batman fighting rather he will be a stealthy figure who camouflages into his surroundings in order to carry out his detective work.

The Dark Knight - Plays out the same as the actual film but no Rachel Dawes and no pseudo realistic technology like the Sonar Device.

The Mob led by Sal Maroni gets desperate and turns to the Joker and Harvey Dent the idealistic though mentally unstable DA is scolded by acid by Sal Maroni and becomes Two Face.

The film focuses on the parallel between Batman and Two Face as the inverted reflection of one another.

The third film is a departure from the detective drama's of the first two films and is something quite experimental and artsy. A dialogue heavy mystery drama.

Bruce Wayne has given up being Batman after the events of the previous film which was five years previously. Bruce Wayne has come to the understanding that his true legacy to Gotham will be carrying on the philanthropic works of his father to create a better Gotham rather than being a self appointed masked vigilante. Bruce Wayne realizes that Batman was symptomatic of the decline of Gotham and not a solution to it. However not everyone can forget Batman so easily.

A genius philosopher and psychologist called Hugo Strange masterminds a plot to resurface Batman after deducing the identity of the caped crusader. A dishevelled Jonathan Crane resurfaces allied to Hugo Strange.

Selina Kyle features as a 'robin hood' type figure stealing from the rich and giving to the poor who was initially inspired by Batman.

The main focus of the film sees Hugo Strange manipulating Bruce Wayne in order to resurface Batman and eventually Hugo Strange who has a fascination with Batman to the point of even dressing as the Caped Crusader confronts Bruce and the two undertake a psychological battle as their two identities seem to merge with one another until they become the same person in a metaphysical sense and finally one will break.

I think Tom Hardy would have been more suited to playing a dark and eccentric character like Hugo Strange (have you seen Bronson?) rather than the two dimensional underwritten Bane.

So this is my ideal trilogy I'm sure many will disagree.


By the way I'm not really interested in comic book film adaptations I think most of them are crass and mediocre particularly the films that Marvel churn out.

The Dark Knight is the closest film I've seen based on a comic which has come close to being a cinematic masterpiece and I would have preferred if the entire trilogy had stayed close to the didactic and cerebral tone of that film.

Ok

If Batman Begins wasn't what it was, we may never have gotten the hallowed TDK, which means we never would have gotten Inception.

I totally agree. Now we just need someone to build a time machine so we can borrow it to go back in time and tell Nolan how he should have made his Bat films.

Hmm in my Opinion the Trilogy was awesome. And there is nothing you can really do better. Why Bruce becames Batman.. Thats a point.. But it was very well explained if you ask me.

Batman's world involves gadgets and vehicles that demand set pieces to show them off.

i disagree Nolan struck gold with his tdk trilogy .

Two dimensional underwritten Bane? Come on, man.

Also, TDK was poetry even with Rachel Dawes and the sonar technology (which I never saw a problem with). Everything in that film ties together perfectly.

ventman wrote:I would have preferred it if the Chris Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy had of all been psychological crime thrillers which focused on the motivations of why Bruce Wayne became Batman and explored the ramifications of the existence of Batman and focused solely on Batman as a detective.

The closest we got to this is The Dark Knight which is the best film in the trilogy in my opinion.

I would have liked to have seen an even more realistic version of Batman with all the same actors in the main roles but key differences in the storylines.

First of all no League of Shadows because they lessened the realism of the trilogy in my opinion. For me Batman should have been set against a completely realistic backdrop which does not permit the existence of a far fetched secret society.

Also the trilogy should have omitted characters like Rachel Dawes and the third instalment should have been a completely different film. I would have liked to have seen Nolan only use characters from the very early issues of the Batman comic in the 40s as well.

So this is how the trilogy should have been played out:

The first two films are character driven psychological crime thrillers completely grounded in realism and the main focus is Batman as a detective. These are not action films but suspenseful crime thrillers.

Batman Begins - Bruce Wayne becomes Batman and attempts to counteract the deep set corruption in the police and the influence of the Mafia. The main characters are Sal Maroni and Dr Jonathan Crane (aka Scarecrow) a brilliant psychologist involved in narcotics. Also it would be great if Alfred Stryker the corrupt businessman (one of Batman's first adversaries) could have had a slight role in the film as a rival to Bruce.

The main theme explored in this film is WHY Bruce became Batman not how. So there will be no scenes of Bruce training or learning martial arts only him honing his skills as a detective. There will be few scenes of Batman fighting rather he will be a stealthy figure who camouflages into his surroundings in order to carry out his detective work.

The Dark Knight - Plays out the same as the actual film but no Rachel Dawes and no pseudo realistic technology like the Sonar Device.

The Mob led by Sal Maroni gets desperate and turns to the Joker and Harvey Dent the idealistic though mentally unstable DA is scolded by acid by Sal Maroni and becomes Two Face.

The film focuses on the parallel between Batman and Two Face as the inverted reflection of one another.

The third film is a departure from the detective drama's of the first two films and is something quite experimental and artsy. A dialogue heavy mystery drama.

Bruce Wayne has given up being Batman after the events of the previous film which was five years previously. Bruce Wayne has come to the understanding that his true legacy to Gotham will be carrying on the philanthropic works of his father to create a better Gotham rather than being a self appointed masked vigilante. Bruce Wayne realizes that Batman was symptomatic of the decline of Gotham and not a solution to it. However not everyone can forget Batman so easily.

A genius philosopher and psychologist called Hugo Strange masterminds a plot to resurface Batman after deducing the identity of the caped crusader. A dishevelled Jonathan Crane resurfaces allied to Hugo Strange.

Selina Kyle features as a 'robin hood' type figure stealing from the rich and giving to the poor who was initially inspired by Batman.

The main focus of the film sees Hugo Strange manipulating Bruce Wayne in order to resurface Batman and eventually Hugo Strange who has a fascination with Batman to the point of even dressing as the Caped Crusader confronts Bruce and the two undertake a psychological battle as their two identities seem to merge with one another until they become the same person in a metaphysical sense and finally one will break.

I think Tom Hardy would have been more suited to playing a dark and eccentric character like Hugo Strange (have you seen Bronson?) rather than the two dimensional underwritten Bane.

So this is my ideal trilogy I'm sure many will disagree.


By the way I'm not really interested in comic book film adaptations I think most of them are crass and mediocre particularly the films that Marvel churn out.

The Dark Knight is the closest film I've seen based on a comic which has come close to being a cinematic masterpiece and I would have preferred if the entire trilogy had stayed close to the didactic and cerebral tone of that film.

thank god for solo.