I'm talking about his Batman work. Yes its good, but its not "Great". Its very overblown and people actually give him a pass for the 3rd movie because he's Chris Nolan. I like his work,I love The Dark Knight but Batman movies can be sooo much better. You need a director who will embrace Batman fully, if you don't have that you wont get a "real" Batman movie. The Joker needs to crack a joke or two and be insane. Ra's Al Ghul should be immortal , he needs a better relationship with Gordon and the GCPD. Batman is more "grounded" yet its unbelievably unrealistic at the same time. We don't need another movie where its so grounded, you don't dare make something remotely unrealistic and for the love of God, lets not have everybody know that Bruce Wayne is Batman and that we don't need another love fest movie. This isn't a knock on you, but just the movies in general, its quite annoying .
The Nolan trilogy was very good but i find it very overrated. There were parts of the movie where i felt it wasn't even a Batman movie. It was far to grounded for me, i wish he went the route that Marvel went with the 1st Iron Man. Where it is all about technology but there are hints and clues that would tell the audience that there are supers around the world.
The real, honest to God problem I see with Batman is finding the proper balance to entertain two distinctively different crowds. Both Burton and Nolan's versions parallel each other on opposite sides of the spectrum where one was deemed too serious and intellectual while the other not serious enough and too one-dimentional.
One thing I respected about Nolan's vision was his attempt to stay true to the Batman lore while putting his own realistic twist to make the characters plausible in our version of society, and his interpretation of the cape crusader told the complete story of a man battling with his own duality for the benefit of the greater good. Nolan's Batman is instantly more relatable because people fight with similar forms of inner conflicts in everyday life, humans don't have to do "good" things, we do so because it's deemed morally right. Batman the character served his purpose because of the incredible cast of villains that complimented his character by reflecting the dark side of his own personality traits in many ways, and where extreme example of what Batman could turn into if he didn't stay faitful to his inherited moral code (The Joker is a psychotic Madman, Two-face is a Schizophrenic that suffers from dissociative identity disorder caused by trauma, the Riddler is a Narcassistic Intellectual, The Penguin is a Megalomaniac, Catwoman is a cunning Thief , Ra's Al Gul a barberic Radical who resorts to sadistic measures in the name of Justice ect). Without these villains, there was no purpose for the hero to even exist.
The brilliance of Nolan's movies is how he uses his villains not only to explore profound themes of morality and our corrupt political system, but they serve their exact purpose in challenging Bruce to fight his biggest inner demons through tribulation. While flawed, it's admirable that Nolan took the hard road of looking at the Batman character philosophically and telling that story to the best of his ability while staying fairly faithful to the comic book lore. I guess the main drawback was trying too hard to portray Batman as a superhero that works in mundane reality. It felt more like I was watching a crime drama than a fantasy film. The problem is that it becomes completely offsetting to see a profound depth of realism followed by Batman trailblazing the cityscape in his Tumbler in Avenger-like fashion.
Burton went the opposite direction, he kept character developement at a minimal to favor frantic action set in an brooding atmosphere with a dark, almost gothic set design inspired by Anton Furst's conceptual art and (esp. in Batman Returns) German Expressionism. This was incredible on a surface level because it made you feel like you could escape reality and get lost in a fictional universe, and not a Chicago-looking Gotham like in Nolan's Universe. I think the problem is that it was often too cartoony and rooted in late 80's/early 90s culture and makes it feel horribly dated, but the first two films are visually stunning and blissfully entertaining.
So yeah, I think the right way to go would be somewhere in between both these approaches but done with someone that has a unique concept to present Batman in ways that he hasn't been presented before. Maybe a live action tv series is the next logical step in an era of big budget tv shows. Batman TAS was a brilliant interpretation and was able to drag out the Batman character developement while taking it's time to have him interact with his rogue of villains, something that needs to be rushed in film due to their length. Grant Morrison's tremendous series starting with Batman and Son
all the way through to Batman Incorporated
is a great idea for a narrative template. imo a smart interpretation of the character that isn't too morbid like the Arkham series, or too campy like the pre 70s stuff/Schumacher's glorified toy commercials. Perfect for Warner Bros to have a successful box office run in a few years from now if they don't fuck it up in the end like they usually do.