Nolan's Batman Trilogy - without Nolan, still a success?

hey guys, I've been thinking about this.

Imagine that Nolan didn't have anything to do with the DK trilogy.
would it still have been a success?

I think so. I'm not saying it would've been as big as a success but bare with me.
I think one of the main reasons for the trilogy was that it reintroduced Batman. it took itself seriously and it was darker.

so, a Batman movie that wasn't campy like the old ones, that was serious, not realistic, based on comics but not quasi-psychedelic like the old ones, that was also darker, would have worked. or do you guys think that it was Nolan's touches to the franchise that made it possible for people now to like the Batman movies and to go see them?

I think that Nolan's touch might have been the deciding factor in making that much money and being that critically acclaimed, but without him, I think a good serious, non campy approach to Batman would've been a success either way. it just seemed like it was the time for the reboot, people were willing and it really didn't matter if was uber realistic or not. if it was cinematographically rich or not. also, Ledger's Joker helped a lot in the second movie and after that there was hype for the 3rd. but with a different Joker (since Ledger's wouldn't have fitted outside Nolan's world) it could have been a success as well.

basically, I'm asking, if Nolan had not done the trilogy, someone else had, and it had been based on the comics and not really similar to Nolan's style but still not bad, would it have been a big success? I think so at least, what do you think?

I think Nolan work on the first one was meh. The third one was awesome summer popcorn movie material, but over all let down. His only good, and I mean worth a dang movie, was Dark Knight.

does that mean you agree? that without Nolan a Batman reboot in that year and age would have been successful?

@jorgevy:

I definatly think it could work.

I personally would have rathered a more comic book/fantastical film trilogy than Nolan's uber-realism. I preferred the story of the Arkham games way above the DK trilogy.

Probably not....Nolan made the films more accessible for people that aren't really into the comic book genre. The Dark Knight was basically a crime drama with a lot of philosophical overtones that had Batman in it.

Im going to say probably not.

Joel Schumacher later told a reporter that The Dark Knight was the kind of Batman film he wanted to do after Batman Forever, but the execs at WB wanted something that could be mass-marketed easier...so we got Batman & Robin. Imagine if WB would have have gotten Schumacher to do this trilogy.

The answer to the OP is no.

This isn't something that merely anyone could have pulled off with a darker tone. Directors have a greater impact on the outcome of a movie than the actors themselves. Nolan's Batman work didn't just change superhero movies, it also changed the way other directors approach their filming and storytelling. Star Trek and the recent James Bond flicks are both byproducts of Nolan's Batman films. If you don't believe me, you need to read what other people in the business have to say about Nolan.

I really wish Batman the very best in his future installments. But I expect we're going to gain a greater appreciation for what Nolan accomplished as future movies come out.

@reignmaker: hmm but what I was trying to get at, is that it was the right time for time and even without Nolan it would have been successful. I'm not saying it would be as successful and make all those bucks and get critically acclaimed. I'm saying in terms of the general populace, I think Batman only need the reboot and refreshment to be successful and get the hearts of a new generation

I'm not trying to downplay what Nolan did - I don't really like the movies, Batman Begins is my fav of the 3, but I can admit what he has done cinematographically - but I think the revitalization of the franchise wasn't Nolan's solo doing, it was almost meant to be

@jorgevy: I still think that's a stretch. Look at Daredevil. It was dark. And Ben Affleck is openly a major fan of the source material. In more capable hands that movie probably could have become franchise material. But it just wasn't any good.

Would Batman have been successful? I think it would have made some money. Even the crappy Batman flicks were financially solid. I mean, it's Batman! Would it have been a blockbuster franchise? Who knows? At the time, Nolan was the only dependable guy WB had in its stable. To this day, he's the only director to have completed a superhero trilogy, where the third installment was actually positively received. I know hipsters have their contrary opinions, but this is Comic Vine. I don't expect to hear mainstream opinions here.

Lastly, look at Superman Returns. That had a "good" director. Got some decent reviews. Made some money, if not great money. But Singer didn't push the envelope. It was basically a big fat love-letter to John Williams and Christopher Reeve. He basically put a new coat of paint on an old story. That's not going to cut it anymore. Merely making Batman dark probably wouldn't have been enough on its own either.

@reignmaker: I wasn't saying dark as in Nolan, that's his things. I said dark as in opposite to campy

daredevil can't be compared to Batman, Bats is insanely more known to the mainstream audience, and that's where I was getting at.

the Marvel movies aren't all getting amazing reviews but they get the job done the audience, the common people, and I think that Bats, with or without Nolan, would've done the same, because it was the time for it - Batman fits the era - Superman kinda didn't and that's maybe why Returns wasn't as good (also because the movie wasn't that good) and why MoS needed to change things up to get accepted in this day and age

No, no it wouldn't have been. Without Nolan's vision it'd have pretty much just been another Batman & Robin. Plus, y'know, Nolan's absence would have indirectly impacted on all other comic book movies since 2005 (probably for the worst).

@jorgevy:

Are you asking that if Darren Arnofsky had made the Batman trilogy would he have enocuntered the same level of success as Nolan did making his trilogy.

Te answer is that Nolan was made popular because of The Dark Knight. Before Batman Begins, Nolan wasn't a super popular director. Batman Begins was a mild hit. The Prestige was as well. Nolan became a massive star because The Dark Knight was fantastic, adn because Heath Ledger died and his performance was legendary. Because Dark Knight was amazing, Nolan got all the credit (deservedly), and became a huge star. Inception again was a good movie, and along with Nolan's rising name it launched as one of the best new properties ever. Dark Kngiht Rises was sold as a Batman movie.

So basically, if another director had made his own Batman trilogy it really depends on whether or not it was any good. If David O Russel had made a fantastic first movie, the second would have been incredibly successful, even more so if the second movie was great too. The Third movie would surpass both of the others, even if it didn't succeed either of the first two of the trilogy. Perhaps mildly less because Inception wouldn't have been made and that movie helped Dark Knight Rises at the box office, but yeah, the second would have still made about a billion and the third would have certainly made a billion.

No, of course it wouldn't have been the same. That's like saying 'the Mona Lisa without Leonardo Da Vinci--still a priceless work of art?' It wouldn't have been as successful because it wouldn't have had Nolan's vision driving it. In another person's hands it could very well have ended up another fiasco like with Clooney.

well, this is pretty much the answer I was looking for, honestly

I see your points and thanks for the insight!