Does this current Batman franchise have the legs to go the Harry Potter route and churn out, say, eight films all together? Or has Christopher Nolan and Co. crafted the sort of universe that should come to a close after a third film? We ask this now because during a recent Warner Brothers conference call, CEO Jeff Bewkes made mention that they're interested in spinning Batman, Superman and Sherlock Holmes into potential multi-film franchises a la Harry Potter. He says, "The obvious thing we're going to take from it is more Dark Knight. We look at Harry Potter ... It's fantastic to have franchises that last that long. We want to do that with Batman and Superman and perhaps Sherlock Holmes. The sequels are as good, with new characters added, as were the originals. That wasn't the case in the years ago."
But will turning a franchise like Batman into an eight-picture epic mean that, like the previous franchise, those latter sequels will churn out crap? There's no way Christopher Nolan (or Christian Bale, for that matter) will remain involved for eight Batman films (he'll probably stop at three or mayyybe four), and so we'll be right back to finding a new director and a new Batman ... and then fans begin to squirm a little in their seats. Obviously Warners wants to turn this sucker into a cash cow, but there's definitely something to be said for a lean, mean trilogy featuring all the same actors and filmmakers.
So, I ask you: How many Batman films should they craft out of this current franchise?
[via Silicon Alley Insider]