There really does not need to be another reboot of the franchise.

And count me as one who thought that the reveal was not necessary. Actually, some of my co-workers think that the studio may have pressured Nolan into including that. Their theory is that Nolan is not going to direct the next "franchise" but that the studio wants to do it at some point.

When WB starts casting about ideas for the next reboot, I hope they just have Batman already being Batman and not redredge the whole origin story. If I have to see another scene of Bruce's parents being gunned down in a dark alley in front of a scared young boy I'm gonna hurl! Everyone on the planet knows at this point how Bruce became Batman.

Batman Begins<The Dark Knight<The Dark Knight Rises.

But....I think these are "one" movie. The movie about "Batman".

There really does not need to be another reboot of the franchise.

And count me as one who thought that the reveal was not necessary. Actually, some of my co-workers think that the studio may have pressured Nolan into including that. Their theory is that Nolan is not going to direct the next "franchise" but that the studio wants to do it at some point.

Well, depends on how you look at it, a reboot may be necessary and sooner rather than later.

DC Comics group is under some pressure to launch a line of superhero films that will ultimately tie into a Justice League film. Batman has been their only real successful franchise in recent memory. Superman Returns was considered a box office failure based on commercial appeal alone, while Green Lantern, despite having high hopes of a franchise, fizzled.

The reboot of Superman launches next year with "The Man of Steel" but it is too soon to see how that will eventually play out.

If WB plans to follow Marvel's strategy of a shared universe build up to a Justice League film in the foreseeable future they will have to relaunch Batman because there is nothing in Nolan's universe tying him to other DC characters. Additionally a reboot of the following: Green Lantern, Superman, and get a Wonder Woman film off the ground and perhaps an Aquaman feature but who really cares about him anyway.

So, while not needed, it may be required to reboot Batman very soon if the studio plans on making headway with JLA.

Poor Aquaman....always demoted and ignored. lol

I guess my opinion will be in the minority then. Overall I liked the movie, but as a Batman comic book fan, I have issues with how it ended and one of the themes of the movie.
First of all Batman never quits, he is the unyielding, implacable foe who will hound you mercilessly. He has an indomitable spirit. It is these traits that let him not only survive, but actually enable him to best his villains, whether they have drug induced strength or a criminal empire.
Secondly, the premise that it’s the idea that matters more than the identity of Batman is crap. Batman is Bruce Wayne; it takes Bruce’s money, connections, company, and personal tragedy to enable Bruce to have the devotion, resources and skill to be Batman. No one can fill those shoes. The few times in the comics where they’ve tried, it inevitably comes back to Bruce.
Now you might say this is a movie, that it’s a different interpretation, a more realistic vision of Batman and I would agree. Except, for the first two films it wasn’t that different, Begins was essentially Year One and Dark Knight was kind of an amalgamation of Joker and Two-Face stories. Though they were a bit more grounded in the real world, it was still Batman, still had his essence. This one didn’t to me. He was a quitter at the start and quits at the end, with barely any action in between. It was as much Levitt’s movie as it was Batman’s.
So, anyway, there’s the rant, there were other issues, but those two were my biggest problems with it.

I thought this was the best Batman movie yet, a fitting end to the trilogy. There was even a tie in to the original Adam West portrayal with a similar comment, "Some days you can't get rid of the bomb".
Any reboot here will have to have Batman in a whole other realm as Nolan's trilogy had a definitive end.

I guess my opinion will be in the minority then. Overall I liked the movie, but as a Batman comic book fan, I have issues with how it ended and one of the themes of the movie.
First of all Batman never quits, he is the unyielding, implacable foe who will hound you mercilessly. He has an indomitable spirit. It is these traits that let him not only survive, but actually enable him to best his villains, whether they have drug induced strength or a criminal empire.
Secondly, the premise that it’s the idea that matters more than the identity of Batman is crap. Batman is Bruce Wayne; it takes Bruce’s money, connections, company, and personal tragedy to enable Bruce to have the devotion, resources and skill to be Batman. No one can fill those shoes. The few times in the comics where they’ve tried, it inevitably comes back to Bruce.
Now you might say this is a movie, that it’s a different interpretation, a more realistic vision of Batman and I would agree. Except, for the first two films it wasn’t that different, Begins was essentially Year One and Dark Knight was kind of an amalgamation of Joker and Two-Face stories. Though they were a bit more grounded in the real world, it was still Batman, still had his essence. This one didn’t to me. He was a quitter at the start and quits at the end, with barely any action in between. It was as much Levitt’s movie as it was Batman’s.
So, anyway, there’s the rant, there were other issues, but those two were my biggest problems with it.

You make some good points, but I think the film veered from the character you describe to show a damaged character, someone who is flawed, and can be redeemed (as all good third acts should).

SPOILERS - SORT OF

He believes his greatest strength is no fear of death, but goes through a journey that teaches him that this strength is flawed, he has have a life worth fighting for. As an ending and third act to a trilogy, it worked. The comic may dabble with endings, but everyone knows that comics are never-ending.

Seeing the film a second time, you're right about how much screen time Batman gets, it isn't much. I would say Bruce gets more screen time, and it is still his story, but Blake was clearly a cypher to tell the parts of the story that Bruce/Batman wasn't involved in.

As to the sound mix some people have been mentioning. The first showing I saw was at an IMAX, the sound was terrific, Gary Oldman mumbled occasionally, as he does, but overall everything felt balanced and I didn't see why people were complaining. But last night at the local cinema the sound was seriously off. The mix was all wrong, there were entire scenes (especially towards the end) where the music drowned out all dialogue. My girlfriend wasn't impressed, stating that one scene in particular where Levitt and Oldman were in the apartment, she could see Oldman getting upset, and Levitt getting angry, but she had no idea why because the dialogue was lost. I hope the DVD/BR release will make this right, and not require you to have a professional level sound system to enjoy the film.

You're right of course that it works in movie format, which why I said that overall I liked it. Its just that with this one moreso than the other two I had to step back and realize that this isn't a Batman movie, so much as a Nolan movie featuring Batman. I agree that the ending fits this version of Bats, and it is nice to see Bruce find happiness, its just this one had a very different feel to it. To use a comics analogy, the first two could have been in continuity and this would have been in Elseworlds.

Nolan's take on rebooting the franchise was transporting the Batman mythos into a real world setting. It would simply not be realistic that Bruce Wayne/Batman could be as resiliant and indomitable as he is in the comics. It had to end with Bruce finding a life that he could live without Batman because no one in reality could be Batman for long; he'd wind up in a wheelchair or in a prison or dead before too long. I thought Nolan made a brave choice treating the Batman story with respect and making it as near to real life as it could be in the context of a Hollywood movie. If he were to direct a Repairman Jack film I am confident that it would be at least a decent, and perhaps great, film. He really is an artist and not a hack. Rare in Hollywood.