Why can't Nolan's Batman be used in a JLA movie?

[carabas]

a more Gothamesque Gotham

Isn't Nolan's Gotham a lot more 'gothamesque' than Tim Burton's?

Gotham IIRC was always pretty much a regular city with added gargoyles, architecturally speaking. It's only after Burton's movie that all the bizarro architecture started popping up all over Gotham. There was even a special crossover arc between all the main Batman books that introduced this into the comics.

[Dr. Hurt]

Isn't Nolan's Gotham a lot more 'gothamesque' than Tim Burton's?

Gotham IIRC was always pretty much a regular city with added gargoyles, architecturally speaking. It's only after Burton's movie that all the bizarro architecture started popping up all over Gotham. There was even a special crossover arc between all the main Batman books that introduced this into the comics.

Well i dunno, maybe 50 years ago Gotham was like Nolan's. But the comics i've been reading for the last decade dont show a Gotham like that.

Gotham in Begins was pretty good actually. I guess it was pretty stupid that the whole city was normal and there was this little island full of crime and grit, the Narrows. That didnt work either. But somehow Nolan's direction of Begins made me feel like it was Gotham. Maybe it was that yellow tint. TDK felt like "Heat 2" to me.

[Dr. Hurt]

What on earth are you talking about? Are you somehow under the impression that every single superhero movie ever made has been "what if they existed in the real world"???

No, but Nolan's movies do. And why would Man of Steel need to be in his own universe if they werent going for the same thing? Because that's the only story that you cant tell if there are other superheroes in the same universe. The story of "what if Superman lived in our world".

The League of Shadows does not exist in the real world, fyi!

You're being too literal and you're missing the point. Nolan took batman out of the comics, watered him down and placed him in the real world. Everything that could have been unrealistic has been toned down. Ras is immortal? Maybe... or maybe it's a title passed down through generations. The joker isnt permawhite, Bane doesnt hulk up with venom, the lazarus pit isnt a magical pit but that well-like prison that bruce gets jailed in TDKR, etc, etc.

Only the technology is unrealistic as well as some stunts that batman does. Other than that this isnt a world where Manbat or Clayface or Superman would live in.

Why can't your comics give you what you read in your comics? Why can't Year One give you a super genius Batman palling around with Superman? Why can't the Killing Joke give you that? Why hasn't Snyder's run given you that? You are putting every single superhero comic book ever published on one side, and every superhero movie on the other. Newsflash: one side is exponentially bigger than the other! Of course comics will always contain more than movies!

But i dont want Superman in Year One. I dont want Thor in Ironman 3. But i appreciate that in Avengers 2 it will be the same Ironman and Thor teaming up.

So why cant director X tell batman stories, director Y tell Superman stories, director Z tell GL stories, and director N bring those together and tell JL stories? Marvel did it and it was awesome.

[Death by Mime]

No, but Nolan's movies do. And why would Man of Steel need to be in his own universe if they werent going for the same thing? Because that's the only story that you cant tell if there are other superheroes in the same universe. The story of "what if Superman lived in our world".
You're being too literal and you're missing the point. Nolan took batman out of the comics, watered him down and placed him in the real world. Everything that could have been unrealistic has been toned down. Ras is immortal? Maybe... or maybe it's a title passed down through generations. The joker isnt permawhite, Bane doesnt hulk up with venom, the lazarus pit isnt a magical pit but that well-like prison that bruce gets jailed in TDKR, etc, etc.

Only the technology is unrealistic as well as some stunts that batman does. Other than that this isnt a world where Manbat or Clayface or Superman would live in.
But i dont want Superman in Year One. I dont want Thor in Ironman 3. But i appreciate that in Avengers 2 it will be the same Ironman and Thor teaming up.

So why cant director X tell batman stories, director Y tell Superman stories, director Z tell GL stories, and director N bring those together and tell JL stories? Marvel did it and it was awesome.

No that's not true at all! You can tell lots of stories where Superman is the only hero in the world, without any reference to the "real" world. Like, what if Superman actually had a major impact on the planet and changed things drastically and we didn't want to muddle up the picture with a hundred other superheroes out there. You are thinking too small!

You bring up the Marvel movies as a better example, but they are also watered down and terrible! In the opposite direction! The sheer overwhelming quantity of comics means that we had Morrison and Snyder writing Batman simultaneously, and still another Justice League book where he teams up with Superman. Imagine that! Can you imagine a Marvel movie with the sheer idiosyncratic force of the Morrison comic? Or a Nolan film, even?

Movies are not comics, they do not come out every month, you have to pick and choose which parts you want to include. The interconnectedness of the Marvel films means you have to dull everything down to the lowest common denominator. Hulk cannot rampage off into the wild, he has to be well behaved and work with SHIELD and be around for the next movie. Tony Stark cannot get drunk and seriously self-destructive and make terrible choices with his life. Everything has to work out fine for him in the end and his dad and his life choices have to be perfectly vindicated so that - you guessed it - he can be around for the next movie. Captain America cannot rage against the government and have it actually mean something, he will end up working with SHIELD by the end of it. And so on, and so on, and so on. The characters are neutered. They are dead. They are watered down to a tepid paste.

The next Batman movie might have Batman dying. Imagine that! It might have him quit, it might have him permanently disabled, it might have him disgraced or retired or renouncing vigilantism or any one of a dozen exciting directions. And it could do absolutely none of those things if Batman is expected to show up whole and hearty to the next Justice League movie.

You think Nolan's Batman cannot team up with Superman because it's 'too realistic' and that is just dumb. Year One is more realistic, and yet that Batman somehow ended up teaming with Superman I guess, what's stopping Bale? The real reason that Nolan's Batman cannot team up with Superman is because maybe he would rather do something more personal than a superhero team-up.

[Dr. Hurt]

No that's not true at all! You can tell lots of stories where Superman is the only hero in the world, without any reference to the "real" world. Like, what if Superman actually had a major impact on the planet and changed things drastically and we didn't want to muddle up the picture with a hundred other superheroes out there. You are thinking too small!

Ok, fair enough. But that's like 1 out of 100 potential stories. I'd rather lose that 1 potential story because of the DC movieverse, and get the other 99 instead. There's so many stories that they can do which arent affected and dont affect the wider universe.

Why cant i have my cake and eat it too?

You bring up the Marvel movies as a better example, but they are also watered down and terrible! In the opposite direction! The sheer overwhelming quantity of comics means that we had Morrison and Snyder writing Batman simultaneously, and still another Justice League book where he teams up with Superman. Imagine that! Can you imagine a Marvel movie with the sheer idiosyncratic force of the Morrison comic? Or a Nolan film, even?

I didnt understand this. Can you explain it?

Movies are not comics, they do not come out every month, you have to pick and choose which parts you want to include. The interconnectedness of the Marvel films means you have to dull everything down to the lowest common denominator. Hulk cannot rampage off into the wild, he has to be well behaved and work with SHIELD and be around for the next movie. Tony Stark cannot get drunk and seriously self-destructive and make terrible choices with his life. Everything has to work out fine for him in the end and his dad and his life choices have to be perfectly vindicated so that - you guessed it - he can be around for the next movie. Captain America cannot rage against the government and have it actually mean something, he will end up working with SHIELD by the end of it. And so on, and so on, and so on. The characters are neutered. They are dead. They are watered down to a tepid paste.

Yes, the Avengers means that the individual movies arent free to do whatever they want, but like i said at the top of this post, there's still huge potential for storytelling. It's what you get every month with the various Ironman or Captain America or Thor books. Just the fact that this is a wider universe opens up new doors, new opportunities. An Ironman - Captain America movie, a movie where Ironman fights someone who gets inspired by other heroes but he ends up doing it wrong, big events, etc. If there was no storytelling potential then you wouldnt have all those individual books and Marvel would only be publishing Avengers books.

And i think that they can let Hulk loose, or Ironman get drunk and the Avengers will be written accordingly. They ll have to chase down the Hulk, or deal with a drunk Ironman, etc.

The next Batman movie might have Batman dying. Imagine that! It might have him quit, it might have him permanently disabled, it might have him disgraced or retired or renouncing vigilantism or any one of a dozen exciting directions. And it could do absolutely none of those things if Batman is expected to show up whole and hearty to the next Justice League movie.

True. But on the other hand you ll never have a Robin, you'll never have Batman and Superman together, and all the character development that comes from their uneasy friendship, you dont get to see Batman's paranoid side where he plans against his friends in case they go rogue, you dont get Batman using his own memories to escape out of his own mind and face the god of evil.

You think Nolan's Batman cannot team up with Superman because it's 'too realistic' and that is just dumb. Year One is more realistic, and yet that Batman somehow ended up teaming with Superman I guess, what's stopping Bale?

That's because comics work in a different way. Each writer works in his style and as long as he doesnt do anything too aggressive, everything ends up becoming canon. That's because you get tons of issues each year and they just pile up. But movies come every few years and they have a bigger impact than Batman #1321038 of May 1993 or Superman #12918 of July 2001 (random numbers for the win!). Comics Batman has had Miller, but he also has had Morrison and a million other writers. He's fought aliens, dinosaurs, being shot through time, etc. The movie Batman just has Nolan's movies and those movies are very grounded, so they set that precedent.

Nolan's batman feels heavy, feels grounded, he isnt a super genius and he couldnt hope to compete with a JL full of superhumans. There's a very distinct difference between Widow and Hawkeye in the Avengers and Nolan's Batman.

The real reason that Nolan's Batman cannot team up with Superman is because maybe he would rather do something more personal than a superhero team-up.

I'm pretty sure you can do personal stories and still treat Batman as part of the DCU. Robin's origin and what it means for Batman is one of those.

[Death by Mime]

But i appreciate that in Avengers 2 it will be the same Ironman and Thor teaming up.

Look, this is it, this is the heart of your problem. Why do you appreciate that it will be the "same" characters teaming up? Do you think this is the way it is in the comics? Do you really honestly believe that the Batman in Morrison's run was the "same" Batman in Snyder's run? When Morrison said 'everything is in continuity,' did you literally believe that the Batman in the original Robin Dies at Dawn story was the "same" Batman as in Morrison's run? Why did you not make the logical leap to conclude that Nolan's movies are in continuity as well? If Morrison says that Nolan's Batman is through some metaphysical set of circumstances the same character as his Batman, will you suddenly start appreciating Nolan's movies?

Why is it important to you that Thor be the same Thor? At the end of Thor's movie he gets sent back to Asgard, and then pops back out of nowhere to join the Avengers. How did watching Thor's movie help you appreciate his appearance in Avengers more, or did it just make it seem more contrived and more like cynical pandering? How about the fact that the same Loki is now commanding an army of alien dudes for no good reason? Do you appreciate that? Why do you appreciate that? Do you not appreciate that Hulk is now being played by a different actor? Is he supposed to be the same Hulk in the previous movie? Is it the same Hulk as in the Ang Lee film? How are we supposed to tell? Come to think of it, if you liked the Hulk movies, with the Hulk escaping the military and not wanting to be the Hulk, why on earth would you appreciate the Avengers, where he changes his mind and joins the military and becomes a controlled weapon for them? How does that enhance the material? Doesn't it just undermine the Hulk films?

If Marvel never said these movies were supposed to be in the same continuity, if they just made a bunch of films and then put out an Avengers film staring some of the same characters, how would your appreciation be lessened? You'd still get to see Iron Man and Thor punching each other out, just with no assurances that they're the "same" characters from their individual films.

If someone makes a Justice League movie after Nolan's done, and doesn't explicitly confirm or deny that it's the "same" Batman as in Nolan's run, how would you tell?

[Dr. Hurt]

Look, this is it, this is the heart of your problem. Why do you appreciate that it will be the "same" characters teaming up? Do you think this is the way it is in the comics? Do you really honestly believe that the Batman in Morrison's run was the "same" Batman in Snyder's run?

Yeah, why not? It's comics, i appreciate each writer doing his thing as long as he doesnt stray too far from the canon interpretation.

When Morrison said 'everything is in continuity,' did you literally believe that the Batman in the original Robin Dies at Dawn story was the "same" Batman as in Morrison's run?

He explained quite a lot of stories as hallucinations. Everything is canon but not in the same way.

Why did you not make the logical leap to conclude that Nolan's movies are in continuity as well? If Morrison says that Nolan's Batman is through some metaphysical set of circumstances the same character as his Batman, will you suddenly start appreciating Nolan's movies?

I explained why. Because movies work in a different way. Read my previous post where i explain how the multitude of issues and creators means that comics might be more variable and volatile and still fit together. But a movie franchise that gets a new installment every 3-4 years has less room to breath. You simply cannot put Nolan's Batman in a JL movie. Not only would it be wrong tonally, but like i and others have said before:

NOLAN'S BATMAN ISNT A GENIUS, HE ISNT A TOP LEVEL MARTIAL ARTIST, HE DOESNT MOVE AND FIGHT UNREALISTICALLY LIKE BLACK WIDOW, ETC.

Why is it important to you that Thor be the same Thor?

Because there's a sense of continuity, a sense that the Thor that i saw in his movie and which i liked is the same Thor that interacts with Ironman and Cap. Not just any Ironman, RDJ Ironman and the Cap i saw in First Avenger.

At the end of Thor's movie he gets sent back to Asgard, and then pops back out of nowhere to join the Avengers. How did watching Thor's movie help you appreciate his appearance in Avengers more, or did it just make it seem more contrived and more like cynical pandering? Do you appreciate that? Why do you appreciate that?

They said that his father used all his power to be able to send him back to earth without the Bifrost.

You havent watched the movie have you?

How about the fact that the same Loki is now commanding an army of alien dudes for no good reason?

He disappeared after the Thor movie, he went around the universe and found some bad guys that he could make a bargain with. The tesseract for rule over eath. I watched the movie and understood that just fine. It also helped that i know who this Loki is and i dont need the Avengers movie to set him up for me.

Likewise if they make a JL movie and Luthor is the bad guy, i'll know him from Man of Steel and i'll know why he does why he does.

Do you not appreciate that Hulk is now being played by a different actor? Is he supposed to be the same Hulk in the previous movie?

Do you not appreciate that Rachel Dawes is now being played by a different actress? Is he supposed to be the same Rachel Dawes in the previous movie?
Do you not appreciate that Rhodey is now being played by a different actor? Is he supposed to be the same Rhodey in the previous movie?

It's called "recasting". It's actually very common. When an actor is being a self important douche, he gets replaced. Kudos to Marvel. Ruffalo was freaking awesome!

Is it the same Hulk as in the Ang Lee film? How are we supposed to tell? Come to think of it, if you liked the Hulk movies, with the Hulk escaping the military and not wanting to be the Hulk, why on earth would you appreciate the Avengers, where he changes his mind and joins the military and becomes a controlled weapon for them? How does that enhance the material? Doesn't it just undermine the Hulk films?

Did you watch the f***ing movie? I'm starting to get mad here.

The movie shows that Shield never lost him, they always kept tabs on him and even helped him disappear. Now they just wanted his expertise on Gamma radiation. So he offers to help them. He says he'll never suit up like the rest of them but when the world is in danger he comes back to help. Ruffalo and Hulk stole the show, and his bromance with Ironman/Tony was the best part of the movie for me.

What happens now? Well Tony, Cap and Banner didnt like what Shield was doing, how they wanted to make weapons, and how they were manipulating them, so they left. However, Fury redeemed himself by standing up for them against the government, so i'm sure they dont feel too bad about him. Each one went his own way and in Avengers 2 they ll come back. Maybe one of them will be a bit different, maybe Tony will be drunk, maybe Hulk will be lost, but they ll come back, and they ll help each other.

If Marvel never said these movies were supposed to be in the same continuity, if they just made a bunch of films and then put out an Avengers film staring some of the same characters, how would your appreciation be lessened? You'd still get to see Iron Man and Thor punching each other out, just with no assurances that they're the "same" characters from their individual films.

It would be more contrived, and less awesome. There's just something amazing in seeing RDJ Ironman next to Chris Evans' Captain America. In knowing that his father knew Cap (we saw that in Cap's movie), that this is the Cap his father was always telling him about, this is the Cap that his father searched the ocean to find.

Just watch the movie. You'll get it.

If someone makes a Justice League movie after Nolan's done, and doesn't explicitly confirm or deny that it's the "same" Batman as in Nolan's run, how would you tell?

You're being intentionally obtuse and difficult for no reason. They will tell us if it is or if it isnt the same batman. Even if they dont, there will be signs pointing towards one or the other.

Is it the same actor?
The same batcave and manor?
The same suits and vehicles?

Even one of the above would point out that it's the same batman. None of the above would point out that it's a different batman.

[Dr. Hurt]

Btw, not only does this happen in the comics, but DC did it with the DCAU.

Superman from STAS and Batman from BTAS and Beyond are the same ones in JL. I'm pretty sure that didnt strangle Batman, Superman, or JL out of creativity, if anything it allowed for even more.

[Death by Mime]

Btw, not only does this happen in the comics, but DC did it with the DCAU.

Superman from STAS and Batman from BTAS and Beyond are the same ones in JL. I'm pretty sure that didnt strangle Batman, Superman, or JL out of creativity, if anything it allowed for even more.

But Batman does not posses the same top level martial artist super fighting skills he possesses on Justice League! In BTAS he gets beat up by Harvey Dent with a custodian's cart! How can this possibly be the same dude who dodges the Omega Effect on JLU???

Also you are completely missing my points with the Avengers questions. I am not interested in how they explain away all the plot points, I am concerned with what they add to the story! Why is it a big deal when Thor returns to Asgard at the end of his movie, when apparently his dad can zap him back any time he wants? Why does it matter if Loki is the same bad guy if he has completely different powers and motivations each time? Why would you make an entire movie (two movies) about Hulk running from the government, only to reveal that oh well he decided to work with them in-between films? It's stupid! It's pointless! It's actively detrimental to the story! Why do you enjoy this bullshit???

[Dr. Hurt]

- They said that Odin used all he had to send Thor back, so i'm pretty sure it wasnt that simple.
- Loki doesnt have different powers or motivations. He's still fueled by revenge. He rejected his family at the end of Thor, so he no longer wants to prove himself to Odin like he did. Now he wants to feed his ego by taking over the earth. I'm pretty sure that if the Joker came back he wouldnt rig another 2 boats with explosives, he'd try somethign else.
- Shield isnt the government exactly. It's a spy network and it's director is more open to superheroes than the government itself. Maybe the fact that the Hulk helped save the world can mean that a new movie wont be about him running from the army AGAIN. Maybe this time he'll work together with the army to fight some bad guy. I dont remember the Incred Hulk too well, but didnt he do just that against the Abomination?


And that's it from me. You're talking about a movie you havent seen and you're being intentionally difficult and obtuse. If DCAU and the comics can do it, why cant the movies? You still havent answered this for me. Even if the Avengers sucked (which they dont, but they might suck to you, it's all subjective), there'd still be the successful DCAU and comics so....

[Death by Mime]

Like why do you even believe in comic continuity? Because they say so? A dozen different people writing a dozen different stories is somehow all part of a single whole because they "pile up"? I think every single artist who has drawn Batman has drawn a different Batman, a different Batcave, a different Batsuit, a different Batmobile, and yet you somehow believe that it's the same Batman every time because, I don't know, there's such an overwhelming amount of material that you just swallow it down whole I guess?

Basically you're telling me that comic books are a hundred times more disparate and contradictory than movies are, but it's the same character in all of them just because. Why? Why? Why are comics different? If the movie companies suddenly declare every Batman movie in-continuity, what grounds would you have to disagree? And what on earth would the difference even be? Jesus Christ.

[Death by Mime]

He's still fueled by revenge. He rejected his family at the end of Thor, so he no longer wants to prove himself to Odin like he did. Now he wants to feed his ego by taking over the earth.

Yo I don't know if you noticed but these are in fact two completely different motivations, good job there.

And that's it from me. You're talking about a movie you havent seen and you're being intentionally difficult and obtuse. If DCAU and the comics can do it, why cant the movies? You still havent answered this for me. Even if the Avengers sucked (which they dont, but they might suck to you, it's all subjective), there'd still be the successful DCAU and comics so....

Because serial entertainment lets you pump out dozens of loosely connected episodes / issues, in which characters can sometimes do their own thing and sometimes work together, while movies don't have this luxury! Holy christ, I thought you recognized this already! You said the same thing yourself!

[Ian Pressman]

enough said! people always talk about how The Nolan Batman movies are the best but honestly they really limit the storytelling and what villains you can use characters like Clayface Man-Bat Poison Ivy Killer Croc Can't be used without people whining about it being too goofy and not realistic

Christopher Nolan Ruined Batman he made him into a simple minded brute who is in no way a detective and the villains always seem to be one step ahead of him......

He was asking why Nolan's Batman wouldn't work in a JLA movie, not for arbitrary opinions on character direction, and vitriolic criticism of the director. You realize that Clayface and Ivy would have been equally stupid in the movies that Burton directed, yes? By the parameters you're setting, then clearly, the best director of Batman films thus far has been Joel Schumacher.

[Dr. Hurt]

Whatever dude. You like what you like, i like what i like. I wont waste anymore of my time when you keep talking about a movie you havent seen and making assumptions based on trailers.

I had fun watching the Avengers. I liked the coexistence and cooperation of my favourite characters that i already know from other movies. You dont, good for you.

I dont see how Marvel's plan is so difficult to grasp. If anything it's simpler than having a different Batman in JL and his own movies. Hell, the JL movie they were about to make had Ras Al Ghul and Talia. I cant imagine how confused people would be. "What, Ras is immortal, doesnt dress like a ninja anymore and has a daughter?"

And to corrent my mistake:

Yo I don't know if you noticed but these are in fact two completely different motivations, good job there.

That's true. He just wants to feed his ego by taking over the earth. He's done trying to impress Odin or win the thrown. His scheme was exposed in Thor. This is just him moving on.

Sorry for messing it up before.

[Dr. Hurt]

Because serial entertainment lets you pump out dozens of loosely connected episodes / issues, in which characters can sometimes do their own thing and sometimes work together, while movies don't have this luxury! Holy christ, I thought you recognized this already! You said the same thing yourself!

Yes movies dont have that luxury. That's why you set them up from the start in a way that means that they can all work together.

Shield and Black Widow acted as the glue between the Marvel movies which were already created in such a way that would fascilitate an Avengers movie. Marvel didnt have Nolan going "nonono, you cant use my ironman in your silly Avengers movie. My ironman is realistic and serious business."