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

[Hulkernaut]

lol...this was pretty ferocious...but as far as the topic, i don't know if a nolan batman could fit in a jlu movie. like everyone said before me, he is (apparently) lacking his genius level intellect, and fighting ability, among other things. Nolan has kinda made his batman self contained, which is not a problem for me. his movies made me love the idea of batman in film again, something batman and robin almost killed completely. Each director brings their own vision...as does each actor that puts own the cape and cowl. I have no problem with any of that...some do it better than others.

[Death by Mime]

- 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?

You know, of all the terrible answers you gave, I think I love this one the best. Oh no, SHIELD isn't a government, it's just a spy network. And its director is more open to superheroes. As opposed to General Ross, who created his own super-soldier in Blonsky and whose entire raison de etre was to make more superpowered beings to join his army. And Banner, who is against being used as a weapon, is suddenly fine with joining up with Nick "Amoral Spymaster" Fury. Because SHIELD isn't exactly the government, after all.

Like, I genuinely have no idea why you like the idea that these characters remain the same across films, because you don't understand the films, you don't understand the characters, I can only assume you get a warm fuzzy feeling seeing a familiar face again.

edit: lol wait no I forgot the Hulk was recast

[Dr. Hurt]

You know, of all the terrible answers you gave, I think I love this one the best. Oh no, SHIELD isn't a government, it's just a spy network. And its director is more open to superheroes. As opposed to General Ross, who created his own super-soldier in Blonsky and whose entire raison de etre was to make more superpowered beings to join his army. And Banner, who is against being used as a weapon, is suddenly fine with joining up with Nick "Amoral Spymaster" Fury. Because SHIELD isn't exactly the government, after all.

He only cooperated with Shield to save the world. He is a hero and he put the world above his personal vendettas.

In the end the heroes go on their own to face Loki's army and Banner joins them. At that point they arent Fury's Avengers they are their own.

Like, I genuinely have no idea why you like the idea that these characters remain the same across films, because you don't understand the films, you don't understand the characters, I can only assume you get a warm fuzzy feeling seeing a familiar face again.

edit: lol wait no I forgot the Hulk was recast

Yeah whatever.

I'm done explaining how the Avengers came as a culmination of all those films and expanded upon them. You yourself admit that it limits the individual franchises and then you say that it has no relation to them. You should make up your mind. Did Marvel steer the individual movies towards the Avengers or not?

[Dr. Hurt]

You know, of all the terrible answers you gave

Oh, and nice to see how you appreciate your fellow poster in a discussion.

I'm done.

[Death by Mime]

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."

Also you do realize that Marvel's plans for their movies preceded picking directors (in fact the directors they chose were for that reason) and that whether or not Nolan wanted any tie-ins with his movie, they weren't going to turn it into a Justice League movie either way. You do realize that, don't you? That plans like this have to come from the top to begin with?

[Castel]

This is why.

Gotta love Superman.

And yes, this is totally why Nolan's Batman would be really useless next to bigger than life heroes like Supes.

[Mat001]

That doesn't make a lot of sense. Many such stories have been told in the comics, where Superman existing in the same universe was not a factor.

Because Chris Nolan laid down the rules of what he wanted in his films. Rules which would not be broken just because a bunch of nerds want to get their rocks off seeing Batman make Superman his bitch. The rules were to serve the story and they have done so. Just as Jon Favreau was told that there was a plan to have Iron Man occupy the same universe as the Hulk, Captain America and Thor.

What happens in the comics has dick to do with the films. It may not have been a factor in the comics, but it is a factor in Nolan's films and that's why only Batman exists.

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.

carabas is correct. Gotham was based on New York City and for a long time even emulated it's look. Then Frank Miller and David Mazzucchelli did "Year One" and Gotham was influenced by Chicago, especially with the elevated subway tracks. In 1991, Denny O'Neil commissioned Anton Furst who was the set designer on the 89 film, to create a Gotham inspired by the film. Which was then adapted into the comics with "The Destroyer". But for fifty years, it was grounded in the real world.

[Lex Von Doom]

Another thing I find funny is that the same people who are complaining about a "too realistic" Batman are the same ones who'd be bitching about BatGod if he was shown to be the way he's like in the comics. You can't have it both ways. I personally don't care if Batman is too realistic or not realistic enough I appreciate all forms of the character from Adam West's version to Nolan's. As long as it's entertaining and tells a good story who honestly cares about anything else?

[Fate's Faith]

Even so, his Batman is pretty grounded compared to the comics.

Look at how Black Widow moved and fought in Avengers. Comics batman could do that, but not Nolan's Batman.

I have to agree. I like the Batman films (all of them to some degree) but really Adam West is the only one that's ever been in a costume that looked like he had full mobility. He could jump out and into the Batmobile which I think all the film Batman had trouble with. I hope if they relaunch the films they go for the less armor look and play up the martial artist over the master of gadgets a bit more. That's the comic version to me. Really, not being able to turn your head sort of ruins the realism. Besides, I'd like to see him take on more than one foe and not be dependent on his armor to lessen the blows but instead be fast enough to not take so many hits. Heck, the Black Widow is fighting beside a god and Batman can't do the same along side Superman? Unacceptable.

[Dr. Hurt]

Nolan's fighting scenes are all bad. Not just the directing, but the choreography itself. Remember the scene where Widow is tied to a chair? She fights better than Batman has ever fought in both of Nolan's movies. His choreography consists of elbows, grapples, more elbows, and some more elbows. Perhaps some weird punches too. And usually the bad guys are trying their best not to hit him. Hell, those guys in Hong Kong were literally aiming at the ceiling so that Batman could take them down.


EDIT: I guess the fight scene in Maroni's club was pretty good, but that's about it.

[Death by Mime]

What does that even have to do with the thread topic? Are we back to claiming Schwarzenegger is more "realistic" than Jackie Chan again?

Heck, Tony Stark is not a martial artist at all. How realistic he is! How on earth could he possibly co-exist in the same movie as Black Widow??

[Hwlights92]

I noticed earlier that someone mentioned that Adam west was the only batman that looked like he could move. This is because he had an actual costume and not a poly-carbon-resin-leather-cinder block costume like everyone else did.

I like all of the live action batman films and I enjoyed the combat sequences in all of them but I think every batman since Adam west has had limited mobility for fight scenes. I never once recall seeing a scene of combat in a batman film that was on par with what comic batman can do.

I think if they want to do combat right they're gonna need to loosen up the suit a bit.

[carabas]

Nolan's fighting scenes are all bad. Not just the directing, but the choreography itself. Remember the scene where Widow is tied to a chair? She fights better than Batman has ever fought in both of Nolan's movies. His choreography consists of elbows, grapples, more elbows, and some more elbows. Perhaps some weird punches too. And usually the bad guys are trying their best not to hit him. Hell, those guys in Hong Kong were literally aiming at the ceiling so that Batman could take them down.

That's really more a critique of how Nolan likes to shoot fight scenes than an argument of how Nolan-Bats can't hang with real superheroes, isn't it?

If there is a JLA film, Nolan likely won't have anything to do with it. So really, what Nolan thinks ir what his 'rules' for Batman are, they're not really relevant.

And as has been pointed out, Batman has usually been a very different character when he's in the JLA instead of a solo act, even in the comics.

[Dr. Hurt]

That's really more a critique of how Nolan likes to shoot fight scenes than an argument of how Nolan-Bats can't hang with real superheroes, isn't it?

If there is a JLA film, Nolan likely won't have anything to do with it. So really, what Nolan thinks ir what his 'rules' for Batman are, they're not really relevant.

And as has been pointed out, Batman has usually been a very different character when he's in the JLA instead of a solo act, even in the comics.

Oh sure, you're right. I just wanted to rant about it.

[spideybr]

spoilers:

Bane and the League of Shadows takes over Gotham, turning it into a "No Man's Land". Superman would just fly right in and clean it up in an instant. That takes away from Batman's power as a symbol of hope.

end of spoilers
?

Did super man cured the world hunger ? Did superman made metropolis a crime free heaven on earth ? Then your argument fails, superman is fast but can't be at two places at once.
And generally he is pretty dumb, he just goes for the head and muscle it, but what if he cant see the head