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

[Dr. Hurt]

They kinda adapted that storyline for the series premiere of Justice League.


Back in the 60s yeah it was the Vietcong (I think), but ever since the 2006 story, "Extremis" by Ellis and Granov, it was retconned into Al-Queda being the ones that abducted him.

Yeah it was done because we're in 2012 now and it would be impossible for a 30 something Stark to get tangled up with the Vietcong.

[Dr. Hurt]

See here, you and your ilk are the ones saying DC ought to do this or DC ought to do that. I am saying the Marvel movies were terrible and shallow, not that they shouldn't have been made.

But you don't understand what you want. You don't understand how anything works. You want to adapt what? You want to adapt a multi-episode serial cartoon show? You want to adapt decades worth of Batman comic issues? Uh, the reason Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings can have fairly literal adaptations is because they are relatively short, self-contained series that have a single overarching story! Batman Beyond doesn't, so in making that movie you have to decide what sort of themes the TV show explored that you can convert into a movie! Were you seriously asking that question??

So you cant do a Batman movie with a comic book tone that's also good? Tim Burton would beg to differ.
You say you cant do a Beyond movie because it's a cartoon but isnt Batman a comic book that is being published for decades? Obviously they wont adapt the entire Beyond series, they'll just tell one story about it. Terry's origin story or something.

[Will.S]

Pretty much. Character moments do nothing more than give fanboys their "holy shit" reactions. They don't give a movie depth.

As opposed to what?

The character moments, interactions, and developments are what gave the Avengers movie the ingredients it needed to pull it all together. I didn't find the movie to be lacking depth in it's characters as I think Whedon did a great job in balancing the characters. I honestly don't see how there's anything wrong with the blockbuster approach to this movie given that it's an ensemble culmination of multiple Marvel films, in fact that's it's main draw. The bigger crime would have been to not have made the movie at all but I think Marvel's approach has, for the most part, worked by trying to make their films self contained and yet also hinting at a bigger picture. I realize that this being in a Batman forum you guys are hardcore Batman/DC fans and being a fan of both sides I can understand your preferences to a certain type of approach to superhero movies like with Batman but understand that in the superhero movie business there's always room for fun movies like Avengers and more moody/thematic cape crusading like the Nolan Batman films so not every movie has to conform to the same approach nor should they.

Now I liked the Nolan Batman films but they're not flawless works of art nor are they impeccable examples of depth, upon multiple viewings they do suffer from various problems in either acting department, being too long in length, or being overly preachy but overall they're still highly engrossing/entertaining and that's all that matters.

See here, you and your ilk are the ones saying DC ought to do this or DC ought to do that. I am saying the Marvel movies were terrible and shallow, not that they shouldn't have been made.

But you don't understand what you want. You don't understand how anything works. You want to adapt what? You want to adapt a multi-episode serial cartoon show? You want to adapt decades worth of Batman comic issues? Uh, the reason Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings can have fairly literal adaptations is because they are relatively short, self-contained series that have a single overarching story! Batman Beyond doesn't, so in making that movie you have to decide what sort of themes the TV show explored that you can convert into a movie! Were you seriously asking that question??

Of all the ways Batman has been approached throughout media I do think that the animated series takes the most balanced approach which I think would work a lot better for future Batman movies provided they reboot. You can have the serious tone and creepy vibe mixed in with the more fantastical aspects which are seen through various degrees in the Nolan films but never to an outright degree that's shown in the comics, cartoons or games. Nolan's more ultra realistic take is definitely something I appreciate as a change in pace from the previous Batman movies which took the other fantastical elements too far but I think a more tempered Batman movie can definitely work now that both ends of the spectrum have been seen.

[carabas]

1) You havent seen Nolan's Bane and especially Catwoman yet. You dont know what they ll do in TDKR.
2) AC was a videogame. It's plot was a way to conveniently get you to fight all of Batman's rogues gallery in one story.

I thought that was just Jeph Loeb stories? The two Arkham games are relatively conservative in their use of the Rogues Gallery compard to those.

[carabas]

People need to realize that Morrison uses narrative and story techniques that do not translate to film.

I don't know about that. "The Matrix" (aka "The Invisibles with the serials numbers filed off") did alright.

Bane has'nt used venom since Knightfall unless you count Finch's horrid TDK series.

ChoughSecretSixcough.

[Will.S]

ChoughSecretSixcough.

Yeah definitely.

It seems like not a whole lot of writers have made much character defining runs with him outside of Knightfall and Gail's uses of him though, in fact the cartoons seem to still lead in that area.

[Mat001]

@mat, my point with the hunger is super man can do a lot of things, but he cant end problems on his own, so assuming he would cure gotham by just being there is a false assumption

Gotham's bridges are blown out. Guess what, Superman can come in a fix them.

, and when i said he cant see the head i mean, find the head of a organization, i mean, he can deal with the thugs causing troubles but what is he going to do if he cant figure the master's ploting behind the shadows, something batman would. He would just treat the symptoms not the cause.

You do know that Clark Kent is an investigative reporter? His job is to find the truth whenever a crime is committed and expose it to the world. He can do this.

I know all about Keysi. It looks like crap and Batman's fight scenes end up looking uninspired and boring. Who cares whether it's practical in real life.

Because all martial arts are practical in real life. It's not about what it looks like, but about how it's used.

Watch the Avengers. It manages to give Widow and Hawkeye things to do even if they re in the same team as Thor, Hulk and Ironman.

I mean when my sister first saw the trailer she was like "riiiight... those arrows sure will defeat that alien armada" and when she saw the movie she loved it. Hawkeye and Widow were awesome in it.

Hawkeye and Black Widow didn't spoilers:

beat down Thanos. Batman beating down Darkseid is where the problem lies.

end of spoilers Hawkeye and Black Widow are nobody compared to the four heroes who had their own films. But that aside, my point is that Batman isn't bulletproof. Hence he needs body armor. That's why in "Batman", "Batman Returns", "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight", Bruce is shot. To emphasize that, as well as show that he's supernatural. The theatrics specifically mentioned in "Begins". I guarantee if he was wearing tights, the minute that he landed in front of Nick and Eddie in the 89 film, when they shot him, he'd be dead. But with body armor, he gets right back up. He's not like Spider-Man who has incredible reflexes and a danger sense warning him of attack. He's not like Daredevil who has a radar sense that allows him to avoid getting shot. No human being can outrun a bullet.

avengers plot holes ? please tell me wich ones, i didnt notice any .Nolan batman in the other hands if FULL of them, like how bruce refuses to kill a prisioner,then explode the shit out of the hideout killing dozens of ninjas he befriended, how joker moved gallons of gas to boats while the city was on lockdown, how batman left the part members to their own lucky with joker to save racheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel !
This will be fun.

Also comic books.....COMIC,you know, fun ? you know why people go to movies,read books, watch tv, play video ? entertainement, to entertain, its a scapism from our lifes, if yuoo are scaping from the reality of youor life why would youo want a movie from "funnie" books to be serious ? i have nothing against a mature aproach to comic book heroes, but "realism" is such a meh excuse to be gritty, dark,edgy and violent.

Because the target audience is different from the general audience. This is what Sam Raimi, Jon Favreau, Joss Whedon, Bryan Singer, Richard Donner, Tim Burton, Kenneth Brangah and Chris Nolan understood. That's why all those films that they made, had changes to make sure that the general audience buys into the bullshit that they're spewing. Spider-Man works because the spider is genetically modified, rather than just simply irritated. Why Bruce Banner was a geneticist as opposed to a weapons designer who fell victim to his own weapon. Why Batman wears body armor. And so on. The minute you don't do it right you have "Batman & Robin" and "Daredevil" which aren't held up, because they took too many liberties on top of weak plots.

This is it. This is your problem. You think Nolan is standing in the way of a Justice League movie being made because he has a vision he wants to follow with his movies. I mean, of course DC will eventually make a Justice League movie, and if it's any good I will welcome it. But you do in fact want Nolan to give you dumber movies, because you want all DC movies to "work together" for no good reason. You're not critiquing his movies for having poor choreography, you're criticizing his movies because Batman's poor fight choreography means he can't possibly keep up in a fight with Superman!

It is you, you are the insufferable critic who wants everything to conform to your standards.

A JLA movie was going to be made regardless of what Nolan wanted. It didn't happen because it was going to cost a fortune to make.

So you cant do a Batman movie with a comic book tone that's also good? Tim Burton would beg to differ.

Burton's first film didn't have a comic book tone to it. He has no interest in comics. What drew him to the material was the Joker's psychosis and Batman's possible psychosis and the nature of duality. And at the end of the day, Burton hates that film. Says it's not as good as his other ones. That's why when he did "Returns", he made it his own.

But the difference is between Nolan and Burton is that one wanted to Nolan wanted to make a crime drama and Burton wanted to do a film on duality. Neither director is right or wrong for what they did. Same with Raimi, Donner, Singer and Favreau.

[Mr. Holmes]

I don't know about that. "The Matrix" (aka "The Invisibles with the serials numbers filed off") did alright.

I think if Matrix was passed off as an Invisibles adaptation, the movie would have been criticized for taking too many liberties. I do think Matrix compared to Invisibles is as close as you can get to adapting Morrison to film.

[carabas]

I think if Matrix was passed off as an Invisibles adaptation, the movie would have been criticized for taking too many liberties.

Also, the Wachowski brothers would get the pants sued off them.

[darkseidpwns]

So why would you hail Nolan's catwoman for having a character as opposed to being just a bimbo for fanservice?

I mean if you know there's more to her than that why would say what you said?
Your point was about Darkseid, not who he was fighting.

"Also, the Odyssey was written 2500 years ago,time to grow up."
See how bad that was?
Again, your point was about Darkseid's treatment in comics and i presented you with a story where he wasnt jobbed to superman.

Dude I was criticizing AC Catwoman.
They're not gonna adapt a LEGION story from over 30 years ago and the same applies to FC,what they will do however is adapt Johns JLA or Loebs Superman/Batman.

[darkseidpwns]

I don't know about that. "The Matrix" (aka "The Invisibles with the serials numbers filed off") did alright.

ChoughSecretSixcough.

That's an outlier,he used it only cause Scandal was getting her a$$ kicked.

[darkseidpwns]

Yeah definitely.

It seems like not a whole lot of writers have made much character defining runs with him outside of Knightfall and Gail's uses of him though, in fact the cartoons seem to still lead in that area.

Dixons entire body of work from Vengeance of Bane#1 to BOP is defining,so is O'Neals Angel and the Bane.Cartoons are easily accessible thats it.

[carabas]

That's an outlier,he used it only cause Scandal was getting her a$$ kicked.

spoilers:

The entire team used it in the finale.

end of spoilers. And not because somebody was getting his or her ass kicked.

[Fate's Faith]

But that aside, my point is that Batman isn't bulletproof. Hence he needs body armor. That's why in "Batman", "Batman Returns", "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight", Bruce is shot. To emphasize that, as well as show that he's supernatural. The theatrics specifically mentioned in "Begins". I guarantee if he was wearing tights, the minute that he landed in front of Nick and Eddie in the 89 film, when they shot him, he'd be dead. But with body armor, he gets right back up. He's not like Spider-Man who has incredible reflexes and a danger sense warning him of attack. He's not like Daredevil who has a radar sense that allows him to avoid getting shot. No human being can outrun a bullet.

You see this is where I think that stance is wrong. Batman was doing exactly that before Spider-Man and Daredevil ever put on masks. He didn't need armor because he did have incredible reflexes. Now we're at a stage where so many just can't concieve of a character without super powers that he must wear armor. Yet we see many action films in which the main character doesn't wear armor and doesn't die from gunshots. So we can accept that those characters are able to do that but when talking about Batman we must have armor. As if its just silly that he could survive in such a fight. That is till characters like Black Widow and Hawkeye show that its the armor that's silly not an highly skilled martial artist.

I have just come from seeing the Avengers film. Really entertaining. In the previews, they showed the upcoming Dark Knight Rises and Amazing Spider-Man and I was struck by the contrast. The Batman preview was dark as we expected but it did not seem to be a fun film when you have just seen the Spider-Man preview that also is dark but looks to have some amazing action. I have been waiting for the Batman film since TDK and had just written off a relaunch of Spider-Man but I did come out of the theater still wanting to see the DKR but Spider-Man a little more. I won't be surprised since these films are opening quite close together than Spider-Man will do a better box office. It simply looked more entertaining. I think making films so dark does a disservice because even though I expect Batman to be victorious, that preview doesn't seem to care if the audience cheers for the character. While that is exactly what Spider-Man seems to be targetting.

[iRacingRyan]

For me, it comes down to a question:

Why WOULD you want Nolan's Batman in a Justice League film?

I'm not knocking Batman or Nolan's films (Love them!) but what it comes down to for me is the fact that you don't NEED it to be the same universe. There really isn't anything to be gained from using the "same" Batman, or even Snyder's upcoming Superman. If you look at The Avengers (which I haven't seen yet) and all the films that lead up into it, they're very open with the universe and willing to embrace the possibilities of other heroes out there. With the DC films, they remain incredibly inclusive and want to tell their own story without worrying about what else might be hopping around the next city over, wearing a cape and tights.

With a Justice League film, I feel as though DC would need to start over. Start individual films with the intention of capping it with a Justice League film, make the world far bigger than just Metropolis, Coast City, or Gotham. Weave a common thread through them all, some unifying theme, and then blow the doors off the cinemas the way Marvel did this past weekend.

Or, they can just rush a Justice League film. Nobody needs to see the origins of Batman or Superman yet again, or even Green Lantern. I hope to the comic book heavens that a potential Justice League film isn't a introductory/origin film in any sort, but a resolution movie full steam ahead.

Currently, DC or Warner Brothers or whomever -- they need to learn how to make the individual films stand far stronger alone rather than setting their sights on a film that brings everyone together. Being a huge Green Lantern fan, I found joy in the recent film but know the untapped potential. They need to take a look at what worked and what didn't, and apply it to Aquaman and Wonder Woman films. Then if those are a success, start tooling around with a JL film. The audience needs to care, and the individual films need to be a moderate success before they can start dreaming of 200 million dollar weekends themselves.