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

[Death by Mime]

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.

No, your problem is that you think "themes" get in the way of "adaptation". You don't want a Batman Beyond movie to talk about the future, or the concept of family, or crime or the city or whatever, you just want it to be "adapted", whatever that means. As if the series itself doesn't have themes it explores! As if the comic book characters don't have themes they explore! All you want to "adapt" is the "tone", which as you are using it means you just want big fancy flashy special effects. You want to watch a Tim Burton movie because he "adapts" the "tone" perfectly, never mind that his Batman is a raging killer who saves the day by blowing up his enemies. And if that's what you want, just go watch Transformers, where there aren't any pesky "themes" getting in the way of all of Michael Bay's fantabulous explosions.*

You don't want Hulk to be against the government or be a pacifist or be adverse to Hulking out or to be isolated, you just want him to sign up with the Avengers and smash things for them.

*of course there are themes there, there are themes in every movie and every story, but I'm sure you will find the themes in Transformers far far easier to ignore.

[BrotherUnitNo_4]

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.

And this is where you have to embrace that it's a comic book character. Batman could just as well have a costume with a promethium (the DC adamantium) mesh underneath with extra reinforcement in the chest area. Of course the costume may not be as intimidating, but it's possible to create a Bat-suit that provides necessary protection while granting a full range of motion.

[Statham]

No, your problem is that you think "themes" get in the way of "adaptation". You don't want a Batman Beyond movie to talk about the future, or the concept of family, or crime or the city or whatever, you just want it to be "adapted", whatever that means. As if the series itself doesn't have themes it explores! As if the comic book characters don't have themes they explore! All you want to "adapt" is the "tone", which as you are using it means you just want big fancy flashy special effects. You want to watch a Tim Burton movie because he "adapts" the "tone" perfectly, never mind that his Batman is a raging killer who saves the day by blowing up his enemies.

Spoken like someone who just takes the Burton movies at face value. Burton adapts more than tone. There's consistent themes in there. So what if Batman does kill in that iteration of the character? By doing so, Burton takes it beyond a mere 'adaptation' and explores themes with the the character that the books do not, or that they do not approach because, well, status quo is god. I found the moral dilemma of a Batman who does kill and doesn't entirely like the idea that he's Batman to be far more interesting than the Batman of TDK, who seems to be in a perpetual push-me-pull-you situation of being influenced solely by other characters, and who has a piece of core ideology ripped from the books and pasted blandly and awkwardly into the film's resolution.

But then hey, I forgot it was okay to state you actually like Tim Burton's two films on the internet anymore.

[Death by Mime]

Spoken like someone who just takes the Burton movies at face value. Burton adapts more than tone. There's consistent themes in there. So what if Batman does kill in that iteration of the character? By doing so, Burton takes it beyond a mere 'adaptation' and explores themes with the the character that the books do not, or that they do not approach because, well, status quo is god. I found the moral dilemma of a Batman who does kill and doesn't entirely like the idea that he's Batman to be far more interesting than the Batman of TDK, who seems to be in a perpetual push-me-pull-you situation of being influenced solely by other characters, and who has a piece of core ideology ripped from the books and pasted blandly and awkwardly into the film's resolution.

But then hey, I forgot it was okay to state you actually like Tim Burton's two films on the internet anymore.

1. This thread is not about the Burton movies! Stop getting defensive! I would watch a Batman film where he is an impoverished psychotic vampire if it was any good, I don't care about fidelity to the comics. It is Dr. Hurt who cares about fidelity to the comics, except by "fidelity" he actually means "Batman doesn't do enough cool backflips when he fights."

2. "The moral dilemma of a Batman who does kill and doesn't entirely like the idea that he's Batman" is literally a description of the Batman in TDK, apparently we are not so different after all??

3. If you are analyzing Burton's films according to "moral dilemmas," you are being tediously grounded in your analysis. It is not a moral dilemma for Batman to fly down main street and open fire on a parade, that is cool as hell (except for the part where he misses). The citizens of Gotham are so dumb that it's hardly immoral to kill them off (it is a genuine triumph of the artistic spirit to murder them, the Joker is absolutely right), why should there be any more moral complexity in killing the henchmen who are killing the citizens?

[Dr. Hurt]

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.

Haha, so true!

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

It's called suspension of disbelief. We try to ignore that the Flash could solve worldwide crime in 1 hour so that all heroes can co-exist. When Batman is in trouble Superman doesnt appear to save him. When Superman is in trouble, GL wont appear to save him, etc. It's how it works in the comics.

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

I dont know, there are martial arts that look much better than Keysi. Also, it's not the actual Keysi, they did some changes to it because it involves too many elbow moves. If you've watched spy footage of the fight between Batman and Bane out on the streets, you'll see some pretty ridiculous moves, even there. I think Batman punches Bane's hand as it's punching itself or something. It's ridiculous.

What i mean is, this isnt real martial arts, so they might as well look cool. I'll try to find that youtube video for you.

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.

But i never said he shouldnt wear armor. Even in the comics his suit is armoured, it's not spandex.

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.

I was just saying that Darkseid can be written as a god, above Superman's level. They wont adapt a story directly to film, whether it's the GDS or Johns' JL. But if they adapt Darkseid, they can choose any interpretation.

[Dr. Hurt]

No, your problem is that you think "themes" get in the way of "adaptation". You don't want a Batman Beyond movie to talk about the future, or the concept of family, or crime or the city or whatever, you just want it to be "adapted", whatever that means. As if the series itself doesn't have themes it explores! As if the comic book characters don't have themes they explore! All you want to "adapt" is the "tone", which as you are using it means you just want big fancy flashy special effects. You want to watch a Tim Burton movie because he "adapts" the "tone" perfectly, never mind that his Batman is a raging killer who saves the day by blowing up his enemies. And if that's what you want, just go watch Transformers, where there aren't any pesky "themes" getting in the way of all of Michael Bay's fantabulous explosions.*

You don't want Hulk to be against the government or be a pacifist or be adverse to Hulking out or to be isolated, you just want him to sign up with the Avengers and smash things for them.

*of course there are themes there, there are themes in every movie and every story, but I'm sure you will find the themes in Transformers far far easier to ignore.

You completely misread everything i say. You want me to be a Michael Bay kind of guy and there's nothing i say that can change your mind. Well since words dont work with you, how about a bigger font size and a picture:

IS IT TOO MUCH TO ASK FOR BOTH?




And if that didnt work, then yeah, keep seeing me as the shallow guy who wants explosions. Just get off my case.

[Death by Mime]

You completely misread everything i say. You want me to be a Michael Bay kind of guy and there's nothing i say that can change your mind. Well since words dont work with you, how about a bigger font size and a picture:

IS IT TOO MUCH TO ASK FOR BOTH?




And if that didnt work, then yeah, keep seeing me as the shallow guy who wants explosions. Just get off my case.

You are specifically not asking for both! You are asking for the themes to be removed, for the movies to be made shallower so that they will fit together better!

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?

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."

At the end of the day when i'm asking for a Batman Beyond movie, i'm expressing my desire to see it adapted, not used as a tool to present some theme about the future, or the urban environment, or the evolution of the family structure throughout time, or this and that. That can come and be added on later to give the movie some depth. Why can Harry Potter or the LotR movies combine everything together but Batman cant?

You somehow think that adapting a work doesn't involve adapting the themes of the work! To you, themes just get in the way of an adaptation, they're just something you add on later, maybe. Your entire understanding of art is toxic to the very concept of art itself.

[Dr. Hurt]

You are specifically not asking for both! You are asking for the themes to be removed, for the movies to be made shallower so that they will fit together better!

From page 12 of this thread:

I dont understand how my wanting to see DC copy Marvel's movieverse plan is obnoxious to anyone. It's not a need, it's me being envious of Marvel as a DC fan and recognizing their achievement. I dont put spectacle over substance or vice versa. I appreciate both. I never said Marvel's movies were deeper than Nolan's, but they balance every quality very well, while Nolan mostly excels in the non comic book stuff, basically the themes and stories which have more to do with real life and he just uses Batman's world to tell them (not Begins, but TDK and TDKR which looks like it's going to be about the economy, the 99%, the struggles between the social classes, etc).

So i dont think i am Michael Bay as you like to present me. I'd just like Nolan's quality of plots, score and moviemaking, combined with Del Toro's visuals, atmosphere and action direction. I dare you speak bad of Del Toro. Nolan is still making a superhero movie and failing in those aspects whether you recognise it or not. Even the biggest Nolan fan will recognise that the Hong Kong fight scene looked fake and staged.

So am i asking for Nolan to give me dumber movies? No.
Am i asking that he improves the aspects of his films that suffer? Yes.

And this is why i appreciate and enjoy Begins more than TDK. Yes it's flawed and not as deep and has cheesy one liners, but it's probably the best Batman origin story i've ever watched/read.


So i hope that clears out my intentions.

Reading comprehension. How does it work?

You somehow think that adapting a work doesn't involve adapting the themes of the work! To you, themes just get in the way of an adaptation, they're just something you add on later, maybe. Your entire understanding of art is toxic to the very concept of art itself.

About the Hulk:
- He's been everything in the comics. From the bad guy, to the misunderstood guy, to the properly good guy that is a member of the Avengers. They've already done 2 movies about him running from the army and they sold averagely. The last film in particular ended with Banner learning to control the Hulk and using him to clean up the Army's mess, namely the Abomination. So it wasnt out of nowhere to see him work with the Avengers. Yes he was avoiding the army at first, but Natasha convinced him that Shield knew where he was all along and even helped him hide. They dont want him, or the Hulk. They just want his expertise on Gamma radiation and they need it a lot because they re at war with Loki and alien forces. So Banner being the hero that he is, puts aside his personal feelings and offers to help, knowing that they cant hold him anyway. Hell, they cant even kill him.

I dont get why this is so hard for you to grasp. Why seeing the Hulk in the Avengers is so out of character and that makes me a shallow fan. Have you never picked up an Avengers comic book? Or watched this:




About Beyond, my point was that when people ask to see a movie made out of it, they mean that they want to see it come to life, with everything that goes with it. They dont want a stupid Michael Bay flick, and they dont want Nolan watering it down and adapting it to his needs and themes and personal tastes. They just want Batman Beyond. You know the show had multiple writers right? So when a writer would be chosen to write the 10th episode he had to respect what came before. He could write themes as deep and complex as he wanted, but he couldnt tone down the villains or make the batsuit more realistic out of nowhere.

Why is it that WB cant do that with their movies. Why does some Nolan have to come and tone down everything to make it look serious? Why is it that for a deep and complex movie the visuals and comicbookiness has to be toned down?

THAT'S MY WHOLE FREAKING POINT.

I want a serious story, i just dont want this pretentious toning down of the property in an effort to make it look more serious and grown up. It's the story that defines whether it's deep or not. Not the visuals or the comicbookiness.

[Death by Mime]

Yo, I love how your understanding of argumentation matches your understanding of art. Simply the belief that bigger words and image macros and embedded videos will save the day! I'm not convinced by the size of your font yet, though, it's simply too "realistic" for me, blow those words up in a spectacular blockbuster explosion and then maybe we'll talk.

No, but seriously, you fail to understand that simply saying something doesn't make it so. You say you don't want Nolan to dumb down his movies. Yet at the same time you want his Batman to be an uber-genius martial artist renaissance man. Tell me, how would Nolan incorporate this into his movies when one of the major themes is that Batman is a flawed solution, that Batman is not uber-competent and must do bad things to get results? How would he make Batman a super-duper-hero without dumbing things down? Think about it!

All you grasp is the concept "the Hulk is part of the Avengers" and it's that way in the comics, and so it must be so. The Avengers is not under the jurisdiction of SHIELD in the comics, they are not a pseudo-military force. The Avengers in the comics do not work under a group that promotes the proliferation of WMDs, and the Hulk is essentially an unwilling WMD. (The Avengers in the movie voice nominal disapproval of Phase 2, but they are fine using nuclear warheads to blow up the bad guys) The Avengers cartoon that you posted - guess what? The Avengers don't want to be under the authority of SHIELD in that cartoon, and thus there's a lot of conflict between them. The Ultimates, on the other hand, are in fact a military force and have Hulk on the team, and guess what happens in the Ultimates? Hulk fights the Ultimates and is imprisoned and given a death sentence, because the uncontrollable nuclear wrath of the Hulk undermines the superhuman arms race the government is trying to promote.

You see, but you do not understand. I'm not entirely sure you know what a theme is. I'm not entirely sure you know how a story works.

I mean, the very fact that you think Nolan's movies are "pretentious" is a giant warning klaxon right there. Again, Frank Miller was coming off years of crazy superhero Batman when he wrote Year One, and that was a story where Batman nearly got stabbed to death by a pimp and a bunch of prostitutes. Was Frank Miller 'toning it down'? Was he being 'pretentious'?

[Murrocko]

I don't think Nolan's Batman would even want to/get invited to join a Justice League. He was looking to hang up the cowl as soon as he saw a suitable successor in Dent. If that's how dedicated he is toward his city Gotham, no way would he give two shits about trying to save the world when Superman, Wonder Woman, Flash, and any Green Lantern got it covered.

[Death by Mime]

They dont want a stupid Michael Bay flick, and they dont want Nolan watering it down and adapting it to his needs and themes and personal tastes.

Like, I seriously don't understand how you can type a sentence like this and still not understand that you are in fact asking for things to be dumbed down. No man, I don't want an artist to prioritize his own needs and themes and personal tastes when creating art! I want movies to be held to the same standards of serial fiction where everything has to match up in continuity. Just like comics, in which Grant Morrison suddenly declares that everything is in continuity and makes Batman drive Joe Chill to suicide and makes Joker cut his tongue in half and inserts Dr. Hurt retroactively in Batman's past and so on so on so forth.

[Dr. Hurt]

I'm done explaining my opinions to you as if i have to justify them. I might as well be talking to a tree.

[Death by Mime]

Yo, you must meet up with some very eloquent trees. I envy you,

But seriously, do you think Year One is pretentious?

[Dr. Hurt]

Yo, you must meet up with some very eloquent trees. I envy you,

But seriously, do you think Year One is pretentious?

Year One showed a Batman that is a noob so obviously he makes mistakes. Hell, even the super genius renaissance man Batman makes mistakes so i dont see why Nolan cant tell his stories and use him.

You know what story is pretentious? The one that needs to tone down the joker and gotham (even Nolan's own gotham. Did you see the narrows anywhere?) so that moviegoes will take it's themes seriously. TDK was a batsuit and some makeup away from being Heat 2.

"Please guys this is a serious movie. Please take us seriously. I swear if WB let me, i'd remove Batman and the Joker and add DeNiro and Paccino instead. I'm just forced to make this a Batman movie. Please guys. I'm serious here."

[Death by Mime]

"Please guys this is a serious comic book, look, Batman's getting stabbed near to death by a bunch of prostitutes, this city is super toned-down, there's not a supervillain or ninja army in sight. I swear if DC let me I'd remove Batman and ... well, just Batman, really, and make this a Dirty Harry comic. Please guys, I'm serious here."

It's hilarious how your excuse for Year One is that "Batman is a noob". Yes, that explains why the entire city of Gotham was equally as grounded as he was, the entire city was a "noob."

edit: like can you even imagine a Heat 2 where the criminal gang suddenly has magical bomb-planting powers and drives the entire city into a panic, because y'know what, I don't think you understand Heat either! Whatta surprise!