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

[Mat001]

I don't see lobsters. But the Tumbler flying, yes that is applicable. The upper portion disconnecting so that it flies is realistic. It is in many ways like a hovercraft, which more and more they are capable of actual flight. If it was the whole Tumbler, then it wouldn't work which is why it doesn't do that. Captain America's suit in "The Avengers" doesn't look that armored. Fortunately, he's using a shield and that film really bends the idea of realism, which is different from what Nolan is striving for. Like I said, the audience can only buy so much before they cry foul.

Yeah he's more of an urban paralmilitaristic vigilante than a superhero

Even if he were a "superhero" in the traditional sense, there's nothing wrong with having that suit.

I'd like to point out that this "realistic" suit serves an aesthetic purpose more than a realism one. Batman drives a tank and dresses like a riot cop, it's all military chic.

That too. The only reason for the bat motif has to do with the theatrics that Ra's talked about and Bruce's understanding of fear from his travels. And the bottom line is that if someone in real life attempted to play Batman, they would need that level of protection on top of combat skills and an athletic body.

[Fate's Faith]

So flying tanks are realistic but fighting without armor is not

[nightforce]

Wow so The Avengers broke the billion dollar record set by The Dark Knight.

[Shadey10]

Simply put because he would be useless. I love the nolan batman movies but his batman would bring nothing to the table.

[Mat001]

So flying tanks are realistic but fighting without armor is not

Again, the whole Tumbler does not fly like the DeLorean. The upper part which was designed to achieve flight, does. And in real life, we have hovercraft that can fly. So yes, that part, the part that's in the film, is real. That's why Nolan had no problem introducing it into the film. If the whole Tumbler flew, then you'd have a credible argument.