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

[Dr. Hurt]

Batman cant really be as fun as Ironman, unless they do a movie in the adventurous style of B&R or Inc, which wouldnt go down well with the general audience. So Batman being... well batman is fine with me. Coming out of TDK i was heartbroken, had a lot to think about and wasnt smiling. It was catharsis more than having fun.

So personally i really loved the story and what happened in TDK.

[Darrell D.]

Well I would associate a moral component with all that, but okay, I guess that's as good an answer as any.

Well, the moral component is a given, with super-HEROES.
It's one of the reasons I like Warren Ellis on super-heroes; he may have quite the cynical take, but these beings that are doing the impossible love their life, and they have the greatest job on the planet.

[BrotherUnitNo_4]

But this would have all been avoided if Tony had just taken control of his company and started regulating the sale of his weapons, instead of trying to just shut everything down and go off flying. Being Iron Man is allowing Tony to remain irresponsible. Is that what a super-hero movie is? Flying around and doing cool stuff and ignoring your responsibilities? I dunno, maybe, superheroes do tend to spend a lot of time flying around.

The reason why Tony couldn't just leave the insurgents alone is because they already had his weapons by then. You remember the display of the Jericho missile, and that was just one example of why Stark Enterprises was the leading weapons manufacturer. It was a danger to leave said weapons in the hands of terrorists, especially since they'd be using them against civilians and foreign troops and they had his name emblazoned on them.

[Predator jp]

I was pumped when I saw Batman '89. It was fun and loud and had a great set design, and Jack as the Joker stole the movie. It was actually the movie that got me back into super-hero comics.

ha, same here. Batman '89 got me into american Comics instead of Manga. but just like Mr. Holmes i had plenty of fun watching TDK as well.

[Mat001]

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.

In those films, the hero isn't shot fatally and the bad guys comically miss the broadside of a barn. If you noticed in those Batman films where he's shot, they were done specifically for that reason. The first time he's shot in the 89 film, it was to scare the pants off of Nick and Eddie. The second time was when he blocked the Joker's shot at him. The third time was after he was hit and then shot by the Joker's goons. That would've been the end of him if not for the armor. In "Returns", he's shot in the chest by Gordon's men and the armor saved him. In "Begins", he specifically asks for armor to protect himself. And in TDK, he wants more mobility and is warned that he cannot take a direct shot. Hence he's wounded. And in the comics since 1986, he's had some form of armor on. But the cape cannot work with kevlar like in the comics, because kevlar body armor isn't flexible. Hence the films have had a cape that is flexible, but body armor to protect himself.

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.

And calls for a huge suspension of belief. Not to mention their not wearing their comic book costumes. Batman is wearing his which is designed for intimidation.

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.

Batman's films are dark, but there is still a message of hope in each. In "Begins", we see that Bruce is ready to go out into the night to continue the fight for Gotham against the Joker. In TDK, Bruce is willing to play the villain for the sake of the city, as well as restoring his reputation as something to be feared. Based on what's seen in TDKR, even though things are dark, there is light at the end of the tunnel. Just as Harvey predicted before he became Two-Face.

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.

And that's what's in "The Dark Knight" and "The Dark Knight Rises". Bruce is still able to kick all sorts of ass. And in the previous films, it was still doable.

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.

This isn't a comic book. The film audience is different. That's why Hollywood has gone to great lengths to make sure that people buy into this. That's why the Avengers series has been structured the way it's been. "Captain America" is in the past, so there's no one else to help him out other than normal people. At the start of the film, he's frozen in the present and at the end, he's kept in isolation. "Iron Man" and "Iron Man 2" take place over a nine month period. Towards the end while he and War Machine fight Whiplash, the Hulk is in Virginia battling the army and Thor is powerless in New Mexico. Thus there is no crossover. No Iron Man coming to fight the Hulk or the Destroyer. Thus audiences can buy into that. In "Green Lantern", if the Clark Kent cameo happened, people would wonder why Superman wasn't coming to help Hal fight Parallax at the end. So it didn't happen and the films were in separate continuities, in order to give GL his spotlight. In "Smallville" when the JLA and JSA were introduced, audiences wondered why they weren't available to help Clark when he needed them.

I dont know, there are martial arts that look much better than Keysi.

Yeah, I'm sure that in a real fight, someone will stop to admire what a fighting style looks like. It's not about what looks cool. It's about what is practical and what works for the character.

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.

There's generally more than one take that's used. Much less shot.

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.

That doesn't change the point. Nolan wanted to use something that was about efficiency, not fanciness. The same way that in "The Fighter" the actors fought in the more traditional boxing style and not like in the "Rocky" films.

[Mr. Holmes]

Heat is a fair comparison to make, I'm pretty sure Nolan has explicitly mentioned it as one of his influences. But the thing is, he was talking about the cinematography. Again, it's people mistaking style with substance. TDK looks like Heat, therefore it must have the same plot and genre as Heat. .

That's what I'm talking about. Dark Knight might not be fun and colorful like Iron Man, but it's relatively mild compared to a David Fincher crime thriller.

[Fate's Faith]

In those films, the hero isn't shot fatally and the bad guys comically miss the broadside of a barn. If you noticed in those Batman films where he's shot, they were done specifically for that reason. The first time he's shot in the 89 film, it was to scare the pants off of Nick and Eddie. The second time was when he blocked the Joker's shot at him. The third time was after he was hit and then shot by the Joker's goons. That would've been the end of him if not for the armor. In "Returns", he's shot in the chest by Gordon's men and the armor saved him. In "Begins", he specifically asks for armor to protect himself. And in TDK, he wants more mobility and is warned that he cannot take a direct shot. Hence he's wounded. And in the comics since 1986, he's had some form of armor on. But the cape cannot work with kevlar like in the comics, because kevlar body armor isn't flexible. Hence the films have had a cape that is flexible, but body armor to protect himself.

I think we may be missing the point I was making. Batman doesn't need armor because he is an accomplished hand to hand fighter who avoids getting shot or at least attempts to avoid getting shot. We have him getting shot to scare a couple of guys when the Batman we read about each month achieves this terror by appearing and speaking from the darkness. He drops down in attack. Its why I feel this armor has become a problem. Not only does it seem to make him more likely to be shot, it completely changes his usual fighting methods. And there are some action films in which the hero isn't fatally shot and the bad guys are very good shots. I just lean toward making it okay for Batman to go against guns without that level of armor. We've seen it before as I stated but there's a real resistence to allowing Batman to be exactly who the comics show. In fact, I would say the solution to Batman is a bigger gun. He can't get out of the way and the only thing keeping him safe is his armor. But, if it was his fighting skill then the solution to him would to be a better fighter.

And calls for a huge suspension of belief. Not to mention their not wearing their comic book costumes. Batman is wearing his which is designed for intimidation.

No they aren't. But we can see its not exactly plate armor either. I'm not saying put Batman back in tights. Just follow what they've been doing lately in the comics in terms of protection and put the focus on his skill at fighting.

Batman's films are dark, but there is still a message of hope in each. In "Begins", we see that Bruce is ready to go out into the night to continue the fight for Gotham against the Joker. In TDK, Bruce is willing to play the villain for the sake of the city, as well as restoring his reputation as something to be feared. Based on what's seen in TDKR, even though things are dark, there is light at the end of the tunnel. Just as Harvey predicted before he became Two-Face.

Not what I'm saying though. They do offer a glimpse of hope but I don't think they deliver hope. Begins ends a much more upbeat note but maintains its core darkness. But with Knight, they've about trashed it. Not only does he lose his house and love but now he's hunted. It has no redemption for the hero. Which is not saying its a bad film only that was its story. The reason I mentioned the preview of Rises is because it seems to be a conclusion which will go out like Knight did as opposed to Begins. I would imagine the opposite myself but that preview didn't present even a hint.

[Death by Mime]

When did the Avengers hack into everyone's computers? The only person who hacked anything was Tony, and that was only SHIELD computers to find out why SHIELD really wanted the Tesseract.

To discover Loki's location in Germany. To be precise, SHIELD was doing the hacking, but the Avengers were all standing by and nodding along.

The reason why Tony couldn't just leave the insurgents alone is because they already had his weapons by then. You remember the display of the Jericho missile, and that was just one example of why Stark Enterprises was the leading weapons manufacturer. It was a danger to leave said weapons in the hands of terrorists, especially since they'd be using them against civilians and foreign troops and they had his name emblazoned on them.

But he never gets the weapons back in the movie! He sees a bunch of insurgents holding people hostage, using regular guns, so he flies over and shoots them and that's it. He doesn't get any of his weapons back at all.

And regardless, flying over to the Middle East and personally taking his weapons back one at a time is still a terrible solution to weapons proliferation, particularly since it prevents him from staying at home and shutting down the source.

[Mat001]

I think we may be missing the point I was making. Batman doesn't need armor because he is an accomplished hand to hand fighter who avoids getting shot or at least attempts to avoid getting shot.

Accomplished hand to hand fighters cannot dodge bullets. That's what you don't get. Not when they're fighting fifteen bad guys who are all armed. That's why Nolan had his first scene with Batman having him avoid being shot and then when he got in close, fought them down. But he was still hurt. You saw the bruises on his arms the next morning.

We have him getting shot to scare a couple of guys when the Batman we read about each month achieves this terror by appearing and speaking from the darkness. He drops down in attack. Its why I feel this armor has become a problem. Not only does it seem to make him more likely to be shot, it completely changes his usual fighting methods.

Re-watch those films. He does both. But he also plays the boogeyman. Hence getting shot and getting back up will scare people who aren't thinking.

And there are some action films in which the hero isn't fatally shot and the bad guys are very good shots.

Which is done on purpose.

I just lean toward making it okay for Batman to go against guns without that level of armor. We've seen it before as I stated but there's a real resistence to allowing Batman to be exactly who the comics show. In fact, I would say the solution to Batman is a bigger gun. He can't get out of the way and the only thing keeping him safe is his armor. But, if it was his fighting skill then the solution to him would to be a better fighter.

He's done very well in each fight shown in the films, despite those rubber suits. Also, no matter how good a fighter you are, no one goes down for good on the first punch. It's also not that dramatic. Hence the fight with the third goon in the 89 film lasted more than a minute.

No they aren't. But we can see its not exactly plate armor either. I'm not saying put Batman back in tights. Just follow what they've been doing lately in the comics in terms of protection and put the focus on his skill at fighting.

The films have done that. But even fighters will get shot and killed.

Not what I'm saying though. They do offer a glimpse of hope but I don't think they deliver hope. Begins ends a much more upbeat note but maintains its core darkness. But with Knight, they've about trashed it. Not only does he lose his house and love but now he's hunted. It has no redemption for the hero. Which is not saying its a bad film only that was its story. The reason I mentioned the preview of Rises is because it seems to be a conclusion which will go out like Knight did as opposed to Begins. I would imagine the opposite myself but that preview didn't present even a hint.

"The Empire Strikes Back" ended on a down note and is considered the best in the series, in part, because of it. A lot of trilogies have copied that format. In TDK, there is hope. Batman will continue to fight crime despite being hunted. He's accepted that. As Jim said, he's the hero that Gotham needs.

But he never gets the weapons back in the movie! He sees a bunch of insurgents holding people hostage, using regular guns, so he flies over and shoots them and that's it. He doesn't get any of his weapons back at all.

He destroys the weapons before he leaves. That's why Stane comes to meet the leader of the Ten Rings.

[Fate's Faith]

Accomplished hand to hand fighters cannot dodge bullets. That's what you don't get. Not when they're fighting fifteen bad guys who are all armed. That's why Nolan had his first scene with Batman having him avoid being shot and then when he got in close, fought them down. But he was still hurt. You saw the bruises on his arms the next morning.

I'm sorry but I do get it. Its that you don't seem to get that audiences have accepted that expert fighters can take on men with guns until it comes to Batman. I can almost promise the next James Bond film will have him disarming someone in hand to hand. Its what he does. What he's always done. Why is there this insistence that Batman, a comic book character, can't even manage that level of ability? Realism? He can barely move. He's completely dependent on the armor. Which is the opposite of how he was training in the beginning of the film. He was learning to use tools in his fights then shows up as Batman unable to fight as he was trained.

All to me, of course. I just think the armor has to go. Its time to see Batman fight like Batman.

[Fonecrusher]

Can't believe people are still having this conversation. Nolan's Batman is fine, he is the least of DC/WB's worries. It's easy to scaepgoat Nolan and say he "ruined my childhood Batman!" or stuffed the chances of a successful JL movie. But making The Flash, Aquaman, Wonder Woman and Martian Manhunter not look completely ridiculous on the big screen and showing them working together no less, is a much bigger concern. And let's face it the bar has been set: any JL movie that is not exceptionally well done will look like a poor man's Avengers ripoff from here on out and possibly do irreversible damage to the JL brand. I'm sure WB's worst nightmare is a Justice League movie turning out like Green Lantern it might just be the final nail in the coffin for WB in regards to Superhero movies.

So worry about Batman and Superman last they are fine. People still know and care about them, it is the rest of the Justice League, who are fast losing relevance in this day and age with the general public and mainstream pop culture that DC/WB should be focusing on.

[Fate's Faith]

Can't believe people are still having this conversation. Nolan's Batman is fine, he is the least of DC/WB's worries. It's easy to scaepgoat Nolan and say he "ruined my childhood Batman!" or stuffed the chances of a successful JL movie. But making The Flash, Aquaman, Wonder Woman and Martian Manhunter not look completely ridiculous on the big screen and showing them working together no less, is a much bigger concern. And let's face it the bar has been set: any JL movie that is not exceptionally well done will look like a poor man's Avengers ripoff from here on out and possibly do irreversible damage to the JL brand. I'm sure WB's worst nightmare is a Justice League movie turning out like Green Lantern it might just be the final nail in the coffin for WB in regards to Superhero movies.

So worry about Batman and Superman last they are fine. People still know and care about them, it is the rest of the Justice League, who are fast losing relevance in this day and age with the general public and mainstream pop culture that DC/WB should be focusing on.

The discussion seems to be on the idea of doing a Justice Leage film and I don't think anyone believes you can do one without Batman so Nolan's Batman being good as is in his own films isn't the issue. Its the question if he, unchanged, fits in with Superman, Wonder Woman, etc. Or will he need to be reworked to fit into the Justice League since Nolan has designed his films to exist without even the idea of Robin. To say the least about Superman. It will be a question Warners will have to address at some point.

[Mr. Holmes]

I don't see how it really matters, given that Nolan's Batman ends with this movie. Even if he could somehow fit in a Justice League movie, it's not happening.

[Fate's Faith]

I don't see how it really matters, given that Nolan's Batman ends with this movie. Even if he could somehow fit in a Justice League movie, it's not happening.

So you're expecting for Batman to end as in dead or hangs up being Batman? Or just Nolan doing Batman films. I still would wonder if they will reboot to fit in with a JLA or reboot him within a JLA film which sounds a bit risky if Nolan's is the only version many know depending on their age.

[verslibre]

So you're expecting for Batman to end as in dead or hangs up being Batman? Or just Nolan doing Batman films. I still would wonder if they will reboot to fit in with a JLA or reboot him within a JLA film which sounds a bit risky if Nolan's is the only version many know depending on their age.

Warner let us know what they intend to do a while back. My guess is Batman will get a "soft" reboot, something like The Incredible Hulk, in a movie that will appear after The Man Of Steel. "That" Batman will probably be a synthesis of Miller's Year One and Snyder's current treatment. I'd expect them to try a World's Finest type of film, that could hint at the JLA or even have a couple of them show up in the, er, post-credits scene (maybe).

I think J'onn J'onnz would be one of the better characters to have. GL would have to be there. Maybe GA won't be, because of Arrow and the fact he's an archer. They'll no doubt have Wonder Woman and Cyborg. I like Dr. Fate, but they'll probably keep it around six characters. Something would have to be said to make it clear that these characters predate The Avengers.

NO Plastic Man.