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

[Mat001]

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?

Because filmmakers like Tim Burton, Joel Schumacher and Chris Nolan cannot buy into that conceit. Hence he has to be protected at all costs.

He can barely move.

Keaton, Kilmer, Clooney, Bale and their doubles move well enough. The suit has come a long way from 1989. The notion that he can barely move is only applied to the actors who have all talked about that. Notice the characters almost never do.

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.

He was learning how to fight multiple opponents, but Bruce also understood that he needed protection to reduce his injury output. Hence taking the suit from Applied Sciences which offered protection while delivering offensive capabilities. And when Bruce did upgrade in TDK, he understood that he needed more mobility, but still retain the protection.

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

He does. Haven't you watched the films?

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.

The rumor is that WB will have to reboot because spoilers:

Bruce will retire or die fighting Bane at the end of the film and John Blake will take over.

end of spoilers

Hulk was different. Not a soft reboot, but a hard reboot caused by the films being made by different companies. It's rather doubtful if Marvel legally even could have not done a reboot. They probably don't own the rights to Universal's version of the Hulk, and would be unwilling to pay for them anyway.

No, it was made by both Universal and Paramount, but that's not why the reboot was done. Gale Anne Hurd, Kevin Feige, Edward Norton, Zak Penn and Louis Lettiner (sp) all agreed that it should be rebooted, to distance it from Ang Lee's film. And to tie it in with the Avengers plan. Norton himself added in all the Easter Eggs and nods.

[Dr. Hurt]

Batman doesnt fight bad because of the armor, not the TDK one at least. It's very mobile. He fights bad because they have a bad martial arts team. Watch the Hong Kong fight scene. The goons are literally aiming at the ceiling waiting for batman to beat them up. Scarlett Johanson tied to a chair fights better than Batman has ever fought in 2 movies.

But i dont like the TDK suit. I'd rather have a batman who looks cool than a batman who looks like a robot - swat officer or what have you. He doesnt look animalistic or imposing enough, the way he did in the Begins suit. The fight scenes are bad anyway, so i'd rather have that suit instead.

And finally if the suits are getting in the way, why not use real suits and enhance them with CGI? Like... have those cuts on his neck, but erase them in post production so that his neck is like batman's and not ironman's. Stuff like that. They do that for Ironman and it works great. Why not for Batman?

Oh, and batman does have armor in the comics too. The point is that he looks like Batman, he's cloaked in his cape, he's a shadow creeping around. Nolan's Batman is robocop with a rag over his shoulders which he only uses to glide. He mostly walks and runs but never creeps around except when he disappears on Gordon.

[Mat001]

1. Nolan only uses CGI if it is better than standard effects. So he's not going to change that now, nor will the next director. The point with the cowl is that it's supposed to retain that famous silhouette that's found with the cowl.

2. Batman doesn't look animalistic in real life because a mask cannot ever create such emotion without fundamentally changing it.

3. The comics cheat because the armor look is simply adding lines to the costume. It's still cloth no matter what Jim Lee or Frank Quietly do.

[Dr. Hurt]

1. Nolan only uses CGI if it is better than standard effects. So he's not going to change that now, nor will the next director. The point with the cowl is that it's supposed to retain that famous silhouette that's found with the cowl.

But his cowl is all robotic now and the cape is just a towel over his shoulders.

2. Batman doesn't look animalistic in real life because a mask cannot ever create such emotion without fundamentally changing it.

Well yeah, but he looks more animalistic if he doesnt look like a robot and if he cloaks himself in his cape.

3. The comics cheat because the armor look is simply adding lines to the costume. It's still cloth no matter what Jim Lee or Frank Quietly do.

And Hollywood doesnt cheat? Captain America's Avengers suit looked pretty armoured. Or maybe they were going for fake muscles, but it looked like a protective suit to me.

[Guglio08]

Captain America's costume was not armored. Armor weighs you down.

Seriously, try wearing armor and then performing the kinds of martial arts you want Batman to perform. It doesn't work. Why do you think the League of Shadows ninjas in Begins didn't wear armor?

Also, you can't really say that Batman wouldn't be intimidating in real life. You have the benefit of the doubt as an audience member (who knows its not real) as well as a comic book reader.

[carabas]

Captain America's costume was not armored. Armor weighs you down.

Seriously, try wearing armor and then performing the kinds of martial arts you want Batman to perform. It doesn't work. Why do you think the League of Shadows ninjas in Begins didn't wear armor?

Both Captain America and Batman are thoroughly armoured in the comics. And have been for a very long time.

[Guglio08]

Both Captain America and Batman are thoroughly armoured in the comics. And have been for a very long time.

Yes, in the comics. Not in actual real life. Which is the basis of Nolan's Bat-Trilogy.

In real life, armor = increase in weight and durability, where as no armor = decrease in weight and durability, increase in mobility and agility.

[carabas]

Yes, in the comics. Not in actual real life. Which is the basis of Nolan's Bat-Trilogy.

People keep saying that, but I still see the guy in the giant bat costume with his batmobile that drives on rooftops, the microwave bomb, the ancient cult of ninjas (with Ra's ambiguously hinted at being older than he looks), the killer clown, the guy whos pretty spry despite having half his face burnt off... I can go on.

It makes Iron Man seem positively restrained and hard SF, with it's just one single deviation from reality.

[Dr. Hurt]

Captain America's costume was not armored. Armor weighs you down.

The dude is almost supernatural. You'd need to put 2 sandbags on him to weigh him down.

Seriously, try wearing armor and then performing the kinds of martial arts you want Batman to perform. It doesn't work. Why do you think the League of Shadows ninjas in Begins didn't wear armor?

Realism in a batman movie....
The batman movie where rubber is armor.
Tanks fly over rivers
Batman has a lobster megazord
Batman's cape becomes a glider with electricity and his arms are strong enough to hold it in place.
Microwave machines dont evaporate water in humans
falling from a skyscraper on a taxi doesnt get you killed (Rachel)
you dont die from infection when half your face is burned to the bone and your eye is exposed (without eyelids and tears the eye will dry out and die)

Also, you can't really say that Batman wouldn't be intimidating in real life. You have the benefit of the doubt as an audience member (who knows its not real) as well as a comic book reader.

He would, but because he's an armoured dude that could kick my ass. Not because he looks like a creature (as much as batman can look like a creature, which is more than TDK batman can)

[Dr. Hurt]

Yes, in the comics. Not in actual real life. Which is the basis of Nolan's Bat-Trilogy.

Do i need to list all the unrealism in the nolan movies again?

In real life, armor = increase in weight and durability, where as no armor = decrease in weight and durability, increase in mobility and agility.

Oh, ok, so this isnt armour then?



WHAT MOVIE ARE YOU WATCHING? Adam West's?

[Guglio08]

There's an entire subplot in The Dark Knight about him changing his suit to be less bulky so he can be more agile and that the redesigned suit won't be able to take as many hits.

The question of this thread has already been answered. It has just devolved into you complaining that Batman movies can't be like The Avengers in terms of comic book-ness. Yo dude, The Avengers has a 69 on Metacritic and The Dark Knight has an 82. Guess people do, in fact, like the "realism" approach.

Awhile ago you posted what I believe to be the summation of your argument as "Why can't it be both?" And the answer to that is, unequivocally, "Why does it have to be both?"

Gugs out.

[Dr. Hurt]

There's an entire subplot in The Dark Knight about him changing his suit to be less bulky so he can be more agile and that the redesigned suit won't be able to take as many hits.

It's still armor though. Just lighter armor.

Your point was that he wears NO armor.

The question of this thread has already been answered. It has just devolved into you complaining that Batman movies can't be like The Avengers in terms of comic book-ness.

But we're not discussing this anymore.

Yo dude, The Avengers has a 69 on Metacritic and The Dark Knight has an 82.

Rotten Tomatoes:
Avengers: 93
TDK: 94

Guess people do, in fact, like the "realism" approach.

Or it could be that they like Nolan's movies in general. It's not just about realism vs comic bookiness.

Awhile ago you posted what I believe to be the summation of your argument as "Why can't it be both?" And the answer to that is, unequivocally, "Why does it have to be both?"

It doesnt have to be anything in particular.

I just like having both. Is that too much for you?

[Hamdinger]

Nolan's Batman is so detestably grounded in "realness" that not even Robin or Batgirl are allowed to exist in this universe, let alone a kryptonian powerhouse or a warrior Amazon Princess who is thousands of years old. That's why the Batman movies are going to be almost immediately rebooted, to create a version of Batman where creatures like Clayface and superheroes like the Flash can believably exist. The "realness" factor, while greatly loved by Nolan's fans, is this Batman franchises greatest weakness. It gives NO room for a universe outside of Bruce Wayne, period.

I never got the "realness" vibe from Nolan's movies. Batman freakin flies through Gotham, does action movie physics (like surviving fall that would kill a human being if it were real), uses tons of tech that is science fiction, some tech that doesn't even make sense like mobile phone sonar, wtf, and displays all the fighting skills of a boxer who never could make it to the pros. The Daniel Craig James Bond or the Bourne Identity movies displayed way more fighting skills that Nolan's Bats and they didn't have ninja training.

So are these Nolan movies realistic? Not at all but instead these movies are rooted in grim & gritty character development not realism. Don't get me wrong I love the Nolan Batman flicks but I never saw them as realistic in any way. It's Batman 89' without the camp and cheese factor.

[Hamdinger]

Are you suggesting there is nothing in between Nolan's Batman and the campy 70s Batman?

I've never liked Nolan's take on Batman because it's a watered down version of him to fit into a realistic setting. He can't be a genius in chemistry, biology and other numerous fields. He can't be an expert escape artist. He can't be a Sherlock Holmes detective. He can't be a master martial artist proficient in hundreds of different styles. He can't be an Olympic level athlete in various disciplines. Why? Because it's unrealistic for a human being to be that good in so many things.

It's a fallacy that Batman is a realistic character. A total and utter fallacy. Nolan's movies try to make him realistic, which takes away a lot of what makes Batman and his mythology interesting.

Except that the new Sherlock Holmes movies did all of that and a bag o' chips under Guy Ritchie's awesomeness. So Hell after Nolan's gone I nominate Guy Ritchie to take over the Batman franchise!

[carabas]

It's still armor though. Just lighter armor.

Wearing armour is not actually a show of grand realism, you know. Tony Stark wears armour. Thor wears armour. Nowadays, frelling Superman wears armour. Also, comicbook Batman wears armour. Has done so consistantly since the eighties.