Business is Business

A) Man of Steel was an amazing start to a DCCU
B) It looked nothing like TDKT, yeah it appears to have from the trailers but when i watched the film i never thought of TDKT, not once.
C) What is this ? the 90s ? When Marvel has proven that franchises can co-exist and movies to be plotted around them there is no reason for DC to do the Burton/Schumacher thing.
D) Exactly, Bale's Batman could never work in the DCCU because he is too weak, you need a more comic book Batman, able to take hits from metahumans. And if Sups can take an Alien invansion by himself, Batman has to capitalize on a intellectual level.
E) To mass movie audiences Batman is Batman, they don't even recognize Bale because he is neither a sex symbol or a *****ebag with sharp one liners.
F)Yes, exclude the GL movie, while Man of Steel worked like a pulp 50s science fiction, GL is a comedic action film. It doesn't work. Use it as an origin for the avarage movie goer and make a soft reboot or as i like to call it, Incredible Hulk the Green Lantern franchise, with only tie Mark Strong's spot on Sinestro.
G)Dare ruin TDKR's ending and by the power of Greyskull i will hunt you down like a T-1000 and i will f-ing destroy everything you ever loved.

 

I thought it was Chris & Jonah Nolan who ruined TDKR's ending?

 

No you are wrong.

 

They most likely couldn't get Bale back, nor would they want to tick off Nolan by continuing the franchise with a recast, whose movies make a lot of money for them, especially when a reboot franchise will still make WB a ton of money regardless. They have guys smarter than all of us working out the math to determine that this is most likely the right business move.

Nolan didn't sabotage Batman. Batman is still there for WB to use. Nolan, being the Bond fan he is, knows that there are always new interpretations for characters.

 

I just finished watching TDK for the millionth time and I love this movie but I still find Rises to be the better film in every way. I will never understand the arguments of Nolan being too lazy with it in comparison to the other 2.

But Nolan is not needed for this shared universe. A new Batman interpretation that kicks off with Snyder/Goyer and passed on to somebody else will work just fine. But the fact that Robinov is gone, means Justice League could be back on shaky ground. It could also mean that everything he said regarding a reboot and his close ties to Chris..is down the drain. We may see WB wanting to use Bale whether Nolan is there or not. Whether that means Justice League or just a World's Finest and no Justice League.

It depends a lot on what the new guy feels is more important. Branching off with Wonder Woman, Flash and Aquaman....or just focusing on the breadwinners in Superman and Batman.

Warner Brothers are not a Marvel type studio. Justice League could be a priority but I think that has to do with Batman and Superman teaming up. Im sure the people outside of Robinov care less about Green Lantern, Aquaman, Martian Manhunter or Cyborg. The others? We'll see.

 

1) Start over with Batman. The Nolan trilogy is done. But we don't need another origin story. Just have Bruce Wayne/Batman show up in solo movies as a cameo, and then in Worlds Finest or JLA people already know his backstory and have already seen Bruce Wayne in previous films so it won't be weird. Recast Batman, Bale is too old anyway. This new Batman will most likely have to have some CGI moves to even be considered in the same ballpark as Superman and WW. If it was the Bale Batman he would be absolutely useless aside from detective stuff. That's great and all, and I want the next iteration to play that up more, but he also needs to be a physical force. The template for how they should do it is Captain America. In Avengers during that famous tracking-shot when Iron Man helps out Cap taking on the Chitauri you can make out Cap doing incredible leaps and kicks that no human could actually do. He was jumping like 15-20 in the air. That's the type of Batman we'll need, so it will require CGI and lots of wirework unlike Nolan's Bat.

2) For example, in MoS 2 have Bruce Wayne teamup with Lex Luthor to rebuild Metropolis. All that is required is for him to have a brief 1-5 minute cameo just as Bruce Wayne, nothing more.

3) Make a solo Flash and solo Wonder Woman movies.

4) I've bee clamoring for John Stewart to be the JLA lantern for awhile. Hal Jordan has his chance with that terrible GL movie, time to move on and try a different GL. Plus the team needs diversity and i personally grew up with the JLA cartoons so John Stewart will always be my Green Lantern.

5) I love the JLA cartoon lineup but it's unnecessary to have such a large team in the first outing. The first JLA movie should just be Superman + Batman + WW + Flash + GL John Stewart.

6) If they keep the first JLA team small, by the time it's made Superman, Flash, and Wonder Woman would have already had solo outings. In the case of Superman he would of had two, and Batman would have made cameos in the other movies. That means that only GL John Stewart would need to be introduced to audiences in the JLA movie and what they can do is have the plot of the JLA movie center around John Stewart becoming GL in the face of some threat that just the first four members can't take on by themselves.

 

Why does every DC forum I go have a few people doing this? Iron Man did not have the most screentime by the way....

I hope a JL movie happens and that it is good/successful, while being a Marvel fan. It is possible to be happy for both companies.

 

Batman is being rebooted. Period. There is no point in trying to list scenarios in which Nolan's Batman can work at this point because the chances of that Batman coming back are extremely low. Literally the only thing that can bring that Batman back is if MOS 2 or the Batman reboot is a disaster (that is if they can get Bale back in the first place). Though if anyone looks forward to seeing another DC film bomb just so that Bale can come back, I will find that very pathetic.

I won't deny that MOS has a lot of influences from the Nolan Batman films but those influences are nowhere as strong to the point that it works perfectly with the Nolan films and nothing else will fit. The Nolan films were solely realistic whereas MOS has a balance between fantasy and reality. The MOS world is still nowhere as realistic as Nolan's world was. They are realistic in different ways.

Bale is nowhere on RDJ's level. He is not to Batman what RDJ is to Iron Man. I'm not trying to diss him. However, it is true. RDJ is iconically attached to Iron Man in the same way Hugh Jackman is attached to Wolverine and in the same way Reeves was attached to Superman. People don't look at Bale and say he is the absolute perfect Batman bar none like they do with those other actors (that's not to say he did a bad job). I don't think it is a bad business decision to reboot Batman either (see my sig).

Batman being a symbol of hope in the Nolan films is exactly why a new Batman is necessary. In the DC universe, there exists a metaphorical force of balance between hope and fear. Superman is the symbol that strikes hope into the hearts of good people while Batman is the symbol that strikes fear into the hearts of bad people. That is why they work so well together. They complete each other. Nolan's Batman is already both. He is a symbol of hope to the people of Gotham while being a symbol of fear to the criminals of Gotham. That metaphorical balance already exists in that universe without Superman existing. Not the same case in the MOS universe.

Green Lantern has to be rebooted. That film does not make sense in the MOS continuity. Both films are essentially "first contact" films. Thus they are contradictory.

 

^ I love seeing actual logic.

This idea that the most mocked Batman since Adam West (and I like both actors) is irreplaceable is absolutely hilarious.

 

I think his Batman is easily replaceable but his Bruce Wayne is going to be extremely hard to top and invest in, especially since I doubt the focus will be that heavy this time around on Bruce but more on "Batman". So they need to nail it out of the park with the casting.

But I do agree that Bale's Batman is on par, if not a little under Keaton's. To a lot of people. We haven't seen the definitive Batman yet. Same with the writing of Bruce, but I feel the emotion and execution of Bruce Wayne, the man, was done brilliantly by Christian.

 

I think Batman is more like Bond in general in that there will never be the one, true "definitive" take. Batman is far too malleable a character for that, thriving on different interpretations. Everyone will have their own preferences.

Although, it's undeniable that Bale as Batman has a certain amount of weight behind it with the general audience, due to the prestige and quality associated with The Dark Knight Trilogy. There's no sense denying that, even if Bale doesn't = Batman in the same way that RDJ = Iron Man. There's only ever going to be one "Christopher Nolan's Batman" though, and that's Bale. Nobody will be able to take that away from him.

Truthfully, MoS, while not being a carbon copy of BB/the trilogy, is close enough tonally that it wouldn't be impossible to bridge the two worlds. The only reason it's not happening is because Nolan finished his story and has stated endless times that his universe is over. I don't buy this argument that Bale's Batman couldn't keep up in a JL scenario though. The whole cell phone sonar machine in TDK was inspired by the JL Tower of Babel storyline, according Jonah Nolan. The uber-paranoid, uber-surveilling Batman was present in the trilogy- they could have expanded on that and emphasized it more. It certainly wouldn't have been impossible to write Bale's Bruce Wayne a plausible role in the story. It's just not going to happen because Nolan's said everything he wanted to with the character and doesn't want to see his story compromised. And I don't blame him at all for that.

I guess what I'm saying is, while I support a reboot and know that it's inevitable, I have to acknowledge that if it WF starring Cavill and Bale was announced tomorrow, it would be HUGE news and would lend the project a ton of instant intrigue and credibility. So I see where the OP is coming from, even though it's nothing but a pipe dream.

 

I agree. Which is why the "definitive" Batman/Wayne is an animated version.

A real life actor will probably never be able to become the definitive version. Even Superman, Christopher Reeve or Henry Cavill...I don't think one can say that the other is MORE definitive. But with Batman it's even more of an issue because of the 3 distinct identities.

Bale may forever be looked at as the perfect college Bruce or the perfect billionaire playboy persona. Then Keaton or some actor of the future may be looked at as the greatest "private brooding Bruce" there ever was. With the reboot as the best "Batman".

It's so iconic like Bond. Between Daniel Craig, Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Pierce Brosnan and perhaps a Michael Fassbender type who takes over next....there will never be the definitive actor that EVERYBODY agrees on.

 

You just pi$$ed off Sean Connery. Nobody pi$$es off Sean Connery!

Joking aside, I always feel like the current version is always the definitive version because they're the ones that we're watching develop in real time. So I think of it in generations. Reeve was the definitive Superman for a generation, same with Reeves. This generation is just getting theirs.

For Batman, I feel like Keaton won out for his generation against Kilmer and Clooney doh. Bale will be directly compared to the Batman in the DCMU. We have no idea what will happen there. If the next series is considered better than Nolan's by the GA, then Nolan would have shot his legacy in the foot but pulling back.

 

That is true, until the next guy comes in and blows everyone else out of the water for a decade plus. These characters can always be taken to a higher level. We just haven't had that yet for a live action Batman. I believe that guy has yet to come on the big screen. I just think it is too soon right now. I wouldn't want to see cameos and WF movies with the new Batman just yet. MoS 2 needs to be MoS 2. Not MoS and Friends.

While it impossible to draw parallels between different generations, comparisons will be made nonetheless. Who was better? This guy or that guy for his time? And the subjective "definitive" guy doesn't necessarily have to reside in the same generation of the observer. If you had to rank it, I think Keaton still edges Bale out by a small margin, but Bale has the extra film on his belt and that gives him a leg up. Now we need a Bruce Wayne that can combine both worlds yet be the God-like character he was meant to be in the comics.

 

It's true that there will never be an actor everyone agrees on as definitive.

But as far as being the most iconic, Sean Connery is without a doubt the most iconic James Bond, and Christopher Reeve is still the most iconic Superman, the only other Superman coming close to that being George Reeves.

With Batman, it's debatable.

 

The Nolan Batman era is over now. They aren't connecting them ever.

Nolan closed the loop so no one else could ever ride on his coat tails. I didn't agree with the way he took things, but that's the way it is now.

 

I wouldn't say it's that debatable. I'd say it's Adam West.

 

That actually might be true.

 

I think we first need to define what a definitive portrayal is. On top of the obvious fact that "definitive" means encompassing everything about the character and being almost a straight-off-the-page version of the character, a definitive portrayal is not only the portrayal of the character you first think about when you hear the words "live-action [insert superhero name]" but also a portrayal that gives you the illusion that there cannot be any better actor for the particular character. It is also important to note that there will never be a time in which literally everyone will see the exact same actor as the definitive actor for a character. Even Christopher Reeves and RDJ have their share of people that think they were miscast, believe it or not. However, there will always be a time when the vast majority of people will consider a particular actor worthy of being considered the definitive actor for a character to be that definitive actor for the character.

RDJ is the definitive Iron Man and the mast majority of people thinks this. There is no one they can picture to be a better Iron Man than him. Hugh Jackman is also the definitive Wolverine in that same regard. I also think Andrew Garfield is the definitive Spider-Man. I think the majority of people haven't realized this yet because A) He is still very new, B) The Spider-Man reboot is still recovering from the reboot backlash and C) Garfield has yet to star in a Spider-Man film that is considered "great" as opposed to just "good", which already occurred to RDJ, Hugh Jackman, Chris Reeves and the rest of "definitive actors". A definitive actor's potential as the definitive actor will only truly shine in a great film to accompany it.

There are also certain situations in which there can be more than one definitive actor for a character:
1) If there are multiple different takes of a character - Someone like Batman has been portrayed from campy to the dark Post-Crisis Batman throughout the decades. I would say that Adam West is the definitive Campy Batman. The man was perfect for the role. However, there still hasn't been a definitive actor of the dark Batman of today that we all know and love. If/when someone comes to fill up that spot, there will be 2 definitive Batman's.
2) If the portrayal previously seen as definitive is topped - A definitive portrayal does not mean that there can never possibly be another actor that can ever top that portrayal. As I said before, what makes a portrayal definitive is when it gives you the illusion that the portrayal can never be topped. Let's take Bond as an example. Sean Connery was always the definitive Bond to me and to a lot of people. I could not picture anyone better than him in the role. Then Daniel Craig came along with a Bond that was closer to the Bond in the books. He is currently the definitive Bond (at least to me). Does this mean that Sean Connery is no longer a definitive Bond? No, because prior to Craig, I couldn't have pictured anyone better in the role. Superman is another example. I don't know if I can say yet for sure that Henry Cavill did top Christopher Reeves since I haven't seen the Donner films in years and I think Cavill needs at least one more film as Superman before I can fully come to that conclusion (the first film was more of a setup film). However, I thought Cavill was an excellent casting choice for the Post-Crisis (specifically Byrne) version of Superman. He perfectly embodied the idea of Superman being a larger-than-life God and a Christ figure towering over humans while still showing the fact that Superman, at the end of the day, is a moral man from Kansas and is a human before he is a Kryptonian. If Cavill indeed does top Reeves, does this mean Reeves is no longer definitive? No for the same reasons. The same thing can be said about RDJ. IF someone tops him as Iron Man one day, will that make him less definitive? No because prior to that new actor, we couldn't have pictured anyone better in the role.

I think I agree with Shauner and BLR that we may never get a definitive Batman, or at least not for a long time. The reason due to this is because in a lot of ways, Kevin Conroy is already the definitive Batman. Every Generation Y Batman fan that I have ever met have told me that they hear Conroy's voice in their head whenever they read Batman comics (same thing applies to Hamill). The fact that he's been voicing Batman for 20 years adds to that. For comic book fans, Conroy has already had as much influence on Batman as Christopher Reeves did on Superman. The only difference is that the influence Conroy had was never shared with the overall population and stayed exclusive to the comic book community. Sure that other voice actors have had a lot of influence on the respective character they voiced (Tim Daly as Superman, Josh Keaton & Christopher Daniel Barnes as Spider-Man, pretty much all the other voice actors of the main 7 JL members in the JL/JLU cartoon, etc.) but none of them have truly had the same impact and iconic image that Conroy as Batman has. Therefore, we technically already got our definitive Batman already; just not on the big screen. If we ever do get a definitive Batman on the big screen, I think that Batman will be the one that reminds us of Conroy's Batman the most.

 

I understand why you're suggesting that there can be multiple "definitives," and you're probably right about Conroy being the closest for gen-Y's Batman, I think that we need to take into account the general audience in factoring it in. To them, it's probably Bale. Most of them don't even realize that Bane (or something similar) showed up as Poison Ivy's lackey in a movie before TDKR.

Christopher Reeve's Superman is still the most definitive because Cavill is still new. We'll never have the debate of Reeve vs Daily, Reeves, Cain or Welling. I'm pretty sure that no one outside of DC fans know who Kirk Alyn was. Reeve was even the inspiration for comic runs, showing where that character has gone.

I think when we say "definitive," we mean "definitive as of now."

 

I think once we see Cavill in many iconic films, like 1 movie where he's squaring off with Lex and then a Justice League or two where he's with Batman and fighting grander villains...then he's going to be considered definitive.

I definitely see it being said after a handful of films into the next decade. It takes time.

For Batman, I agree with Shika that it's all about who is the closest to Conroy. He's the measuring stick. It could be the next actor or the one after him.

I also think that people misinterpret things. It's too easy to link an actor as the definitive "blank" only because he is the first actor to play the character in a film. I don't think that's fair. Like Sean Connery, Christopher Reeve, Michael Keaton, Tobey Maguire.

Connery didn't come right off the page. Neither did Maguire or Keaton. Reeve yes, but I still don't think it's fair to say he's definitive when I find there's many more layers to Superman that Reeve didn't nail. I feel like Cavill has the potential of dethroning him years from now.

Bond is the same with Craig upstaging this guy or that guy. I feel like Craig and Connery have performed the essence of the character but Brosnan probably sounds and looks the most like the Bond that was created originally. At least in the creators mind probably. So I still feel like we haven't seen the complete definitive James Bond. Which is why I say Michael Fassbender could be the perfect one when you think of his voice, looks, acting ability, hair color, toughness that Craig has, charm, etc.