DC movie continuity

I'd say

Batman Begins
Constantine
Superman Returns
The Flash
Wonder Woman

 

I'd say that Batman isn't a new arrival, and he was around before Superman left Earth.

 

I say creating a movie continuity is too damn complicated.

 

If may add my opinion, id say that Batman right after Superman leaves for his journey or w/e and just around the time he returns Wonder Woman appears. After that I'd say the Flash, then GL, then Manhunter, ect, ect

 

Okay. This is how it is:

A Daily Planet newspaper article confirmed Superman left Earth in 2000. That means his first appearance was in the late 90s (in the updated origin of Brandon's Superman). The Zod crisis was likely in 1999. The first 20 minutes of Superman Returns is supposed to summarize the vague history as well in a unique way (what changed, whats the same)..

Batman Began in 2005.....That pretty much means Superman was around for many years prior to Batman but Batman appeared in Superman's absense (which makes some sense).

Bruce and Clark are both around the same age here; late 20s. Superman was likely 23/24 when he left Earth on his journey.

The 12 years of training in the Fortress is something obviously retconned from the new origins. I think the 6 year journey to Krypton actually replaces that.....since it gives Kal-El the answers he needs that he never spent 12 years learning from Jor-El.

 

But has it ever been said BB takes place in 2005?

Technically, I think STM and BB could happen relatively close to each other.

 

I would prefer that all the DC movies stay removed from one another. Like Manic said, its just too damn complicated. Especially given that Batman Begins is a re-start to the franchise and Superman Returns is a continuation.

 

I think Nolan made a statement once that it was intended for BB to be as real, modern and current as possible....thus a present modern take on a classic character. Im sure if you could zoom into the newspaper that Commisioner Loeb held up, the date would be 2005.

The newspaper dates for Superman Returns (for the article where Superman saves the Space Shuttle) is 2006.

 

Was the date ever mentioned in Superman: The Movie? Cause that really messing things up then.

 

Keep them separate.

 

In the current DC movie continuty:

-Batman's parents were killed by Joe Chill when they exited an opera house.

-The Scarecrow is a guy with a cloth bag on his head that uses a special gas to make people afraid.

-Ra's Al-Ghul is Henri Ducard, a French terrorist that command an army of ninjas, the League of Shadows, to purge the world of his mistakes and reshape at his will.

He has NO Ubu or Talia at his side.

-James Gordon is not yet the police comissioner of Gotham City, thought that may change in the future. the position is currently filled by Comissioner Loeb (a nod to Batman writer Jeph Loeb).

-The Batsignal was created by James Gordon when he saw the shadow of a crook cast against a spotlight. It is him, and him only, who uses it to call Batman.

-All of Batman's Bat-gadget-thingies were invented by Lucius Fox, his resident scientist.

-Batman's car is a tank called The Tumbler.

-Batman's suit is still scuplted armor, but it doesn't have the yellow insignia on the chest.

-Vicki Vale, Alexander Knox, Carl Grissom, Lt. Eckhardt, Max Shreck, Gossip Gerty, Chase Meridian and Julie Madison don't exist in this continuity.

-the position of "mob boss who ruled Gotham City before Batman came along" that was previously filled by Carl Grisson is now filled by Carmine Falcone.

-the Batarangs are actually pieces of metal shaped like bats.

-Batman doesn't have a Bat-taser, a Bat-napalm vial, a Bat-jet, a Bat-boat, a Bat-wielder or (thank God) a Bat-credit card.

-The Bat-cave is beneath Wayne Manor, not inside it.

-Superman never fought a weather-controlling villain, a super-computer or Nuclear Man.

-Lois Lane knows who Superman is.

-Clark Kent never saw Lana Lang after he left Smallville.

-Martha Kent is very much alive.

-Lex Luthor never got out of jail until the upcoming Superman movie, and he doesn't have a cousin Lenny.

-Gus Gorman doesn't exist in this continuty.

-The Daily Planet never got turned into a tabloid.

-Jimmy Olsen hasn't met Supergirl, Superman's cousin, yet.

-After saving Earth from the clutches of General Zod, Ursa and Non, Superman went to the Zenon galaxy to see if anyone survived the Krypton explosion (no one did). He just came back to Earth in the upcoming Superman movie.

-No one ever tried to buy the Kent family farm.

 

Did you even read what this thread was about? Also, Commissioner Loeb in Batman Begins was a character from Batman: Year One, not a nod to Jeph Loeb...christ...

 

He did have an Ubu. Who do you think Ken Watanabe played? And who was the other asian guy that was introduced to Bruce by the old woman as "Ra's al Ghul"? Those were both Ubu (in the comics, it's a title passed down to the right hand man of Ra's, not a single person)

 

Why would Superman the movie be relevant? STM was in the 70s, that was obvious. Dates were mentioned.

Superman Returns is in loose continuity with STM; loose meaning some events of STM inspired the Routh Superman's history.....but Routh's Superman began in the late 90s.

Its kinda like precrisis and postcrisis.....in 1986, some events of the postcrisis were tied in vague history with the precrisis.

 

So many things wrong with this, I dont even know where to start!

 

Because unlike B89-B&R, it's never officially been removed from continuity. Singer's even said SR is a sequel to STM. In short, STM is as much in-continuity as BB or SR is.

Personally, I think the best way to go is to forget the dates mentioned in the movies altogether. That way from STM to BB to SR everything could fit quite well - of course the stylistic issues (as you said, it's obvious STM takes place in the 70s), but that's a problem even comic book continuity has.

 

Singer also said its a loose sequel...theres a vague history and it was inspired from STM...thats all.

The Routh Superman is a new Superman...who began in the late 90s. The general audience wont care about these details...

But for us comicbook geeks, theyre released a 4-part comic story this June explaining the new origins of the Routh Superman....you'll see it isnt STM with Reeve in the 70s.

 

Yeah, but where does Steel fit in with all of this?

 

lol Steel isnt part of this continuity.

Its only Batman Begins and Superman Returns. Even Catwoman is tied to the old continuity with Batman Returns

 

"Yes. This essentially, for lack of a better term, a sequal to the second movie without any mention of the outlaws from krypton or any of that. We know he came to Earth. He was known as Superman. He was responsible for putting Lex Luthor in prison and then he left. Lois Lane's theory is he took off in a futile effort to find his home." - Bryan Singer

Personally, that seems like SR is much closer to a sequel than mere inspirational material. It seems like, to me, that Singer is making a sequel, he simply isn't mentioning much from the previous films. If you want to just count post-BB films, fine, but I don't see much factual evidence to warrent it. And I do see your point in limiting it to only post-BB stuff, but it's much more fun to try to figure it out with STM and SII involved, IMO.

Those 4 comics aren't origins. John Byrne even pulled out of the project because they weren't. Originally, DC's website even had them listed as explaining what happened between "Superman II and SR." It was later changed to something more ambiguous, but never has there been any mention an origin being told in those comics.

I hate to be argumentitive about this, especially considering it's just for fun and all, but now you're just giving out inaccuracies.

 

Inaccuracies? Wow...no.


SUPERMAN RETURNS: KRYPTON TO EARTH
Story by Bryan Singer & Michael Dougherty & Dan Harris
Script by Jimmy Palmiotti & Justin Gray
Cover by Adam Hughes
In the first of the four prequels, fans will revisit the Man of Steel's origins and witness how the world has been transformed in Superman's absence.
On sale June 7 - 40 pg, FC, $3.99 US

And..

From the recent SFX magazine interview:

Singer:

"it puts the first film into a vague history, the second film is not in my history. its not a particularly good film, either, if you watch it again. We are referencing the first film in the designs and the detail but not over - referencing it."

 

Huh. You're right. I forgot about that. Of course, right above that paragraph is...

"Produced in conjunction with Superman Returns director Bryan Singer and screenwriters Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris, four astonishing one-shots bridge the gap between Superman II and Superman Returns!"

My quote's from Wizard's mega movie issue. As recent, if not more so than the SFX interview.

However, I will admit, there seems to be factual evidence to support both of our view points.

 

I knew the comic series would cover the events from his departure to his return, but I also knew they would tackle his new origins in the first issue....for those still confused.

A recent Moviehole interview with the writers also confirmed that the first 20 minutes of the film would actually summarize the vague history leading into Returns in a very 'unique' way.......we'll see what that means.

 

That Knowledge Brightens My Expectations Of The Film Somewhat.