Justice League Justice League: News and Speculation - Part 10

[IamtheBatman]

The lack of origin is not what it would make it feel forced. It will only feel forced if the introduction to the new Batman is done poorly and/or there is a lack of introduction to begin with. When starting a franchise, introducing the character in a unique way that establishes who they are is what is important but that does not automatically equate to doing the origin.

Just because you didn't like TDKR doesn't mean the movie that hasn't even been out for a year should be rebooted.

Me not liking TDKR is only a slice of the pie. There are so many other reasons why continuing Nolan's Batman after that is a bad idea.



Even if the reboot doesn't happen any time soon, the chances of Nolan's Batman being continued are still very very low (Bale coming back to play a different Batman for JL doesn't count). As someone else pointed out, WB would not risk hurting their relationship with Nolan by going against his vision.

What is wrong with a page-for-age adaptation of a comic? Literally the only difference between the story in a Batman movie and the story in a Batman comic is the medium in which it is being told. TDK could've been a comic that was adapted in live-action and you as part of the general audience wouldn't have even known this. This statement doesn't make sense whatsoever.



It is the story and the fact that Batman himself is pretty watered down compared to his comic book counterpart. Those are the main factors that matter.

If they discarded TDKR from continuity (which they won't do), then I can kinda see your point. However, the entire message of TDKR is that Bruce's journey is over. He is at peace with Batman and Batman is a symbol anyone can take as opposed to something part of Bruce. The movie makes this statement and treats itself as if it is "THE END" - the last chapter. Doing a movie that fixes that would feel far more contrived just to get Nolan's Batman for JL than any reboot would IMO.

I hope you do realize why Nolan ended TDKR in the way he did to begin with. BB and TDK were never meant to be part of a three-act trilogy. They were considered to be just the first 2 films in the current Batman franchise, and everything in those movies pointed to Bruce being Batman for a LONG time. It wasn't until they started writing the story for TDKR that Nolan decided to cap it off at a trilogy and end it the way he did, and he did this to stop WB from touching his Batman after he left (TDKR was going to be his last Batman film). The 8 year gap is also there so that WB can't make movies set in between those 8 years since Bruce wasn't Batman during that time. Basically, TDKR's ending is in a lot of ways somewhat of a sacrifice for Nolan (and for the fans that didn't want his franchise continued after he left). Continuing the story after TDKR would make that sacrifice completely pointless.



The way of thinking that I see in this post is "There is no way Nolan is dumb enough to make Batman quit like that and pass his mantle to a rookie cap with no training so this just HAS to be all part of his plan for an upcoming story in a JL movie!"

The sad reality is that Nolan really believes that Bruce at the end said off-screen "I'm done with Batman for the rest of my life." and "F**k Gotham, that kid is on his own."[/QUOTE]

I just hate how Nolan made Batman look. Batman would never turn his back on Gotham City.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

That's the thing I really didn't like about TDKR was "killing" Bruce Wayne. They took something from the source material and applied it in the wrong way. In order to move on, Bruce should have just accepted that loss is a part of life, like Alfred said, and just become a philanthropist like his father, and maybe turned Wayne Manor "the mausoleum" into a hospital, like Kingdom Come. Would have also been the perfect time to have the fabled "graveyard scene".

It would still be the definitive ending Nolan wanted, but with a little more wiggle room if Bale could be tempted to return to the mask.

 

[shauner111]

but there are things that can be undiscovered on Earth as well.

Like Themyscira. Or are you in the camp who wants MOS in its own world?

This is the tricky part. My defense has mainly to do with Batman and Superman. There's no question TDKT and MOS can be linked. But if theyre planning on doing a JL with Cavill and Bale together..

Wonder Woman is on an island that's not discovered yet. She can be changed to be more grounded than how she is in the comics, we don't know until we see her. The amazon elements could be myths and deal with worship but not exactly real. OR this island can have supernatural elements. This place could be looked at as an alien land that exists on earth, much like the island in the show LOST. Just like Krypton is alien, so is Themyscira even though it's located on earth. But just like LOST's island, it's powers were exclusive to that very island and everywhere else on that planet around it was just as realistic as our world.

 

[Rodrigo90]

but there are things that can be undiscovered on Earth as well.

Like Themyscira. Or are you in the camp who wants MOS in its own world?

Exactly. Undiscovered. More or less like Batman Begins with its LOS and blue poppies.
Where most of the world is unaware of such things. That was the case in TDKT.

Themyscira is it's own thing too...a bigger leap mind. Much bigger. But like Aliens, should we be aware of it straight away?

And it still doesn't mean it should have an impact on our civilization. Until WW makes an appearance.

 

[shauner111]

That's the thing I really didn't like about TDKR was "killing" Bruce Wayne. They took something from the source material and applied it in the wrong way. In order to move on, Bruce should have just accepted that loss is a part of life, like Alfred said, and just become a philanthropist like his father, and maybe turned Wayne Manor "the mausoleum" into a hospital, like Kingdom Come. Would have also been the perfect time to have the fabled "graveyard scene".

It would still be the definitive ending Nolan wanted, but with a little more wiggle room if Bale could be tempted to return to the mask.

True but ya see...I think we'll end up getting that Bruce Wayne-graveyard visit if he returns in JL .

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

I just hate how Nolan made Batman look. Batman would never turn his back on Gotham City.

It really is that simple.

 

[Travesty]

It's not the same thing.

Aliens from another planet isn't the same as somebody on Earth falling into a bath and being able to shapeshift.

The context of unrealism being applied to the situation of aliens arriving doesn't need to be applied to somebody on Earth with current scientific means being able to create giant mutant plants.

But you're still using the term "alien" loosely when trying to say how "realistic" it is, or can be. I'm sorry, but whatever angle you try to spin it, Superman isn't realistic in the slightest. There is no way a living creature could somehow harness the ability of flight, without some kind of propulsion system to help him out. Just because he comes from space, doesn't mean his character is somehow realistic, cause it's so far from the truth.

The character of Superman is still very much fantastical, it's just he's been grounded, and given more realistic/human emotions that we can relate to in our world/context. The same can be done for Flash, WW, and even a new Batman, while still having fantastical elements strewn in to a more grounded and "realistic" world. But it is so silly to say that "everything on Earth is realistic, while anything in space is fair game for fantasy". You think it's somehow crazy for having "mutant plants" on Earth, while it's perfectly sane to have impossibly flying humanoids on Earth....just because they're from space?

 

[Rodrigo90]

What I'm saying...because an alien comes to earth...should earth be as mad because of that crazy concept?

For example. Should our world start being filled with mutant plant monsters and clayfaces if aliens were proven to exist?

 

[dnno1]

My worry is that WB is jumping too fast into Justice League without realizing that the build-up solo films are a huge part of the revenue.

Spinning off films seemed to work well with the X-Men franchise.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

But you're still using the term "alien" loosely when trying to say how "realistic" it is, or can be. I'm sorry, but whatever angle you try to spin it, Superman isn't realistic in the slightest. There is no way a living creature could somehow harness the ability of flight, without some kind of propulsion system to help him out. Just because he comes from space, doesn't mean his character is somehow realistic, cause it's so far from the truth.

The character of Superman is still very much fantastical, it's just he's been grounded, and given more realistic/human emotions that we can relate to in our world/context. The same can be done for Flash, WW, and even a new Batman, while still having fantastical elements strewn in to a more grounded and "realistic" world. But it is so silly to say that "everything on Earth is realistic, while anything in space is fair game for fantasy". You think it's somehow crazy for having "mutant plants" on Earth, while it's perfectly sane to have impossibly flying humanoids on Earth....just because they're from space?

I think the argument is that we don't know if aliens can or cannot fly without a propulsion system. Maybe some undiscovered chemical in their body allows this, etc, etc. But on Earth we've seen everything. And there're no mutant plants.

My argument however, is that perhaps we haven't seen everything on Earth (every chemical, every substance, every plant, etc).

 

[shauner111]

Travesty yes. Space is unlimited and earth isn't. Very simple.

 

[Travesty]

What I'm saying...because an alien comes to earth...should earth be as mad because of that crazy concept?

For example. Should our world start being filled with mutant plant monsters and clayfaces if aliens were proven to exist?

Why not, it seems that it's fair game for any kind of fantastical element, seeing as how Superman is even able to exist.

 

[Great Mind(s)]

The the point isn't fantasy. The point is an alien and alien technology coming to OUR realistic Earth. The alien world is ALIEN. Earth is our planet.

And TDKR doesn't have to be the end of the story, it could just be the end to Bruce not being able to move on from Batman and get over his grief. But he can, he moved on from Rachel and the need to isolate himself. It doesn't mean he has given up on his fight against injustice. They use the word "justice" a lot. As well as "League" as in "League of Shadows". I think the LOS story is almost the groundwork for inspiring Bruce to create a "league" of his own. He will want to move out of the shadows and create the League of Justice! Or at least with subtext it could seem that way.

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

Travesty yes. Space is unlimited and earth isn't. Very simple.

There are wonders on earth that we probably know nothing about.

 

[Great Mind(s)]

Which is where Wonder Woman can come in. Superman can use that exact line

 

[StianSteel]

Goyer on Wonder Woman:

http://movies.cosmicbooknews.com/co...woman-movie-future-dc-movies-riding-man-steel

 

[dnno1]

...There is no way a living creature could somehow harness the ability of flight, without some kind of propulsion system to help him out...

You know, a lot of times we see things and perceive them as magical or beyond the laws of physics just be cause we can't explain it. Just because Superman can fly with no visible means of propulsion, doesn't mean that he is actually defying the laws of physics or has no means of propulsion. It just means that we do not quite yet understand how he does it. That shouldn't mandate the we try to explain it any time soon either.

 

[Shikamaru]

I think the whole "TDKT is realistic" arguement is kinda a fanboy myth. The films are more grounded , most things had a logical explanation to them, and the material was treated seriously and with respect, but realistic is a bit of a strecth. TDKR was the most comic booky of the three films.

None of the Nolan films are 100% realistic (heck, there is no such thing as 100% realism in any movie) but they are very realistic in comparison with MOS and even the standard for what we could consider as "realistic" in the Batman comics.

TDKR was the most comic booky of the films but that was done very poorly. Half the movie is more realistic than any other superhero film out there & to sound more intelligent than any other superhero movies out there and the other half is trying to be more "comic booky" like Avengers and have the "fun" elements. It really doesn't know what it's trying to be. That execution does not make the trilogy more "comic booky" overall and closer to MOS; it just makes TDKR a mess that doesn't mesh well with anything overall.

Yeah you can't even name the difference in realism between TDK and MOS. Just give up dude. One is about a human one is about an alien. Ermergerd, that couldn't be... JUST LIKE IT IS IN THE COMICS?!

........................

Are you freakin' serious? Where the hell were you for like the past 2 parts of this thread?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

I do give up. I give up trying to argue with someone that can't comprehend even a fraction of what I'm trying to say.

I haven't seen a single thing about Metropolis that looks like it's not a city that could exist in real life. Yet there's moments in batman begins where it actually doesn't look that real. Metropolis was filmed in Chicago and so was TDK. We'll have to see wont we?

We saw Metropolis in the trailers. The city looks real in the sense that you don't see any over-the-top buildings but the city itself does not look real in the sense that no one who will see MOS will be able to point at the city and say "Hey, that's Chicago!" or "Hey, that is is New York!" which was the case in the Nolan films. It does not look like that universe's version of New York or that universe's version of Chicago; it looks like its own city. As if we would start building a new city tomorrow.

Sigh all you want, I actually feel the same way you do after reading one of ur posts. Why should I bother explaining..

Fair enough. Maybe we all need a break from this thread though.

ASM realistic?!? WHAT?? You really think Man Of Steel is going to be like Amazing Spider-Man's realism?? Riiight. So the producers and writers have said MOS is going to be TDK style realistic, you choose to interpret that as ASM realistic. O-Kay

I said I won't reply to you anymore but this is the last exception...

They both have the same concept: a non-realistic world EXCEPT for the character reactions which are realistic.

I also want to point out that they said the same thing about TASM in pre-production that they said about MOS in pre-production: That its realism will be based on Nolan's realism from TDKT. Look how that turned out to be .

Oh and Shikamaru if u think raimis spidey movies had a 60s setting, we weren't watching the same movies. They were both modern, but the odd thing was changed. It mainly had to do with story direction. Anything that happened in Webb's universe could have happened in Raimi's.

I meant they felt like the 1960's. The setting was the 21st century but the way people talked, dressed (in Peter's case), acted and the overall tone of the films was very 1960's-ish.

I do agree with this. But for the purpose of the story, I would give Bruce years of freedom and happiness in a different continent. Post-surgeries, hell maybe he has a kid with Selina, maybe he doesn't..but I would give him that time. After 8 years where Gotham seemed clean but HE was depressed. The least thing the writers can give him is a few years of personal peacetime.

This is what I don't get. You keep defending Nolan's decision to give Bruce a happy ending because it was original and unique yet you want to see his Batman come back. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[shauner111]

The fact that none of us know the possibilities of outer space, means that even a Kal-El/Krypton could exist in OUR world. Yes you guys heard me correct. How do we know?? Obviously earth in MOS don't know that Krypton exists until **** starts hitting the fan. So how do we know there's not a planet in some solar system where there's life where they speak English and other alien languages with flying creatures that transport you from place to place, where you can fly with a cape.

Im sorry but If somebody says that cant happen, they don't know what theyre talking about...none of us know anything about what exists out there. So it's saying "well, what if Superman and Krypton were to exist out in space somewhere?".

Im sure Green Lantern's world and possibly Martian manhunter's (if he's included) will be treated the same way.

Batman is a possibility. It takes a lot of money, circumstance and training but it can happen.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

The fact that none of us know the possibilities of outer space, means that even a Kal-El/Krypton could exist in OUR world. Yes you guys heard me correct. How do we know?? Obviously earth in MOS don't know that Krypton exists until **** starts hitting the fan. So how do we know there's not a planet in some solar system where there's life where they speak English and other alien languages with flying creatures that transport you from place to place, where you can fly with a cape.

Im sorry but If somebody says that cant happen, they don't know what theyre talking about...none of us know anything about what exists out there. So it's saying "well, what if Superman and Krypton were to exist out in space somewhere?".

Im sure Green Lantern's world and possibly Martian manhunter's (if he's included) will be treated the same way.

Batman is a possibility. It takes a lot of money, circumstance and training but it can happen.

How do you know Clayfaces can't exist? Perhaps there's some substance on Earth we haven't discovered yet? just like in space.

--
All this being said, I really don't want to see the villains in a straight fantasy, rainbow coloured Arkham City world. Makes me want to throw up.

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

Which is where Wonder Woman can come in. Superman can use that exact line

Yep. However, that's not all I meant. Scientific marvels, experiments, technology, people with interesting abilities. Earth could very well have all of that(I don't doubt it) and that doesn't mean we'd know about it right away, if at all.

 

[Great Mind(s)]

Perfect timing. Sounds like they're taking the hierarchy approach. Batman the most realistic, then Superman, then Wonder Woman? I guess the way they're doing Superman will seem more realistic because again, it's an alien coming to Earth not a secret Amazon Earth Goddess.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

But you're still using the term "alien" loosely when trying to say how "realistic" it is, or can be. I'm sorry, but whatever angle you try to spin it, Superman isn't realistic in the slightest. There is no way a living creature could somehow harness the ability of flight, without some kind of propulsion system to help him out. Just because he comes from space, doesn't mean his character is somehow realistic, cause it's so far from the truth.

The character of Superman is still very much fantastical, it's just he's been grounded, and given more realistic/human emotions that we can relate to in our world/context. The same can be done for Flash, WW, and even a new Batman, while still having fantastical elements strewn in to a more grounded and "realistic" world. But it is so silly to say that "everything on Earth is realistic, while anything in space is fair game for fantasy". You think it's somehow crazy for having "mutant plants" on Earth, while it's perfectly sane to have impossibly flying humanoids on Earth....just because they're from space?

I don't think a discussion should arise over scientific accuracy when talking about either Nolan's Batman or Snyder's Superman. The resulting list of breaking the laws of physics would be of about equal length.

 

[Travesty]

You know, a lot of times we see things and perceive them as magical or beyond the laws of physics just be cause we can't explain it. Just because Superman can fly with no visible means of propulsion, doesn't mean that he is actually defying the laws of physics or has no means of propulsion. It just means that we do not quite yet understand how he does it. That shouldn't mandate the we try to explain it any time soon either.

Actually, yes it does.

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

The fact that none of us know the possibilities of outer space, means that even a Kal-El/Krypton could exist in OUR world. Yes you guys heard me correct. How do we know?? Obviously earth in MOS don't know that Krypton exists until **** starts hitting the fan. So how do we know there's not a planet in some solar system where there's life where they speak English and other alien languages with flying creatures that transport you from place to place, where you can fly with a cape.

Im sorry but If somebody says that cant happen, they don't know what theyre talking about...none of us know anything about what exists out there. So it's saying "well, what if Superman and Krypton were to exist out in space somewhere?".

Im sure Green Lantern's world and possibly Martian manhunter's (if he's included) will be treated the same way.

Batman is a possibility. It takes a lot of money, circumstance and training but it can happen.

Okay, and how do we know beings like Poison Ivy or Clayface can't exist on Earth? That's what I'm saying. Yeah, it might sound crazy to most. However, that's because we've been conditioned to think that way. What you're saying goes both ways. For the Universe and Earth as a planet. There could be amazing technology like time machines, extremely advanced A.I.'s, serums that push the human body to its full potential, etc. on this planet already. Doesn't mean we'd know about it.