Critical? No. Opening new horizons for whoever wants to explore them in the future? Yes.
You don't need cameos or nods to do this. Timm's JLU takes place in the same universe as BTAS and STAS. Neither of the latter two had to resort to easter eggs to set it up. You cross that bridge when you get to it, not before.
I mean ok, keeping other superheroes away makes sense for Nolan's constipated batmanverse, but why his supermanverse too? Someone else's more balanced batman could appear there, or maybe GL.
You're misinterpreting his words. Neither Batman nor GL are involved in the Superman project, so it makes no sense to make them a priority for that film. Do you think writers are consciously taking into account
other heroes, who have no part in their story, when they're creating a narrative? I bet you they aren't.
I will keep saying it until people understand it; the "door being closed" is not dictated by the creator's intent or opinion, but by the material he creates. Nolan could do whatever the hell he wants with Supes. As long as it is
modern and not abnormally stylistic (i.e. Burton), that door to other superheroes
cannot be closed by the inherent nature of the adapted material. Regardless of what he thinks.
I dont get it. Why does the first film set the rules that cant be broken? Could you ever imagine a Norse god in the same universe as Ironman's first movie?
Funny you say this, because I personally think that's an incredibly slippery slope. For me, Thor and Wonder Woman are the stand-out characters of their respective teams, because how their presence integrates into everyone else's can make or break the 'reality' of that universe.
Just as long as they keep close to the canon interpretation (and i mean the tone, realism, etc), it goes without saying that like the canon, other superheroes can exist. If its constipated like Nolan's batmanverse, other superheroes will seem forced, not to mention that this realistic Batman wont be able to keep up with them.
How Batman plays into the team is up to the writer. I'm sure I don't need to explain to you how writers constantly level the playing field in favor of Bats.
Agreed, but you'll see just above how i explain how it will be forced. If i remember correctly you too have made the same point in the past. "Other superheroes would go against the nolanverse's internal logic" were your words if i am not mistaken.
If I have, it was only in reference to Diana. No one else. Call me more imaginative, but I can easily picture any of the other JL members functioning within the "confines" of Nolan's universe.
Again its probably my fault for not being clearer, but like i explain to jmc in a post above, i didnt mean that Nolan should cater to my or anybody else's preferences. But he shouldnt cater to his either. He shouldnt be doing an elseworld's take on the character. He should be doing a more balanced one that could go on without him. He is there to serve the character and leave him for someone else if he gets bored or fails at some point.
That way the character is for us, not for Nolan.
I refuse to repeat the same point I've made countless times on the subject. I don't know how else to write it; Nolan has not done anything different from any other writer/director who has had the opportunity to work on Batman. None. Batman would not be who he is
today if writers catered to a particular set of rules. We can settle this very quickly: do you think 1940 Batman is even remotely the same as 2010 Batman? If not, then please avoid being hypocritical and criticize
everyone who "dared" to write Batman differently from Bob Kane and Bill Finger.
It is all fiction, and as such, can never have a finite conclusion. You're under the impression Nolan's vision carries limited avenues of stories. I'm telling you you're wrong and unimaginative. If I ask you to count the number of Batman comics that featured non-superpowered antagonists, and whose setting in that
one story is as relatively grounded as Nolan's, you won't be getting back to me for a very long while.
) and like he said, i consider BTAS and also The Batman more balanced takes on the mythos. 
so lets use that for comparison. let's say you had to boil down the entire series to 2 episodes, just 2 (though for arguments sake you can count any 2-parter as 1 episode) to explain the whole of what batman and his universe are. what would they be? because that's what's had to happen with these movies, they don't have 100+ chances to tell batman stories, they have 1 (2 if you're successful, 3 if you're really successful, and 4 if you're really lucky and super successful...or if the studio just wants to exploit the success of the first 3) which 2 btas stories by themselves paint a fully balanced picture of the batman mythos while still telling a compelling story?
t:
