The level of fantastical storytelling considered reasonable in a comic book is different from what I would want in a movie.

Him being a "normal" human that is able to hang with super powered heroes through his intelligence, force of will, planning and gadgets is what makes him so interesting. Besides he can just build a super-suit.

As far as Superman goes, the last rumor I heard was

Spoiler: show

Wonder Woman

. if it's changed, great, but isn't it a little late on that? I mean, they couldn't keep the schwarma scene secret.

This post elicited a reaction in me not dissimilar to what I feel when I read stip's opinions about No Code.

I'm not crapping on Bats. I'm just saying that he's not likely to be a threat to anything that can withstand a collection of ridiculously outlandish super humans and invincible aliens. So including him in that universe kinda sucks.

And I wanted a reason to write "lanterned it into poop."

If you can buy the Avengers you can buy a Justice League. The Justice League is simply more iconic their members really aren't anymore powerful. They would have their hands full with the Hulk by himself. Batman can fit in the same way Black Widow and Hawkeye fit in.

You could set the Justice League movie somewhere in that 8 year gap defined by The Dark Knight Rises and still use Bale as Batman. But JGL as another Batman might be all right. I'd rather they use Bale and Cavill (hoping he's a good Superman) and then figure out the other actors.

Marvel had the right idea by establishing each individual character with their own flicks and then combining them all. With the Justice League, they're doing it backwards. If Justice League misses the mark with certain characters and actors, the likelihood of them getting their own films as offshoots could become a problem.

No chance they will have a movie or 2 including the other justice league members before the justice league movie? When is the JL movie planned? I need to look at the first post again

Captain America... is only a guy in a suit... pumped up to the peak of human performance...
but hes suit doesnt have near the gadgets as the Batman...

we, the viewers, should relate to that character than the super powered God-like characters... not to mention... when the shit hits the fan, and the super powered super heroes are thinking theirs no hope... but Cap or the Bat go marching on... well that whats make them the stronger, leaders, that they are?

Will this be better than the Watchmen?

Using the Marvel movies to explain how a Nolan-helmed Justice League could work is incredibly ridiculous. How much more unlike each other could the two possibly be, without one of them deciding to ditch the costumes altogether?

Also, please, no Bale. Anything that returns him to the suit undercuts the entire point of the last movie, which was that he was both at the end of his ability to be Batman and that he had reached the point of needing to (and being ready to) move on with his life. Being Batman was now about avoiding being Bruce Wayne. Of all the things that movie could have done better, it was nice that he at least concluded his character arc.

Even the “well, sure he's retired, but I mean to save the world…” argument is crap. If every time something dangerous comes up, he goes “Well, okay, but never again and this time I mean it,” then he hasn’t actually grown at all. It’s the kind of logic that makes Die Hard 11, not a movie of any consequence or value.

You have a pretty shitty imagination.

I can get behind this argument.

"Batman we need your help"

"Nah man see I've come to terms that my parents death wasn't really my fault and shit plus I got over this chick who wasn't really that into me anyways and I got this new chick and even though she doesn't look as hot with short hair I think I'm gonna stick this one out so I'm good...have fun saving the world my character arc is kinda complete and stuff so I have to spend the rest of my life on this beach. Wow you see the size of the wave? See ya guys. Cool red boots by the way."

The point isn't that you could never realistically write a scene in which he would be willing to come back for something. The point is that placing a character on a consequential journey, and then addenduming that journey with plot points that completely contradict your initial conclusions, is destructive to the story that you've already told. You imbue your work and character with an internal sense of redundancy. It's not as ridiculous as if Rachel had died and then they'd just found a way to bring her back in the next movie, but the implications are very much similar. Nothing matters, because characters are uncomplicated doodles on a dry erase board. You can erase them, or edit them, however you see fit...and then just as quickly redraw them as they once were. Once that happens, your new story becomes nothing more than an excuse to show action sequences that have no real meaning or danger and emotive close-ups that mean even less. "Don't get too worked up," you tell the audience with a flourish of your hand and a tip of your hat, "none of this actually matters. It can all be undone...whenever doing so serves my needs or interests." Basically, you are now making popcorn movies....thrill ride mentality with no need for greater investment or thought.

There's nothing wrong with popcorn fare...some people do it exceptionally well, and it has some unique advantages. Going that particular route allows a movie to indulge in situations (and responses) that would otherwise stand out as totally unrealistic or corny. But, as with any presentative decision, you have sacrificed some tools in order to have better access to others. Imagine a scene near the start of DK where Heath Ledger falls in acid and, as a result, his face becomes permanently stained to resemble a clowns. Imagine a close up at the end of DKR where Selina smirks to herself and, when nobody's looking, snatches some pearls off some old woman's wrist. The type of movie where those moments work, and the type of movie that the DK films aspired to be, are not the same thing.

So having old and ruined Bruce Baleman come out of retirement just because you can is a stupid idea. It retroactively damages that trilogy, and the only thing you actually gain from it is more Bale growl. Why not just let the Superman/JL movies be a separate thing, with a different world and a different Batman? This doesn't seem to be destructive to what you want in any way....so what's the problem?

I drew a bunch of EdVed and PJ references in this response regarding the new album... and I must say I am OK with it.

I really don't get the argument that you could never write a scene where he could realistically come back. There is really no situation where he could conceivably come back? People don't give something up and say never again and go back and do it again? Even if it isn't a good idea? Even if its self destructive, or even if they don't really want too? People don't get wrapped up in circumstance?

I get the tone argument and maybe it would be better to just start over but it doesn't look like that's what they are gonna do. I don't think it is an impossible task to work Bale's Batman in. Tricky but not impossible as long as you don't hold the trilogy up as some sacred cow that is an untouchable masterpiece. You could just as easily argue that Bale's Batman came to the conclusion that he doesn't have to be Batman not that he wouldn't ever want to be. People have a hard time giving stuff up. Micheal Jordan retired a couple times and ruined his perfect character arc. It happens. It's almost more realistic that he couldn't give it up.

It will be easier to say if it can work after seeing the new Superman movie.