Fanwank: Put Lucius Fox In GREEN LANTERN

Eh, I'm happier with separate universes.

"I get where Nolan is coming from. His Batman standing toe to toe with Superman would be weird. What he doesn't seem to get is that this is great. It should be weird. It should be weird for both of them. And it should be a way of exploring these characters further by looking at how they react to others, and how they react to situations far beyond them."

Could not agree more. I like Superman MORE when he's compared with/teamed with/fighting against Batman, and vice versa. The storytelling opportunities are enormous and, as you note, profitable.

The difficulty, I think, is that Nolan's overall vision for the genre of superhero films is too "realistic." Realism is an interesting way to approach Batman. Superman? Not so much.

And I imagine that his vision for the universe essentially blocks a Justice League movie from happening - at least one that involves the "big three."

I agree with Agent. Marvel could run this into the ground real quick. Nolan has been smart with the property he has had so far.

Do they even need Nolan's permission? Freeman will show up just to smell the actress playing Carol in that scene. Dirty dawg!

I love that kinda stuff, especially when done in small doses. Makes me feel like a member of a special club, when I have to explain the connections to the uninformed.

I'm in complete agreement with Nolan. Coming from a background where I rarely touch comic books, the idea of all these characters existing in the same universe just seems so silly to me, and is detrimental in the sense that it makes everyone seem less special. Peter Parker's adventures just don't seem so exciting if I know the Fantastic Four are screwing around nearby.

That said, it clearly can work. Marvel made a point to bridge the universes starting with Iron Man, and it was great fun seeing Stark show up in The Incredible Hulk. But those universes feel connected. Does Superman really feel like he fits in the world of The Dark Knight?

There's a responsibility to have borderline stable world continuity if you're going to make everyone play in the sandbox, and if one film is off, it'll make the whole endeavor fall apart.

THOR will test these waters I'm sure.

Same here, to bad all it lead to was: "This is why Superman works alone."

I agree that Batman and Superman being on opposite ends of the spectrum is the fun thing about them, something that could conceivably play well on film, but I have zero interest in a shared universe because as Marvel may soon prove, that shit can be unwieldy when transferred to film (speaking mostly to the disparity in quality from one property to the next).

There's plenty of fanwank in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, the difference is that it's all restricted to the Batman mythos.

Holy shit! Batman was in Jackie Brown?

I'm fine with blending the Batman and Superman universes into one DC-on-film universe ... after Christopher Nolan finishes his appropriately walled-off trilogy.

I would have nerded out so much if LexCorp was name-dropped as a competitor to Wayne Enterprises in one of Nolan's Bat-Films.

And OUT OF SIGHT!!!

Wouldnt this mean new contracts and salaries for all involved? Morgan Freeeman cant be cheap, right?
That aside, I fully agree with Devin on this one; those small moments make fans giddy and cn even be exploited later if a crossover becomes viable.

Easter eggs can be a real blast, so I'm hoping that Nolan changes his mind on this one.

Nothing wrong with a shared universe. I think one of the most interesting consequences of a larger shared universe is the ability for writers to explore and contrast the ways in which these characters define their roles as guardians. For Batman to have a Superman in his continuity (not necessarily advocating for Supes to show up in Gotham though), forcing him to evaluate his methods can do nothing but deepen the character and vice versa. This is why superhero teams are so interesting, they share common goals but generally have differing opinions on how to achieve them. To see Lucius comment on Green Lantern's tactics/role as compared to Batman would be interesting territory for the writers to explore.

Nothing wrong potentially with a shared universe, but I wouldn't necessarily say that Marvel has successfully pulled it off yet. I'm with those that think that Tony Stark's cameo in TIH should have been after the credits, not during the story where it drew attention away from Bruce Banner's story.

There's nothing wrong with a few Easter Eggs, but anything beyond that has to service the story of the movie, not be a teaser for some other movie. Save that for after the credits. And, considering that Thor and Captain America are not slam dunks, especially if the scripts have issues, I'm not so sure that extensive shared universes aren't dead ends. Especially when you narrow the pool of actors by demanding that they sign 9 picture deals.

Let the films be their own entities. Nolan makes sense. When you begin connecting franchises to other franchises you're squandering originality. If all you're doing is conforming your vision with someone else's, it's time to go back to Directing 101.

One weird crutch of the comics world is these characters all debuting within months or a year of each other. Is Nolan doing another Superman origin? And is it coming after Batman 3? If the answer to these questions is "yes", you can still have a shared universe as well as walled in stories. Batman still would exist in a superhero-less world, and Superman shows up after Batman Ends or Batman: Quittin' Time or whatever, and never the twain shall meet. And Lucius Fox can be in whatever movie you want.

I am really wondering if it's a bit too early to start crowing about Marvel's success with their shared universe. Is that success artistic? No one can say that for sure yet. So far their biggest barometer of success seems to be signing a bunch of stars for lengthy and complex contracts. I'm not sure how that means we're in for a great avengers movie

As for Batman and Superman, I kind of like seeing those guys together so I'm not against that per se.. I'm just saying it's too early to be talking about how DC should be looking to do what Marvel's doing when no one has yet seen how Marvel's plan has turned out

I think timing might play as big of a part in this as anything. Nolan seems to be about done with Batman, while he is just trying to get superman off the ground. If Nolan ever stops being involved with these projects then maybe it will happen but I think the main factor is simply not wanting to go back to the Batman well after batman 3.

Question......

Is Nolan stating that this Superman film won't be connected to any other DC characters......or just not to his Batman? I didn't find it very clear in his statements and I suspect he meant the latter. He has already walled Batman off. That's done and would be silly to try and change right now, although I suspect Batman will be integrated with the inevitable reboot after Nolan leaves. I can't, however, picture WB signing off on him setting up Superman to be the same way. They won't ask him to shoehorn in cameos, but I suspect they will want him to leave the world open enough so that it can happen in future sequels. WB has Green Lantern filming soon and multiple other properties in the works (this, Flash, Wonder Woman, Green Arrow, Lobo, etc.), so I would be really surprised if they didn't leave themselves open for the possibility of a Justice League film happening at some point.

If there is a sure fire way of getting me to skip the next Batman movie including Superman or The Flash or some other DC hero is the way to go. i hate the idea of team-ups now and I hated it back when I read superhero comics. Seriously there is no reason throw the worlds together. Superman and Batman teamed up in the comics, cartoons, video games, novels, etc. Do they really need to team up in the more realistic Batman movie universe?

I so want this to be the name of the next film.

I'm in agreement with Devin on this one. Something like a quick Fox cameo in GL would work quite well. To take it a step further, if the WB was insistent, Nolan could even include something toward the end of the third Batman flick. Imagine it being something similar to the Joker card at the end of the first movie; Alfred mentions something to Bats about reports of a guy "leaping tall buildings" in Metropolis or gives Bats a sample of a glowing green meteorite to be analyzed. Something innocuous that opens up the universe for the directors that will follow Nolan. If he wants to keep his Gotham walled off that's fine - but why not open the doors for those that follow him.

I think that trying to put Batman and Superman in the same universe, if approached seriously and not in a simple 'they team up to beat up bad guys' way could be very interesting. Even Nolan's Batman. Imagine someone as psychotically driven as Batman. Now imagine him meeting someone of such infinite potential as Superman. There's no way these two will meet without sparks flying. The first words out of Batman's mouth will surely be "You're a fucking god, why are you doing so little good you lazy asshole?"

I gotta disagree with Devin. I know what you see, but I think it doesn't really work with this specific interpretation of Batman. Batman Begins took a whole movie explaining in detail how a man can end up wearing a bat suit.

If they bring in nods to an intergalactic police officer and an alien that can shoot heat beams out of his eyes existing on the same planet, it lessens the created image. This Batman universe takes itself incredibly serious. Bringing in some overly unrealistic fun character with super powers would be a step down. Like a Bumblebee cameo in Shutter Island. You say it might redefine Batman as a character. It certainly would, but it also redefines the city and world of Gotham City.

It also lessens Batmans undertakings if you know that any catastrophy can easily be adverted by Superman flying back in time or swooping in with super speed to super blow the villains away. You suggest it's time to have some fun with the character, to get away from that brooding and frowning, but I think it's a major element for this run. That guy has just lost the love of his life and although he has billions to spend, he's a tragic and lost character. Let them do the end of this interpretation and have the next reboot be more in tone with the great Animated Series. That Batman would be great to meet a Superman. Let them have a new Alfred that easily repairs the batmobile. Let him have a simple costume and no explanations for anything. Hell, I'd even be open for another Adam West style Batman.

I agree with you that it could be lots of fun to have Batman face off with super powered characters, just not this one. We also do have enough "fun" comic characters coming up: Spider-Man, Wolverine 2, Superman, Kick-Ass, possibly Jonah Hex, Green Hornet, Green Lantern, Iron Man 2, there's Ant-Man talk - it's interesting to have someone that feels different in tone.

Speaking profitability, does the next Batman really need that? If it's the final chapter for everyone involved and coming in 3D, people will show up. Pirates III and Matrix III didn't reach as much as their second parts, still it was more than enough. Do you expect Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman and Michael Caine to welcome a new Bruce in a fourth flick? If Batman 4 comes in 2014, Caine will be 80.

"We're duly appointed Cybertronian marshals."

"Pull yourself together Metroplex!"

Perceptor in the Mark Ruffalo role...This all should have happened.

I disagree. I don't think it would redefine Gotham or Batman, rather it would more clearly define each, both of which sit in a vacuum in that movie universe. In the DC universe, Gotham's ills can be contrasted with Metropolis', and Batman's motivations with Superman's. I think this is ripe territory for exploration, though not necessarily through having Superman come to Gotham or vice versa. A small Fox cameo in GL for instance, or even some background commentary from Gothamites on whether the city would be better off with Superman rather than the Dark Knight as a protector would do the trick.

This question is exactly why a "crossover" of some sort would be interesting. Batman/Bruce Wayne stepped up because there was a vacuum of leadership in Gotham. What do you think he would say to Superman given that a virtual God doesn't step in more often? What would Superman's response to that question be? Superheroes challenging each others' modus operandi is fascinating stuff.

I actually don't think Batman physically facing off against any super-powered being would be that fascinating. There would have to be too many shortcuts in order to convince us that Batman could battle someone with the power of a Superman. A psychological battle, one concerning ethics, tactics, boundaries, now that would be interesting.

This talk reminds me a bit of a Superman storyline from a few years back called "The Kansas Sighting", where Superman investigates UFO sightings that may be connected to his origins on Krypton. The thing that was hugely wrong with this story from the get-go is that it was written with the idea that, even in the DC Universe, UFO sightings were still considered to be the product of overactive imaginations. This is, of course, completely ridiculous. I imagine the regular folk of the DCU wouldn't be so dismissive seeing as how alien invasions, and global and cross-dimensional battles between gods happen once or twice a week.

The premise is flawed because the internal logic is completely fucking broken, it doesn't hold. Jon Favreau brought up similar concerns about The Avengers and his Iron Man having to mingle with characters like Thor and the Hulk. Hulk is maybe less of a problem as both Iron Man and Hulk are science fictional in origin, but with Thor we get into fantasy, and internal logic is threatened.

The internal logic of Nolan's Batman universe is set (as much as it can be all things considered), if you want to suggest that other non-superpowered heroes like Green Arrow or whoever are running around or maybe about to establish themselves in the wake of Batman, fine, but babies dropping from the sky in pimped out crystal cribs, and alluding to the existence of guys who sling power rings and whatnot is just unnecessary and nothing I personally need or want to see at this point. Wait until Nolan bails, then do whatever.

I really dislike this mentality. The fact is, these characters COME from comic books. Books that are rich with history. I certainly understand that some things have to be changed in order to fit superheros into movie form, but this idea that they can't or shouldn't share the same cinema worlds is ridiculous to me. Batman and Superman have years and years of great stories together that could most certainly be adapted for movies. If they don't want to use Nolan's Batman universe, then they could adapt another Batman for movies with Superman. Why not? There are many versions of Batman not only in the comics but in the animated universes as well. And that's worked. Hell, how many movie versions of Batman have we already had? What's that? The casual audience will be confused? Who cares? They'll line right up to see Batman and Superman share the same screen and eventually even the very stupid will be able to understand that they're using a different one. I just don't get where this fear is to think outside of the box. To do something different. If it's done right, it will make plenty of money and will be rewarding. And it doesn't all have to be done with the same formulas.

I wouldn't want to read a comic book about Nolan's Batman.

I don't care. When you make a movie, make a movie. If you have to gut the source material to make the best film possible, do it.

There is no reason to "gut" the source material here. Like I said, if Nolan's Batman universe is too "realistic" to contain other superheros, why not create another movie Batman that's better suited? There is no legitimate reason not to other than "But, but it wouldn't work". "But, but people would be confused!"

There just seems to be this group of moviegoers who are somewhat embarassed to be enjoying superheros and so have all these preconceived ideas of how movie versions of them should work. "It's gotta be hyper realistic!" "Not too many fantasy elements now!" "Cant' have multiple superheros in the same movie!"

It's like, if you're embarassed of liking superheros and the source material they come from, then maybe you just shouldn't watch superhero movies instead of wanting to change the genre to fit your comfort zone. My only criteria for a superhero movie is that it's done WELL. And they can be done well with many of the elements that exist in the comic form if a little creativity and ingenuity is used.

Why should they have to tailor their individual films to work in an overarching whole? Crossing the universes limits creativity solely to make geeks feel warm and fuzzy.

Actually, the fact that so often these films just have one superhero doesn't make much sense to me. If there's one superhero, why couldn't there be more in the same fictional reality? Does the superhero always have to be so unique?

And if Spider-Man faces so many superpowered freaks, then why wouldn't there also be more superpowered good guys? Ofcourse, Goblin II kinda turned into a good guy.

And there's The Fantastic Four and X-Men for example, so it's not completely unheard of.

For some reason the arguments against a shared universe mostly come up with Batman though (and with Superman too I guess, but in a lesser degree), so maybe it's a DC thing.

Or a dark n' gritty Batman thing. I do understand not wanting to open up Nolan's Batmanverse though, but after 6 films with Batman as the unique hero I think it would be fun to see Batman operating in a larger superhero-world for a change.

Anyway, until that ever happens, I'll just watch The Brave & The Bold.

Why should they have to tailor their films to fit the source matierial the stories come from? I thought it was about making an entertaining movie, not about some contrived limitations.

As for your bit about crossing the universes for geeks, it really just solidifies my point about certain people being embarassed about watching superhero movies. They have to fit a "standard" for you that you feel comfortable with, regardless of the end result of being looser with adapting the source material.

I'm hardly a geek, so your attempt to pigeonhole those that would like to see movies that more closely resemble the universe created on the original pages just shows the sort of superiority complex I was talking about. You want to watch superhero movies, but you don't embrace where they come from. This somehow makes you above the rest.

See, you're not a "geek" if you enjoy Batman on his own. But horrors! If other superpowered beings exist in his world, then some imaginary threshold has been crossed right? The millions who enjoyed the X-Men movies are all geeks, right? The millions that will enjoy the Avengers (and who would enjoy a well done Batman/Superman crossover) are all geeks right?

But then, if people called you a geek for enjoying a superhero movie PERIOD you'd disagree, right? You've done nothing to state just WHY crossovers wouldn't work other than basically "Because I just don't like it" Oh, and "it's for geeks!"

Sound logic.

You are posting on a movie message board. You are arguing the logic of comic book universes crossing over in film. You are a geek.

As am I.

Crossing the universes accomplishes nothing creatively, can hamstring filmmakers because they have to make things fit, and only serves to make fans of the source material happy.

It's a movie. Fuck the source material, whether it be a comic book or the greatest novel or our era.

I guess we have different definitions of geek, so I'll leave that alone.

We'll agree to disagree, but you're basically saying it would make things harder for filmmakers to make it work, and I just don't find that to be a valid concern. The right desire, and right team can do so. I fully expect the Avengers to be an example of this.

I personally believe there is no way DC doesn't eventually cross it's universes in films, especially considering what marvel is doing. It just makes too much sense for them to. When that happens, you'll watch and likely enjoy those films.

It also doesn't make sense to me to say that crossing the universes would be to make geeks feel warm and fuzzy when you know very well that millions of people who DON'T post on message boards concerning superheros will be lining up for The Avengers, and would do the same for Batman and Superman (and other DC heroes).

The only thing that matters is the quality of the movie, not artificial limitations that have little validity.

So they should boot out a team with a great pitch and a wonderful take on the character because it doesn't match this shared universe? Or the take should be forced into a hole it might not fit?

See, that's just illogical to me. And all done to service source material that the majority of the film-going audience has no interest in.

The Avengers has the potential to be silly on a rather epic level as well. And considering my favorite superhero films are the ones that actually deal with things more complex than punching (Dark Knight, Spider-Man 2, Hulk, etc.), the prospect of throwing a bunch of guys on screen and having them trash each other for two hours doesn't exactly excite me.

1. I don't know about booting out this team, but I DO know that I grow tired of the "conventional" thinking that goes on with the production of a lot of these properties. If Nolan wants his Batman universe to remain separate from the greater DC universe, there is simply no reason why a Batman can't be used that assimilates into the expanded DC universe used in other films. Other than conventional thinking.

2. That's your opinion. Once AGAIN, I'm pretty sure that a Batman/Superman movie done well would draw in quite an audience. Including you. Such would be the case with Justice League, or any number of projects made with super powered beings coexisting. Just like it will be the case for Avengers, Thor, Iron Man, etc. See, because YOU don't like it doesn't mean it can't work, and doesn't mean that others won't enjoy it. So saying the general movie going public would have "no interest" in these movies is just flat out false.

3. I really don't understand that thinking. I'm all for great stories to go ALONG with action, and I detest brainless spectacles like Transformers 2 and such. However, superheros are, well, SUPER. They have the power of gods, and the main appeal is that they do things humans can't. They battle on a scale that humans don't. I want a BALANCE of action and story, but I don't want to see a bunch of superheros phillosophizing for two hours either. To that end, if The Avengers has a nice mix of action and story it doesn't have to be about some arbitrary "deeper meaning". It just has to be GOOD.