Another Harley movie being discussed with Warners

[ZariusTwo]

Originally Posted by Leo656

He gets crippled or dies on the job. That's the only non-fairy tale ending that character can have, unless you completely ignore about 80% of his history and personality traits. Mentally ill people do not simply "become normal" because they get older or learn life lessons. And both Harleen Quinzel and Bruce Wayne's characters are severely mentally ill. He's too driven, and she's a F*cking loon.

That's why I said I liked Tom King's ending during Rebirth, where Bruce doesn't really 'stop', but he has Selina, who herself wouldn't stop what she's doing either, and they grow old together doing what drives them, raising their child to pick up the fight when both can't.

Just for the record, I have had bouts with mental illness myself, I've had a quiet life since then in large parts to medication, so I assume the same is for DCAU Harley and it's probably a lifetime dependency the way mine is.

[Leo656]

I think Harley is written to be about ten fruitcakes nuttier than any real human being. All the more reason she probably wouldn't ever be too "normal" no matter which group of enablers she hung out with.

Any dame goofy enough to think Joker would make her an honest woman is making an omelette with nothing but cuckoo eggs.

[Coola Yagami]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I disagree with much of what's in that book, or at least how it's put across, but I definitely liked their interpretation of Bruce as a uniquely driven individual who simply wouldn't have it in him to assume a "normal life" when it would mean turning a blind eye to bad things happening every day that he could have, in theory, prevented. One of the threads that links the Superman and Batman characters is that they both share this particular compulsion. They're each sworn to not allow anything bad or horrific to happen if it was at all in their power to prevent it. Bruce in particular takes this about a hundred miles farther than most, if things like Brother Eye are any indication.

I like a good Happily Ever After as much as anyone, but for some people it doesn't fit. For some characters, "being normal" would mean turning a blind eye to preventable tragedy, tragedy they specifically could have prevented, and that's fundamentally against who they are as people. Like, Green Arrow was more of a thrillseeker than a crusading angel of justice. Green Arrow would retire and settle down with a wife and kids and a picket fence. Bruce Wayne wouldn't. That's kind of the tragedy of the character.

That's my big gripe with Nolan's Batman movies, even though I love them and they're mostly-great. But they kind of totally misunderstood who Bruce Wayne was and why he's Batman in the first place. First movie nailed it, then they started going off the reservation with the second one. And if you just shrug and say, "Well, it's different", then it's fine, they're still good movies. It's just, like, the least-plausible way the whole "Batman Story" would ever end, if you know anything about why he's Batman in the first place, that's all.

I guess when it comes to movies, or at least the Nolan trilogy that was set to have an end and not countless sequels, the biggest factor is time. I feel live-action movies have a bigger burden of 'suspension than disbelief' than animated ones because we're seeing real people in a real world setting. I think that's the reason why most animated cartoons don't really waste time with their origin when they get their animated movie, since most of the time it's an extension of a pre-existing show or whatever, but when it comes to live-action, now all of a sudden they have to waste half the movie on origins or explaining this or that would work in 'real life' and whatnot.

Small example is Sonic. While his speed isn't 100% explained, the live action movie mentioned he had some sort of power or whatever. If the movie was a cartoon all you'd have to know is Sonic is super fast cause he's also super fast in the games.

So in Batman's case, I guess they went with the fact that in real life someone would only be able to last a good 5-10 years as Batman before age, injuries and that severe training regimen starts kicking in and starts taking its toll. Unlike the comics where Batman is always gonna be somewhere in his early 30's no matter what, and there's always new villains popping up every corner, in the movies Joker was that one big threat and him putting him out of commission was his one big triumph (even though the movie ended with people thinking her killed Dent). Even though he sorta hung it up for a bit, he couldn't let go of being Batman and saw no real purpose in life and hoped some new big bad would come into play. I guess Dark Knight Rises ended with him finally realizing his limits, especially since he already started the movie being broken and got broken even worse. Even when he persevered, he knew his body would be far too gone by the time some other big bad would appear, which is he wanted that cop guy to take the mantle. Unlike comics where Dark Knight Returns Bruce can somehow ignore his age and somewhat operate the same as when he was younger, and even took down Superman, in the more real life setting of the Nolan movies, it was time to hang it up, regardless of what he wanted. His body just can't do it anymore and there are no Lazarus Pits and other comic book nonsense in those movies to get around that.

Ironically though... the first Batman series didn't dig too deep into those themes. Had Batman & Robin not bombed, we would have had a few more sequels, or at least one more, and I have a strong feeling that it would have ended with the implication that Batman is still out there fighting crime rather than hanging up the boots.

[Leo656]

I mean, that's one way of looking at it, and it's not too bad.

My biggest problems with Bruce's portrayal in the Nolan films were, just as he's starting to do some good - like the exact minute - he starts talking about quitting. And like "Superman II", it's for mostly poontang-related reasons. And also, he spends a WHOLE movie ("Begins") talking about how the system is corrupt, cops and politicians are impotent, etc. etc., he makes a whole big deal about it... THEN he meets Harvey Dent, who is outwardly a nice guy but also rather obviously a troubled sort of guy even on the surface, and because he meets ONE nice cop who seems to not be a total idiot, Bruce is fine quitting his Batman gig and letting The Federales clean up the rest of the milk... even though that's pretty inconsistent with his character as established in just the previous film. And then AGAIN in "Rises" he's ready to say F*ck It when he meets Amanda/Talia, and finally DOES say "F*ck It" when he gets the chance to go into "Witness Protection" with Selina.

They had multiple reasons for giving this Bruce a truncated Batman career, including those you mentioned, I just found it altogether not too well executed or thought out. Too much of his arc in the films showed him way, WAY too quick to abandon his "mission" based on whether or not there was pussy in the room. Which is Pure Hollywood.

Good movies. Some good ideas. But they made Bruce a bit too wishy-washy no matter what the reason for it.

[Andrew NDB]

Yeah. Again, the biggest fault is that it's missing a film. It needed a movie in between TDK and TDKR where it's Batman running a gauntlet of villains or something. Basically Batman being Batman for longer than 2 months.

[sdp]

Batman begins is my favorite batman movie, it set up an amazing universe, sure he kills Ra's but they could've brought him back was my thinking. TDK is pretty great as well, except for killing Two-Face when he barely had any time to actually be two face. TDKR is great, I liked that it went back to Ra's plan with Bane, the ending is cool but that's not what they needed to do. Batman definitely doesn't need a happy ending. They needed an open ended ending so that other directors could continue with this universe, yes a new Joker eventually, have Batman be like James Bond (pre-reboot) where each movie is technically in continuity with the last even if the decades shift and there are differences between characters.

A good trilogy but shouldn't have let Nolan "finish" the story, so much wasted potential in that universe. I agree we have an origin story batman movie, followed by another movie only to finish the story in the third? He was basically a hero 3 times before retiring? lame.

DCEU should take that approach of just being in a loose continuity, there's no other way to salvage it. Same with the MCU, you can't just reboot it eventually, you have to cast new actors, on the same roles and continue the stories just like comic books have done. No one wants a fourth spider-man origin story in 2030.

[Coola Yagami]

Originally Posted by sdp

Batman begins is my favorite batman movie, it set up an amazing universe, sure he kills Ra's but they could've brought him back was my thinking. TDK is pretty great as well, except for killing Two-Face when he barely had any time to actually be two face. TDKR is great, I liked that it went back to Ra's plan with Bane, the ending is cool but that's not what they needed to do. Batman definitely doesn't need a happy ending. They needed an open ended ending so that other directors could continue with this universe, yes a new Joker eventually, have Batman be like James Bond (pre-reboot) where each movie is technically in continuity with the last even if the decades shift and there are differences between characters.

A good trilogy but shouldn't have let Nolan "finish" the story, so much wasted potential in that universe. I agree we have an origin story batman movie, followed by another movie only to finish the story in the third? He was basically a hero 3 times before retiring? lame.

DCEU should take that approach of just being in a loose continuity, there's no other way to salvage it. Same with the MCU, you can't just reboot it eventually, you have to cast new actors, on the same roles and continue the stories just like comic books have done. No one wants a fourth spider-man origin story in 2030.

It would only work is TDKR didn't already start several years later with and older and broken Bruce. If it took place maybe a year after TDK.

But that's a good idea, if anyone is brave enough to do it, especially since nowadays everyone would rather do a cinematic universe than let Batman be 100% solo.

But yeah a new movie series 'The Batman' or something like that. And just keep it going ala James Bond, where he can be cast by different actors, where the character never truly ages and where the movies just kinda disregard that and make each one modern to the year it's released.

[TommyT]

It's time to Cancel Harley.

[Andrew NDB]

Yeah, Nolan should have been nudged into making his "ending" into more of a soft one, even if Batman was recast. I was actually looking forward to maybe one day seeing that Nolan Batman meeting the Cavill Superman. I could buy that "Man of Steel" happened in the same universe.