Release date announced

Started by Paul (ral), Fri, 30 Apr 2010, 20:32

Previous topic - Next topic
Hell, even a reference, I mean, like Bruce has to cancel a meeting with Lex Luthor, now whats wrong with that, even that would be quite cool


Quote from: Seantastic on Mon,  3 May  2010, 08:22
Hell, even a reference, I mean, like Bruce has to cancel a meeting with Lex Luthor, now whats wrong with that, even that would be quite cool
If Luthor is mentioned in any fashion, it obviously implies Superman exists. And as Tarzan and I have explained, that is absurd.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon,  3 May  2010, 09:12
Quote from: Seantastic on Mon,  3 May  2010, 08:22
Hell, even a reference, I mean, like Bruce has to cancel a meeting with Lex Luthor, now whats wrong with that, even that would be quite cool
If Luthor is mentioned in any fashion, it obviously implies Superman exists. And as Tarzan and I have explained, that is absurd.

But it doesn't, it doesn't have to mean tha Supes is up and doing all his stuff, it means that Lex Luthor exists, it doesn't mean SuperMan is indeed that


Quote from: Seantastic on Mon,  3 May  2010, 16:38
But it doesn't, it doesn't have to mean tha Supes is up and doing all his stuff, it means that Lex Luthor exists, it doesn't mean SuperMan is indeed that

Sure, but what's the point of mentioning Lex Luthor if Superman doesn't exist?  Also, even if you don't mention Supes by implication he probably exists in most audience members' minds if you bring up Luthor.  Sorry, but I don't see how it could work.  Cross-overs only work for Marvel because the majority of their central characters are fantastical anyway, whereas Batman (at least in Nolan's version) is clearly based in some form of reality as opposed to Superman, Wonderwoman, The Flash etc.
Johnny Gobs got ripped and took a walk off a roof, alright? No big loss.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon,  3 May  2010, 16:59
Sure, but what's the point of mentioning Lex Luthor if Superman doesn't exist?  Also, even if you don't mention Supes by implication he probably exists in most audience members' minds if you bring up Luthor. 
Exactly. What is the point, and what is the gain? So fanboys get a giddy "hey, did you hear that!" moment for a couple of seconds?

A two second reference like this would be like the wisecracking cop cutaways from BB and TDK. Unneccesary, but a lot worse, as it compromises the very reality of the film. I have a big problem with pre accident Victor Fries turning up, let alone Superman.

If Lex Luthor exists, Superman does as well. Luthor is his nemesis. They co-exist and you cannot have one without the other. Luthor is not a Batman character, he is a Superman character. That is common knowledge.

But you want to delete Superman and every other aspect of fantastical Superman lore and retain Luthor, so we can use his name in a piece of dialogue. And all this has to be explained to the audience in an extremely short time. Which isn't going to happen. The audience will rightly assume if Luthor exists, the rest of the universe does to.

It opens up a can of worms. A lot to risk for a quick giddy thrill reference.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon,  3 May  2010, 16:59Cross-overs only work for Marvel because the majority of their central characters are fantastical anyway, whereas Batman (at least in Nolan's version) is clearly based in some form of reality as opposed to Superman, Wonderwoman, The Flash etc.
Simple as that.

Wed, 12 May 2010, 08:23 #25 Last Edit: Wed, 12 May 2010, 08:26 by Matuatay
I guess I'm one of the few who doesn't mind Batman being killed (would rather it be, as said above, Returns-esque, with a shadow or something appearing at the end indicating hope for Gotham) but would not like it at all if there were some kind of crossover or hint thereof with another comic character.  That would simply just NOT work.  It didn't do Batman Forever any favors and I don't see it doing the more serious Nolan Bat-Universe any favors either.   Just my opinion.

As for Catwoman seeing Spider-Man, I agree you should see the second one at least.  It was by far the best, imo.  But if you're going to watch it you should watch the first and third one just to see Harry Osbourne's story all the way through.  All in all, not the worst trilogy of films, the third by far being the weakest installment.  Still worth a glance if you ever have a day or two with nothing else to do.
Still excellent to hear an official release date for Bats 3.  Already looking forward to the *official* rumors/spoilers and pics. Remember how hyped (or skeptical) we were when we first saw Ledger's Joker and how we all held our breath to see what Two-Face would end up looking like?