Neuron

@lilben42: Not explicitly, no. But people tend to like things that they find personally interesting and applicable to themselves and their interests, in a general way. That's called relatability. Characters you enjoy all have it as it applies to you.

I tend to agree, any character can be made relatable, if they have problems and conflicts that are recognizable. I was just tossing a couple ideas out there in favor of an ensemble cast, which might actually bring out Diana's unique characteristics a bit more. Great writing is essential to making any quality show, but it will take the right pitch in order to secure that kind of writing for a show of this type. And I don't see anyone complaining about inaccuracy. I don't really believe in "accuracy" when it comes to comic stories, anyway, since there are always many interpretations of the same character.

@k4tzm4n said:

@Neuron:
A few key points:

Can't we just keep open minds as a rule?

Second to last paragraph I plainly state I'll do my best to keep an open mind if these rumors do pan out.

Staying true to the source does not mean a verbatim translation

The entire 4th paragraph addresses that. If this turns out to be a new franchise (independent of Nolan's trilogy), Batman should be Bruce Wayne in my opinion. I'm not saying he must be, I'm saying that's what I'd like to see and elaborated on why. I'm not swearing off the project if they don't. Additionally, like others have pointed out, Bruce Wayne is a compelling character and if Batman is going to be in the Justice League, it would be ideal to have him in the spot -- at least at first.

At the end of the day,JGL's potential future with Warner Bros. is topical and I see no harm in me sharing my personal opinions on the matter. In turn, it gives the community a chance to voice their opinions on the subject as well. I'm not making definitive and rash statements about the film itself like others have, I'm simply saying what choices I would prefer to see them take. Will I refuse to see this movie if they do the polar opposite of what I'd prefer? Of course not, that would be absurd. Ultimately, I'm going to go into this movie with an open mind, regardless of what we'll hear before it releases. In the meantime, it's a topic worth discussing, and based on the amount of comments, others clearly agree.

I'm aware it's your opinion. Just as my response was my opinion, which is really directed at the change-resistant, prejudicial mentality. I never said you shouldn't voice your opinion, only that this particular one doesn't seem to have any foundation except for a gut reaction against something we haven't seen before. I don't think that warrants an entire article until some actual announcements are made. I enjoy all opinions as long as they're based on something solid.

Note that in the article you said Batman "needs" to be Bruce Wayne. That's quite different than "should". I agree, he should be. It makes sense for him to be, and it would make the most sense to those just vaguely aware of the character of Batman. But he doesn't need to be Bruce Wayne. It would be fresh and surprising if he wasn't, and I'm sure it could be done well in the right hands. Being resistant to the idea of John Blake or anyone else taking on the role seems a little premature without knowing any actual details.

What would I prefer? A good movie with a strong cast and a satisfying plot that stays true to the spirit of the Justice League. If I hear anything that opposes any of those parts (and isn't rumor or speculation), then you might hear me rant a bit. But probably not until I've actually seen the finished product.

Finally got caught up with the last two episodes. I have to say, I am really enjoying it. It's really doing a great job of capturing the feel of the Nolanverse to me. I think the actress who plays Helena may have been a mis-cast based on her acting ability, but she certainly had the right look and I think everyone else on the show is great. I'm even enjoying the awkward love triangle, which mirrors Bruce Wayne/Rachel Dawes/Harvey Dent, and I'm sure it will play into the season finale somehow. The pacing and structure makes sense and I'm really liking how they're slowly and subtly injecting all of the comics characters.

This entire rant is built on preconceptions and the author's view of how the future of movies based on DC Comics should be. It is, in fact, mindless fanboy ranting. Can't we just keep open minds as a rule? Staying true to the source does not mean a verbatim translation, it means capturing the essence and spirit. Obviously Batman can be someone else. That's what TDKR was actually all about. Batman is an idea, a legend, a mask. Anyone can be him (provided they aren't wearing hockey pads), including John Blake. He can and will train, and the end of TDKR implies strongly that he will take on the mantle. It's left an open question, but it seems clear that that's the intent. JGL is a great actor and I'm sure he could pull off the role, whether as Bruce or Blake. In the end, I think the very definition of "fanboy" is someone who has strong negative reactions like these to change or any kind of shake-up within an established story, continuity, or franchise. Maybe we should all just not write articles like this and keep an open mind about the whole thing until the product is finished? Seems fair to me. I personally just hope all future DC movies are the same high quality Nolan has established, and I won't express prejudice based on rumors about any deviation from what I personally think the films should be. If I do that, I'll always be disappointed and find it hard to enjoy anything.

Of course a Superman version of AA or AC would work; it would just depend on fitting the action to who Superman is. Batman is a detective and a real ground-level fighter, thus his activities in these two games have been based on detection, stealth, and brawling. A Rocksteady game starring Superman would make a lot of sense, depending on the storyline. Imagine this: Luthor/Darkseid/Brainiac or some combination thereof create a kryptonite storm focused on Metropolis (or a section of it, mirroring the Asylum or Arkham City). Clark gets de-powered and it would be suicidal for him to change into Superman. He stays in character as Clark and has maybe two or three powers to start with; collecting and disposing of the kryptonite pieces make him stronger (in other words, he gains experience), giving him back power after power. The gameplay would be quite similar to AA and AC, just with a wider spread of difficulty in the enemies from beginning to end. Clark would focus on stealth while around citizens, using super-speed (by slowing down the surrounding environment) and heat vision protecting his identity while still coping with the loss of most of his powers. I think the ability to change into Superman at will in order to *attract* attention would become as important as Batman's stealth abilities. It can definitely be done.

"Headquarter" isn't an actual noun. Sorry.

Definitely agreed, though. Keeping the headquarters a secret is so much safer.

In descending order: Bale, Keaton, (major gap), Kilmer, Clooney. Keaton had the proper darkness/madness/separation of Wayne and Batman needed for Burton's vision.

Bruce Wayne: *mouths silently* I'm Batman. I'm Batman!

I actually liked the movie. It definitely could have been better, but it was fun. I'm interested to see the added scenes.

The lax separation of the hero and their true identity can really be attributed to the simplistic (yet awesome) "fantasy" aspect of superheroes and a desire to show regular people doing their regular things, but then busting out into awesomeness in a split second. If you add any reality at all to that (like you have), you're going to have real problems maintaining two completely different lives. Maintaining privacy is hard enough as a "regular" person. A public person (entertainer, politician) has a much harder time, and they almost always have to settle for a serious lack of privacy. I think a hero's secret life would have to be radically different from their public one; for example, if Peter Parker pretended to be a quadriplegic in his secret life, he would slip the search algorithm mentioned. You would almost certainly want to have your face covered, all the time. You wouldn't want to take the chance of bleeding in public, lest someone do many nasty things with the blood; any DNA traces at all would be game over, including hair or saliva. You would want your speech completely changed, if you were going to talk in public. You really wouldn't want to give away anything personal, and a completely different psych profile from your secret identity would be a very good thing.

It seems like Iron Man (who is completely obscured and contained) and Captain Marvel (who is magical and utterly changes) would have the best secret identities, given all of these real world detection methods. Or else a real super hero would just not ever have a real secret identity.