Bale No More

So for those who haven't heard, there's a rumor going around that Christopher Nolan has been hired to oversee the greater whole of the DC movie universe (more or less the same job Joss Whedon has for the Marvel movie universe). He would (again, rumor) be producing the movies (much like he did with Man of Steel) and shepherding the creative vision and direction of the universe as a whole. The rumor also suggests that Christian Bale would be reprising his role as Batman in either a JLA or World's Finest (Batman/Superman) movie. Depending on what I read, Zack Snyder may or may not be set to direct this supposed mash-up film.

I read this rumor... um, some time. I think it was over the weekend. Might have been late last week. It's been almost a week, at least, and while the rumor has not been confirmed, it has yet to be denied. That could be nothing, but it seems that completely untrue rumors tend to be debunked pretty quickly. Which leads me to believe there's some truth to the rumor. It seems probable that this is the current direction Warner Bros. would like to go in, and might even be in talks with some or all of the mentioned parties to make it happen. But WB  has been dropping the ball on a JLA movie for-fucking-ever, so who knows if this ever becomes more concrete than the pure speculation it is now. 

However, since I seem to take some sort of perverse pleasure in bashing the Nolan/Bale Batman, I figure I might as well weigh in with some thoughts before the rumor is quashed.

I have two serious issues with Bale returning as Batman, which can almost exclusively be summed up by watching The Dark Knight Rises, and one not-so-serious issue that is best outlined here (or here or here or here). 



1)  Bringing Bale back as Batman pisses all over the events of The Dark Knight Rises.

Now this is a comic book movie, so it's possible Bale could come back as a "different" Batman in a universe separate from the one Nolan created. A reboot, for lack of a better term, but with the same actor. It is not uncommon for comic book writers to present a different take on a superhero that exists within a different or alternate universe. This is, in fact, very common for both Batman and DC, so I suppose it's not impossible. However, presenting a reboot or alternate vision of a film character, with the same actor, is going to be a difficult sell to casual audiences. The studio would be taking a big risk in hoping that the average, non-comic book fan would "get it." Studios don't seem to have that sort of faith in their audience, and many a film (including The Dark Knight Rises) have been ruined by this lack of faith and the resulting dumbing down or over-explanation of content.

So let's assume, then, that Bale would be reprising his role as the same Batman that appeared in the Nolan films. This crossover (either JLA or Superman/Batman) would herald the return of the man that retired at the end of The Dark Knight Rises. The unfortunate truth is that people won't care too much. The combined excitement of Christian Bale returning as Batman AND doing so in a film with Supes (and whoever else) would more than override the question of how.

But that doesn't mean it won't bother me and two other people somewhere in the world. The thing about the ending to The Dark Knight Rises is that it is, in fact, an ending. Bruce is retired. He's with a woman we assume he loves, living a quiet life we were led to believe he wanted. He left Gotham in the care of what we presume will be a new Batman. That's the end of the Bruce Wayne story, and more importantly, it's a happy one. The hero has won. All his sacrifice, all his heroism, pays off. He gets what he deserves. What he has earned. Despite what I think of the movie as a whole, or its portrayal of Batman, I like this ending. I like to see the hero rewarded.

Bringing that Bruce Wayne, and that Batman, back in a new movie nullifies all of that. Look at all three of those Batman films together. It can be interpreted as a lot of things, and I think one of them is the story of a man looking for peace. In Batman Begins, Bruce travels all over the world looking for something to fill the void left by his parents' death. He's a man chased by the ghosts of his past. Restless. Without peace. He fills the void, and intends to redeem his parents, by becoming Batman, which, of course, just leads to more problems and pain. We see, in his relationship with Rachel Dawes, that there is some part of him that wants to be "normal." He wants to settle down, but can't. He feels a need or compulsion or responsibility to be Batman. To protect Gotham. So he does that. Then he stops doing that, but cannot find peace or rest because there are two more ghosts chasing him. The Dark Knight Rises is a redemption tale. His sacrifices (both legitimate and fabricated) lead to his atonement. He finds peace, he finds the girl, and he no longer needs nor wants to be held accountable. He's saved enough lives to balance out the ones he felt responsible for. He moves on.

As much as it pains me to admit, it's a full character arc. It's one of the things I like about the series. And whatever reason is created (or not, perhaps) to bring Bruce back is just a big kick in the dick to what Nolan's series achieved there. None of that matters because someone wants to make an Avengers-load of money. The Bruce Wayne that Nolan created, that Christian Bale played in all three of those movies, is done being the hero. Any reason to bring him back is nothing more than a cheap and superficial excuse that disrespects the heart and nature of that character (or at least where he ended up at the conclusion of that series).




2) The Nolan/Bale Batman is a selfish dick, unworthy of a spot on the JLA roster.

Come on now. You didn't think I was going to write this and not bitch about their Batman, did you?

Let's assume the studio is shooting for an eventual JLA movie, where Bale's Batman will be teaming up with multiple heroes, to which the following argument still applies, but I'll be using Superman as the basis. Supes is, after all, "the big one." All of the Man of Steel trailers have relayed this common theme of Clark Kent choosing to be Superman. He's a powerful alien raised by humans, who have hopefully guided him along the proper path, but in the end he has to make his own choice on what sort of man (or hero) he wants to become. Of course there's a conflict, but ultimately Clark chooses to use his powers for good. He chooses to become Superman and help, if he can, to save the world, consequences be damned.

This is a common superhero thing. It's touched on in almost all superhero movies, in particular I'd like to point out that lackluster mess of a Green Lantern film (as GL will almost assuredly be featured in a JLA movie, even if it isn't the same Ryan Reynolds version). The hero makes an active choice to do what he does, for the greater good of society.

Batman, at this point, has made an active choice to NOT do that. He has chosen to no longer be a hero. As I said, this is a well-deserved respite and it works fine as the final period to Nolan's trilogy. But in the larger whole of a JLA universe, it falls apart.

Every superhero makes the choice to become or remain a hero. The sacrifices, the hardships, all the pain are given for the idea that something greater exists. These are men and women fighting for a cause. Batman gave up that fight. He chose to quit. So what would a hero like Superman want with a quitter (no matter how justified) like Batman? What would make Superman think he can rely on a man who just doesn't have the heart or determination to be a superhero? And think about it. The Justice League, much like The Avengers, is a conglomeration of heroes teaming up to face the biggest, most dangerous, world-ending threats. These are teams put together for the purpose of facing the most dire, insurmountable odds. Do you willingly offer a spot on a team like that to a man who couldn't even face his own small problems (in comparison to the fate of the world or universe) without quitting?

Bruce quit being Batman. There is no logical reason that Superman would want to offer him a spot on a superhero team. He clearly has no desire to be a superhero.

I could just stop there and leave it, but I'm not known for letting things go, so let's run down Batman some more. Let's pretend there's some sort of decision making process for membership into the Justice League. OK, sure, Bruce is retired, but ignore that and look at his resume. Perhaps Superman is faced with a big enough threat that he would still consider approaching Bruce, even given the above argument. The Justice League is in need of heroes willing to save the world, and Bruce showed true heroism in the number of times he saved Gotham.

Well... kind of. I guess.

So Bruce's parents were murdered when he was a kid and that blows. Once he gets old enough he just runs off to travel the world. No one knows where he goes or if he's even alive. Irresponsible, especially considering there was a family business to run, but I'll let it slide (other than, you know, pointing it out). Dude has some issues to work out. We find him in a jail in the mountains somewhere in Asia (I think). You might or might not assume he has been in other prisons like this before (I can't remember if that was explicitly stated in the movie). He has a clear aptitude for fighting, far beyond that of the rather (presumably) dangerous prison thug(s). He has (again, assumed) sought out training in the martial arts, and dedicated himself to becoming an ass beating machine. He then finds himself in the thrall of a shadow organization of assassins, and takes on their training without asking too many questions. Turns out they're evil and he runs away (this is his most common response when life gets hard).

Now all of that could be forgiven. After all, he did have some emotional shit regarding his parents to deal with. And it's not like criminals can't be reformed or born again or whatever. I think Green Arrow might have even been in jail or some shit for awhile, and about half of The Avengers roster at this point (the comics not the movie) were villains at one point. So while this is all a bit questionable, it might not be damning enough to prevent entrance into the JLA. Young men make foolish decisions, and Bruce seems to have learned a lesson from all this.

Bruce takes all that training from the bad people around the world and puts it to good use as a hero in Gotham. Oh, and he stalks this chick he used to have a thing for back before he just up and left. Arguably heroic, since said chick is in deep with these mob types and it affords him the opportunity to bust up their operation and save her at the same time. So it all works out for the better. The League of Assassins shows up to ruin Gotham for whatever insane reason, but he stops their evil plan (with a great deal of collateral damage and, one would have to assume, loss of innocent life, but this is something that could be applied to all superhero battles). He does purposefully let the leader of the assassins, a man he once considered a mentor and a friend, die. He didn't kill him, but he could have saved him and chose not to. Overall, Batman Begins is a solid, or at least average, addition to a superhero resume. Other than that whole letting Ra's die thing, he proves himself. Superman might still have some reservations, but admission to the Justice League isn't out of the question so far. We're still looking OK.

At the end of Batman Begins, Gordon gives Batman the head's up on Joker by giving him the card. I have no idea how much time is supposed to have passed between that point and the beginning of The Dark Knight, but it seems that Batman has done both jack and shit to follow up on the admittedly thin lead Gordon offered. Now I've long said that The Dark Knight is an amazing vehicle for Joker and an absolute shit portrait of Batman as a hero, so it's no surprise he just sat with a thumb up his ass while Joker was running around robbing banks. 

Despite the best efforts of both Gordon and Dent, and some effort thrown in from Batman, it is the Joker's scheming that brings Gotham's mafia to its knees. I'm not suggesting that a hero should murder and lie to get what he wants. No hero should stoop as low as to employ the same methods as the Joker. However, that does not change the fact that his methods are effective, and it is the villain, not the hero, that brings an end to organized crime in Gotham. This in itself is not a damnation of Batman's spot on the JLA, but it does bring up some questions about Batman's effectiveness as a hero. After all, had he either applied himself to looking into the Joker when Gordon gave him that card, or applied himself a little harder to cracking down on organized crime (instead of applying himself to taking a crack at Rachel Dawes), perhaps Gotham would not have been in such a prime state for Joker's antics.

On two separate occasions, Batman chooses to save Rachel above the the citizens of Gotham. First, there's the fundraiser Bruce throws for Harvey Dent. Joker crashes the party, Batman comes to save the day, Rachel gets thrown out of a window. Batman dives out to save her. This is quite heroic, and I'll not give him too much shit because she was in immediate danger and he couldn't just let her die, whether he loved her or not... but he did leave Gotham's most prominent citizens in a room with a madman and his thugs. Nothing happened, but that seems random luck. It is not unreasonable to think Joker would have done all manner of unseemly things to the people in that room while Batman was crashing onto a car. Again, I'm not saying he made the wrong choice in this case, but he did make an active choice to save Rachel and leave the people of Gotham to fend for themselves. This happens again when Joker gives Batman the location of his two hostages, Rachel Dawes and Harvey Dent. Batman makes an active choice to go to the location he thinks Rachel is being held. He has the police as backup for the second location, but it has to be assumed that, because he's Batman, he will save the person at the location he chooses (and he does). Instead of choosing Dent, who is consistently held up in both Dark Knight films as a pillar and symbol of good for Gotham, as a paragon of what can be achieved and should be strived for... he chooses to save the woman he loves, who ultimately, has no impact on the greater future or outcome of Gotham. If Rachel were to die, Gotham would go on as if nothing happened. If Dent were to die, Gotham's spirit would be broken and all that Dent, Gordon, and Batman have worked for could be lost. This is the exact point made at the end of the film and the entire basis of Batman's decision to accept blame and run off. We even see the results of what happens when Dent dies in The Dark Knight Rises. Yet Batman still chooses to save Rachel, even though that's not who ends up being at the location. That was still his intent.

For the most part, Batman thinks with his dick more than his brain. This is a theme we'll see repeated again in The Dark Knight Rises (there is no other logical explanation for his willingness to trust in both Miranda/Talia and Selina/Catwoman, women he knows next to nothing about except perhaps "I'd hit it").

Fast forward to the end of the film, (a generous gesture that ignores a lot of other selfish shit and ultra intrusive, big brother tech). Joker has crafted this weird and intricate plot to prove that people, that the common man Batman has sworn to protect, will kill with the same disregard as the thugs and murderers Batman has sworn to stop. Take note of  what happens here. In the end, Batman catches the Joker, but he doesn't stop him. The entire movie shows Batman chasing after Joker, one step behind, and in the end he's still too slow to stop the crazed plan. The choices of the people on those boats thwart Joker's plan. The people, criminal and innocent alike, prove Joker wrong. Their choice to not kill is what puts an end to the madman's reign of terror. Sure, Batman caught the Joker, but this is after all his plans have come to fruition. Things didn't turn out as the Joker expected, but that was because of the choices made by Gotham's citizens. Batman didn't do a gods damned thing.

(It could be argued that Batman inspired these people to do good, but this film beats us over the head with the idea that Dent, a regular man with a face and a name, is the true inspiration behind Gotham's turnaround, and not Batman.)

After beating up half the police force and stringing up the Joker, Batman rushes off to save his dear friend Jim Gordon from the deranged monster Dent has now become. There's a big theme here about death and fairness and right and wrong and... whatever. Batman tackles Dent, who is holding Gordon's son at gunpoint, off the edge of a building. Dent falls to his death and Batman saves the kid. Yet again we see that, when face-to-face with a friend who has gone done the wrong path, Batman will just let the fucker die. Batman and Gordon decide to cover up the whole Dent went insane thing, because, as we've learned now, Dent's image and what he represented in the eyes of the people of Gotham is more important than all else (unless Rachel's life is on the line, then fuck Dent and his reputation).

The film ends with Batman running from the police and taking the blame for a handful of murders, one he legitimately committed, because that's the kind of hero he needs to be. Fast forward almost a decade later, and we see that Gotham still treats Dent like he's Jesus (has his own holiday and everything). Batman has not been seen since that fateful night, (nor, it seems, has another super villain, lending credence to the theory that Batman's presence creates these madmen and Gotham is better off without him). It would also seem that Bruce Wayne has lived in a self-imposed seclusion since that night, drawing himself into Wayne Manor like some sort of crazed hermit.

This is where things fall apart for me. I'll give a pass on the Batman thing, because of all that went down he needed to let the persona die for a bit. And Gotham seems to have gotten on fine without him, so he just leaves Batman in the closet and we all move on. OK. He doesn't get to be a superhero in a cape, but because of that he just gives up? Sure, he's hurt from the deaths of Rachel and Dent, but that was a long fucking time ago (at this point). Get over it. Move the fuck on. Bruce isn't good at that. He's carried the deaths of his parents with him his whole life, still does, and now has two more deaths to add on top of that, (and I'm guessing Joker must have been shanked in Arkham at some point since he was never heard from again after his presumed arrest, so there's that one, too). Instead of owning up to that, instead of using that as a source of power to better himself and the world around him, Bruce just sulks. For eight years. He acts like a spoiled little child for eight fucking years, actively deciding to not do a gods damn thing at all and leave the world to its own devices. He chooses inaction. This choice, more than all others, is one that should be looked at when determining the measure of a man. He made a choice to hide for eight years, and that's the dude Superman wants to team with?

Later in the movie we find out that through his negligence, Bruce has allowed funding for various projects and charities to slip and be forgotten. Because he wasn't there to champion their cause, as Bruce Wayne, not Batman, the good that could have been done was not. We all know that Bruce is a rich man. Like Top 1% of America rich. He's so loaded we don't even question how he affords all this crap he has (though most of it he steals from his own company). We accept that Bruce can do what he wants, how he wants, because he has the money to do so. It's a long held belief in some circles that Bruce could do more for Gotham as a philanthropist than as Batman. If he dedicated the same amount of time and energy to championing causes that improved Gotham, to building better communities and funding the arts and after-school programs and donating to the police force and education and using his scientific prowess (or Fox's, whichever) to create products that improve the lives of all Gotham's citizens... It's just endless what could be achieved if Bruce funneled his drive and compassion, paired with his billions of bazillions of dollars, into the true betterment of Gotham. It can be argued, and I accept the argument, that Gotham needs Batman, at least in the comics, so this is a moot point. But here, Batman was gone for eight years. Bruce made an active choice to retire the cowl. And in that time, instead of finding a new way to champion his cause, instead of stepping up as Bruce Wayne and filling the void left by Harvey Dent's shining example... he ran off and hid in his mansion like a little bitch. That is the true personality of the Nolan/Bale Bruce Wayne. He chose to wallow in his own self misery rather than help prevent that sort of misery from befalling others. This is not the choice of a hero. This is the choice of a coward. A selfish prick who could have done more, who has the means to do more than almost anyone else in the world, and doesn't. Even if we accept the fact that Bruce, for whatever reason, could no longer wear the mantle of the bat, he still could have found a way to be a hero. If being a hero is what he wanted to do, if it's what he was, he would have done so. But he didn't. And this, above all else, is the blemish on his resume that should prevent him from ever being considered for a spot on the Justice League.

You know... that's an excellent point. I'm just going to stop there. I had this whole spiel about how he's still a selfish (his original reason for getting out of the house at all is just to go chase down some smokin' hot dame who stole his mother's necklace) and ineffective (Gotham becomes a ruin of a police state under Bane's control and, in the end, Batman is unable to stop the bomb that would have wiped Gotham off the map, but will now just give them all radiation poison and make it impossible to live there) hero who can't keep secrets (by the end of the trilogy, half of Gotham knows that Bruce Wayne is/was Batman), but fuck it. Bruce could have done a lot, just as Bruce, without the Batman gimmick. He could have contributed so much to Gotham, and he chose to do nothing. That's so far removed from heroic that I don't feel the need to even continue this point. 

Plus, I figure I beat this horse enough last time, so let's just move on.




3) I refuse to believe in a universe where people take that voice seriously.

This is the not-so-serious joke of a reason, but I promise that this is the most important reason of them all. See, I figure that none of the stuff I said above matters. It matters to me, and if a movie gets made with Bale as (the same) Batman, I'll whine and bitch about all that stuff and how it doesn't make sense and Superman should just bitch slap Bruce for acting like a giant vagina all the time. But I can accept the reality that my opinion is a minority one and, even if it wasn't, the idea of making literal mountains of cash from a JLA or Batman/Superman movie more than override something as trivial as true and honest character development. The unfortunate truth is that despite all logic or concerns of continuity, Christian Bale as Batman makes tons and tons of dolla dolla bills. So if it's something the studio can work out, they'll make it happen, previous movies or stories be damned. I don't like it, but I accept it.

Now you might not agree with the things I've said about the Nolan/Bale Batman, but I think we can all agree that Bale's Batman voice is fucking ridiculous. Just terrible and far too over the top. No matter how people feel about the films as a whole, this is something we all agree on. The voice is stupid. We accept it. It's part of that universe and part of that Batman and we just sort of chuckle and let it slide, because whatever.

But at one point or another, every person who has seen these movies has mocked that voice. You were with your friends or you were sitting in your car where no one could hear you or you were watching with your girlfriend and got off the couch to go make popcorn and you did the voice. I did it this morning when I was thinking about writing this part. I'm thinking it right now. You will be, too.

WHERE IS HE?!

WHERE ARE THEY?!

WHERE IS IT?!

See. Just ask a question and, bam, Batman voice.

These films are serious business. Sure there are jokes and quips and some comedic relief, but for the most part, this is crime and murder and death and revenge and serious shit that doesn't afford the light-hearted tone of a lot of the Marvel fare. Which is OK. It works in this universe, and it works for Batman. So because there's a serious tone prevalent in these films, no one's going to crack wise about Batman's voice. And if Jim Gordon doesn't think it's weird, neither does anyone else. There's always something more important than that, and it's never brought up and we never question it and life goes on (for some characters) and that's that.

Moving out of Gotham, though, out of that particular setting where life is all grim and resolute, and bringing Batman out into the world, also brings him into a world where jokes exist and life is amusing and there's color and sometimes the sun shines. Out in something that looks and feels and acts more like our own world and less like Gotham, we start to lose our sense of forgiveness. The less it looks and feels like Gotham and the more it looks and feels like the world we know, the less we think like Gotham and the more we think like the world we know. And in the world we know, we give Batman shit for talking like a buffoon.

I've imagined this scene in a JLA movie where the Big Three are meeting up for the first time. Superman has convinced both Wonder Woman and Batman to join forces, and he's bringing them together before getting the rest of the team. So there's this awesome moment where we see all three of them together on screen for the first time, and I'm not even a huge DC fan, but that almost gives me a boner. This is some serious nerd porn we're talking about. Superman introduces the two of them, and Batman... it doesn't even matter what he says. He speaks in that stupid fucking voice, Wonder Woman stares blankly at him for a moment, turns to Superman and gives him a look like he's the stupid one for hiring the freak show, and walks away without a word. Because no one can take that voice seriously.

Take a moment to think about that not so great Green Lantern movie that came out. Now so far there's been no mention of this, in point of fact WB seems to take great care to pretend like that movie never happened. It's the horrid step-child of their DC movie universe, and come time for a JLA movie, it might be ignored entirely. Regardless, if you've seen that movie, you know a little bit about Hal Jordan. And if there's going to be a Justice League movie, it's going to have Hal Jordan in it. So even if we tone done Ryan Reynolds' performance to half the smart ass quips and wit of that movie, it is still guaranteed that Hal Jordan, at some point, will make fun of Batman's voice. And if he doesn't, The Flash will. In a Justice League movie, one or both of those characters are going to be the wise-cracking comic relief, and there's just no believable scenario that puts Batman with one of them and they don't take a shot at him.

Which might not seem like a big deal, I suppose. It could be passed off as just a joke and we all move on, but it does bring to question Batman's credibility. Here's a dude that takes himself far too seriously, anyway, and he doesn't even realize that he sounds like an insane hobo. He's so delusional that he doesn't see how over the top he is. He's not self-aware enough to see how ridiculous he is, so what else is he missing out on?

In the Batman films, he's both spoken to himself and to people who know his identity, using the  Batman voice. One would assume he uses it to help disguise his real identity, but even when speaking to people who know, he uses it. It's almost a literal alter ego, like, he has multiple personalities. Which makes him insane. At this point, the Justice League is inviting a certifiable, delusional nutcase into their midst and trusting him with the fate of the world.

And this isn't just about the voice. The voice is just a simple representation of what Nolan created with his Gotham universe. Because once The Flash or Green Lantern turns to Batman and makes a quip about how ridiculous he sounds, it brings attention to the fact that Batman is kinda weird and fucked up. It points out that he's a man out of place, and that the world he came from, the world where no one had the balls to call him out on the Batvoice, is not the same one he's in now. That the world Nolan created just does not work with other heroes. That outside of Gotham, the seriousness and relentless realism just can't hold together.

Regardless of how it's presented, the moment Superman shows up, Nolan's Gotham is broken. The world created in Nolan's Batman films does not allow for something as ludicrous as an alien with superpowers. Those movies were created in a careful and precise manner so as to avoid all such comic book nonsense. All the villains were chosen and crafted so as to appear believable. Bane is strong, but he's not "super" strong. Scarecrow, Joker, Two-Face, Ra's al Ghul... all of these men, while villainous, carry out their intentions within the stated confines of the real world. The events that unfold are fantastic and expounded for dramatic effect, but the personas, the actual people involved, and the acts committed, are still human and still believable. There is a logical explanation for each man and each action. Some of it is a stretch on reality, but it's still plausible. We're not dealing with real super powers or magic or space or any of that nonsense. The whole thing is like Nolan's special little science fair project. All of it is labeled and quantified and explained. That world is held together by science and math and it makes sense and that's part of its charm. Nolan never asks us to take a huge leap of faith.

But Superman is fucking Jesus. Introducing Superman to Batman's world is like shoving religion into a science text book and calling them equal. There is no logical explanation. There's nothing that can be quantified or calculated to explain a man that is impervious to bullets. Batman's armor couldn't even fend off dogs, for Christ's sake, and here's a dude that could shrug off a tank shell. The careful and precise nature with which Nolan crafted Gotham just does not work in a world of real superheroes. Green Lantern, Flash, Wonder Woman, Aquaman.... all characters with legitimate super powers and fantastical, nonsense origins. There's nothing that makes a merman from Atlantis fit within the same context as Bale's Batman.

Man of Steel has been getting great reviews from the preview footage people have seen so far. All the stuff I've read has said it's going to be the big superhero movie of the summer. And Nolan produced that, just like he might be producing the other DC films and the JLA project. So there is a chance that this all works out fine. I haven't liked all of Nolan's films, but I think he's a smart and competent filmmaker who is aware enough (unlike that Batman he created) to know when and where to let go of that realism. I think he could give us a fine and riveting DC movie universe. If he (and the studio) are willing to make allowances and concede, in some regards, that these are superhero movies and some things are just going to have to be ridiculous.

One of those concessions will have to be casting a new Batman. I hate suggesting it, because in general I'm not a fan of casting changes... but there just isn't an another option. Bringing Christian Bale back as Batman means bringing his Batman and the world Nolan created along with him. It's just impossible to sever those ties. The dude has baggage. And that baggage will drag down what could be an otherwise amazing mash-up of superheroes, drowning it in the doom and gloom of Gotham instead of the brighter, more hopeful pastures of the world outside.