Place your bets:  Does he mean it or will the dollar signs win out?

No worries from this guy.  I have total faith in Christopher Nolan.  I'm sure that there will be some who want Catwoman to be more like Julie Newmar, there will be those who want her to be like Laura Croft and even some who want her to be something like the Tim Burton version but take a step back YOU MAD FOOLS.  Let Nolan complete the trilogy with HIS vision.  Most of us fanboys would have to honestly say we have not been dissappointed so far.

Bale is one of those quirky actors who live the role, look at what he has done to his body to play different roles.  I think that if he feels he has taken a character as far as he can, as an actor, he could walk away.  If this movie ties up the trilogy with some good character resolution then I can see him not coming back.  I think DC wants to move to a younger actor so they can move toward a JLA picture so there may not be a demand from them to get him back.  Long winded answer, I say he means it. 

DC and WB will ruin the JLA if they do a live-action movie anytime soon. Marvel took the right direction with The Avengers...slow and steady always wins. Green Lantern was ok, but I saw why non-comicbook fans didn't like it compared to Thor and Captain America. WB has the habit of doing remakes when it comes to comicbook movies. I know the newest Superman movie wasn't a remake, but who was the villain? Yep, same old Lex Luthor. Newest Batman movie? Yep, Joker and Two-Face. I was very happy to see the Scarecrow in Batman Begins. I actually thought WB had turned the corner...Now we get to re-live Catwoman and Bane? *Yawn* Michelle Phifer was the best Catwoman next to Julie Numar. DC should just stick to animated movies...seriously. Bane is a terrible villain...I would rather see Killer Croc! 

If I had my way, I would have Harley Quinn and Poison Ivy in the next movie... It's a shame WB shot down the part of Harley in the previous movie as one of the Joker's sidekicks. Biggest mistake ever.

 I agree with Gothic regarding Harley, but it was still an excellent movie.  But also in agreeance with what has been said so far, if a JLA movie is to be done, they need to take it slow and steady.  They need to do a few great, yet a little lower-key flicks like Captain America and Iron Man and stop trying to blow everyone's mind like they did w/ Green Lantern.  Do some old school action stuff, a few more origins and wrap them all together a year at a time, maybe two in a year, with Batman toward the end to give some time to air things out a bit between Nolan's exceptional vision and whatever new vision that can fit into the JLA theme.  At least that is what i would hope to happen.  We need a good Wonder Woman flick as well as a nice introduction to some bad guys to form the LoD.  I would like to see a nice portrayal of Brainiac myself, or perhaps Soloman Grundy (I don't even know if I spelled that correctly).  If Batman was to return I would love to see one more like the animated series of the early 90's, which IMHO was the best depiction of Batman ever.  Let's have Clayface and Mad Hatter make an appearance.

 I'm not really one for JLA. The new 52 version is ok but I'd rather a Superman/Batman worlds finest or something similar tbh.

Really looking forward to this film.  I'm glad that Nolan and Bale have settled on a trilogy instead of milking it until the last drop.  The first two Nolan Batman films were the best superhero films to date.  I like how they grounded it in reality.  

I agree, Hathaway has been a difficult pill to swallow...I hope she proves me wrong.  

 I honestly don't know how they'd do a JLA movie.  If they went into it like Marvel has with the Avengers, we'd see... what?  1)  Superman film, 2) Wonder Woman film, 3) Flash?  4) Batman, 5) Green Lantern, 6) Aquaman?  And what of the Martial Manhunter?

The other thing that's different is that in Marvel, most enemies of 'teams' are a single (or perhaps two) people working within an organization of minions (Hydra, the Skrull, Doctor Doom), rather than a mosh pit of super villains.  With DC, the enemy is a mish-mash of bad guys, the rogue's gallery for a bunch of different super heroes working together to fight the JLA.  Gorilla Grodd, Lex Luthor, Solomon Grundy, Sinestro, the Joker, etc.

Do you honestly see these people actually working together for any extended period of time before it imploded?  And of course, people new to this would come in and go 'who the hell are these weirdos, and why are they working together?'  The best you could possibly do is have them show up in the 'solo films', to establish them, then have them all come together for the JLA movie - - just like you'd have the heroes come together.  And then you'd have people wondering 'why couldn't we have something new?'

Alternatively, you'd have the JLA come up against some cosmic threat (since it happens), such as the mind-controlling starfish, but... err... I don't think that'd work on the big screen.  The thing is, DC is very much about 'modern mythology', while Marvel is more into the personal story.  DC's JLA is very much larger-than-life, while Marvel narrows in and concentrates on the individuals on the team.  I think the latter works much better for film, while I think the former works much better for cartoon.

Just me 2 cents ( 15% HST)

I may be going a little off topic here, so sue me.  :)

The JLA in theory should be a much easier film to make than the Avengers. Joe public knows more about the DC heroes from the start than the Avengers (with some exceptions, of course).  However, Marvel had their $#!t together and had a plan in place starting with Iron Man.  If that movie would have tanked, I doubt we would all be looking forward to the Avengers movie that looks like it is going to be awesome sauce.  Iron Man was excellent, and they kept that theme/style/focus (call it what you will) consistent throughout all of their properties and thanks to that, we have had some excellent movies.

The key to all of that was Marvel Studios.  The comic book guys seem to have the final say so on how their properties are portrayed - simple as that.  While even though all of DC's properties are under the WB roof, it is the studio's talking heads that seem to be making the decisions.  If they would listen to their comic book guys (ahem, Bruce Timm & co) then there is absolutely no reason to think that WB couldn't have similar success as those of the recent Marvel films.  Granted, it is likely not going to happen, but to sit back and say that DC CAN'T make a good JLA movie is asinine.  (But to say that they WON'T make a good JLA movie, well, you may have a solid argument on that one).

A successful Batman franchise has definitely hindered JLA, but that is a concession I would be willing to make any time.  It still dumbfounds me that a Green Lantern move could be sooo far off the mark, yet a Thor movie was as excellent as it was.  Kudos to Thor, but for GL to underperform like that with what I feel like was more to work with was disappointing.

Don't really know what started that rant.  Looking forward to TDKR.  Hope it is great, but they set the bar pretty high.

You're not really going off topic, Millean. I most defintely understand JLA being entered into the discussion when it comes to Nolan and Bale exiting the equation after the trilogy. Namely because here you have Marvel Studios and Walt Disney having unleashed each movie individually (with of course sequels like Iron Man and the upcoming Thor 2) before bringing the superheroes together next summer.

Whereas you have DC and Warner Bros. Pictures not having the same possibility because of decisions from Nolan and Bale to not move forward with the character following their trilogy.

There's a line in the sand. On one side, you see how Marvel did it and made it a successful model for bringing the group together. On the other side, you see how DC made money off the Dark Knight franchise but how it really doesn't help bring the JLA together on their side of the equation.