What DC did wrong ,simple really.

[Agent Z]

Depends on what kind of Batman story you are telling. As an introduction/starting off point? I would think so. I think the oldest we should have Batman if he's just being introduced is early to mid 30's ideally or just about pushing 40 if the actor has youthful energy about them. mid to late 40s from the kick off just feels like an odd move unless you are telling the story of the end or decline of Batman.

RDJ was 43 when Iron Man came out. Affleck was 41 at the time of BvS. He may be 46 now but he was actually younger than RDJ when the latter began his MCU career.

Bruce has always had the air of an old, experienced man, especially when his sidekicks are around. The stories of Batman's last days feature a Bruce Wayne far past his 40s.

[Güicho]

The mistake was not that they thought they needed to; the mistake was that they did not care to do it right. It was so very long overdue that they start a shared universe; placing the blame there is protecting the incompetent idiots that (almost?) murdered it.

This^, they still at the time had no vision for it.

The set up was even built into the movie:

Lucius Fox's "I just need to know what I could have done" ending scene, instead of discovering surprise the Batwing auto-pilot software was already "fixed" ....he survived!
Should have been Licious alone, solemnly reviewing the Batwing's on-board vid-feed, tapes, over and over,. ....Then suddenly playing them back, he sees it ... a flash of light and and blue and red streak.
Cut to Alfred ....Bruce survived ..scene.

Or just made that Lucious scene the post credit scene.

[Agent Z]

This^, they still at the time had no vision for it.

The set up was even built into the movie:

Lucius Fox's "I just need to know what I could have done" ending scene, instead of discovering surprise the Batwing auto-pilot software was already "fixed" ....he survived!
Should have been Licious alone, solemnly reviewing the Batwing's on-board vid-feed, tapes, over and over,. ....Then suddenly playing them back, he sees it ... a flash of light and and blue and red streak.
Cut to Alfred ....Bruce survived ..scene.

Or just made that Lucious scene the post credit scene.

This was never going to happen. It isn't just that the Nolan movies weren't designed to fit in a larger superhero universe, it's that they had an intended beginning and end. The films gave Bruce a proper send off after completing his arc and showed him leave the cowl behind. He moved on, he was free. Bringing him back for a continued superhero franchise would screw that up. Nolan gave Bruce what no other film maker has ever given him: a perfect ending.

[Güicho]

This was never going to happen.

Because as indicated they lacked the vision.

The films gave Bruce a proper send off after completing his arc and showed him leave the cowl behind.

This whole stuffy mentality trying to convince themselves, it was the "proper" ending for the character at the cafe (which was pretty silly "end" for that character anyway), we all know the character, it doesn't end at a cafe for him. No mater how much you try to convince yourself. LOL!

Movies were great, as a stand alone trilogy, and deserve all the accolades they got. Yet honestly there was nothing about the over dramatic character who outrageously leaves a giant flaming Bat symbol for his city, that can't, doesn't or couldn't exist in the greater DCU. They were made for each-other.
Just a bunch of snoots trying to convince themselves it's above it all, and need to be separate LOL!

Meanwhile Marvel saw it, they had the vision, their movies unashamedly embraced and seeded the enormous potential of the shared comic universe, from the go, and they and their fans have reaped it's reward. While WB missed it. And are still trying to figure out how to launch theirs. LOL!

[caj]

yep. Starting a franchise with their two biggest heroes trying to kill each other was stupid. Same with Starting a franchise with an old batman. Dark Knight Returns if it's to be thought of at all... is meant to be the END of Batman's legacy, not the beginning.

I agree with everything you just said. When I saw the film title Batman v Superman, I thought 'what?????' I've never seen the movie and have no desire to see it. Superman and Batman should work together and should be about the same age.

[Zero Hunter]

What they should have done was a proper standalone Batman movie. Bale was burnt out and wanted nothing to do with Batman after Rises. Hell I think it can be argued he was done with the role during Rises. They could have even picked up some of the plot points from BvS with Superman accidently destroying the Wayne building just with a younger Bruce setting up some conflict for a future movie. Batman could still be the urban legend at the time.

[Agent Z]

Because as indicated they lacked the vision.

No because the people involved didn’t design it that way. Nolan never made his movies with the intent of a shared universe and Bale wanted nothing to do with Batman after Rises. You can lament that you won’t see the further adventures of Bale’s Batman but them not wanting to put him in a shared universe is not a bug.

This whole stuffy mentality trying to convince themselves, it was the "proper" ending for the character at the cafe (which was pretty silly "end" for that character anyway), we all know the character, it doesn't end at a cafe for him.

To paraphrase Batmite in Brave and The Bold, “Batman's rich history allows him to be interpreted in a multitude of ways. To be sure, this is a healthier, less obsessed incarnation, but it's certainly no less valid and true to the character's roots than the tortured avenger crying out for mommy and daddy and who continues a toxic, self destructive crusade that absolutely nobody forced on him.”

No mater how much you try to convince yourself. LOL!

I don’t need to convince myself of anything. I watched the movies.

Movies were great, as a stand alone trilogy, and deserve all the accolades they got. Yet honestly there was nothing about the over dramatic character who outrageously leaves a giant flaming Bat symbol for his city, that can't, doesn't or couldn't exist in the greater DCU.

Except for the lack of metahumans, aliens, cyborgs, wizards etc.

Just a bunch of snoots trying to convince themselves it's above it all, and need to be separate LOL!

I love how you call the people who stand by Nolan’s decision to keep his version of Batman separate from a shared universe (which didn’t interfere with a shared universe btw) while shamelessly playing the “true Batman fan” card earlier on.

[Krypto's Fleas]

I wouldn't have done Batman v Superman. I'd have done a Batman & Superman: World's finest movie.

This is the most obvious freaking answer that so few want to admit. What was the point of pitting them against each other? As soon as the gimmicky "versus" title became official, I knew Zack Snyder was going to blow it. It might have been okay if they had a moderate clash halfway through the film and then worked together, but instead Snyder was looking to set up a freaking Injustice story arc for the JL sequel. Terrible idea. The fact that the rest of the plot was a Dark Knight Returns and Death of Superman sandwich just made it a mind boggling disaster. I don't care how many times people here try to say the Ultimate Cut is good, it's not. It's marginally better than the theatrical version and still a terrible way to launch the universe.

[Slim Shady]

The Nolan trilogy is fine. It’s standalone and separate and it’s own thing. Just like pretty much every superhero film before it. Spider-Man and X-Men around the same time had nothing to do with a Marvel shared universe. DC/WB just jumped the gun on the shared universe thing. And execution too. BvS was not a great way to introduce everybody.

[The_Lurk]

This is the most obvious freaking answer that so few want to admit. What was the point of pitting them against each other? As soon as the gimmicky "versus" title became official, I knew Zack Snyder was going to blow it. It might have been okay if they had a moderate clash halfway through the film and then worked together, but instead Snyder was looking to set up a freaking Injustice story arc for the JL sequel. Terrible idea. The fact that the rest of the plot was a Dark Knight Returns and Death of Superman sandwich just made it a mind boggling disaster. I don't care how many times people here try to say the Ultimate Cut is good, it's not. It's marginally better than the theatrical version and still a terrible way to launch the universe.

BvS Ultimate Cut is great.

... omg, you are right. I tried to type good

Kidding aside; I will not again repeat all the flaws surrounding BvS. I know them; they bother me (well, some of them), still love the movie. The biggest one is not even BvS fault; its that its plays like the awesome third or fourth movie in a franchise that only had one movie before it.

[Ascended]

The mistake was not that they thought they needed to; the mistake was that they did not care to do it right. It was so very long overdue that they start a shared universe; placing the blame there is protecting the incompetent idiots that (almost?) murdered it.

Whether they designed a shared universe or not those films would have been terrible because the wrong people were behind them.

And I dont think a shared universe was "overdue" at all. We never needed one in the first place. Did being in a self-contained world stop Nolan's Batman from being successful? Did being in a shared universe benefit Wonder Woman in some way (other than giving audiences a brief introduction to her in BvS)? No. If a movie is good on its own merits, then its good. The only reason Marvel has a shared universe is they needed the gimmick when they started. DC never did, and still doesnt.

DC's roster does not need the support of other IP's to make money. More over, Marvel Studios makes one kind of film; Marvel films. That's their only job. WB makes tons of movies from all genres; they lack the focus, time, and vision to craft an effective shared DC universe. They're simply not equipped for it like Marvel Studios is.

[SiegePerilous02]

Nolan's Batman film, while clearly not realistic, is still too relatively grounded and dull (for lack of a better term) to even do proper versions of the Bat-cast, let alone space with the likes of Superman and Wonder Woman. They toned down the Joker, Catwoman and Bane (no bleached skin, no actual Cat-costume, and no Venom respectively), so what would they do with the metahumans?

Nolan had his vision, it was self contained with a planned beginning, middle and end. All the parties involved with it were done after the third film. No need to drag it out and add elements that don't mesh with it when they could just start over with a new Bat-verse that could have more comic accurate representations and not seem so out of place when mingling with the rest of the DCU.

[The_Lurk]

Whether they designed a shared universe or not those films would have been terrible because the wrong people were behind them.

And I dont think a shared universe was "overdue" at all.
.
.

And that is totally OK
I respect but just don't share that sentiment at all.

[Osiris-Rex]

I believe the actual mistake they made was in thinking they needed to copy Marvel's attempt at a shared universe.

DC never needed to do that. Marvel pushed a shared universe because they had sold the rights to their A-list IP's to other studios and were stuck with the C-listers like Iron Man, most of whom had no public profile at all. The shared universe gimmick was one way to establish strong box office by encouraging audiences to see how the films all tied together. DC, meanwhile, already had decades and decades of successful films under their belt, and IP's that could stand on their own two feet without needing crossovers to generate interest. I mean, DC owns some of the most recognized faces in fiction. They never needed Batman and Superman on screen together to generate attention and revenue.

And what is WB saying now? That they're going to focus on solo properties and not worry as much about the shared universe and team-ups. Just like some of us have been saying from the start. WB tried to copy the competition without understanding what the competition was doing, or why, and they got what they deserved for being cheap, unoriginal, and reactionary.

Ironically Warner Bros. does have a shared DC universe that works great for them. Commonly referred to as the Arrowverse on the CW television network.

[Ascended]

And that is totally OK
I respect but just don't share that sentiment at all.

Oh absolutely. I dont think there really is a "right" or "wrong" here.

I do think WB's belief that they *needed* a shared universe was wrong, because history proves they didn't. But *wanting* one? I question their motivation there because they were just trying to copy the competition but there's nothing wrong with wanting it. If that makes sense?

Ironically Warner Bros. does have a shared DC universe that works great for them. Commonly referred to as the Arrowverse on the CW television network.

Also this.